"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
Recently, a fellow believer and I were talking briefly about Moses and how he was never able to ever enter the Promise Land. My friend stated a common feeling of sadness that Moses did not enter. I gave two points in response:
1) During the Transfiguration and Ascension of Jesus (Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30, Acts 1:9), Moses was in the Promise Land.
2) To my friend who believed in the Mosaic authorship if the Pentateuch, I said, “The geographical and topographical detail which Moses exhibits in the Patriarchal narratives of Genesis without ever having been to Palestine shows that he did not need to have gone into Palestine to know every rock, ravine, river and tree, including the place names.”
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The Character and Motives of Judas Iscariot
I would like to explore the character and motives of Judas, son of Simon, the Iscariot, one of the main Twelve disciples, the betrayer Jesus.
The Person of Judas
What do we know about Judas Iscariot?
We know he is Judas, the son of Simon (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). He has the epithet, Iscariot, which probably refers to a Judaean suburb. See this note from Wikipedia:
“The first of the two main etymologies, which is the one accepted by the majority, and credited to Jerome, derives Iscariot from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ–Qrîyôth, that is "man of Kerioth", the Judean town (or, more probably, collection of small towns) of Kerioth, not otherwise related to any person or event in the New Testament, nor mentioned in any document of the period, but referred to in the book of Jeremiah. In a similar vein, קריות may be simply the plural of קריה "small city," in which case we have something like "of the suburbs", i.e. it may be the case that Judas Iscariot is nothing more specific than the Jew from the suburbs. As Aramaic was the main language of the time, and all other New Testament characters have Aramaic surnames and nicknames, this Hebrew Judaean name could have marked out Judas as different from the Galilean disciples.”
He apparently was treasurer of Jesus’ ministry (Jn 13:29). This suggests that he had some contact with those who supported Jesus’ ministry (Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary, Martha and others).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas “betrayed” Jesus (Mat 10:4; 26:25; Mar 3:19; 14:10; Lk 16:6; 22:47-48; Jn 6:71; 12:4; 18:2; Ac 1:25).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas went to the chief priests, scribes, elders and Pharisees in order to betray Jesus (Mat 26:4, 47; 27:3; Mar 14:10; 14:43; Jn 18:3; 18:5). We are not told that these religious leaders sought Judas out; no, we are told that Judas sought them out. Judas was not like the other disciples in that he was probably not from Galilee. To some extent he may have felt some loyalty to the Jewish religious authority in Jerusalem in a way that differed from that of the Galilean disciples.
We also know that Judas was a slanderer or false-accuser (diabolos), as Jesus Himself stated (Jn 6:70).
Recent Theories For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
There have been recent theories that Judas’ betrayal was not an act of malicious intent but that he did so either on instructions by Jesus or in order to force Jesus’ hand into bringing the kingdom of God into existence. While this last theory is quite appealing I do not think that this or even the first theory holds any water.
First, the gospel writers are quick to assert that the other disciples were anxious to bring the kingdom into existence and fight by Jesus’ side with swords to the bitter end. If this was also the intention of Judas, why do the gospel writers not mention it?
Second, although it is true that Jesus did frequently predicted His handover to the Jewish religious leaders, there was nothing in His predictions that would suggest a victorious entrance of the kingdom of God as conceived by His disciples (Mk 9:31; 10:33; Mt 17:22; 20:18; 26:2; Lk 9:44; 18:32). Thus, even if Judas believed that he was forcing Jesus’ hand in bringing the kingdom of God into existence, he did not believe Jesus when he stated what result this betrayal would be.
Third, all the gospel writers state that Judas intentions were both malicious and greedy (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6). John and Luke state the Satan’s influence upon Judas (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:2). Jesus Himself states of His betrayer, “better that he hadn’t been born” (Mt 26:24; Mk 14:21).
Fourth, Judas repented from the evil which he had done:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.” (Mat 27:3)
If Judas hand done the correct thing then why would he had the need to repent, return the money and then commit suicide? Of course how he actually died (hanged, Mt 27:5 or headlong, Ac 1:18) and who purchased the potter’s field (chief priests, Mat 27:6 or Judas, Ac 1:18) is a matter of some debate.
My Theory For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
I submit that Judas’ reason was greed and greed alone.
Again, we know that Judas was the treasurer (Jn 13:29). We know that he was a thief (Jn 12:6). We know that it was the actions of the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive oil that was the final straw for Judas (Mk 14:10; Jn 12:4-6). We know that Judas himself asked how much he could get for turning Jesus over to the religious leaders (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6).
When Judas does repent of his sins he noticeably returns the money he received for the betrayal:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” (Mt 27:3-5)
Though this seems to be an insignificant reason to betray the Son of God, it is the only reason given in Scripture. Furthermore, too many people ignore and reject Christ for a lot less that what Judas received.
Judas Was Not Damned
I think the Scriptural evidence does not necessarily support the idea that Judas was damned for his betrayal of Jesus.
First, Judas was a servant, disciple and apostle of Jesus.
Second, Judas received the same authority and instruction as the other disciples (Mt 10:1-42; Mk 6:7-11; Lk 9:1-12).
Third, Judas also received the same promise as the other disciples:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:28)
Finally, while Judas’ was neither a good person with good motives for what he did, when confronted with the truth of the matter, he did repent (Mt 27:3-5).
Thus, I submit that it is possible that Judas will be saved and spared damnation.
The Person of Judas
What do we know about Judas Iscariot?
We know he is Judas, the son of Simon (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). He has the epithet, Iscariot, which probably refers to a Judaean suburb. See this note from Wikipedia:
“The first of the two main etymologies, which is the one accepted by the majority, and credited to Jerome, derives Iscariot from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ–Qrîyôth, that is "man of Kerioth", the Judean town (or, more probably, collection of small towns) of Kerioth, not otherwise related to any person or event in the New Testament, nor mentioned in any document of the period, but referred to in the book of Jeremiah. In a similar vein, קריות may be simply the plural of קריה "small city," in which case we have something like "of the suburbs", i.e. it may be the case that Judas Iscariot is nothing more specific than the Jew from the suburbs. As Aramaic was the main language of the time, and all other New Testament characters have Aramaic surnames and nicknames, this Hebrew Judaean name could have marked out Judas as different from the Galilean disciples.”
He apparently was treasurer of Jesus’ ministry (Jn 13:29). This suggests that he had some contact with those who supported Jesus’ ministry (Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary, Martha and others).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas “betrayed” Jesus (Mat 10:4; 26:25; Mar 3:19; 14:10; Lk 16:6; 22:47-48; Jn 6:71; 12:4; 18:2; Ac 1:25).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas went to the chief priests, scribes, elders and Pharisees in order to betray Jesus (Mat 26:4, 47; 27:3; Mar 14:10; 14:43; Jn 18:3; 18:5). We are not told that these religious leaders sought Judas out; no, we are told that Judas sought them out. Judas was not like the other disciples in that he was probably not from Galilee. To some extent he may have felt some loyalty to the Jewish religious authority in Jerusalem in a way that differed from that of the Galilean disciples.
We also know that Judas was a slanderer or false-accuser (diabolos), as Jesus Himself stated (Jn 6:70).
Recent Theories For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
There have been recent theories that Judas’ betrayal was not an act of malicious intent but that he did so either on instructions by Jesus or in order to force Jesus’ hand into bringing the kingdom of God into existence. While this last theory is quite appealing I do not think that this or even the first theory holds any water.
First, the gospel writers are quick to assert that the other disciples were anxious to bring the kingdom into existence and fight by Jesus’ side with swords to the bitter end. If this was also the intention of Judas, why do the gospel writers not mention it?
Second, although it is true that Jesus did frequently predicted His handover to the Jewish religious leaders, there was nothing in His predictions that would suggest a victorious entrance of the kingdom of God as conceived by His disciples (Mk 9:31; 10:33; Mt 17:22; 20:18; 26:2; Lk 9:44; 18:32). Thus, even if Judas believed that he was forcing Jesus’ hand in bringing the kingdom of God into existence, he did not believe Jesus when he stated what result this betrayal would be.
Third, all the gospel writers state that Judas intentions were both malicious and greedy (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6). John and Luke state the Satan’s influence upon Judas (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:2). Jesus Himself states of His betrayer, “better that he hadn’t been born” (Mt 26:24; Mk 14:21).
Fourth, Judas repented from the evil which he had done:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.” (Mat 27:3)
If Judas hand done the correct thing then why would he had the need to repent, return the money and then commit suicide? Of course how he actually died (hanged, Mt 27:5 or headlong, Ac 1:18) and who purchased the potter’s field (chief priests, Mat 27:6 or Judas, Ac 1:18) is a matter of some debate.
My Theory For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
I submit that Judas’ reason was greed and greed alone.
Again, we know that Judas was the treasurer (Jn 13:29). We know that he was a thief (Jn 12:6). We know that it was the actions of the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive oil that was the final straw for Judas (Mk 14:10; Jn 12:4-6). We know that Judas himself asked how much he could get for turning Jesus over to the religious leaders (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6).
When Judas does repent of his sins he noticeably returns the money he received for the betrayal:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” (Mt 27:3-5)
Though this seems to be an insignificant reason to betray the Son of God, it is the only reason given in Scripture. Furthermore, too many people ignore and reject Christ for a lot less that what Judas received.
Judas Was Not Damned
I think the Scriptural evidence does not necessarily support the idea that Judas was damned for his betrayal of Jesus.
First, Judas was a servant, disciple and apostle of Jesus.
Second, Judas received the same authority and instruction as the other disciples (Mt 10:1-42; Mk 6:7-11; Lk 9:1-12).
Third, Judas also received the same promise as the other disciples:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:28)
Finally, while Judas’ was neither a good person with good motives for what he did, when confronted with the truth of the matter, he did repent (Mt 27:3-5).
Thus, I submit that it is possible that Judas will be saved and spared damnation.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
What Religion Is This?
What religious group believes these practices are against their religion?
-Invoking of any saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone
-Visiting the graves of saints and asking the dead for help
-Celebrating annual feasts for saints
-Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
-Practicing magic, or involving themselves with witches or magic healings
-Innovations in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
-Invoking of any saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone
-Visiting the graves of saints and asking the dead for help
-Celebrating annual feasts for saints
-Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
-Practicing magic, or involving themselves with witches or magic healings
-Innovations in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
Friday, June 23, 2006
Worshipping God in Vain
Do you see "worship" as a religious ritual act? an event? By your definition, can a Christian worship someone or something other than Jesus?
All the above really. Worship is a lifestyle which one reveres and honors God. It is an ongoing act which should never cease. However, there are times when one puts a special emphasis on worship (bowing down on one’s face and such). There are also times when groups of people put a special emphasis on collective worship (i.e., worship services).
Yes, I do think that a Christian can worship some one or thing other than the Trinitarian God. It’s called idolatry and it haunts us all to one degree or another. We begin to revere things (creatures) more than God (the Creator). Items of idolatry for (contemporary) Christians typically: the self (of course), particular leaders (secular and Christian), nations and cultures (a hot one, that), traditions, the Law; those sorts of things. We all do it to some minor degree or another but there are obviously some things much worse than others, i.e., worshipping false gods, nature and ‘real’ idols and such.
There are times in the Bible where such idolatry or worship makes vain the worship of true God (Mk 7:7; Matt 15:9; Isa 29:13). Thus, even though the Jews of Jesus’ generation worshipped Yahweh, they rejected Yahweh’s Son, which made their worship of God in vain. I think the same is true of Muslims and other monotheistic religions which are off-shoots of the Abrahamic religion. Mohammed himself (a man and a flawed figure) appears to have wavered on this subject. He detested idols (‘idols’ in the classic sense of the word) and focused on the one god Allah, which was the god of the Abrahamic religion. However, he sometimes became frustrated with the idolatry of the Arabs of his generations. He once attempted to combine Allah-worship and idol-worship, basically religious syncretism (see Aaron and the golden calf of Ex. 32). He soon repented of this error and abolished idols.
Again, Mohammed’s worship of God never went through Christ and so was in vain, just like the Jews of the NT who rejected Christ.
All the above really. Worship is a lifestyle which one reveres and honors God. It is an ongoing act which should never cease. However, there are times when one puts a special emphasis on worship (bowing down on one’s face and such). There are also times when groups of people put a special emphasis on collective worship (i.e., worship services).
Yes, I do think that a Christian can worship some one or thing other than the Trinitarian God. It’s called idolatry and it haunts us all to one degree or another. We begin to revere things (creatures) more than God (the Creator). Items of idolatry for (contemporary) Christians typically: the self (of course), particular leaders (secular and Christian), nations and cultures (a hot one, that), traditions, the Law; those sorts of things. We all do it to some minor degree or another but there are obviously some things much worse than others, i.e., worshipping false gods, nature and ‘real’ idols and such.
There are times in the Bible where such idolatry or worship makes vain the worship of true God (Mk 7:7; Matt 15:9; Isa 29:13). Thus, even though the Jews of Jesus’ generation worshipped Yahweh, they rejected Yahweh’s Son, which made their worship of God in vain. I think the same is true of Muslims and other monotheistic religions which are off-shoots of the Abrahamic religion. Mohammed himself (a man and a flawed figure) appears to have wavered on this subject. He detested idols (‘idols’ in the classic sense of the word) and focused on the one god Allah, which was the god of the Abrahamic religion. However, he sometimes became frustrated with the idolatry of the Arabs of his generations. He once attempted to combine Allah-worship and idol-worship, basically religious syncretism (see Aaron and the golden calf of Ex. 32). He soon repented of this error and abolished idols.
Again, Mohammed’s worship of God never went through Christ and so was in vain, just like the Jews of the NT who rejected Christ.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The God of Mohammed in Greensboro
A good friend of mine who attended the SBC 2006 in Greensboro told me about the incident where, during Condoleeza Rice's speech, she mentioned the killing of al-Zarqawi to the response of a standing ovation from the convention hall.
Of course, that Dr. Rice (a woman in high authority, who drinks alcohol and supports abortion) is a political figure well-followed in the press, it should have been no surprise that news media outlets would carry her speech across the globe.
How nice it was! The whole world has a chance to see the followers of the Prince of Peace and we joyously applaud that another being, created in the image of God and of equal worth with ourselves, has died and gone to hell.
How wonderful! We are against women in authority, we are against abortion, we are against consuming alcohol, we are against killing and war (according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000), but we are for spreading the Gospel to the places where our featured speaker is bombing.
Now I knew of this standing ovation by the SBC to death of al-Zarqawi a week ago. I knew but waited to see what the response would be. Now I did see a few blurbs on the blogs but little else.
A few weeks ago I understandably had a few comments about my assertion that Muslims and Christians worship the same God - a position that I continue to hold and am pursuing in my thoughts [my conclusions are interesting as well as my ideas on how to evangelize Muslims].
Again, I believe this position to be true and it is, of course, strictly orthodox.
And, of course, there are many in the past who have disagreed with my position on this. One pastor a few years ago argued [my own gist of what he said] that Yahweh and Allah could not be the same god because their personalities as expressed by their followers are different. The god of Jesus is a loving and peaceful god while the god of Mohammed is a blood thirsty war-monger.
...
So either the Yahweh and Allah are the same god or the SBC in Greensboro were worshipping the god of Allah for all the world to see.
Which is it?
Of course, that Dr. Rice (a woman in high authority, who drinks alcohol and supports abortion) is a political figure well-followed in the press, it should have been no surprise that news media outlets would carry her speech across the globe.
How nice it was! The whole world has a chance to see the followers of the Prince of Peace and we joyously applaud that another being, created in the image of God and of equal worth with ourselves, has died and gone to hell.
How wonderful! We are against women in authority, we are against abortion, we are against consuming alcohol, we are against killing and war (according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000), but we are for spreading the Gospel to the places where our featured speaker is bombing.
Now I knew of this standing ovation by the SBC to death of al-Zarqawi a week ago. I knew but waited to see what the response would be. Now I did see a few blurbs on the blogs but little else.
A few weeks ago I understandably had a few comments about my assertion that Muslims and Christians worship the same God - a position that I continue to hold and am pursuing in my thoughts [my conclusions are interesting as well as my ideas on how to evangelize Muslims].
Again, I believe this position to be true and it is, of course, strictly orthodox.
And, of course, there are many in the past who have disagreed with my position on this. One pastor a few years ago argued [my own gist of what he said] that Yahweh and Allah could not be the same god because their personalities as expressed by their followers are different. The god of Jesus is a loving and peaceful god while the god of Mohammed is a blood thirsty war-monger.
...
So either the Yahweh and Allah are the same god or the SBC in Greensboro were worshipping the god of Allah for all the world to see.
Which is it?
Monday, June 19, 2006
There's A Slow Train A'comin': Truth and Patience Against Christian Cultural Dogmatism
The Temple and Jerusalem itself were so important to the nationalist Jewish Christians that it prevented them from honoring their commission to preach the gospel. They remained in the city and at the temple preaching to the Jews because they expected the imminent return of Jesus any day.
It actually took the persecution of the Christians at the hands of Saul (later Paul) and those of his ilk to drive the Christians out of the city and into other parts of Palestine, including Samaria and northern Galilee. Even at this point, the early Christians continued to preach only to Jews and only the occasional Samaritan and God-fearer. At this point they still considered the Jewish race and religion to be the race and religion by which God saved humanity. Thus, in order to achieve salvation, a person had to become a proselyte to Judaism and participate in the distinctly Jewish rituals.
It was by continued divine action through Jesus and the Spirit of God that the early Christians came to the conclusion that one did not have to become a Jew in order to achieve salvation (see Cornelius in Acts 10). This caused extreme anxiety among the Jewish-Christians. The idea that one could achieve salvation a part from works of the law meant that these works were not necessary. If these works were not necessary then what prevented the Jews from continuing to honor these rituals? If the Jewish-Christians ceased to honor and perform these distinctive Jewish rituals then Judaism and Jewishness would cease to be a distinctive people apart from the Gentiles.
Such an idea was horrible to the Jews. The first century Jews whose ancestors had fought for such Jewish distinctiveness during the Maccabean Revolt and withstood the will of Antiochus Epiphanes who sought to enforce Hellenism onto Jews (see the Book of Daniel) inherited a set of beliefs and values which highly honored such Jewish distinctions (particularly in a Hellenistic dominate world in which Israel was surrounded and permeated by the Greco-Roman culture). Thus the first century Jews (both Christian and not) could not imagine a world without Jewishness, the Temple and Jerusalem. These were too important to be cast aside. Thus, nationalism was their focus.
So we have the Judaizers of Galatia and Rome which Paul must suffer. Thus we have the part of the circumcision that causes such division at the Council of Jerusalem. Let us not forget: the results of the Council of Jerusalem were not overly positive. The end result was a compromise – a moderate win. The issue was not resolved and certainly was not what God was ultimately wanted (We all need to be careful when we look for our examples in the Bible, especially in the book of Acts. The disciples and apostles are not always doing the proper thing. The Jerusalem Council is one such example.).
Thus the nationalism of the Jews and Jewish Christians, the eschatological nationalism inherent in the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were hindering the mission of spreading the Gospel. The disciples and apostles themselves were hindering the Gospel. James the brother of Jesus and Peter were part of this hindrance. It maybe the case that many of the original 11 disciples were unable to overcome their intense nationalism.
Therefore, the continued existence of Jerusalem and the Temple were both sustaining two ideas:
1) The imminent Parousia and, therefore, the absence of a desire to spread the Gospel.
2) The strong nationalism and the desire to prevent non-Jews from coming to an unhindered Gospel.
Ironically enough, it is this nationalism by the Jews that furthers the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. I’ve already mentioned the persecution of the Christians by Saul and how it forced the early Jewish Christians out of Jerusalem and Palestine. Moreover, the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews specifically causes Paul and others like him to turn to the Gentiles. Even in their rebellion, the Jews are used by God to enact His will.
Furthermore, while the early Christians sought to win converts from the synagogues and convert these synagogues to the Messianic community, the rejection of many of the Jews to the Messianic community and the unwillingness of many Jewish Christians to fellowship with Gentiles led Christians to found their own Christian-Gentile synagogues (i.e., the modern church). Thus Jewish nationalism led to a severe separation between the Jews and the Church.
By the end of the Biblical story, a movement which, at its start, was originally and completely Jewish had become overwhelmingly and predominately Gentile.
-At the end of Acts, Luke is explaining how and why the Jews rejected their Messiah. Throughout Luke-Acts the writer has focused on the dismissal of both the ritual laws and the Temple, including Jerusalem.
-In the book of Revelation, John shows how and why God “divorces” His own people because of their “adultery” and takes the Gentile(-Jewish) Church instead. This book shows the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans.
-The book of Matthew also focuses on this Jewish rejection.
-We can see similar ideas in John’s Gospel.
When the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, this was a tremendous event of far-reaching proportions.
1) Jewish nationalism within the Church ceased, and the Gospel unhindered from Jewish rituals (the compromise of the Jerusalem Council was rectified).
2) It became apparent to the Church that God had given the Jews over to their own devices.
3) The idea of an imminent Parousia (which had been waning) ceased. Then the Church realized they were in it for the long ha
[Since I focus most of my scholarly work on Luke-Acts and the other narrative NT books (Matthew, Mark, John and Revelation), I finally concluded that Luke-Acts was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Here’s why:
1) The Lukan additions to the Olivet Discourse suggest that he has historical knowledge of the events.
2) Luke focuses a lot of attention against the Temple and justifying its destruction as Scriptural.]
So what can we learn from this>
-Forget dispensationalism (classical, progressive or otherwise). Ideas of the Temple, Jerusalem and the Jewish people as playing any significant part of the Parousia is a false idea. It’s nonsense. Not only is it not Scriptural, but the NT writers go out of there way to eliminate such notions from the minds of their audiences. The Temple is gone. Jerusalem is not important. The Jews are not distinctively important. To consider any of these as such is to not only contradict the teachings of Jesus and the apostles but to fall into the same trap that led to the Jews rejecting God through Christ. Just drop it all.
-Let us be careful to separate culture from Scripture. Do not hinder the Gospel by adding your culture’s requirements (secular or Christian). Thus do not make music (contemporary or traditional or classical) a matter of division of fellowship or something to be forced upon others. And certainly do not force cultural requirements upon others when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.
Thus, drinking alcohol and praying to God in tongues are both Biblically allowed. To prohibit these particular things is not only non-Biblical but the act of prohibiting them is non-Biblical. Those who do so are breaking TWO Scriptural commands. The latter command was extremely important to Jesus, the apostles and the early church. To enforce these cultural requirements is completely against the Gospel. Those who do so are hindering the Gospel. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
-To separate our selves from fellowship over these issues runs the risk of being passed by. History is like a forest with numerous institutions for trees. Some trees grow old and die. Other out live all the rest. Every so often a fire comes and wipes out the forest leaving only a few scattered trees. The rest of the forest has to grow back new trees from the ground up.
ANOTHER FIRE IS ON ITS WAY.
It could be the next year, it could be the next decade, it could be the next century, but it is coming and those that refuse to follow the direction of the Holy Spirit will be wiped out for their own good and the good of the Gospel. We may love God and God may love us, but He loves us so much that He will let us and our institution die. Remember, there were a lot of Jewish-Christians that died in 70 AD.
I say this for our own benefit and not because I doubt that any of us can stop the inevitable. Alcohol, tongues, women as pastors, aversion to evolution and other such things ... the Holy Spirit will do what He wants and no one can stop Him. We can either help and serve or hinder and die. God loves us just the same. I am not at all worried that, for example, women will be recognized as pastors by the Church. It is already happening and, apparently it is what the Holy Spirit wants. After two millennia of winking at this issue, God has decided to start enforcing it. Which is why I tell more progressively minded believers to be patient and enjoy the moment with love and submissiveness; it's going to happen regardless. If we're so convinced of the truth of which we espouse, then we should mind when others discount it as false. We should not attempt to force our views upon others; that's what the "other side" does. They do so because it is the only way they have of making their beliefs a reality - albeit a temporary one. We should not be like that. Ours is a long term and permanent reality of the unfolding kingdom.
As Bob Dylan notes concerning the kingdom of God: there's a slow train a'comin'
It actually took the persecution of the Christians at the hands of Saul (later Paul) and those of his ilk to drive the Christians out of the city and into other parts of Palestine, including Samaria and northern Galilee. Even at this point, the early Christians continued to preach only to Jews and only the occasional Samaritan and God-fearer. At this point they still considered the Jewish race and religion to be the race and religion by which God saved humanity. Thus, in order to achieve salvation, a person had to become a proselyte to Judaism and participate in the distinctly Jewish rituals.
It was by continued divine action through Jesus and the Spirit of God that the early Christians came to the conclusion that one did not have to become a Jew in order to achieve salvation (see Cornelius in Acts 10). This caused extreme anxiety among the Jewish-Christians. The idea that one could achieve salvation a part from works of the law meant that these works were not necessary. If these works were not necessary then what prevented the Jews from continuing to honor these rituals? If the Jewish-Christians ceased to honor and perform these distinctive Jewish rituals then Judaism and Jewishness would cease to be a distinctive people apart from the Gentiles.
Such an idea was horrible to the Jews. The first century Jews whose ancestors had fought for such Jewish distinctiveness during the Maccabean Revolt and withstood the will of Antiochus Epiphanes who sought to enforce Hellenism onto Jews (see the Book of Daniel) inherited a set of beliefs and values which highly honored such Jewish distinctions (particularly in a Hellenistic dominate world in which Israel was surrounded and permeated by the Greco-Roman culture). Thus the first century Jews (both Christian and not) could not imagine a world without Jewishness, the Temple and Jerusalem. These were too important to be cast aside. Thus, nationalism was their focus.
So we have the Judaizers of Galatia and Rome which Paul must suffer. Thus we have the part of the circumcision that causes such division at the Council of Jerusalem. Let us not forget: the results of the Council of Jerusalem were not overly positive. The end result was a compromise – a moderate win. The issue was not resolved and certainly was not what God was ultimately wanted (We all need to be careful when we look for our examples in the Bible, especially in the book of Acts. The disciples and apostles are not always doing the proper thing. The Jerusalem Council is one such example.).
Thus the nationalism of the Jews and Jewish Christians, the eschatological nationalism inherent in the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were hindering the mission of spreading the Gospel. The disciples and apostles themselves were hindering the Gospel. James the brother of Jesus and Peter were part of this hindrance. It maybe the case that many of the original 11 disciples were unable to overcome their intense nationalism.
Therefore, the continued existence of Jerusalem and the Temple were both sustaining two ideas:
1) The imminent Parousia and, therefore, the absence of a desire to spread the Gospel.
2) The strong nationalism and the desire to prevent non-Jews from coming to an unhindered Gospel.
Ironically enough, it is this nationalism by the Jews that furthers the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. I’ve already mentioned the persecution of the Christians by Saul and how it forced the early Jewish Christians out of Jerusalem and Palestine. Moreover, the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews specifically causes Paul and others like him to turn to the Gentiles. Even in their rebellion, the Jews are used by God to enact His will.
Furthermore, while the early Christians sought to win converts from the synagogues and convert these synagogues to the Messianic community, the rejection of many of the Jews to the Messianic community and the unwillingness of many Jewish Christians to fellowship with Gentiles led Christians to found their own Christian-Gentile synagogues (i.e., the modern church). Thus Jewish nationalism led to a severe separation between the Jews and the Church.
By the end of the Biblical story, a movement which, at its start, was originally and completely Jewish had become overwhelmingly and predominately Gentile.
-At the end of Acts, Luke is explaining how and why the Jews rejected their Messiah. Throughout Luke-Acts the writer has focused on the dismissal of both the ritual laws and the Temple, including Jerusalem.
-In the book of Revelation, John shows how and why God “divorces” His own people because of their “adultery” and takes the Gentile(-Jewish) Church instead. This book shows the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans.
-The book of Matthew also focuses on this Jewish rejection.
-We can see similar ideas in John’s Gospel.
When the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, this was a tremendous event of far-reaching proportions.
1) Jewish nationalism within the Church ceased, and the Gospel unhindered from Jewish rituals (the compromise of the Jerusalem Council was rectified).
2) It became apparent to the Church that God had given the Jews over to their own devices.
3) The idea of an imminent Parousia (which had been waning) ceased. Then the Church realized they were in it for the long ha
[Since I focus most of my scholarly work on Luke-Acts and the other narrative NT books (Matthew, Mark, John and Revelation), I finally concluded that Luke-Acts was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Here’s why:
1) The Lukan additions to the Olivet Discourse suggest that he has historical knowledge of the events.
2) Luke focuses a lot of attention against the Temple and justifying its destruction as Scriptural.]
So what can we learn from this>
-Forget dispensationalism (classical, progressive or otherwise). Ideas of the Temple, Jerusalem and the Jewish people as playing any significant part of the Parousia is a false idea. It’s nonsense. Not only is it not Scriptural, but the NT writers go out of there way to eliminate such notions from the minds of their audiences. The Temple is gone. Jerusalem is not important. The Jews are not distinctively important. To consider any of these as such is to not only contradict the teachings of Jesus and the apostles but to fall into the same trap that led to the Jews rejecting God through Christ. Just drop it all.
-Let us be careful to separate culture from Scripture. Do not hinder the Gospel by adding your culture’s requirements (secular or Christian). Thus do not make music (contemporary or traditional or classical) a matter of division of fellowship or something to be forced upon others. And certainly do not force cultural requirements upon others when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.
Thus, drinking alcohol and praying to God in tongues are both Biblically allowed. To prohibit these particular things is not only non-Biblical but the act of prohibiting them is non-Biblical. Those who do so are breaking TWO Scriptural commands. The latter command was extremely important to Jesus, the apostles and the early church. To enforce these cultural requirements is completely against the Gospel. Those who do so are hindering the Gospel. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
-To separate our selves from fellowship over these issues runs the risk of being passed by. History is like a forest with numerous institutions for trees. Some trees grow old and die. Other out live all the rest. Every so often a fire comes and wipes out the forest leaving only a few scattered trees. The rest of the forest has to grow back new trees from the ground up.
ANOTHER FIRE IS ON ITS WAY.
It could be the next year, it could be the next decade, it could be the next century, but it is coming and those that refuse to follow the direction of the Holy Spirit will be wiped out for their own good and the good of the Gospel. We may love God and God may love us, but He loves us so much that He will let us and our institution die. Remember, there were a lot of Jewish-Christians that died in 70 AD.
I say this for our own benefit and not because I doubt that any of us can stop the inevitable. Alcohol, tongues, women as pastors, aversion to evolution and other such things ... the Holy Spirit will do what He wants and no one can stop Him. We can either help and serve or hinder and die. God loves us just the same. I am not at all worried that, for example, women will be recognized as pastors by the Church. It is already happening and, apparently it is what the Holy Spirit wants. After two millennia of winking at this issue, God has decided to start enforcing it. Which is why I tell more progressively minded believers to be patient and enjoy the moment with love and submissiveness; it's going to happen regardless. If we're so convinced of the truth of which we espouse, then we should mind when others discount it as false. We should not attempt to force our views upon others; that's what the "other side" does. They do so because it is the only way they have of making their beliefs a reality - albeit a temporary one. We should not be like that. Ours is a long term and permanent reality of the unfolding kingdom.
As Bob Dylan notes concerning the kingdom of God: there's a slow train a'comin'
Monday, June 12, 2006
Essential Children's Books
Although I have no children myself and (despite the assertion of many) I have not been a child for some time, I continue to read children’s literature with great enthusiasm. I often open the pages of Lewis, Grahame, Milne, Barrie, Carroll and Tolkien for the amusement it brings, particularly for night time reading.
Occasionally, I scan the shelves of the children’s section at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Half Price, in order to see what is currently popular among contemporary children. Most of it is complete bollocks but there are a few goodies, both new and old, to be found at the local sellers.
Books are extremely important for children. By this I mean, 1) parents really need to read to their children as early as possible so that the children pick it up before they go to school. My parents read to me at an extremely early age and pointed to every word the read so that I knew what word was what. 2) Children need access to books in the homes. Every study shows that the intellectual curiosity of a child grows with the amount of books available in the home. Take a lesson from me: I found the availability of Cervantes, Tolstoy, Shakespeare and Twain highly edifying. 3) And, please, please, please, give your children some good books to read. Don’t buy them junk; they’ll acquire enough bad books from other friends, family and neighbors. God knows they will be reading it at school! Give them books that will be edifying. Do you think children are born Mozart, Shakespeare and Kierkegaard? Well, they are but its only good parents who are able to draw it out of them. How many great concertos, novels and theology books were never created because their parents never gave an inkling to their child’s talents. You wouldn’t allow your children to watch a Rated R movie because of the negative effect, right? Why then let them read bad books?
Allow me to give you a reasonable list of good children’s books that every child should have access to if they don’t want to end up as junkies. I’ll save you from having to read my lists of music (it includes Bach and Beck), movies (it includes Casablanca and 2001) and Bible stories (it includes the Greek as well as the English).
Aesop’s Fables (One of the foundations of Western ethics.)
American Tall Tales (Casey Jones, Johnny Apple-Seed, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, etc.)
Hans Christian Anderson (These stories are staples of Western folk-lore.)
Arabian Nights (Here’s a touch of Islamic and Persian mythology. Quite good.)
J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan, philosophically wonderful and pure fantasy.)
L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz, I recommend on the first book in the series.)
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, The Hunting of the Snark. If a child cannot recite “Jabberwocky” by age ten, then ground them.)
Miguel Cervantes (Any child who doesn’t learn of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza has no business entering the second grade. Of course, here is an example where I was given a children’s version of the book and later in life I read the original version due to my interest in the children’s book.)
Roald Dahl (James and the Giant Peach, and the 2 Charlie books)
Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) (This’ll both entertain and teach children how to think.)
English Mythology (King Arthur, Robin Hood, Beowulf, Gawain and the Green Knight) (My family is both Welsh and English, so I recommend this old world English treats.)
Mother Goose (If you have to ask then you have no business claiming to be a part of Western civilization.)
Kenneth Grahame (The Wind and the Willows, I am ashamed to state that I only began reading these late in life. Learn from my mistakes.)
Greek Mythology (Read them these books as soon as possible. Greek mythology is one of the foundations of Western Culture and permeates all of contemporary life.)
Brothers Grimm (See Hans Christian Anderson)
Joel Chandler Harris (Uncle Remus, Good stories with African roots but perhaps a version without the vernacular.)
Washington Irving (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Rip van Winkle)
Rudyard Kipling (The Jungle Books. Give them a little of India)
C.S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia. And for, crissakes, get the order right!)
A.A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh, The House on Pooh Corner. No, Disney bowdlerization until they are old enough to date.)
Norse Mythology (Perhaps this one is not necessary but this is still entertaining.)
Edgar Allen Poe (Both the poems and the short stories)
Richard Scarry (This is a pragmatic book more than anything.)
Maurice Sendak (Teach your children where the wild things are)
Dr. Seuss (Again, these are pragmatic books)
William Shakespeare (Hamlet, of course. Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Henry IV, part one and 2 and Henry V, A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew. Okay, children’s version are out there. I recommend the ones by Charles and Mary Lamb. Of course, if they are not reading the originals by Middle School then send them to therapy.)
Shel Silverstein (Where the Sidewalk Ends, A Light in the Attic, Falling Up, The Giving Tree) (I recommend the recordings along with the books)
Robert Lewis Stevenson (Treasure Island, the Disney movie with Robert Newton is good), Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hide)
Jonathan Swift (A children’s version would suffice here. The movie version with Ted Danson is recommended.)
J.R.R. Tolkien (All the middle earth stories: The Hobbit, LOTR, etc. Also, his translations of Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfio are recommended.
Mark Twain (I grew up with his short stories. However, as with Uncle Remus, I suggest a version of Huckleberry Finn minus the dialect.)
Jules Verne (Duh!)
H.G. Wells (And, Duh, again)
In order to get most of these stories and many many more, I highly recommend Anthology of Children's Literature by Edna Johnson, Evelyn R Sickels, Frances Clarke Sayers. Third Revised Edition. This book has it all and should be essential to every adult library.
Occasionally, I scan the shelves of the children’s section at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Half Price, in order to see what is currently popular among contemporary children. Most of it is complete bollocks but there are a few goodies, both new and old, to be found at the local sellers.
Books are extremely important for children. By this I mean, 1) parents really need to read to their children as early as possible so that the children pick it up before they go to school. My parents read to me at an extremely early age and pointed to every word the read so that I knew what word was what. 2) Children need access to books in the homes. Every study shows that the intellectual curiosity of a child grows with the amount of books available in the home. Take a lesson from me: I found the availability of Cervantes, Tolstoy, Shakespeare and Twain highly edifying. 3) And, please, please, please, give your children some good books to read. Don’t buy them junk; they’ll acquire enough bad books from other friends, family and neighbors. God knows they will be reading it at school! Give them books that will be edifying. Do you think children are born Mozart, Shakespeare and Kierkegaard? Well, they are but its only good parents who are able to draw it out of them. How many great concertos, novels and theology books were never created because their parents never gave an inkling to their child’s talents. You wouldn’t allow your children to watch a Rated R movie because of the negative effect, right? Why then let them read bad books?
Allow me to give you a reasonable list of good children’s books that every child should have access to if they don’t want to end up as junkies. I’ll save you from having to read my lists of music (it includes Bach and Beck), movies (it includes Casablanca and 2001) and Bible stories (it includes the Greek as well as the English).
Aesop’s Fables (One of the foundations of Western ethics.)
American Tall Tales (Casey Jones, Johnny Apple-Seed, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, etc.)
Hans Christian Anderson (These stories are staples of Western folk-lore.)
Arabian Nights (Here’s a touch of Islamic and Persian mythology. Quite good.)
J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan, philosophically wonderful and pure fantasy.)
L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz, I recommend on the first book in the series.)
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, The Hunting of the Snark. If a child cannot recite “Jabberwocky” by age ten, then ground them.)
Miguel Cervantes (Any child who doesn’t learn of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza has no business entering the second grade. Of course, here is an example where I was given a children’s version of the book and later in life I read the original version due to my interest in the children’s book.)
Roald Dahl (James and the Giant Peach, and the 2 Charlie books)
Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) (This’ll both entertain and teach children how to think.)
English Mythology (King Arthur, Robin Hood, Beowulf, Gawain and the Green Knight) (My family is both Welsh and English, so I recommend this old world English treats.)
Mother Goose (If you have to ask then you have no business claiming to be a part of Western civilization.)
Kenneth Grahame (The Wind and the Willows, I am ashamed to state that I only began reading these late in life. Learn from my mistakes.)
Greek Mythology (Read them these books as soon as possible. Greek mythology is one of the foundations of Western Culture and permeates all of contemporary life.)
Brothers Grimm (See Hans Christian Anderson)
Joel Chandler Harris (Uncle Remus, Good stories with African roots but perhaps a version without the vernacular.)
Washington Irving (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Rip van Winkle)
Rudyard Kipling (The Jungle Books. Give them a little of India)
C.S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia. And for, crissakes, get the order right!)
A.A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh, The House on Pooh Corner. No, Disney bowdlerization until they are old enough to date.)
Norse Mythology (Perhaps this one is not necessary but this is still entertaining.)
Edgar Allen Poe (Both the poems and the short stories)
Richard Scarry (This is a pragmatic book more than anything.)
Maurice Sendak (Teach your children where the wild things are)
Dr. Seuss (Again, these are pragmatic books)
William Shakespeare (Hamlet, of course. Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Henry IV, part one and 2 and Henry V, A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew. Okay, children’s version are out there. I recommend the ones by Charles and Mary Lamb. Of course, if they are not reading the originals by Middle School then send them to therapy.)
Shel Silverstein (Where the Sidewalk Ends, A Light in the Attic, Falling Up, The Giving Tree) (I recommend the recordings along with the books)
Robert Lewis Stevenson (Treasure Island, the Disney movie with Robert Newton is good), Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hide)
Jonathan Swift (A children’s version would suffice here. The movie version with Ted Danson is recommended.)
J.R.R. Tolkien (All the middle earth stories: The Hobbit, LOTR, etc. Also, his translations of Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfio are recommended.
Mark Twain (I grew up with his short stories. However, as with Uncle Remus, I suggest a version of Huckleberry Finn minus the dialect.)
Jules Verne (Duh!)
H.G. Wells (And, Duh, again)
In order to get most of these stories and many many more, I highly recommend Anthology of Children's Literature by Edna Johnson, Evelyn R Sickels, Frances Clarke Sayers. Third Revised Edition. This book has it all and should be essential to every adult library.
The Inheritors
There is only one basic theological problem that I have with Darwinian evolution and it is the one problem that evangelicals and fundamentalists never mention or with which they appear to ever have a problem. What is it?
The biological idea of “survival of the fittest” as coined by Herbert Spencer, which is better phrased as Darwin’s term of “natural selection” appears to be at odds with the Christian idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5) which Jesus appropriated from Ps 37:11.
Now this idea of inheriting the earth or land is a diverse and complex cultural idea of the Ancient Near East. Many of the promises that God gave to Abraham and his descendents are based upon this idea of land inheritance (provided they honored the covenant, that is. If they didn’t honor the covenant they would be subject to the cherem (Mal. 4:6), which God did subject them to as the Apocalypse of John so records. God’s promises are often conditional. Most dispensationalists maintain that God always keeps His promises and therefore they attempt to find fulfillment of Israel’s inheriting the land within the millennial kingdom. But one of His promises is punishment for breaking the covenant. Also, God said He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. However, Nineveh repented and God repented from destroying them. Did God break His promise? Of course not. And God did promise that if Israel did not repent they would face the cherem. Well?)
Of course, “natural selection” and “genetic drift” are far more complex factors than simple matters of biological aggression versus biological passivism. Our earliest known biological ancestors from the Cambrian explosion (between 542 and 530 million years ago) were both relatively small and defenseless when compared to those oceanic species which did not evolve into amphibious creatures. However, these earliest proto-human ancestors did have the uncanny ability to use their relatively small construction to hide in their environment and thus to allude extinction. Therefore, natural selection is not simply a matter of physiological strength and stamina.
William Golding as a good book called The Inheritors, which is about a group of passive Neanderthals which encounter and are destroyed by a group of hostile Homo Sapiens. Yes, the ironic title of the book is directed at the sayings of the Scripture. Whether or not Golding was attacking the Gospel I have no way of knowing. However, for those believers who hold to various forms of natural selection, Golding does raise a good point.
One of the odd, apparently conflicting and foolish, and even scandalous aspects of Christianity which is at the core and one of the foundations of its ethics is the strong focus on meekness, non-violence, humility, servanthood and peace. Our movement is founded on the Cross. The Cross is foolish and scandalous to mankind. The prior ethic of the Old Testament, the ethic of the world, and the laws of nature itself are “an eye for an eye”, dog-eat-dog world, the aggressive use of force, majority rule, competitive capitalism, the perils of the animal kingdom, and the food chain. Both nature, history provide overwhelming evidence that aggressive dominance is the supreme ethic of the universe. … And yet, the Creator of this universe, of this world, and of this natural ethic has broken into history and has spoken in the full revelation of His Son who comes to the rebellious humanity who were made in the image of the Creator, and says, “The Kingdom of God is here; it’s not going to be that way anymore.” And, thus, all of history, science and the political and military methods of this world are turned on their heads and somehow the meek do indeed inherit the earth.
It is unfortunate that so few believers have adopted these particular teachings of Christ (save Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King and those like them). Just like the rest of humanity, they look around them and see the natural world and the political world expediently accomplishing their goals. They grow impatient with the steady progress of the kingdom and would rather see goals met by swift victory than by the individual-by-individual witness of believers to the Gospel message. Instead of sharing our faith, we prefer to codify our beliefs in the culture by laws and court rulings. We rather see a culture transformed in our lifetime than individuals transformed in the same time. We would rather see our political enemies punished and defeated than saved and renewed.
The disciples of Christ are still waiting for a political messiah: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)
It is a supreme irony that so many faithful believers who accept evolution reject the “survival of the fittest” ethics while so many other faithful believers who reject evolution accept the “survival of the fittest” ethic. Of course, these are very general categories but none the less reflect a very true reality.
Regardless of differences in methodology and ethics, we all believe that God is and will win and purge the Creation from sin. We do believe that God is continual creative control and that the meek will in fact inherit the earth.
However, as the 1st century Jews and Jewish Christians discovered when they settled on nationalistic and politico-military solutions:
“He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” (Prov 11:29)
The biological idea of “survival of the fittest” as coined by Herbert Spencer, which is better phrased as Darwin’s term of “natural selection” appears to be at odds with the Christian idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5) which Jesus appropriated from Ps 37:11.
Now this idea of inheriting the earth or land is a diverse and complex cultural idea of the Ancient Near East. Many of the promises that God gave to Abraham and his descendents are based upon this idea of land inheritance (provided they honored the covenant, that is. If they didn’t honor the covenant they would be subject to the cherem (Mal. 4:6), which God did subject them to as the Apocalypse of John so records. God’s promises are often conditional. Most dispensationalists maintain that God always keeps His promises and therefore they attempt to find fulfillment of Israel’s inheriting the land within the millennial kingdom. But one of His promises is punishment for breaking the covenant. Also, God said He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. However, Nineveh repented and God repented from destroying them. Did God break His promise? Of course not. And God did promise that if Israel did not repent they would face the cherem. Well?)
Of course, “natural selection” and “genetic drift” are far more complex factors than simple matters of biological aggression versus biological passivism. Our earliest known biological ancestors from the Cambrian explosion (between 542 and 530 million years ago) were both relatively small and defenseless when compared to those oceanic species which did not evolve into amphibious creatures. However, these earliest proto-human ancestors did have the uncanny ability to use their relatively small construction to hide in their environment and thus to allude extinction. Therefore, natural selection is not simply a matter of physiological strength and stamina.
William Golding as a good book called The Inheritors, which is about a group of passive Neanderthals which encounter and are destroyed by a group of hostile Homo Sapiens. Yes, the ironic title of the book is directed at the sayings of the Scripture. Whether or not Golding was attacking the Gospel I have no way of knowing. However, for those believers who hold to various forms of natural selection, Golding does raise a good point.
One of the odd, apparently conflicting and foolish, and even scandalous aspects of Christianity which is at the core and one of the foundations of its ethics is the strong focus on meekness, non-violence, humility, servanthood and peace. Our movement is founded on the Cross. The Cross is foolish and scandalous to mankind. The prior ethic of the Old Testament, the ethic of the world, and the laws of nature itself are “an eye for an eye”, dog-eat-dog world, the aggressive use of force, majority rule, competitive capitalism, the perils of the animal kingdom, and the food chain. Both nature, history provide overwhelming evidence that aggressive dominance is the supreme ethic of the universe. … And yet, the Creator of this universe, of this world, and of this natural ethic has broken into history and has spoken in the full revelation of His Son who comes to the rebellious humanity who were made in the image of the Creator, and says, “The Kingdom of God is here; it’s not going to be that way anymore.” And, thus, all of history, science and the political and military methods of this world are turned on their heads and somehow the meek do indeed inherit the earth.
It is unfortunate that so few believers have adopted these particular teachings of Christ (save Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King and those like them). Just like the rest of humanity, they look around them and see the natural world and the political world expediently accomplishing their goals. They grow impatient with the steady progress of the kingdom and would rather see goals met by swift victory than by the individual-by-individual witness of believers to the Gospel message. Instead of sharing our faith, we prefer to codify our beliefs in the culture by laws and court rulings. We rather see a culture transformed in our lifetime than individuals transformed in the same time. We would rather see our political enemies punished and defeated than saved and renewed.
The disciples of Christ are still waiting for a political messiah: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)
It is a supreme irony that so many faithful believers who accept evolution reject the “survival of the fittest” ethics while so many other faithful believers who reject evolution accept the “survival of the fittest” ethic. Of course, these are very general categories but none the less reflect a very true reality.
Regardless of differences in methodology and ethics, we all believe that God is and will win and purge the Creation from sin. We do believe that God is continual creative control and that the meek will in fact inherit the earth.
However, as the 1st century Jews and Jewish Christians discovered when they settled on nationalistic and politico-military solutions:
“He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” (Prov 11:29)
Paradigm Shifts, Modern Psychology and Nouthetic Counseling
One great problem that faces post modern evangelicalism is the proliferation of information and the cognitive structuring of ideas. Because communication and the means by which we transfer information is growing and diversifying, more evangelicals than ever before are able to construct various models of reality by which others can shift their thinking in order to effectively preach the Gospel. While this in of itself is another example of the fantastic times in which we live as believers proclaiming the gospel, this proliferation of cognitive structuring can cause (ironically enough) severe communication problems. Too many evangelicals have biases they were born into and which they appear either unable or unwilling to negate in the effort to proclaim the gospel. Such biases typically hinge on how their childhood perception of reality was initially structured. Such perception structures may or may not be accurate to one degree or another but, regardless of anything else, it is certainly not complete. For the individual (either believer or unbeliever) to break through this preconceived structure is a Herculean task that most never attempt, let alone, successfully complete. For most, to break or transcend these structures is tantamount to castrating one’s father. This is not a casual metaphor. Most of our preconceived conceptions of reality come from our fathers, both earthly and heavenly. And honoring both fathers is essential to the Christian faith, as most of us would agree. However, the way in which we honor our fathers is subject to debate. First, our earthly fathers are humans and inherit the same flaws as every other man. To continue these flawed ways of thinking for the sake of a supposed Biblical commandment is to negate the true intention of the commandment. Secondly, our first conception of God the Father is not necessarily the correct conception of God the Father. Furthermore, we do not exhaust God the Father in our years of life. God is infinite and there are many aspects of Him that might at first seem contrary to our initial concepts but, over time, can be seen as either harmonizing or correcting such preconceived notions. Recall how the first disciples of Jesus had years of continual paradigm shifts as they continued to grow spiritually and as God reorganized their thinking and conceptions of reality. Beginning with Jesus and continuing with the Holy Spirit, God began to teach them of the Kingdom of God. Jesus in particular was able to successfully contextualize the Kingdom of God within stories, parables, allegories and mashals so that the people could understand these truths within their cultural context. Thus, just as Jesus and the apostles contextualized the Gospel within ANE and Greco-Roman cultures, so Christian missionaries of today attempt to contextualize the gospel within various foreign cultures that are devoid of “Christian” influence. What is more, with both the proliferation of religious liberty and the influx of Eastern and African cultures, Western society is becoming less and less “Christianized”. There are fewer and fewer Westerners who have a basic understanding of Christian terminology in order to comprehend the Gospel message. Therefore, we have the Emergent churches whose specific modus operandi is to create churches in America and Western Civilization as Western Christian missionaries would create churches in Africa, Asia or the Middle East. They are called “missional churches” and they are using the exact methods missionaries have successfully applied for the last hundred plus years. Of course, the usual suspects are highly critical of the Emergent Church movement as they simultaneously send out missionaries to China and Egypt to do the same thing. Why are they critical of Emergent Churches? 1) They do not understand Emergent churches just as they do not understand foreign missions and church planters. If any SNC leader knew what was taught at the average SBC seminary about how to contextualize the gospel, they would swear that liberalism had snuck back into the convention. 2) They are cultural and ethnic supremacists. They assume that American and Western Christianity is the only way of practicing the faith and every other method must be wrong. 3) They really dislike the fact that they and their Christian practice are becoming increasingly irrelevant and outdated. They themselves refuse to change in order to witness to the world; they would rather change the world instead. Thus, when they see contemporary and Emergent churches being highly successful it is like salt in their open wounds. Nevertheless, the old is fading away and those who can see the horizon because they have both the ability to and willingness to look only have to be patient to see their beliefs and methods vindicated. I mean really, who appears more confident: fundamentalists and their close evangelical kin who are falling back into defeatism because they suspect the Great Tribulation around the corner or the progressives who see abundant evidence of God’s victory as He patiently carves out the future.
All this being said, please allow me an attempt at contextualizing modern psychology in a manner which conveys the truth of the matter with the language of the plebs.
One of the current debates among evangelicals is the legitimacy of modern psychology.
Since the early eighties, many evangelical Christians have become dissatisfied with many of the excesses of modern psychology and have attempted to find alternatives to physician help.
Perhaps one of the more notorious examples of alternative medicine is the nouthetic counseling fad. I call it a fad because it is a new phenomenon that has just reached much of contemporary evangelicalism and because it resembles all the other evangelical fads of the last few decades (i.e., “everyone must get on board or you’re not right with God.”)
All behavioral disorders are caused by sin and thus can only be cured by faith (i.e., the Bible). The Scriptural basis for this umbrella idea comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
While much modern psychology believes that most behavioral disorders are psychological in nature, many modern nouthetic counselors believe that all such disorders derive from sin in the life of the individual. Thus, since sin is in the purview of the pastoral sphere, nouthetic counseling can cure behavioral disorders and modern psychology will do no good whatsoever.
Now there is so much wrong with the thinking in the nouthetic counseling movement that it is only the shear ignorance of the average evangelical that keeps this boat afloat.
Here is a short run down of some of the problems:
1) An overly broad interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What’s new here?
2) The evangelical acceptance of modern and naturalistic (some would say “atheistic”) conception of the nature of man. The irony is that while they believe they are ridding themselves of modern and naturalistic conceptions of the nature of man, they have, in fact, unknowingly adopted modern psychological views.
3) Not every behavioral problem is caused by sin. Many evangelicals read in the Scriptures about the sin of having no “self control” and assume that anyone who cannot control an aspect of themselves has some sin causing it.
4) Many evangelicals who are pastors or want to be pastors hold to a strong view pastoral authority and ministry. Thus, many believe that a church must have one supreme pastor who manages all pastoral duties. In this case, many pastors and would–be pastors dislike modern psychology because it would mean that a pastor would have to have a degree in psychology in order to council. Of course, a pastor already should. Many larger churches already have psychologically trained pastors who handle such counseling. Of course, they can afford to do so.
5) Many evangelicals have a misconception of what the Bible is. They see the Bible as not just a book concerning the relationship of God and Man but a history text book, a science text book, a dieting book, a health and wealth manual, a psychology book, and any number of other books on the subject they themselves wish it to be. In fact, the only type of book it is not it a literary book.
To sum up all these problems, many modern evangelicals are ignorant of modern psychology and, most embarrassingly, are ignorant of Scripture.
But I have made all of these points before. Here is the new point:
Let us make the statement that many of the psychological disorders that modern psychology treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. Let us make that statement and identify it as fact. Thus, a particular sin has caused a psychological disorder.
Now, flipping to the other side, let us make the statement that many physical disorders that modern medicine treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. What are some example? Drunkenness can cause cirrhosis of the liver, sexual immorality can cause diseases, anger can cause a heart attack, etc. Thus, a particular sin has caused a physical disorder.
Now a person can sin, get a physical disorder and then repent of that sin while the physical disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a medical doctor in order to treat the physical disorder long after the sin has been repented.
Think of psychological disorders similarly. A person can sin, get a psychological disorder and then repent of that sin while the psychological disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a psychologist in order to treat the psychological disorder long after the sin has been repented.
All this being said, please allow me an attempt at contextualizing modern psychology in a manner which conveys the truth of the matter with the language of the plebs.
One of the current debates among evangelicals is the legitimacy of modern psychology.
Since the early eighties, many evangelical Christians have become dissatisfied with many of the excesses of modern psychology and have attempted to find alternatives to physician help.
Perhaps one of the more notorious examples of alternative medicine is the nouthetic counseling fad. I call it a fad because it is a new phenomenon that has just reached much of contemporary evangelicalism and because it resembles all the other evangelical fads of the last few decades (i.e., “everyone must get on board or you’re not right with God.”)
All behavioral disorders are caused by sin and thus can only be cured by faith (i.e., the Bible). The Scriptural basis for this umbrella idea comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
While much modern psychology believes that most behavioral disorders are psychological in nature, many modern nouthetic counselors believe that all such disorders derive from sin in the life of the individual. Thus, since sin is in the purview of the pastoral sphere, nouthetic counseling can cure behavioral disorders and modern psychology will do no good whatsoever.
Now there is so much wrong with the thinking in the nouthetic counseling movement that it is only the shear ignorance of the average evangelical that keeps this boat afloat.
Here is a short run down of some of the problems:
1) An overly broad interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What’s new here?
2) The evangelical acceptance of modern and naturalistic (some would say “atheistic”) conception of the nature of man. The irony is that while they believe they are ridding themselves of modern and naturalistic conceptions of the nature of man, they have, in fact, unknowingly adopted modern psychological views.
3) Not every behavioral problem is caused by sin. Many evangelicals read in the Scriptures about the sin of having no “self control” and assume that anyone who cannot control an aspect of themselves has some sin causing it.
4) Many evangelicals who are pastors or want to be pastors hold to a strong view pastoral authority and ministry. Thus, many believe that a church must have one supreme pastor who manages all pastoral duties. In this case, many pastors and would–be pastors dislike modern psychology because it would mean that a pastor would have to have a degree in psychology in order to council. Of course, a pastor already should. Many larger churches already have psychologically trained pastors who handle such counseling. Of course, they can afford to do so.
5) Many evangelicals have a misconception of what the Bible is. They see the Bible as not just a book concerning the relationship of God and Man but a history text book, a science text book, a dieting book, a health and wealth manual, a psychology book, and any number of other books on the subject they themselves wish it to be. In fact, the only type of book it is not it a literary book.
To sum up all these problems, many modern evangelicals are ignorant of modern psychology and, most embarrassingly, are ignorant of Scripture.
But I have made all of these points before. Here is the new point:
Let us make the statement that many of the psychological disorders that modern psychology treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. Let us make that statement and identify it as fact. Thus, a particular sin has caused a psychological disorder.
Now, flipping to the other side, let us make the statement that many physical disorders that modern medicine treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. What are some example? Drunkenness can cause cirrhosis of the liver, sexual immorality can cause diseases, anger can cause a heart attack, etc. Thus, a particular sin has caused a physical disorder.
Now a person can sin, get a physical disorder and then repent of that sin while the physical disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a medical doctor in order to treat the physical disorder long after the sin has been repented.
Think of psychological disorders similarly. A person can sin, get a psychological disorder and then repent of that sin while the psychological disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a psychologist in order to treat the psychological disorder long after the sin has been repented.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Divine Creation
Nowhere? To me you might as well be saying that nowhere does science begin to support and give evidence for gravity.
And nowhere does the Bible teach that God did not use biological evolution to create the universe. Of course, the same can be said of gravity, photosynthesis, relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, cell-division, and a million other aspects of God’s creation. Simply because the Bible is silent on an issue it does not mean that the issue does not exist. Do the Bible writers explain the rules of Greek phonetics when want to tell a story? Must Hieronymus Bosch explain how he mixes the oil and how he paints on wood panels as well as create The Garden of Earthly Delights?
Nowhere does the Bible actually give any explanation of how God forms objects; that is not the Bible’s purpose. What is important is that “God formed Man”, all else is secondary with regards to creation. One Scripture writer states that “God formed him in his mother’s womb.” How God did so the writer doesn’t say. That it took a sperm and an egg, cell division and nine months of gestation is completely missing from his statement. Are we then to say, “No, God doesn’t create Man over nine months and by cell division because the Bible doesn’t say so; it simply says God forms man, therefore God forms man immediately.”?
Did God form Adam using any scientific principle by which all those after him are created? Did God use cell division? Did God use DNA? Did He create the skeleton first or the organs first? Did He start from the outside in or the inside out? Did He turn the dust into cells or DNA first and then construct that out of man or did He make a mud statue and then bring that to life? Was the statue wet or dry? When did man first have atoms and various subatomic particles? Did God use scientific laws for creating man or did he break all the known scientific laws of the already created universe to make man? Did God turn dust into a sperm and an egg and then allow the gestation process to do its work? At what point did the cells come alive: before or exactly at the point that man was granted conscious? If God took dust and created live cells that he then turned those live cells into a man does this contradict the Bible?
“God spoke to create all but man, and He personally formed man from the dust of the ground.” Well, what about everyone else since Adam? How can Jeremiah say that God formed him? He didn’t did he? No, a sperm from his dad and an egg from his mom formed him, not God. Is Jeremiah less than the image of God because he was not directly formed from dust as Adam? God did speak to create man; the Bible clearly says so. Everything that exists as creation was created by the Word of God, including man. Jesus Himself was created by the Word of God, that certainly doesn’t make Him less than Adam.
For as long as I have been discussing the issue of science and the Faith, I have always heard believers who disbelieve in evolution cite, as their authority, atheists. Why is this done? Why are atheists cited? Why not cite theistic evolutionists? I know why; it would defeat your argument.
Who cares what atheists and “secular” scientists think? They don’t believe in God, so why should any believer cite them as an authority about God?
Would I go to a person who only has a vague awareness of James Joyce, has never read Ulysses, does not like Joyce from the little he has heard, and then ask for his opinion on what the purpose of the "Circe" chapter is? No, I would go to someone who actually has read Ulysses and get his opinion. I wouldn’t go to a person who doesn’t know Greek and get his opinion on particular uses of the genitive? That a punk rocker or rapper doesn’t agree with or even understand baroque music does not therefore place their opinion of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos in any high level of musical authority in my personal artistic pantheon. Furthermore, I wouldn’t go to someone who hasn’t studied biology to get their scientific opinion on evolution. Thus, I wouldn’t go to an atheist to get his opinion on evolution and God. Their ignorant of God. They don’t know. If one brings up relativity, the hydrologic cycle, quantum mechanics, and any other scientific fact and they will say it disproves the creation of God. Does it? No, and if an atheists say that one wouldn’t believe them. So why should we then believe them when they say evolution disproves God. Most of those atheists out there who do think that evolution disproves God aren’t even biologists themselves.
Why is it that so many people can believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time and not have a problem? Why do so many scientists and biologists not have a problem with these as mutually inclusive ideas?
Don’t worry. You could not have possibly known what point I was going to make because I did not tell you what my point was going to be. I’ve argued all this before. These are all inerrancy issues and science versus religion questions. These issues were settled by the Church in the latter half of the 18th century and the first half of the twentieth century. One might as well be arguing that Matthew and Luke didn’t use sources, Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch, or the book of Daniel was written during the 6th century BCE. It’s all milk to me now. One might as well be singing “Zacchaeus was a wee little man” to me.
We must dig deeper. What does the evolution mean for Man in his relation with God? If the first Man was very biologically different from contemporary Man, what does that mean about Man being created in the likeness of God?
These million and billion year old models of the universe continuing to create itself over time are sublime. Man is continuing to be molded. The earth, through storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, and the natural erosion of water and gravity, is carefully being carved and by God from eternity. It’s like a man with his bonsai tree. It’s a man tending his garden. It’s the Creator creating and continuing to create and, therefore, still enjoying His creation.
He is continuing to create us as well. The parables of Jesus are wonderful in conveying this. All the agricultural metaphors as applied to humanity.
Really, how sublime is the creation!
How like God is evolution! How like God is the slow change towards perfection! He shapes the His universe. He molds it like a potter with water and dirt over time. Just as water shapes the earth (erosion and the hydrologic cycle) so our bodies are shaped (cell-division cycle) over time until we are not biologically the same being we were when we first started. It is astounding!
In the first creation story God is seen at a distance when creating. However, in the second creation story, God is anthropomorphic and walking in and amongst His creation. He plants a garden, He forms animals from out of the ground, He forms man from the dust of the ground like a kid making mud pies, like a potter at his clay.
And God continues to create. He is continually shaping the universe. The creative process continues, both geologically, biologically and spiritually. God continues to form His world through weathering. God continues to form biological man through evolution. God continues to form spiritual man through sanctification. The creation goes on. God continues to create and God continues to be active in the forming of His world.
How could He not be?
To say that evolution or weathering or the hydrologic cycle is not evidence of God’s creative activity is nonsensical. Quite the opposite! Evolution et al is proof of God’s creative activity. That it resembles many other means of His creative process should be of no surprise to any of us.
To say that God should not have created by evolution ... well, it’s one think to tell Mozart he should not have first created Don Giovanni with the actors alternating between spoken recitatives and sung arias and then preferring the latter secco-recitatives composed by Mozart in place of the spoken text, but to tell God He shouldn’t use evolution to create because it is a method beneath His dignity as creator? Nonsense! It is not a mediocre method of creativity on the part of God; it is a method that has a quality of transcendental greatness whispers to our spirits of the majesty and glory that is God. All other animal life in the universe walks around in a condition of utter indifference to the splendor that surrounds them. But we who are made in the image of our creator can gaze up and around at it all and (like the psalmists and the author of the book of Job) appreciate with a sliver of transcendental finity that which is reflected as the creative process.
To somehow say that God did not or could not employ the method of evolution in his creative process is tantamount to saying that God did not create at all.
“See that perfectly formed pocket watch? Was it random chance that it appeared as a perfectly functioning watch? See that painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Did it randomly appear as such out of then air? Is Don Quixote the result of a million monkeys typing?”
Frank - “See that elderly man over there with all the wrinkles and laugh lines under the eyes? How much would you wager that God created him as an old man?”
Ernest - “Nonsense! He shows all the signs of the aging process. He started off one way and only changed into that person over time.”
Frank - “Are you saying that God could not create a man who is already old?”
Ernest – “Of course God could do that, but it is a matter of whether God did do that. As we look at His other work it is a better wager to suggest that God created that man over time.”
Frank – “So if God said that He Himself created this man as an elderly man –“
Ernest – “Well, that’s different. Then God created that man as elderly from the get go.”
Frank – “But God just says that He created that man.”
Ernest – “Which leaves me to maintain that God created him the way He creates everyone else.”
And to somehow say that evolution would mean a less than sublime sense of creation … well, it’s like that slight moment of embarrassment when brilliant poet T.S. Eliot referred to Hamlet as an artistic failure. A reference to which literary critic Harold Bloom responded, “Then show me an artistic success!”
And nowhere does the Bible teach that God did not use biological evolution to create the universe. Of course, the same can be said of gravity, photosynthesis, relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, cell-division, and a million other aspects of God’s creation. Simply because the Bible is silent on an issue it does not mean that the issue does not exist. Do the Bible writers explain the rules of Greek phonetics when want to tell a story? Must Hieronymus Bosch explain how he mixes the oil and how he paints on wood panels as well as create The Garden of Earthly Delights?
Nowhere does the Bible actually give any explanation of how God forms objects; that is not the Bible’s purpose. What is important is that “God formed Man”, all else is secondary with regards to creation. One Scripture writer states that “God formed him in his mother’s womb.” How God did so the writer doesn’t say. That it took a sperm and an egg, cell division and nine months of gestation is completely missing from his statement. Are we then to say, “No, God doesn’t create Man over nine months and by cell division because the Bible doesn’t say so; it simply says God forms man, therefore God forms man immediately.”?
Did God form Adam using any scientific principle by which all those after him are created? Did God use cell division? Did God use DNA? Did He create the skeleton first or the organs first? Did He start from the outside in or the inside out? Did He turn the dust into cells or DNA first and then construct that out of man or did He make a mud statue and then bring that to life? Was the statue wet or dry? When did man first have atoms and various subatomic particles? Did God use scientific laws for creating man or did he break all the known scientific laws of the already created universe to make man? Did God turn dust into a sperm and an egg and then allow the gestation process to do its work? At what point did the cells come alive: before or exactly at the point that man was granted conscious? If God took dust and created live cells that he then turned those live cells into a man does this contradict the Bible?
“God spoke to create all but man, and He personally formed man from the dust of the ground.” Well, what about everyone else since Adam? How can Jeremiah say that God formed him? He didn’t did he? No, a sperm from his dad and an egg from his mom formed him, not God. Is Jeremiah less than the image of God because he was not directly formed from dust as Adam? God did speak to create man; the Bible clearly says so. Everything that exists as creation was created by the Word of God, including man. Jesus Himself was created by the Word of God, that certainly doesn’t make Him less than Adam.
For as long as I have been discussing the issue of science and the Faith, I have always heard believers who disbelieve in evolution cite, as their authority, atheists. Why is this done? Why are atheists cited? Why not cite theistic evolutionists? I know why; it would defeat your argument.
Who cares what atheists and “secular” scientists think? They don’t believe in God, so why should any believer cite them as an authority about God?
Would I go to a person who only has a vague awareness of James Joyce, has never read Ulysses, does not like Joyce from the little he has heard, and then ask for his opinion on what the purpose of the "Circe" chapter is? No, I would go to someone who actually has read Ulysses and get his opinion. I wouldn’t go to a person who doesn’t know Greek and get his opinion on particular uses of the genitive? That a punk rocker or rapper doesn’t agree with or even understand baroque music does not therefore place their opinion of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos in any high level of musical authority in my personal artistic pantheon. Furthermore, I wouldn’t go to someone who hasn’t studied biology to get their scientific opinion on evolution. Thus, I wouldn’t go to an atheist to get his opinion on evolution and God. Their ignorant of God. They don’t know. If one brings up relativity, the hydrologic cycle, quantum mechanics, and any other scientific fact and they will say it disproves the creation of God. Does it? No, and if an atheists say that one wouldn’t believe them. So why should we then believe them when they say evolution disproves God. Most of those atheists out there who do think that evolution disproves God aren’t even biologists themselves.
Why is it that so many people can believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time and not have a problem? Why do so many scientists and biologists not have a problem with these as mutually inclusive ideas?
Don’t worry. You could not have possibly known what point I was going to make because I did not tell you what my point was going to be. I’ve argued all this before. These are all inerrancy issues and science versus religion questions. These issues were settled by the Church in the latter half of the 18th century and the first half of the twentieth century. One might as well be arguing that Matthew and Luke didn’t use sources, Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch, or the book of Daniel was written during the 6th century BCE. It’s all milk to me now. One might as well be singing “Zacchaeus was a wee little man” to me.
We must dig deeper. What does the evolution mean for Man in his relation with God? If the first Man was very biologically different from contemporary Man, what does that mean about Man being created in the likeness of God?
These million and billion year old models of the universe continuing to create itself over time are sublime. Man is continuing to be molded. The earth, through storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, and the natural erosion of water and gravity, is carefully being carved and by God from eternity. It’s like a man with his bonsai tree. It’s a man tending his garden. It’s the Creator creating and continuing to create and, therefore, still enjoying His creation.
He is continuing to create us as well. The parables of Jesus are wonderful in conveying this. All the agricultural metaphors as applied to humanity.
Really, how sublime is the creation!
How like God is evolution! How like God is the slow change towards perfection! He shapes the His universe. He molds it like a potter with water and dirt over time. Just as water shapes the earth (erosion and the hydrologic cycle) so our bodies are shaped (cell-division cycle) over time until we are not biologically the same being we were when we first started. It is astounding!
In the first creation story God is seen at a distance when creating. However, in the second creation story, God is anthropomorphic and walking in and amongst His creation. He plants a garden, He forms animals from out of the ground, He forms man from the dust of the ground like a kid making mud pies, like a potter at his clay.
And God continues to create. He is continually shaping the universe. The creative process continues, both geologically, biologically and spiritually. God continues to form His world through weathering. God continues to form biological man through evolution. God continues to form spiritual man through sanctification. The creation goes on. God continues to create and God continues to be active in the forming of His world.
How could He not be?
To say that evolution or weathering or the hydrologic cycle is not evidence of God’s creative activity is nonsensical. Quite the opposite! Evolution et al is proof of God’s creative activity. That it resembles many other means of His creative process should be of no surprise to any of us.
To say that God should not have created by evolution ... well, it’s one think to tell Mozart he should not have first created Don Giovanni with the actors alternating between spoken recitatives and sung arias and then preferring the latter secco-recitatives composed by Mozart in place of the spoken text, but to tell God He shouldn’t use evolution to create because it is a method beneath His dignity as creator? Nonsense! It is not a mediocre method of creativity on the part of God; it is a method that has a quality of transcendental greatness whispers to our spirits of the majesty and glory that is God. All other animal life in the universe walks around in a condition of utter indifference to the splendor that surrounds them. But we who are made in the image of our creator can gaze up and around at it all and (like the psalmists and the author of the book of Job) appreciate with a sliver of transcendental finity that which is reflected as the creative process.
To somehow say that God did not or could not employ the method of evolution in his creative process is tantamount to saying that God did not create at all.
“See that perfectly formed pocket watch? Was it random chance that it appeared as a perfectly functioning watch? See that painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Did it randomly appear as such out of then air? Is Don Quixote the result of a million monkeys typing?”
Frank - “See that elderly man over there with all the wrinkles and laugh lines under the eyes? How much would you wager that God created him as an old man?”
Ernest - “Nonsense! He shows all the signs of the aging process. He started off one way and only changed into that person over time.”
Frank - “Are you saying that God could not create a man who is already old?”
Ernest – “Of course God could do that, but it is a matter of whether God did do that. As we look at His other work it is a better wager to suggest that God created that man over time.”
Frank – “So if God said that He Himself created this man as an elderly man –“
Ernest – “Well, that’s different. Then God created that man as elderly from the get go.”
Frank – “But God just says that He created that man.”
Ernest – “Which leaves me to maintain that God created him the way He creates everyone else.”
And to somehow say that evolution would mean a less than sublime sense of creation … well, it’s like that slight moment of embarrassment when brilliant poet T.S. Eliot referred to Hamlet as an artistic failure. A reference to which literary critic Harold Bloom responded, “Then show me an artistic success!”
Thursday, June 08, 2006
“One” Man And “One” Woman?
As I have been occasionally writing the book on my experiences in seminary, I have been recollecting on how my understanding of marriage, divorce and homosexuality has changed. In particular, I was trying to grasp what the definition of marriage is. We hear that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. The man and woman aspect of this definition I am in full agreement upon. However, it is the “one” man and “one” woman aspect that has me puzzled. For instance:
If a man has two wives, is he truly married to both of them?
If he is only truly married to one and not the other, which is which?
If he is truly married to the woman he wedded first and the second is nothing but adultery, then if the first wife dies is he then married to the second wife and no longer committing adultery.
Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah by her father Laban, yet Jacob honored the marriage. However, he then turned around and married Rachel, the woman he wanted to marry in the first place. Was Jacob married to both? Was he only married to one? If so, which one? Rachel or Leah?
Polygamy was practiced in the Ancient Near East (ANE): was this marriage practice honored by God? Apparently it was. In fact, according to Scripture, God appears to honor polygamous marriages.
I think what we have here is another case of cultural relativity. I think that while God honored the polygamous marriages of the ANE, he would not do so today. This is a part of the progressive revelation we often encounter in Scripture. Just as God one honored slavery, He now no longer tolerates such behavior.
If a man has two wives, is he truly married to both of them?
If he is only truly married to one and not the other, which is which?
If he is truly married to the woman he wedded first and the second is nothing but adultery, then if the first wife dies is he then married to the second wife and no longer committing adultery.
Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah by her father Laban, yet Jacob honored the marriage. However, he then turned around and married Rachel, the woman he wanted to marry in the first place. Was Jacob married to both? Was he only married to one? If so, which one? Rachel or Leah?
Polygamy was practiced in the Ancient Near East (ANE): was this marriage practice honored by God? Apparently it was. In fact, according to Scripture, God appears to honor polygamous marriages.
I think what we have here is another case of cultural relativity. I think that while God honored the polygamous marriages of the ANE, he would not do so today. This is a part of the progressive revelation we often encounter in Scripture. Just as God one honored slavery, He now no longer tolerates such behavior.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
God Does Not Call The Rain To Fall
I think we must now admit that God does not call the rain to fall. I do not think that we can tenably state that God causes the rain to fall; such is scientifically impossible.
See the hydrologic cycle
As we can see from the above diagram representing the scientific research of hundreds of years of inquiry, the cause of rain is completely removed from the activities of God.
Now we do have Scriptural references that appear to suggest that God makes rain:
Gen 2:5; 7:4; Ex 9:18; Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1Sa 12:17; Job 5:10; Ps 68:9; Jer 5:24; Joe 2:23; Amo 4:7; Mat 5:45; Act 14:17
Therefore, I suggest that we now take these passages as figurative and not literal. Because, as science has so overwhelming proven, rain has absolutely nothing to do with God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)