“’Can Christianity make itself real to us, just as we are?’ It is exactly the same urgent need of all those who would lay claim to the name of Christian on any grounds… to justify Christianity in the present age; there is exactly the same presupposition, namely that the Archimedean point, the firm starting point which stands beyond all doubt has already been found (be it in reason, culture, or the idea of the people) and the moveable, questionable, uncertain element is the Christian message.; and there is exactly the same method, namely to go about the interpretation in such a way that the biblical message is passed through the sieve of humanity’s own knowledge – what will not go through is scorned and tossed away. The message is trimmed and cropped until it fits the frame which has been decided… This is just the way people have tamed for themselves a usable Christianity, and it is only a matter of time and honest thought before they lose interest in their creation and get rid of it… Second, however, there also follows the cry, doubtless in part uttered with great passion and subjective earnestness, for the relevance of the Christian message… This is surely not to be taken seriously… it was at best the terror-stricken shout of those who saw the gulf between Christianity and the world opening up beneath them, who, conscious of their complete conformity to the world, recognized that it was all up with Christianity for themselves, but were not strong enough to say a clear “yes” and an equally clear “no”, and cravenly pulled down Christianity with themselves in their fall into the world. The clearest indication of this is the fact that no one here found the courage to ask afresh after the FACT of the Christian message; they sought only it’s RELEVANCE, precisely in order to evade the fact. But where the question of relevance becomes the theme of theology, we can be certain that the cause has already been betrayed and sold out.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Interpretation of the New Testament”)
The conviction issued forth from this passage crackles with the same liveliness and force today as it ever did in it’s own time and context. It is so potent in its prophetic forcefulness that, upon a first reading, one is terribly tempted to immediately conscript Bonhoeffer’s words into service against one’s theological foes; that theological ‘other’ in whom we so easily see the signs of this sin of surgical, neutering contextualization of Gospel truth. For that first moment, we might even sigh in pleasure at the thought of the other, forced to squirm under the harsh and revealing light of Bonhoeffer’s indictment of them. For a moment, these words may feel like vindication.
But only for a moment.
Because if we are honest, as that initial moment passes, we begin to perceive that our own hearts and motives are becoming illuminated, too. We start to realize that the truth of these words cannot be merely conscripted for our own purposes without first doing their powerfully unflattering work upon us, pressing us toward a previously unknown depth of humility. It is inescapable, because what Bonhoeffer puts his finger on here is not merely some boutique theological error, but on the very pulse of human sin itself. Namely, that rebellion of the human heart against the call to surrender to the “Imago Dei” which we have been created to bear, in preference for the illusion of self-definition and human autonomy. Humanity’s sin is - and has always been - that we are not content with being in relationship with God; rather we, all of us, prefer to BE God unto ourselves. What the writer of Genesis tells us of the fall of Adam and Eve, Bonhoeffer here articulates with regards the world of scriptural interpretation in light of Christ and the Christian message; namely that, all too often, we are not content or inclined to allow the message of Christ to mould us. Rather, instead of being satisfied with our calling to be faithful interpreters, we set ourselves up as authors and editors; molding and contextualizing the Gospel of Christ until it seamlessly fits the broken world in which we are already comfortable. We have created a god in our own image
In the “liberal” church today, this tendency toward ‘relevance’ - rather than surrender to the ‘fact’ of Christ - is playing itself out most publically and poignantly in the conversation around human sexuality, the heart of which centers on the question of whether we will interpret our drives and physical/emotional passions in light of scripture, or interpret scripture in light of an understanding of humanity’s various sexual appetites as the immoveable or ‘a priori’ reality. A rather striking example of this – albeit outside the more predictable lines of liberal mainline denominations – was presented in the news just this past week, as Bishop Jim Swilley of Atlanta megachuch, “Church in the Now” was noted to have come before his congregation with an admission regarding his own sexuality. His statement was striking: "There are two things in my life that are an absolute," said Swilley, "… One was the call of God on my life... and the other thing ... was my sexual orientation." “Absolute”. When prioritized to the point of the a priori, the absolute, the ‘Archimedean starting point’, as Bonhoeffer puts it, human sexuality (or anything else, for that matter) becomes that point around which all other truth claims, including our interpretation of the revelation of scripture, must bend around in order to be given a hearing. This is a danger and a blindness.
My own experience and observations in this arena confirm Bonhoeffer’s convictions regarding what happens when we place our own appetites and self-perceptions in the place of the foundational, the immoveable, such that all other claims to truth must either be conformed to them or disregarded entirely. Namely that, over time, the “Christianity” which is forced to exist within these preconditions steadily declines further and further into a self-referential and suicidal abstraction. Either Christ, his message and his Lordship is the central, the foundational, the immoveable reality, and that to which everything else in us must conform, or else all our grand posturing and grasping at a Christianity of some kind constitutes merely a parody of that which we had been initially seeking. In time, we soon abandon our creation altogether.
In the Evangelical church, with our proudly held high esteem for scripture, the pitfalls are often of a different sort, but no less profound. The troubling reality is that, for most of us, our places of most deeply held rebellion against wholehearted surrender to the Gospel of Christ are also almost always those to which we are most blind. In the American evangelical Church, especially, comfortable lifestyles and relative affluence have become the basic prerequisite assumptions underlying our interpretation and application of scripture. There are many places where Christ, in speaking about money, and in speaking about what it means to follow him, comes across so radically in contrast with the lifestyles which we have simply come to assume that our interpretation quickly and easily becomes a defensive deflection more than a genuine openness to conviction and transformation. Similar ‘a priori’ type assumptions have taken root in things like Patriotism and militarism within the Church; where Jesus has things to say that would challenge us to think more deeply or critically in these areas of our lives - both personally and corporately – our tendency is to avoid and deflect. Contextualization to the point of philosophical abstraction is a powerful strategy for this purpose; where Jesus says things that are simply too hard for us to hear, we find ways to satisfy ourselves that, though this may be what Jesus SAID, it is not really what he MEANT - at least not with regards to us, personally. This stems from the same self-centered ‘absolutizing’ that plagues more liberal denominations; as evangelicals, we just tend to be more subtle in our de-structuring of scriptural mandates. Bonhoeffer presents this word for us, too.
In general, the pursuit of ‘relevance’ by the Church, within the shifting cultural paradigms of our own day, is a complex and perilous aim. On the one hand there is, I believe, a genuine goodness of heart and theological seriousness that drives the Church to seek cultural forms and modes of expression in order to present the Gospel – the message of Christ - to people in a language which they are able to most easily understand. For the same reason that the international work of translating the written Bible into thousands upon thousands of native dialects for the sake of reaching the unreached is such a noble one, I believe that the incarnational nature of the Gospel itself demands proper cultural contextualization. The Gospel is creation-wide, not wed to any one culture or historical manner of thinking, and as such requires a thoughtful, faithful application and communication in a wide variety of environments. At it’s best, this strikes me as the pure heart of any quest for ‘relevance’; not that we are trying to craft a new gospel, made in our image and so relevant to our own experience, but that, in the knowledge that the Gospel of Christ IS infinitely relevant - regardless of time, culture or context - we seek to faithfully express that inherent, eternal relevance to our own time and culture in forms and through methods that they are able to understand.
Herein lies the challenge, and the danger, however. For while the desire to communicate the inherent relevance of Christ may stem from scriptural faithfulness and Godly concern, this quest is all too easily turned inward, becoming self-justifying and self-defining. It is a short road from seeking to reveal the inherent relevance of the Gospel to trimming the Gospel down in order that it becomes safer, popular and more convenient for us to communicate. There is but a short distance between seeking to communicate the true Gospel in our own particular language, and molding the Gospel itself until it fits more comfortably within that language and culture. The only thing that divides faithfulness and deadly error in these places is our willingness to surrender everything - all of ourselves and every aspect of our culture – to the one, true, rightful a priori and unmovable reality: the revealed Word. We must surrender Christ to nothing; surrendering all to Christ. In Him, and in the scriptures that reveal Him, we find the only authoritative window upon human reality as it was intended and the end to which humanity will ultimately be restored. Christ is both our foundation and our horizon, beginning and end, our promise and our hope. It is only in holding Christ as our center that we will be saved from the fatal errors of our own rebellion and the deadly self-centeredness of our own hearts. It is this that Bonhoeffer reminds us of with such eloquence in this passage; a reminder in the light of which we ought to dwell with certain humility and seriousness in order that we might be more fully conformed to that great and glorious image in and for which we have been created.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
History, Faith, Skepticism and the Deeper Conversation
"Dr. Hugenberger clearly points out that faith is not simply “believing something that you know isn’t true.” In fact, he says, you can use your brain, do research, and even listen to your critics. Many critics of the Bible state that evangelicals just “blindly trust” the Bible as God’s Word without being able to prove that the events the Bible occurred (eg. The Flood, Plagues in Egypt, or the Red Sea parting) or without being able to prove the fact that God even exists. How ought we respond to these critics? "
However one might choose to respond to a criticism of this sort, it serves us to name the reality that, in general, anyone who bothers to raise this particular critique often has very little appreciation for how we come to "know" anything at all; especially when it comes to matters of ancient history. To quote a bit of commentary from the NIV Archeological Study Bible; "If every narrative from the ancient world had to be specifically confirmed by archaeology, we would have no ancient history at all.” In truth, even some of the most historically 'tenuous' aspects of scripture have more documented and archeological support than some basic, extra-biblical historical facts which no one would ever think to question. The reason for skepticism on the one hand and 'blind' acceptance on the other? Why the seemingly endless campaign to discredit the record of scripture, while the majority of historical assertions are simply accepted at face value by most people? The reason, if we're honest, is that this debate is not really a matter of historical legitimacy at all. It is actually a conversation about basic, underlying convictions; convictions which precede and color our approach to the evidence of history. The reason this conversation is so loaded lies in the understanding, on both sides, that the story which scripture tells, if true, demands a response from us. The details of extra-biblical ancient history, on the other hand, are by-and-large merely informative, and do not impinge upon our sense of personal sovereignty in the manner which scripture does.
And so, while it might be tempting to merely parry historical evidences with a critic, I feel that the conversation would ultimately be better served by seeking to address the question underneath the questions. Namely, we must ask; why such a strong need for a skeptical outlook in these particular cases, and not in other areas of the historical record? What is the underlying conviction that motivates this skepticism? In the end, I believe you will find with most critics of this sort a basic aversion to the thought of a God like the God of scripture, interacting in and through history from outside the "closed course" of human affairs. To go yet deeper, I believe that this aversion is rooted in the often unconscious acceptance that were a God like this to exist, interacting with humanity in the manner which scripture asserts, this would not merely be interesting; it would be demanding. In the end, it is the essential rebellion at the heart of humankind that motivates much 'academic' skepticism: we have no desire to be called to change / worship / surrender, we know that to acknowledge a God of this sort would demand these responses from us, so we seek to rationally disallow any possibility of a God of this sort as an act of self defense couched, whenever possible, in academic concern.
Having gotten to the root of the issue, then one may be free to engage the evidence at hand more openly. For instance, if one does not automatically preclude out of hand the possibility of a God like the God of scripture, what is actually more likely; that Israel was freed from slavery in Egypt by a miraculous, "supernatural" work on their behalf, or that the Egyptian empire simply let a million slaves walk away from their labor, without making any mention of this supreme act of extremely costly charity on the part of Pharaoh? What requires more rational gymnastics to explain? The same goes for most every aspect of this debate; from creation to the resurrection - all of which, by the way, seem to be garnering more and more physical/historical evidence as the years go by; if we surrender the underlying conviction that that reality of a God of this sort is simply IMPOSSIBLE (which, consequently, is impossible to prove), we actually find that the foundation of most every criticism of this sort is critically compromised.
However one might choose to respond to a criticism of this sort, it serves us to name the reality that, in general, anyone who bothers to raise this particular critique often has very little appreciation for how we come to "know" anything at all; especially when it comes to matters of ancient history. To quote a bit of commentary from the NIV Archeological Study Bible; "If every narrative from the ancient world had to be specifically confirmed by archaeology, we would have no ancient history at all.” In truth, even some of the most historically 'tenuous' aspects of scripture have more documented and archeological support than some basic, extra-biblical historical facts which no one would ever think to question. The reason for skepticism on the one hand and 'blind' acceptance on the other? Why the seemingly endless campaign to discredit the record of scripture, while the majority of historical assertions are simply accepted at face value by most people? The reason, if we're honest, is that this debate is not really a matter of historical legitimacy at all. It is actually a conversation about basic, underlying convictions; convictions which precede and color our approach to the evidence of history. The reason this conversation is so loaded lies in the understanding, on both sides, that the story which scripture tells, if true, demands a response from us. The details of extra-biblical ancient history, on the other hand, are by-and-large merely informative, and do not impinge upon our sense of personal sovereignty in the manner which scripture does.
And so, while it might be tempting to merely parry historical evidences with a critic, I feel that the conversation would ultimately be better served by seeking to address the question underneath the questions. Namely, we must ask; why such a strong need for a skeptical outlook in these particular cases, and not in other areas of the historical record? What is the underlying conviction that motivates this skepticism? In the end, I believe you will find with most critics of this sort a basic aversion to the thought of a God like the God of scripture, interacting in and through history from outside the "closed course" of human affairs. To go yet deeper, I believe that this aversion is rooted in the often unconscious acceptance that were a God like this to exist, interacting with humanity in the manner which scripture asserts, this would not merely be interesting; it would be demanding. In the end, it is the essential rebellion at the heart of humankind that motivates much 'academic' skepticism: we have no desire to be called to change / worship / surrender, we know that to acknowledge a God of this sort would demand these responses from us, so we seek to rationally disallow any possibility of a God of this sort as an act of self defense couched, whenever possible, in academic concern.
Having gotten to the root of the issue, then one may be free to engage the evidence at hand more openly. For instance, if one does not automatically preclude out of hand the possibility of a God like the God of scripture, what is actually more likely; that Israel was freed from slavery in Egypt by a miraculous, "supernatural" work on their behalf, or that the Egyptian empire simply let a million slaves walk away from their labor, without making any mention of this supreme act of extremely costly charity on the part of Pharaoh? What requires more rational gymnastics to explain? The same goes for most every aspect of this debate; from creation to the resurrection - all of which, by the way, seem to be garnering more and more physical/historical evidence as the years go by; if we surrender the underlying conviction that that reality of a God of this sort is simply IMPOSSIBLE (which, consequently, is impossible to prove), we actually find that the foundation of most every criticism of this sort is critically compromised.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Theologians and Grammarians
"In chapter 3 of his book, An Introduction to Old Testament Study, John H. Hayes discusses the consequences of the Classical Renaissance on the field of biblical studies. He notes three elements in Renaissance thought that had a particularly significant effect. One of these was that, “Renaissance humanists stressed the use of grammatical analysis as the means for understanding ancient texts” (pg. 101). Hayes states that, according to Erasmus (1467-1536), “the trivial concerns of the grammarian are of more importance in understanding the biblical texts than the inquiries of theologians” (pg. 102).
What ought we think of this? How far can philology, grammar, and textual criticism go in interpretation? Should biblical studies take precedent to theology or should theology take precedent and inform our exegesis?"
To state my conviction simply at the outset: Solid scriptural exegesis trumps anyone's theological assertions. However, scripture study for the purpose of shaping theology is a discipline best undertaken in dialogue with the whole depth and breadth of the Church; in light of the clear convictions of the Christian community throughout history, in conversation with the Christian community in our own day, and with a keen awareness of the work of the Holy Spirit in making proper understanding possible.
As tools for proper understanding of scripture, language studies, grammar, text criticism and the like can be very powerful. That is, if we truly take scripture to constitute the self-revelation of God himself for the benefit of becoming known to humanity as he truly is, and this scripture was originally transcribed in a language and cultural context other than our own, then we ought to be very concerned that the scripture is then transmitted and communicated to us in a manner that accurately conveys what the original authors intended it to convey. This is the task of the biblical grammarian, historian and the like; to help wrestle, out of textual and contextual elements both large and minute, a more complete and accurate picture of the biblical author's work and intent. This is work which is foundational, essential, and primary to the interpretive and synthesizing work of the theologian; apart from the authority of genuine scriptural scholarship and biblical underpinning, theology is merely a work of rogue philosophy, rootless and ultimately limited in real benefit. In this sense, I would strongly assert that biblical studies take the foremost place, and inform our theology.
That said, tools are only as useful and effective as the person's hands in which they are wielded. Textual/contextual study is not an end in and of itself; while they can, and ought to, inform our interpretation and application of scripture, they cannot accomplish that work on their own. A fork can be useful for getting food to one's mouth, but the fork itself does not constitute food, nor does it lift itself from the plate; its effectiveness depends both upon who is eating, and what is being eaten. Every one of us is impaired, to one degree or another; both by sin, and by the natural limitations of our own wisdom. This realization ought to breed a strong sense of humility within us as we engage with scripture and the work of theology. For this reason, we are called to the mutually challenging/sharpening/clarifying work of engaging scripture in dialogue with community, both historic and present. The theology we inherit from the Church historic is of great value; the sum total of many lives worth of prayer, conversation and study by the community of the saints in Christ. We impoverish ourselves to neglect their insights, and it is in conversation with their theology that our own study of scripture will be enhanced and enriched, standing upon their shoulders and benefiting from their work.
All of this, finally, comes to naught lest we fail to recognize that it is only through the work of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts and minds that we are able to rightly discern the nature and voice of God; either in scripture, or in the voice of the saints.
To state my conviction simply at the outset: Solid scriptural exegesis trumps anyone's theological assertions. However, scripture study for the purpose of shaping theology is a discipline best undertaken in dialogue with the whole depth and breadth of the Church; in light of the clear convictions of the Christian community throughout history, in conversation with the Christian community in our own day, and with a keen awareness of the work of the Holy Spirit in making proper understanding possible.
As tools for proper understanding of scripture, language studies, grammar, text criticism and the like can be very powerful. That is, if we truly take scripture to constitute the self-revelation of God himself for the benefit of becoming known to humanity as he truly is, and this scripture was originally transcribed in a language and cultural context other than our own, then we ought to be very concerned that the scripture is then transmitted and communicated to us in a manner that accurately conveys what the original authors intended it to convey. This is the task of the biblical grammarian, historian and the like; to help wrestle, out of textual and contextual elements both large and minute, a more complete and accurate picture of the biblical author's work and intent. This is work which is foundational, essential, and primary to the interpretive and synthesizing work of the theologian; apart from the authority of genuine scriptural scholarship and biblical underpinning, theology is merely a work of rogue philosophy, rootless and ultimately limited in real benefit. In this sense, I would strongly assert that biblical studies take the foremost place, and inform our theology.
That said, tools are only as useful and effective as the person's hands in which they are wielded. Textual/contextual study is not an end in and of itself; while they can, and ought to, inform our interpretation and application of scripture, they cannot accomplish that work on their own. A fork can be useful for getting food to one's mouth, but the fork itself does not constitute food, nor does it lift itself from the plate; its effectiveness depends both upon who is eating, and what is being eaten. Every one of us is impaired, to one degree or another; both by sin, and by the natural limitations of our own wisdom. This realization ought to breed a strong sense of humility within us as we engage with scripture and the work of theology. For this reason, we are called to the mutually challenging/sharpening/clarifying work of engaging scripture in dialogue with community, both historic and present. The theology we inherit from the Church historic is of great value; the sum total of many lives worth of prayer, conversation and study by the community of the saints in Christ. We impoverish ourselves to neglect their insights, and it is in conversation with their theology that our own study of scripture will be enhanced and enriched, standing upon their shoulders and benefiting from their work.
All of this, finally, comes to naught lest we fail to recognize that it is only through the work of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts and minds that we are able to rightly discern the nature and voice of God; either in scripture, or in the voice of the saints.
Scripture, Israel, Grace, and New Creation
Scripture - the written Word of God - is the great, true story of God’s revealing and redemptive purposes through all time, culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the incarnate Word and God’s ultimate self-revelation and self-giving on the behalf of humanity. The Old Testament is best understood, as a whole, within the context of this great over-arching story: the story of God’s perfect intentions for humanity, our rebellion, and the great redemptive movement of God throughout history on our behalf to restore humanity unto himself.
Through the Old Testament, we see the first movements of this grand narrative laid out: God’s goodness and purposes in creation, humanity’s fall from those purposes, and the initiation of God’s redemption and restoration of the world through a particular people: Israel. Beginning with the Abrahamic covenant, the central message of the Old Testament is laid out: God is seeking a people for Himself; people who He might draw back into the life, blessing and relationship with himself for which they were created. God is seeking a people who would be the true image of Himself which they were created to be; a kingdom of priests, representatives, Holy “idols”; a people as wide and as rich and diverse as the world itself, called back to himself by, because of, and through His great love.
God begins with the descendents of one faithful man; choosing them, blessing them, setting them apart from all the world for his purposes; to be a picture of - and vehicle for – his blessing of that world. Through the struggles, trials and failures of this people we find two things: God’s holy covenant faithfulness and love, and humanity’s inability to return these to God. In the OT, among a great many other things, we come face to face with humanity’s desperate, inescapable need for – not merely perfect and sufficient instruction, but - a perfect and sufficient savior. In this way, the stage is set perfectly through the record which we find in the Old Testament for our longing for the rescue and redemption which we find in the New Testament.
Again, the unity of scripture, as I see it, is that it is together, the old and new covenants, the one, overarching story of God’s gracious and redemptive purposes across human history and experience. It is a single story, and it is the story of grace. Where the old and new covenants diverge , however, is in the manner in which mankind is able to experience that grace. Throughout the Old Testament, God’s covenant-building with the people of Israel was exercised through an outworking of his purposes and his grace that was largely external to people: God was walking in faithfulness with, and calling unto faithfulness, a people who were essentially – internally and eternally – broken.
Though they might periodically respond in love and obedience to the God who had called them out as a people and blessed them, and though there were certain people in their history who were more inclined to faithfulness than most, the reality remained that covenant faithfulness, obedience and righteousness were ultimately fruits that were foreign to the tree of the hearts of humanity; even Israel. Despite the overwhelming and miraculous workings of YAHWEH around them and on their behalf, we find that Israel was amazingly prone to infidelity, forgetfulness and rebellion. From the outside looking in, it is easy, in fact, for us to be incredulous at how easily God’s covenant people fell away from him, again and again. The reality comes more clearly into focus, however, when we realize that Israel, despite being graciously called into special relationship with God, and called to be his representatives in the world, still consisted of a people whose hearts were, essentially, defined by rebellion and sin. Because sin and death had not yet been ultimately dealt with by God, God could walk alongside a people, instructing, exhorting and blessing them, but God could not, without causing their immediate destruction, dwell within them.
This – a change of spirit – is precisely what we see alluded to in the new covenant promises of the Old Testament, and brought more clearly into focus in light of Christ. Ezekial 36:26 says, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” Notice here, how obedience is ultimately contingent upon the movement of a transplanted spirit within people; this has been the missing element for Israel throughout their history, and God now promises that his purpose is to give to humanity a new spirit – a spirit able to live in right relationship with God. We see this again in Jeremiah 31; "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." In the context of the Old Testament, God could write his law upon tablets of stone; a very real work of grace, but one external to the hearts of his people. In the New Testament, we find that because of what has been accomplished by Christ through his sacrificial death and victorious resurrection, God is able to do an internal work of grace within us; sending His own Spirit to dwell within us, essentially transforming us from a people of rebellion to a people of righteousness. The New Covenant is new, because it is marked by God’s moving within humanity, here and now, to do a work of new creation within our very hearts.
Ultimately, Paul describes this far better than I in Romans 8; “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2. because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.”
Thanks be to God.
Through the Old Testament, we see the first movements of this grand narrative laid out: God’s goodness and purposes in creation, humanity’s fall from those purposes, and the initiation of God’s redemption and restoration of the world through a particular people: Israel. Beginning with the Abrahamic covenant, the central message of the Old Testament is laid out: God is seeking a people for Himself; people who He might draw back into the life, blessing and relationship with himself for which they were created. God is seeking a people who would be the true image of Himself which they were created to be; a kingdom of priests, representatives, Holy “idols”; a people as wide and as rich and diverse as the world itself, called back to himself by, because of, and through His great love.
God begins with the descendents of one faithful man; choosing them, blessing them, setting them apart from all the world for his purposes; to be a picture of - and vehicle for – his blessing of that world. Through the struggles, trials and failures of this people we find two things: God’s holy covenant faithfulness and love, and humanity’s inability to return these to God. In the OT, among a great many other things, we come face to face with humanity’s desperate, inescapable need for – not merely perfect and sufficient instruction, but - a perfect and sufficient savior. In this way, the stage is set perfectly through the record which we find in the Old Testament for our longing for the rescue and redemption which we find in the New Testament.
Again, the unity of scripture, as I see it, is that it is together, the old and new covenants, the one, overarching story of God’s gracious and redemptive purposes across human history and experience. It is a single story, and it is the story of grace. Where the old and new covenants diverge , however, is in the manner in which mankind is able to experience that grace. Throughout the Old Testament, God’s covenant-building with the people of Israel was exercised through an outworking of his purposes and his grace that was largely external to people: God was walking in faithfulness with, and calling unto faithfulness, a people who were essentially – internally and eternally – broken.
Though they might periodically respond in love and obedience to the God who had called them out as a people and blessed them, and though there were certain people in their history who were more inclined to faithfulness than most, the reality remained that covenant faithfulness, obedience and righteousness were ultimately fruits that were foreign to the tree of the hearts of humanity; even Israel. Despite the overwhelming and miraculous workings of YAHWEH around them and on their behalf, we find that Israel was amazingly prone to infidelity, forgetfulness and rebellion. From the outside looking in, it is easy, in fact, for us to be incredulous at how easily God’s covenant people fell away from him, again and again. The reality comes more clearly into focus, however, when we realize that Israel, despite being graciously called into special relationship with God, and called to be his representatives in the world, still consisted of a people whose hearts were, essentially, defined by rebellion and sin. Because sin and death had not yet been ultimately dealt with by God, God could walk alongside a people, instructing, exhorting and blessing them, but God could not, without causing their immediate destruction, dwell within them.
This – a change of spirit – is precisely what we see alluded to in the new covenant promises of the Old Testament, and brought more clearly into focus in light of Christ. Ezekial 36:26 says, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” Notice here, how obedience is ultimately contingent upon the movement of a transplanted spirit within people; this has been the missing element for Israel throughout their history, and God now promises that his purpose is to give to humanity a new spirit – a spirit able to live in right relationship with God. We see this again in Jeremiah 31; "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." In the context of the Old Testament, God could write his law upon tablets of stone; a very real work of grace, but one external to the hearts of his people. In the New Testament, we find that because of what has been accomplished by Christ through his sacrificial death and victorious resurrection, God is able to do an internal work of grace within us; sending His own Spirit to dwell within us, essentially transforming us from a people of rebellion to a people of righteousness. The New Covenant is new, because it is marked by God’s moving within humanity, here and now, to do a work of new creation within our very hearts.
Ultimately, Paul describes this far better than I in Romans 8; “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2. because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.”
Thanks be to God.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Brief Reflections, part 3: Man's Chief End
"What is the chief end of man? - To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." - WSC; 1
"Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
11"You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being."...
... Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."" - Rev. 4:9-11; 21:1-4
What a different lens on reality this is… To genuinely appreciate that the purpose of our existence is the glory of someone else, and that we are built to find joy in that, would certainly change how we live. When God walks down the street in the Heavenly Jerusalem, you simply don't notice anyone else; least of all yourself. Living in light of eternity, we ought to practice; begin living out what it means to find joy in someone else’s glory, now. This directly affects how we live with one another, not as competitors, but as self-giving advocates. There is a reason that loving God and loving others goes hand in hand... selfishness simply has no foothold in eternity.
"Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
11"You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being."...
... Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."" - Rev. 4:9-11; 21:1-4
What a different lens on reality this is… To genuinely appreciate that the purpose of our existence is the glory of someone else, and that we are built to find joy in that, would certainly change how we live. When God walks down the street in the Heavenly Jerusalem, you simply don't notice anyone else; least of all yourself. Living in light of eternity, we ought to practice; begin living out what it means to find joy in someone else’s glory, now. This directly affects how we live with one another, not as competitors, but as self-giving advocates. There is a reason that loving God and loving others goes hand in hand... selfishness simply has no foothold in eternity.
Brief Reflections, part 2: Worship
"But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." - Heb. 12:22-24
God’s presence is truly and actually in our midst; particularly in worship. So often I approach God as if His presence must be imagined into place or conjured up somehow… But it isn’t God that needs to change; it is the tuning of my own awareness, the sharpening of my own senses, that I might genuinely perceive the presence of the God who is actually here. I long for that awareness, that I might worship and serve more fully and truly.
God’s presence is truly and actually in our midst; particularly in worship. So often I approach God as if His presence must be imagined into place or conjured up somehow… But it isn’t God that needs to change; it is the tuning of my own awareness, the sharpening of my own senses, that I might genuinely perceive the presence of the God who is actually here. I long for that awareness, that I might worship and serve more fully and truly.
Brief Reflections, part 1: Christ in Me
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - The Apostle Paul; Gal. 2:20
How would living according to the reality of ‘Christ in me’ change my day to day? How I see myself? How I see other people? Might I look upon my own existence with more hope, more joy, more life, and with more ability to love, were I to be more consciously aware of the life of Christ living in me? Would such an awareness not prove transformative? Would it not draw me into greater Christ-likeness?
How would living according to the reality of ‘Christ in me’ change my day to day? How I see myself? How I see other people? Might I look upon my own existence with more hope, more joy, more life, and with more ability to love, were I to be more consciously aware of the life of Christ living in me? Would such an awareness not prove transformative? Would it not draw me into greater Christ-likeness?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Lewis and Clark
Band's in the room
the trumpets tune
violins hold their place.
The silence breathes
expectantly
with frozen feet - no musical sheets.
Come with me
though we do not know the way
to navigate this maze.
I'll follow the song
that's flowing in our veins
written by God's graces, love.
I'll be Lewis
you play Clark
it's a vast frontier, love, opening up.
We'll find our way
our songs intonate
with this symphony of open space
Come with me
though we do not know the way
to navigate this maze.
I'll follow the song
that's flowing in our veins
written by God's graces, love.
Band's in the room
the trumpets tune
violins hold their place.
the trumpets tune
violins hold their place.
The silence breathes
expectantly
with frozen feet - no musical sheets.
Come with me
though we do not know the way
to navigate this maze.
I'll follow the song
that's flowing in our veins
written by God's graces, love.
I'll be Lewis
you play Clark
it's a vast frontier, love, opening up.
We'll find our way
our songs intonate
with this symphony of open space
Come with me
though we do not know the way
to navigate this maze.
I'll follow the song
that's flowing in our veins
written by God's graces, love.
Band's in the room
the trumpets tune
violins hold their place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)