Ni'ma: Thoughts on Grace

Women and Work-Life Balance

2009-06-08T09:58:00.002-04:00

This paper was written for a course on the Christian life that looked specifically at the theology of work. Right now, I'm pretty sure this is a mediocre paper... but I'm just starting to flesh out these thoughts and any feedback would be appreciated.

Women in the Workforce:

Understanding Work-Life Balance in the Context of Calling

What is the proper role of women in the workforce? How should a Christian woman integrate faith and work, especially when balancing family and career? I find myself struggling with this question personally, and was a bit shocked (and dismayed) to find so little written on women in the workforce from a Christian perspective. While Scripture clearly addresses women working both within and outside the context of the home and marriage, the lack of scholarly articles or biblical exegesis written on the subject is alarming. This is certainly an issue pertinent to both the Church and our larger, secular society.

The work-life balance is a pressing issue. National Public Radio recently featured an hour-long segment on The Diane Rhem Show on this very topic.[1] Guests on the show spoke of the differing attitudes that women and men take toward work and career. Where men tend to see their career paths as ladders with successive rungs, women view their path as waves which ebb and flow. Jennifer Marshal describes this phenomenon in her book, Now and Not Yet, by comparing a man's career trajectory to Tampa, and a woman's to Chicago. Work from a man's perspective remains constant, like the weather in Tampa. For a woman, however, "work is typically variable. A young woman looking forward to marriage has to anticipate some major season changes."[2] Her work-life balance can encompass some drastic season changes, like the weather in Chicago. From my own experience, this rings true. I am pursing my "dream career" in academia, and yet as the prospects of marriage and family become more tangible, I sense a shift in my own desires. There is a willingness to postpone career for family, or at the very least, pursue one part-time over the other. That tension is palpable for women in every season of life, and directly impacts how we see our work, careers, family obligations, and more significantly, how we understand our calling.

This paper aims to understand the Bible's view of women in the workforce, whether inside or outside the home, and how that relates to calling. First, I will examine what biblical passages shed light on how women are to integrate faith and work. Next I will look at what principles can be derived from these passages, and how they can be broadly applied.

Old or New?

Turning to what Scripture teaches about a woman's work-life balance, there are several key Old and New Testament passages. However, the bulk of New Testament passages deal with women in a domestic context. The Haustafeln ("Household Tables" or "Rules for the Household") primarily describe submission in marriage (Col. 3:18-19, Eph. 5:22-33, Titus 2:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:1-7). These passages are intended to give guidance within the home but they do not address how a woman should participate in the public sphere. Other New Testament passages do dictate women's behavior in church life (1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15).

Titus

Titus 2:5 is the only New Testament source which provides some description of a woman's work. The ESV translates οἰκουργούς as "working at home." This is slightly misleading, as the term carries several meanings. It can denote "working at home" but it can also mean "keeper at/of the home", "caring for the house" or "taking care of household affairs." Oἰκουργούς is also a hapax legomenon[3], making it difficult to do word studies within the New Testament corpus. The NIV translates to the phrase "busy at home," however this application becomes even more difficult as it is impossible to know which term in the conjunction carries the most weight: "home" or "busy." Are women to be busy when they are at home? Or are they to be at home, being busy? The New Testament sheds little light on the issue, though there are certainly examples of women "being busy" both inside and outside the home (i.e., Phoebe, Mary and Martha, etc.).

Proverbs 31

Turning then to the Old Testament, we do find two clear examples of women engaged in the workforce. One is the description of a godly wife in Proverbs 31. The other is that of Ruth. As we will see, this pair is closely linked. The woman described at the end of Proverbs is capable, savvy, hard-working, and strong. Her character is excellent (v. 10), more precious than jewels (vs. 11), strong and dignified (vs. 25). Those around her trust her (vs. 11) and praise her (vs. 28, 30). As Bernhard Lang describes, the work of the 'capable wife' of Proverbs 31 is primarily focused on food and clothing.[4] She seeks wool and flax (vs. 13), works with willing hands (vs. 13), brings her food from afar and provides food for her household (vs. 14, 15), uses the distaff and spindle (vs. 19), makes bed coverings and linen garments (vs. 22, 24), sells the garments and sashes to merchants (vs. 24), and oversees the "ways of her household" (vs. 27). She is not idle and her products are profitable (vs. 18, 27). Furthermore, her household does not lack gain (vs. 11), and her lamp does not run out of oil at night (vs. 18), which indicates that she manages the estate well.

Running an estate included the planning, storage, and supervision of the preparation of food. Overseeing or participating in domestic textile production was also the woman's duty in the home. In antiquity, textiles served as a woman's "liquid wealth, for they could be readily converted to cash… women of all classes could weave and earn cash by this activity if necessary."[5] The production of clothing gave women economic power. Lang cites the Jewish midrash, which indicates that "a woman may become wealthy through her spinning (Midrash Bereshit rabbah Ivi 11)."[6] Other 5^th century B.C. Jewish documents describe similar garments to that of Proverbs 31, which wives would bring into their marriage contracts.[7]

The question of whether or not a woman in ancient Hebrew society had economic freedom to make estate decisions is open to debate. Generally, women were not landowners. However, the picture of the Proverbs 31 woman indicates otherwise. Verse 16 indicates that that woman acts on her own authority in considering and executing the purchase of a field. Furthermore, the wife invests in her own asset by developing the field into a vineyard. Lang suggests that "not only the purchase, but also the transformation of the field into a vineyard means that money has to be spent—workers have to be hired to prepare the ground, to build fences or walls, and to do the planting."[8] All of this points to the woman's active involvement in the household estate.

Ruth

Lang sees Proverbs 31 as a poem "celebrating a person bursting with energy, a competent and successful woman of Israel's social elite, recommended as a model to emulate. She must be considered a real woman endowed with credible characteristics."[9] Indeed, it's quite possible that Proverbs 31 is referring to a real woman. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ruth comes directly after the book of Proverbs. Both Proverbs 31:10 and Ruth 3:11 share the phrase 'ēšet hayil, which is translated as a "wife of noble character" (NIV), "capable wife" (NASB), "excellent wife" (ESV) in Proverbs and "worthy woman" in Ruth. Clearly there is a linking between the description of the Proverbs 31 woman and Ruth, whose own husband calls her 'ēšet hayil.[10] Boaz himself is called hayil (2:1), and while the ESV does justice by translating both 2:1 and 3:11 with "worthy", this does not capture the full picture of the word, which implies valor, strength, and might.[11]

The book of Ruth in the Old Testament is really the story of three women and their individual choices. Naomi, for a period, chooses bitterness and isolation. Orpah chooses the comforts of home. Ruth chooses to actively engage a new culture and new land, leaving behind her family and previous life. Ruth becomes the sole provider for herself and Naomi, and does so in such a way to draw attention to her godly character. Ruth "chose a woman rather than a man as the support of life and gleaned in the field actively (2:2) to support the family on her own. By showing kindness to Naomi, Ruth finally won the respect of Boaz (2:11 and 3:11) and of the women in Bethlehem (4:15)."[12]

Ruth's character traits include loyalty, faithfulness to God and others, a driven work ethic and humbleness. She is never addressed by her name by other characters but is affectionately called "my daughter" throughout the book. What she has done for Naomi is known (2:11), and her display of hesed[13] rattles Boaz and Bethlehem.[14] She takes the initiative to provide even more for Naomi (and her deceased husband's family line) by encouraging Boaz to join her in what Carolyn Custis James calls a "Blessed Alliance." By this, James describes what can occur when men and women work together to advance God's purposes – regardless of marital status or relationship.[15] Ruth is a relational, working woman. She is committed to her mother-in-law, but more importantly, she is driven to serve the Lord with all that she does (2:12).

Ruth's actions and character merit her comparisons with some of Israel's greatest women: Rachel, Leah (4:11), and Tamar (4:12). At the end of the story, the women of Bethlehem gather around Naomi to tell her how blessed she is to have Ruth as a daughter-in-law. They bestow the highest praise on Ruth, calling her better than seven sons (4:15). "Seven is the number for perfection, and sons are the most precious in a patriarchal society. Their appreciation was really saying that no matter how many and how perfect, sons were no better than Ruth."[16] The lineage(s) at the end of the book directly link Ruth with the messianic King David (4:17, 22), placing her in the line of Christ. She is clearly unique. What better woman than Ruth would fit the description of the 'capable wife' of Proverbs 31?[17]

Application of principles

What do we learn from Proverbs 31 and the example of Ruth? This is not the picture of a passive housewife. Ruth is driven, actively seeking provisions for her family, even when it means getting her hands dirty. The Proverbs 31 woman is talented, and uses her business skills to run the family estate and provide for all under her care. But she does so in order to serve the Lord. James points out that while we often think of Ruth as a love story, "We do not think of either woman in terms of mission, nor do we imagine that God is raising both women up for vital kingdom purposes."[18]

We see from Proverbs 31 that this capable woman provides for her household, including her servants, and serves the poor. Her abilities and skills benefit her family and her community. Her influence extends beyond the walls of her house. While much of her actual "work" takes place within the confines of her estate, it is important to remember that in un-industrialized societies, the home was (and still is) the central unit of economic production. A woman "leaving" the home to work did not make much sense.[19] Yet the Proverbs 31 woman is clearly fulfilling her purposes in serving the Lord with all her gifts and talents.

The same is true of Ruth. Her labor of love on behalf of Naomi benefits the entire Bethlehem community. Naomi's hope in the Lord is restored through witnessing His faithfulness through Ruth. Boaz joins the kingdom plan, although no one at the time realize they will be in the royal line of David. They are all eager to serve each other because they are serving the Lord first. Ruth and the 'capable wife' both share the desire to live the way the Lord defines a working woman. "He defined the woman as follows: 'Image bearer; created in God's image and likeness; called to be fruitful and multiply, to rule and subdue.'"[20] As James points out, this is the same definition given to man; both are called to be image bearers for God's kingdom purposes.

This reflects the core principle of Oz Guinness' book, The Call. We are called by the Caller. Ruth reflects this. She leaves her homeland to follow Naomi because she is following God (1:16). She encourages Naomi and Boaz to think outside the box about what God is doing in Bethlehem through them. Ruth is tuned in to what God is doing, and this directs her choice to glean, her interactions with Boaz, and her care for Naomi. She has integrated work and faith both outside and inside the home. The capable wife of Proverbs reflects this as well. All of her works are praise in the gates, because she fears the Lord (31:30-31). The foundation of her strength, dignity, wisdom and kindness are in her service to the One who calls her. She has integrated work and faith both inside and outside the home. Note that while Ruth likely is the prime example of the Proverbs 31 woman, in terms of actual manual labor, Ruth's work takes place outside her home, while the capable wife's work is primarily inside the home (or at least, on the family estate). Yet we cannot say of either that their spheres of influence are limited to their primary labor environments. And both are clearly praised as examples of Godly women to emulate. Their "work" is far more significant that what they do; it is captured in whom they serve.

Ultimately, for a woman to find a work-life balance, her sense of purpose has to be anchored in God.[21] Her outlook is one that embraces multiple callings, so that while situations and status may change, her focus remains on the Caller, and her highest calling as glorifying and enjoying him forever. A woman's highest call is not found in being a wife and mother, inside or outside the home, or even "working at home," but in following the Lord wherever he leads her. "When our identity is anchored in Christ and we have a sense of belonging to Him, He becomes the reference point by which we set the course of our lives."[22] A specific job, a specific relationship, or a certain life-milestone is not the whole of one's calling. Rather, in all aspects of our lives, we should engage our gifts and talents. This includes paid and unpaid work, relationships, service, family, and community activities. Marshall writes, "We should be looking at how God has made us, what gifts and responsibilities we have, and how those mesh with our opportunities to serve Him and others."[23]

Conclusions

Is this approach to calling and work-life balance really unique to women? Guinness outlines "our primary calling as followers of Christ is by him, to him, and for him", and our secondary calling is carrying that out in all we do.[24] Taking this one step further and applying it to women means understanding the constant pull women feel, whether conscious or subconscious, to define themselves by what they are doing instead of who they are in Christ. Marshall recounts the story of a female FBI agent which captures this very tension:

I love my work, but it's fifty hours a week. There is no way I could have a family life and work at what I do now with the same kind of hours. Every time I step into a relationship that looks like it has potential, I have all this angst. I start preparing myself to detach from professional life. Even if I remain a part-time professional, it would be completely different from what I do now. So I go through this battle where I try to envision myself pulling away from my current work life and moving toward family life. Then when the relationship ends, I have to do a reverse of all that.

Ruth and the Proverbs 31 woman speak to this kind of angst. These two Old Testament examples do not "have it all" because they are superwomen. They balance work, life, family, relationships and responsibilities because they answer the call of the Lord first. Their ability to find balance is not based on limiting themselves to working part-time at the office or full-time at home. They do not think of their callings in terms of labels and status, but in terms of glorifying God with their gifts. They do not limit themselves to being fruitful and multiplying, but take an active role in ruling and subduing as well. They answer the highest call of the Caller, finding their identity in image-bearers with kingdom purposes.

[1] "Claire Shipman & Katty Kay: "Womenomics"" on The Diane Rhem Show, WAMU 88.5. Original air date June 4, 2009. Information available here: http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/06/04.php#26161

[2] Jennifer Marshall, Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the Twenty-First Century. Multnomah Books, Colorado Springs, CO (2007); pg. 122

[3] This term indicates that the word only occurs once in the New Testament.

[4] Bernhard Lang, "Women's Work, Household and Property in Two Mediterranean Societies: A Comparative Essay on Proverbs XXXI 10-31" in Vetus Testamentum. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden (2004); 188-207

[5] S. Pomeroy in Xenophon, Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary, with a New Translation by Sarah B. Pomeroy (Oxford, 1994), pp. 62 and 63-64

[6] Lang, 194

[7] Lang, 194

[8] Lang, 203

[9] Lang, 189

[10] C. Marvin Pate, J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays; The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology. Downer's Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004. pg. 59

[11] See Julie L.C. Chu, "Returning Home: The Inspiration of the Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth for Taiwanese Women," Semeia, 78 (1997), 47-53; and Carolyn Custis James, The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (2008); 95.

[12] Chu, 50

[13] Hesed is the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament to describe the Lord's covenant faithfulness. The term is used in the book of Ruth to describe Ruth's actions towards Naomi (3:10). See James, 116-117

[14] James, 176

[15] Naomi, too, is part of this Blessed Alliance. See James, pg. 103-104.

[16] Chu, 50

[17] Boaz's discourse at the city gate in chapter 4 also parallels the husband of the Proverbs 31 wife.

[18] James, 62

[19] Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Home and Work: Women's Roles and the Transformation of Values," in Theological Studies, 36 (1975); 647-659

[20] James, 65

[21] Marshall, 106

[22] Marshall, 108

[23] Marshall, 119

[24] Os Guinness, The Call: Finding and Fulfilling The Central Purpose of Your Life. W Publishing Group, Nashville, Tennessee, (2003); 31

Leaving the lights on

2009-01-09T23:02:00.002-05:00

I try to be green. Ok, maybe not green... I don't drive a Hybrid or walk to work. But I want to be green. I recycle and reuse. I Freecycle. I rinse out my coffee mug at work instead of using the paper cups. My roommate noticed that I reuse Christmas gift bags and tissue. And, until New Year's Day, I was adamant about conserving energy. I turn off lights when I leave a room. I unplug my coffee maker when it's not in use. I turn off the power strip to my computer and printer at night. I use energy efficient bulbs wherever possible.

You get the idea.

On New Year's Day I was having dinner with a friend. While walking back to my car, my roommate called. We'd been burglarized. Our basement sliding door was kicked in, shattered glass everywhere. She didn't know what had been taken or where my cats were. I raced home to find my computer still sitting on my desk and my cats hiding under the bed.

I live in that basement. The den walks out to our back patio. My bedroom is a straight shot from the sliding door. I study, watch movies, sleep and eat here.

My family heirloom rings were in my sock drawer. I admit, this was not a smart place to keep them. But one does not think about being robbed until it happens. They are gone, along with a few pieces from my roommate's room and my camera. Perhaps they will show up someday in a pawn shop.

I leave lights on now. The back porch light stays on all night. We leave a light on in the kitchen at all times, and set other lights on timers. We bought door and window alarms, locks, chains, and peep holes. I try not to be angry that our landlord is not reimbursing us for them. I try to imagine having compassion for the robbers. I try to humanize them in my mind. But I lock my door at night and lock the door beyond that door. I know in my head that statistically we are not likely to be targeted again. I know that I only have six months left in this lease. I know that we are lucky things were not worse.

But I also know that the robbers know what I look like. They took my camera. They have seen pictures of me. They have been through my room. They took the pillow case off my bed to shove my family inheritance in. If I saw them walking down the street, they would know it was me but I would not know it was them.

I try to imagine what grace looks like here, now, in this place. I cannot go back and picture grace in the moment of the crime - If I had been home, sitting in my room, what would I have done? I cannot imagine that, so I move forward. I vacuum everyday. Someday soon the tiny, shiny beads of glass will finally disappear. The anger will subside. I will sleep without worrying about the doors and windows. I will be prepared to confront or comfort the robbers, given the opportunity. I will extend grace. Someday.

For now, I am leaving the lights on.

Finals Humor

2008-12-19T15:57:00.002-05:00

Even seminary professors have a sense of humor. This was the final page of my review sheet for Genesis-Joshua. Got a good giggle out of me.

----

If you feel overwhelmed by this review sheet, consider the possible alternative questions that have been used in previous final exams:

· Take the measurements of the Ark of Noah and build a miniature at 1/100 scale. Be sure to include the “souls” within the Ark.

· Find a nonbeliever and save him/her.

· As an application of Genesis 1, create life. You are free to choose the “kind” of life to create.

· Memorize the Book of Deuteronomy. Recite it to your proctor and have them sign in the space provided: _______________________________________(proctor signature).

· Solve the conundrum of the Divine Name YHWH. Leave no questions unanswered.

· Reenact the Day of Atonement. Be sure to follow the details of the garments of the High Priest. You need not to offer an actual sacrifice.

· Like Joshua 10:13, stop the sun. Once you do so, you are free to have the resulting time extension until the sun continues in its rotation.

· Predict the second coming of Christ. Prooftext your answer by using the Book of Genesis only.

Authority and asking "Why?"

2008-12-11T18:13:00.004-05:00

When someone who is your respected elder does/says something inappropriate, do you get to ask "Why?" Is it legitimate to question them on it? What if they are your boss? Or your boss' wife?

I am told that I don't get to ask "Why." That my professional opinion doesn't get a say in the matter, and that my personal feelings are of no consequence, and that I should just humbly submit to their authority.

What if I am convinced that biblically what they've done is wrong? And that biblically, am I not to let someone "look down on me because I am young"? What does that actually mean or look like?

Apologetics Application

2008-12-07T21:00:00.002-05:00

When considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn't.

- Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Introduction

For the past two months, I have met with a small group of "pub intellectuals" for a book discussion on Tim Keller's The Reason for God. We began over beers and fries though as a young Muslim couple joined the group, soda replaced suds but the discussions were not hampered. SpeakEasy, the name for our eclectic group, coincided with this course on apologetics. Putting into practice the transcendental method was both the most intellectually challenging and rewarding endeavor I've pursued in seminary thus far. In part, this was due to the company of my roommate, Allison. Her thorough thoughtfulness and sharp inquiries have helped refine my intellectual commitments to Christianity, as well as highlight the true significance of apologetics.

This response paper examines the brief book by Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.[1] Allison recommended this book and SpeakEasy will pick this up as our next study come January. This paper will examine Harris' critique of Christianity using the presuppositional method outlined in William Edgar's Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion. Edgar's title hints at what I've learned over the past few months: apologetics, while persuasive and often methodical, is about the heart in as much as it is about the mind. Paradigms, worldviews and bias collide when reason is put to faith, and only through uncovering ultimate heart commitments can we effectively communicate the Gospel message of Christ.

Harris' Heart

Letter, written in response to reactions by the faithful to Harris' first tome, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, outlines much of what drives Harris to conclude that organized religion is not only irrationally but evil.[2] Prior to deconstructing Harris' arguments against religion, we must understand his adherence to secular humanism. What drives Sam Harris? Harris values religious systems that are more philosophical in nature, like Jainism and Buddhism. He also values spiritual experiences, himself having been transformed by an encounter with Ecstasy.[3] He values morality, criticizing Christianity and the Bible on moral issues, sometimes rightly so.

He never provides a basis for humanist morality, yet he evidently needs morality to make sense of his world. He is highly concerned with what he labels "real morality." He states,
"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in the world… Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is."[4] Harris asserts this in an objective claim. Clearly it isn't.[5] Happiness is relatively defined and relatively experienced, and while it sounds rational that love be more desirable than hate, not every human experience supports this fact-claim.[6] Regardless, this statement illustrates Harris' need for objective moral reality, and his desire to reconcile human experience with his belief system.

Like many secular humanists and new atheists, Harris holds fast to reason. This is his primary concern with the morality of the Bible: it doesn't rationally make sense to him. Discrepancies cannot be plausible in the very word of God. Harris takes his disapproval of the scientific fallacies of the Bible a step further than most critics, arguing that not only is the science flawed, but that if this were the very word of God, why does it not include inarguable mathematical proofs as evidence of its divine origin?[7]

Harris' ultimate objection to religion is that it "divorce[s] morality from the reality of human and animal suffering."[8] Critics of Letter have said that Harris is essentially calling Christians, Jews and Muslims hypocrites but that is not actually where his objection lies. His argument against the morality of the Bible is twofold: one, if Christians (and Jews) actually practiced the law of the Old Testament, it would be morally reprehensible; and two, organized Christianity has incorrectly made moral issues about actions, not consequences.

He gives multiple examples of this divorce, two of which are worth noting. The first is that of slavery. Harris argues that the Abolitionists, while morally right, were biblically wrong.[9] For Harris, the biblical acceptance (and Old Testament approval) of slavery indicates that the Bible is morally flawed – and that it is not necessary to derive the basic principle of human dignity. "The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to won them and treat them like farm equipment."[10] Epistemologically, it's unclear how one comes to recognize this from Harris' view.

His second example relates to the impact of Christian attitudes about sex to health policies. He cites abortion, embryonic stem cell research, honor killings and AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa – all hindered by religiously influenced policies. While his criticism of Christian AIDS policies in Africa is more reflective of Catholic thought, he persuasively argues that prohibiting condom distribution and focusing on abstinence-only education does contribute to the increase in human suffering. His objection boils down to this: religions have made morality about bad actions, regardless of context or outcome.[11]

This is a compelling and convicting critique. If anything, it illustrates that Christians have done a poor job of creating redemptive culture and have often (incorrectly) associated suffering with punishment. However, Harris does the opposite: he doesn't see outcomes as consequences (i.e., teen pregnancy) – only as "suffering."[12] But these examples show the underling concern for Harris that "the link between religion and "morality" – so regularly proclaimed and so seldom demonstrated – is fully belied here, as it is wherever religious dogma supersedes moral reasoning and genuine compassion."[13]

In order to fully understand Harris' heart commitments, we have to look outside the Letter.[14] As previously mentioned, Harris accepts spiritualism as a viable – rational – option. While the Letter focuses more on his adherence to evolutionism, elsewhere Harris makes similar claims about the plausibility of spiritualism. And we've seen above his commitment to rationalism as well. How does he reconcile all of these views? The search for concrete facts and objective morality seems counter to Harris' own opinion of spiritual experiences. His approval of spiritualism is captured in the telling statement that spiritual experiences are "not just emotional but cognitive and conceptual."[15] Evidently Harris feels that there are cognitive and conceptual flaws in Christianity which do not appear in spiritualism. He cannot get past the intellectual hurdle of Christianity, yet he offers no argument for the cognitive and conceptual validity of spiritualism.

Making Contact

Where is Sam Harris' God-consciousness? At some point, every non-Christian presupposition fails; the foundation will not hold up under scrutiny. Because we are all created in God's image and part of the same creation, we share in the same metaphysical experience as non-believers. We all carry a certain sense of deity, which informs us of the dignity of human beings.[16] We believe that dignity stems from being God's image bearers. How does Sam Harris explain the value humans?

He doesn't. Granted, that is not the intent of the Letter. Yet, he has a need to explain moral behavior. He also recognizes a need for moral guidance. His critique against Christianity is that "anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas about either guidance or morality."[17] He offers Jainism as an (the only?) example of a livable, ethical, non-theist system. Again, Harris fails to offer his own method of determining the validity of guidance or a moral system.

He offers spiritualism as a means, much to the chagrin of his cohorts. Aside from being a terrible argument against organized religion, spiritualism reveals Harris' need to use a questionably rational filter for his own reality – exactly the same critical assessment he lobbies at monotheism. Even his own fellow thinkers critique Harris' reasoning on this, saying "the problem is that rather than subjecting this mystical realm to the same rigorous analysis as that of religion, the new atheism seems convinced by it's pseudo-scientific claims, and even acts as a cheerleader for this spurious way of thinking."[18]

Foundation Failure

Where does Harris' line of reasoning fall apart? Where does his argument ultimately lead? Harris clearly falls into the rationalist camp: everything in the universe is rational. However, there is no solid way to prove that trusting in your own reason is rational; it's actually irrational because it cannot be proven rationally. Harris' strong moral compass offers a glimpse into his thinking, and his need to find meaning in his world. But, when pushed to live out his philosophy, he can't.

The significant flaws in Harris' argument are twofold: he attacks Christianity with the very hate of which he argues religion is the generator, and he does not live out his own philosophy. David Segal relates from an interview with Harris that "because Christians and Jews cling to their "delusions," they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs."^{^[19]} And Harris is in no position to cling to his. He is fundamentalist in his treatment of religions, and commits the same errors of those he critiques – being a literalist,[20] cherry-picking, ignoring context and culture, etc. He dogmatically holds to his convictions of atheism, rationalism, evolutionism and spiritualism, while exhorting that "it is time Christians like yourself stop pretending that a rational rejection of your faith entails the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma."[21] He systematically ignores social, cultural and political factors, choosing to blame all failures of humanity on religions.[22] Wouldn't a more rational and consistent argument be that we are simply still evolving and have not achieved the height of social, cultural or political superiority? I suspect Harris would say that until religions fall by the wayside, these advancements are not possible. Yet, that seems to limit the achievements of rational, evolving man by ideologies which clearly (to Harris) are inferior and should be abandoned immediately.

Second, Harris' irrational approval of spiritual encounters as vehicles for genuine truths is internally inconsistent with his rationalism. Humanists point out that "[t]he problem is not that Harris holds these beliefs, but that he wants to convince us that they are the very height of rationality."[23] Rationally and logically, Harris cannot hold religions up to one standard and his own beliefs to another. He argues, "human standards of morality are precisely what you use to establish God's goodness,"[24] yet he offers no rational standards to establish his own morality. Harris proposes, "Everyone recognizes that to rely upon 'faith' to decide specific questions of historical fact is ridiculous," nonetheless he offers no evidence of his "facts" supporting spiritualism.[25]

He calls upon humans to "meet our emotional needs without embracing the preposterous."[26] What is more preposterous: that I believe in a historical document, with historical, literary and cultural evidence that can be studied by all, and that provides a solution to the world's present state, or that I can ascertain genuine truths – indiscernible and unverifiable to others – during the height of an illicit drug-educed spiritual encounter? Harris even admits that while "there is no question that it is possible for people to have profoundly transformative experiences," it is equally plausible "for them to misinterpret these experiences, and to further delude themselves about the nature of reality."[27] One has to wonder if Harris has ever considered the possibility that his Ecstasy encounter, which launched his quest to uncover the meaning of life, has ever been self-evaluated as a potential delusional experience.

The Invitation

Harris grasps the "scandalously particular" nature of the Christian story.[28] He recognizes the arrogance of the Christian claim that "the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death."[29] Much of this stems from his dogmatic desire for the Creator of the universe to reveal himself in the Bible through scientific examples. He is troubled that "a single sentence" of Scripture "could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century."[30] For someone who wants a historically reliable source document, this is an odd thing to be troubled by. But Harris would prefer the Bible to "make perfectly accurate predictions about human events" or "contain a chapter on mathematics."[31] Obviously, Harris is not concerned with literary genre.

But, what good would it do for God to deliver us a book of cures for cancer, scientific instructions for electricity and precise mathematical equations? Does this provide a better basis for morality? Harris accuses Christians of detaching morality from reality, which ignores the relational nature of the Bible's ethical guidelines. The Bible's prescripts for morality do not exist outside time and space; it is precisely because God enters into the story of humanity that makes the moral code relevant to reality. Christianity accurately describes human reality, including the dignity and depravity of man. It also offers a solution that relates specifically to the problem in the person of Christ, whom Harris largely ignores.[32]

Harris' ethical obstacle to Christianity is summarized as such: "If you are right to believe that religious faith offers the only real basis for morality, then atheists should be less moral than believers."[33] Because this is not indicative of reality, Harris makes the false assumption that since atheists are not less moral, religion cannot be the basis for morality. Not only is this a non sequitur, it misreads the Christian message. If we are all created in God's image, reason is available to all, thus we are all capable of making moral decisions regardless of our basis for morality. It comes as no surprise to me that my roommate Allison is a profoundly moral and trustworthy person – my basis for morality informs me that she is competent of this.

Harris holds that there is at least one quasi-religious system extant that provides a moral compass – Jainism. Adhering to the principles of Jainism, it is impossible for anyone to behave immorally.[34] Yet this too makes morality about actions, not intentions or state of being, a criticism he lobbies about Christianity. Theoretically, one could be an outwardly perfect Jain, all the while driven by prideful or sardonic motivations. The point being is that no human being can perfectly adhere to any moral code; we are deficient in our morality regardless of our individual belief system. Christianity recognizes this as the ailment of humanity, and offers a genuine solution: you can't be perfect but God will be on your behalf.

Ironically, Harris shows hints that he "gets" this. He knows that if we are to take the Bible seriously, both the moral standard (perfection) and the punishment for failure (death) cannot be changed.[35] He also recognizes the profound impact of self-sacrifice in achieving good. He states: "While feeling love for others is surely one of the greatest sources of our own happiness, it entails a very deep concern for the happiness and suffering of those we love. Our own search for happiness, therefore, provides a rationale for self-sacrifice and self denial."[36] Since Harris equates happiness with moral goodness, let's say then that because God loves us – and is morally good – his goodness (happiness) "entails a deep concern for the happiness… of those [he] love[s]." According to Harris, this then offers the rationale for self-sacrifice. How then, does the Cross not make rational sense to Harris? If God knows that our happiness cannot be achieved through man's adherence to a moral standard, and that he can solve that dilemma with self-sacrifice, doesn't that make the Christian story at least rationally plausible?

It's possible that Sam Harris could have a spiritual encounter that will someday lead him to consider the rational probability of Christianity again. And my concern for Harris' heart commitments is genuine. However, my more pressing concern is for Allison's heart commitments. Understanding Harris has helped me understand her (although she doesn't make the same logical flaws he does!). It is not just because eternal consequences are at stake. My moral system informs me that Allison is created in God's image, fallen like me, deserving of dignity, and in need of a relational, rational morality to make sense of her world. When she proof-read my paper, she remarked that the strongest argument against Harris is his lack of explanation for his moral system. I wonder what Harris would think to know that an intelligent, reasonable Christian and an intelligent, reasonable atheist can, in fact, have a "discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty."[37]

[1] Harris is focused primarily on Christianity but includes Judaism and Islam. He argues against liberals, moderates and fundamentalists alike.

[2] Harris, 47.

[3] David Segal, "Atheist Evangelist: In His Bully Pulpit, Sam Harris Devoutly Believes That Religion Is the Root of All Evil," Washington Post. October 26, 2006.

[4] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation. Vintage Books (New York), 2008, 23-24.

[5] At least, it is impossible to prove.

[6] Specifically, I am thinking of individual security which, to some, may be more valuable than love.

[7] Harris, 60.

[8] Harris, 25.

[9] Harris, 17.

[10] Harris, 18.

[11] Harris, 28.

[12] Harris, 28.

[13] Harris, 32.

[14] This is due in part to the purpose and scope of the Letter.

[15] Meera Nanda, "Spirited Away: Some atheists start to believe anything after they give up believing in God," New Humanist.

[16] Edgar, class notes.

[17] Harris, 14.

[18] Nanda, "Spirited Away."

[19] Segal, "Atheist Evangelist."

[20] Segal, "Atheist Evangelist."

[21] Harris, 42-43, emphasis original.

[22] Harris, 44.

[23] Nanda, "Spirited Away."

[24] Harris, 55

[25] Harris, 67. He does offer evidence for evolutionism, and elsewhere relies heavily on Richard Dawkins for explaining the links between evolution and human morality. cf. p. 73. No where (that I've found) does he offer a rational explanation for spiritual experiences.

[26] Harris, 88.

[27] Harris, 89.

[28] Edgars, class notes.

[29] Harris, 74, emphasis original.

[30] Harris, 60.

[31] Harris, 60.

[32] My arguments for Christianity mentioned here are borrowed from my pastor, Scott Seaton. He laid out his reasons for Christianity during the SpeakEasy book study.

[33] Harris, 38.

[34] Harris, 23.

[35] Harris, 22.

[36] Harris, 24.

[37] Harris 87.

Here's Hoping

2008-12-01T18:26:00.003-05:00

I'm still not sure how it's possible to be relatively competent in Hebrew and so completely lost in Greek.

I'm hoping this saves my Greek grade this semester.

And that Trader Joe's chocolate sorbet saves my sanity.

Intermission

2008-11-21T14:51:00.002-05:00

Finals. Finals started last week and go until three days before Christmas. How is this possible, you ask? Because I go to a school with arbitrary semesters. Seriously. I have no idea why I have 6 weeks of finals. But, I do. Hence, there will not be much to post until my papers are complete and I actually have something to post.

So, an interlude.

Thoughts? Did you cringe? Did you laugh? Both?

HT: Elizaphanian

2008-09-24T13:10:00.003-04:00

Insofar as we love the gospel, to that same extent, let us study the ancient tongues... And let us notice that without the knowledge of languages we can scarcely preserve the gospel. Languages are the sheath which hides the sword of the Spirit, they are the chest in whichs this jewel is enclosed, the goblet holding this draught... Where the languages are studied, the proclamation will be fresh and powerful, the scriptures will be searched, and the faith will be constantly rediscovered through ever new words and deeds.

My first day of Greek, our instructor handed us this quote from Luther. (Any good Calvinistic can appreciate Luther, when he's right. :) If you told me in junior year of undergrad that in ten years, I'd be applying to PhD programs in ancient languages, I think I might have killed myself. That's not an over-exaggeration. I remember sitting on a cold concrete bench, on a crisp fall day much like today, crying, exasperated by my failure to comprehend modern Arabic. In fact, most mornings I would wake up and tear at the thought of going to class. (Arabic was, of course, a M-F 9am course.) I feared the reproachful eye of man. Literally - I dreaded the male students - native speakers - who would glare at any non-Arabic speaking females that didn't have the sense to sit in the back, behind the men. When I finished my required language courses for my degree, a heavy weight lifted. Never again, I thought. I purposefully picked a master's program with no language course requirement (only a comprehension exam) so that I would not have to sit in another language class.

And then I went to seminary. And I began to understand that to do what I wanted to do - to do what I felt called to do - I would have to study some languages. Maybe Hebrew and Greek would suffice. Terrified, I started with Hebrew. And wouldn't you know? Hebrew is a heckuva lot like Arabic. Even classical biblical Hebrew shares enough in common with modern standard Arabic that it was familiar, and not in a I'm-going-to-cringe kind of way. Before I knew it, I actually liked Hebrew. No, I loved it. By this point last year, I knew I would be not only learning Hebrew, Greek and classical Arabic, but perhaps Syriac and Aramaic, and maybe even some Coptic, too. Latin might be fun, just for kicks. German and French are always required at the doctoral level, unfortunately, so I'd have to throw those in as well.

Wait, I'm not a language person! I can't keep verb endings straight from one form to the next. I hate matching gender, number and tense. I can't roll my "r's" or perfect a glottal stop. I have a hard enough time with English grammar. Geesh, God, don't you get it? I'm not a langague person!

And that's when I remember that His ways are not our ways, and He uses clay pots to display His glory. I'm not a language person. In fact, I'm pretty average in my classes. But I know the gifts He has given me, and what He has called me to do with them is to glorify Him. Studying the ancient tongues of the biblical text is, in Luther's image, drinking rich draught. It's also a reminder of my own limits, and how He overcomes them.

Two weeks from today, I will interview with the department head at my Top Choice. I am terrifed and excited, grateful and undeserving. Me, a doctoral candidate in a language program? Not on my own merits but on the One who has brought me thus far, I shall lean.

Intentions

2008-09-04T17:26:00.002-04:00

I planned to blog this summer. I really did. I’ve had a post idea floating in my head for almost two months. Obviously, it hasn’t progressed much beyond that. Summer has a way of fleeing, even when you have the time on your hands to do the things you ought.

Last night my vacation ended. I drove back with a friend from a trip to the beach, where we’d left 7 other friends (who were staying the whole week). Our conversations upset me, to the point where I’m not sure where to begin processing.

I joined a church planting team roughly 9 months ago. We officially launched on Easter Sunday this past spring. I love my new church. I love the people. I love the opportunities I’ve had to lead and serve. I love the smaller community. Like all new churches, we’ve had our fair share of challenges. Primarily, our biggest obstacle has been physical – an actual, consistent meeting space. We are in an urban area, with limited property and limited resources. We’ve been meeting at hotels for the most part but as of next week, we’re homeless again. We’ve got a plan – a providentially opened door for us – which I was excited to share with my car-mate on the ride home last night.

And that’s where things took a dive. I knew that she was part of another PCA church in the area. I knew that there had been some tension in our presbytery when our church plant was in the planning phases. I did not know that those tensions, along with feelings of betrayal, were still present. This church, which goes by CCA, has been through the ringer in recent years… struggling along without a pastor for a while. They’d finally gotten their feet back on the ground but not without asking our session for some help, and according to my source, receiving none. (Not just receiving none; being told there was none to give.)

And then along we came (Emmanuel)… with the resources our mother church told CCA they could not have.

And we invaded their backyard. We plopped down, like parasites, in the heart of the city they were trying to reach. And now, with what we (Emmanuel) see as a gracious provision from the Lord, we’ll be moving literally a few blocks away.

When I first thought about joining the church plant team, I sat down with the pastor to ask about this tension. Why are we planting another church in A, when CCA is there already? He was eager to answer how God had nudged him and his family there. They wanted to plant in an urban environment, with the hopes of using a ministry model like Tim Keller at Redeemer in Manhattan. They were thrilled to talk with our mother church about planting in A. And our mother church was excited to plant there, too. But then the found out about CCA. My pastor didn't know CCA existed. He changed his plans when he found out. He went to the elders and said, I’d rather go to B. B is just as good as A. B is still in the metro area, still urban, still diverse, and in need of a church. But the session voted – with voiced disagreement from CCA – that Emmanuel’s new home would be A. That, in fact, there are 200,000 people in A and there is need for 4, 5 maybe 6 PCA churches there. And that since Emmanuel would have a different feel than CCA, each church would appeal to different types. When the session gave approval for the plant, my pastor felt confident that this was God’s leading.

I listen to his description of what happened. I agreed with him. I agreed that A is a fantastic place for more than one church. That there is no need to have turf wars in ministry; that we’d be reaching out to our local neighbors, our friends, and that each church would be unique and yet united by our shared PCA affiliation. That maybe even we could partner together, since we both have small congregations, and share the burden of caring for our great city. In my naïve imagination, I had visions of joint picnics, ministry projects, and softball teams.

I’m not sure how much of my CCA friend’s assessment is factually correct. I'm not sure how much my information is correct. I’m not sure that it really matters. The fact is, she is still hurt. It does not matter that our intensions were good; that my pastor felt he’d done due diligence, that he even had the support of CCA’s pastor and the session. CCA (or at least one member) still feels betrayed. Perhaps more by the mother church that planted us (while refusing to help them), than they do by Emmanuel, but since we are so connected in their mind, it’s all one in the same.

The saddest moment on the car ride home was when I asked her what we could do to try and reconcile with CCA and she said, “Nothing.”

Now I feel broken. Upset by the hurt we’ve unintentionally caused CCA, confused by the actions of our mother church, and sad at the thought that a church could even have a turf mentality.

What kind of message does any of those actions and responses send to our world?

Minority Reports (or, Church Polity)

2008-06-14T22:00:00.002-04:00

I'm back from the great state of Texas for the PCA General Assembly. Wow, what an experience!

The "hot topic" last year was Federal Vision theology. This year's was women deacons. Sort of. I've recapped the women/deacon issue for my church leadership team, and reproduced this below. This is just what I understood, after asking about a million questions.

From what I gathered, this was far more about church government than it was about the actual issue of women as deacons. A couple of presbyteries asked the Overtures Committee (the OC... not sure what they actually do, except to review motions that come up through them) if we could have a "study group on the role of women in deaconal ministry." The presbyteries stance was that the Book of Church Order (BCO) was unclear. The BCO says deacons can only be men. (The BCO - all 346 pages of it.)

The presbyteries argued that this didn't clarify how women could participate in deaconal ministries. So, there are presbyteries (like Tim Keller's in New York) that do have women as deaconesses, and some that just don't ordain the position at all, whether male or female, because they see it as a service office and not an authoritative office.

So, the OC was asked to decided whether or not there should be a study commissioned. The OC is comprised of elders from all over, and their vote was split, with the Majority saying "No" to the study and that the BCO was clear that women cannot be deacons. But, when there is a close Minority, the Minority are allowed to issue a report and present it as a substitute to the General Assembly. The Minority Report represented elders on both sides of the issue who felt that the BCO was not clear, as evidenced by the varied practices in the PCA, and that a study group was warranted.

I have to say, I was quite persuaded by the Minority Report, until I realized how little it had to do with the issue, and how much it had to do with church governance and proper protocol. The Minority Report failed in the General Assembly by what looked to me like a very, very slim margin. You can watch the video here. Once the Minority Report failed, the GA also had to vote on the Majority recommendation (to Not have a study group). This passed (also by what looked like a slim margin).

After asking about every elder I knew what the heck happened, someone finally explained to me that everyone knows this will come up again, but the OC Minority Report actually has no authority to change the BCO. Essentially, for the BCO to change, the issue has to be brought up through the discipline of a presbytery to the Standing Judicial Commission. (I think. There might be one other legitimate way to do this... wasn't quite clear on that!) The SJC is the only one who has the authority to change the BCO. So, this will likely come back at next year's GA but through the proper path, and that is why it was voted down this year. Whew.

Somewhat humorous was that when the vote on this issue came up, it was supposed to be "Women's Hour" in the exhibit hall but everyone was in the General Assembly.

Other highlights:

I spent much of the week chatting with "my elders." (I had to stop myself from calling them "the old men" all the time.) They really aren't my elders; they are elders from all over my presbytery. But they are awesome. We ate BBQ at a one-stop-shop gas station. Only with my elders could that be considered cool. The following evening we stepped it up a notch (or 5) and ate at Dakota's steakhouse. I joked that it was the nicest date I'd ever been on. (It was, by far, the best Key Lime pie I've ever had.) They even invited me to the end-of-Assembly traditional Scotch celebration. After working three 16-hour days, unfortunately I had to decline. Next year, I'll save up some energy for that!

Small graces

2008-06-05T10:20:00.002-04:00

Sometimes there are little moments of grace, undeserved "breathers", that just make me smile.

Yesterday afternoon we had thunderstorms and the power went out at work. I left early but spent most of my "free" time in traffic, trying to navigate downed trees.

This morning as I got ready, I thought about the 1000 things I need to do in the next 3 days. I will be in Dallas next week for my denomination's annual assembly (but on work's dime & time), and the following week I will be in a week-long intensive class. In other words, I won't be in the office for 2 full weeks. Of course, the week after that, our international team (read = big bosses) arrive. There are proposals to finish, magazines to design, research to compile, etc. Homework to complete and one last final to take for Spring semester. Books to order and read for the week-long intensive. Laundry. Piles of laundry. Piles of ironing. Cat food to buy so my roommates can feed my cats while I'm gone. Oh, and a hair cut would be nice because the week I get back to work (the week the bosses are in) is right before I leave for a wedding in Orlando.

Remember when summers were LESS busy?

Needless to say, I was pretty much trying to schedule every waking moment from now until my flight leaves at 7am on Monday morning.

And then my boss called this morning. The power is still out at work. Stay home. Check in at noon.

Aaaaahhhhhh. I've done 3 loads of laundry and started packing. My Hebrew homework is getting finished. I registered for class and ordered books. I checked my checking account. Whew. I know I don't do the best job of managing my time. It's nice to know that even slackers like me can catch a break sometimes. I'm grateful for this free morning to "catch up" on life. And even more grateful that I feel like He's giving me motivation to actually accomplish tasks this morning... rather than take a nap!

Fair warning

2008-05-16T23:02:00.004-04:00

To all Narnia or Lewis purists: beware of Prince Caspian.

I might write a lengthy review after I've had a chance to review the unnecessary divergences from the story line by rereading the book.

Summary: Too much Prince Charming and adolescent hormones. Too little True Narnia. Icky. (And that's coming from a sappy romantic.) Redeeming factor: battle scenes and Lucy.

Prophetic Profile: Jeremiah

2008-05-11T18:34:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I took the systematic final. Whew. Tomorrow, I will take the final for Isaiah-Malachi. I haven't even proof read these so they might be crap. I still need to write about 6 more... eek. I've managed to not study on Sunday all semester, though, and I'm hoping to keep that up.

This week has been a bit crazy at work. One, the powers that be think our US office is failing and are putting it on me to raise more funds. (No pressure, right?) It's frustrating, to say the least. Two, the cyclone in Burma is (clearly) causing some urgent needs, and we've been working in overdrive to get aid in through the Church. (This is actually working because our contacts are on the ground and don't have to wait for visas, but it's not nearly as much aid as what the UN or RC could provide.)

Other than that, Hebrew exegesis started two weeks ago and I've convinced a class of all guys to study Ruth. Heehee. I love it. Which reminds me about this book. I'm not a big fan of Christian books for women. I'm not a big fan of Christian books, period - unless they are commentaries or theology. James' book is solid theologically, narrative yet exegetical, and (buzz word) authentic. Not cheesy, not fluffy, not flowery or pink or even if-you-just-love-Jesus-more-you'll-be-happier. Worth the read. Might even be a good (belated) Mom's Day gift. :)

~ ~ ~ ~
Jeremiah

Born into priestly a family in Anathoth, just a few miles from Jerusalem, Jeremiah is the son of Hilkiah. The book of Jeremiah is one of the few Old Testament prophets that shares his personal confessions, feelings, and struggles, providing a robust picture of who Jeremiah was as a person. Jeremiah is often compared to Moses, a prophet to the nations and a suffering servant of God. His call to ministry is not without frustration, and the length of his service (over 40 years) testifies to his faithfulness.

He was called in 627, the thirteenth year of King Josiah, but it is unclear when his prophetic ministry actually begins. It is also difficult to place his age and the date-range for the book from Josiah’s reign (640-609), Assyria’s decline (by 627) and Babylon’s rise, his call to celibacy, and the burning of the first scroll (605/4). Another layer of difficulty lies in the structure of the book, which does not flow chronologically, and thus while some material is dated by persons or events, others appear to be out of sequence.

Only one section in Jeremiah (3:6-14) is specifically dated to Josiah (640-609), but we know his ministry begins under Josiah (1:1). Josiah does what is right and follows the Lord (2 Kings 22:1-23:30, 2 Chronicles 34:1-35:27); unfortunately, his sons and grandson do not follow in his path. When Josiah is killed in battle in 609, his son Jehoahaz rules for three months, and manages to do evil (2 Kings 23:31-34, 2 Chronicles 36:1-4). Egypt puts Jehoiakim (609-598) in his place, and he fares just a badly (2 Kings 23:35-24:6, 2 Chronicles 36:5-8). Jehoiakim manages to irritate the Babylonians, and they siege Jerusalem. Jeohiakim dies under siege, his son Jehoiachin is taken captive to Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar places Zedekiah (598-586), another son of Josiah, as king. By 588 Babylon seized Jerusalem again, destroying the temple and city the following year. Judah becomes a providence of Babylon (2 Kings 25, 2 Chronicles 36:15-21). Jeremiah’s life likely ended in Egypt around this time (586/5).

Jeremiah witnesses this firsthand – the decline of Assyria, the rise of Babylon, the reforms and revival under Josiah, and the failures of Judah under his descendants. Judah begins subjugation to Egypt and ends in exile in Babylon. The city of God, Jerusalem, is destroyed, as is the Temple. All of this would have been heartbreaking for a true Israelite like Jeremiah. His prophetic ministry begins with the hope that Judah will repent and avoid the fate of the Northern Kingdom (1-25). Judgment awaits Judah and Jerusalem if they do not return to the Lord. Even if we are uncertain of the exact date of Jeremiah’s ministry, this would have been close enough to the discovery of the book of the Law (622) that it is devastating to realize Josiah’s reforms did not last even a generation.

After the warnings against Judah, there is a brief biographical narrative (26-29), and the promise of restoration in the section often known as the Book of Comfort (30-33). Judah has lost the opportunity to avoid God’s punishment, and while exile and destruction are determined, so is redemption. Another biographical interlude (34-45) follows, and Jeremiah ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations (46-51).

Both poetry and prose are used, as is dependence on Deuteronomy and Hosea. The book is essentially a “collection of collections,” but the organization by time or type remains a mystery. Repentance, judgment and exile, and the promise of a remnant are reoccurring themes. Jeremiah frequently uses symbolic acts to illustrate God’s message to his people. God is sovereign and holy, and Israel’s sins are painted in stark contrast. Israel’s false sense of security in the Temple, Jerusalem, and even in the covenant relationship is also evidenced. Judah’s failure of obedience and trust in places – rather than in their holy God – ultimately leads to their exile.

It should be noted that there is a discrepancy in the Septuagint (LXX) and Masoretic (MT) texts of Jeremiah. The LXX is one-seventh shorter than the MT, and the material is arranged differently. The discovery at Qumran, however, yielded two different versions of Jeremiah as well, which seem to match up with the LXX and MT. This discovery, while significant, did not resolve all questions involving Jeremiah’s two versions. Still, within Jeremiah we are told that two scrolls did exist – and that one is destroyed in 605/4. This may be one explanation for the variance in texts.

Prophetic Profile: Nahum

2008-05-11T18:32:00.000-04:00

Only the name of Nahum’s town of origin is known. He was from Elkosh, however, it is unclear where this town is situated. The dating of Nahum also proves somewhat of a challenge. We know it is in the 7th century, after the destruction of Thebes in 664, and prior to the fall of Nineveh (612). Assyria is described in terms that suggest it is still a significant power, which places the book approximately before 630.

Nahum’s prophecy is against Assyria, the major authority of the day. Assyria’s power and expansion began under Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727) and peaked under Ashurbanipal (668-627?) with the capture of Thebes. Here, family politics begin to undermine Assyria’s dominance. Ashurbanipal’s father, Esarhaddon, directed that upon his death, Ashurbanipal should be king of Assyria, with his brother as king of Babylon, as a way to keep Babylonian power in check. Eventually, Samas-sum-ukin (Ashurbanipal’s brother) revolted. While Assyria won, it cost them considerably. Assyria’s weakening led to Babylon’s rise, and culminated with the capture of Nineveh, prophesied by Nahum.

No Jewish kings are mentioned in the book. If we place the date of Nahum between 664-630, Manasseh, Amon and Josiah would have ruled during his ministry. Manasseh and Amon were terrible kings. Josiah comes to power at the young age of eight, and is the last great king of Judah. He repairs the Temple and restores the observance of Passover (2 Kings 22:1-23:30, 2 Chronicles 34:1-35:27). His faithfulness to the Lord, and the implementation of reforms when the Book of the Law is discovered in 622/1, help postpone Judah’s impending exile.

Thematically, Nahum’s message is simple and terrible. The book describes itself as an oracle, vision and book, which is unusual for prophets. Typically their messages were orally transmitted and recorded later but the developed poetry in Nahum suggests it was simultaneously a written and oral tradition. God as Divine Warrior decrees Nineveh’s destruction, comparing it’s downfall with that of Thebes (3:8-11). Nineveh, as the enemy of God, will be destroyed, and salvation is once again promised to Judah.

Prophetic Profile: Isaiah

2008-04-30T19:34:00.001-04:00

ISAIAH (1-39)

Isaiah, son of Amoz, lived in Jerusalem with a prophetess wife and at least two sons. He was a relative of Uzziah and a friend of King Hezekiah. He likely prophesied from 740 (the year King Uzziah died) to 700, in the Southern Kingdom.

Isaiah ministered under at least four kings, possibly five: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah and Manasseh. His prophecies are primarily warning the Southern Kingdom from following in the footsteps of their Northern brothers. Both Kingdoms were experiencing wealth and growth at the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry but there is tension brewing, and by 722, the Northern Kingdom had fallen to Assyria.

King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:6-15) dies at the beginning of the book of Isaiah. His rule saw increased economic gain in Judah and in general, he “did what was right.” Jotham too, is generally a good king. He reigns from 750-731, inheriting the wealthy Judah of Uzziah but the people are characterized by corruption and apostasy. During this time, Assyria begins to advance in power in the Ancient Near East.

Ahaz comes to power in 735 and reigns 16 years (2 Kings 16:3, 2 Chronicles 28:2-4). Ahaz does evil, instituting several grievous practices, and does not follow Isaiah’s advice to seek the Lord. He turns to Assyria to stave off pressures from the Northern Kingdom and becomes a vassal state in return.

Hezekiah’s obedience to the Lord helps delay Judah from Israel’s fate (2 Kings 18:1-20:21, 2 Chronicles 29:1-32:33). Ruling from 729-686, Hezekiah seeks the Lord, and listens to his prophet Isaiah. He instills reforms in Judah, calling the people away from idolatry and returning to the Lord. As a result, Jerusalem is spared from Assyrian advances. However, as Hezekiah’s blessings overflow, he beings to show off his fortunes to surrounding nations, including the king of Babylon’s envoys. This gloating leads to a warning of the coming Babylonian exile.

Several surrounding nations are mentioned in Isaiah, either in prophecies of impending exile, or in judgment upon the nations. Assyria is dominant in the region, and Isaiah urges Ahaz not to join an anti-Assyrian coalition. Sennacherib (36-39) comes after Judah in 701 but Jerusalem is spared, as mentioned above. Regrettably, Hezekiah is forced to pay tribute to Assyria. The destruction of Babylon by the Medes (13) is also mentioned. However, this causes some controversy because Babylon was not yet a major enemy and this notation seems out of place. An inventory of nations is listed in reference to the Day of the Lord and God’s judgment of the nations: Babylon, Assyria, Moab, Damascus, Cush, Egypt, Edom, Arabia, and Tyre are all categorized as oppressive and prideful nations. Prophecies that anticipate the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon appear in chapters 6 and 39. The fall of the Northern Kingdom (722) is foretold as well.

Isaiah shows a mastery of cultured and refined Hebrew. There is debate over the single authorship of Isaiah, specifically surrounding the split between 1-39 and 40-66. Much of the debate centers around the time span covered. There is, however, a thematic continuity and a unity through the history of redemption, with space to allow for multiple authors. The dependence on Isaiah by other prophets and New Testament citations of Isaiah as a contiguous whole give authority to the entire book as inerrant Scripture.

In the first two sections of Isaiah (1-6 and 7-12), themes of impending judgment and rebuke of Israel are countered with God’s faithfulness to his promises, restoration (7) and Immanuel. God’s majesty – the Holy One of Israel – is central throughout Isaiah. This is a call to holiness to all Israel, and a promise of the “Redeemer” – God himself. In chapters 13-35, there are oracles of judgment against surrounding foreign nations. Chapter 36 shifts to narrative transition, and follows the application of prophecy in Hezekiah’s life. This is also where the Assyrian crisis comes to a head and exile seems imminent.

Prophetic Profile: Micah

2008-04-30T19:29:00.003-04:00

Information on Micah’s background is sparse. His family lineage is not mentioned. We know that he came from Moresheth-gath in Judah, and that he was a contemporary of Isaiah. His prophetic ministry took place from 733-701 BC, and he spoke against the leaders and rulers of both Israel and Judah. He was angered by the ruling elite and religious authorities’ complacency, idolatry and selfishness.

The Northern Kingdom was beginning a downward spiral after a peak of prosperity. During Micah’s ministry, Israel saw a tumultuous turnover in leadership, with six kings ruling in the roughly 40 years prior to 722. Zechariah and Shallum reigned for a total of 7 months, and both “did evil.” (2 Kings 15:8-16) Menahem's ten year rule is summarized in five verses (2 Kings 15:17-22). Pekahiah rules two years, followed by the relatively long term twenty-year reign of Pekah (2 Kings 15:23-31). All do evil in the sight of the Lord. Hoshea has the unfortunate pleasure of ruling when Israel is exiled, and the caveat that while he did evil, it was not as bad as those before him (2 Kings 17:1-41). Hoshea falls into a vassal relationship with Assyria. When he seeks Egypt’s support, paying tribute to Egypt but disregarding Assyria, Israel is conquered by Assyria in return. This is the political explanation for Israel’s fall but 2 Kings goes on to say that this is a direct result of Israel’s idolatry.

Micah witnessed the conquering of the North by Assyria (722), and the influx of refugees from Israel to Judah. In the Southern Kingdom, Jotham’s (750-731) generally good rule is coming to and end as Micah comes on stage (2 Kings 15:32-38). Judah, too, has experienced an influx of wealth and prosperity, coupled with corruption and apostasy. Following Jotham, Ahaz reigns from 735 for sixteen years (2 Kings 16:3, 2 Chronicles 28:2-4). Ahaz’s reign is characterized by the institution of evil practices. After pressure from Israel, Ahaz seeks Assyria to stave off his Northern brethren, and becomes trapped in tribute to Assyria in return.

Hezekiah rules from 729-686, and his obedience to the Lord postpones Judah from Israel’s fate (2 Kings 18:1-20:21, 2 Chronicles 29:1-32:33). Seeking the Lord, Hezekiah listens to Micah (2 Chronicles 29:1-31:20) and Isaiah. He institutes reforms in Judah, drawing the Southern Kingdom away from idolatry and encouraging their return to the Lord. And though Assyria advances on Judah, Jerusalem is thus spared from destruction. However, Hezekiah shows off his fortunes to the king of Babylon’s envoys, failing to give the glory to the Lord.

It is against this backdrop that Micah prophecies the exile of both the Northern and Southern kingdoms. Judah observes Israel’s exile. Hezekiah takes heed. But in Micah’s eyes, the religious establishment and the people of Judah implement Hezekiah’s reforms superficially; there is no true change of heart, and their fate will be that of Israel’s.

Micah’s poetic prophetic speeches speak of the Day of Judgment, hope of redemption, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God and his Messiah. The Day of Judgment shocked Micah’s listeners, who could not grasp that God would bring his Kingdom about by banishing his covenant people. The religious elite of the day could not understand Micah’s prophecies that Jerusalem would fall. They felt it deserved protective status despite their disregard for the Lord. Micah did not end with God’s judgment on Israel and Judah but extended this to all nations (7, 16-17).

He also doesn’t end in judgment. The hope of redemption for the remnant of God’s chosen people is found in the Davidic Messiah who will come from Bethlehem (5). This will encompass a restoration of all things; exiles, creation, Jews and Gentiles. The Kingdom of God, with blessings and security for the children of God, will include Gentiles.

Prophetic Profile: Habakkuk

2008-04-30T19:26:00.001-04:00

Habakkuk carries the official title of “prophet,” suggesting he was formally recognized as such. Little else is known about his family background or origin. Habakkuk is witness to several major events in and around the Southern Kingdom. Assyria is in decline, as is Egypt, while Babylon is on the rise. Nineveh, the capitol of Assyria, falls to Babylon in 612. By 605, Babylon has defeated both Assyria and Egypt, and becomes the ruling power in the Ancient Near East.
No kings are mentioned by name in Habakkuk, which is why it is difficult to determine exactly when he wrote. Habakkuk is perplexed and irritated by the wickedness and injustice he sees. This suggests that Josiah, the last good king of Judah, had succumbed to his death in battle with Egypt (609). Jehoahaz briefly reigns after Josiah, until the wicked Jehoiakim (609-597) is made king by Egypt (2 Kings 23:35-24:6). He also pays tribute to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and his unfaithfulness brings about the impending judgment of the Lord. It is likely that Habakkuk prophesied between Josiah’s death in 609 and Babylon’s victory in 605.
The first two chapters of Habakkuk illustrate the prophet’s struggle to make sense of his world. He issues two formal complaints to the Lord and a dialogue between them ensues. Habakkuk complains that Judah’s wickedness not be allowed to continue. God responds by reminding Habakkuk that he alone has freedom and righteousness in judgment, and that he will judge the wicked but will also fully redeem his people. Habakkuk’s second complaint questions God’s decision to use a wicked nation to judge his people. Assyria had fallen to God’s judgment and now Babylon was a rising threat. Why had the Lord seemingly turned on his people again? The Lord reminds Habakkuk that he is free to treat “like with like” and that the righteous must live by faith (2:4). Following this is a dramatic change in Habakkuk’s attitude as he submits himself to the Lord’s will. Chapter 3 is the poetic prayer of the prophet, where Habakkuk finds rest in the final triumph of God’s righteousness.

Finals

2008-04-24T21:32:00.000-04:00

From the blogosphere

In the midst of finals…

An interview with Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright via Justin Taylor’s blog.

Wish I had time to read Wright, then Piper, and now Wright again. Maybe after seminary.

And some humor, via The Heidelblog (HT: Dr. G):

In other news, I’ve been researching PhD programs for over a year now. Turns out one of the best places to do the research I want to do happens to be in my backyard. And, I have two friends in the program already. I was looking forward to going somewhere uber-cool, or at least out of the country, or just somewhere warmer. We’ll see who lets me in, though.

It is well

2008-04-15T20:54:00.002-04:00

Hope all is well.

I frequently end emails with the above line. It’s not out of habit or because I have nothing better to say. It’s entirely intentional and it pertains to a hymn we sung this Sunday at church: It Is Well With My Soul.

Horatio Spafford, an attorney in Chicago, sent his wife, Anna, and their four daughters – Tanetta, Maggie, Annie and Bessie – on a vacation to Europe in 1871, with plans to join them at a later date. Halfway across the Atlantic, the ship sank and all for of Spafford’s daughters drowned. Mrs. Spafford was among the few who were miraculously rescued. When she arrived in Europe, she telegrammed home, “Saved alone.” Weeks later, when Spafford left to join his wife, he stood on the deck of the ship, hour after hour. When the ship passed the approximate location where his beloved daughters perished, he was moved to pen the lyrics of this hymn.

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when the faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

Spafford knew his eternal place was secure. He knew he had hope – and not in the vague Hallmark sense we use today, but true certainty – that the sufferings of this earth, while bitter, raw and real, can never defeat with our peace in Christ. But I think this hymn is both a statement and reminder of that truth. That is, sometimes we experience “peace, like a river,” and other times “sorrows like sea billows,” but our rest comes in knowing that our soul is well, no matter the surrounding circumstances of our lives. I, for one, often need reminders for this to sink in.

So, when I sign “hope all is well,” it is a reminder to myself that all IS well, and an encouragement to you to remember the same. :)

The Next Thing

2008-04-01T20:55:00.002-04:00

At an old English parsonage down by the sea
There came in the twilight a message to me.
Its quaint Saxon legend, deeply engraven
Hath, as it seems to me, teaching from heaven.
And all through the hours the quiet words ring,
Like a low inspiration, "Do the next thing."

Many a questioning, many a fear,
Many a doubt hath its quieting here.
Moment by moment, let down from heaven,
Time, opportunity, guidance are given.
Fear not tomorrow, child of the King,
Trust that with Jesus, do the next thing.

Do it immediately, do it with prayer,
do it reliantly, casting all care.
Do it with reverence, tracing his hand,
Who placed it before thee with earnest command.
Stayed on omnipotence, safe 'neath his wing,
Leave all resultings, do the next thing.

Looking to Jesus, ever serener,
Working or suffering be thy demeanor,
In his dear presence, the light of his calm,
The light of his countenance, be thy psalm.
Strong in his faithfulness, praise and sing,
Then, as he beckons, do the next thing

(Author Unknown)

Grandma, and pearls

2008-03-26T21:21:00.006-04:00

I need a paper topic by Friday afternoon. It's for Isaiah-Malachi, hence it needs to be from a book in that range. I like Jonah. Ok, I really like Jonah. It's short and sweet and to the point. The story flows, and there are no strange visions or really difficult theological problems. (Like, say, why does God tell Hosea to marry a woman of ill-repute? I could take that topic but I don't find it all that interesting and don't really want to write about it for 15 pages.) Back to Jonah... Sure, there's the whole whale bit. Oooo... controversy that I once again don't care about. Jonah's raw, and told from the outside, we never really know what Jonah himself is thinking. I like Jonah's stubborn self-righteousness. It's real. It's authentic and human. How many times do I shake my fist at God, shouting, "But I wanted pearls, not diamonds!" Jonah, like the rest of Israel, wanted salvation as he envisioned it. So, how do I turn that into a paper topic?

Grandma didn't get my little experiment. She got the letter and was "tickled." Then she proceeded to direct me to cousin Sharon's cookbook for the recipe to make butter. Hum... not exactly what I was going for. (Not that I won't try making my own butter.) No, Grandma, I want the story behind the making of the butter. Well, she was sure it was just like Dad said it was. No, Grandma. In your words, your memories, your handwriting. She supposed she could do that. We'll see.

Six Inches and Homemade Milk

2008-03-14T12:38:00.000-04:00

Tangent: Yesterday afternoon I got a hair trim. These are rare occasions for me. And I do say “trim” deliberately, as opposed to “cut.” She promised not to take more than ½ an inch. Feels like she took three. I’m trying to grow out some ill-placed layers with the intention of donating my hair. The minimum for this is 10 inches, which leaves me to decide how long I want my hair minus the 10 inches. I think another 6 inches will do! Sure will save on shampoo.

At the salon, I overheard another stylist and his customer discussing their grade school days. Specifically, they reminisced about a time before ball point pens, when they would get ink smudges all over their hands from using ink wells. My mind proceeded to thoughts on the progress of access to information versus the degradation of communication and relationships. I can sit at my desk and look up any topic on the internet but I’ve lost the art of writing letters to my Grandma.

The other night while conversing with my dad, I stumbled upon a story, and an idea. Dad started sharing about making their own pasteurized milk. Really? Didn’t even realize the corn-and-soy bean farm I knew ever had cows on it. But yes, for a time, Grandpa sold milk, too. Not much milk – only six cows (that Dad remembers). And after they stopped selling milk, “we had all the milk in the world.” So, they pasteurized their own milk on a machine that looked like a hot pad. It would heat the milk for 30 minutes, and then after cooling they would scrape the fat off the top, making “cream so thick you could spread it like butter.” “Imagine what you think of as heavy cream and triple it.” This would be served as sugar and cream sandwiches. Yes, sugar and cream sandwiches. Thank God we all got Grandma’s cholesterol genes. Butter, too, would be homemade, and sometimes cottage cheese.

To this, I responded, “Dad, I want to be a city girl but with a cow. Can I do that?” He laughed. I understand why after 20 years of city living he’s moved back to the Midwest. I understand because, as much as I am a city girl and cannot thrive in small towns, I’m still drawn to my roots. I’m still the product of generations of grain farmers, sharp as tacks but with an insatiable desire to work with their hands, toiling the land. Too bad I don’t have an ounce of green thumb in me.

My mentor encouraged me a few weeks back to dig into my history, specifically for hints of the Lord working in my family line. Like me, she came from a very non-Christian and dysfunctional family. Sometimes it’s difficult to see that the Lord has pursued me – not just in my own life time – but over generations. It feels like I’m a first bud, prone to frost and disease, and if I don’t succeed, my spiritual lineage will wither and die with me. That’s a lie in more ways than one.

For Christmas, I gave Dad a copy of NPR’s StoryCorps Listening is an Act of Love. He’s been encouraged by this to write down more memories: life on the farm, growing up in small town middle-America, etc. I’ve grown more aware that I should draw these stories out of him now, while my last living grandparent is alive. My thought is to listen to Dad’s stories and then write a letter to Grandma asking about the same thing. In the process, three generations will be involved in writing our story.

So, Grandma, tell me all about making cream and butter.

Delivery

2008-03-11T19:23:00.003-04:00

A month ago, my Hebrew prof said, "order this book."

Obediently, I did. And then I waited. My other books from Amazon came in the next few days. I checked my order. "Out of Stock." Really? Had no idea Hebrew Bibles were so popular.

Yesterday, after three weeks of waiting, I got irritated with Amazon and cancelled my order.

I proceeded to order the same book from Westminster Seminary's bookstore. I believe this was around 2pm.

It was waiting for me when I got home this afternoon. :)

And, they've got $5 flat-rate shipping. Guess I know where I'll be ordering my textbooks next semester.

Prophetic Profile: Jonah

2008-03-08T14:03:00.003-05:00

I'm a fan of the book of Jonah. In fact, I've blogged about it before. And everytime I study it, I learn something entirely new. Below is my "prophetic profile" for class.

~ ~ ~
Little is known about the prophet Jonah. He was the son of Amittai and lived in Gath-Hepher, just north of Nazareth. 2 Kings tells us Jonah was a prophet, and there are indications that he prophesied in Israel before his journey to Nineveh. The book of Jonah gives little indication of the historical situation of Jonah’s time. We know he lived in the 8th century under Jeroboam II’s rule (786-746).

Jonah is unusual in that it only contains one line of prophecy. It is not a collection of oracles like other prophets. In fact, its function seems to be to tell Jonah’s story, rather than record the prophecies Jonah gave. Jonah is sent unwillingly to Nineveh. At first, he rejects this mission, runs from God and winds up in the belly of a great fish. There is a stark contrast between the faith of the pagan ship crew that throws Jonah to the sea, and Jonah’s apathy toward the Lord.

The “King of Nineveh” is the only foreign king mentioned, but this title is unusual because Nineveh was a capital city, not a country. However, this leader responds to Jonah’s warning, despite the fact that God is not mentioned, and commands his city to do likewise. Much to Jonah’s dismay, Nineveh, the city of Gentiles, is spared.

The whale event is a topic of much debate, with opinions falling on two sides: historical narrative or parabolic interpretation. Sparse in details at times, Jonah clearly reads as historical narrative. Other odd information, such as the repentance of animals (3:7-8), and the apparently exaggerated size of Nineveh (3:3-5), have also lead to speculation about the historic accuracy of Jonah. However, the single largest indictor that Jonah should be accepted as the word of the Lord is Jesus’ reference to Jonah in Matthew 12 and Luke 11.

The book of Jonah is most appropriately characterized as stylized prose. It can be divided into two main sections each with two sub-sections. There is a First Commission, which Jonah rejects, that leads to the episodes on the boat and in the belly of the whale. The Second Commission, which Jonah reluctantly manages, leads to Nineveh’s repentance, followed by Jonah’s struggles to comprehend God’s warmth towards a non-covenant community. Thematically, Jonah is representative of disenchanted Israel, contrasted with eager Gentiles. Though a member of the covenant people, Jonah appears more the common man, while the ship crew and Nineveh, both outsider Gentiles, are given special grace. Simplistically, Jonah’s nature is constant throughout, with one divergence in Jonah’s prayer, culminating in 2:9, “Salvation belongs to the Lord!” Both prior to and after this, Jonah is the Reluctant Prophet.

Change

2008-03-06T23:09:00.002-05:00

Fool that I am
Knowing better than to trust the heart
I did so anyway.

Regret and hope began their dance,
This day one year ago;
And all who love know how much change
A year can bring.

Priorities and jobs changed.
Living locations changed.
Even eating habits changed.

Fool that I am
Praying that change would finally
Land in my favor.

Hope rose and regret was silenced,
If but for a brief moment.
But all who love know how much change
A year can bring.

Captured

2008-03-06T23:05:00.002-05:00

Yep, they've hit the mark again. (Only mine would be trying to go out, not get in.)

Disconnect

2008-02-27T17:20:00.004-05:00

When you try your best, but you don't succeed

When you get what you want, but not what you need

When you feel so tired, but you can't sleep

I love my job.

I work for a Christian organization doing nitty-gritty Gospel work. I get to utilize my skills and my degree(s). I edit, I research, I check facebook 20 times a day, I research some more, I fly to states that should be warm (but aren't at the moment) and talk to people about what it means to live the Christian life.

I love my job.

And the tears come streaming down your face

When you lose something you can't replace

When you love someone, but it goes to waste

Lately, however, I've felt this disconnect between my organization's approach to some pressing issues and my own practical theology philosophy. And the trip I'm currently on is highlighting this emotion. I'm here on company dime, to draw attention to our views. But they are not my views and it is difficult to find the balance of a) doing my job while b) not compromising my intellectual integrity.

Tears stream down your face

When you lose something you cannot replace

Tears stream down your face

But there is also an internal disconnect that I must wrestle with. I'm still formulating what exactly it is that I disagree with and why. From my brief reflections, I'm struggling to find the proper balance between reactionary and engaged orthodoxy. How do I love my enemy while being critical of lies? How do I engage in dialogue and show the love and humility of Christ without sacrificing the Gospel? Do I buy into the argument that showing love and humility is the Gospel?

Lights will guide you home

And ignite your bones

And I will try to fix you

Prophetic Profile: Hosea

2008-02-22T14:06:00.002-05:00

The “son of Beeri,” Hosea’s marriage is the greatest personal detail revealed in the book. His marriage to a woman of ill repute, Gomer, and their three symbolically-named children is clearly displayed as historical narrative, but the moral implications of this cause some to speculate that this was a symbolic or visionary event. God tells Hosea to take Gomer as his wife, thus raising the question as to whether or not God would actually encourage a match such as this. Without question, the marriage of Hosea and Gomer is representative of the covenant between Israel and YHWH. The names of their three children: Jezreel, Lo-Ammi, and Lo-Ruhamah are descriptive of covenant curse.

Hosea was from the North and it was traditionally believed he was prophesying to the Northern Kingdom. But, it is odd that there are so many Southern references. Recent speculation places the origins of Hosea in the Northern Kingdom, with the message belonging to both kingdoms. A contemporary of Amos and Micah, Hosea’s ministry is placed anywhere from 753 to 715.
Like Amos, Hosea’s ministry began at a time of great prosperity in the Northern Kingdom. Hosea sees the downfall of Israel after the death of Jeroboam II. This period witnessed six kings in thirty years, with four assassinations and several brief rules. Israel’s stability crumbles and ends with defeat at the hands of the Assyrians in 722.

Jeroboam II reigned in the Northern Kingdom from 793-753 and “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 14:23-29). Six kings follow him over the next 41 years: Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea (2 Kings 15:8-31, 17:1-41). All are wicked kings. Hoshea enters a vassal relationship with Assyria, and eventually leads Israel into exile. Israel’s relationship with Assyria and its predicted exile are mentioned in 11:5.

In the Southern Kingdom, Uzziah (or Azariah) does what is right but his pride damages his reign (2 Kings 15:1-7, 2 Chronicles 26:1-23). He rules from 791/2-740. Jotham comes to the throne at 25 and rules 16 years. He does what is right and becomes mighty, because “he ordered his ways before the Lord.” (2 Kings 15:32-38, 2 Chronicles 27:1-9). However, the people of Judah are still corrupt under his rule. Ahaz comes to power next, and rules another 16 years. Ahaz makes idols to Baals, and destroys the temple. The Lord gives him over to Syria and Israel. Ahaz turns even more to idolatry, seeking comfort in the gods of Syria (2 Kings 16:1-20, 2 Chronicles 28:1-27). Hezekiah rules from 715-687/6. He cleanses the temple, restores temple worship, celebrates Passover, destroys all other altars, reorganizes the priests, and cries out to the Lord to defeat the Assyrians (2 Kings 18:1-20:21, 2 Chronicles 29:1-32:33).

Conflict ensues between Northern and Southern kingdom during the instability after Jeroboam II’s death. Israel tries to stave off Assyria by paying tribute. Then, Israel implores Judah to help fight Assyria. Judah refuses to help. Israel and Syria wage war on Judah to force them to join the anti-Assyrian coalition (Syro-Ephraimite War, 735). Judah then turns to Assyria to help defend her borders, which leads to a partial exile in the North, but Assyria afflicts Judah as well (2 Chronicles 28:20).

Hosea is essentially a collection of prophetic oracles, primarily poetic, with a constant use of metaphor and simile. The marriage analogy, beginning in chapters 1-3 with Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, is carried throughout. Israel’s unfaithfulness is compared to Gomer, while the Lord’s covenant love is displayed in Hosea. The book shifts at chapter 4 from the personal story of Hosea’s marriage to a multiple of images representing the Lord’s relationship with Israel. Themes of covenant, judgment-salvation, and the promise of hope are dominant. After Israel’s condemnation for abandoning the Lord (4-10), the promise of redemption comes in chapters 11-14.

Prophetic Profile: Amos

2008-02-18T18:29:00.004-05:00

This begins a series of assignments for Isaiah-Malachi. These profiles are intended to give the historical setting of each prophet and all follow a pattern.

The Prophet: family background and place of origin
Historical situation: dates, people the prophet is addressing, reigning kings, foreign kings/nations mentioned, and any other significant events
Theme(s) of the book

First up: Amos

Amos was a shepherd and part-time farmer of sycamore trees. There is debate over his social status based on the term used for “shepherd.” The common term for shepherd is not used (ro’eh), but a term suggesting a breeder or manager is used (noqed). This would imply that Amos had a higher social standing than the lowly shepherds. But, Amos refers to himself as “tending the flock” (7:15), suggesting that he was just a shepherd, and not in a position of authority. He claims he is “not a prophet or the son of a prophet” (7:14), implying that he was not brought up or trained in the prophetic tradition, but was called by God, out of shepherding into prophesying.

It is traditionally thought that Amos was from Judah (Southern Kingdom), from a town called Tekoa, just outside Bethlehem. However, there is debate as to whether a Southern shepherd could have an effective prophetic ministry in the Northern Kingdom. In addition, sycamore trees do not grow in the vicinity of southern Tekoa. There is speculation that Amos was from a Northern town of the same name but there is no evidence that such a place existed.
Amos lived between the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah, placing his life-span between 793-740. His ministry is placed around 760, for a brief period before the earthquake that devastated Israel. He was a contemporary of Hosea.

Though a Southerner, Amos’ message was directed at the Northern Kingdom. Both kingdoms were experiencing a time of great prosperity. Military conquests led to territorial expansion and relative security. The people were religious, but had abandoned the Lord for the gods of surrounding nations. There was rampant abuse of power by the wealthy, and the poor suffered tremendous mistreatment.

In the North, King Jeroboam II ruled from 793-753. His 41-year reign is recorded in seven verses in 2 Kings 14:23-29. He restored Israel’s borders but did “evil in the sight of the Lord.” In the South, King Uzziah comes to power at age 16. He rules for 52 years from 792-740. His reign is recorded in 2 Kings 15:1-7 and 2 Chronicles 26:1-23. He “did what was right”, “as long as he sought the Lord, God made him prosper.” He made war against the Philistines and other surrounding nations, and builds a large army. However, his pride led him to burn incense on the altar of incense (where only the priests should). The priests confronted him, and in his anger, the Lord afflicted him with leprosy. He lived out the rest of his reign in isolation.

There are six nations outside the kingdoms listed in the opening of Amos but aside from that, all other nations mentioned (Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah) are to remind Israel of her past. Assyria is mounting an invasion. Amos prophecies warnings of this in 3:11, 5:3, 6:7-14, 7:9, 17; and 9:4. The great earthquake is also mentioned in the beginning of Amos as a time marker. Amaziah, priest of Bethel, brings charges against Amos and sends word to Jeroboam that Amos is prophesying Israel’s exile. Amos stands his ground against Amaziah. Israel is conquered and taken into exile by Assyria in 722.

The book is structured in three segments, with four hymn fragments scattered throughout. First are the oracles against the nations (1-2). Beginning with the six nations circling the divided kingdoms, Amos declares judgment on them, and then moves to Judah, and finally Israel. This takes Israel by surprise, as they are fully willing to condemn the surrounding nations for their sins, but their pride has blinded them to their own.

Next, Amos declares judgment and woe oracles against Israel (3-6). Amos features heavy use of literary forms, with a vibrant sense of urgency. His lawsuit speech against Israel follows the “messenger formula” patterns for suzerain-vassal pronouncements of covenant-treaty violation. This confirms Israel’s place as covenant-breaker, and justifies the Lord’s decisions against her.

Finally, Amos gives vision reports (7-9). There are five visions total. The first four share similarities in structure and content. All include dialogue with the Lord and visions of objects or events. The first two visions (locust plague and drought) are intended for Israel but Amos pleads for God to withhold these disasters. The second two are visions of unavoidable judgment on Israel (plumb line and fruit basket). The object of the fifth vision is the Lord himself. There is no dialogue between Amos and the Lord, and his divine abandonment is set against Israel. However, a remnant and restoration are promised, along with the renewal of the covenant.

Scattered throughout are four hymns (1:2, 4:13, 5:8-9, 9:5-6), emphasizing the covenant name YHWH, and his sovereignty over creation. Divine sovereignty and judgment are the main theological themes of the book of Amos. Judgment flows from Israel’s covenant breaking, idolatry and widespread social injustice. The Day of the Lord is promised, but not as Israel previously envisioned. Yet the Lord will provide a remnant, and the promises of covenant renewal.

Full plate (and other thoughts)

2008-02-10T18:11:00.003-05:00

Every evening on my way home from work, I take an exit off one of our nation's largest Interstate loops. There on the right, nestled in the patch of trees on the side of the ramp, I glimpse a rain tarp covering a tent. At first I wondered if some city-dweller just wanted to camp out for a night. But there are national and state parks relatively close. And the tent has stayed for weeks. Ten yards in front of the tent, a pile of trash grows. At least, it looks like a pile of trash. It could be the tent person's possessions.

Last night we had a small ice storm. It's cold here.

My thoughts, however unsettling, are honest. I wonder if he (she?) chose to do this. The tent's in decent shape, and there is evidence of other camping gear. I think about taking them a hot meal. I think about notifying the county. I think about what my response as a Christian should be. I think, I think. I do not do. I do not act in any way, shape or form. Good or ill, I continue to drive by everyday and think.

~ ~ ~
Classes began this week with a full round of Hebrew and a weekend full of Isaiah-Malachi. Monday, systematic II began. I'm not sure if it's because I'm run down with a never-ending cold, or if it's just that time of year, but everything I've added to my plate is starting to catch up. Feels like the plate is cheap and disposable, and the load is making it fold in on itself. They are all "good things" but even good things come with baggage, time constraints, emotional and physical tolls. And I find myself having to check my motivations for a) earning my sanctification or b) avoiding issues by making myself so busy that I don't have time to deal with them. Something has to be scrapped off the plate... something has to go... or I will not sleep for a good 12 months, and that is not a good thing.

Here's the pile, pro's and con's. This must be a little writing therapy; I'm working this out as I go.

1) Work. Obviously, it'd be nice to be filthy stinking rich and not have to work. Since that's not the case, a job and income are clearly necessary.

2) School. Not an absolute necessity. Will hopefully help me get into a PhD program (also not necessary). Trying to finish in 2 years. This is being reconsidered, given some points below.

3) Church plant. Not necessary in a physical sense. Living out the Great Commission, however, very necessary. It's a good fit for me ministry-gifting wise. Not a good fit time wise. The emotional aspect of leaving my current church was not something I anticipated, either.

4) Book review(s). Clearly not necessary, as it is not paid and will be in an obscure arts & lit journal. But it will help with #5.

5) PhD application process. I'm lost on this. Once again, it's not necessary. But, it is in the sense that I am obligated to use the gifts G-d's given me to fulfill His call in my life. I am, learning from mistakes with grad school applications, starting the process a full year out. But, that's the thing - it takes a full year to apply to PhD programs. And it's pretty much a part-time job. Researching professors to work with, researching the field itself so I can be knowledgeable and sound like I know what I'm talking about, and researching programs are just the beginning. I'll need to retake the GRE's (more studying) because my scores are too old now. I will likely need to attend my fields' (once determined) annual academic conference, too. And then there will be school visits and interviews. All in all, this is looking like about a 4-credit class load and $3000 expense that I just didn't see coming. And there are no guarantees that I'll get in.

Combined, this load has given me much to consider in the past few weeks. Essentially, I am pondering the relationships between desires, calling, purpose, etc. It makes me joyful to engage in pursuits that utilize my gifts and bring glory to the Lord. But those don't always line up with my desires. It's not quite a struggle, and sometimes it is exciting even to contemplate how He will weave it all together.

Considering the load, I doubt I will be posting much, unless I happen to write another stellar/failing paper. I will be doing profiles for all the prophets and these I may post as time allows.

~ ~ ~

My mornings:

Happy Songs

2008-02-03T19:58:00.000-05:00

There are few songs that make me genuinely happy. One of them is The Office theme song, which I really should download as a ringtone and use for my alarm. That would make mornings far more enjoyable.

Another is this song:

And on the eve of classes resuming, this is pretty much on a loop. I confess, it makes me want a MacBook (more), too.

UPDATE: Yael's song Far Far is free on iTunes. HT: Rebecca at Spoon

In other news, I really did get an F on that paper I posted below. Sucks.

Suffering: Conclusion

2008-02-01T17:09:00.000-05:00

I suppose this wasn't worth saving for an entire post. * shrugs * Alas, this is the paper's conclusion. I'm too lazy to link all the posts now. Someday. :)
--------
Conclusion

Christ, who is our Head and our model for all life, came with the absolute intent to suffer. This is clear throughout the New Testament as the call of the Church until Christ returns.[1] This is not our “best life now,” and to say so robs Christ’s work on the cross of its propitiatory nature by minimizing the necessity of the sacrificial demands of the Covenant and resurrection power.

The suffering modeled by Christ is not just his death on the cross to fulfill the terms of the Covenant, but inclusive of all the persecution he faced because of his proclamation of truth – public ridicule and humiliation, physical threats, abandonment by family and friends, and exclusion from society or established orders. He clearly and repeatedly warns his followers to expect these things and more, if they are to take up their cross and follow him.

Partnering with the global suffering Church is essential to fulfilling the mark of discipleship found in suffering with Christ. When we pray, provide and protect our brothers and sisters in Christ, we “stand as bearers of sorrow in the fellowship of the Crucified… as strangers in the world in the power of him who was such a stranger to the world that it crucified him.”[2] If we are to take seriously the proclamation of our Lord to join him in his sufferings, to be persecuted for righteousness, we must continually consider how we will support the suffering Church.

[1] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 9
[2] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 109

Trip Notes

2008-01-27T15:18:00.000-05:00

I survived my first official out-of-state business trip. The trip was to a large conference where I was to maintain my organization's booth. Here are some highlights:

Talking with people. On a normal office day, I can pester only a grand total of 8 coworkers. And though I'm an introvert, I'm a social introvert and I like meeting new folks. I credit this to 5 years of coffee slinging and customer service.
Meeting folks from my seminary. My school has several campuses scattered throughout the states. I had a blast meeting people from other campuses (and some alums from my own).
Dinners in a foreign town. One horrible restaurant with lackluster service, saved by company and conversation. Thank you Orlando contingent. One rather decent TexMex meal, generously paid for by folks I'd met about a hour before dinner was served. Thank you North Carolina church staff.
Multiple opportunities for future partnerships to think and pray about. This actually began a few weeks ago, and once again the same school came up this week as a possible PhD location. This is, of course, after I'd written it off in my mind as a "would be nice but it would never work out" idea. Now I feel prompted to reconsider the option. And that was only one of the amazing opportunities discussed!
Watching the Bride of Christ. This was a Christian conference, comprised of a denomination going through a rough-but-necessary transition. The juxtaposition of the Body marred by the effects of a sinful world but fighting for Truth contains sadness, beauty, mystery and humility, and draws us to grace, and our rest in Christ alone.

Downsides...

Cold, rainy weather. I volunteered to go partly because it was in what should have been a warm state. At least warmer than where I am now!
Getting (motion) sick on the flight out there. Not fun. Thankfully, I did not get sick on the way home, and I almost finished The Once and Future King. Should have been whipping through some Hebrew flashcards... tisk, tisk.

Suffering: Implications for Missions

2008-01-26T21:13:00.000-05:00

Implications for Missions

Regrettably, the American Church continues to fall short in its understanding of the significance of suffering. Our claims of suffering have little to do with that which Christ calls us. We are unpopular, political scapegoats, unkindly labeled as Jesus Freaks or disdainfully spoken of at office parties as closed-minded Christians, often deservedly so. Is this the cross Christ calls us to bear? Surely the Sermon on the Mount speaks of more than just bruised egos, characterization, tarnished pride, or chastisement.

Extrapolating from the rest of New Testament teachings on suffering provides insights into the relationship of those who do face persecution for righteousness sake, and those who are not, on a regular basis, systematically or institutionally persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ. Observing so far that Christ calls his followers to suffer as he did, Peter and Paul illustrate in their New Testament writings that suffering together is a mark of discipleship. How should this affect the way we view the global, suffering Church? Supporting the local, indigenous Church as they suffer shows the love of Christ to the world, unifies the Church in her sufferings, and heeds Christ’s call to suffering.

The essential union of the Church as One Body under Christ is the key element to wrestling this issue. It would be tragic and incorrect to say that because we do not suffer, we do not truly believe. This would, in a very real sense, be the opposite mistake of the prosperity gospel. Yet, if one part of the body suffers, we should sense that pain enough to join in the sufferings. Paul illustrates the beauty of this mystery in 2 Corinthians:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.[1]

This sharing of sufferings and comfort is, as stated above, how the Church body experiences the resurrection power of Christ. This is a call to be unified in all things, as Christ prayed in his High Priestly Prayer in John 17. He calls us to suffer, together as one holy Church, for righteousness and his namesake, granting us the kingdom of heaven, because it is through this selflessness and love that the world will be drawn to him.[2] “The Spirit binds the church together in the unity of a common life. At the same time, the presence of the Spirit of Christ, through a foretaste of glory, also joins the church to Christ in his suffering, and shows us the glory of the cross. The Spirit who groans in yearning for the glory to come joins us to Christ in our present suffering,” Clowney describes.[3]

Later in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus illustrates the proper response to suffering within the Church. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats, those who inherit the kingdom are rewarded because they helped “the least of these brothers of mine.”[4] In Galatians, Paul writes, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”[5] Elsewhere Christ reminds us that we will always have the poor with us; this does not mean that we should not work to alleviate poverty. Our first response should be to aid the suffering Church, our brothers and sisters in our family.

There continues today an assumption among the Western Church that the value of religious freedom is inherent in all countries and cultures. The lack of recognition that Christians still face persecution is detrimental to the life of the Church, and clearly not obeying the call of Christ.[6] Christianity Today reports “that the majority of Christians in the developed West – and in the United States in particular – have shown either ignorance or indifference about global Christian persecution.”[7] Nina Shea, former director of Freedom House’s Puebla Program on Religious Freedom, asserts “Christians are in fact the most persecuted religious group in the world today, with the greatest number of victims.”[8]

The numbers are often startling. As of 2002, there were1.7 billion Christians worldwide, but they are a religious minority in 87 countries and territories.[9] As many as one in ten face daily persecution of some form. They are often legally or institutionally persecuted because of their identification as Christians. This may mean job, heath care or education discrimination. The local Church may have difficulty obtaining building permits or gathering to worship without being monitored, afraid of arrest or worse.[10]

We are not called to suffer alone. Christ is near in our times of suffering; his representative body, the Church, should be near as well. Christians are called to boast for one another, to share with those in chains for the gospel, and to remember the mistreated.[11] Barclay believed that it is not individual man’s duty to raise issues of conscience in a society, but that of the Church. He does not follow this to the logical conclusion that when the Church in one part has stood for Christ, the whole Church must stand with her.[12]

------
[1] 2 Corinthians 1:3-7
[2] John 13:34
[3] Clowney, The Church, 53
[4] Matthew 25:40
[5] Galatians 6:10
[6] Kim A. Lawton, “CT Classic: The Suffering Church.” n.p. [Cited 1 April 2002]. Online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/aprilweb-only/4-29-44.0.html
[7] Lawton, “CT Classic: The Suffering Church.”
[8] Lawton, “CT Classic: The Suffering Church.”
[9] Lawton, “CT Classic: The Suffering Church.”
[10] Sookhdeo, Patrick, ed. “The Persecuted Church,” Lausanne Occasional Paper No. 32, 2005.
[11] 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Timothy 1:8, Hebrews 13:3
[12] Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 118

Suffering: Call to the Church

2008-01-20T17:59:00.000-05:00

Call to the Church

The sum of apostolic teaching reflects this proclamation of suffering for the people of Christ, illustrated poignantly by Peter in his first letter and Paul in his second letter to the church at Corinth. The unity of the suffering Church is expressed when Peter writes, “But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.”[1] Edmund Clowney captures the tension of union with Christ in both suffering and glory, seen in Matthew and Peter:

But how do we taste that glorious blessing? By suffering in fellowship with Christ, bearing insults for his name ([Peter] 4:13-14). Christ’s Spirit leads the church down the path the Saviour took, the path to Golgotha. ‘To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps’ ([Peter] 2:21).”[2]

The power of the resurrection is visibly at work in faith, hope and love, and the realization of that power in Christ’s sufferings.[3] So central is suffering that Gaffin calls this the “locus of Christ’s ascension-power.”[4] The resurrection power of Christ is manifested in the suffering Church.[5]

The Church is one Body in Christ and so should suffer as one. So long as one member suffers, suffering will remain a mark of discipleship in the Church. Stott views persecution as a “token of genuineness, a certificate of Christian authenticity.”[6] He continues, quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

Suffering, then, is the badge of true discipleship. The disciple is not above his master. Following Christ means passio passive, suffering because we have to suffer. That is why Luther reckoned suffering among the marks of the true Church, and one of the memoranda drawn up in preparation for the Augsburg Confession similarly defines the Church as the community of those “who are persecuted and martyred for the gospel’s sake”… Discipleship means allegiance to the suffering Christ, and it is therefore not at all surprising that Christians should be called upon to suffer. In fact, it is a joy and a token of his grace.[7]

Later in Matthew’s Gospel, we see that those who fall away in the face of persecution were not regenerate. To those who belong to Christ, it has been granted that they should and will suffer.[8] Suffering is not an addition to the gospel by any means. As Gaffin explains, “the controlling consideration is union with Christ in his death and resurrection such that to “know”/experience Christ is to experience the power of his resurrection and that, in turn, is to experience the fellowship of his sufferings – a total reality that can be summed up at conformity to Christ’s death.”[9]

[1] 1 Peter 4:13-14
[2] Clowney, The Church, 62
[3] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 10
[4] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 10
[5] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 10
[6] Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, 52
[7] Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount , 53
[8] Philippians 1:29, 2 Timothy 3:12; Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount , 77
[9] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 10

Sightings

2008-01-16T18:32:00.000-05:00

It's back.

Competing with UFO's in Texas, the Wiener Mobile made it's second appearance on my street (and in my usual parking spot).

Night shot:

I'm mildly entertained by all the cars stopping to take pictures on their cell phones. And then I remember that I took my camera with me on a run tonight to catch this shot.

Suffering: Defining Suffering

2008-01-13T23:29:00.000-05:00

The paper continues below.

A note about comments: due to some irritating spam comments, I've enabled comment moderation. I hope that does not dissuade anyone and apologize for the inconvenience.

----------

Richard Gaffin uses a more comprehensive definition of suffering, inclusive of the effects of a fallen world. He does acknowledge that there are “trivial” and “monumental” examples of suffering. However, by defining suffering as “everything that pertains to creaturely experiences [because] of this death-principle,” he strays from his otherwise solid argument that suffering is a fundamental aspect of Church existence.[1] What is neglected by connecting suffering with the “bondage to decay” is that all creation suffers under the frustration of sin - this is not singular to the Church. Just as there is common grace and special, salvific grace, so is there common sufferings of all mankind, but the special sufferings of the Church are distinct to the Body of Christ.

Contrary to Gaffin’s articulation of suffering as a consequence the “futility/decay principle,” the suffering of the Church is directly associated with Christ and the adherence to righteousness.[2] When Christ says you will be persecuted because of me, and you will be persecuted because of righteousness, he unmistakably joins the suffering of his followers to the proclamation of himself as Righteous Lord. John also records Jesus’ association of himself, truth and our suffering:

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the
world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than
his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed
my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of
my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.[3]

The world will reject the Church as it rejects the truth of Christ, because his teaching is counter to the expectations of the world. Just as first century Judaism wanted a political Messiah to liberate them from Roman rule, the world today cannot fathom a ruler – let alone God himself – reigning by humbly serving. However, the Church’s suffering is not from a flaunting of herself:

“The persecution Jesus is talking about and for which believers are to ‘rejoice
and be glad’ is not the hostility that will come to them from the world because
they have made themselves a nuisance, insulted people they are trying to
influence, or been rude, crude, or fanatical. It is because they have
become like Christ in his righteousness and are therefore being hated for
righteousness’ sake, as Jesus was,” Boice explains.[4]

It is this righteousness that some will find repulsive. Barclay asked why persecution was inevitable, and answered with the following: “It is because the Church, when it really is the Church, is bound to be the conscience of the nation and the conscience of society. Where there is good the Church must praise; where there is evil the Church must condemn – and inevitably men will try to silence the troublesome voice of conscience.”[5] Friedrich Nietzsche found Christianity pitiful and weak because in Christ, God was not strong or brave or powerful.[6] But as the writer of Hebrews explains, “it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.”[7]

[1] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 9-11
[2] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” 11
[3] John 15:19-21
[4] Boice, The Gospel of Matthew, 76
[5] Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew 118
[6] Stott, The Message of The Sermon on the Mount, 55
[7] Hebrews 2:10

Suffering: Why Suffering?

2008-01-12T17:52:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer: This week I got my final grade for this class, and apparently this paper is total crap.

Enjoy!

--------

Why Suffering?

There are three main observations made when examining why the Church is called to suffering. One, Christ came as a Suffering Servant to fulfill covenant demands. Second, he modeled this suffering throughout his public and private ministry. Third, he called his disciples to suffer, and proclaims the suffering of his followers, his Church, until his return in glory.

The Covenant of Grace demands the suffering of Christ. For God to fulfill the terms of the Covenant – the unilateral Abramic covenant of grace – He had to be both Lord and Servant. Covenant relationships were solidified by the shedding of blood, specifically by the halving of a sacrificial animal, either between a superior king and vassal king, or between a lord and his servant. In the case of Abraham, the Covenant was made entirely on God’s initiative and actions. Abraham was a passive bystander, asleep during the actual event.[1] It was the Lord that passed down the center aisle, symbolizing that if the covenant were broken by either party, he would pay the penalty with the sacrifice of his own blood. God was and is both Lord and Servant of his Covenant – his righteousness and justice demanded the terms of the binding, legal covenant be met, and his death on the cross completely fulfilled those very demands. Only God himself could meet these demands, and this is found in the innocent blood of the crucified Christ.[2]

Throughout the Old Testament, the coming Messiah is one who will suffer and reign in glory.[3] We cannot miss or misplace one aspect or the other. He is most certainly sovereign and his return in glory is assured. But his sufferings on earth, and his call for us to suffer in the interadvental period, are also guaranteed. In stark contrast to the expectations of first century Judaism, Christ had to suffer to usher in his Kingdom reign; not as a political king, but a Servant King, and our identity in him should be that of suffering. His actions in the Gospels display that power is found in suffering, humiliation and service.[4]

The connection between the Suffering Servant and our submission to his call for the Church to suffer with him is found in the power of the resurrection. This is why Peter says,

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. [5]

Freedom in Christ is found in the power of his resurrection, and freedom from sin leads to suffering for truth.[6]

[1] Genesis 15
[2] Edmund Clowney, The Church, (Downers Grove. InterVarsity, 1995), 35-36
[3] See, among others, Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.
[4] Richard Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,” from Theonomy. A Reformed Critique, William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, eds. (Grand Rapids. Zonderban, 1990), pp 197-224.
[5] 1 Peter 2:21
[6] Philippians 3:7-10

-------

Three sections left...

Suffering: Case Text (Part 2)

2008-01-09T17:48:00.000-05:00

Four elements in Matthew 5:10-12 stand out: (1) this is characteristic of Kingdom people, (2) the relationship of righteousness and Christ, (3) suffering partakes in the heritage of the saints, and (4) we are to rejoice in our sufferings.

The Church of Christ, his Body, Bride and Building, comprises the kingdom inhabitants of the Kingdom of God, for which Matthew uses his favored phrase, “kingdom of heaven.” The characteristics found in the Beatitudes are purposefully striking in their tension with the world’s expectations and values. Our persecution for Christ’s sake comes not from our own obnoxiousness or self-righteousness, nor should it. It comes directly from “the clash between two irreconcilable value-systems.”[1] The Lord values humility, service, honesty, and selfless love. The world does not.

Christ blesses those persecuted for righteousness sake and those who are persecuted because of faith in him. Ridderbos argues that righteousness is connected with the concept of the kingdom of heaven, and not the righteousness imputed to us by Christ.[2] However, this is close to the traditional Lutheran view, and paints the Beatitudes as a revision of the Ten Commandments – a new law. Christ immediately dismisses this notion, illustrating that he came to fulfill the Law, and concluding that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”[3] Christ is not giving another law, impossible to fulfill. As James Boice explains, this righteousness is obviously unattainable on our own accord. It is only because of our own despair that we might turn to Christ and find new life in him.[4] The Beatitude examples are the working out of salvation, our sanctification. Just as Christ later urges us on to perfection, because we are perfected in him, so here he can speak of our becoming righteous as his righteousness.[5]

When Christ speaks of persecution in the Sermon on the Mount, he is not merely stating that those who stand for righteousness will face the possibility of persecution. This is a plain proclamation for all who trust in Christ. Jesus shifts, expanding from addressing those to addressing you.[6] Persecution is coupled with you, the disciples and followers of Christ, and it is the direct result of Christ himself.[7] The heritage of the disciples and the Body of Christ are one, because all are coheirs with Christ, “provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”[8]

The Church is linked with those who have gone before, offering a firm reminder to those that often benefit from others who have cleared the way. Barclay calls this “the bliss of the blood-stained way,” and he recounts that “to have to suffer persecution is, as Jesus himself said, the way to walk the same road as the prophets, and the saints, and the martyrs have walked. To suffer for the right is to gain a share in a great succession.”[9] As those called to suffer, the Church is now joined with Israel and the Old Testament prophets. This gives cause to rejoice, as it demonstrates the Church’s position as the Lord’s chosen people.

Commanding his followers to rejoice in our sufferings, Jesus reminds us that this is no small thing to be counted as his. The Church is chosen to display the Lord’s glory to the earth, and lest we become inflated with self-righteousness and pride, it must be done through suffering for the sake Christ our Lord. It is through the Church’s suffering that the world should look to the treasure of Christ, not to the jars of clay containing the prize.[10] We can rest in the hope that suffering produces, boasting in our weakness for the gain of Christ.[11]

[1] Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, 52
[2] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 286
[3] Matthew 5:20
[4] Boice, The Gospel of Matthew, 72
[5] Matthew 5:48
[6] Matthew 5:1-2
[7] Matthew 5:11
[8] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, (New York. Simon & Schuster, 1995), 107; Romans 8:17
[9] Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 115
[10] 2 Corinthians 4:7
[11] Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:9

A poem, on Epiphany

2008-01-06T21:10:00.000-05:00

Journey of the Magi

T.S. Eliot

A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For a journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.
And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times when we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities dirty and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wineskins.
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

Suffering: Case Text (Part I)

2008-01-05T09:47:00.000-05:00

Introduction

Case Text: The Last Beatitude

Disdain and distancing from suffering is nothing new or unique to today. Herman Ridderbos writes of the historical dilemma involving Christ’s suffering and that “the attempt has been made to cancel the significance of all this by explaining such explicit pronouncements on the necessity of the sufferings as vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the events) and ascribing them to the later Christian church.” [1] He is speaking of the sufferings of Christ, but the sufferings of our Savior and the call to the Church to join in his sufferings are tightly related. Ridderbos expounds, “In opposition to such conceptions it must be maintained that the idea of the suffering and death of Christ and its necessity is one of the most essential elements of the kerygma [proclamation, preaching] of Christ in the synoptic gospels and from the outset it also determined Jesus’ actions in word and deeds.”[2] Christ teaches that his followers will suffer in the Sermon on the Mount, and the New Testament writers repeatedly echo this teaching.

Historical scholarship and interpretations abound on the Sermon on the Mount, ranging from the interim ethic of Albert Schweitzer to the Lutheran view as a Sermon of (new) Law. This is close to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s view, but John Stott draws out that Bonhoeffer did capture the more reformed, kingdom-theology approach.[3] The set of standards found in the Beatitudes is addressed to the Church and must be the goal, with the ultimate realization that only through the resurrection power of Christ can believers strive towards that goal, and only in the future will the Church fully achieve it perfectly.[4] Ridderbos explains that these kingdom prescriptions “though still future as regards [to] its perfect consummation, it has fundamentally become a fact at the present moment.”[5]

All of the Beatitudes are descriptions of the character of the Church, yet the last Beatitude is the only one expanded and personalized. Christ is addressing his disciples, and by extension, all his followers, giving instructions in how they should set themselves apart in the world. This is how the world will see our witness, in our love for one another by living out the Beatitudes. When Christ gave the Great Commission - to go forth and be the Church[6] - this was his vision for how to be his Kingdom people. Our path of discipleship is along the road of the Beatitudes.

[1] Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962), 159
[2] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 159
[3] Stott, The Message of The Sermon on the Mount, 53
[4] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville. Broadman & Holman, 1997), 247
[5] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 73
[6] Matthew 28:19-20; note the command to teach the disciples of all nations all that Christ had commanded them.

Assassination and Atonement

2007-12-28T16:08:00.000-05:00

I typically don’t write about current events. However, it’s been refreshing to not have classes for a few weeks now. My social life is back, at least until January 2, when I will have to try and squeeze in a virtual class before the Spring semester starts on January 30. Eeek. I still plan on throwing up some papers from last semester, but for now I’ll occupy you all (all three of you) with some thoughts on the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto and a movie review.

“Shocked.” “Stunned.” “Surprised.” These words appear repeatedly, splashed across news sources in story after story of Bhutto’s death. Seriously? Bhutto’s goal was not martyrdom, but she knew this was a very real, very likely probability. It was only a matter of time before an assassination attempt succeeded. I am surprised at how many reporters, politicians, officials and others who express such naiveté. Saddened, certainly. Disappointed and dismayed, sure. But shocked that threats from terrorist organizations with a history of carrying out their threats actually happened? No way. When will we learn that they mean what they say and do what they say? If they feel they have a chance to disrupt “democratic” elections, they will. Did we learn nothing from Madrid? And how many different accounts can Pakistan’s Interior Ministry give on her cause of death?

Entirely unrelated, I saw Atonement last night. This is the screenplay adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel and as the NYT review states, it’s not a bad adaptation; it just demonstrates how diminishing the alteration of literature into film can be. Mind you, I have not read the book. But the film’s expression of Briony’s attempt to atone for her one grave sin lacks moral plausibility. I walked out thinking, “Either that was a poor ending done to save time, or Briony’s really did not understand atonement. “

And, from a secular source, I suppose one cannot expect such. However, even from that view, her attempt at righting a terrible wrong felt self-satisfying, even self-righteous. This was not an act that the two characters wronged would have felt was due penance for her sin, but it certainly makes her feel better. What’s interesting is that Briony displays some understanding of this… and then it fades. In any case, the Times review is worth the read and the movie is worth seeing. I disagreed with the reviewer on his/her assessment of the war scenes as detached. I found them very moving and believable; the ending, however, was not.

Things that helped me get through finals

2007-12-15T15:52:00.000-05:00

The key to getting through finals without complete loss of sanity is, of course, bribery. (aka, "rewards" systems that you all know you do!)

So aside from the occasional <>, alright, daily trip to the coffee purveyor of my choice, here's what kept me going.

Vivaldi's Four Seasons. This is actually the only music I can study to; anything with words and I just end up singing along. It also happens to be my favorite composition. Ever.
Easy Tiger, Ryan Adams. In all honesty, I haven't even listened to any Ryan Adams past Gold. And Gold is still my favorite solo project, but Easy Tiger is growing on me. There are hints of Adams' brilliance on "Two Hearts" and "Everybody Knows." I wanted to like "The Sun Also Sets," and it starts out so well, but he tries too hard with too many transitions and vocalizations. Redeeming track: "Pearls on a String."
The Washington Ballet's Nutcracker. Not as polished as Joffery or the American Ballet Theater, but the creative interpretation of an Americana-inspired Nutcracker was delightful. Amazing costume design. Favorite part: the Russian dance was done in a "frontiersman" theme... complete with Davy Crockett.
This song by the Swedish musician Loney, dear.
Thai Kitchen. I'm not a big fan of packaged food. But, after realizing that I was pretty much only consuming coffee/chai or Panera, I had to find a healthier way to eat in a rush while studying. They were actually cheaper in the store ($1.29) and vegan and gluten free. :)

What I'm looking forward to over break:

Reading The Once and Future King. And taking another class, of course.

A Poem for Finals

2007-12-12T17:34:00.001-05:00

My roommate sent me this poem as an encouragment, since we both have our last finals tomorrow night. I liked it so much I decided to post it.

Love the quick profit, the annual raise,
vacation with pay. Want more
of everything ready-made. Be afraid
to know your neighbors and to die.
And you will have a window in your head.
Not even your future will be a mystery
any more. Your mind will be punched in a card
and shut away in a little drawer.
When they want you to buy something
they will call you. When they want you
to die for profit they will let you know.

So, friends, every day do something
that won't compute. Love the Lord.
Love the world. Work for nothing.
Take all that you have and be poor.
Love someone who does not deserve it.
Denounce the government and embrace
the flag. Hope to live in that free
republic for which it stands.
Give your approval to all you cannot
understand. Praise ignorance, for what man
has not encountered he has not destroyed.

Ask the questions that have no answers.
Invest in the millenium. Plant sequoias.
Say that your main crop is the forest
that you did not plant,
that you will not live to harvest.
Say that the leaves are harvested
when they have rotted into the mold.
Call that profit. Prophesy such returns.

Put your faith in the two inches of humus
that will build under the trees
every thousand years.
Listen to carrion - put your ear
close, and hear the faint chattering
of the songs that are to come.
Expect the end of the world. Laugh.
Laughter is immeasurable. Be joyful
though you have considered all the facts.
So long as women do not go cheapf
or power, please women more than men.
Ask yourself: Will this satisfy
a woman satisfied to bear a child?
Will this disturb the sleep
of a woman near to giving birth?

Go with your love to the fields.
Lie down in the shade. Rest your head
in her lap. Swear allegiance
to what is nighest your thoughts.
As soon as the generals and the politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn't go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection.

Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front by Wendell Berry

Christmas Reflections (again)

2007-12-10T20:19:00.000-05:00

This seems to be a common search result that leads to my blog but I'm not sure how well I did stringing the series together the first time. So, I'll post all the links to the series below.

I am 3 days away from being done with finals and then I might have time to do some more Christmas reflecting this year. Hopefully.

Many blessings to you all this Christmas season.

Anticipation

Christmas Reflections I

Preparation

Christmas Reflections II

Advent and Resurrection

Actually, I just realized I never finished the series. I'll work on that over break. :)

Suffering: Introduction

2007-11-24T13:06:00.000-05:00

Finished my Gospels paper Wednesday afternoon about 20 minutes before it had to be postmarked. Sadly, (more than sadly - shamefully) I did not proof read the entire paper before printing, shoving it in an envelope, and dragging my semi-conscious self to the post office.

This is the intro. I'll post the rest in sections as I am able to edit and revise. :) Just one caveat: I was limited to picking my primary scripture from the Gospels, since it was for the Gospels class. My goals for the Systematic paper due in two weeks are to a) not abuse the semicolon b) avoid my Midwest tendency of ending sentences with prepositions and c) not split my verbs. Old habits die hard. Urgh.

~ ~ ~

The Proclamation of Suffering
Implications for missions

Introduction
Christ calls us to suffer, displaying resurrection power through our sufferings, refining us and drawing the world to him. The call to the Church, as we wait for our savoir to return, is found in the proclamation of suffering. Today, we are inundated with Western individualism, ignoring the unity of the Body of Christ, or taken to the other extreme with the communal salvation of federal vision theology. We have lost sight of what it means for the Church – unified in Christ – to suffer. The prosperity gospel infiltrates confessional, reformed churches as much as mainstream Christianity, subtly relating suffering with a lack of material possessions, status or reputation. This is a far cry from the suffering Christ proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount when he said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”[1]

There are common sufferings cause by the fallen state of mankind that all of humanity experience: disease, sickness, toil in labor, and death itself are all the result of Adam’s sin. But this is not the suffering Christ exampled, nor is it the heritage of the prophets of Israel, and neither is it the call to the Church. True Christian suffering is harassment, legal or institutional punishment or discrimination, interrogation, arrest, fines or bribes, imprisonment, or murder for one’s faith, including perceived and actual evangelism, whether formally or informally outlawed by the state. In short, suffering is persecution because of faith in Christ. The early Church experienced persecution daily, suffering for truth, not because of the sinful state of mankind.[2] William Barclay captures this, quoting an old poet describing the Church as “the panting, huddled flock whose crime was Christ.”[3]

What does it mean for the Church to suffer in today’s world? Why are we called to suffer? What implications does this have for how the Western (and presumably non-suffering) Church should interact with the worldwide Church?

Christ came to suffer and he calls us to join him.[4] This call is not optional, it is essential to the life of the Church. We need not seek suffering but we are obligated to partner with those in our brethren experiencing the daily sufferings from claiming Christ crucified. Supporting the global, indigenous and often suffering church, is essential for the life and mission of the Church, and fulfills the call of the Church to suffer with our brothers and sisters.

-----
[1] Matthew 5:10-12
[2] John R.W. Stott, The Message of The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Bible Speaks Today. (Downer’s Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1978), 52; William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 (Chapters 1 to 10). The Daily Study Bible Series (rev. ed.). (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1975), 111-113; James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 1, The King and His Kingdom, Matthew 1-17. (Grand Rapids. Baker Books, 2001), 77, cf. 1 Peter 3:14
[3] Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 114
[4] Mark 8:31

Languagues and Luther

2007-11-07T23:50:00.000-05:00

I vaguely remember German from middle and high school. Sadly, I took four years and about the most I can remember is that Ich bin ein Berliner means “I am a jelly doughnut” not “I am one from Berlin.” Still, it’s good to know I won’t go hungry in Germany.

German ended junior year when I transfer to a school with minimal language programs and decided to load my schedule with APs rather than take on another language. Oh, if only I had known.

Four years latter I found myself studying one of the most difficult languages in the world: Arabic. Arabic is an evil, spiteful language for the linguistically challenged. There’s Modern Standard Arabic, spoken predominately in media outlets, and its literary counterpart fuṣḥā. But Arabic is not really a written language and there are dialects (Egyptian, Iraqi, Levantine, etc.), as well as sub-languages like Moroccan, with a blend of French and Berber just for kicks. But the killers are the case endings. Arabic maintains a full set of case endings (which I believe is eight). Now whether or not they are pronounced varies from dialect to dialect…

Like I said, it’s evil. Combine all of this with my 19-year old very timid self and mix it into an Arabic class with native speakers. Add the fact that I just do NOT remember high school English. Stir for three years. Final result = disaster.

All of this to say that since then, I’ve been terrified and intimidated by languages. But the research that I’d like to do someday will require that I learn at least two other languages, and go back and learn Qur’anic Arabic. (Yes, that's a whole 'nuther ballgame.)

So I plunged in and started Hebrew just eight weeks ago. And I love it. Like LOVE it, love it. Like don’t know if I can do my future research because why would anyone want to learn Greek when there is Hebrew? Granted, I’m sure my years of that not-so-friendly Semitic language made Hebrew a tad easier. Ok, it helped significantly. But Hebrew is just cool.

Which brings me indirectly to Luther. Contrary to popular belief, Luther actually knew what he was writing when he penned “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” In his second verse, the forth line is often translated as: Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same. But the German reads “Der Herr Zebaoth,” and translating this as Sabaoth implies that Luther’s understanding of his native tongue was so poor, he did not know the German word for Sabbath (Sabbat). In fact, Luther knew Hebrew. Zebaoth was his transliteration of צבאות which means hosts, i.e., heavenly hosts.

And that is your Hebrew lesson for the day.

1517

2007-10-30T22:17:00.000-04:00

Reformation Day sale on the Reformation Study Bible.

Get it for $15.17.

Regular price, $39.99.

Just for Fun

2007-10-22T11:35:00.000-04:00

Some entertainment, in celebration of my 29th year.

Debating the Year of Living Biblically

Good looks = Bad theology. You know what they say, “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife.” I’ll be looking for an ugly husband.

Election help. I matched with John Cox (who?), Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney (gag me), and Ron Paul (funny, feisty little man).

I’m half-done with midterms. I think I did well on the Systematic essays: a) What is the relationship between the NT Church and OT Israel, b) According to Clowney, what is the structure of the church, and c) What is the role of women in ministry? I’ll post my answers if I pass. :)

I finally came up with a paper topic for Gospels, though I haven’t started any research. I'd like to look at the role of suffering/persecution as the Church body and the implications of that for missions. Primarily, I would be looking at John 15:19-20, Matt. 5:10-12, Matt 25:40, and John 13:34-35, with significant support from the Epistles, and connecting both the suffering of Christ and the relationship between Israel and the Church in the gathering of nations. I will essentially be making the argument that supporting the indigenous and often suffering church in a global context is essential for the spread of the Gospel, and that ultimately, the call of the church is to suffer with our brothers and sisters.

And last but not least, all I’d really like for my birthday are some squash recipes that do not involve acorn squash with butter and brown sugar. Come on, people, be creative!

UPDATE: Squash recipes are all good, but on second thought, I'd really like a bb gun to shoot the #*%&$ squirrels that keep eating my snapdragons. Grrrr.

Ethical unease

2007-10-16T23:54:00.000-04:00

I am settling into the new world of non-profit fundraising and research. I love my job. It is amazing to enjoy going to work each day. I am also in over my head in seminary. I put Hebrew first because I know my tendency with languages is to be overwhelmed and give-up. Thankfully, that's not the case so far. We'll see what the midterm says. I was encouraged when I was the only one in the class that caught a spelling error (in Hebrew) on a quiz. But as for Systematic and Gospels...

Back to the title topic. Today brought an interesting dilemma to the new work adventure. Being the development coordinator, I get to mess in everyone's business. I get to have an opinion on marketing, research, logos, everything down to how the receptionist answers the phone. Idea being that, as a non-profit, you bend over backwards to get folks to give you money. This is the part of my job that I hate. I hate asking people for money. I can't think about it like that. I prefer to talk of "partnerships" and "supporters" rather than "donors" or "clients." But, at the end of the day, it's my job to convince people to take out their checkbooks. I'm happy to do this only because I fully believe in the call of the organization; we bear the unique claim of aiding the suffering, global Church. (I'll write more about this later when I finish my paper for Gospels.)

So, we're a Christian organization that takes money from Christians and gives it to Christians around the world to help impoverished, persecuted or suffering Christians. On the whole, we make no distinctions along denominational lines. I know where my organizations stands, and I know where my individual coworkers stand on theological/doctrinal issues, and they are in agreement with my own.

However, the issue came up today of how far is acceptable to go to solicit funds from those with questionable theology. I'm not talking about differences between, say, Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians. I mean more like beyond Emergent and into the realm of Joel Osteen. The advertising in question wouldn't directly link us to anyone; but it would target a very theologically diverse crowd.

So, is this a necessary line to draw? Do we ask supporters if they adhere to the Westminster Confession before they give, or just gratefully take their money, send a (personalized) thank-you and pass it along to those in need? Is this, as Dr. G raised in class last night, the slippery slope of distinguishing the visible church from the invisible church?

Digests?

2007-10-05T17:41:00.000-04:00

In Gospels, we've been tasked by Guy Waters to write a "digest" for each book assigned in class. I take it this was intended to capture the essence of the book, but I'm still a little fuzzy on the point of this exercise. It was not supposed to be a response or book review. And, we could do it in small paragraphs or in outline format. I opted for the outline.

However, outlining two 600-page books was not the simple process I thought it would be. In short, I now have 10-page outlines for Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Everett Ferguson) and Jesus and the Gospels (Craig L. Blomberg). But, I've not really read them nor did I retain anything. This was by far the most useless assignment I've done in seminary, and possibly in my entire graduate career.

See, my reading retention is so painfully poor that I make 3 x 5 index cards for every book or article I read. I started to do this with Ferguson, realized about 1/3 into the book that
I would never have enough time or space (10-page limit) to type it all, and proceeded to outline the rest based on subheadings and italicised points. Granted, I'm sure my index-card process could be more efficient, but I've got a reading and writing process that earned me one graduate degree and I'm not really keen on changing it all that much. I'm tempted to ask Professor Waters if I can just turn in my index cards for the next two books, or I'll never actually learn anything in this class. Well, that's not entirely true. From what I could tell of headings and subheadings, Waters is sticking pretty close to the books.

But I still don't have a paper topic and class starts in an hour and a half.

Traveling

2007-09-25T00:06:00.000-04:00

As much as I'd like to say I'm leaving in the Wiener Mobile, I'll only be flying home tomorrow. This was on my block a few weeks ago. Very random, I must say.

I'm headed to visit my family over the next week. It feels a little like I'm stuck in a lengthy transitory phase... moving, switching jobs, starting school again, etc. And yet, I seem to thrive on this sort of thing. I can't imagine being "settled" in the sense that I can't imagine I won't want to try new challenges even when I am "settled." It's difficult to imagine what settled even looks like.

School is saturating me with theology. I'm on overload and haven't really been able to produce any fruitful thoughts to share here as of late. Perhaps a week in the cornfields with intermittent internet access will give me time to reflect. That's my hope anyway. At the least, I'll have to catch up on reading, write two papers and faithfully flip through my Hebrew flash cards.

I have to pick a topic for the research paper in my Gospels class. I wanted to do some research on the Gnostic gospels but the prof is limiting us to the Canon. So, any controversial verses out there you'd like to have researched? Suggestions so far: Matt 24:34, Mark 9:1 and Mark 13:10. Any other ideas?

Uncertainty

2007-09-09T16:47:00.000-04:00

His secret will is no cause for doubt.

Recent changes in my life have left me feeling a bit overwhelmed. I remind myself that I’ve done work and school before, and that I really just need to take it one day or week at a time. And really, both are amazing opportunities that I’m blessed to have. As one college friend wrote, “think of all the thousands of people who just make widgets to get by. You get to do something you’ll love!” This is very, very true, and as I began to grumble over biblical Hebrew and Geerhardus Vos yesterday afternoon, I was struck with the thought that my life is in His hands.

Wow, Ryann, you’ve just now caught on to this? Yes, it is one thing to look back at situations, trials and mistakes that He’s brought me through and know that He was with me. It is a different experience to look forward, to know there will be clouds and storms, and to trust that He’ll take me there, only by His lead.

This article was passed to me, and tells of Sudanese Christians fleeing to Israel in the face of horrible circumstances. The friend who sent it marveled that many of these who Christians end up at her church still praise the Lord in the face of such tragedy. It is because they know this truth, perhaps more profoundly than we can understand in the land of good and plenty.

There are infinite uncertainties in life. Where will I find food, work or housing? How will I manage my time and finances? Will I ever be able to pay off my student loans and buy a house? Will I get married, have kids, and die old or young? (Will Apple stop making gadgets for me to covet?) And ultimately, so very little of these uncertainties matter.

And yet, He holds us in His hands. All that is uncertain to us – all the decisions we face, the curve balls life throws our way, even the fleeting thoughts of the frailness and transience of life – do not catch Him by surprise. All is certain with Him. My life will unfold exactly as it should. This reminder was a tremendous comfort and brought to mind the quote from Pierre Marcel. I originally thought this quote was speaking of faith-doubt, implying that not knowing His unrevealed will is no cause to doubt His existence in general. But there is another aspect to the wisdom here. His secret will for our lives – the uncertainty we feel – is no reason for us to doubt that He has a perfect plan in place, and that He has the power to see it to fruition, because He is the master of that plan.

Mystical longings?

2007-09-02T18:37:00.000-04:00

Amid the revelations by Mother Teresa that her communion with the Lord was not what she’d hoped, and questions from a friend about whether or not it is appropriate to ask for a “religious experience” to be granted, I’ve been pondering the role of, the request for, and the desire for mystical elements in our spiritual lives. This is one of those contentious points where I’m not sure that I fully agree with the Reformed cessationist stance, but I’m also not at a point (or in any position) to formulate a new theological perspective. In fact, my thoughts on the matter are quite conflicting and incomplete. I’m not even sure that the termination of tongues and other manifestations of the Holy Spirit are of the same element as mystical experiences. That said, the following thoughts are very raw, and something I hope to flesh out more in the next few months.

I was asked the other day – advised, I should say, to try visualizing handing Jesus my heart, full of its anxiety, troubles, fears; broken and bruised, etc., and to imagine my Lord handing it back to me whole and healed.

I was turned off by this suggestion. It felt too modern psychology, additional, even extra-biblical. Was this an appropriate method to interact with G-d? I’ve done exercises like this before. Tacking my “sins” on a piece of paper to a giant wooden cross, or burning them in a campfire at some retreat or camp. These never seemed like fruitful endeavors, but I thought that perhaps I’m just not a visual learner and that others gain from this experience when for me it was almost irritating.

Did the Lord ever ask us to visualize, I wondered? Certainly there are visions throughout the Bible, and Jesus frequently used parables as illustrations. But they were concrete, at least to the extent that their formulation was governed and distributed by G-d. And, generally speaking, these experiences were given, not sought. This holds true in my experience as well. The images that I do have in my mind’s eye are those that I did not conjure up at will, but that came to me in times of prayer, reflection, or dreams. They have brought great peace in times of loneliness or sorrow, unlike the superficial actions mentioned above.

Yet, we are visual people who need visual experiences. We are even spiritual people who need mystical or religious experiences. I do not mean to suggest we must all have Revelations of Divine Love, or be moved to write mystical poetry. But we are given – very intentionally – visual and tangible symbols of the covenant as means of grace in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

What I find wrapped in these symbols are mystical elements that the Church likes to simply call “mysteries” rather than flirt with the notions of mysticism. Webster’s highlights mystery as “a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand,” and mysticism is defined as “the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).” The slight difference I see is that of subjective experience on the mystical side. One could argue that partaking in communion is objective, in that its purpose is stated, even if mysterious. But do we not each connect differently during that time of private reflection? Isn’t that the great mystery that this same means of grace – one Grace for all – touches us each uniquely and transforms each person differently?

It seems to me, and not just with communion, but with many of the mysteries of our faith – the virgin birth, fulfilled prophecy, Jesus as both fully human and fully divine, etc., that if they were not wrapped in the cloak of Christian history, if they did not carry the weight of the human-touched Church through the centuries, if we could be so bold as to imagine them as new ideas – would they not strike us as mystical and strange? Is their familiarity a tarnish to what should be our very own mystical experience, fulfilling our mystical longings?

Lasting Impressions

2007-08-28T11:58:00.000-04:00

Recently, a debate began among my friends over an issue that I felt was governed by social construct. Now, I fully believe that the person in dissent is a rational human being, and came to the opposing conclusion based on his convictions, and thus it should not be a contentious issue among believers. However, it did hurt some feelings (not all mine), raise questions about social mores, and the weight they should bear on our convictions.

The topic at hand was alcohol. The debate was not over whether or not one should drink, since all those around the table were in agreement that the moderate consumption of alcohol is no problem at all, in most circumstances. No, the conflict came when the dissenter expressed that he did not feel women should drink beer, and that it was only proper for a lady to consume wine. It was a good thing that the only beverages being had at the time were Frosty’s.

I unsuccessfully attempted to engage this friend in a dialogue about the matter. I argued that drinking habits are often influenced by family, social construct and even social class. I appealed to time and place, affluence and poverty, availability and popularity – all to no avail. Finally, I pleaded with taste. Beer goes with burgers and pizza! Wine does not!

How much of our convictions are shaped by our surroundings? I think about the more liberal-ish and social gospel churches I know and it draws to mind friends with tattoos, piercings, and other ways of living that are “gray areas,” but that my more conservative Christian friends might find distasteful or questionable. I think about interactions between my friends of the opposite sex that would be detrimental to my witness in some contexts but not in others. More so, I think of the passing judgment that we dole out, without thinking of the consequences to the Church as a whole, and wonder if many of these are Romans 14 issues. In that light, I wonder how I am to respond when I know that I should respect someone’s convictions, however much I disagree with them. I’m upset by how much this makes me conscious of my actions around said friend, and irritated that I’ve let it upset me.

More importantly, I’m still struggling to find a wine that goes with burgers. My roommate, thankfully, found one that goes with pizza. Whew.

Transition, and preparation

2007-08-15T12:24:00.000-04:00

I'm settling in to a new living abode. I've been here three weeks; it's finally starting to feel like home, although I'm still not fond of my commute to work.

This afternoon, I have a second interview with the organization I really, really, really want to work for. There was some up-and-down last week with their two offices going back and forth over whether or not I'd be able to work via internet/Skype. Their main office is in the UK, and I'd be working at a branch office here in the US. We'll see if it works out this afternoon.

I'm also in the process of preparing for classes in a few weeks. I just put all the books for ST VI in my Amazon basket, and combined with the Hebrew text book, my total is right at $100. Not bad at all!

So, in a brief span of time, I've moved and could possibly be changing jobs, all while starting school full time in about 3 weeks. Whew. It's been emotional at times, and I'm reminded to stay close to the Word. (Somewhere in the back of my mind, I hear Mad Eye Moody's "Constant Vigilance!")

Here's what I'll be reading for ST IV: Ecclesiology & Sacraments this semester. Likely than not, it will influence both the content and frequency of my posting.

1. Geerhardus Vos, The Kingdom of God and the Church
2. Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives On Pentecost
3. Edmund P. Clowney, The Church
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles, Book 4, Chapters 1-20.
5. Edmund P. Clowney, “The Politics of the Kingdom,” Westminster Theological Journal 41:2 (1979): 291-310.
6. Richard B. Gaffin, "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism," from Theonomy, A Reformed Critique, 197-224.
7. Edmund P. Clowney, “The Final Temple” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973): 156-189.
8. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapters 20-23, 25-31.
9. Vern S. Poythress, "Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children," Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997), 13-29.
10. Vern S. Poythress, "Linking Small Children With Infants in the Theology of Baptizing,” Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997), 143-58.
11. John Murray, The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study
13. John Murray, Christian Baptism
14. The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper, Sermons by Robert Bruce, ed. and trans. Thomas F. Torrance

Sunday Worship

2007-07-15T20:09:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, Sundays feel too harried and forced, and I find myself in a dilemma of whether or not corporate worship will do more good than harm. I'm put off by the routine, the primping and labor of going to church, fellowshiping at lunch, church again, and another social activity on top of that. I find an unnatural pressure to fill the entire day with fellowship-related events. Granted, if I felt like that every Sunday, it might be cause for concern, and generally I am all for Sunday corporate worship. But, I do find I must prioritize what my other Sunday activities will be, and on this end, I seem to be coming across as anti-social.

However, if I do not have some sense that I've rested on the Sabbath, my week is far more stressful, for myself, and for those around me. I maintain a loose definition of rest, and I completely understand that my idea of rest differs from another. For some, spending the day full of gatherings with family and friends is restful. For me, if I do not spend at least one day alone a week, my mental and emotional well-being suffers dramatically. In fact, if I don't get that time to myself, to regroup, process, and allow the introvert in me to recharge, I can easily become so nasty that I alienate friends and am entirely unpleasant company.

So today, after an intense week of too many activities, and camping all weekend with friends, I took a break. What I find frustrating is that twinge of remorse - not that I should have been at church, but that I've disappointed people. This has lessened as I've grown more, and understood the ramifications of me not resting. And I'm reminded that Jesus modeled this balance of community fellowship with times of individual reflection and isolation. If I did not guard this time, if I did not in some way make it a holy offering between me and my Lord, I'd be unable to fully give myself to the church, my friends, my week, my job, etc., without causing irreparable damage to myself, or to those relationships I cherish.

But, this is not always easily explained, for lack of ability to articulate it in words that make sense, in my critical self-view. I find myself fearing that a tone of voice hints either hurt feelings or condescension when I have to say "No" to activities, but I don't know how to communicate that it's actually because I so value fellowship that at times I must remove myself from it, in order to be a productive contributor to it.

Disobedience, Moving, and Harry Potter

2007-07-04T10:40:00.000-04:00

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8

Twice I listened to Piper’s sermon on this passage. And it took twice for it to sink in: it’s not all about asking. I’m great at that asking part. Crying over earthly things I know I can’t afford. Begging, pleading, fasting, throwing what amounts to a spiritual tantrum, and even feeling justified in doing so – why would He give me these desires if He had no intention of fulfilling them?

And then I came face to face with my disobedience. After an emotionally trying experience, I realized that I’d been waiting on the decisions of another to move forward. While I was actively seeking G-d’s will in the situation, I wasn’t actively seeking His will for me. I prided myself on being flexible and adaptable, when no matter what; I should have been following the Lord’s lead for my life. Even more so when that made it clear that my path was here, not there.

Now I saw the connection between asking and seeking… but knocking? Why did I never realize this verb meant action on my part? That’s not to say that I can make the door open; it’s just to say that there must be some element of proactively doing on our part. It’s wise to see the order here. Only after pouring out our hearts and listening for His lead can we really have a sense of where to knock. But I’d had that sense for a while, and I was stubbornly ignoring it, though it really was what I truly desired.

I wanted to go back to school, full-time, and to make it financially plausible, I wanted to do it for free. I felt selfish in asking this. Don’t I have enough degrees? I should be happy with what I’ve got, and if the Lord wants me to do this later (i.e., after raising a family), then maybe it will work out then. I’d projected my own timeline onto the situation, hoping that my first desire (husband and family) would come first (duh), and that the second desire (to teach), could wait. So, I didn’t knock. I even knew where the door was and didn’t knock.

Until two weeks ago, that is. I called up the director of the seminary affiliated with my church and asked to meet with him to talk. I had outlined my questions, concerns, and what would need to happen for me to be able to pursue an MA in Religion. First, I wanted to make sure all of the courses would be offered in a two-year span, to ensure I wouldn’t be spending 6 years completing another degree. Second, I wanted to make sure I could fit in Hebrew and Greek without having to take extra credits. Third, I “needed” a full scholarship. I have too much school debt already to tack on more. And finally, I really wanted a new job that would be flexible with my class schedule, pay the bills, and maybe even be in my field.

I knew it was a tall order. But I had to knock and see if the door opened, and trust that if this really was where the Lord wanted me, He would provide.

I sat down at the meeting two weeks ago, and the director answered ever one of my questions before I’d asked. Yes, he was obligated to offer the full rotation of MA classes in a two-year cycle, and Greek and Hebrew are the exact number of elective credit hours to complete the program. He also needed a Special Events Coordinator, and because of my TA position last semester, he knew I would be great at orchestrating their Spring Concert, lecture series, and graduation. And, he would give me full tuition to do so. He also happens to be on the board of an organization that works with persecuted Christians in the Muslim world, and low and behold, he knew they were looking to hire on more folks – specifically someone with writing skills and knowledge of the Middle East. In fact, when he’d read my paper for the Islam class, it confirmed that I would be an excellent candidate for the job.

I don’t have the job in the bank, yet. It may not come through at all. But I know I’ll be in school this fall, studying what I love to prepare me to do what I’ll love. And I know that I’ll be moving at the end of July, to a townhouse that’s closer to school, potentially closer to the new job and with three other girls from church. Moving was not a necessity; especially since I don’t know if I’ll get this job or not, and if I don’t, I’ll be adding a significant commute to my current job. It’s also caused a great deal of anxiety, as I look around my apartment, where I’ve grown extremely comfortable in the last three years. This is home. I’ve been here longer than any one place since I was fifteen. But if I don’t leave now, I fear I’ll become complacent. I’ll wake up five years from now, in the same dead-end job, in the same apartment, stuck in a rut.

Some change is good. Multiple changes are stressful. And I find myself seeking refuge not in the Lord, where I should be, but in Harry Potter. Sad but true. I know I’m distracting myself, not wanting to deal with the emotional drain of a relationship let-down, the packing and sorting of moving, or the prospects of changing jobs. You would think after just learning a lesson in disobedience, after seeing the Lord open doors and growing deeper in an understanding of what it means to trust in Him, that I would be most keen on spending my spare time in His word, with Him. But I’ve been sucked into the world of wizards and Muggles, the timeless saga of good versus evil, and the challenge of trying to catch up before book seven’s release. Lest you fret I’ve gone too far, there’s a great dialogue on Christians and HP here.

Back to this passage in Matthew: I think the repetition – ask, seek, knock – speaks highly to our human nature. It’s simple and instructive. And it’s clearly something we have to come back to, over and over again.

New Bible

2007-06-26T17:31:00.001-04:00

I haven't had a new Bible in a long time, not that I really need more than one. But a friend told me about the ESV Journaling Bible and I couldn't resist. My initial impressions are that I like the size and the space available for notes. But the font is tiny, and there is no full concordance, only a small reference section on select topics at the front. Introductions to the books are grouped at the back, rather than at the beginning of each.

It'll be put to the test in a few hours when I head to small group.

Back from the Beach

2007-06-25T20:07:00.000-04:00

Well, I wasn't there long, but I'm back. In fact, we spent more time getting there than we did on the beach, but that's ok. Water and sunshine make me happy. Just finished my Islam final, too, so now I'll have more time to post. In theory. In reality, I'd like to spend as little time inside as possible during the remaining summer months. Which may just mean posting from my balcony.

Primarily, what I've learned in the last few weeks was not an easy lesson... those always take a while longer to sort out and formulate in print. I can sum it up in two words: Disobedience and Grace. Nothing like a lazy afternoon on the sand with nothing but my own thoughts to drive those two parts home.

ST: Critique of Open Theism

2007-06-02T10:32:00.000-04:00

The paper, continued. This is it. I think I've fit it in two posts. Kind of sad, really. I could have said more but we were limited to 12 pages in 12 point font.

~ ~ ~

Critical Response to Regret in Open Theism

The open theistic understanding of G-d’s regret, specifically in the account of Saul found in I Samuel, incorrectly categorizes the emotion, fails to see Saul in the scope of redemptive history, and raises problematic theological implications. The use of “repent” in place of regret is mistaken, and the inexplicable avoidance of putting I Samuel 15 in context with the rest of 1 Samuel is inexcusable. Open theism also unavoidably leads to a G-d stripped of his revelatory authority.

Rice uses “divine repentance” for the Flood, Saul, Nineveh, etc. It is his catch-all phrase for a variety of G-d’s emotions, translating sorry, relent, regret, and grief all as repentance.[1] Citing Jonah and Joel, Rice equates G-d’s mercy with his “repentance.” Let’s look at these verses:

Jonah 4:2b: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate G-d, slow to anger and abounding in love, a G-d who relents from sending calamity.”

Joel 2:13b: “Return to the Lord your G-d, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.”

How is relenting from due punishment repentance? Jonah is referring to the just judgment Nineveh deserved, and Joel is calling Israel to return to the Lord because of their rebellion. Yet, Rice claims “formulations like these demonstrate that repentance is not an exceptional action on God’s part, let alone something that is out of character for him,”[2] implying that when he “relents from calamity,” G-d is repenting.

Rice is adamant that this be translated “repent” rather than “relent.” But, both Jonah and Joel are referencing G-d’s revelation of himself to Moses on Mount Sinai, where it is clear that “he relents from sending calamity” is parallel to G-d’s forgiveness and mercy, not divine repentance.[3]

The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious G-d, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis mine)

Repentance implies sin. This is not a matter of a lack of foreknowledge, but a lack of knowledge to make the right decision – period. How can G-d be wrong? This limits His deity entirely, by suggesting that G-d, who is perfect in all ways, can make mistakes. If we allow for a G-d who can be wrong, we find ourselves worshiping an incomplete deity; a deity imagined on human understanding of emotions, and not grounded in Scripture where man is made in G-d’s image, not vice versa.[4] Regret can be because of a poor decision, or it can just be sadness over what we know will come to pass, i.e., grief. This is what Ware describes as the proper understanding of this emotion in I Samuel, and what the NIV translates:

"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night. (1 Sam 15:11)

Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel. (I Sam 15:35)

Ware describes the use of regret in this context as that of “weak regret” versus “strong regret.”[5] Strong regret is the sense in which we most experience regret. In hindsight, when we have a more complete picture of events and new information, we experience regret over poor choices, actions, etc. But the Lord is not caught off guard by new information because he is all-wise, and fully aware of all future actions (Ps 139:4, 16; 147:5). The sense of regret G-d expresses is the weak sense, meaning he experiences sadness over watching painful events come to pass. G-d is always grieved over witnessing sin; to rob him of this steals his righteousness. John Piper further expounds this emotion:

So my alternative way of thinking about these texts is: God foreknows the grievous and sorrowful effects of some of his own choices – for example, to create Adam and Eve, and to make Saul king. These effects are genuinely grievous to God as he sees them in themselves. Yet he does not regard his choices as mistakes that he would do differently if only he foreknew what was coming. Rather, he wills to do some things which he then genuinely grieves over in part when the grievous effect comes to pass.[6]

There are deeper theological implications of a G-d who regrets. To suggest G-d cannot know the future, and is dependent on human acts, and can therefore regret his own decisions based on the actions of others, implies an incompleteness to revelation. Countless passages tell us G-d’s decrees – and that his plans will come to pass. If we cannot trust that G-d will make wise decisions, we cannot trust his promises, and the whole of Scripture comes into question. Open theism argues that his plans will come to realization; he just doesn’t have the specifics laid out. But this is a slippery-slope at best and heretical at heart. It begs the question: Can G-d be trusted to do what he says? The answer, against open theism, is emphatically yes. Not only because G-d is in complete control of all future actions, but that has he ordained them. His sovereign order gives us confidence that his Word is trustworthy and complete, and that he alone can be trusted (Prov 30:5-6; Ps 145:13).

Both open theism and Ware fail to point to Saul in the greater context of I Samuel (cf. I Sam 8:6-18, below). Here we see the Lord is punishing Israel for rejecting him as king, by appointing a king who will rule, as all earthly kings do, with force. It does not matter if this passage is directly about Saul, for Saul is the establishment of a kingship for G-d’s chosen people; a kingship for a fickle people, which will bring them much hardship, but that brings also the line and rule of the King of Kings. The following exchange takes place when Samuel approaches the Lord about the Israelite desire for a king:

6But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." 10Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:6-18)

It is clear from Samuel’s prophecy that G-d knew exactly what he was doing by establishing a kingship and anointing Saul king. To see Saul in perspective, we must look at him in redemptive history. G-d is punishing his rebellious chosen people, and yet, he is ushering in David the Messianic King, pointing towards Christ. Think also of the Psalms attributed to David as he was pursued by Saul (Ps 18, 52, 54, 57, 59, 142). And, would David have written the Messianic Psalms had he not learned a deep trust and reliance upon the Lord, seen his pleas for rescue answered, and the glory of G-d’s faithfulness? Clearly, G-d’s plan for Saul went beyond Saul. What is also evident from seeing Saul through the lens of redemptive history is not only did good come from bad, but G-d intended it to all along (I Samuel 12:14-15, 12:20-25 and 13:14).

Another aspect of putting the regret passages into the context of all Scripture understands that G-d sometimes says thing for our own realization. Our Lord’s actions illustrate this in the story of Lazarus found in John. Not only does Christ display genuine sorrow for Lazarus’ death, even though he knew it would not last, he also prays “for the benefit of the people standing here” (John 11:41). Seeing G-d’s grief through redemptive history is part of understanding that G-d acts in history.[7] Because of this, we can trust that good can from bad, evil, wrong and suffering; we do not endure hardships needlessly. This is not in the patronizing sense that we must learn our lessons “for our own good,” but that we may trust our sufferings are not pointless and that he works all things for good (Rom 8:28).

Knowing that G-d is for us, working sovereignty in our lives, we can trust his promises, and can fully believe that what he promises in Scripture will come to pass, because he is in complete control. The orthodox view of G-d vindicates the divine authority of his word because it upholds G-d’s wisdom to make right choices, keeping providence under his rule and thus maintaining that his promises can be trusted. Whereas open theism states, “since God does not necessarily know exactly what will happen in the future, it is always possible that even that which God in his unparalleled wisdom believes to be the best course of action at any given time may not produce the anticipate results in the long run;”[8] we have the benefit of resting in his providence. For all their protection of libertarian freewill, open theists actually limit freedom by not trusting fully in the only one who can be trusted to know what the future holds. Knowing that his promises stand firm, we can lean on his Word as everlasting truth, trusting its divine authority to be complete.

[1] Rice, 27
[2] Rice, 31
[3] Ware and Piper both make room for use of this term. Whether this is kept as a counterargument tactic is unclear. Granted, I don’t know Biblical Hebrew, but I find the use of divine repentance, even from the reformed perspective, disturbing.
[4] Ware, 35 (2003)
[5] Ware, 33 (2003)
[6] Ware, 97 (2000)
[7] Ware, 91, 93 (2000)
[8] Ware, 171 (2000); David Basinger

~ ~ ~

Yes, I did get teased by friends for using that giant block of Scripture but I felt it was necessary for my argument, and the professor did not say anything about it in his comments. And yes, I still would've made the page requirements had I not included it. :)

ST: Paper Intro, Part II

2007-05-28T16:46:00.000-04:00

Got the paper back last week. Did much better than I thought I would, so I'm confident enough to post it in increments. Here is the remainder of the first section. Part of this overlaps with the first Introduction post. I'll post the rest in bits over the week.

~ ~ ~

One common objection to open theism is that it is dangerously close to suggesting that G-d lies. Two passages, Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 are often used by opponents of open theism because they state G-d does not lie. Rice argues against these passages; first by equating lie with repent. [1] Next, Rice states that by saying G-d will not repent, it implies he can if he so chooses.[2] For Rice, this gets back to how G-d intentionally designed the world. G-d purposefully cannot see future free choices, protecting our libertarian freedom, so that he can engage with us in a genuine, meaningful manner. Ware agrees the two terms are related, but goes on to expound that since G-d never lies (2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18), it is more accurate to understand this as parallelism and not a substitution of terminology.[3]

Regret or repentance indicates that G-d has no foreknowledge of the future in open theism. Greg Boyd argues,

We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did. Could God genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king”? I do not see how… Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.[4]

And Boyd’s argument does make sense – if we are to understand this in terms of human feelings and emotions. We certainly make poor decisions, with imperfect information, in a fallen and sinful world. But we are speaking of the G-d of the universe here, and as Ware points out, I Samuel 15:29 plainly states that G-d is not like man.[5]

Others support the openness of G-d from Scripture, and it cannot be denied that there are instances where G-d appears to change his mind or shows regret that need to be addressed. There are several passages used by the open view to illustrate G-d’s regret. The most common example is that of The Flood, where Genesis tells us, “Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood” (Gen. 8:11; cf. 8:12-16). Ware does an excellent job expounding this event from the orthodox perspective.[6]

I will focus on another frequently cited passage, the account of Saul, the first king of Israel, in I Samuel. The Israelites had grown restless, and requested the prophet Samuel appoint a king to lead them. Saul was chosen – appointed by G-d – to lead his chosen people. Saul then disobeyed the Lord, and the Lord “regrets” making him king. Let us look at the verse in question (I Samuel 15:11) in different translations:

“I am sorry that I ever made Saul king, for he has not been loyal to me and has refused to obey my command.” Samuel was so deeply moved when he heard this that he cried out to the Lord all night. (NLT)

"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night. (ESV)

The open view explains that this passage indicates G-d’s regret over His own decision to make Saul king. G-d had high hopes for Saul, and believed he would lead the Israelites well. However, Saul made several poor decisions and disobeyed the Lord’s commands, thus displeasing the Lord, and causing Him to regret making Saul king (cf. I Samuel 13:13). For open theists, this shows that G-d did not know Saul would be a bad king, and he speaks of his regret over this poor decision.

The ramifications of a G-d who can regret his own choices are profound. The positive pastoral implications for open theists are that when bad things happen to good people, G-d never intended and did not know it would happen. This is how Boyd explains why a woman’s husband could have an affair, without G-d ever having foreknowledge, and thus control, of her husband’s painful actions.[7] Counseling her, Boyd explains that “by framing the ordeal within the context of an open future, she was able to understand the tragedy of her life in a new way. She… didn’t have to accept that somehow God intended this ordeal “for her own good”… This isn’t a testimony to his [G-d’s] exhaustive definite foreknowledge; it’s a testimony to his unfathomable wisdom.”[8] John Sanders also tackles suffering from the open view. He calls some suffering “pointless evil,” and believes that “the possibility of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not.”[9] Further, he states “God does not have a specific purpose in mind for these occurrences.”[10] This view comes dangerously close to suggesting a G-d that doesn’t care, and is indifferent to the sufferings of his people. Granted, the proponents of open theism would disagree, but how can he care if “the G-d of open theism does not know, intend, or will good out of any future suffering?”[11] And, if suffering is pointless, what do open theists’ make of the Cross? Does not the Suffering Servant become obsolete?

[1] Rice, 33
[2] Rice, 32
[3] Ware, 33 (2003); Ware, 88 (2000). Ware also challenges the open theist use of Hosea 11:8-9.
[4] Ware, 26 (2003); Ware, 52 (2000)
[5] Ware, 33 (2003)
[6] Ware, 159 (2000) Although the same arguments can apply to Saul, I will defer to Ware here, as the Flood is not the focus of this paper.
[7] Ware, 64-65 (2003)
[8] Ware, 65 (2003)
[9] Ware, 66 (2003)
[10] Ware, 66 (2003)
[11] Ware, 67 (2003); emphasis mine.

Self Portrait

2007-05-20T21:14:00.000-04:00

Took this a few weeks ago while I was studying on the waterfront.

Muddled Mess

2007-05-07T23:48:00.000-04:00

I alluded to an internal debate I’ve had over the past few weeks a while back. I’m still stuck.

Here’s the thought-flow process:

1. G-d’s essence is eternal, lacking nothing, and cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. What does this say of His Wrath and Mercy? Both are clearly unnecessary in the relationship of the godhead.
3. His Wrath we can attribute to His Righteousness; it is an outpouring of His Righteous character. We would not say “G-d is Wrath,” though we understand that it is part of His natural response to sin.
4. What of Mercy? If His essence is eternal and cannot be changed, and there is no need for Him to display Mercy to Himself, what is this an outpouring of? And, can we not say “G-d is Mercy”?
5. Dr. Griffith’s answer was to suggest that while G-d does not change, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, He plans for change, and thus planned to be merciful.
6. I can’t buy it. This implies that Mercy resided in His character from eternity for He planned it to be that way. And, in my mind, that comes dangerously close to suggesting that He needed to create us to display His Mercy.
7. (I’m picking on Mercy here, but I think the same argument could be said for Grace.)
8. Does it lessen G-d to say that He is not Mercy, (but merciful) i.e., that it is not part of His eternal essence? I think it does.
9. Thus, my standstill. I cannot reconcile His eternal essence with His unchangeablity and His lack of need for us.

Package surprises

2007-04-30T16:55:00.000-04:00

I checked the front desk today, hoping a present I ordered last week would be waiting for me. There was indeed a package, but not what I was expecting. I used this book repeatedly for my thesis. At the time, it was the most comprehensively researched work I could find on my subject. Since then, I've looked for it on Amazon, only to find it out of stock or ridiculously expensive. A few months ago, I got the bright idea to email the author directly and request a copy. That's what arrived today. As my grandma would say, "I'm tickled pink."

However, I now need to figure out how to do a bank transfer to Norway.

ST: Paper Introduction

2007-04-28T08:11:00.000-04:00

I realized my paper would be far too long to post on here all at once. So, here is the introduction, and part of the first section. This is still a rough draft, and I'd love feedback. :)

Introduction

Open theists would like to prove their beliefs on the grounds of the Word of G-d, but they are confronting the very authority of Scripture. Clark Pinnock, et al, present their views in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Open theism cannot continue to manipulate Scripture to promote its heretical theology without a Biblical response from the confessing church. Bruce Ware addresses the Biblical and theological problems of open theism in two works, Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God, and God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. The open view of G-d claims that G-d’s emotional responses to human actions suggest he is dependent on human choices, and must “wait-and-see” before he can pursue his eternal plans. Open theists often use G-d’s regret over making Saul king (I Sam 15:11, 35) as a primary example that G-d did not know Saul would disobey him. I intend to show that this is categorically false, as it is both a willfully misguided interpretation of “regret” in the passage, and fails to see the story of Saul in the larger context of I Samuel (cf. 8:6-18), and in the organic path of redemptive history foreshadowed by the kingship of David.

What is Open Theism?[1]

Open theism presents itself as the alternative to placing G-d in the confines of a predetermined world. The openness of G-d refers to His open approach to the future, and the view emphasizes divine love. He has designed the world, allowing freewill humans to hold sway in their future, the fate of humanity, and the specifics of G-d’s redemptive plan. It’s important to understand that, under open theism, G-d has purposefully limited his future omniscience to create a give-and-take relationship between Himself and his creation. This granting of freedom allows us to collaborate or frustrate G-d’s will, and He adjusts His plans to fit situations in order to accomplish His goals. This is crucial for understanding the framework of open theism. Open theists protect G-d’s sovereignty by claming that G-d does not control everything that happens because he’s designed the world to operate that way. He waits to respond to human decisions, showing Himself as a loving and kind G-d.

This idea of an ultra-relational G-d is caught on the notion that human freedom and G-d’s control of future events are at odds. How can there be real love between G-d and man if we are just robots, and cannot truly choose to love him? For open theists, human freewill must be defined in the libertarian sense. A choice can only be free if it is truly free; there can be no outside forces influencing the decision-maker – including the self. Only when an action can be changed by the actor up until the moment of the act, is there truly a free choice being made. Apart from the ability to do so, we cannot have freewill.

This understanding of freewill is critical to open theism. If G-d comprehensively knows the future, the future must be fixed. If so, open theism purports, then man cannot really be free to make his own decisions.[2] This becomes a cyclical dependence on libertarian freedom: G-d cannot have foreknowledge of the future to protect our free choices and we must be completely free to vindicate G-d’s lack of future freewill actions.

The open view sees G-d’s emotions displayed in Scripture as exhibiting his openness. Open theists believe that instances where G-d appears to change his mind, get angry, or show regret, indicates he was unaware of the impacts of human interactions and is now responding to freewill human choices. Because G-d waits for us to act, he is sometimes upset by how events unfold. G-d can even be disappointed when choices he makes do not develop the way he anticipated. This emotion – be it disappointment, regret, or sorrow – is often used to support the open view.

A presentation of G-d’s regret from the openness perspective is found in Pinnock, et al, as addressed by Richard Rice. Rice outlines G-d’s intentions as we understand human intentions: desires, goals, objectives.[3] G-d’s plans are just that – plans; he can adapt, respond, change, etc., to human influence. He is not bound by a determined set of events and enjoys interacting with his creation to work out his plans. In the open view, the story of Saul in the Old Testament illustrates this point. G-d hoped Saul would be a good king (I Sam 15:35). He planned for Saul to be a good, faithful king. Saul, however, in his freewill, rejected G-d’s plan, causing G-d to regret making him king.

One common objection to open theism is that it is dangerously close to suggesting that G-d that lies. Rice argues against two passages, often used by opponents of open theism, that say G-d will not lie (Num 23:19 & I Sam 15:29). First, he equates lie with repent. [4] Ware agrees the two terms are related, but goes on to expound that since G-d never lies (2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18), it is more accurate to understand this as parallelism and not a substitution of terminology.[5] Next, Rice states that by saying G-d will not repent, it implies he can if he so chooses.[6] For Rice, this gets back to how G-d intentionally designed the world. G-d purposefully cannot see future free choices, protecting our libertarian freedom, so that he can engage with us in a genuine, meaningful manner.

It’s important to understand why regret indicates that G-d has no foreknowledge of the future in open theism. Greg Boyd argues, “We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did. Could G-d genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king”? I do not see how… Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.”[7] And Boyd’s argument does make sense – if we are to understand this in terms of human feelings and emotions. We certainly make poor decisions, with imperfect information, in a fallen and sinful world. But we are speaking of the G-d of the universe here, and as Ware points out, I Samuel 15:29 plainly states that G-d is not like man.[8]

[1] Ware outlines the tenants of open theism in ten distinct points on p. 67-68 (2003).
[2] Frame, 486
[3] Rice, 26
[4] Rice, 33
[5] Ware, 33 (2003); Ware, 88 (2000). Ware also challenges the open theist use of Hosea 11:8-9.
[6] Rice, 32
[7] Ware, 26 (2003); Ware, 52 (2000)
[8] Ware, 33 (2003)

Internal Debates

2007-04-21T19:41:00.000-04:00

I started a post last week about a topic I'd been internally debating. I thought I'd reached a satisfactory conclusion, until I started to type it out. I'll have to re-work the post now, and I'm just too tired to do so at the moment.

Had Islam class this weekend. Sadly, I don't have time to think about it... I worked on the ST paper during class! Our ST paper has to be on some aspect of open theism. I'm doing mine on regret: What does it mean when Scripture says G-d regretted? Specifically, I'm using the account of Saul in I Samuel (15:11, 35), where G-d says He regrets making Saul king. I'll post a draft of my paper when it's presentable. But, I really would like to know what you all (the mass of devout readers that I have) think about the above question.

I'll leave you with some pictures from this afternoon's hike.

(It's hard to see, but there's a nest in the branches)

Missing Mercy

2007-04-11T17:15:00.000-04:00

Mercy is a strong word. It's not one I think of as overused, and even its Biblical roots show in Webster's: a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion. We all pretty well understand that we sometimes receive pardon we did not deserve. It can be as small as a warning when we warranted a speeding ticket, or the Ultimate Mercy of G-d's pardon for our disobedience to him.

But for me, Mercy is also a sweet, bright little girl, the sister of my best friend. I met Mercy when she was four, and immediately we were connected. I was a senior in high school, on my way to graduation and college. This clearly made me super cool, and far more interesting than her siblings. Eventually, I became part of Mercy's family, spending holidays, college breaks, and weekends home, crashed on her older sisters' floor. But Mercy was the first to adopt me, and always the first to greet me at the door.

"Ryyyyaaaaannnnn!" She'd cry, and wrap her skinny frame around my waist and legs, before I could set down luggage or take off my coat. "I missed you! Where have you been? Why didn't you come home sooner?" No amount of explaining final exams, papers, or other obligations would suffice. She'd beg me puzzle with her, read with her, sit with her, sit by her at dinner, anything with her. And who doesn't want that? She embodied unconditional love to me. No matter how long I'd been gone, what my grades were like that semester, what my heart looked like that semester; I knew that the second I walked through the door, Mercy would be there to greet me, loving just the very fact that I was there.

I wish everyone had a Mercy.

Mercy got sick in January 2004, while her parents' were overseas. She had leukemia, and passed away June 30, 2004. Today is her birthday. Her sister emailed this morning that her gravestone was ready and the family was gathering this afternoon at her grave.

Her family no longer lives in that house. Her sister is happily married, with an apartment of their own. It makes it easier to go back and visit, but every time I ache, wanting her to be there at the door.

I miss Mercy.

Q & A

2007-03-31T09:57:00.000-04:00

Below is an email dialogue with my professor, Dr Griffith, about the Gaffin article. Dr Griffith is super cool, by far. His responses are in blue, and I've added some links.

~ ~ ~

Hi Dr. Griffith,

I did have some questions related to the Gaffin article. I'll preface by saying that I'm coming from a Vineyard background, and while I'm sold on Reformed theology now, I'm still trying to reconcile some of those charismatic influences. I would agree, like most, that the role of the apostle was finished with the early Church, as is clear from the very criteria defining an apostle. And, I've always been a little uncomfortable with speaking in tongues. My issue is really with that of prophets/prophecy.

Gaffin uses one verse (Eph. 2:20) to make this link -- that both apostles and prophets are foundational once-for-all finished participants. (a) I'm leery of any argument that is based on one verse, with unclear or ambiguous cross-references (He later uses Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16...references I really didn't find helpful).

He puts Eph 2:20 in its larger Ephesians context, 2:11-22, where Paul writes about the "house-building" project that is the New Covenant Church. That's a little more than 1 verse, but I'll grant that Gaffin does give a big emphasis to the "foundation" metaphor. At the same time though, it is Paul who includes prophets in the foundation. You have to wrestle with what that inclusion implies. It rests on the character of revelation, the place of apostles as organs of final revelation, and the relation of NT prophets to the apostles. If you want it more carefully argued, Gaffin does that in his book Perspectives on Pentecost.

These cross-references are all used to show that the word "mystery" in the NT always refers to the fulfillment of the plan of redemption. That fulfillment came about by Christ's coming, death and exaltation. Gaffin's point in this context is that the "mysteries" Paul refers to in 1 Cor 14, as the subjects of prophecies, are revelations, or words from God explaining the significance of the redemption accomplished by Christ. As I described that revelation in lecture, it is organic, covenantal, and progressive. The point in Gaffin's context is that these messages in 1 Cor 14 were fully revelational; not "a thought I have from God," but divinely inspired words for the whole church.

(b) I'm also not entirely convinced that prophets and prophetic revelations are the same thing. "Prophets", like apostles, suggests an appointed office, i.e., Tom is the Prophet in our congregation. I don't know that that's necessarily the case; it's unclear to me how prophets were established in the early church. Clearly in the OT, Prophets were appointed by G-d to carry a specific message to a specific people.

I think there is a link between prophecies as events (or as gifts given to men and women) and the office of prophet. How often did a prophet prophesy? That's not easy to say, nor to say how he took the position. There's no indication of "appointment," but I don't think it really matters much. The point is that in the NT church, Paul can refer to "prophets" as a distinguishable group and expect his readers to know whom he's talking about. Not everyone has this gift. Paul is explicit about that. Look at Ephesians 4:11, and 1 Cor 12:29 and 1 Cor 14:29 and 32.

And while I do think that is true -- we are no longer in an era when prophecies occur for the entire church body, I have a difficult time making the leap that individual-specific prophecies cannot occur. This, I admit, is due to my own perception of the prophetic in my life, and therefore could be entirely faulty. But take this example: I dream that X will happen to A. Some length of time later (a few days, weeks, months, years), X does in fact, happen to A. Is that coincidence? Is it revelation? Is it prophetic? I have no idea. All I know is that it happens, and it happens to me more frequently than I'm comfortable with. The point being that it's not entirely impossible for the office of prophet to have ceased, while G-d still chooses to reveal events in a prophetic manner. I'd never claim to be a prophet, but I know that when I sense Y will happen to B, chances are, it will happen. How can I reconcile that with Reformed theology? Are all my premonitions just that, and nothing more?

Again, you state the issues well. The point I would want to make theologically is just what you agree with - we are no longer in an era where prophecies occur for the entire church body - what you have to wrestle with is, that is what prophecy was. It was for the whole church body (there in Corinth or wherever). There was no such thing as "private" prophecy. Why not? Because every spiritual gift was/is given for the common good of the whole church body. [emphasis mine] That is Paul's point in 1 Cor 12:7-11 and 1 Peter 4:10-12.

About your experience of "accurate dreaming," I'd say that is different than prophecy, because it is not a verbal message coming from the Holy Spirit. Is it just premonition? I'd say, not "just," but yes, that is what it is. Some people have a sharper sense of things around them, even things that are going to happen, than others. This is a gift of the Spirit. I'd prefer to call that "wisdom," which I think is the biblical category for it. That distinguishes it from verbally inspired words coming supernaturally from God, as we see in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The distinction is important.

At the same time, your dreams are a gift from God. They are something to be used for his glory. But they don't have the same authority as his Word does (I know you realize this). You should also factor in that sometimes (I expect) your dreams are wrong. My only theological point is that the equation of such with prophecy distorts the nature of NT prophecy. Anyway, that's how I'd start to answer your good questions!

~ ~ ~

Ah, good stuff. Another comment Dr Griffith made in class that I really enjoyed was something along the lines of this:

We cannot accept Reformed theology on the basis of its intellectual appeal. That's an easy pit to fall in, because it is such a sound argument. We must, however, look at what the revelation of Scripture says, and if Reformed thinking does, in fact, match with the Word of G-d, then we can accept it, based solely on the truth of Scripture. But with all things, we must go back and check it against the Word.

Small Signs of Spring

2007-03-25T23:38:00.000-04:00

Today was the perfect day for a trip up to Great Falls. And half of the metro area thought so as well. Still got a few great shots, despite the hordes of people.

I loved this odd dip in the river.

The bird (white dot in the middle) took off about 3 seconds after I took this shot.

I caught him right then, but the shot came out blurry.

First buds of Spring.

More buds; better focus.

There were a handful of daffodils in one spot in the park.

Couldn't tell if they were planted or wild.

Didn't see a bird the whole day.

On my way out, this little guy posed for me.

Thoughts on covenant children

2007-03-22T19:12:00.000-04:00

Since, this Dilbert aptly describes my work week, I'm making every attempt to use my time wisely, including, but not limited to, studying, perusing online articles (both frivolous and educational), changing car insurance companies, and preparing for small group.

We're in Romans these days, Chapter 9:1-29. Reading versus 6-8, Paul is describing the makeup of Israel : not all natural children are included, and others are adopted in as children of the promise. Tim Keller points to the distinction between physical and spiritual descendents, using the examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. (From Keller’s Romans: A Study Course in the Gospel). This passage suggests a decisive break in the Jewish ethnic-descendent requirements of the OT. But what are the implications for the elect today? More on that in a moment.

Sunday I witnessed my first covenant baptism. I've seen infant baptisms before, but never administered in the Reformed tradition, or enveloped with the understanding of Reformed theology. Like much of my newfound awareness of grace, Sunday's baptism was awesome, in all verity and proper use of the word. The covenant relationship between promise and people, the foreshadowing and connection of circumcision and baptism, and the affirmation of a community that it is by His merciful choosing any of us can stand and call ourselves His, were all present with the sprinkling of water on a crying baby’s head. (And boy, did he cry!)

But now, pairing my experience on Sunday with the passage above, I have questions. I'm sure they are short of profound, and I'm not entirely perplexed; I'm just in the process of fleshing things out, and I'm bringing the two of you who read this blog along for the ride.

Are all children born into covenant families covenant children, i.e., chosen children of the promise? Doesn't this place the emphasis back on parental, physical lineage? I've just barely begun to scratch the surface of articles available online on this subject, but if anyone has authors to point me towards, that would be great.

There are some harsh criticisms for the failure of covenant parents who raise children that do not produce lives of faith. However, what I've found in general is more along the lines of the following excerpts:

"The situation of children who are born of believing parents is a special one. They do not have in themselves that quality of faith which is in the adult believer. Yet it cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed and germ of faith. The promise, accepted by the parents in faith, also includes their children to a thousand generations. . . . If it is objected that not all of them who are born of believing parents are elect, seeing that God did not choose all the children of Abraham and Isaac, we do not lack an answer. Though we do not deny that this is the case, still we say that this hidden judgment must be left to God and that normally, by virtue of the promise, all who have been born of believing parents, or if one of the parents believes, are sanctified." (Beza, Confessio Christianae Fidei , IV, 48).

"We do not ascribe this (the enjoyment of the benefits of the covenant) to birth in the flesh as the principle and true cause, for our children's salvation is only by the election and mercy of God, which often accompanies natural birth. . . This is not out of necessity, for the promise is not generally applicable to the whole seed but only to that seed in which election converges. . . But because we must not curiously investigate the hidden providence and election of God, we assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them. We do not need to respond to those who object and ask whether the minister is deceived, whether perhaps the infant is in truth no child of the promise, of divine election and mercy. Similar diatribes could be adduced with regard to adults, for we do not know whether they come deceptively, whether they truly believe, whether they are children of election or perdition, etc." (Martyr, Loci Communes , IV,
8, 7).

I sense that my introverted brain is taking longer to process things theses days – a sure sign that I need to take more time for purposeful reflection as the intensity of the semester increases. I haven’t forgotten the post I promised on my response to Gaffin’s article. I just got my prof’s response today, and I’ll be mulling over his answers and Scripture references this evening.

Sunshine, trust and restlessness

2007-03-14T21:54:00.000-04:00

Spring is finally shedding its light on the dullness of the city. This pleasant and much needed newness does not lighten my overbooked schedule, but it does make for improved spirits and general well-being.

To complement my mood this morning, I donned my spring rain jacket, a light yellow linen fitted trench coat. I love this jacket, even though I can really only wear it about two months out of the year. It's Ann Taylor LOFT, and fits perfectly; very feminine and the yellow contrast with my brown hair is pretty. (At least, I think it is).

I do realize that it is not technically spring for a few more days and yellow is a bit bold, but still, it's not breaking the White Rule for the few of us ladies out there who preserve it. I did not, however, expect quite the positive reaction it drew from my coworkers. My new nickname is Sunshine, and I've been serenaded with:

"You are my Sunshine, My Only Sunshine," "You are the Sunshine of my life" (Stevie Wonder), and "Sunshine Superman" (Donovan).

I could get used to this. :)

~~~

Today I also made an observation, and I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of it. There's a woman in my Cubicleland who I know to be a Christian. She's very pleasant, friendly, and talks openly about her faith, at least in the women's restroom. What I noticed yesterday was her underlying statement of distrust in her coworkers. She carried her purse to the copier. At first I thought maybe she was on her way out and just stopped at the copier, but she did it multiple times during the day. And today, I realized that she takes her purse with her everywhere, every time she leaves her cubicle. I could possibly understand this if a) we didn't work in a secure building, or b) each cubicle didn't have multiple lockable cabinets. Maybe she's had personal belongings stolen before. I do, I admit, put my iPod in a drawer when I walk away. But I don't lock it up. Because I generally trust that my coworkers are not going to raid my desk, looking for things to steal. I'm curious to know what message she's sending. "I'm a Christian and I don't trust people?" I suppose that would be the ultimate conclusion of total depravity.

~~~

Finally, I was reminded of the restlessness of my soul today; that eager yearning that cannot be explained, the longing for “home.” Strolling to work in my fabulous yellow coat, I listened to the lyrics of Caedmon’s Call, Valleys Fill First.

It’s like that long Saturday
Between your death and the rising day
When no one wrote a word
And wondered is this the end

In some sense, I feel this tension everyday. That we are ________, but not yet. The Kingdom has come, but not yet. But Paul writes definitively that we are called, justified, glorified (Rom. 8:29-30). I am, and we are; but we are not, too. We are living in that painfully long Saturday between the first and second coming, and this morning I felt the acute sense of division between the flesh that knows it is not yet fully sanctified, and the spirit that lives justified by grace.

~~~

I’m working on a post in response to this article for ST. Waiting on feedback from the professor.

Things future, nor things that are now,
Not all things below or above,
Can make Him His purpose forego,
Or sever my soul from his love. (Toplady)

Already Behind

2007-02-28T21:18:00.000-05:00

Typical to my organized-but-overscheduled life, I’m behind in Systematic Theology. I plan well, I mean well, but life just plain gets in the way. I find some joy and comfort in that; I’ll never have it all mapped out and that’s just the way it ought be. I should preserve a measure of flexibility and perspective to counterbalance my perfectionist nature.

Packer’s Fundamentalism finally arrived, and I immediately skipped ahead (or caught up, depending on point of reference) to an intriguing article, “Why Scientists Must Believe in God” by Vern Poythress. I’m half through; I’ll post more thoughts when I finish.

I did, however, finish the first chapter of the Westminster Confession (WCF), which is not long in and of itself, but I am digesting G. I. Williamson’s study commentary alongside. Chapter One is “Of the Holy Scriptures,” and outlines why, exactly, we should believe that the Scriptures are the infallible, authoritative Word of G-d. In class, we’ve discussed revelation as the principium of theology, the aseity of G-d, and the perspicuity of Scripture. We are just now getting into general revelation and the differences between Barth and the Reformed view of revelation and Scripture. I suppose Barth is easy to use as the anti-Reformed example, even though he had great influence (and still does) on the Reformed church. Our professor’s use of him as dunce prompted him to say, “Now, Barth is not evil, he’s not Satan; he just took some of his ideas too far.” I laughed out loud.

I really only have one observation thus far. I’m slightly disturbed by WCF 1.8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

So, let’s just add some gold tablets in the sky, eternal and uncreated in Hebrew and Greek and you’ve darn well got a Qur’an. Kind of made my stomach churn. I do, thanks to Williamson, understand what they were getting at here. Just came too close for comfort in my mind.

Premonition

2007-02-25T18:35:00.000-05:00

Overall, this weekend will rank fairly high on my list of enjoyable weekends. My Friday morning started with a brief negotiation for a raise (due to increased job responsibilities) that went so ridiculously well, I still find it absurd. As if Fridays were not wonderful enough. This weekend was also the first meeting of the course I’m TA-ing, Introduction to Islamic Studies. So, Friday (7-10pm) and Saturday (9-4pm), I listened to Dr. Sookhdeo give a (very) concise history of Islam. It was refreshing to know that the majority of his lectures were refreshers for me, and that I was able to answer students’ questions without sounding like a moron. This was also the first time I’ve been exposed to a Christian perspective on Islam from a true academic. Dr. Sookhdeo is not apologetic about the inherent problems in Islam, nor does he shy from challenging the Western church to protect our fellow Christians living as persecuted minorities in the Muslim world.

After class on Saturday, I went to see Amazing Grace, an excellent film with a powerful and convicting story.

It is this morning that has me a bit bothered. I’d intended to visit a friend’s church but they canceled services do to inclement weather. It wasn’t really bad out, I thought. My church hadn’t canceled services, and neither had another church I was interested in visiting. The roads didn’t look slick, but by the time I left, a soft, wet snow was beginning to fall. Flurries, I thought. I’m from Chicago, this is nothing. I left early, assuming all the other drivers would be taking their sweet time getting to-and-fro. And the roads really weren’t bad. When I started. By the time I’d almost reached my destination, I’d slowed down considerably, and was driving cautiously.

And then I sensed something. I was coming up on a curve in the road – one I know to be sketchy even in fine weather, when you are not paying attention and take it too fast. This will be difficult, slick, I thought. Slow down as much as possible and do not touch the breaks unless absolutely necessary. And, whatever you do, don’t fishtail. Wouldn’t that suck if I fishtailed and went over the small grassy median? Wouldn’t it?

That’s exactly what happened. I let off the gas, downshifted and began to take the turn. The car in front of me was going too quickly and needed to break, thus I had to follow suit or rear-end him. My back end fishtailed; I tried to turn away from the median but got pulled towards it. Somehow, I managed to check my mirrors for cars behind me (there weren’t). I tried to turn into the turn, hoping to avoid crossing the median and just stop facing the wrong way on the northbound side of the road, and continued to pray for no cars. Thankfully, there were no cars behind me, or on the southbound side of the median, because that’s where I stopped, facing southbound but at an angle. My car had gone up and over the median (curbed, maybe six feet wide, with grass and bushes.) I remember hoping the bushes would stop me and keep me from going into traffic. But there was no traffic, and as I came to a stop, a car coming southbound saw me, stopped and buffered me from other cars. I was safe but still a hazard to other drivers. I realized then that though I’d remembered to push in the clutch, I hadn’t taken the car out of gear and I was stuck. I don’t think the cars coming up behind me realized I’d not been their southbound company a moment earlier and just thought I was stalled. It took a few tries to get my car to start, get in gear and move out of the way, onto the only spot of shoulder along the road. A very, very kind man with his son stopped to make sure I was ok, and offered to follow me where ever I needed to go. (And he did.)

THANK G-D I’m fine. My car is fine, and no one else was hit or skidded because of me. I was able to spend the afternoon with a friend playing computer video games which, while a splendid waste of time, was also a pleasant distraction from an upsetting event.

What has me bothered is the premonition. This type of thing happens to me frequently, only it typically does not actually involve me. I have hunches, intuitions, or dreams; most often dreams. I hesitate to call them prophetic because, well, they don’t feel prophetic, and many of them having nothing to do with G-d. I don’t know what prophetic is supposed to feel like; I just don’t feel like that. But I know when some things will happen and when other things won’t happen. These events are not always good, nor always bad. For the most part, they are usually things I can do nothing about, and so I’m never really sure what to do with this information.

I’ve generally don’t discuss this openly. Recently, I started telling a few friends when something happens involving them that I’ve dreamt about, but no one seemed to respond, so I stopped. Last week, a close friend had a rough day. I’d dreamt about it weeks before, but I don’t always know the outcome of events, so I didn’t say anything. Should I? Does it matter? What is the purpose?

New Series: Systematic Theology (ST)

2007-02-17T13:25:00.000-05:00

After fighting G-d for years on this, I'm finally going to seminary. I didn't really see the point... I don't want to be a pastor or even a pastor's wife. But there are degrees besides MDiv's, and at this point, it actually makes sense for me to go. I'll be learning Greek and Hebrew, which will help later on down the road when I prepare to write a doctoral thesis on Jesus in the Qur'an. (That's not the exact focus, but I can't give away all my secrets!)

Anyway, I figured I'd do what all the other seminary students out there taking Systematic Theology do: blog about my classes.

The first selection for reading was J.I. Packer's "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, forever lost to the U.S. Postal service. (A new copy is on the way.) So, I skipped ahead to the second readings. We are reading John Murray's "The Attestation of Scripture," found in Ned Stonehouse's The Infallible Word. I'm not fond of Murray's style. It irritates me that he uses circular arguments to justify his self-acknowledged circular reasoning. If he'd stated upfront that he was attacking Barth's view of Scripture, it would've done wonders for his thesis, as his point for the first two-thirds of the article is unclear. As it stands, I'm finding G. I. Williamson's study guide on The Westminster Confession of Faith far more concise and persuasive. I still need to finish sections 8-10 of Chapter I, and then I'll post some more thoughts.

Farewell to a Legacy

2007-02-16T20:02:00.000-05:00

Today is a sad day for Illinoisans everywhere. The University of Illinois, after decades of controversy and under the pressure of sanctions by the NCAA, officially retired Chief Illiniwek today. While the spoilers call him a racist mascot, and say his appearances at halftimes are exaggerated exploitations of Native American culture, I have always, and will always see the Chief as a respectful tradition, honoring not only the history of the Native Americans in Illinois, but the embodying the spirit of the University itself.

I can't really explain the Chief because he has to be experienced. And now he will be no more. The Chief is the U of I. His history holds the fertile soil of the Morrow Plots, his artistry mirrors the excellence of the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts, and his passion is echoed in the strive for academic achievement, supported by the University Library, the largest public library in the world (and the sole reason my undergraduate thesis was any good).

The decision today warranted text messages from fellow alumni, and phone calls to my Dad. For me, the retiring of Chief Illiniwek means a family tradition will die, too. I'm a third generation Illini. I grew up going to football games with my Granddad, one of the fondest memories I have from my childhood, and I distinctly remember the reverence my family taught me towards the Chief. Conversations with my Grandma, instead of just being about the weather or the birds on her porch, are sprinkled with Illini basketball statistics - from her, not me. And my strongest connection with my stepmom's parents came when I went to Illinois. When the dementia set in, Mary's one remaining link to my reality was to sing the Alma Mater over the phone whenever I called home, well after I'd graduated. My parents met at Illinois. I met Jesus at Illinois. I'm not trying to equate fondness towards a symbol to my love for Christ. But those memories are intertwined, because they both belong to Illinois.

Hail to the Orange, Hail to the Blue

Hail Alma Mater, ever so true (so true).

We love no other, so let our motto be,

Victory, Illinois, Varsity.

Grown-Up Snow Days

2007-02-14T17:29:00.000-05:00

Grown-up snow days are far superior to my childhood memories. Maybe that says more about my childhood memories than I'd like. That's not to say that sledding, snowball fights, building snow forts, drinking gallons of hot chocolate, etc., were not enjoyable. Good times, they were. But typically, even on snow days, we were at the mercy of whatever parents could get off work to supervise and chauffeur.

Alas today was my first free snow day. Ever. (The one time in college classes were cancelled, the cancelling occurred after I sat through an 8am class in the dark, with no heat.)

I did go to work this morning. Well, we were on a 2-hour delay, so I went at 10am. And no one was there... not my co-workers, my boss, or his boss. So, I packed up a binder with a bunch of reading that needed to get done, and headed to Starbucks to work the rest of the day over a hot cup of tea.

I just happened to make a few stops along the way... and, to justify the warm-fuzzy-but-practical-boots purchase, my feet were soaking wet. Once landed in Starbucks, I made a feigned attempt at working. I pulled the binder out of my backpack. But who wants to work when there is John Murray's "The Attestation of Scripture" to be read?

And now there is banana bread to bake, treadmills to run and LOST to watch.

Oh, did I mention that I found a dozen roses on the sidewalk? Who drops a dozen roses and doesn't notice? They were a little frozen, but they still look lovely as my dining table centerpiece.