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.
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?
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 somewherewarmer. We’ll see who lets me in, though.
Studying Islam and Mid East politics from liberal academic institutions led to my quest for moderation. Currently pursuing an M.A.R. from Reformed Theological Seminary, studying Hebrew and Greek, and wishing I had more time to read.
