Second Drafts

Have Biblical Imagination, Will Travel

Off again this weekend, this time to Willowick, OH. Here's a new video with Mike filmed at March's Biblical Imagination conference in Normal, IL, for a peek at what this is all about.

On Team

(insert cheesy picture of "get a hand in" motivational poster here)

I recently received an email from one of our staff that made me smile. Fresh out of a curriculum meeting with a couple other teachers, he wrote: "Our meeting today was phenomenal. I want to go teach the snot out of my students now!"

Team. You've heard the cliches (not to mention that there's no "I" in it), but have you experienced what it feels like to be part of one? If you have, you know why team matters; if you haven't, here are a couple things to think about:

Team matters because none of us are omni-competent...or omniscient...or omni-present...or omni-anything else. Team matters because God - in the form of the Trinity - is a team made up of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oh, and team matters because it's fun. Even for the introverts among us, we need to feel the joy of something bigger - of a team, of a community - as the Body of Christ.

Last week, 30 or so staff and family members gathered at our house here in north OKC to meet each other, enjoy some eats, ask a few questions, and dream a little bit about the future of Veritas Classical Academy. I was reminded of Psalm 133:1, where David writes, "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" The ESV gets it right by including "behold" - unity is indeed something that should draw our eye and captivate our thoughts, if for its rarity alone.

I recently came across this quote from C.S. Lewis: "It is not your business to succeed, but to do right; when you have done so, the rest lies with God." Unity and functioning as a team are "right" in God's eyes (think Trinity, think Psalm 133:1), and I can't help but be excited by what God might do in and through us as we go/grow together into the coming school year.

The next day, I wrote our staff about all this, encouraging them - even as we head into this last week of July - to meet with, work with, pray with, or just be with one other person as they thought about and prepared for this fall. If the examples and promises from the Scriptures aren't enough motivation, I said, maybe a little positive peer pressure will work: everybody's doing it (or will be) at Veritas!

(Note: Some books I might recommend on functioning as a team and in community: Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer; TrueFaced by Bill Thrall, John Lynch, and Bruce McNichol; and Connecting by Paul Stanley and Bobby Clinton.)

What Does Love Win If There Is Nothing to Lose?

I've had a couple friends email me for my thoughts on Rob Bell's controversial new book, Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. While I haven't read it yet, enough people whom I respect have and the verdict seems mixed at best. Megan says I somehow owe the world a few thoughts since Bell and I have the same glasses, so with that flimsy justification in mind, let me respond to the only thing I really can at this point - the promotional video for the book:

It's important to understand from the beginning that Bell is more a compelling communicator than a precise theologian; he flies and dies by the rhetorical question, which makes him both interesting as a teacher and dangerous as one as well. Personally, I enjoy listening to him tell stories in his rambling stream-of-consciousness way, and his Nooma videos are much like this one in terms of good production values and style.

Bell's art show story in the beginning of the video is a good example of Bell's gift. After telling the story, he rightly chastises the sticky note incivility of one of the show's attenders and calls Christians to take a fresh look at how rude and ridiculous this kind of behavior is. This, I think, is when Bell is most helpful - he has a keen eye for recognizing legalism in the Church and smartly addresses the thinking behind the behavior rather than just the behavior itself.

Unfortunately, Bell's rhetorical nature takes him down the wrong road quickly. His response to the judgmental Christian's "reality check" is so exaggerated and over the top ("Will only a few select people make it to Heaven and will billions and billions burn forever in Hell?") that he sweeps away his audience in a tsunami of hyperbole, leaving little standing in its wake. He jumps immediately to what a Christian's opinion (whether conceit or horror) might be concerning Hell, seems to accept it (whatever it may be) as gospel, and continues to think out loud by raising (but not alluding to anything other than) his own questions on the topic.

True to form, Bell then overemphasizes personal responsibility ("How do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe, or what you say, or what you do, or what you know?") as a possible way of dealing with the idea of Hell (which, in the video, has been referenced - and apparently in the book, regarded - as little more than personal interpretation). The initial question of eschatology (the study of end times) becomes one of soteriology (the study of salvation) and then of divine ontology (the study of God's essence), but all dependent on (and seemingly subject to) the hermeneutic of experiential relativism:

"And then there is the question behind the questions. The real question is what is God like? Because millions and millions were taught that...God is going to send you to Hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that that we need to be rescued from this God?"

This is, as one of my seminary professors would say after considering an honest (but misguided) inquiry, "the wrong question" due to the unbiblical theological suppositions upon which it's built and the variety of problematic propositional fallacies it violates. While I would not disagree with Bell that eschatology is crucial to understanding God, his rhetorical questions are not helpful in substance ("millions and millions" were taught that God is going to send you to Hell?) nor phrasing (Jesus "rescuing us" from God?) and instead cast God as suspect in his role as Creator and Redeemer.

After a final set of rhetorical questions about who God is and what God is like, Bell ends the video with a statement so sweepingly broad and generally vague that it really means very little (comparitive superlatives are, after all, only meaningful when you qualify what the initial positive is). He claims:

"What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, and beautiful that whatever we've been told or taught, the Good News is actually better than that - better than we could ever imagine. The Good News is that love wins."

This, I'm guessing (again, I haven't read the book), is what so much of the controversy is about: Bell's theology seems so indistinct and non-commital as to what he actually believes that it's difficult to figure out what love wins and why it matters. This has some raising the question of whether Bell is a univeralist. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that Jesus didn't "rescue us" from God; he rescued us as God (this is what the biblical doctrine of Incarnation is all about). I also know that God does not send us to Hell; the wages of sin we ourselves have earned (Romans 6:23) condemn us more than enough for that.

Love wins. Okay, but wins what? And how? And for whom? And says Whom? These are the questions I hope Bell answers biblically and convincingly in his book. Unfortunately, from the little I've read, watched, and listened, I'm not optimistic that his answers are going to be all that definitive.

Below are a few links concerning the Love Wins debate. Feel free to add others that would be helpful.

• Christianity Today: "Rob Bell's Upcoming Book on Heaven & Hell Stirs Blog, Twitter Backlash on Universalism"
• USA Today: "Pastor/Author's Love Wins Bedevils Traditionalists"
• Al Mohler: "We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the Reemergence of Liberal Theology"
• The Christian Post: "Brian McLaren Defends Rob Bell Against Mohler's Critique"

Coming to St. Louis in 2011

In case you missed it, the website I've been working on for musician/author Michael Card's Biblical Imagination Series just went live this weekend. I used Clover Sites to create it and am impressed (still) with how easy and well-thought-out their content management system is (I've worked with plenty of lousy ones in the past and this was a dream).

For those in St. Louis, we're bringing the conference to Chesterfield Presbyterian Church all day on Saturday, January 15th, with Mike doing a concert on Sunday the 16th. The cost is only $58 for the conference AND concert ($78 if you want Mike's new book and album coming out next year as well - see site for details), and I can personally vouch for the quality of the experience (though the emcee/education guy's a little suspect).

Whether you've read the Bible for years or are just starting out in the Scriptures, this one-day conference would be well worth your investment in cultivating greater biblical literacy and love for God and His Word. Hope to see you there (and please help spread the word about the new Biblical Imagination website and Facebook community - thanks).

Live-Blogging: God in America (Parts 1 & 2)

I've been pretty excited about the PBS series, God in America, largely because of Boston University professor of religion Stephen Prothero's involvement in it. While Prothero makes no claim to Christian faith, his books are well-written, insightful, and usually (but not always) accurate. I also appreciate his call (albeit in the name of pluralism) to teach religion in public schools for reasons of basic religious literacy. Here goes:

8:10 - Native American pluralism vs. Spanish Catholic exclusivity. Ten minutes in and Christianity's the bad guy already.

8:15 - Ben from LOST is a Puritan! Weird.

8:19 - Prothero on the Puritans: "The fate of the society hung on the religiosity of the society." Really?

8:27 - Interesting stuff on Puritan Anne Hutchinson - accused of heresy, sedition, gender.

8:36 - Anglican George Whitefield is up now concerning spiritual rebirth.

8:41 - Historian Harry Stout on Whitefield: "He combined the sincerity of a missionary combined with the thrill of a performer."

8:46 - Tying Whitefield back to Hutchinson (but on a larger scale) in terms of personal experience overruling Puritan authority.

8:49 - Whitefield impact montage a bit much; "interviews" directly looking at camera too distracting.

8:55 - Timeout. Are they seriously going to skip over Jonathan Edwards, the greatest theological mind this country has ever produced? Seriously? Boo.

8:58 - Yep. They did it. Nothing on the Great Awakening. Zilch. Unbelievable.

9:00 - Hey, it's my friend, Lauren Winner, starting out part two, "The New Eden." Way to go, Lauren!

9:03 - Enter the Baptists, complete with token white commentator speaking with southern accent.

9:07 - Girls doing a great job watching and wondering about claims presented, but alas, it's bedtime.

9:08 - Prothero on Thomas Jefferson: "He was what we might call today 'spiritual' rather than 'religious.'"

9:09 - Irony? Jefferson + Baptists = freedom of religion bill of 1786.

9:14 - Prothero gets distinction right on "wall between government and religion;" it's not a prohibition of religion but a statement that no religion would be established by government.

9:20 - James Finley leaves his Presbyterian Calvinism for Arminian revivalism; represents shift from belief in sovereignty of God to Americans' freedom of choice, from more traditional Protestantism to more charismaticism.

9:24 - Lame: reality television camera mounting as Finley walks through the forest. Seriously?

9:27 - Methodism: "a religion of the heart" (but no mention of the brothers Wesley).

9:32 - Actually heard the name "Jesus" used; might have been the first time in an hour and a half.

9:33 - Nice to hear acknowledgment of what evangelicals did in 1800s - schools, hospitals, prisoner care.

9:34 - Here come the Irish Catholics, much to the chagrin of the "strong Protestant ethos" of America.

9:40 - Interesting: Catholic schools formed in mid-1800s as much to deal with Protestant bigotry as to educate children in Catholicism.

 

We Interrupt Our Normally Non-Scheduled Weekend...

Here are some groovy events - several of which I'd love to see a familiar face at if you're in the area - that I'll be part of in the next six weeks. (If you or anyone you know has questions about the conferences, click the links or let me know and I'll fill in details.)

SEPTEMBER

17-18: Griggsville Apple Festival (Uptown Square, Griggsville, IL)
I've written about this cultural tour de force before, but words and pictures just cannot do justice to my hometown's annual fall celebration; you just have to be there. That said, I'm once again looking forward to more time on the farm (now in harvest mode) since our Labor Day visit two weekends ago, as well as to seeing some former high school classmates from back in the day (when you graduated in a class of 30, it doesn't take much to have a yearly class reunion each September).

24-26: Annual Fall Family Camping Trip (Babler State Park, Wildwood, MO)
We always schedule this trip the weekend following Parent/Teacher conferences (after talking with parents for six hours straight and the struggles many of them are having in connecting with their students, I'm usually newly motivated to spend time with my own kids). New activity this year: the family bike ride, as all six of us are bike-mobile (now we just have to figure out how to get all six bikes there).

OCTOBER

1-2: Tour de Cape (Downtown Pavilion, Cape Girardeau, MO)
Speaking of bikes, I've been pseudo-training (about 30 miles/week) to take my first "century ride" this weekend with a couple of co-workers (both of whom are much better bikers than I am). I've never before ridden 100 miles in a day, so we'll see how much Advil it takes to do it when it's all said and done.

8-10: Biblical Imagination Conference with Michael Card (Fredericksburg, VA)
I wrote about this not too long ago, and it seems a little strange that we're less than a month out already. I'm pretty stoked to hang out on the east coast with Mike and company. This is the first conference of what I hope are many to come, so if you're too far from D.C. this time around, hang in there: odds are we'll be coming to you soon.

15-17: TwentySomeone/ThirtySomewhere Conference (Memphis, TN)
My good buddy, Mitchell Moore, is a pastor at Second Presbyterian in Memphis, and he's asked me to come down to speak at a retreat for peeps in their 20s and 30s. Revisiting the material (as well as working on some new for the next book) has been really fun, and I'm still "smokin' what I'm sellin'" (figuratively speaking, of course) in terms of making the most of these decades. Megan and the girls are coming with me, and we'll sight-see around Memphis on Saturday afternoon.

22-24: Megan at The Relevant Conference (Harrisburg, PA)
The good news: I'll be home (and probably won't leave the house if I can help it); the other news: Megan won't be. As she did in Colorado in July, my wife will be taking in another blogging conference - this one of a more devotional than technical nature - in Pennsylvania. I'm interested to see what comes out of her time there, as well as to what degree the two conferences overlap and supplement each other.

That's all for now. We now return you to our normally non-scheduled weekend...

Biblical Imagination: New Opp w/ Michael Card

When I was 14, a friend of mine gave me my first Michael Card cassette, Scandalon. The year was 1985. Though quite different from the music my friends were listening to at the time, I was desperate for anything that spoke of my new friend, Jesus, who had just introduced Himself to me a few months earlier.

Thirty days later, I had worn out the tape.

While I enjoyed the richness of Michael’s distinct voice and memorable melodies, I was more intrigued by the words and phrases that made up his profound lyrics. Sadly, growing up in my small-town Methodist church, I had not heard much about (let alone begun to understand the meaning of) “the stone that makes men stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Scandalon), or that “the Lamb is a Lion who’s roaring with rage” (The Lamb is a Lion), or that when we follow Christ, we are following “God’s own fool” (God’s Own Fool). I was fascinated.

Though little of the language made sense to me at the time, I kept listening (though I had to get another tape—where were CDs when I needed them?). I also began reading (barely) the Scriptures, which I didn’t understand much at first, either. But whether listening to Michael (and others), or “semi-reading” the Bible, the imagery of it all stuck with me, dancing in my high school-aged head at night, sparking a hunger and thirst within me not only for this imagery’s meaning, but for being able to respond to its meaning. That’s what the power of creativity can do...and that’s what it has done in my life.

In 2002, as the program director for The Navigators Glen Eyrie Group, I booked Mike for a series of conferences/concerts at the Glen and insisted he be part of planning them. This was surreal for me and new for Mike (he had never had the opportunity to actually speak into the planning of a retreat for which he had been booked), and together we created the Scribbling in the Sand Conference on Creativity.

Twenty-five years since that initial listen to Scandalon and five years since our last conference days, I'm flying to Nashville this weekend to hang with Mike, as he has asked me to join his team as a creative adviser/collaborator/teacher for the next stage of his ministry. Mike has just signed a four-book deal on the topic of biblical imagination with InterVarsity Press, has a new album coming out in February, and wants to converge all these together in a weekend retreat/conference experience beginning next year.

Because of our friendship and past ministry together, he's asked me to help, both as a facilitator and as a co-teacher like we used to do back in the day. I'm thrilled, especially since a majority of the teaching he's doing these days is in the summer, which works well with my own teaching schedule during the school year at Westminster Christian Academy.

As a friend of mine mentioned as we were having breakfast this morning, God does not waste a thing in our lives. Indeed, to trace the hand of God through all of this has been yet another significant lesson in the reality of God's sovereignty and the importance of our faithfulness in the littlest of things. I don't know all that lies ahead (whether with Mike or otherwise), but I do know that God does, and he has proven himself trustworthy far too many times throughout history (the world's and my own) to doubt him.

I'm sure I'll have more after the trip, but in the meantime, thanks for any prayers you may offer on my behalf. Pray I'll be faithful to what God (and Mike) may be asking me to do as part of this new opportunity, as well as to what I'm doing now here in St. Louis.

Summer 2010 Preview, Etc.

Sitting here on a Sunday night listening to some Lucinda Williams and doing a little writing. It's been a while since I've done a summary post of sorts, so since Megan and the girls are out of town and we're collectively an entire season behind to really make the LOST finale worth watching, here are a few things I've been thinking about and/or looking forward to:

School: This week is finals week, so I'll be spending most of my time grading. The good news is, unlike the past three years when I was evaluating projects and papers, I'm going into finals week with nothing other than finals to grade, so that should make for a little less consuming week in general.

In other school news, I've signed on for another year at Westminster, but my role is changing a bit as I'll be leaving the world of freshmen New Testament behind for fourth section of sophomore Ethics and one section of senior Worldviews next year. I'm glad for the transition all around.

One last note on the school front (this time the homeschool front), we're going to be entering a new stage of education here at home. This fall, our two oldest girls will be full-time students at Central Christian School in Clayton, while Megan continues leading the Classical Conversations group and homeschools our younger two (here are details from Megan's perspective).

Summer: In addition to writing (more on that below), my primary goal in June is to hang out with the little ladies, read some books, and get a few projects done around here. In addition, I'll help coach our Westminster summer baseball team for a week in June, as well as get trained on some new school information software, as I've been asked to be a mentor teacher to the rest of the staff this fall.

July ups the ante considerably in terms of travel, as we're planning a family trip to Colorado Springs, as the girls are now old enough (somehow) to attend The Navigators' camping programs (Eagle Lake and Eagle's Nest) we helped lead back in the day. I'll try to see as many folks as I can in a few days' time before I jump on a plane from Denver to Portland for my third year as part of Westminster's Summer Seminar. This time, I'll be investing ten days with 25 soon-to-be seniors in Washington state instead of South Dakota, after which I'll fly back to Colorado and then we'll all drive back to Missouri.

August sees staff reporting as earlier as the week of August 9th, but I'll have a few publishing projects to edit and design from the Washington trip, as well as a fair amount of prep work to finalize for my new Worldviews class. Orientation starts the 12th and the first day of class is the 16th.

Studying: Despite baseball high-jacking my time and energy, I've been reading in a couple areas of interest this spring, not the least of which has been the study of the end times, or eschatology. N.T. Wright's book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, has been helpful, as has revisiting my notes from seminary (particularly Dr. Dan Doriani's notes from his Epistles and Revelation class). Of the three years I've taught Revelation to my freshmen New Testament classes, I feel like I've done the best job this year.

I'm also finishing up a couple books on education, namely John Dewey and the Decline of American Education by Henry T. Edmondson III, Curriculum 21 edited by Heidi Hayes-Jacobs, and The Secret of TSL by William Ouchi. It seems I've been reading these for a while (and I have), but there's been some good content that's come as a result.

Looking ahead, I have some Worldviews reading to do this summer, including (Re)Thinking Worldview by J. Mark Bertrand; The Compact Guide to World Religions edited by Dean C. Halverson (ed.); The Journey by Peter Kreeft; Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey; and The Universe Next Door by James W. Sire. Should be fun.

Writing: Now that my second book, Learning Education: Essays & Ideas from My First Three Years of Teaching, is finished, I'm turning back to finishing the ThirtySomewhere manuscript this summer. I'm still looking for a formal publisher to get behind it, but now that I've experimented with the self-publishing gig a bit (and am still experimenting), I may go with what I've got at some point this fall and see what happens. We'll see.

I plan to continue blogging here, though I really wonder how much people are interested in anything longer than 140 Twitter characters these days. Speaking of which, I've enjoyed Twitter enough to keep using it, but there again I just have no way of really knowing how far the medium's actual reach is so as to invest more time in it. Oh well.

Guess that's it for now. There's more, but this is long enough. I'll try to post a few more thoughts later on this week (nothing brings out literary creativity like the desire to avoid grading). Have a good one.

Five Years Later

Here are a few shots from Covenant Seminary's 2010 graduation, in which I earned my second masters, this one in educational ministries. Here I'm receiving my diploma from seminary president Bryan Chapell while commencement speaker Alistair Begg looks on):

With professor Jerram Barrs (I was Jerram's teaching assistant for a year-and-a-half and love him dearly):

With Dr. Donald Guthrie, lead professor of Covenant's education program (I am the Padawan learner to his Jedi knight):

With Dr. Bob Burns, professor of educational leadership and an elder at our church:

With Tom Rubino, with whom I started summer Greek in 2005 and at last finished in 2010 (Tom earned his M.Div. and M.A.C. (counseling) degrees). It meant a lot to both of us to start and finish together.

And of everyone at commencement, here are the five who matter most (thanks, ladies):

It is finished.

Happy Post-Easter Thought

From Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright:

"As the reformers insisted, bodily death itself is the destruction of the sinful person. Someone once accused me of suggesting that God was a magician if he could wonderfully make a still-sinful person into a no-longer-sinful person just like that. But that's not the point. Death itself gets rid of all that is still sinful; this isn't magic but good theology. There is nothing then left to purge. Some older teachers suggested that purgatory would still be necessary because one would still need to bear some punishment for one's sins, but any such suggestion is of course abhorrent to anyone with even a faint understanding of Paul, who teaches that 'there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.'" (p. 170)

And continuing on in Romans 8:10-11:

"But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."

The point: death deals with sin and it is done; life comes by resurrection...and then after it, according to Wright, as resurrection is really "life after life after death." (p. 169)

Grateful to God for his mercy and grace to even be able to think, dwell, and hope on any of this today...

10 Commandments of Pitching (or What Happens When a Bible Teacher Coaches Baseball)

Handing out this original (and highly contextualized) paraphrase of Exodus 20:1-20 to our junior varsity pitchers today:

“And Coach spoke all these words: ‘I am the Coach your Teacher, who brought you out of the dugout, out of the land of the bullpen.

1. You shall not lose control – mentally, physically, or emotionally.

2. You shall not make for yourself a mess by falling behind counts or walking batters. You shall not drag or work at a slow pace; for I, the Coach your Teacher, am a just Coach, punishing the pitchers for the sin of not throwing strikes through the third or fourth inning, but showing mound time up to a full seven innings to those who love pitching and care about the strike zone.

3. You shall not misuse a pitch in the wrong spot or in the wrong situation, for the Coach will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his pitches.

4. Remember your fielders by throwing strikes. Three balls you are allowed to do all your work, but three strikes is a Sabbath for the Coach your Teacher. With them, you shall not wear out your team, neither you, nor your infielders or outfielders, nor your parents or fans, nor your girlfriends or wannabe girlfriends, nor the scout within your gates. For with three strikes in mind the Coach made the decision and the line-up, the fielding positions, and all who are in them, but he rested on the fact that you are going to make good pitches. Therefore the Coach trusts you to throw strikes so the team can make outs.

5. Honor your umpires and your officials, so that you may live long on the mound the Coach your Teacher is giving you.

6. You shall not waste pitches.

7. You shall not walk the lead-off hitter.

8. You shall not allow runners to steal on you.

9. You shall not allow the opposing team to score the inning after we score.

10. You shall not covet your teammate’s velocity. You shall not covet your teammate’s curveball, or his changeup or slider, his two-seam or four-seam, or any pitch that your teammate throws.’

When the pitchers saw the thunder and lightning and heard ‘Play ball!” and saw the mound in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to the catcher, ‘Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have Coach speak to us or we will die.’ The catcher said to the pitchers, ‘Do not be afraid. Coach has come to test you, so that the fear of Coach will be with you to keep you from throwing balls.’”

Hoping this gets the point across. In the meantime, if you're a fan of both baseball and the Bible, you might enjoy this from a few years back: Moses at the Bat.

Out of the Mouths of...Adolescents

Here are some choice selections from the papers my New Testament freshmen are getting back tomorrow. The assignment was for students to interview a member of their church's leadership and write a 2-3 page paper explaining their fellowship's/denomination's doctrinal beliefs about things like governance, worship style, sacraments, purposes, functions, etc. (I've thrown in some comments from me just for kicks.)

"The denominational ties of our church are a key belief of our denomination and have no higher archy." [That's good. I prefer the lower kind of archy myself...]

"We participate in the Lord's Supper about every three months. We drink grape juice and not wine, and once you have been saved, you are aloud to participate in it." [So much for using the time for silent reflection...]

"Our church has a leadership structure like the federal government." [Oh, God help us...]

"Teaching, theology, evangelism, and outreach are defiantly important to the church." [Okay, okay, you made your point. Now back off, Barbie...]

"In our denomination, we believe in theology and use evangelism to share the gospel." [Oh, so that's how it works...]

"One of the things that sets apart my church from many other churches is we seek to be Christ-like." [Attention churches seeking to be otherwise, this might be part of your problem...]

"There is also a plurality of elders, which means the ruling elders and pastors each have one vote." [If they only have one vote, doesn't that mean there is a singularity of each elder?]

"My church's worship style is the substance of style." [So Word to your Father, yo...]

"Our pastor bases the sermon straight form the Bible itself and does not interpret the Bible in any way." [Which is another way of saying he reads it...]

"Our church has two types of worship: liturgical and a more open, less-structured style." [So are we to understand that the second group meets in a nest?]

"I would say the weakest part of the church in my eyes is the youth group. I have been to several different youth groups and ours is not as good as others. The main reason for this is because there are more kids at other youth groups." [Indeed, youth ministry is full of these chicken-or-egg dilemmas, which is why I'm not a youth pastor...]

"There are many reasons why my church is a PCA church; firstly, it resides in the Apostles' Creed, and secondly, it states facts in the catechism." [Anybody driven by that neighborhood and heard the building reciting the Confession?]

"According to my pastor, we believe all orthodox beliefs...and some of our own as well." [This one's possibly my favorite, especially since I know the pastor...]

"If there is something in a service that I do not like, I can just go to another service that I do like." [Moral therapeutic deism, anyone?]

"The church participates in many functions such as work programs, community services, etc. My pastor also mentioned the many asylums that care for orphans or widows." [Is "asylums" what we're calling deacons nowadays?]

"The senior pastor reports to the elders and the small pastors report to the senior pastor." [Note to graduating seminary students under 5'8": don't even mess interviewing with this one...]

"My pastor thinks that church is very important for Christians...and when asked if church was important for skeptics, he quickly agreed, saying, 'Skeptics are looking for the truth, making church a good place to find it.' He wasn't sure if church was important to God." [I'm so relieved.]

"We differ in belief from many other churches similar to ours." [Or put another way, they think the same as many other churches different from them.]

"After visiting our church for the first time, we loved the way the pastor did his sermon. He just really got the message across and did it in a way that makes you feel almost involved." [Lord, have mercy if he had actually crossed that line...]

"Our church is very big on the authority and suffering of the Bible." [I'm guessing she meant "sufficiency," but why major on minors?]

"My mom and I were church shopping and accidentally found our church." [Must have been hiding in the "discount sales" bin...]

"I appreciate how everything is kept modern. There is a live band playing like a Christian rock concert. For me, it makes it easier to worship because I can sing as loud as I want without anyone hearing me." [Because, of course, that is the point of worship...]

I've got a post brewing from both a theological and educational perspective on what I think is going on here, so stay tuned...

Dispatch from Wartburg

As I lamented with a colleague my 2009 booklist, she made the observation that I had read little to no biographies in 2009 and ought to amend that for 2010. Taking her advice, I pulled off the shelf a 300-page biography on Martin Luther. Thus, in this first post of 2010, rather than critique something (as I am usually wont to do), I thought I'd share a few thoughts and quotes from my Christmas break reading. I hope they're encouraging as you start the new year in earnest this week.

The good thing about James Kittelson's Luther the Reformer is that it is an enjoyable and theologically astute biography with a balanced approach to a man often caricatured as "unbalanced" (make no mistake, Luther was no saint, but he lived very consistently). Kittelson early and accurately identifies so much of what drove Luther to be the Reformer we know him to be, but he does so in a way that is as human as it is theological:

"Luther discovered that true religion was far more than just the proper inclination of the heart and earnest attempts to work out his salvation. But every time he tried to fan his own spark of goodness, he found that all he was doing was focusing his attention on himself. From his own teachers, he knew that to think of himself was to be in his most sinful state. How then could he 'do what was within him' without yielding to the basest of motives, the desire to save his own skin? How could he possibly confess every one of his sins when he knew that he did so only for the purpose of currying the favor of a righteous God who would surely condemn him for them? Every act of confession therefore became yet another sin. The sincerity of the confession and of the acts of penance that followed was always in question. And if he himself questions his motives, how could they not have been more than dubious in the mind of a God who knew all and was always right?" (80)

The book is filled with original quotes from Luther, many of the ones below I resonate with in a deep and desperate way. Here are three which particularly struck me:

"Learn Christ and him crucified; despairing of yourself, learn to pray to him, saying, 'You, Lord Jesus, are my righteousness, but I am your sin; you have taken on yourself what you were not and have given me what I was not.' Beware of aspiring to such purity that you no longer wish to appear to yourself, or to be, a sinner." (95)

"For it cannot be that a soul filled with its own righteousness can be replenished with the righteousness of God, who fills up only those who hunger and are thirsty. Therefore, whoever is full of his own truth and wisdom is not capable of the truth and wisdom of God, which cannot be received save by those who are empty and destitute." (99)

"The Christian life does not consist of being but of becoming, not of victory but the fight, not of righteousness but of justification, not of comprehending but of stretching forward, not of purity but of purification." (109)

In chronicling Luther's life, Kittelson is particularly insightful of both Luther's historical context of Roman Catholic corruption and God's use of him within it:

"Luther had developed a way of understanding the Christian life that utterly contradicted what he, and everyone else in his day, had been taught. He flatly denied that there was any possibility of becoming genuinely better in the presence of God. As time passed, Christians could hope only to become ever more radically dependent on the righteousness of God in Christ." (99)

In addition to the encouragement taken from the above passage, I took to heart the orator Mosellanus' description of Luther below:

"In his manner and bearing, he is very polite and friendly and has nothing of stoic severity or crabbiness about him; he comports himself well at all times. People chide him about only one failing, that in rebuttal he is somewhat more intense and biting than is appropriate for someone who wants to open new paths in theology and be regarded as taught by God." (145)

Ahem. Moving on, here's Luther on the concept of will:

"The human will is like a beast between [God and Satan]. If God sits on it, it wills and goes where God wills to go...If Satan sits on it, it will and goes where Satan wills. Nor does it have the power to choose which rider it will go to or seek, but the riders struggle over which of them will have it or rule it." (206)

On education (Luther, after all, was a professor as well as a theologian and pastor):

"If I could leave the office of preacher and my other duties, or were forced to do so, there is no other office I would rather have than that of schoolmaster or teacher of boys. For I know that next to the office of preaching, this is the best, the greatest, and the most useful there is. In fact, I am not absolutely certain which of the two is the better." (248-249)

And finally, with regard to depression and the importance of community (and despite my introverted preferences to the contrary, curse him):

"Satan delights in the solitude of Christians." (251)

While we in the Presbyterian branch of Protestantism often align ourselves more with Calvin than Luther in areas of systematic doctrine, church government, and the sacraments, if you haven't read any Luther lately, it might do your "frozen chosen" heart good to slip in a book or biography in 2010. It's done mine good in starting off the year.

I know I've got some Lutheran scholars lurking out there. What say you?

(About the title: In honor of Luther, I'm naming my home study space "Wartburg" (pronounced "Vartburg"), the castle to where Frederick of Saxony "kidnapped" Luther to save his life and from where Luther published a dozen books and translated the entire New Testament into German in a mere matter of months. Must have been the desk...)

City of God or Country of God?

Maybe I've read too many Wendell Berry books, but it's taken some time for me - a country boy - to come around to the thought of the city being a cherished part of the Christian mission. Indeed, I get the concept of the biblical narrative taking us from the Garden (Genesis) to the City (Revelation), and it does seem God spends an awful lot of time in the Scriptures interacting with ancient cities and their inhabitants, but it's only been since moving to a big city myself that my heart has warmed to the idea.

Growing up six miles outside a town of 1,200 (Griggsville, IL - "Purple Martin Capital of the Nation") two hours north of the STL, my big city experiences were few and far between. When I did visit St. Louis or Chicago (which my family rarely did), or even when I traveled overseas at the age of 16 to major cities like London, Paris, or Munich, I was rarely scared by them, but I was not all that enamored, either. While I enjoyed the idea of being there, the cities all felt too touristy to me (granted, a tourist), and I just couldn't figure out who or how one enjoyed living in a place so overrun by millions of non-residents.

This theme continued when I moved west. Colorado Springs - as beautiful as it can be - seemed to prostitute itself to the spring break and summer tourist crowds. Add to that feeling the fact that there's absolutely no good way to drive east-west in town (which was unfortunate, since that was how we had to go to get to our PCA church), and I began to lament our attempts at church community in the city. I couldn't figure out how church "happened" naturally and personally in a city of 350,000, let alone 3.5 million.

Then we moved to St. Louis - a classic example of an American city that has suffered from decades of racial tension, white flight to the suburbs, and inner-city poverty (both financial and human). As the middle-class moved out, so grew with them the megachurches. Harvie Conn, in his book The American City and the Evangelical Church, sums up well what seems to have gone on here and in other metropolitan areas like it:

"The community church has become a regional church. And in becoming a regional church it becomes a megachurch...In this decentralized world the church loses its grip on local geographical neighborhood and is transformed into a megachurch, twenty-five minutes by car. The size of the megachurch becomes limited only by the size of its parking lot. And the lost community created by this change finds its replacement in the small cell groups and house meetings also characteristic of the successful megachurch." (p. 191)

(Random thought: Maybe this is why I really don't like small groups - it's an unconscious rebelling against megachurches everywhere. Actually, I love the Catholic "parish model" with churches geographically placed throughout the city and members living within the neighborhood attending; in fact, if it weren't for those pesky doctrinal issues - worship of Mary, sainthood, purgatory, etc. - I'd probably have become Catholic by now if for no other reason than I love the architecture. But I digress.)

After we moved to Maplewood (where we live half a house from the St. Louis city/county line), we knew we wanted to be part of as local a PCA congregation as we could. Thankfully, Crossroads Presbyterian was just a ten-minute walk around the corner and up the hill from the house we bought, and we're glad for the fact that in terms of both vision and facility, there are no plans nor means to grow the church beyond 300 members without planting another church (which we're actually doing now) first.

All that said, my heart for the city (Maplewood and/or St. Louis proper) is growing in addition to my heart for the country. Yes, I'm still waiting for the PCA to catch a vision for church planting in more rural areas, but I know it's tough financially and (honestly) culturally. But, while I still feel the need to be an advocate for rural ministry here in the city, I'm glad to feel an expanding love in this country boy's heart for the city as well.

So, with apologies to Augustine, is it the city of God or the country of God that matters?

My best answer: yes.

Life on Other Planets: Some Thoughts

A friend of mine and I sat through the movie Knowing the other night. While one of the worst movies I've watched in a while (incoherent plot, numerology silliness, Nicolas Cage once again playing Nicolas Cage), the film did serve one purpose: it got us talking about the idea of life on other planets.

Despite my X-Files affections, I tend to doubt that we have neighbors in the universe: other populated worlds aren't mentioned in the Bible, and most scientists say the odds against are just too huge otherwise. Maybe I'm your typical egocentric human, but when astronomer Carl Sagan said that if life didn't exist elsewhere in the universe it would be "an awful waste of space," I guess I feel kind of special.

At the same time, I recognize that just because the Bible doesn't record the existence of life on other planets doesn't mean there isn't. Remember: the Bible is a historical-redemptive narrative, not an all-encompassing science book. And speaking of science, there are plenty of scientists who do not share my doubts, running huge scientific initiatives and spending a boatload of money in hopes of making some kind of contact with other beings.

Despite my doubts, and certainly different from the typical evangelical Christian line, the argument for other life in the universe does seem plausible, if for no other reason than the very nature of God as Creator. But here's the question I think it all comes down to: The Scriptures attest to our fallen nature as created beings, but is that to mean all that is on the Earth or all that is in the entire universe?

The question is important because, while we have the account of God redeeming Earth through Christ, if there are indeed other beings in the universe and the universe is indeed fallen, then was there a plan of salvation for other planets as well? C.S. Lewis believed so, namely that when the Bible talks of "creation," it is in reference to the Earth and not necessarily the universe. From this perspective, the idea of other created beings without need of redemption is possible; we just don't have a record of it.

Thinking about all this is particularly interesting in light of mankind's desire to explore space. Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says that the only way humanity can survive is to figure out how to leave the planet; hence, the importance of the U.S. space program. This, of course, begs the question: If the Earth is the only fallen part of God's creation, what does our going out into a non-fallen universe mean? Does it matter? And what would it be like to meet other creation who are intact in their creation perfection?

This is what I understand Lewis' Space Trilogy to be about: man leaves Earth (called the Silent Planet, as it was cut off from the rest of the universe because of its evil), to colonize elsewhere in the universe (Perelandra) among beings not in need of redemption. These innocents, though not fallen themselves, are nevertheless affected by humans and Earth's evil before it is all finally resolved in the Siege of Deep Heaven against the Bent One of Earth. In other words, sinful Earthlings contaminated another part of space which, until their arrival, had not been so. Thankfully, however, good overcame evil.

I've always thought of and understood the Fall applying to all of God's universal creation; thus, I differ with Lewis' premise that creation perfection is alive and well outside the surly bonds of Earth. Having said that, however, if God so chose to redeem other inhabitants of his universal creation, I'm assuming he has both prerogative and means to accomplish his will. In my finite, self-centered self, it's just easier to think about me and Earth, especially since God gave us a record of all he has done for redemption here (not to mention that I have no plans or desire for leaving).

Still thinking on this, but I'll stop for now. Anyone have a more formed/informed thought?

Harry Potter for Presbyterians

The Reformed folk of the world (among others) are gearing up for the release of the new ESV Study Bible on Wednesday. Around these parts (especially if you're a seminary student), it's going to be insane. I think of it as Harry Potter for Presbyterians.

This past Thursday, when I arrived at Covenant's bookstore to work my afternoon shift, I saw 25 unopened orange, white, and black boxes in the back, just waiting to be "received" (the term we use for the process of entering new books into the system before putting them on the shelves). Thinking it might be a good idea to go ahead and process the new ESVs, I giddily asked my boss, Nick, if I could open a box, to which he responded that we're not supposed to open them until Tuesday. What!? Wait until Tuesday!? It's not like we're going to give away the story! Sigh.

Respecting Nick's wishes, I received some other boxes of books, periodically glancing through the door to the back and trying to figure out how to get my grubby hands on one of the new Bibles without Nick knowing. I could open a box, take a look, and then re-tape it (unfortunately, our tape is clear and their tape was white); I could open a box and say it was already opened (presumably by Dave, my co-worker who worked the morning shift), but Nick would never believe me (and Dave would never do that). Nothing like questionable employee integrity at a bookstore that espouses a Christian worldview (or the fact that I teach Ethics for a living at a Christian high school) for irony.

I resisted two hours of temptation on Thursday and survived, but I've got another two-hour shift on Monday that will surely test my mettle. Thankfully, I work Tuesday afternoon, so I'll finally get one (free for employees!) without having to deal with the hundreds of PCAers the next morning who will have camped out that night dressed as their favorite Bible character to be first in line to get their own personal copy.

I'm guessing I'll miss the bulk of those sitting on the floor frantically reading while they wait to check out, not to mention Nick dressed up like Moses, holding out a copy of the ESV in each hand. I'll probably also miss all the squeals of surprise at the 200-plus full-color maps and the gasps of joy at the 20,000 notes written by "a team of 95 outstanding evangelical Bible scholars and teachers," including several of my professors from Covenant.

Indeed, by my Thursday afternoon shift, the store will probably be completely ravaged from the events of the day before, and it will fall to me to deal with all the empty boxes and jostled books. I'll work my shift knowing that folks will probably still be cuddled up with their new ESV Bibles, refusing to come out of their apartments and homes until they read the book cover to cover. As I'm shelving whatever few copies remain from our massive 25-box order, I'll smile at the thought of dozens more readers accessing the ESV's special online resources, reliving the Bible in a kind of digital glory. It will be a magical day. J.K. Rowling would be proud. And, I think, God will be pleased.

Anybody getting an ESV on Wednesday?

How We Know What We Know

I've been reading some really good stuff of late on epistemology (that is, "how we know what we know"). With regard to truth, most people feel the pull of the Enlightenment's demand for proof, as well as postmodernism's questioning that truth can even exist. Many people (kids especially) feel caught in the middle between what they assume are their only too options - objectivity or subjectivity; that is, truth must either meet the requirements of science or it's time to check one's brain at the door in the name of faith.

What most folks fail to understand is that the supposed objective knowledge of science that they take for granted is really little different from the presumed subjective testimony of religion that they hold as suspect. Most helpful in thinking through this are some thoughts from the second chapter of A Biblical History of Israel by Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, entitled "Knowing and Believing: Faith in the Past." They write:

"A general tendency in modern times...has been to downplay the importance of testimony about the past which has come down to us via a chain of human carriers of tradition, and in contrast, to emphasize the importance of empirical research in leading us into knowledge." (p. 36)

But:

"That the universe as a whole is rational and intelligible is a presupposition, not a scientific finding. Clearly, too, science of itself cannot properly tell us what to do with its findings. The ends to which science provides the means must be (and always are) chosen according to what is believed and valued by the people doing the choosing, which is a matter of religion, ethics, and politics, not a matter of science as such." (p. 39)

In other words, what we have received and pass on as science today is made up over time of just as much subjective interpretation as any religious oral tradition passed down. They continue, this time focusing more on historical studies:

"We are, in short, intellectually reliant upon what others tell us when it comes to what we call knowledge...As R.G. Collingwood once put it (albeit only to take issue with the statement), 'history is...the believing of someone else when he says that he remembers something. The believer is the historian; the person believed is called his authority." (p. 45-46)

Here's a good illustration of the idea involving the science (and art) of archaeology:

"Archaeological remains (when this phrase is taken to exclude written testimony from the past) are of themselves mute. They do not speak for themselves, they have no story to tell and no truth to communicate. It is archaeologists who speak about them, testifying to what they have found and placing the finds within an interpretive framework that bestows upon them meaning and significance." (p. 46)

"All knowledge of the past is in fact more accurately described as faith in the interpretion of the past offered by others, through which we make these interpretations (in part of as a whole) our own)...Modern historians, like their precursors, in fact depend on testimony, interpret the past, and possess just as much faith as their precursors, whether religious or not." (p. 49-50)

In sum, the idea that anything is "objective" - as if we could somehow sit in grandstands orbitting Earth and merely take notes - is a delusion. We cannot observe and pass on meaning (scientific, religious) without using subjective testimony to describe it. We are in the petri dish; we are not absent from it. The question then becomes, what testimony (again, scientific, religious - it doesn't matter) best explains reality, and what seems reasonable as truth?

Eating (and Experiencing) God

“One’s position on the Supper is an accurate index of one’s understanding of the Christian faith as a whole.” The Lord's Supper by Robert Letham (23)

Previous to embracing Reformed doctrine, I lived a majority of my Christian life with a Zwinglian understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; that is, communion is a memorial – a remembrance – of Christ’s death and resurrection, and little more.

In my small town Methodist church, our congregation’s practice of this same perspective manifested itself in communion once a month, open to everyone regardless of evaluation, and with no warning to anyone as to eating and drinking judgment on oneself. Children of all ages were as readily permitted as adults, and I – as a teenager just come to faith – was given the opportunity multiple times by my well-meaning pastor to not only serve the bread and the cup (in the form of wafers and juice) to the congregants, but also to share anecdotes (which I made up on the spot) of God’s grace and his forgiveness of sin.

Being on staff with a parachurch organization for twelve years did not elevate my (low) view of the sacrament of communion. While I did my best to attend church on Sunday mornings (mostly as part of non-denominational fellowships), there was little doubt my primary ministry was more as part of the organization than of the church; as a result of these blurred ecclesiological lines, I recall a few misuses of communion in the context of ministry – our summer camp staff orientation, or a closing Sunday morning of a conference – none of which I thought twice about, as I had studied and experienced so little of what I now understand to be a more orthodox view of the sacrament.

Deconstructing my past appreciation (or lack thereof) of this means of grace is helpful in recognizing my need now to build a more sound (and meaningful) theology of communion. In the past, I combined the memorial mentality of my youth with my leadership role’s need for team-building and camaraderie; now I recognize that true team-building and camaraderie come not from observing a memorial together, but rather by being united with and ministered to by Christ on his terms, not mine. As Letham writes:

“This (communion) is a sacrament of the church, the body of Christ. It is decisively not to be understood as an individual, private experience…It is corporate first, and individual only within that clearly understood and defined context” (Letham, 42).

But unity is not the only outcome I gain from the Eucharist; a more accurate perspective of God comes as well. As Letham points out:

“Since Christ has gone up to the right hand of God, he cannot, according to his humanity, be physically present here. As a consequence, in the Lord’s Supper, Christ is not brought down to us, but we are lifted up to him” (Letham, 35).

Partaking in communion – preferably on a weekly basis – is a good and constant reminder of the vast ontological difference between God and myself. It’s also a way of acknowledging the difference, both publicly and (hopefully) privately in worship.

Finally, in addition to unity and perspective, I gain greater appreciation for the requisite qualifications of those serving and partaking in communion. Again, Letham rightly stresses the importance that the Word accompanies the sacrament, and that it be through a “minister of the Word properly ordained” (Letham, 50). He also clarifies “definite qualifications for taking the Lord’s Supper” – faith, repentance, and self-examination – as illustrated historically in the forms of baptism, public profession of faith, and active (and orthodox) church membership (Letham, 56).

In sum (and returning to Letham’s opening quote), one’s position on the Supper is indeed an accurate index of one’s understanding of the Christian faith as a whole. I’ve learned much from my past, but have more still to learn about this means of grace from Christ.

How about you?

Some Thoughts on the Holy Spirit

When I was on staff with The Navigators, I used to joke that we in the organization thought of the Holy Spirit as being the member of the Trinity dressed in a three-piece suit sitting quietly in the corner of the boardroom. As a member of the PCA, I sometimes make the same joke (except now the Spirit’s sporting a bow-tie and tuxedo at Presbytery).

Lest my tongue-in-cheek critiques cause one to assume I know more of and about the Holy Spirit than others, rest assured I am as clueless as anyone – certainly with regard to the nuances of what we can know about the Spirit, but especially with regard to my experience of the Spirit.

I suppose I’m very much a product of my environment(s): I have always thought of the Spirit as the shy member of the Trinity Who seems too distant and overdressed for me to really get to know. This realization likely explains much of my poor and seemingly-powerless prayer life, as well as the lack of intimacy I often feel with God (and others) as a result.

Sinclair Ferguson alludes to this perceived (and probably widely-shared) reality in his excellent book, The Holy Spirit – part of the Contours of Christian Theology series:

“The expression ‘communion of the Holy Spirit’, if understood to include communion with him, further implies a bond of fellowship within a context of mutual knowledge. Here we come to a significant hiatus in discussions of the Spirit. It is commonplace to discuss the question of his divine personhood, his work in the application of redemption and in the fruit he produces, or the nature of his gifts and their role in the contemporary church; but communion with him in a developing knowledge of him is much less frequently explored.”

Ferguson’s focus on understanding the work of the Spirit from the perspective (and with the purpose) of being in union with Christ is both elementary and revolutionary to my thinking. Experiencing the Spirit not just as the bringer of gifts or as the sealer of salvation but as the co-crier of my soul is meaningful to me. With regard to Paul’s teaching on the idea in Romans 8:16-17 and Galatians 4:1-7, Ferguson writes:

“There is one cry, but that cry has two sources: the consciousness of the believer and the ministry of the Spirit…Just as no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3), in a similar way no one can say, ‘Abba, Father’ except by the same Spirit.”

Mine is not a cry to the Father while a formally-attired Spirit quietly sits nearby; rather, as B.B. Warfield wrote, “Distinct in source, it is yet delivered confluently with the testimony of our own consciousness.” I have tended toward a “me or He” thinking (i.e. either I’m crying out or the Spirit is – probably because of His environs!), but it is actually “we.”

In addition to Ferguson’s wise teaching on the difference between revelation and inspiration (“Denial of divine experience is not necessary; only the interpretation of it.”), I very much appreciate his counsel concerning the debate on the gifts of the Spirit. I have always been a cautious continuationist rather than a strict cessationist; that is, I believe all the gifts of the Spirit are in play even after the closing of the canon of Scripture.

While many (mis)read 1 Corinthians 13:12, placing it in an epistemological rather than its true eschatological context, Ferguson warns of the abuses of extreme continuationism but does not knee-jerk into cessationism, refusing to go beyond what the Scriptures say (or don’t) on the matter. His mature example encourages me to both consider and follow the Person of the Spirit not as a cosmic, remote taskmaster, but as a personal, loving friend still at full work in the world…and in me to be and become a better servant of Christ.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Interpretation

A few weeks ago, a post in which I wrote on gay marriage got quite a bit of traffic and discussion. In the midst of the interactions, some important questions came up pertaining to my use of the Bible as the basis for my thinking.

For instance, escapethedrain wrote in comment #2:

"If you are using the bible to prove your point that homosexuality is wrong, then you also have to include the scripture that says:

(1 Tim. 2:12)
'Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.'

(Lev 19.18b)
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.'

Do you believe in this as well? I am interested in your response."

In addition, transientreporter wrote in comment #3:

"Mull over this:

(Deuteronomy 13:7-11)
'If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known,gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the LORD, your God…'

The bible is a deeply ugly book."

I summed up the tensions (see comment #5) as being 1) the use of ancient Scripture (Old and New Testaments) to address modern issues, and 2) the brutality of the Bible. While I'm not sure if the two readers who asked the questions are still reading (thanks for sticking around if you are), I promised to try to address their questions, so I will (though it's going to take a couple of posts to do it - hang with me).

Let me start with an illustration. As part of the recent build-up to the new Indiana Jones movie (which I've still yet to see), Slate ran a review that started with this:

"If some 32nd-century archeologist were to unearth a DVD copy of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Paramount), her first task—after converting the barbaric early digital technology to a more current brain-wave-based viewing system—would be to understand what this object meant to the culture that created it...Though it's a scholar's job to shed her 32nd-century prejudices and understand the belief systems of those long dead, our archeologist will have to ask herself: What were these scribes thinking?"

When I read this, I thought immediately of our recent discussion. It's true: many aspects of the Bible can seem foreign to us because of where we are (or aren't) historically in relation to them. However, we aren't being fair to the Scripture (or to any ancient text) if we approach it with our 21st-century prejudices.

For instance, I just finished reading Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. Make no mistake, Dawkins is a good writer, but listen for the modern bias in his take (found on page 269 in case anyone's following along) on the beginning of the Old Testament:

"Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well."

Dawkins continues:

"Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the athiest's decision, without an absolute foundation."

Dawkins then dismisses the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19 and the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19 before starting in on the New Testament and questioning Jesus' "somewhat dodgy family values" (page 284).

For the record, I agree with Dawkins that, unfortunately, there are plenty of theologians who don't take Genesis literally any more, but I am not one of them. This doesn't (or shouldn't) make me a flaming fundamentalist by default; I do not read Genesis as a science book anymore than I read Song of Songs as a recipe. I read Genesis as narrative and Song of Songs as poetry, for reading either as something they're not does not respect their genres as literature, which, in my mind, is as big a problem for fundamentalists as a figurative-only reading.

But I digress.

My point is that Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist) gives little to no consideration to the first basic rule of hermeneutics (interpretation) - that is, we have to understand an author's intent as well as the needs of the author's first readers to rightly understand the text. Dawkins seems only interested in picking apart the text; likewise, if any reader does not interact with ancient writings beyond their words, then she is not playing by the rules of good exegesis.

So, getting back to the questions above, what was the Apostle Paul's intent and his audience's needs that caused him to write about women and submission? What were Moses' purposes and the needs of the nation (not the state) of Israel that led him to encourage loving one's neighbor in Leviticus and, at the same time, punish his neighbor so violently if he enticed him to forsake God? We have to try to get as close to these original intents and audiences before we can begin figuring out what (if any) meaning these passages have now.

And that's where we'll start tomorrow...

Linky, Linky

It's usually feast or famine for me with links; today, I happen to be eating well. Here are some particularly inspiring links that I hope fill your creative cup and stick to your spiritual ribs:

• If you're not doing anything this weekend, think about checking out the Unversity of St. Louis' StoryTelling Festival (we're taking the whole fam Saturday night). My friend, Ken Wolfe, is one of seven featured storytellers, and he alone is worth the price of admission (free - no reflection on Ken). For a preview of Ken telling lies stories, take a short listen to this clip aired on our local public radio station, KWMU.


• In this week's Newsweek, there's a wonderful little interview with Anglican theologian N.T. Wright about the resurrection actually being (gasp) real. Wright may not be doctrinally conservative enough for some American evangelicals, but when you consider the theological pool he swims in in England, he's plenty orthodox for me, especially in this piece.


• Ever wonder what godly writers do on a daily basis? This week's WORLD has a nice article on pastor/author Eugene Peterson, his writing, and his routines.


• I'd never read The Constructive Curmudgeon before, but his post, Screwtape Writes Again: The Luciferian Laptop, hit a little too close to home. Ouch. (hat tip: Challies)


• I am really, really pumped about the upcoming ESV Study Bible, due out this fall. If you're a scholar wannabe like me, check out this stellar list of contributors (several of whom are Covenant profs, among others) to the project. Whoa.


• Remember the mix tape? Megan and I put several together before we were married (and before CD-writing technology made it legally sticky to digitally reproduce music). The good news is there's a way to share music the old-fashioned way (kind of) that won't get you thrown in prison. It's called MuxTape. (hat tip: Trevor)

Have a great weekend.

On Reading, Thinking, Learning

The best part about education is the worst part about education: the more you learn, the more you realize how much there is to learn. And then comes the worst realization of all: there's no way or time to learn it all. And that stinks.

I experience this sensation everytime I walk into a library or bookstore and remind myself again that, if I manage to average reading 60 books a year and even live to be 100, I'll only have read 6,000 books in my lifetime (and that's counting younger years of my life when I didn't read 60 books a year, so it would be less). This thought makes me very sad.

All that said, of late I've been reading a few books on some challenging topics, namely Islam and evolution; the title of the former is Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't by Robert Spencer, and the latter is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I'm still working through them, intrigued by the arguments, perspectives, and applications of each.

In addition, I read The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness by Simon Wiesenthal, a memoir of a Jewish concentration camp prisoner asked by a dying Nazi soldier for forgiveness. The last half of the book is a compendium of short essay responses from 53 "distinguished" men and women (theologians, political leaders, writers, jurists, psychiatrists, human rights activists, Holocaust surivovrs, and victims of attempted genocide) and their opinions on what Wisenthal should have done (he did nothing). Interesting to think through.

This weekend, I need to begin immersing myself in the world of Ancient and Medieval Church History, as I'm taking my first Access class through Covenant. I'm supposed to work through thirty-six recorded lectures by Dr. David Calhoun and volume 1 of Justo L. Gonzalez's book, The Story of Christianity, no later than May 15th. There are also quizzes, tests, and a project. Even then, I'll just be scratching the surface of all that went on from the time of the early church until the Reformation. Nuts.

I'm taking two other classes at Covenant this spring (Children's Ministry and Youth Ministry Across Culture), but those are each a weekend class, so they shouldn't be too bad. This is good, as I still need to help my own students make sense of all the letters of the New Testament and the last four of the Ten Commandments (like there's any way to cover any of those to the depth I want to in the course of a semester).

Which brings me back to my original thought: the more I learn, the more I want to learn, and the more frustrating I become that I can't learn it all, even in a hundred lifetimes. My hope for Heaven is that we don't get to just download everything we don't know in one fell swoop; I'd rather have to learn it, as at least then I'll have plenty of time to do so.

Emerging Evangelicalism?

Rob Bell was featured in Time last week, causing somewhat of a stir among the evangelical faithful that perhaps an heir apparent to the fading Billy Graham is emerging. Bell, of course, is used to "emerging" - he's founding pastor of Mars Hill Church (which I think I visited once back in the mid-90's but can't remember) in Grand Rapids, as well as part of a movement known as the "emerging church" or the "emerging conversation".

I recently took a weekend class on all this, and one of the most helpful things the speaker (Darrin Patrick, lead pastor of The Journey here in St. Louis and member of the Acts 29 Network) did was identify three predominant streams within the emerging movement. (If you're interested in any of this, you can hear the same opening session I did here.)

According to Patrick, Bell floats on the "emerging conversational stream," which is "mainly after theological revision by challenging evangelical theology." Patrick's other two streams are "emerging attractional," which is mainly after methodological revision," and "emerging incarnational," which is "mainly after structural revision" (think 'house church' here).

Patrick’s filling in of the proverbial “lineup cards” was helpful, as I was able to mentally organize some of the names I knew were in the conversation. Regardless of what you call it (or which stream you prefer to float on - I'd be an "emerging attractional" guy myself), the ultimate question is not what the "emergent church" is emerging from, but what is it emerging to?

This is where Bell's latest press becomes interesting. I've not read Sex God, but I have recently read Velvet Elvis. While I know Bell is a dynamic speaker and communicator, I have not heard him speak, and this was the first writing of his I’ve read. I appreciated his tone in presenting his thoughts and ideas, as his writing voice is one of gentle passion and reasonable zeal. I liked the combination.

However, this attractive combination – whether intentionally or unintentionally – provides cover for some ideas that, though sounding good, are more problematic than Bell’s tone implies. It’s not that all of what he writes seems wrong; it’s just not all of it seems right.

I think the biggest problematic area involves Bell’s theology of what and for whom Jesus’ atonement was. In many ways, Bell comes off as a universalist when he states that, “…this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God’. All things, everywhere.” (146) Graham has been accused of similar universalist tendencies as well.

Without more qualification (and written in his gracious tone), Bell’s conclusion that, “Heaven is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for” and “Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for” (146) implies a soteriology having more do with us choosing well and less to do with a Sovereign God’s limited (but completely saving) atonement as taught per the Scriptures (and clarified by the Reformed systematic).

Another area of concern is Bell’s leveling of the authority of “binding and loosing.” In the course of a couple short paragraphs, Bell explains how in ancient times, “…a rabbi would bind certain practices and loose other practices,” and then give his disciples the authority to do the same. He goes on to explain that Jesus followed suit with his disciples, and how we can do the same today (that is, “giving his followers the authority to make new interpretations of the Bible,” and “somehow God in heaven will be involved.” (50)

The authority Jesus gave the disciples he gave to the apostles (that is, to the twelve), and this authority does not automatically pass down to followers of Christ today, as it was an apostolic responsibility ending with the apostles and the closing of the canon of Scripture, rather than a license to reinterpret Scripture’s meaning over and over through time. I believe there was one meaning intended by the apostles, and it is our goal as disciples coming after them to affirm and adhere to it.

While these (and perhaps a few other smaller) areas were problematic for me, I did think Bell had some good things to say about a variety of things, particularly the unfortunate continuation of the sacred/secular split (85), the significance of the Sabbath (117-118), and true counter-cultural living (163). I wouldn’t say I trust all of his theological insights, but in terms of common sense observation, I think he makes some good points.

Anybody got thoughts on this?

Owen on the Non-Efficiency of the Bible

Puritan John Owen on why God didn't just "give us a list" of everything we need to know that we could use more easily than the "non-efficient" nature of the Bible:

"Such a systematical proposal of doctrines, truths, or articles of faith, as some require, would not have answered the great ends of the Scripture itself. All that can be supposed of benefit thereby is only that it would lead us more easily into a methodical comprehension of the truths so proposed; but this we may attain, and not be rendered one jot more like unto God thereby.

The principal end of the Scriptures is of another nature. It is, to beget in the minds of men faith, fear, obedience, and reverence of God - to make them holy and righteous...Unto this end every truth is disposed of in the Scripture as it ought to be. If any expect that the Scripture should be written with respect unto opinions, notions, and speculations, to render men skillful and cunning in them, able to talk and dispute...they are mistaken.

It is given to make us humble, holy, wise in spiritual things; to direct us in our duties, to relieve us in our temptations, to comfort us under troubles, to make us to love God and live unto him. Unto this end there is a more glorious power and efficacy in one epistle, one psalm, one chapter, than in all the writings of men...He that hath not experience hereof is a stranger unto the power of God in the Scripture...sometimes an occasional passage in a story, a word or expressions, shall contribute more to excite faith and love in our souls than a volume of learned disputations."

On Predestination

(I'm not sure if anyone's interested enough to want more than this here, so I'll just post my strengths/weaknesses lists for Arminianism and Calvinism, as well as my paper's introduction comparing the books I read on each and we can go from there. If there's interest, I may post more; if not, no big deal.)

Assignment
Read Why I Am Not a Calvinist and Why I Am Not an Arminian and write a 5-7 page paper evaluating the two books' respective cases for predestination. At the top of the first page, produce two enumerated lists, giving the strengths and weaknesses of the two positions. Then, in the space that remains, discuss the 2 or 3 main strengths and weaknesses of each position.

Arminianism (as represented in Why I Am Not a Calvinist - WINC)
Strengths

1. Argues more from philosophy and rationalism*


2. Appeals to Western values of choice and equality


3. Champions human freedom by emphasizing our response and responsibility

Weaknesses

1. Argues more from philosophy and rationalism*


2. Human choice trumps God's sovereignty


3. Diminishes view of the Fall and sin

Calvinism (as represented in Why I Am Not an Arminian - WINA)
Strengths

1. Argues more from Scripture and mystery+


2. Appeals to Western values of security and privilege


3. Champions God’s sovereignty by emphasizing his love and will

Weaknesses

1. Argues more from Scripture and mystery+


2. Excuse for little evangelism initiative


3. Given to fatalism in its extremes

*+ Cases in which Arminianism/Calvinism’s strength is a weakness

Same But Different: Arminianism and Calvinism
In reading and studying InterVarsity Press’s two companion books, Why I Am Not a Calvinist and Why I Am Not an Arminian, and their respective handlings of the doctrine of predestination, what first struck me was my need to clarify what the issues were and weren’t concerning the issue of “God’s predetermination of persons to a specific end.”1

For whatever reason, my initial assumption that Arminianism began in a different theological place than Calvinism with regard to God’s sovereignty and prevenient grace was misinformed. On the contrary, according to Arminian authors Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, “Arminians and Calvinists alike readily agree that the Bible is the supreme authority for our theology, that God is sovereign, that he is perfectly loving and that human beings are free and responsible for their actions. To the casual observer, it may appear that there is little if any real difference between the two positions” (WINC, 216).

Calvinist authors Robert Peterson and Michael Williams agree: “The Arminian Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh to save sinners and that the saving work of Christ comes to the sinner by way of the grace of God received through faith. Whatever issues relevant to salvation we disagree upon, let us agree on this: the Calvinist and the Arminian are brothers in Christ.” (WINA, 13).

However, as both books contend, the belief in and reality of God’s sovereignty does not work itself out the same way in both theological systems. “Agreement at the level of broad claims about sovereignty, love, and freedom,” write Walls and Dongell, “masks profound disagreements about how these matters are understood in detail” (WINC, 216). And, say Peterson and Williams, “Calvinism and Arminianism do disagree regarding significant issues having to do with salvation, issues that we believe Calvinism rightly addresses and Arminianism does not” (WINA, 13).

Suffice it to say (and all four authors do), both theological parties affirm the other as spiritually seafaring by way of God’s same sovereign wind; however, these ships do so by different courses, depending on their particular turns of the rudder of predestination.

1 S.R. Spencer, "Predestination" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 950.

How We Know We Are Loved

My kids are always amazing me with what they understand about life. Here's an exchange my three-year-old and I had this evening while cuddling (a favorite activity for all involved):

Daddy: Do you know I love you?

#4: (smiles and laughs, almost embarrassed) Daddy...

Daddy: No, really. How do you know I love you?

#4: Because I said 'yes'.

The theology here is profound.

Learning from My Methodist Roots

My Reformation and Modern Church History class readings took a somewhat familiar turn today, focusing on the person and teaching of John Wesley, founder of Methodism.

I grew up Methodist, but experienced few intentional and traditional characteristics of Methodism to really know what it was. The small town church of my youth was not (nor is) a church of denominational distinctives, which was both good and bad: doctrine was never a source of division in the church, but that was largely because of the general lack thereof. Coming out of this kind of theological vacuum, I suppose it's no surprise I warmed to the tenets of Reformed theology in college, and now attend a Reformed seminary and church 15 years later.

That said, I confess there's a part of me that really resonates with certain aspects of Methodism, and (especially) Wesley himself. Historically, the Methodist movement appealed to the middle- and lower-class folk, particularly those settlers whose uprooted population lacked traditional ecclesiastical links, and whom the older churches seldom reached. Wesley's use of "connections" and "circuits" in an effort to provide and foster community was cutting edge for the time, and the Methodists' passion for those on the new frontiers - combined with the administration and organization to support it - has always been something I've admired about early Methodism, as it appeals to both my zeal and my obsessive-compulsive tendencies.

While I don't agree with all of Wesley's theology (in particular his Arminian leanings), nor some of his overly-pragmatic practices of utilizing lay preachers beyond the need of the hour (though this was more his mother's idea than his), the Reformed tradition could learn much from his perspective of ecumenism and fellowship across denominational lines. From The Works of John Wesley, pages 340-347:

"The distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort...as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.

I, and all who follow my judgment, do vehemently refuse to be distinguished from other men, by any but the common principles of Christianity - the plain, old Christianity that I teach, renouncing and detesting all other marks of distinction.

By these marks, by these fruits of a living faith, do we labor to distinguish ourselves from the unbelieving world, from all those whose minds or lives are not according to the Gospel of Christ. But from real Christians, of whatsoever denomination they be, we earnestly desire not to be distinguished at all, not from any who sincerely follow after what they know they have not yet attained.

Dost thou love and serve God? It is enough. I give thee the right hand of fellowship."

Now there's a message we Reformed folk could stand hearing a few (thousand) more times...

Something to Think About for Lent

Lent is upon us, and, rather than spend the rest of my day (and this post) trying to figure out what one thing I should give up for the next 40 days, I thought I'd focus a bit on why to consider giving up anything at all.

John Calvin taught that original sin “seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’ (Galatians 5:19)." What he was saying was, if depravity is in us at all, it is all in us throughout:

“The mind of man has been so completely estranged from God’s righteousness that it conceives, desires, and undertakes, only that which is impious, perverted, foul, impure, and infamous. The heart is so steeped in the poison of sin, that it can breathe out nothing but a loathsome stench.”

But just as the depravity of original sin is all in us, “If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it (salvation) is ‘of him’ (1 Cor. 1:30):

• gifts of the Spirit in his anointing


• strength in his dominion


• purity in his conception


• gentleness in his birth


• empathy in his humanity


• redemption in his passion


• acquittal in his condemnation


• remission of curse in his cross


• satisfaction in his sacrifice


• purification in his blood


• reconciliation in his descent


• mortification of the flesh in his tomb


• newness of life and immortality in his resurrection


• inheritance of the kingdom in his entrance into heaven


• protection, security, and supply in his kingdom


• and peace in his judgment

“In short,” wrote Calvin,” since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain and from no other…” Calvin’s solution to our sin and depravity was not merely a physical restraining of sin (though there is need and grace for that), but a spiritual transfusion through blood and faith – that is, Christ’s for ours.

In other words (and to apply Calvin's thought to the meaning of today), giving something up for Lent can be good, but giving in to Christ is the goal - certainly of Lent, even more so of life.

Suddenly, the idea of foregoing salt, chocolate, or Coke Zero for the next 40 days just got really, really trite...or really, really meaningful. I can't decide which.

On Teachers and Teaching

My kind of weekend: intensive January term class on prophecy with visiting prof, Dr. Richard Pratt of Third Millennium Ministries (check out the website - way cool vision); teaching tomorrow morning at Memorial on leadership (specifically how being a good follower is key to being a good leader); and digging into Proverbs to prep for class with my high schoolers.

Combine all this with a nice, dreary drizzle forecasted for most of the weekend, and it might as well be heaven (minus, of course, the still-obvious presence of sin, not to mention the periodic on/off flickering lights due to ice on the power lines). But I digress...

Dr. Pratt is a pretty amazing teacher who makes good use of audio/visual media without overdoing it. It's obvious he also know his stuff on the prophets, and I was encouraged by both his scholarship and his biblical commitments trumping his solid Reformed perspectives.

Don't get me wrong: for my two cents, Reformed theology is and always has been far and away the superior systematic in so many ways, but every man-made system has its limits, and Dr. Pratt is not only unafraid to say so, but seems bent on teaching it as part of his pedagogy.

Perhaps the other encouragement for me last night was how helpful and affirming his review of Old Testament history was, especially having just taught so much of it last semester at Wildwood. There are few things worse than realizing after the fact that something you taught someone else was actually wrong (or perhaps even worse - not quite right); thus, going into the class, I was somewhat prepared to have to revise some of my notes afterward, not so much for having wrong data, but for botching the interpretation of it in some way.

Thankfully (at least so far), my study and teaching seem to be lining up with Dr. Pratt's take on things. Granted, there were a couple of important aspects that I did not emphasize as much as I perhaps should have, but there also was no real heresy I was guilty of either. For that, I was and am very thankful.

Of course, I was only in class three hours last night. We'll see how my notes stand up after seven hours today.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1

Freaks me out every time I read it...

Humorous, Ludicrous

I'm usually not one for quizzes and the like, but this one seemed interesting enough. While I don't know all that much about Anselm (yet), Calvin and Edwards are heroes, so it was nice to see them in the top three. I would have liked to have seen Augustine and Marty Luther round out the top five, but it's not like I really compare to any of them to begin with, so no big deal.

Anyway, it's only a quiz, right? God doesn't give quizzes; he's more into tests. For posterity:

"You scored as John Calvin. Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God's sovereignty is all important."

John Calvin		100%
Anselm		80%
Jonathan Edwards		67%
Jorgen Moltmann		40%
Augustine		33%
Charles Finney		27%
Friedrich Schleiermacher		27%
Karl Barth		27%
Martin Luther		20%
Paul Tillich		7%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Possibly In Need of a Little Persecution?

As part of my Pastoral and General Epistles class with Dr. Dan Doriani, I'm studying the book of Hebrews, which essentially means doing some Greek translation, following along in the lecture notes, and reading William Lane's excellent commentary, Hebrews: A Call to Commitment. Lane does an amazing job of analyzing and understanding the structure and ideas of the author of Hebrews (possibly Luke or Barnabas, or perhaps even Clement, but certainly not Paul - the Greek's too different), and Dr. D. is top-notch as a New Testament scholar/teacher.

Hebrews was written as a sermon, not as a letter (though it probably was passed around later as such) to a group of Christians in Rome around the time of Nero's persecution of Christians in 64 A.D.; thus, the particular style and surrounding events give the book a personal, urgent flavor that is fascinating from both a theological and pastoral perspective.

Here are a few choice highlights from Lane:

"The 'adult' is the mature Christian who will recognize the moral claim of God upon his life, even if it exposes him to martyrdom. Those who remain infantile and who refuse to exercise their faculties daily by making decisions in a Christian manner will be unable to exercise the proper moral discrimination between good and evil when they stand before the interrogation of a Roman magistrate. In that case, they will be unprepared for the ultimate moral choice between confessing and denying Christ, when the cost of confession and identification with Christ is the loss of one's life." (89)

"Pastoral concern for his friends is evident in every line...The writer makes use of biting irony, confident assurance, sharp warning, and warm encouragement to coax the community into recgonizing that they cannot turn back the clock and deny the reality fo the salvation they have experienced." (100)

"Christ came into the world in order to model committed obedience to the will of God. As the obedient one, he came to do the will of God. The sacrifice of his body on the Cross was the obedient response to the divine will, and this sacrifice secured for his people the benefits of the new covenant...We prove that we are the new people of God precisely as the obedience which Christ displayed when he entered the world becomes the hallmark of our lives." (143)

"The formulation used by the preacher to express the pilgrim's disposition is descriptive of an active seeking: 'we seek after the city which is to come' (Hebrews 13:14). Here is the litmus test of spirituality: are you actively looking forward to the appeearance of the City of God? What do you care about profoundly? What do you think about when you are caught day-dreaming? Do you display a pilgrim's dispostion, actively seeking the City of God?" (161)

All that to say, one of the reasons that I (along with most of the American evangelical church) really don't understand the depth of Hebrews is not because the message is unclear; rather, we have not experienced the kind of hostility Jesus (and those to whom Hebrews was written) did.

To understand the will of God to the same (or at least similar) degree, I wonder if we are possibly in need of a little persecution? I'm not saying I'm asking for it, but I do wonder sometimes: if it came, how would I/we respond? Obviously, this is what the Church in China, North Korea, and other such places of tyranny could teach us, as I bet they understand Hebrews a lot better than I do, not because they choose to, but because they have to as Christians.

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." (Hebrews 12:1-4)

Nope. Sure haven't. How about you?