Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Christian Pick-up Lines
I thought these are great but as I am happily married I won't be using them!
Monday, May 28, 2012
Links in the Chain of Testimony Ebook
Here we have another book, published by Hayes Press.
Here are the quick links as usual:
Amazon.com: http://amzn.to/LBZygH
Amazon.co.uk: http://amzn.to/LYfEHO
Who is this book for?
This little book is for all Christians who want to better understand how God wants to be worshipped and served today, based on His pattern that is seen throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Who is it written by?
This book was written by S.J. Hill in the early part of the last century. Hill was an elder in the Churches of God, an organization that still exists today (see www.churchesofgod.info) and still seeks to worship and serve God as a collective and united people in the way he describes in this book. The book has been re-published because of a conviction that this church truth is as vital today as it was when it was first written.
What is it about?
It centres around the word “Testimony”. There are many books that talk about the kind of “individual testimony” seen in the lives of people of faith in Genesis like Abel, Enoch or Noah; but this book is about something different that is spoken of much, much less – it’s the important concept of “collective testimony” which is first seen in the Old Testament in the book of Exodus. Psalm 78:5 says: “For He established a testimony in Jacob”, by which he meant the People of Israel.
What is "collective testimony about"?
Collective testimony starts with a redeemed and obedient People, to whom God spoke words like this: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6)
God had a purpose with His redeemed People, when he delivered them from Egyptian bondage and slavery in Eqypt. He set them free, not to remain in Egypt and keep the Passover there, but to leave and do what he wanted them to do. What was that? “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8)
This was the first step in God's purpose for 1) a temple to be built in accordance with the pattern that He gave to David and 2) the Kingdom of Israel to be established in the land at a later day. Through Israel's subsequent failure, the Kingdom closed with disaster. Seventy long years passed and the call of God came to the exiles in Babylon: “Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the LORD” (Ezra 1:3)
The small remnant, led by great men like Ezra and Nehemiah, fulfilled the purposes of God – ultimately from that little group came the Messiah, who in turn called some of them who were later were found together in the Upper Room. These men became some of the first members of the Body of Christ - but they also became the nucleus of the Churches of God – the House of God - of the Apostolic era. God does not change – he is still calling out His children to contend for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints (Jude v.3) ; and this involves the re-building of the House of God – but a spiritual one, not a physical one any longer, according to Peter's words:
“You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)
We see many times in the Bible that obedience to God's Word will bring the believer in line with His purposes, even if there are only a few who can grasp it and act on it.
What is the challenge of this book?
The challenge of this book is clear – are you prepared to be obedient to God’s Word and form part of his spiritual house, built according to his pattern – an entity that is quite distinct from, but closely linked to, the “Church, which is His Body?”
Here are the quick links as usual:
Amazon.com: http://amzn.to/LBZygH
Amazon.co.uk: http://amzn.to/LYfEHO
This little book is for all Christians who want to better understand how God wants to be worshipped and served today, based on His pattern that is seen throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Who is it written by?
This book was written by S.J. Hill in the early part of the last century. Hill was an elder in the Churches of God, an organization that still exists today (see www.churchesofgod.info) and still seeks to worship and serve God as a collective and united people in the way he describes in this book. The book has been re-published because of a conviction that this church truth is as vital today as it was when it was first written.
What is it about?
It centres around the word “Testimony”. There are many books that talk about the kind of “individual testimony” seen in the lives of people of faith in Genesis like Abel, Enoch or Noah; but this book is about something different that is spoken of much, much less – it’s the important concept of “collective testimony” which is first seen in the Old Testament in the book of Exodus. Psalm 78:5 says: “For He established a testimony in Jacob”, by which he meant the People of Israel.
What is "collective testimony about"?
Collective testimony starts with a redeemed and obedient People, to whom God spoke words like this: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6)
God had a purpose with His redeemed People, when he delivered them from Egyptian bondage and slavery in Eqypt. He set them free, not to remain in Egypt and keep the Passover there, but to leave and do what he wanted them to do. What was that? “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8)
This was the first step in God's purpose for 1) a temple to be built in accordance with the pattern that He gave to David and 2) the Kingdom of Israel to be established in the land at a later day. Through Israel's subsequent failure, the Kingdom closed with disaster. Seventy long years passed and the call of God came to the exiles in Babylon: “Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the LORD” (Ezra 1:3)
The small remnant, led by great men like Ezra and Nehemiah, fulfilled the purposes of God – ultimately from that little group came the Messiah, who in turn called some of them who were later were found together in the Upper Room. These men became some of the first members of the Body of Christ - but they also became the nucleus of the Churches of God – the House of God - of the Apostolic era. God does not change – he is still calling out His children to contend for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints (Jude v.3) ; and this involves the re-building of the House of God – but a spiritual one, not a physical one any longer, according to Peter's words:
“You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)
We see many times in the Bible that obedience to God's Word will bring the believer in line with His purposes, even if there are only a few who can grasp it and act on it.
What is the challenge of this book?
The challenge of this book is clear – are you prepared to be obedient to God’s Word and form part of his spiritual house, built according to his pattern – an entity that is quite distinct from, but closely linked to, the “Church, which is His Body?”
The Parable of the Tabernacle Ebook!
Here is another Kindle book by Hayes Press. Here are the quick links:
Amazon.com: http://amzn.to/L83GGv
Amazon.co.uk: http://amzn.to/K6GmNU
Why did God go into such great detail with Moses as to exactly how the Tabernacle was to be built and the offerings that were to be made there? And why did He include it all in our Bibles? Is it just rather dry, ancient history or is there anything that is applicable to Christians today – thousands of years later?
The writer to the Hebrews said almost 2,000 years ago that the Tabernacle is “symbolic for the present time” (Hebrews 9:9). This book makes the case that the Tabernacle is still of vital importance to all Christians today and that there are two main purposes:
1) To outline a clear vision of the House of God today as a called-out, gathered-together and united people, expressed in Churches of God - serving Him in Holy and Royal Priesthood service, according to the Biblical pattern that God Himself has laid down. Many believers today view the terms “Body of Christ” and “House of God” as interchangeable, despite the clear and important differences that are outlined in this book.
2) To provide a more wonderful appreciation of the beauties, glories, character and functions of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Son over God’s House, the Great High Priest and typified in so many ways in the various offerings associated with worship in the Tabernacle.
This book was written by Jack Ferguson in 1981 and has been re-published in ebook and hard copy formats by Hayes Press to meet demand – it has lost none of its relevance in the intervening years.
Amazon.com: http://amzn.to/L83GGv
Amazon.co.uk: http://amzn.to/K6GmNU
Why did God go into such great detail with Moses as to exactly how the Tabernacle was to be built and the offerings that were to be made there? And why did He include it all in our Bibles? Is it just rather dry, ancient history or is there anything that is applicable to Christians today – thousands of years later?
The writer to the Hebrews said almost 2,000 years ago that the Tabernacle is “symbolic for the present time” (Hebrews 9:9). This book makes the case that the Tabernacle is still of vital importance to all Christians today and that there are two main purposes:
1) To outline a clear vision of the House of God today as a called-out, gathered-together and united people, expressed in Churches of God - serving Him in Holy and Royal Priesthood service, according to the Biblical pattern that God Himself has laid down. Many believers today view the terms “Body of Christ” and “House of God” as interchangeable, despite the clear and important differences that are outlined in this book.
2) To provide a more wonderful appreciation of the beauties, glories, character and functions of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Son over God’s House, the Great High Priest and typified in so many ways in the various offerings associated with worship in the Tabernacle.
This book was written by Jack Ferguson in 1981 and has been re-published in ebook and hard copy formats by Hayes Press to meet demand – it has lost none of its relevance in the intervening years.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The Churches of God:Origin and Development - Ebook
I have another Kindle book to bring to your attention. Here are the links:
North America: http://amzn.to/Kp2RLi
UK: http://amzn.to/JxRiUL
In 2012, the Churches of God (see www.churchesofgod.info) are represented by
over one hundred assemblies in many countries around the world on four
continents.
The formation of Churches of God in 1892 was one of a number of significant development in the history of the Brethren movement in Great Britain - although not as well known or documented as others.
This book, published by Hayes Press, tells the story of how and why such an event happened, starting with a detailed examination of the emergence of Brethrenism in the mid-nineteenth century and the roles played by the leaders of the movement, such as John Nelson Darby and others, and the key role played various Brethren magazines such as Needed Truth in discussing church doctrine and practice.
The dramatic events of 1892 are then re-told, explaining exactly why some felt that they had no option but to separate from the Plymouth Brethren and other off-shoots, to become a completely new entity - so that they could more effectively put into practise what the pattern that they saw in the Old and New Testaments of God's desire for united collective testimony and elderhood.
The final session of the book walks through the early history of the Churches of God, their early struggles, the expansion into North America, West Africa, India, Burma and Australia and discusses distinctive features such as Bible camps, radio evangelism and missionary work up to 1985.
This book is a great resource for students of church history who wish to understand more about the Brethren movement and the Churches of God, an entity who - despite still having much in common with the Brethren movement - deeply hold core convictions that have not always been well known or understood.
North America: http://amzn.to/Kp2RLi
UK: http://amzn.to/JxRiUL
In 2012, the Churches of God (see www.churchesofgod.info) are represented by
over one hundred assemblies in many countries around the world on four
continents.The formation of Churches of God in 1892 was one of a number of significant development in the history of the Brethren movement in Great Britain - although not as well known or documented as others.
This book, published by Hayes Press, tells the story of how and why such an event happened, starting with a detailed examination of the emergence of Brethrenism in the mid-nineteenth century and the roles played by the leaders of the movement, such as John Nelson Darby and others, and the key role played various Brethren magazines such as Needed Truth in discussing church doctrine and practice.
The dramatic events of 1892 are then re-told, explaining exactly why some felt that they had no option but to separate from the Plymouth Brethren and other off-shoots, to become a completely new entity - so that they could more effectively put into practise what the pattern that they saw in the Old and New Testaments of God's desire for united collective testimony and elderhood.
The final session of the book walks through the early history of the Churches of God, their early struggles, the expansion into North America, West Africa, India, Burma and Australia and discusses distinctive features such as Bible camps, radio evangelism and missionary work up to 1985.
This book is a great resource for students of church history who wish to understand more about the Brethren movement and the Churches of God, an entity who - despite still having much in common with the Brethren movement - deeply hold core convictions that have not always been well known or understood.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
"The Call of Christ" Discipleship Ebook
"The Call of Christ" is now available on Amazon Here are the links:UK - http://amzn.to/L3oYHT
North America - http://amzn.to/K8w4KZ
Synopsis
Published by Hayes Press, this book is a compilation, by popular demand, of twelve challenging articles which were originally commissioned for Needed Truth magazine (http://www.neededtruth.info) in 2009.
There are times when every Christian believer feels a sense of dissatisfaction with his or her life of discipleship Those of us who love the Lord and value our Bibles will, from time to time, be motivated to explore again the character of radical discipleship as opposed to pew-filling, sermon-tasting comfortable 'churchianity' which for many can end up as a sort of passive, if not pious, 'spectator sport'.
“The Call of Christ” is ideal for times like that and even a glance at some of the topics explored will remind us what being a disciple of Jesus is really all about:
• Called to serve
• Called to suffer
• Called to die
• Called to simple dependence on God
• Called to be saints
• Called as we are
• Called to community
• Called to obey
• Called to possess God’s hope
• Called to share a heavenly calling
It is always good to finish on a high, and we certainly do that in this book. The high point of our discipleship is our worship experience among God's people. As we journey through the individual contributions which together present us with a biblical kaleidoscope of discipleship, what comes into focus is the fact that the call to Christ is the call to God's community, and that in turn is the call to worship (and what a worship experience it truly is, as described in the final contribution). Such a mind-blowing privilege explains - and renders so worthwhile - the high demands of true biblical discipleship which all the contributions making up this book present us with.
Read, think, act!
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tips for Gospel Tract Distribution
It really is amazing how many simple opportunities we have each day to spread the word of God. Often that can be using a simple gospel leaflet (also known as a "tract") which you can design and print yourself or buy them in bulk.
Here is a list of suggestions to disperse gospel leaflets. The important step is in bold and then the long list follows that..food for thought..
Always ask God to use you, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for each tract placed, and then pray for the Lord of harvest to bless it.
- Put some in a plastic holder or envelope by your door, to give to anyone who comes to your door, and as a reminder to take some with you when you leave the house.
- Hand out to customers at local restaurants / leave at takeaways.
- Put on tables in post offices.
- Pass out on busy street corners.
- Pass out at schools after dismissal.
- Pass out to people waiting in line at theater or any place where there is a queue!
- Put in each box or bag of goods you might sell to people - ebay items etc.
- Send to people on birthdays or holidays.
- Leave in phone boxes / booths.
- Put on car windows.
- Pass out door to door.
- Leave on sitting areas of shopping centres.
- Pass out at parades, festivals, and special events.
- Leave in city parks on benches, etc. (beware of wind and rain so that they don't become litter or pulp)
- Hand out at stadium entrances, etc.
- Leave at funeral homes.
- Give to attendants at parking garages, etc. If your ticket could benefit others, give it to someone with a tract.
- Leave in hotel rooms (in the drawers, telephone book, etc.)
- Give to waitresses with generous tips at restaurants
- Put in magazines in waiting rooms.
- Leave on hairdressers tables.
- Hand out at zoos, picnic areas, beaches.
- Include in bills paid by mail. OR simply post the prepaid envelopes you don't use with tracts in them (please put stamps on these for a good witness).
- Hand to store employees, check-out clerks.
- Leave in waiting areas of hospitals.
- Leave in toilets at restaurants, schools, airports, etc.
- Leave in the bank where deposit slips are.
- Give to hospital and nursing home patients.
- Leave in returned library books (or simply place in library books when visiting).
- Leave on tables at markets, fairs, etc.
- Leave on tables at health club / gym
- Put in airport lounges, bus terminals, etc.
- Mail to relatives of deceased in obituaries.
- Leave on seats on bus, taxi, airplane, etc.
- Rent stalls at county or local fairs.
- Put in pockets of used / new clothing given away.
- Leave in dressing rooms of clothing stores.
- Put in sealed bottles in the ocean.
- Hand out at sporting events.
- In the workplace / through business (but don't steal time from your boss, do it at break!
- Magazines & Newspapers
- Public leaflets / information - slip one in!
- Place on public notice boards
- In shopping trolleys
- In clothes pockets in stores
- In nappy changing stations
- On ATM machines (or any credit card slot)
- In elevators
- On hotel dressers for the room cleaners
- On newspaper racks
- In plane, bus or car seat pockets
- Inside "religious" books or any other popular books in the library or book store
- Between the rubber and the glass on driver's side windows (but not on private property)
- If you rent videos put one in the movie you are returning.
- Leave them on video games in the arcade
- Pull out a couple of feet of toilet paper, and insert the tract while rolling it back up
- Place tract in napkin holders, behind a few napkins
- Place money / coin tracts in a buskers box / street entertainers collection box. TIP: if its a note tract, expect the music to stop!
- Leave in the carrier bags at checkouts (self serve), they won't check these bags until they get home!
- Attach them to the envelope of letters you send out in the post
This was taken from http://freetractsource.co.uk/
The leaflet pictured and a wide selection of others are available from www.hayespress.org
Here is a list of suggestions to disperse gospel leaflets. The important step is in bold and then the long list follows that..food for thought..
Always ask God to use you, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for each tract placed, and then pray for the Lord of harvest to bless it.- Put some in a plastic holder or envelope by your door, to give to anyone who comes to your door, and as a reminder to take some with you when you leave the house.
- Hand out to customers at local restaurants / leave at takeaways.
- Put on tables in post offices.
- Pass out on busy street corners.
- Pass out at schools after dismissal.
- Pass out to people waiting in line at theater or any place where there is a queue!
- Put in each box or bag of goods you might sell to people - ebay items etc.
- Send to people on birthdays or holidays.
- Leave in phone boxes / booths.
- Put on car windows.
- Pass out door to door.
- Leave on sitting areas of shopping centres.
- Pass out at parades, festivals, and special events.
- Leave in city parks on benches, etc. (beware of wind and rain so that they don't become litter or pulp)
- Hand out at stadium entrances, etc.
- Leave at funeral homes.
- Give to attendants at parking garages, etc. If your ticket could benefit others, give it to someone with a tract.
- Leave in hotel rooms (in the drawers, telephone book, etc.)
- Give to waitresses with generous tips at restaurants
- Put in magazines in waiting rooms.
- Leave on hairdressers tables.
- Hand out at zoos, picnic areas, beaches.
- Include in bills paid by mail. OR simply post the prepaid envelopes you don't use with tracts in them (please put stamps on these for a good witness).
- Hand to store employees, check-out clerks.
- Leave in waiting areas of hospitals.
- Leave in toilets at restaurants, schools, airports, etc.
- Leave in the bank where deposit slips are.
- Give to hospital and nursing home patients.
- Leave in returned library books (or simply place in library books when visiting).
- Leave on tables at markets, fairs, etc.
- Leave on tables at health club / gym
- Put in airport lounges, bus terminals, etc.
- Mail to relatives of deceased in obituaries.
- Leave on seats on bus, taxi, airplane, etc.
- Rent stalls at county or local fairs.
- Put in pockets of used / new clothing given away.
- Leave in dressing rooms of clothing stores.
- Put in sealed bottles in the ocean.
- Hand out at sporting events.
- In the workplace / through business (but don't steal time from your boss, do it at break!
- Magazines & Newspapers
- Public leaflets / information - slip one in!
- Place on public notice boards
- In shopping trolleys
- In clothes pockets in stores
- In nappy changing stations
- On ATM machines (or any credit card slot)
- In elevators
- On hotel dressers for the room cleaners
- On newspaper racks
- In plane, bus or car seat pockets
- Inside "religious" books or any other popular books in the library or book store
- Between the rubber and the glass on driver's side windows (but not on private property)
- If you rent videos put one in the movie you are returning.
- Leave them on video games in the arcade
- Pull out a couple of feet of toilet paper, and insert the tract while rolling it back up
- Place tract in napkin holders, behind a few napkins
- Place money / coin tracts in a buskers box / street entertainers collection box. TIP: if its a note tract, expect the music to stop!
- Leave in the carrier bags at checkouts (self serve), they won't check these bags until they get home!
- Attach them to the envelope of letters you send out in the post
This was taken from http://freetractsource.co.uk/
The leaflet pictured and a wide selection of others are available from www.hayespress.org
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Olympic-sized Witnessing Opportunities!
The Olympics are not far away and perhaps you have been wondering whether it presents an opportunity to witness to friends, family or the man in the street. The question is, how do you go about doing that?
Hayes Press are a Christian publishers who are aiming to answer that very question! They have assembled a range of themed material which you might want to take a look at. Here is a copy of their latest flyer:
Check out their website for more details. They also stock a wide range of Christian leaflets, tracts, posters and books.
If the Torch Relay is going to be coming around your neighbourhood, why not capitalise on this great opportunity and hand out some themed leaflets? Or get some of the childrens resources for your youth club?
Hayes Press are a Christian publishers who are aiming to answer that very question! They have assembled a range of themed material which you might want to take a look at. Here is a copy of their latest flyer:
Check out their website for more details. They also stock a wide range of Christian leaflets, tracts, posters and books.
If the Torch Relay is going to be coming around your neighbourhood, why not capitalise on this great opportunity and hand out some themed leaflets? Or get some of the childrens resources for your youth club?
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
"They Shoot Birds, Don't They? - Book Review
This is a very easy to read children’s novel by British author M.P. Jones that explores the kinds of questions inquiring children ask.
Mason has been given an assignment, along with his entire class, over the two week holiday break from school. He has to find a “fact,” research it and attempt to prove it is true or if not, debunk it. Seeing a dead bird by the side of the road on a family day out, he wonders “there must be stacks of birds dying every single day-what happens to them all?”
To sweeten the pot a newspaper is offering 20,000 Pounds for anyone who can debunk an urban myth. Enough money to see his family clear on their debt and bring much needed financial stability.
Once Mason has his question he is off on a merry chase for the truth. Mason is nothing if not resourceful, he uses every information source at his disposal. From his grandfathers puns, his pastors biblical knowledge, the internet and anyone else he can find. The search is on.
Along the way Mason finds another question and begins a quest for the answer to another question. Soon his quest spirals out of control and he is forced to face things he never expected and helps solve a real adult problem.
This is a lovely book for children and would be enjoyed by both boys and girls although the primary protagonists are boys. I would rate it for about grade five through middle school and up. The adults in the book are good supporting characters and are there to guide and give good advise to help Mason make good decisions. There is no “language” to be concerned with. Of course, with all books written for young boys this was has the usual suspects; bathroom humor, dead birds, bad guys and mom’s who keep boys manners in line.
The author is English so it is written with British spelling and humor, which is not a problem in this one as most references are things American’s can understand.
★★★★★
Available:
on Amazon.com: http://bit.ly/JOtKpE
on Amazon.co.uk : http://amzn.to/JhuIcj
This review was taken from the Parents Little Black Book website - http://www.parentslbb.com/books/2012/05/13/they-shoot-birds-dont-they-by-m-p-jones/
Mason has been given an assignment, along with his entire class, over the two week holiday break from school. He has to find a “fact,” research it and attempt to prove it is true or if not, debunk it. Seeing a dead bird by the side of the road on a family day out, he wonders “there must be stacks of birds dying every single day-what happens to them all?”
To sweeten the pot a newspaper is offering 20,000 Pounds for anyone who can debunk an urban myth. Enough money to see his family clear on their debt and bring much needed financial stability.Once Mason has his question he is off on a merry chase for the truth. Mason is nothing if not resourceful, he uses every information source at his disposal. From his grandfathers puns, his pastors biblical knowledge, the internet and anyone else he can find. The search is on.
Along the way Mason finds another question and begins a quest for the answer to another question. Soon his quest spirals out of control and he is forced to face things he never expected and helps solve a real adult problem.
This is a lovely book for children and would be enjoyed by both boys and girls although the primary protagonists are boys. I would rate it for about grade five through middle school and up. The adults in the book are good supporting characters and are there to guide and give good advise to help Mason make good decisions. There is no “language” to be concerned with. Of course, with all books written for young boys this was has the usual suspects; bathroom humor, dead birds, bad guys and mom’s who keep boys manners in line.
The author is English so it is written with British spelling and humor, which is not a problem in this one as most references are things American’s can understand.
★★★★★
Available:
on Amazon.com: http://bit.ly/JOtKpE
on Amazon.co.uk : http://amzn.to/JhuIcj
This review was taken from the Parents Little Black Book website - http://www.parentslbb.com/books/2012/05/13/they-shoot-birds-dont-they-by-m-p-jones/
Monday, May 14, 2012
To Tattoo, or Not Tattoo?
Our inked up generation doesn’t give it a second thought—but should they?
The Pew Research Center reported in 2010 that nearly 40 percent of millennials sport at least one tattoo, more than double the number of our parents’ generation. While most of those tattoos are covered up by clothing, that doesn’t mean we’re ashamed of them. If anything, twenty- and thirtysomethings are proud of our body-art, but cognizant that not everyone will get it. As sociologist Mary Kosut writes in the academic Journal of Pop Culture, people with tattoos today “are not exotic or deviant others—they are everyday people with aesthetic sensibility.” Now when friends show off their new ink, many of us inquire what prompted it, and then move along.
Yet many younger Christians’ relationship to tattoos is still more complicated than most people’s. Those who grew up in the Christian subculture have memories and battle scars of the heated and contentious debates with parents and youth pastors over Levitical laws. My first confrontation over tattoos occurred when I was convinced that my neighbor’s newly minted Tweety ankle tattoo was the first step on the short road to perdition.
Parents and pastors may still have their objections, but most younger Christians don’t seem to be very concerned. Discussions about tattoos have often been limited to a single question: “Should I or should I not?” While that’s an important line of inquiry, it’s not the only one. And answering it requires first thinking through what tattoos mean, and why they’ve become such a prominent form of self-expression at this point in our history. Why not poetry or pixels instead?
The Christian faith is in a God whose concern for human bodies is such that He became one in order to accomplish salvation. The most basic intuition of American culture is that our “rights” allow us to treat our bodies how we want, but the Gospel sets forth a startling alternative: “You are not your own, but you have been bought with a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.”
So what does that mean when it comes to permanently altering a body?
The debates over Leviticus 19:28 are officially worn out, and most everyone knows the exegetical troubles that come with trying to interpret and apply the Old Testament law. The more interesting Old Testament passages are in Isaiah, where the Lord suggests that some Israelites will one day write on their hands, “Belonging to the Lord” (44:5), and that the Lord has written their names on His hands (49:16). In the former, the marking seems to be tied to the Israelites’ perfection as the people of God. Isaiah points to a day when the people of God will be so faithful that some will mark the name of the Lord on their bodies. The tattoo, or tattoo-like mark, signifies a permanent status—a physical expression of human faithfulness and God’s ownership.
As for the New Testament, Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has famously pointed to Revelation 19:16 as proof that Christ the tatted warrior will return with His sword someday. It’s a stunning image, and one that plays well in the grunge-oriented city where Driscoll preaches. There’s only one problem with it: It’s resting on a bad translation. Biblical scholar Grant Osborne points out that grammatically, the verse is better translated along the lines of “on his robe covering his thigh he has a name written”—rather than on his thigh directly.
Otherwise, the closest you’ll find in the New Testament to a commendation of tattoos is when Paul writes that he carries on his body the “stigmata,” or the Greek word for tattoo. The reference is sometimes used as an argument for voluntary tattooing, but it shouldn’t be. Paul’s tattoo (if he, indeed, had one) was most likely administered as a punishment, as tattoos in Greco-Roman culture were almost exclusively punitive.
Paul is undermining his punishment by identifying it with the sufferings of Christ. In other words, Christians shouldn’t collapse the distinction between the bodily persecution Paul experienced for the cross of Christ and a voluntary decision to add the Ichthus to their forearms. Otherwise, there is the risk of emptying out the uniqueness of the suffering of the martyrs and improperly inflating an individual standing in the Kingdom.
The record from Scripture is mixed. There aren’t necessarily any explicit prohibitions of aesthetic tattooing, but it’s not exactly endorsed, either. Instead of focusing on the diversity of self-expression through the body, Scripture repeatedly turns its attention toward the pattern for self-expression: the person of Christ and the means He established to bring believers into conformity with Him. The Christian identity is given in union with Christ and by a life within Christian community, as the book of Ephesians repeatedly emphasizes—not in tattoos or the histories written on a body. The primary concern of the New Testament is not aesthetics or fashion, but faith working through love.
Yet in this, there may be reasons for caution. When self-expression takes a religious form through tattooing crosses or other iconography, there is the risk of obscuring how the Bible enjoins believers to express faith through their bodies. The faith, hope and charity that set Christians apart in the world are not aesthetic markings per se, but rather expressive behaviors that reshape a Christian’s muscles and organs (including the skin). Holiness, in other words, can’t be tattooed on—it can only be cultivated through the practices of the Christian life.
Whether any particular Christian should get a tattoo is, then, an open question. But Christians should think about them differently than they have. In short, the question of whether to get a tattoo should be a question of Christian discipleship, rather than purely individualistic forms of self-expression.
For instance, if Christians are tattooing themselves as a reminder of God’s work in their lives, it might make sense to bring a Christian community into the discernment process in order to ensure the correct meaning. The same principle holds, in fact, for those seeking tattoos simply because they look good. It’s tempting to treat tattoos as an expression of autonomy, or the individual freedom to do to our bodies as we will. But if individuals are to avoid the chasm of individualism, then people must open themselves in the discernment process to the counsel of others.
The permanent things are faith and hope, without which any tattoos are simply empty symbols and meaningless art. Many twentysomething Christians have been frequently misunderstood or ignored during debates about tattoos, which can be deeply frustrating. But Christian freedom doesn’t primarily mean anyone can get a tattoo if they want one.
The purpose and goal of Christian freedom is love and unity, which sometimes may mean joyfully relinquishing desires for the sake of others. Tattoos should not be occasions for asserting one’s rights against others, but of listening, learning and seeking the unity God has brought in Christ.
Tattoos will continue to matter because bodies matter. Because “the form of this world is passing away,” Christians ought to enter into the permanence of tattoos the way the Anglican Book of Common Prayer advises believers to enter into the permanency of marriage: “reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in the fear of God.”
This article originally appeared in RELEVANT magazine. Want full access to print content? Subscribe here.
The Pew Research Center reported in 2010 that nearly 40 percent of millennials sport at least one tattoo, more than double the number of our parents’ generation. While most of those tattoos are covered up by clothing, that doesn’t mean we’re ashamed of them. If anything, twenty- and thirtysomethings are proud of our body-art, but cognizant that not everyone will get it. As sociologist Mary Kosut writes in the academic Journal of Pop Culture, people with tattoos today “are not exotic or deviant others—they are everyday people with aesthetic sensibility.” Now when friends show off their new ink, many of us inquire what prompted it, and then move along.
Yet many younger Christians’ relationship to tattoos is still more complicated than most people’s. Those who grew up in the Christian subculture have memories and battle scars of the heated and contentious debates with parents and youth pastors over Levitical laws. My first confrontation over tattoos occurred when I was convinced that my neighbor’s newly minted Tweety ankle tattoo was the first step on the short road to perdition.
Parents and pastors may still have their objections, but most younger Christians don’t seem to be very concerned. Discussions about tattoos have often been limited to a single question: “Should I or should I not?” While that’s an important line of inquiry, it’s not the only one. And answering it requires first thinking through what tattoos mean, and why they’ve become such a prominent form of self-expression at this point in our history. Why not poetry or pixels instead?
The Christian faith is in a God whose concern for human bodies is such that He became one in order to accomplish salvation. The most basic intuition of American culture is that our “rights” allow us to treat our bodies how we want, but the Gospel sets forth a startling alternative: “You are not your own, but you have been bought with a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.”
So what does that mean when it comes to permanently altering a body?
What the Bible Says
It’s nearly impossible to draw a straight line from the Bible’s teachings on tattoos to today, as the meaning of tattoos has drastically shifted. The Bible knows nothing of tattoos for purely aesthetic purposes, or as artistic self-expression. Instead, tattoos in the ancient Near East were punitive, expressions of fidelity to the local deity, or marks of ownership over slaves.The debates over Leviticus 19:28 are officially worn out, and most everyone knows the exegetical troubles that come with trying to interpret and apply the Old Testament law. The more interesting Old Testament passages are in Isaiah, where the Lord suggests that some Israelites will one day write on their hands, “Belonging to the Lord” (44:5), and that the Lord has written their names on His hands (49:16). In the former, the marking seems to be tied to the Israelites’ perfection as the people of God. Isaiah points to a day when the people of God will be so faithful that some will mark the name of the Lord on their bodies. The tattoo, or tattoo-like mark, signifies a permanent status—a physical expression of human faithfulness and God’s ownership.
As for the New Testament, Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has famously pointed to Revelation 19:16 as proof that Christ the tatted warrior will return with His sword someday. It’s a stunning image, and one that plays well in the grunge-oriented city where Driscoll preaches. There’s only one problem with it: It’s resting on a bad translation. Biblical scholar Grant Osborne points out that grammatically, the verse is better translated along the lines of “on his robe covering his thigh he has a name written”—rather than on his thigh directly.
Otherwise, the closest you’ll find in the New Testament to a commendation of tattoos is when Paul writes that he carries on his body the “stigmata,” or the Greek word for tattoo. The reference is sometimes used as an argument for voluntary tattooing, but it shouldn’t be. Paul’s tattoo (if he, indeed, had one) was most likely administered as a punishment, as tattoos in Greco-Roman culture were almost exclusively punitive.
Paul is undermining his punishment by identifying it with the sufferings of Christ. In other words, Christians shouldn’t collapse the distinction between the bodily persecution Paul experienced for the cross of Christ and a voluntary decision to add the Ichthus to their forearms. Otherwise, there is the risk of emptying out the uniqueness of the suffering of the martyrs and improperly inflating an individual standing in the Kingdom.
The record from Scripture is mixed. There aren’t necessarily any explicit prohibitions of aesthetic tattooing, but it’s not exactly endorsed, either. Instead of focusing on the diversity of self-expression through the body, Scripture repeatedly turns its attention toward the pattern for self-expression: the person of Christ and the means He established to bring believers into conformity with Him. The Christian identity is given in union with Christ and by a life within Christian community, as the book of Ephesians repeatedly emphasizes—not in tattoos or the histories written on a body. The primary concern of the New Testament is not aesthetics or fashion, but faith working through love.
Practical Considerations
So what can one make of all this? In one sense, the popularity of tattoos within the younger Christian culture could be read as an indictment of the Church, which has largely left the younger generation on their own to interpret their experiences and discover their own sense of meaning. And not surprisingly, twentysomethings have turned to the culture for cues. The absence of meaning-making rituals within the Church has left an empty space that tattoos have admirably filled.Yet in this, there may be reasons for caution. When self-expression takes a religious form through tattooing crosses or other iconography, there is the risk of obscuring how the Bible enjoins believers to express faith through their bodies. The faith, hope and charity that set Christians apart in the world are not aesthetic markings per se, but rather expressive behaviors that reshape a Christian’s muscles and organs (including the skin). Holiness, in other words, can’t be tattooed on—it can only be cultivated through the practices of the Christian life.
Whether any particular Christian should get a tattoo is, then, an open question. But Christians should think about them differently than they have. In short, the question of whether to get a tattoo should be a question of Christian discipleship, rather than purely individualistic forms of self-expression.
For instance, if Christians are tattooing themselves as a reminder of God’s work in their lives, it might make sense to bring a Christian community into the discernment process in order to ensure the correct meaning. The same principle holds, in fact, for those seeking tattoos simply because they look good. It’s tempting to treat tattoos as an expression of autonomy, or the individual freedom to do to our bodies as we will. But if individuals are to avoid the chasm of individualism, then people must open themselves in the discernment process to the counsel of others.
The permanent things are faith and hope, without which any tattoos are simply empty symbols and meaningless art. Many twentysomething Christians have been frequently misunderstood or ignored during debates about tattoos, which can be deeply frustrating. But Christian freedom doesn’t primarily mean anyone can get a tattoo if they want one.
The purpose and goal of Christian freedom is love and unity, which sometimes may mean joyfully relinquishing desires for the sake of others. Tattoos should not be occasions for asserting one’s rights against others, but of listening, learning and seeking the unity God has brought in Christ.
Tattoos will continue to matter because bodies matter. Because “the form of this world is passing away,” Christians ought to enter into the permanence of tattoos the way the Anglican Book of Common Prayer advises believers to enter into the permanency of marriage: “reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in the fear of God.”
This article originally appeared in RELEVANT magazine. Want full access to print content? Subscribe here.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Seven Key Ideas of C.S. Lewis
Seven Key Ideas
I have heard it said that many well-known thinkers have only two or three key ideas that they develop from various angles throughout their lives. It might be asked: What are C.S. Lewis’s key ideas? I have chosen seven to summarize in this essay. You can click on the words in bold to get a further development of these ideas. The seven I have chosen are:
One obstacle that C.S. Lewis had to overcome was what he called his “chronological snobbery.” By that he meant the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is thereby discredited. For instance, people might ask, “What does a 2,000-year-old faith have to do with me?” One of Lewis’s friends helped him to ask about ideas that seemed outdated. Why did an idea go out of date and was it ever refuted? If so, where, by whom, and how conclusively? C.S. Lewis later argued that reading old books helped provide a corrective to the blindness induced by our own age. We ought, he maintained, to read one old book for every new one or if that’s too much, then one old one for every three new ones. Otherwise, we may be easily enslaved to the ideas of the recent past.
2. Desire
C.S. Lewis believed that we were made for “joy.” God is the great “hedonist.” He provides things for humans to do all day long, like “sleeping, eating, drinking, making love, playing, praying, working.” But, he also believed that to focus on these “second things” and neglect “first things” such as worshiping and loving God was to be “too easily pleased.” He wrote:
3. Imagination
C.S. Lewis viewed reason as the natural “organ of truth” and imagination as the “organ of meaning.” He believed that the only way we grasp any idea with clarity is if we have an image associated with it. He was able to work with equal facility in philosophical arguments or in writing fiction. Lewis uses images to illustrate his apologetics and communicates profound ideas in his fiction. For instance, he writes a great critique of relativism in Abolition of Man and communicates the same ideas in the novel,That Hideous Strength.
Imagination acted as a cosmic pointer to Lewis. Once, during his years of unbelief, he was going on a train ride and bought a book (George MacDonald’s Phantastes). While he was reading, he said that a “new quality” touched his life and his imagination was “baptized.” The quality was later described by Lewis to be “holiness.” Although it took a while for the rest of him to catch up (reason-satisfied; will-submitted), it was an important first step. Having had this early experience, it is not surprising that he thought that others might feel a similar thing. He felt that his Narnia series might sneak past “watchful dragons” of religiosity enabling us to see old things in new ways.
4. Absolutes vs. Relativism
C.S. Lewis argued for objective truth and morality against the relativism of his (and our) day. He felt that establishing the reality of truth and goodness was an essential preparation for the Gospel. He wrote:
5. Myth
Early in C.S. Lewis’s life he noticed the parallels between pagan myths and classic Christianity. In his education it was assumed that the pagan myths were false and Christianity true. Why was this religion–and this one alone–true? This is one factor that led to his unbelief.
He resolved the problem and wrote about myth in a number of places. A key to his resolution was the increased understanding that if God created the world in a certain way and the human mind with a definite structure, it is not surprising that patterns re-occur. The only question is, Are any of these myths truer than others or, more precisely, Are any of these myths also fact? He came to believe that Jesus was the “myth become fact.”
Later he defined myth as an “unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination.” Lewis discusses parallel mythologies in his book, Miracles, his novel, Till We Have Faces, and in other places.
6. Immortality
Walter Hooper (C.S. Lewis scholar) argues that C.S. Lewis’s central idea was that all people are immortal. Lewis wrote: “There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.” Lewis manifested this belief by writing personally to everyone who wrote to him (usually handwritten letters) and giving away all the proceeds of his books.
Hooper tells the story of a time when he was with Lewis and they were talking about a man who was very boring. Hooper told Lewis that the man succeeded in interesting him by the very intensity of his boredom. Lewis replied, “Yes, but let us not forget that Our Lord might well have said, “As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my bores, you have done it to me.” In fact, Lewis felt that it was sometimes his duty to visit and help such people.
Lewis also gives us glorious pictures of heaven. For instance, in my favorite of the Narnia Chronicles,The Last Battle, he portrays life in the higher country as infinite adventures with an infinitely creative God for all eternity. The last paragraph of The Last Battle says:
7. Comprehensiveness
C.S. Lewis believed that Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life and that all truth pointed to Him. Lewis said: “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” He was influenced by G.K. Chesterton who maintained that we become convinced of a theory not just when something proves it but only when everything proves it. Lewis explored reason, imagination, fiction, non-fiction, art, philosophy, classic literature, and poetry finding shafts of light and following them back to the sun (Son
Excellent artice taken from http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/seven-key-ideas-from-c-s-lewis/
I have heard it said that many well-known thinkers have only two or three key ideas that they develop from various angles throughout their lives. It might be asked: What are C.S. Lewis’s key ideas? I have chosen seven to summarize in this essay. You can click on the words in bold to get a further development of these ideas. The seven I have chosen are:
1. Chronological Snobbery
- Chronological Snobbery
- Desire
- Imagination
- Objective Values vs. Relativism
- Myth
- Immortality
- Comprehensiveness
One obstacle that C.S. Lewis had to overcome was what he called his “chronological snobbery.” By that he meant the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is thereby discredited. For instance, people might ask, “What does a 2,000-year-old faith have to do with me?” One of Lewis’s friends helped him to ask about ideas that seemed outdated. Why did an idea go out of date and was it ever refuted? If so, where, by whom, and how conclusively? C.S. Lewis later argued that reading old books helped provide a corrective to the blindness induced by our own age. We ought, he maintained, to read one old book for every new one or if that’s too much, then one old one for every three new ones. Otherwise, we may be easily enslaved to the ideas of the recent past.
2. Desire
C.S. Lewis believed that we were made for “joy.” God is the great “hedonist.” He provides things for humans to do all day long, like “sleeping, eating, drinking, making love, playing, praying, working.” But, he also believed that to focus on these “second things” and neglect “first things” such as worshiping and loving God was to be “too easily pleased.” He wrote:
Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.Lewis’s argument for God’s existence from the nature of our desires is fascinating and thought-provoking. Just as the existence of hunger points to satisfaction in the reality of food, thirst in drink, sexual desire in sex, drowsiness in sleep (etc) so other “natural” desires: spiritual hunger, desire for supernatural encounters, aspirations to immortality (and so on) act as cosmic pointers to real supernatural satisfaction.
3. Imagination
C.S. Lewis viewed reason as the natural “organ of truth” and imagination as the “organ of meaning.” He believed that the only way we grasp any idea with clarity is if we have an image associated with it. He was able to work with equal facility in philosophical arguments or in writing fiction. Lewis uses images to illustrate his apologetics and communicates profound ideas in his fiction. For instance, he writes a great critique of relativism in Abolition of Man and communicates the same ideas in the novel,That Hideous Strength.
Imagination acted as a cosmic pointer to Lewis. Once, during his years of unbelief, he was going on a train ride and bought a book (George MacDonald’s Phantastes). While he was reading, he said that a “new quality” touched his life and his imagination was “baptized.” The quality was later described by Lewis to be “holiness.” Although it took a while for the rest of him to catch up (reason-satisfied; will-submitted), it was an important first step. Having had this early experience, it is not surprising that he thought that others might feel a similar thing. He felt that his Narnia series might sneak past “watchful dragons” of religiosity enabling us to see old things in new ways.
4. Absolutes vs. Relativism
C.S. Lewis argued for objective truth and morality against the relativism of his (and our) day. He felt that establishing the reality of truth and goodness was an essential preparation for the Gospel. He wrote:
For my part, I believe we ought to work not only at spreading the gospel (that certainly) but also at a certain preparation for the gospel. It is necessary to recall many to the Law of Nature before we talk about God. For Christ promises forgiveness of sins: But what is that to those who since they do not know the Law of Nature, do not know that they have sinned? Who will take the medicine unless he knows he is in the grip of disease? Moral relativity is the enemy we have to overcome before we tackle atheism.Lewis’s arguments against relativism are set forth in Mere Christianity (Book I), Abolition of Man, and in numerous essays.
5. Myth
Early in C.S. Lewis’s life he noticed the parallels between pagan myths and classic Christianity. In his education it was assumed that the pagan myths were false and Christianity true. Why was this religion–and this one alone–true? This is one factor that led to his unbelief.
He resolved the problem and wrote about myth in a number of places. A key to his resolution was the increased understanding that if God created the world in a certain way and the human mind with a definite structure, it is not surprising that patterns re-occur. The only question is, Are any of these myths truer than others or, more precisely, Are any of these myths also fact? He came to believe that Jesus was the “myth become fact.”
Later he defined myth as an “unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination.” Lewis discusses parallel mythologies in his book, Miracles, his novel, Till We Have Faces, and in other places.
6. Immortality
Walter Hooper (C.S. Lewis scholar) argues that C.S. Lewis’s central idea was that all people are immortal. Lewis wrote: “There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.” Lewis manifested this belief by writing personally to everyone who wrote to him (usually handwritten letters) and giving away all the proceeds of his books.
Hooper tells the story of a time when he was with Lewis and they were talking about a man who was very boring. Hooper told Lewis that the man succeeded in interesting him by the very intensity of his boredom. Lewis replied, “Yes, but let us not forget that Our Lord might well have said, “As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my bores, you have done it to me.” In fact, Lewis felt that it was sometimes his duty to visit and help such people.
Lewis also gives us glorious pictures of heaven. For instance, in my favorite of the Narnia Chronicles,The Last Battle, he portrays life in the higher country as infinite adventures with an infinitely creative God for all eternity. The last paragraph of The Last Battle says:
And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.
7. Comprehensiveness
C.S. Lewis believed that Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life and that all truth pointed to Him. Lewis said: “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” He was influenced by G.K. Chesterton who maintained that we become convinced of a theory not just when something proves it but only when everything proves it. Lewis explored reason, imagination, fiction, non-fiction, art, philosophy, classic literature, and poetry finding shafts of light and following them back to the sun (Son
Excellent artice taken from http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/seven-key-ideas-from-c-s-lewis/
Friday, May 11, 2012
Where is God's House Today? Part 4
Where does God live today? Of course God lives inside each Christian through the Holy Spirit. But in the Old Testament, we see that God lived right in the middle of his people in a physical house. Is there anything like that today? Many Christians would see the parallel to be any group of Christians, because Jesus said, to the effect. "where two or three meet, there I will be in the middle of them". But, as this series shows, it speaks of something different - a spiritual House, not the same as the Body of Christ, which operated in the New Testament and operates today. Here is Part 4 of the series - find the first three videos earlier in the blog if you have not seen them..
Did Jesus Say He Was God?
From: www.apologeticsguy.com
What would you say if someone asked you, “Did Jesus say He was God?” In this post, I’ll give you a few talking points that you can use to give a thoughtful response to a question like this. But first, let me tell you a little story.
One day, I was at this family reunion at my in-laws’ place when a relative decided to engage me in a religious conversation. Now you have to understand that I usually don’t go looking for these kinds of discussions at parties. What I was looking for was more potato chips. Why? So I could try some of this homemade blue cheese dip–a secret family recipe!
So anyway, this woman cornered me and started talking about how Jesus never claimed to be God. In fact, she grabbed my Bible off the table, held it up as a visual aid, and said, “According to this, Jesus never claimed to be God.”
As a World Religions professor at a couple of universities, I hear this challenge a lot. The popular concept is that Jesus of Nazareth never said He was divine or never claimed to be the Son of God. But what about this? Did Jesus really say He was God? What does the historical evidence actually show?
On another occasion, He used the personal name of Israel’s God–the name revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14)–to refer to Himself. And He even used the Torah for context, so no one would misunderstand Him: “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). This would be about wild as telling a Muslim, “I am your God, Allah.” Don’t try that in Saudi Arabia! It’s no wonder the Jews tried to stone Him to death. That was the exact penalty for blasphemy under the Jewish legal system. It was pretty clear to everyone there that He was saying, “I am Israel’s God.”
So did Jesus say He was God? Yeah. Did He use the exact words “I am God?” We don’t read a direct quote like that in Scripture, but here’s the thing: Jesus didn’t have to say the exact words “I am God,” in order to claim to be divine. But why is this a problem?
I don’t have to say the exact words, “I am married” to indicate that I’m married. I can say “I’m her husband,” or “this is my wife,” or “It’s our 12th wedding anniversary.” The question is, what did the people who were actually a part of conversation think about what Jesus said?
Jesus claimed to be God in ways that were pretty clear to the people He was talking to. Our problem as 21st century readers, is that we might not easily get what some of Jesus’ sayings actually meant to the people who were part of the conversation. For example, Jesus also claimed to be divine when He said He was the ”Son of Man.” I’ll admit that the first time I heard this title, I thought it was kind of like Muhammad saying, “I am but a man like you” (Qur’an 41:6)—Now there’s a religious figure who never claimed to be God! But this isn’t what Jesus meant at all. Let’s take a look at the term, “Son of Man.”
But then, Jesus follows up with, “I’m also the Son of Man. And you’ll see me seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” That’s when people freaked. Why? Because Jesus basically said, ”You know that guy in Daniel’s vision? That’s Me.”
The high priest didn’t misunderstand Him for a second. His response was essentially, “Yikes! You just said you’re God and everyone should worship you!” No ambiguity there. But this just expressed what Jesus already seemed to assume by walking around and doing the things He did. Things like claiming to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-11, Luke 5:20-24). He certainly didn’t object when people worshiped Him or called Him God (John 20:28-29).
So if anyone ever asks you, “Did Jesus Say He Was God?” You can confidently say, “Yes.” Just be ready to mention at least a couple of these talking points. It doesn’t hurt to memorize at least a couple of the Scripture references, too. Try it!
But what happened at my little family get-together? The woman decided to change the topic and drop it. I don’t think she’d ever seen these reports in the Bible before. I almost felt bad for her and just let it go. After all, this was a casual family reunion and I think she got the point.
I went back to look for more chips. And I finally got to that blue cheese dip, too.
What would you say if someone asked you, “Did Jesus say He was God?” In this post, I’ll give you a few talking points that you can use to give a thoughtful response to a question like this. But first, let me tell you a little story.
One day, I was at this family reunion at my in-laws’ place when a relative decided to engage me in a religious conversation. Now you have to understand that I usually don’t go looking for these kinds of discussions at parties. What I was looking for was more potato chips. Why? So I could try some of this homemade blue cheese dip–a secret family recipe!
So anyway, this woman cornered me and started talking about how Jesus never claimed to be God. In fact, she grabbed my Bible off the table, held it up as a visual aid, and said, “According to this, Jesus never claimed to be God.”
As a World Religions professor at a couple of universities, I hear this challenge a lot. The popular concept is that Jesus of Nazareth never said He was divine or never claimed to be the Son of God. But what about this? Did Jesus really say He was God? What does the historical evidence actually show?
Did Jesus really say He was God?
That’s exactly how Jesus’ original audience seemed to take it when He said, “I and the Father are one.” In fact, the Jews were ready to kill Him right there! Why? “Because you,” they said, “a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).On another occasion, He used the personal name of Israel’s God–the name revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14)–to refer to Himself. And He even used the Torah for context, so no one would misunderstand Him: “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). This would be about wild as telling a Muslim, “I am your God, Allah.” Don’t try that in Saudi Arabia! It’s no wonder the Jews tried to stone Him to death. That was the exact penalty for blasphemy under the Jewish legal system. It was pretty clear to everyone there that He was saying, “I am Israel’s God.”
So did Jesus say He was God? Yeah. Did He use the exact words “I am God?” We don’t read a direct quote like that in Scripture, but here’s the thing: Jesus didn’t have to say the exact words “I am God,” in order to claim to be divine. But why is this a problem?
I don’t have to say the exact words, “I am married” to indicate that I’m married. I can say “I’m her husband,” or “this is my wife,” or “It’s our 12th wedding anniversary.” The question is, what did the people who were actually a part of conversation think about what Jesus said?
So Why Don’t People Get It?
Honestly, some never look into it. They believe whatever they hear about Christianity in pop culture. Others never look into it honestly. But some will actually be open-minded and give the Bible a fair hearing. Why don’t some of these people get it right away?Jesus claimed to be God in ways that were pretty clear to the people He was talking to. Our problem as 21st century readers, is that we might not easily get what some of Jesus’ sayings actually meant to the people who were part of the conversation. For example, Jesus also claimed to be divine when He said He was the ”Son of Man.” I’ll admit that the first time I heard this title, I thought it was kind of like Muhammad saying, “I am but a man like you” (Qur’an 41:6)—Now there’s a religious figure who never claimed to be God! But this isn’t what Jesus meant at all. Let’s take a look at the term, “Son of Man.”
Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man
“Son of Man” seems to be Jesus’ favorite thing to call Himself–He uses it 80 times in the New Testament Gospels. Interestingly, it’s only used 1 time outside the gospels (Acts 7:56). So this probably wasn’t something the church made up. How many modern worship songs can you think of that use the term, “Son of Man?” We know this title didn’t emerge later on in history and it wasn’t written back into the earlier traditions about Jesus. But why is this title important? Because it’s referring to a figure that Jews recognized as divine. Here’s what the Jewish prophet Daniel wrote (7:13-14):In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.Here’s the point: The “Son of Man” in Daniel’s vision is rightful heir to the divine throne. According to the prophecy, He’ll rule forever. Nations will worship Him and His kingdom will be unstoppable.
Jesus claimed to be the Divine Messiah
Back to my family get-together. I asked the lady where she heard that Jesus never claimed to be God. I let her talk and explain her ideas. Then, I gently took my Bible back from her and asked, “Could you read this for me?” I turned to Jesus’ trial, as recorded by Mark (14:60-64). She read the record of Jesus’ cross-examination:Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. (63-64).Jesus publicly claimed to be the Messiah. He claimed to be the Son of God. He even used the divine name in His answer: “I AM.” Now, at the very least, Jesus answered, “Yeah, I’m the Messiah. I’m the Son of God.” At that point, the High Priest probably thought something like, “Gotcha!”
But then, Jesus follows up with, “I’m also the Son of Man. And you’ll see me seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” That’s when people freaked. Why? Because Jesus basically said, ”You know that guy in Daniel’s vision? That’s Me.”
The high priest didn’t misunderstand Him for a second. His response was essentially, “Yikes! You just said you’re God and everyone should worship you!” No ambiguity there. But this just expressed what Jesus already seemed to assume by walking around and doing the things He did. Things like claiming to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-11, Luke 5:20-24). He certainly didn’t object when people worshiped Him or called Him God (John 20:28-29).
Jesus said He was God
If you’re willing to look at the historical record, you’ll find that there’s a reasonable explanation for the early Christian belief that Jesus was divine: Jesus Himself said He was God. Even people who hated Jesus attest to the fact that this is what He said about Himself.So if anyone ever asks you, “Did Jesus Say He Was God?” You can confidently say, “Yes.” Just be ready to mention at least a couple of these talking points. It doesn’t hurt to memorize at least a couple of the Scripture references, too. Try it!
But what happened at my little family get-together? The woman decided to change the topic and drop it. I don’t think she’d ever seen these reports in the Bible before. I almost felt bad for her and just let it go. After all, this was a casual family reunion and I think she got the point.
I went back to look for more chips. And I finally got to that blue cheese dip, too.
Your Turn
Has anyone ever surprised you with a challenge to the truth of an essential Christian belief when you least expected it? How easy was it to respond? Would you respond differently if you could re-live that encounter?What Happened to Good Christian Fiction?
From Relevant magazine (www.relevantmagazine.com)
If you’ve ever been to a Christian bookstore or even the far corner of Barnes and Noble, you’ve probably wandered into the Christian fiction section that’s littered with novels owning sentimental titles like Abby’s Journey, complete with a downtrodden-looking Amish girl on the cover. Or you might have escaped gazing at such saccharine work and come across fictional books about the End Times, or maybe about a detective who tracks down serial killers using Scripture and his “quiet time.”
Christian fiction might be, more than any other genre, the most cringe-worthy of all Christian arts. Sure, as attempting-to-be-culturally-progressive-and-relevant Christ followers, we can wince at films like Fireproof and the music on our local family-and-faith-friendly radio station. But at least there are so-called crossover films, such as Blue Like Jazz, and albums like Sigh No More by Mumford and Sons, which place importance on reality and spirituality rather than religious sensationalism.
But Christian fiction?
Contemporary Christian fiction was marred by two phenomena: the Left Behind series and Amish fiction. As a kid who loved to read and grew up in a conservative Christian home in the '90s, there weren’t many options. There were silly YA books like the Wally McDoogle series, but once I reached an age where I yearned for good literature, the Christian realm had little to offer. I downed the Left Behind books and read some Randy Alcorn and Frank Peretti but found little else outside of those offerings.
As a student of literature pursuing a graduate degree in English, books are important to me. As a follower of Jesus, knowing more about the heart of God, how to love others well and navigate the world God made for us is important to me too. Unfortunately, there is a huge disconnect between authors of Christian fiction and relevant, craftful, wonderful literature. Furthermore, Christian authors are almost completely absent in modern literary fiction. In my sphere, contemporary fiction is dominated by secular authors, many with apparent cynical, sexual and materialist agendas.
Writers of Christian fiction need reprisal. The fiction that Christian authors are putting on shelves and marketing as Christian fiction isn’t great art; it’s popular, genre fiction. The Lord calls us to create and to make well. We, as creators, are called to make our art so that it glorifies God to the best of our abilities and brings Him praise. Formulaic plots, boring stereotypes, sensationalist themes and predictable endings are not great art. It seems to me that Christian writers choose one of two paths. They write nonfiction (whether it be a memoir or something deemed “inspirational”) or they write popular, genre fiction.
Books have the power to change the world and people's lives. Shouldn’t Christian authors, in attempting to love God and glorify Him in their creativity, craft the best fiction they can surmise?
Christian fiction was once very, very good. C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy and the Narnia series; Madeleine L’Engle had A Wrinkle in Time. Christian fiction can exist—and be good!
In her new collection of essays, When I Was a Child I Read Books, Marilynne Robinson writes about how easy it is for an author to slip into what will sell (and believe me, if you look at my mother’s bookshelf, the typical Christian fiction of today does sell). She writes about her students at the University of Iowa Writers' Workshop and says, “The Writers’ Workshop is as interesting and civilized a community as I have ever encountered, and it owes the successes of its long history to the fact that it works well as a community.
A pretty large percentage of these fine young spirits come to me convinced that if their writing is not sensationalistic enough, it will never be published, or if it is published, it will never be read. They come to me persuaded that American readers will not tolerate ideas in their fiction. Since they feel that anything recognizable as an idea is off-limits to them, they sometimes try to signal intellectual seriousness by taking a jaundiced or splenetic view of the worlds they create and people. They are good, generous souls working within limits they feel are imposed on them by a public that could not possibly have an interest in writing that ignored these limits—a public they cannot respect.”
If you look at the general best-selling fiction of today, it is often riddled with violence, inaccurate depictions of love, sex and cynicism. It’s not necessarily realist fiction but sensationalist, meager, sentimental and anxious. That is not to say Christian authors should put forth happy-go-lucky, positive and encouraging fiction, but good fiction. Fiction that is true. Fiction that reveals to its readers things they never knew about the world, themselves and their Creator.
Marilynne Robinson comments on this further. She asks us to “only consider how many things have gone wrong here, when a young writer is dissuaded by the pessimism that floats around the culture from letting her or his talent develop in the direction natural to it. If the writer is talented, the work might well be published, and the American reading public will look once more into the mirror of art and find sensationalism, violence, condescension, cynicism—another testament to collective mediocrity if not something worse. Maybe even spiritual free-fall. But the writer is better than this, and the reading public is better than this.”
Let us be a reading public and a writing, creative public that is better than this. Let us encourage our community of Christian writers to produce fiction that is good, honest and serious. Let us be a community of readers and thinkers that still searches for the true, not merely what feels good, what strikes our senses or what is easy.
If you’ve ever been to a Christian bookstore or even the far corner of Barnes and Noble, you’ve probably wandered into the Christian fiction section that’s littered with novels owning sentimental titles like Abby’s Journey, complete with a downtrodden-looking Amish girl on the cover. Or you might have escaped gazing at such saccharine work and come across fictional books about the End Times, or maybe about a detective who tracks down serial killers using Scripture and his “quiet time.”
Christian fiction might be, more than any other genre, the most cringe-worthy of all Christian arts. Sure, as attempting-to-be-culturally-progressive-and-relevant Christ followers, we can wince at films like Fireproof and the music on our local family-and-faith-friendly radio station. But at least there are so-called crossover films, such as Blue Like Jazz, and albums like Sigh No More by Mumford and Sons, which place importance on reality and spirituality rather than religious sensationalism.
But Christian fiction?
Contemporary Christian fiction was marred by two phenomena: the Left Behind series and Amish fiction. As a kid who loved to read and grew up in a conservative Christian home in the '90s, there weren’t many options. There were silly YA books like the Wally McDoogle series, but once I reached an age where I yearned for good literature, the Christian realm had little to offer. I downed the Left Behind books and read some Randy Alcorn and Frank Peretti but found little else outside of those offerings.
As a student of literature pursuing a graduate degree in English, books are important to me. As a follower of Jesus, knowing more about the heart of God, how to love others well and navigate the world God made for us is important to me too. Unfortunately, there is a huge disconnect between authors of Christian fiction and relevant, craftful, wonderful literature. Furthermore, Christian authors are almost completely absent in modern literary fiction. In my sphere, contemporary fiction is dominated by secular authors, many with apparent cynical, sexual and materialist agendas.
Writers of Christian fiction need reprisal. The fiction that Christian authors are putting on shelves and marketing as Christian fiction isn’t great art; it’s popular, genre fiction. The Lord calls us to create and to make well. We, as creators, are called to make our art so that it glorifies God to the best of our abilities and brings Him praise. Formulaic plots, boring stereotypes, sensationalist themes and predictable endings are not great art. It seems to me that Christian writers choose one of two paths. They write nonfiction (whether it be a memoir or something deemed “inspirational”) or they write popular, genre fiction.
Books have the power to change the world and people's lives. Shouldn’t Christian authors, in attempting to love God and glorify Him in their creativity, craft the best fiction they can surmise?
Christian fiction was once very, very good. C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy and the Narnia series; Madeleine L’Engle had A Wrinkle in Time. Christian fiction can exist—and be good!
In her new collection of essays, When I Was a Child I Read Books, Marilynne Robinson writes about how easy it is for an author to slip into what will sell (and believe me, if you look at my mother’s bookshelf, the typical Christian fiction of today does sell). She writes about her students at the University of Iowa Writers' Workshop and says, “The Writers’ Workshop is as interesting and civilized a community as I have ever encountered, and it owes the successes of its long history to the fact that it works well as a community.
A pretty large percentage of these fine young spirits come to me convinced that if their writing is not sensationalistic enough, it will never be published, or if it is published, it will never be read. They come to me persuaded that American readers will not tolerate ideas in their fiction. Since they feel that anything recognizable as an idea is off-limits to them, they sometimes try to signal intellectual seriousness by taking a jaundiced or splenetic view of the worlds they create and people. They are good, generous souls working within limits they feel are imposed on them by a public that could not possibly have an interest in writing that ignored these limits—a public they cannot respect.”
If you look at the general best-selling fiction of today, it is often riddled with violence, inaccurate depictions of love, sex and cynicism. It’s not necessarily realist fiction but sensationalist, meager, sentimental and anxious. That is not to say Christian authors should put forth happy-go-lucky, positive and encouraging fiction, but good fiction. Fiction that is true. Fiction that reveals to its readers things they never knew about the world, themselves and their Creator.
Marilynne Robinson comments on this further. She asks us to “only consider how many things have gone wrong here, when a young writer is dissuaded by the pessimism that floats around the culture from letting her or his talent develop in the direction natural to it. If the writer is talented, the work might well be published, and the American reading public will look once more into the mirror of art and find sensationalism, violence, condescension, cynicism—another testament to collective mediocrity if not something worse. Maybe even spiritual free-fall. But the writer is better than this, and the reading public is better than this.”
Let us be a reading public and a writing, creative public that is better than this. Let us encourage our community of Christian writers to produce fiction that is good, honest and serious. Let us be a community of readers and thinkers that still searches for the true, not merely what feels good, what strikes our senses or what is easy.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Interview with Pip from the Voice
Phillip
‘Pip’ Arnold finds people giving him a second look in places he’s known all his
life.
During the summer of 2011, Phillip auditioned for the “The Voice.” It was his second tryout for a national talent program. He appeared on “The Glee Project” but left the show after a brief appearance.
Since then, Phillip changed his stage presence, adopting what he has said is a contemporary update of a Southern gentleman’s style, with a bowtie and flashy colors.
For now, he is splitting his time between Georgia and California, where he has an apartment.
As part of “The Voice,” he worked with Maroon 5 band front man Adam Levine. Phillip said he’s long been a fan of the group and it has paid off.
“It was just crazy. He is just a talented person,” he said.
Phillip said his experience has been a great one, but he remains grounded that he may not be America’s next great big thing. He is keeping the option open to return to pharmacy school.
People aspiring to the bright lights of fame should “follow your dreams, (but) do have a backup plan,” he said.
It’s
kind of strange to walk into a place where you have been countless times and
people look at you as if for the first time, he said.
That
recognition is something the 19-year-old is getting used to as he competes on a
national stage in the NBC hit, “The Voice.”
“It’s
been the best ride ever. You kind of wake up every day thinking, this isn’t
real life. It’s very strange,” he said.
His
early appearance made him a favorite. His rendition of “The House of the Rising
Sun” has drawn more than 380,000 views on YouTube. And his Twitter fans have dubbed
themselves “#teambowtie” for his fashion choice.
A
native of Marietta, Phillip is the son of Jim and Chris Arnold. The family
lives in his hometown and attends St. Joseph Church where Jim is the facility
manager for the parish. Chris is one of the Sewing Sisters, who, with her
sister, sews liturgical vestments and other items for churches and clergy in
the Atlanta Archdiocese and beyond.
Phillip
grew up in St. Joseph parish, where he was an altar server, started a teen
band, and was a member of Life Teen.
Lisa
Fiamingo, the former youth director at St. Catherine of Siena Church, Kennesaw,
who has known him for the past three years, said the young man brought special
energy when he led the singing for young people.
“He
led worship, but in such a unique way. He was able to lead his peers to a place
in their hearts and souls that most people can’t. He has an unusual quiet
confidence that helps him to bypass any insecurities that would stifle his
ability to lead others into a place of interior reflection,” she said.
Phillip
was a leader with major fundraisers for “Gift of Water,” a division of
ServeHAITI. The fundraisers combined raised $7,000 for the nonprofit, which
originated at Sacred Heart Basilica, Atlanta.
During
this lull in his appearances on “The Voice,” Phillip is focused on starting a
charity to fund youth involvement in mission work around the world. His
motivation comes from his mentor, missionary, and close family friend, the late
Stewart Hay. He wears a black wristband marked with a silver fern, a symbol of
New Zealand, to remember Hay, a New Zealand native.
In
past summers, he traveled to poor neighborhoods in Charleston, S.C., and in
Mississippi to repair homes and help communities hit by tornadoes.
“People
are living in homes we would never consider. It was no place for people to
live,” he said about his summer trips to the destitute places.
The
charity’s goal is to develop scholarships so more young people can experience
service with mission trips, he said.
“I
don’t see why people who are as fortunate as us wouldn’t serve others,” he
said.
For
the teen, the road to national TV started as a toddler who was volunteered by
his older sister, Eileen Johnson, to perform as a young child when needed at
Marietta High School performances.
His
stage name comes from his young nephew who got tongue tied with the name
Phillip and instead out came Pip.
Church
was a place for him to grow as a musician, along with fine arts programs at his
high school, Kennesaw Mountain High School. At school, he was president of the
chorus, started the school’s annual cabaret and performed in an award-winning
quartet. He’s also an Eagle Scout.
During the summer of 2011, Phillip auditioned for the “The Voice.” It was his second tryout for a national talent program. He appeared on “The Glee Project” but left the show after a brief appearance.
Since then, Phillip changed his stage presence, adopting what he has said is a contemporary update of a Southern gentleman’s style, with a bowtie and flashy colors.
For now, he is splitting his time between Georgia and California, where he has an apartment.
As part of “The Voice,” he worked with Maroon 5 band front man Adam Levine. Phillip said he’s long been a fan of the group and it has paid off.
“It was just crazy. He is just a talented person,” he said.
Phillip said his experience has been a great one, but he remains grounded that he may not be America’s next great big thing. He is keeping the option open to return to pharmacy school.
People aspiring to the bright lights of fame should “follow your dreams, (but) do have a backup plan,” he said.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Anselm - Bruised
This is a great song by the Northern Irish Christian Band, the Anselm - entitled "Bruised".
The music video created for the Anselm, directed by Scott N. Amore of 'The Butterflies Of Love' fame, starring Jason Cirillo.
If you have ever felt bruised by experiences in life and need to be reminded of Jesus Christ, who said he would not break a bruised reed and was in fact "bruised" for us at Calvary - then this song is for you.
The music video created for the Anselm, directed by Scott N. Amore of 'The Butterflies Of Love' fame, starring Jason Cirillo.
If you have ever felt bruised by experiences in life and need to be reminded of Jesus Christ, who said he would not break a bruised reed and was in fact "bruised" for us at Calvary - then this song is for you.
Interview with Tim Tebow
Here is an interview with Tim Tebow on Tim Tebow sharing his personal relationship with Jesus Christ, his profession as a NFL player and his mission in the Philippines and around the nation.
When you watch this, Romans 1:16 certainly comes to mind "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek."
Tim certainly comes across as a humble, genuine person who is not ashamed to share his faith - what a challenge that is for us! As Christians we can all pray for Tim that his witness will be preserved and he will not be led astray in the world of professional sport.
When you watch this, Romans 1:16 certainly comes to mind "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek."
Tim certainly comes across as a humble, genuine person who is not ashamed to share his faith - what a challenge that is for us! As Christians we can all pray for Tim that his witness will be preserved and he will not be led astray in the world of professional sport.
Mark Driscoll Interviewed on Nightline
Here is a great clip of Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church being interviewed for national TV - on the whole I think he comes across pretty well!
How Can God Love - Yet Punish the Guilty?
During The Gospel Coalition's 2011 national conference in Chicago, a panel considered matters of heaven and hell, including the arguments advanced by Rob Bell in his book 'Love Wins.'
The panel comprised Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Crawford Loritts and Stephen Um.
This 48 minute video is useful to get inputs from a number of pastors on this very important area of apologetics. I would be interested to know what you make of the contributions.
The panel comprised Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Crawford Loritts and Stephen Um.
This 48 minute video is useful to get inputs from a number of pastors on this very important area of apologetics. I would be interested to know what you make of the contributions.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Where is God's House Today ? - Part 3
Here is part 3 which records how God moved from living in a tent to living in a temple, but when Jesus died at Calvary, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom to show that God was no longer living there. But God had another plan for his dwelling place among a people.
Introducing David Paul and the People
It is nice to be able to promote the work of someone you know personally and here is a music video by David Paul and the People, entitled "Light to My Path". David is a member of our church organization and I have heard the band a couple of times live - this is a studio performance though.
Check it out and then go and buy their album on Itunes!
Check it out and then go and buy their album on Itunes!
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Joel and the Problem of Suffering
Joel had it tough. Not only did he have to suffer a locust plague eating the
people out of house and home, he then had to inform his neighbours that their
suffering was entirely their own fault. Even worse, the suffering was
deliberately and directly inflicted by their God - the graphic army of locusts
being described as the Lord’s!
Though unlikely to win any popularity contests, at least Joel could console himself that he had an answer which has eluded many suffering people today who ask, "Why?!"
This isn’t some dry philosophical debating point, but a cry borne of bewilderment, frustration and pain. "Why me? Why not someone else? It’s not fair! Why didn’t God stop this? What have I done to deserve this? I thought He cared!" Instinctively, we assume that suffering is ‘deserved’ as part of a relatively simple ‘cause and effect’ model (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah).
But when a tower collapsed in Jerusalem, killing eighteen people, Jesus warned against prematurely concluding that this tragic event was a summary judgement by God on people who were more wicked than anyone else. (Luke 13:4). Plainly, God was not involved in that calamity in the same way as he had been in Joel’s locust plague. He permitted it but He did not prescribe it.
Similarly, the Pharisees assumed a man born blind was ‘"steeped in sin from birth"‘ and asked who was to blame. Jesus told them the real point was that the affliction afforded an opportunity to bring glory to God by its removal (John 9:1-3).
In answering, "Why?" it may be helpful to consider three sources of suffering: 1) humanity, 2) ‘nature’ and 3) God Himself.
We have to concede that much of the suffering in the world is caused by what has been called ‘man’s inhumanity to man’. God has given us the gift of free will to act as we please, but operating within a universe of cause and effect. The physical, moral and social consequences of what we do are therefore inescapable, and so our responsibility is equally inescapable. How easy would it be for God to stop each wrong decision or act, and the next one ... and the next one ...? But very quickly there would be no free will at all. And so God has graciously honoured that gift of free will by allowing its natural, and often terrible, consequences to occur even to today.
The constant stream of natural disasters that occur can also be traced back to a consequence of free will - the disobedience of Adam (Gen.3). In some sense, the cursing of the ground reflects the dislocation in the relationship between Creator and created, whether human or not. Until the relationship is restored, the created will continue to malfunction - a situation first to be addressed in the millennial reign of Christ, but comprehensively only when there is a new heaven and a new earth. Until then, none are guaranteed immunity from so-called ‘acts of God’, irrespective of their moral condition or spiritual status. We can be sure it’s always safe to treat calamitous events as ‘a wake-up call’ in realizing how small, frail and exposed we are, and how much we need to rely on God for our very breath and, vitally, our spiritual future.
Thirdly, as in Joel’s experience, suffering can be caused by God’s judgement, against believers or unbelievers. The end purpose of each, whilst we are still in the age of grace, is to turn us back to Him. This type of suffering can therefore be a catalyst for vital change in our lives - although it doesn’t seem pleasant, helpful or even warranted at the time.
It’s facile to suggest such a complex question can ever be completely answered! But it has helpfully been said that a fabric viewed through a magnifying glass is clear in the middle and blurred at the edges. We only know the edges are clear because of what we see in the middle. Life’s fabric has many blurred edges - events and circumstances we do not understand - but they must be interpreted by the clarity we see in the centre: the cross of Christ.
We aren’t left to guess about the goodness and intentions of God from isolated bits of data. God has clearly revealed His character and dramatically demonstrated it to us in the Cross. ‘He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?’ (Rom.8:32).
Though unlikely to win any popularity contests, at least Joel could console himself that he had an answer which has eluded many suffering people today who ask, "Why?!"
This isn’t some dry philosophical debating point, but a cry borne of bewilderment, frustration and pain. "Why me? Why not someone else? It’s not fair! Why didn’t God stop this? What have I done to deserve this? I thought He cared!" Instinctively, we assume that suffering is ‘deserved’ as part of a relatively simple ‘cause and effect’ model (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah).
But when a tower collapsed in Jerusalem, killing eighteen people, Jesus warned against prematurely concluding that this tragic event was a summary judgement by God on people who were more wicked than anyone else. (Luke 13:4). Plainly, God was not involved in that calamity in the same way as he had been in Joel’s locust plague. He permitted it but He did not prescribe it.
Similarly, the Pharisees assumed a man born blind was ‘"steeped in sin from birth"‘ and asked who was to blame. Jesus told them the real point was that the affliction afforded an opportunity to bring glory to God by its removal (John 9:1-3).
In answering, "Why?" it may be helpful to consider three sources of suffering: 1) humanity, 2) ‘nature’ and 3) God Himself.
We have to concede that much of the suffering in the world is caused by what has been called ‘man’s inhumanity to man’. God has given us the gift of free will to act as we please, but operating within a universe of cause and effect. The physical, moral and social consequences of what we do are therefore inescapable, and so our responsibility is equally inescapable. How easy would it be for God to stop each wrong decision or act, and the next one ... and the next one ...? But very quickly there would be no free will at all. And so God has graciously honoured that gift of free will by allowing its natural, and often terrible, consequences to occur even to today.
The constant stream of natural disasters that occur can also be traced back to a consequence of free will - the disobedience of Adam (Gen.3). In some sense, the cursing of the ground reflects the dislocation in the relationship between Creator and created, whether human or not. Until the relationship is restored, the created will continue to malfunction - a situation first to be addressed in the millennial reign of Christ, but comprehensively only when there is a new heaven and a new earth. Until then, none are guaranteed immunity from so-called ‘acts of God’, irrespective of their moral condition or spiritual status. We can be sure it’s always safe to treat calamitous events as ‘a wake-up call’ in realizing how small, frail and exposed we are, and how much we need to rely on God for our very breath and, vitally, our spiritual future.
Thirdly, as in Joel’s experience, suffering can be caused by God’s judgement, against believers or unbelievers. The end purpose of each, whilst we are still in the age of grace, is to turn us back to Him. This type of suffering can therefore be a catalyst for vital change in our lives - although it doesn’t seem pleasant, helpful or even warranted at the time.
It’s facile to suggest such a complex question can ever be completely answered! But it has helpfully been said that a fabric viewed through a magnifying glass is clear in the middle and blurred at the edges. We only know the edges are clear because of what we see in the middle. Life’s fabric has many blurred edges - events and circumstances we do not understand - but they must be interpreted by the clarity we see in the centre: the cross of Christ.
We aren’t left to guess about the goodness and intentions of God from isolated bits of data. God has clearly revealed His character and dramatically demonstrated it to us in the Cross. ‘He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?’ (Rom.8:32).
First Century Culture - Part 3
First Century Culture (Part 3) - Societas
Could one word describe Paul - teacher? Apostle? Missionary? Theologian? How about philanthropist? Well, the evidence is in his care for the poor. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 urge saints to donate; then Paul risks his life to present such charitable giving at Jerusalem (Acts 24:16-18). Where did that powerful motivation come from? Perhaps the answer involves a sanctified sense of the Roman law of ‘societas’, and ultimately leads us to review our own commitment levels in service.
The main features of ‘societas’ were:
- Reciprocal partnership freely entered into for a shared concern or particular goal (e.g. profit).
- Each had to contribute something and each shared equally in the outcome, regardless of contribution, wealth or social class (rare in the biased Roman courts).
- It continued until the goal was achieved and/or as long as the partners remained 'of the same mind'.
The ‘Societas’ of Acts 15
Paul travelled to Jerusalem, concerned that two gospels existed – a 'Jewish Jerusalem' one and 'Paul's Gentile' one – and thus his work might be hindered (Gal. 2:1-11). Paul and Barnabas met with Peter, James, John and others to discuss it.
A serious schism in the early church seems to have been avoided in a way that reflected the then current ‘societas’ custom. Both parties saw each other as equal fellow-workers in the same gospel, the preaching of which was their common goal. As was common then (the social stigma in breaking a contract offering sufficient 'security') the agreement was confirmed by giving and receiving the 'right hand of fellowship' (a handshake).
In addition to theological unity, practical unity was expressed, as shown in Paul and Barnabas agreeing to remember the poor. Acts reports Barnabas selling land to help the needy; although we know of no prior interest in Paul's case, he saw that the Gentiles had received great spiritual wealth from the Jews and it was only right that they should 'repay' by helping financially (Rom. 15:25-27).
Paul encountered reluctance and apathy to a collection for the poor, but he doggedly persisted. Why? Because he'd entered into a ‘societas’ which he took extremely seriously. This was no casual handshake – it was arguably the second most important event of his life.
‘Societas’ and reception into the local church
All the early Christians could in fact enter into a ‘societas’ with everyone else in the local church of God they were a part of; and further, with every person in the fellowship of Churches of God worldwide! When? When received into the Church of God! How? Presumably this was recognised by the offering and receiving of the right hand of fellowship, making adding 3,000 in one day at Pentecost quite feasible!
In any case, their association with their local assembly and the wider fellowship of Churches was anything but casual; not a temporary thing, nor aimless – there had to be a purpose and a goal in it for it to exist at all. Just occupying a seat each week wouldn't suffice; nor would restriction to local assembly matters. It was incumbent on them to participate in the wider Fellowship in whatever opportunity arose – financial giving, corresponding with people in other assemblies, supporting fellowship-wide initiatives, showing hospitality to visitors, praying for each other. (Remember - everyone has to bring something to the ‘societas’.)
Baptism is important but we risk under-playing the significance of the addition part of the seven steps of Acts 2 v 41-42. It should be far from a mere formality on the Sunday after the baptism. Addition is an extremely serious business before God (don't forget it's the Lord Himself who does the adding) and with each other. All of the benefits and obligations of collective service stem from it.
The under-playing of addition seems rife across Christendom. But a 'supermarket mentality' – that picks a church which suits until circumstances change or something more convenient or appealing comes along – has no basis in the Bible. A by-product can be that little, if any, distinction is made between those in the Church and those that aren't. Does it matter? Yes, for all must truly have joined a ‘societas’ for the long haul with the same mind and the same goals in mind! This begs two important questions: are you part of this ‘societas’ and what are you bringing to it?
Guarding the ‘Societas’
Another article would be needed to document the various goals of the 'Church ‘societas’', but we know that they won't all be completed until the Lord's return, and (a sobering thought) perhaps not even then. And so the ‘societas’ is still needed today, some 2,000 years after it first started.
But there are two main threats to its continued existence:
1) When someone voluntarily leaves, or, in discipline, has to be put away from, the church, they automatically exit the ‘societas’ – they are unable to work for the same goals with others in the church.
2) When those in the ‘societas’ no longer share a common purpose. Hence, in one epistle, Paul implored Euodia and Syntyche, ‘to be of the’ same ‘mind in the Lord’ (Phil. 4:10). Paul was concerned that, practically speaking, their ‘societas’ would end, even if on the surface it appeared to function.
The ‘societas’ is exceedingly precious, but fragile – it must be guarded. People sometimes renew their wedding vows – the Beckhams are a famous recent example – perhaps as they now see greater significance in them. Perhaps those added to the Church should 'renew' the ‘societas’ periodically in the heart, and ask: "What are the common goals I am in the ‘societas’ to achieve (locally and globally) and what headway is being made?" Are they well defined or is it a case of meandering along? How committed am I to its success?
‘Societas’ with Christ
Finally, in Philippians (2:1-5) we see another aspect; we are exhorted to have the same mind as Christ, the logical extension being that we will then effectively be in a ‘societas’ with Him. What an incredible prospect and privilege! He brings so much to the partnership – His power, His love, the Holy Spirit – yet He's not ashamed to call us His brethren, fellow workers for Him, and joint heirs with Him (1 Cor. 3:9; Rom. 8:17; Heb. 2:11)
What are we bringing in return?
Could one word describe Paul - teacher? Apostle? Missionary? Theologian? How about philanthropist? Well, the evidence is in his care for the poor. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 urge saints to donate; then Paul risks his life to present such charitable giving at Jerusalem (Acts 24:16-18). Where did that powerful motivation come from? Perhaps the answer involves a sanctified sense of the Roman law of ‘societas’, and ultimately leads us to review our own commitment levels in service.
The main features of ‘societas’ were:
- Reciprocal partnership freely entered into for a shared concern or particular goal (e.g. profit).
- Each had to contribute something and each shared equally in the outcome, regardless of contribution, wealth or social class (rare in the biased Roman courts).
- It continued until the goal was achieved and/or as long as the partners remained 'of the same mind'.
The ‘Societas’ of Acts 15
Paul travelled to Jerusalem, concerned that two gospels existed – a 'Jewish Jerusalem' one and 'Paul's Gentile' one – and thus his work might be hindered (Gal. 2:1-11). Paul and Barnabas met with Peter, James, John and others to discuss it.
A serious schism in the early church seems to have been avoided in a way that reflected the then current ‘societas’ custom. Both parties saw each other as equal fellow-workers in the same gospel, the preaching of which was their common goal. As was common then (the social stigma in breaking a contract offering sufficient 'security') the agreement was confirmed by giving and receiving the 'right hand of fellowship' (a handshake).
In addition to theological unity, practical unity was expressed, as shown in Paul and Barnabas agreeing to remember the poor. Acts reports Barnabas selling land to help the needy; although we know of no prior interest in Paul's case, he saw that the Gentiles had received great spiritual wealth from the Jews and it was only right that they should 'repay' by helping financially (Rom. 15:25-27).
Paul encountered reluctance and apathy to a collection for the poor, but he doggedly persisted. Why? Because he'd entered into a ‘societas’ which he took extremely seriously. This was no casual handshake – it was arguably the second most important event of his life.
‘Societas’ and reception into the local church
All the early Christians could in fact enter into a ‘societas’ with everyone else in the local church of God they were a part of; and further, with every person in the fellowship of Churches of God worldwide! When? When received into the Church of God! How? Presumably this was recognised by the offering and receiving of the right hand of fellowship, making adding 3,000 in one day at Pentecost quite feasible!
In any case, their association with their local assembly and the wider fellowship of Churches was anything but casual; not a temporary thing, nor aimless – there had to be a purpose and a goal in it for it to exist at all. Just occupying a seat each week wouldn't suffice; nor would restriction to local assembly matters. It was incumbent on them to participate in the wider Fellowship in whatever opportunity arose – financial giving, corresponding with people in other assemblies, supporting fellowship-wide initiatives, showing hospitality to visitors, praying for each other. (Remember - everyone has to bring something to the ‘societas’.)
Baptism is important but we risk under-playing the significance of the addition part of the seven steps of Acts 2 v 41-42. It should be far from a mere formality on the Sunday after the baptism. Addition is an extremely serious business before God (don't forget it's the Lord Himself who does the adding) and with each other. All of the benefits and obligations of collective service stem from it.
The under-playing of addition seems rife across Christendom. But a 'supermarket mentality' – that picks a church which suits until circumstances change or something more convenient or appealing comes along – has no basis in the Bible. A by-product can be that little, if any, distinction is made between those in the Church and those that aren't. Does it matter? Yes, for all must truly have joined a ‘societas’ for the long haul with the same mind and the same goals in mind! This begs two important questions: are you part of this ‘societas’ and what are you bringing to it?
Guarding the ‘Societas’
Another article would be needed to document the various goals of the 'Church ‘societas’', but we know that they won't all be completed until the Lord's return, and (a sobering thought) perhaps not even then. And so the ‘societas’ is still needed today, some 2,000 years after it first started.
But there are two main threats to its continued existence:
1) When someone voluntarily leaves, or, in discipline, has to be put away from, the church, they automatically exit the ‘societas’ – they are unable to work for the same goals with others in the church.
2) When those in the ‘societas’ no longer share a common purpose. Hence, in one epistle, Paul implored Euodia and Syntyche, ‘to be of the’ same ‘mind in the Lord’ (Phil. 4:10). Paul was concerned that, practically speaking, their ‘societas’ would end, even if on the surface it appeared to function.
The ‘societas’ is exceedingly precious, but fragile – it must be guarded. People sometimes renew their wedding vows – the Beckhams are a famous recent example – perhaps as they now see greater significance in them. Perhaps those added to the Church should 'renew' the ‘societas’ periodically in the heart, and ask: "What are the common goals I am in the ‘societas’ to achieve (locally and globally) and what headway is being made?" Are they well defined or is it a case of meandering along? How committed am I to its success?
‘Societas’ with Christ
Finally, in Philippians (2:1-5) we see another aspect; we are exhorted to have the same mind as Christ, the logical extension being that we will then effectively be in a ‘societas’ with Him. What an incredible prospect and privilege! He brings so much to the partnership – His power, His love, the Holy Spirit – yet He's not ashamed to call us His brethren, fellow workers for Him, and joint heirs with Him (1 Cor. 3:9; Rom. 8:17; Heb. 2:11)
What are we bringing in return?
First Century Culture - Part 2
First Century Culture (Part 2) - Patronage
Do you enjoy being patronized? Well, who does? But to a first century Roman it was actually one of their main aims in life! 'Patronizing' had nothing to do with looking down on people. Two maxims really express it: 'you scratch my back ... and I'll scratch yours' and 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'! Patronage helps us understand and interpret relationships in the early church and challenges us to review the priority and basis of our own relationships.
A 'client' identified an influential 'patron' who would protect him financially, socially and legally through the patron's networking and own resources (e.g. providing loans, legal advice or a 'letter of commendation'). In return, the client publicly showed respect and gratitude to the patron and supported the patron's political, economic and social activities (e.g. enthusiastically supporting a speech). Often, the client would be 'paid' for simply being an idle part of an entourage. It created a complex social pyramid in which relationships were politicized and often temporary, fragile, exploitative and completely self-serving.
Perhaps some of those in the Church of God in Corinth found themselves in such a relationship: ‘You even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face’ (2 Cor. 11:20). Certainly the Church was riven by factions which may have been fostered by this culture.
Paul was careful not to appear as this type of patron or client to the saints: ‘What I want is not your possessions but you ... So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well ... Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent you?’ (2 Cor. 12:14-17; see also 2 Cor. 4:5)
He refused to accept gifts from the Church of God in Corinth (1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 11:9), probably to avoid being indebted to certain factions, and even avoided baptizing when he could lest he accidentally create his own 'entourage' (1 Cor. 1:14-17). He emphasized his self-sufficiency through tent-making (e.g. 1 Thes. 2:9).
Paul's writings seek to combat the prevalent, "What's in it for me?" mentality and the lazy lifestyle that patronage could cause:
‘Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others’ (Phil. 2:3-4)
‘Our people must learn to devote themselves to doing what is good, in order that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives’ (Titus 3:14)
Paul also encouraged sole reliance on the great Patron: ‘Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment’ (1 Tim. 6:17-18).
Paul, and also Peter, expressed in very different ways the impartial relationship that should exist between members of a church of God (as brothers and sisters, living stones in God's house or as parts of Christ's body) and stressed their priority: ‘let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith’ (Gal. 6:10 NASB).
Positive patrons in the early church – Gaius (Rom. 16:23), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), Philemon (Phile. v.1,2) and others – used their resources to show hospitality to 'clients' like Paul, his co-workers, or the Church generally. The key is that it was offered on a 'no strings attached' basis with no thought of recompense.
Each church today needs selfless patrons to provide hospitality, spiritual guidance and practical help. In fact, we all need to be ready to 'patronize' when the Lord directs us; but equally ready to be open to being a client at times, too. Our pride or lack of trust can often tell us to 'go it alone' and ignore the available resources.
The basis of church relationships should be that they are with 'a brother (or sister) for whom Christ died', and not because of what they can do for us, what circles they move in or what ancestry they might have – ‘for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).
Do you enjoy being patronized? Well, who does? But to a first century Roman it was actually one of their main aims in life! 'Patronizing' had nothing to do with looking down on people. Two maxims really express it: 'you scratch my back ... and I'll scratch yours' and 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'! Patronage helps us understand and interpret relationships in the early church and challenges us to review the priority and basis of our own relationships.
A 'client' identified an influential 'patron' who would protect him financially, socially and legally through the patron's networking and own resources (e.g. providing loans, legal advice or a 'letter of commendation'). In return, the client publicly showed respect and gratitude to the patron and supported the patron's political, economic and social activities (e.g. enthusiastically supporting a speech). Often, the client would be 'paid' for simply being an idle part of an entourage. It created a complex social pyramid in which relationships were politicized and often temporary, fragile, exploitative and completely self-serving.
Perhaps some of those in the Church of God in Corinth found themselves in such a relationship: ‘You even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face’ (2 Cor. 11:20). Certainly the Church was riven by factions which may have been fostered by this culture.
Paul was careful not to appear as this type of patron or client to the saints: ‘What I want is not your possessions but you ... So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well ... Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent you?’ (2 Cor. 12:14-17; see also 2 Cor. 4:5)
He refused to accept gifts from the Church of God in Corinth (1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 11:9), probably to avoid being indebted to certain factions, and even avoided baptizing when he could lest he accidentally create his own 'entourage' (1 Cor. 1:14-17). He emphasized his self-sufficiency through tent-making (e.g. 1 Thes. 2:9).
Paul's writings seek to combat the prevalent, "What's in it for me?" mentality and the lazy lifestyle that patronage could cause:
‘Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others’ (Phil. 2:3-4)
‘Our people must learn to devote themselves to doing what is good, in order that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives’ (Titus 3:14)
Paul also encouraged sole reliance on the great Patron: ‘Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment’ (1 Tim. 6:17-18).
Paul, and also Peter, expressed in very different ways the impartial relationship that should exist between members of a church of God (as brothers and sisters, living stones in God's house or as parts of Christ's body) and stressed their priority: ‘let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith’ (Gal. 6:10 NASB).
Positive patrons in the early church – Gaius (Rom. 16:23), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), Philemon (Phile. v.1,2) and others – used their resources to show hospitality to 'clients' like Paul, his co-workers, or the Church generally. The key is that it was offered on a 'no strings attached' basis with no thought of recompense.
Each church today needs selfless patrons to provide hospitality, spiritual guidance and practical help. In fact, we all need to be ready to 'patronize' when the Lord directs us; but equally ready to be open to being a client at times, too. Our pride or lack of trust can often tell us to 'go it alone' and ignore the available resources.
The basis of church relationships should be that they are with 'a brother (or sister) for whom Christ died', and not because of what they can do for us, what circles they move in or what ancestry they might have – ‘for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).
First Century Culture - Part 1
Another series of articles that I wrote for NT magazine....
First Century Culture (Part 1) - Honour and Shame
21st century Western culture encourages each to shamelessly pursue their '15 minutes of fame'. 'Shame' and 'honour' were never far from the mind of the ancient Jew, Greek or Roman, nor far below the surface of our Bible – but in different senses.
An individual's shame reflected badly on the family and the whole community – so there could be violent repercussions, even as far as death. (We still see this in so-called 'honour killings' today in some societies). Because of the communal impact, anything done in secret was automatically assumed to involve wrong-doing. (This could explain Jesus' trial defence, in John 18:2, that he did nothing in secret).
God was the ultimate source of honour and it was thought to be available in limited quantities! Anyone who acquired honour therefore had to have taken it from someone else – compare John the Baptist's assertion that ‘"He (Jesus) must become greater; I must become less."’ (John 3:30).
Honour had to be ascribed by others; assuming it for oneself would usually be challenged publicly. (Could this explain why the Lord made few claims about his true status, but never refused others' genuine worship?)
Themes of honour and shame can be seen throughout Jesus' life. He completed numerous 'challenge/riposte' cycles with the Pharisees. The challenges were questions designed to trip Jesus up and cause him to lose face (e.g. ‘"What is the greatest commandment?"’). But Jesus' skilful answers meant that eventually ‘no-one dared to ask him any more questions’ (Luke 20:40) – clearly the risk to their honour was too great!
Jesus was prepared to sacrifice worldly honour when eating with tax collectors and sinners (Mat. 9:11), breaking the elders' traditions (Mat. 15:1-2), and associating with Samaritans (John 4). Even so, Jesus was accumulating so much honour that the leaders of the day out of envy handed Him over to Pilate to be killed (Mark 15:10).
Jesus' teaching often used shame/honour concepts to grab attention. The prodigal son had brought shame on his family by his actions, and the hearers would instinctively side with the 'other son' – yet Jesus revealed the father's shocking response to be right. Jesus' command to love our enemies, instead of regaining lost honour by taking an eye for an eye, was also a very radical message.
The New Testament writers seem agreed that the key sub-text of the cross was shame, not pain – unlike the provocative film 'The Passion of the Christ'. So the focus was on spitting at, and striking of, the head (usually most honoured body part), insults, and ridicule by giving him the 'trappings' of a king – and most of all, the shame of the apparent forsaking of the Son by the Father.
And yet, amazingly, the Lord ‘for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame’ (Heb. 12:2). Paradoxically shame has been turned to honour in God's plan. Jesus even chided the two on the Emmaus road, ‘"Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?"’ (Luke 24:26).
Believers today will likely lose this world's honour if they serve the Lord faithfully. Yet God has promised us something more valuable, saying, ‘"Those who honour me I will honour"’ (1 Sam. 2:30) and ‘anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame’ (Rom. 10:11).
First Century Culture (Part 1) - Honour and Shame
21st century Western culture encourages each to shamelessly pursue their '15 minutes of fame'. 'Shame' and 'honour' were never far from the mind of the ancient Jew, Greek or Roman, nor far below the surface of our Bible – but in different senses.
An individual's shame reflected badly on the family and the whole community – so there could be violent repercussions, even as far as death. (We still see this in so-called 'honour killings' today in some societies). Because of the communal impact, anything done in secret was automatically assumed to involve wrong-doing. (This could explain Jesus' trial defence, in John 18:2, that he did nothing in secret).
God was the ultimate source of honour and it was thought to be available in limited quantities! Anyone who acquired honour therefore had to have taken it from someone else – compare John the Baptist's assertion that ‘"He (Jesus) must become greater; I must become less."’ (John 3:30).
Honour had to be ascribed by others; assuming it for oneself would usually be challenged publicly. (Could this explain why the Lord made few claims about his true status, but never refused others' genuine worship?)
Themes of honour and shame can be seen throughout Jesus' life. He completed numerous 'challenge/riposte' cycles with the Pharisees. The challenges were questions designed to trip Jesus up and cause him to lose face (e.g. ‘"What is the greatest commandment?"’). But Jesus' skilful answers meant that eventually ‘no-one dared to ask him any more questions’ (Luke 20:40) – clearly the risk to their honour was too great!
Jesus was prepared to sacrifice worldly honour when eating with tax collectors and sinners (Mat. 9:11), breaking the elders' traditions (Mat. 15:1-2), and associating with Samaritans (John 4). Even so, Jesus was accumulating so much honour that the leaders of the day out of envy handed Him over to Pilate to be killed (Mark 15:10).
Jesus' teaching often used shame/honour concepts to grab attention. The prodigal son had brought shame on his family by his actions, and the hearers would instinctively side with the 'other son' – yet Jesus revealed the father's shocking response to be right. Jesus' command to love our enemies, instead of regaining lost honour by taking an eye for an eye, was also a very radical message.
The New Testament writers seem agreed that the key sub-text of the cross was shame, not pain – unlike the provocative film 'The Passion of the Christ'. So the focus was on spitting at, and striking of, the head (usually most honoured body part), insults, and ridicule by giving him the 'trappings' of a king – and most of all, the shame of the apparent forsaking of the Son by the Father.
And yet, amazingly, the Lord ‘for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame’ (Heb. 12:2). Paradoxically shame has been turned to honour in God's plan. Jesus even chided the two on the Emmaus road, ‘"Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?"’ (Luke 24:26).
Believers today will likely lose this world's honour if they serve the Lord faithfully. Yet God has promised us something more valuable, saying, ‘"Those who honour me I will honour"’ (1 Sam. 2:30) and ‘anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame’ (Rom. 10:11).
A Series on the Book of Judges - Part 3
Part 3 - Israel and Baal
W hat was behind
this sudden departure after generations of faithfulness? The key factor was social co-habitation,
including marriage, amongst the Canaanites.
As reviled slaves in Egypt and then pilgrim wanderers in the desert,
there was simply limited opportunity for this to happen before then.
There was no
prospect of Israel’s God just letting all this happen though. It’s no accident
that various scriptures portray God using images consistent with the Baal myth.
God speaks from the mighty waters, His voice lightning and His words thunder
(Psalm 29; 104:7). God is described as shooting flashing arrows from the
heavens as He rides in a chariot in the clouds (Psalm 76:3-9; 77:16-20; 97:1-5;
104:1-4; Hab 3:4-9). It is God alone who rules over the waters of the deep and
controls the raging of the sea (Psalm 77:16; 89:5-13; 93:3-4).
God is showing
himself to be the real deal, not just in words but in actions as well. Judge Deborah’s song of victory has an
unmistakably watery motif, “When you,
LORD, went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth
shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water. The river Kishon swept them away, the age-old
river, the river Kishon.” Judges 5: 4,21. She knew that it is God who is in
control of the elements, not Baal. The
famous Carmel contest was further proof of this, giving strong meaning to
Elijah's prayer that rain would be withheld, as a direct challenge to the rain-god! And Elijah even added insult to the priests’
injuries by soaking his sacrifice to God with water to show that this was no
barrier to His almighty power.
Outlasting the
Judges by centuries Baal worship thrived until the time of the exile, even as a
quasi state religion under Ahab and Jezebel. Although the problem largely faded
after the return from exile thanks to Ezra and Nehemiah’s reforms, Israel has
been so passionately monotheistic ever since that most Jews incorrectly view
accepting Jesus as the Son of God as a forbidden return to polytheistic
syncretism.
Sunday School
pupils might have long enjoyed Elijah’s triumph over the prophets of Baal but
given the somewhat salacious background to this false god, it’s perhaps not too
surprising that a “theo-biography” has not traditionally featured on their curriculum! But no understanding of the Old Testament is
complete without knowing the prominent role that Baal played in Israelite life.
The Israelites
seem to have managed to avoid falling into idolatry while captive in Egypt,
despite the polytheistic society. Post-exodus, apart from the golden calf and
the Balaam crisis (Num.25), the Israelites largely stayed loyal to God with
some notable exceptions (Amos 5:26). But it didn’t seem to take long for them
to fall headlong into idolatry when they entered Canaan. Judges 2:12-13 records “They forsook the LORD…who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed
and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them.”
Judges 10:6
lists the false gods that the Israelites worshipped. It’s no shock that Baal, a
God of the Caananites, is first on the list:
“They served the Baals and the
Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods
of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines”. Who was he?
Baal means
master, and thus to worship Baal usurped the position of the Lord. We learn from ancient Syrian texts that he
was known as the storm god, the bringer of rain, and therefore fertility, to
the land. His nickname was "Rider of the Clouds," and often described
using meteorological terms like clouds, thunder, lightning, hail and, most
importantly, water.
It’s easy to imagine how he might appeal to
people living in an arid and agriculturally marginal area, where the fertility
of land was so vital to preserving life. The Israelites experienced God as a
powerful desert warrior God, who they counted on to march in with his heavenly
armies when needed. But as they settled into the land, they perhaps became
convinced that Baal was in charge of the more mundane aspects of everyday life,
like rain, crops and livestock. But the
Israelites never completely abandoned the worship of the true God. To put it
bluntly, they had one God for crises and another god for everyday life (this is
called syncretism - we can be guilty of that too!)
Baal worship
involved prostitution, designed in part to encourage this fertility to continue
(read Hosea and Jeremiah for the graphic details). It seems particularly apt,
then, that the metaphor of prostitution was used in Judges 8, and of adultery
many times elsewhere, to describe Israel’s unfaithfulness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)