Our New Gnosticism

Almost every aspect of modern Christianity assumes that the faith is first and foremost a set of ideas to be believed. That's it. Sure, we encourage some marginal action on the side, but that's not truly important, not central. Our worship is primarily about explaining and singing ideas, our schools focus on transferring ideas, our evangelism spreads ideas, our apologetic tries to persuade others of ideas, community means chatting with people who share our ideas, our entry into heaven requires holding the right ideas in our heads. In centuries past, this strange obsession with ideas simply went by the name of Gnosticism--the ancient heresy that ideas and intellect are more important than bodies and people and actually doing something. We even have a safe, approved word to hide our new Gnosticism--"worldview."1

1.  Douglas M. Jones, Dismissing Jesus: How We Evade The Way Of The Cross (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books; 2013), pp. 45-6 

Evolution, Abiogenesis, and Beer

When someone argues that evolutionary science has nothing to do with the science of origins, instead of being a jerk about their beliefs, try these few simple steps instead:

1)  Grab a beer (because scientific discussions are always more enjoyable with a nice micro-brew in hand). 

2)  Ask whether evolutionary science has anything to do with philosophy (i.e. the science of knowledge, reality, etc.).

3)  Discuss. 

(If they say "yes" then refer to the "A" steps below. If they say "no" then refer to the "B" steps below.)

A1) Offer them a beer 

    A2) Discuss their philosophy of origins (i.e. what they believe about how or why the world, as they know it, originated).

        A3)  Pay attention to your beer and theirs. Replenish often.

Hopefully somewhere between the micro-brews and the philosophical discussion about "origins" two minds will meet at two identical conclusions: (1) that beer really did make the discussion more enjoyable, and (2) evolutionary science has something to do with the science of origins: it has a philosophical connection, because both subjects cannot be discussed in relation to each other without some philosophical pre-commitments

(If they said "no" to the question above)

B1)  Offer them a beer anyway (because, hey, who doesn't like beer?) 

    B2)  Discuss their philosophy about evolutionary science supposedly having nothing to do with origins (i.e. why they think that is necessarily the case).

If it turns out that some participants in this discussion suddenly feel intimidated, or don't want to "debate" their philosophy versus ours anymore, at least everyone had an opportunity to enjoy beer!

The bottom line is this: A nice micro-brew makes every philosophical discussion better. So while you're sipping down your micro-brew, pray that each party within the discussion realizes that evolution has something to do with origins. Pray that they realize it makes no real, knowledgeable (i.e. philosophical) sense to discuss why the science of evolution has nothing (or something) to do with the science of origins unless both sciences are mutually dependent upon some philosophical commitments.

If theological work becomes sterile

    ...[T]he service of God and the service of man are the meaning, horizon, and goal of theological work. This goal is no gnosis floating in mid-air and actually serving only the intellectual and aesthetic impulse of the theologian. It is neither a gnosis of a speculative and mythological kind like that of the major and minor heretics of the first centuries, nor a gnosis of a historical-critical kind like that which began to flourish in the eighteenth century as the sole true theological science and which today is preparing to celebrate, if appearances do not deceive, new triumphs. If the proclamation or adoration of strange gods lurks behind the first kind of gnosis, skepticism or atheism lurks behind the second. After his fashion, Franz Overbook no doubt was right when he pursued the way of this modern gnosis to its end and became wholly disinterested in theology as service. Although a member of the faculty of theology, he wanted to be and to be called, no longer a theologian at all, but--as may be read on his tombstone--only a "professor of Church history."

    If theological work is not to become sterile in all its disciplines, regardless of how splendidly it may develop at one point or another, it must always keep sight of the fact that its object, the Word of God, demands more than simply being perceived, contemplated, and meditated in this or that particular aspect. What is demanded of theological work is the service of this word and attendance upon it. This may not always be its primary goal, and often it is the most remote one, but it remains its ultimate and real goal. 

    As a further delimitation of our theme, a second remark must be made here. Since theology is called to serve, it must not rule. It must serve both God in his Word as the Lord of the world and of the community, and the man loved by God and addressed by God's Word. It may rule neither in relation to God nor in relation to men. ...If theology is not ashamed of the Gospel, it does not need to excuse itself to anyone for its own existence. It does not need to justify its actions before the community or the world, either by constructing philosophical foundations or by other apologetic or didactic devices. Precisely because of its character as service, theological work should be done with uplifted head or not at all! 

-- Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction [Chicago, IL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1963] pp. 187-88

More thoughts from morning prayer: Psalm 34:8-16

As the title suggests, this is part two of a series on Psalm 34. My thoughts continue from a previous post, starting at verse 8.

8. O taste and see that Yahweh is good; happy are those who take refuge in Him.
9. O fear Yahweh, you His holy ones, for those who fear him have no want.
10. The young lions suffer want and hunger, but those who seek Yahweh lack no good thing.
11. Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of Yahweh.
12. Which of you desires life, and covets many days to enjoy good?
13. Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.
14. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
15. The eyes of Yahweh are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry.
16. The face of Yahweh is against evildoers, to cut off the remembrance of them from the land.

This section also seems to stand out on its own within the Psalm, being entirely proverbial and didactic in its presentation, unlike the first seven verses. Interestingly, verses 17 through 22 mirror much of the first section's themes, so I suspect that because verses 8-16 are central to the structure of the Psalm, they might also be of central importance for understanding David's theology of praise.

The opening words of this section are interesting. "Taste and see" Yahweh's goodness, David says. Much can be said about experiencing God's goodness in such practical ways as tasting and seeing, but this phrase especially reminds me of Israelites literally tasting and seeing Yahweh's goodness (although, admittedly, there are other ways of viewing such metaphors). This reminds me of Israelites tasting the peace offerings and seeing the ministry of God's servants within the courtyard of His House. There, in the midst of Israel, the people of Israel could flee for refuge and literally taste and see Yahweh's goodness. If such a regular and personal encounter with God in His Tabernacle is in the background of David's metaphor, this adds another dimension to the Psalm.

David wrote this Psalm with the events of Achish in mind, yet David was not in Moses' tabernacle at that time (David is describing past events which took place in a Philistine territory named Gath), nor was Moses' tabernacle a central place of worship after David returned to Israel with the Ark. As David reminisces upon that past, his theology of drawing near to God is apparently not limited to a physical building or sanctuary. There in the city of Gath David "took refuge" in Yahweh himself as though the physical, earthly tabernacle was symbolic of a much more real place. Refuge could be found in that tabernacle--the true tabernacle where Yahweh dwells--regardless of the physical, earthly structure's condition (which was in disrepair since the Philistines took the Ark).

David also makes some remarkable promises in this Psalm. David says that "those who fear him have no want," and "those who seek Yahweh lack no good thing." He also says that "The eyes of Yahweh are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry... [but] The face of Yahweh is against evildoers...." To be sure, I think it's important to receive great comfort and assurance from passages such as these; however, I suspect that many people who read these passages overlook David's point. Many people might skip over what David meant by "fearing" Yahweh and merely find comfort by applying such promises to those who are "righteous" and who "seek" Him. In other words, it might be a mistaken presumption to pair together those who "seek" God with those who are constituted "righteous" (likewise, those who are constituted "righteous" might be mistaken for those who "seek" God). But it seems to me that, in this context, fearing Yahweh and seeking Yahweh go hand in hand just as much, especially if one is to receive personal comfort and assurance that is not in vain. Notice the qualification David himself provides about those whose cries are actually heard and accepted by Yahweh (and not just prayed at Yahweh, and rejected by Him): those people are seen by God as "righteous," and such "righteousness" is not at all described as "imputation" of a legal verdict (as those in Reformed theological circles might suggest). Those who are "righteous" are those who fear (not just those who seek) Yahweh.

What then does it mean to fear Yahweh?

David goes on to explain this in the following verses. David says he will teach what the fear of Yahweh looks like. He begins by asking the question, "Which of you desires life, and covets many days to enjoy good?" This is obviously a rhetorical question designed to teach what the fear of Yahweh is supposed to look like. Everyone wants to enjoy life, and the whole notion of enjoying peace, freedom, security, and the other good blessings of life are coveted by all people. Such were the particular promises given to Israel too. If they loved and obeyed Yahweh, His covenant blessings, such as "many good days" to enjoy, would attend their life. But David follows through with this additional note of clarification: 

"[Then] keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it."

Here the "fear" of Yahweh looks like something particular, something Godly. Fearing Yahweh means desiring the life He wants us to live, the life which keeps its speech away from evil and deceit, and pursues good, seeking peace (presumably in both word and action). Fearing Yahweh means respecting God's desire for our lives, and respecting His authority over our lives. If He loves us, He will chasten us for our sins of speaking evil and deceit, the kind of hateful and foolish behavior which harms our neighbor's reputation and livelihood. The eyes and ears of Yahweh are on the righteous because the righteous are fearing Yahweh in these ways. Those who seek Yahweh lack no good thing because because they are seen by Yahweh as those who fear Him, those who seek peace and pursue it because they know that pleases Him, and they also know that life under his love is a life of many good days. But the face of Yahweh is against those who devise evil in their heart, those who speak deceit and promote evil; those who sow seeds of strife and cultivate enmity.

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, the Greater David, teaches against this sort of thing too. "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder', and yet whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the fiery Gehenna."

Jesus even endorses the kind of ethos which David seems to be describing in this Psalm. Again, Jesus said "first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift (to God). Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge...". In other words, fear God. Seek peace and pursue it. Depart from evil and do good. If you are angry with your brother without a just cause, yet you are pleading to God for deliverance from trials and afflictions, don't be surprised if your cries to Yahweh for deliverance are not heard. Learn that God sets his face against evildoers; so don't pursue evil; flee from it. Don't sow presumptuous seeds of strife, and don't use your knowledge of God's commandments (i.e. "Thou shalt not murder") as an excuse to sow discord among brethren, even if your brother appears to be guilty of a lawless deed (like rumors of murder). You should seek peace and pursue it. As saint Paul says in Romans 12:18, "so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people."

Separating Sheep From Goats (a homily for Christ the King Sunday)

Last night I noticed that one lectionary reading for this upcoming Sunday (Christ the King Sunday) was Ezekiel 34:11-16 and 34:20-24. This immediately struck me as odd because it skips three verses in the middle of Ezekiel's message. Whatever point Ezekiel was trying to make in the middle of his message, the lectionary discards. So I looked at those three verses and decided it would be helpful to write down some notes about it. After a little studying I just decided to write a homily instead.

Ezekiel 34 is a message of salvation through judgment; it's a message from YHWH to his people, Israel, announcing salvation for those of his flock who have suffered under the foolish and sinful leadership of Israel. YHWH speaks against Israel's "shepherds" because they are supposed to be shepherding like David, YHWH's servant, but are not. As shepherds they're supposed to protect YHWH's sheep from the violence of outside predators, gathering those who stray away, and also to protect them from harm within the fold, caring especially for the weak, but also leading them all to good pastures and clean drinking water. But according to Ezekiel, this is not what YHWH's shepherds are doing.

According to Ezekiel, instead of feeding the sheep, the shepherds feed themselves (v. 2); and the ones they do feed, they feed simply to fatten and slaughter for themselves. The Lord reprimands them for eating the "fat" portions of His sheep, which, interestingly, is the portion allotted to YHWH with all the required peace offerings. They fatten the flock to keep the best portions for themselves. They also clothe themselves with the skins of the fattened flock, but they don't care as long as they are warm, as long as they are clothed and covered. Some of them don't realize that in YHWH's sight, they're really not covered at all; they're actually naked and exposed before His eyes; He sees their schemes and He is coming to judge them for their "harsh" rule over the sheep.

This mention of "harsh" rule (in verse 4) is only found in two other passages of Scripture. In Exodus 1:13-14 it describes the way Israel's enemies (the Egyptian rulers) treated them as slaves. In Leviticus 25:43 YHWH even told Israel that it is unlawful to treat another brother in such a "harsh" manner. Both, of course, stand as indictments against these shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel's day. They have become harsh taskmasters like Pharaoh, instead of shepherd kings, like David. 

But they, the harsh taskmasters of Israel, are not the only ones whom YHWH addresses in Ezekiel's message. This brings us to 34:17-19, which are omitted from this year's lectionary reading. That portion (ESV) reads: 

As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats. Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture; and to drink of clear water, that you must muddy the rest of the water of your feet? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have muddied with your feet?

Notice that this addresses people within the flock, and YHWH is going to judge between them as well, because their sins against others within the flock are just as worthy of judgment as the harsh rulers over the land. In context, these sheep and goats constitute the broader class of leaders within Israelite community, the "under-shepherds" so to speak. YHWH provides a good pasture for them to  feed on, but that's not good enough; they tread down the rest of the pasture without consideration of others who could glean there too. What they did not need for themselves, they left as damaged goods for others. Even though they enjoy drinking from clean and clear water, they leave the rest of the water from which others drink to be murky and muddy. The natural resources are limited, and they use their power to their own advantage; they forsake the responsibilities of caring and considering the well-being of their "weaker" brothers, and YHWH sees this and is abhorred by it. To prevent this from happening again, YHWH says he will intervene, setting one Shepherd--a Davidic Shepherd (vv. 23-24)--in their midst to judge between "sheep and sheep." Simply being a "sheep" of his pasture on that day of YHWH's visitation won't be good enough. Some sheep--the "fat" ones (vv. 16, 20)--will be destroyed. 

All of this message, of course, takes place within a certain historical context. In this case, Ezekiel's message of the Lord coming to judge his people, saving some and separating others for judgment, refers to time of Israel at the end of the books of Kings and Chronicles, the time when we learn about an eclipse of Israel's empire, the destruction of Solomon's Temple, and the exile of God's people to Babylon. All of that, we learn from Ezekiel and prophets, occurred because Israel loved evil deeds; they would not come to the light because their deeds were evil, and they enjoyed that evil as though it were good. At that time YHWH was determined to judge his people for their wickedness because they had become like all the surrounding pagan nations. He would lead a new exodus  of his people and build His house in Babylon for a time (which is what the book of Daniel describes), but his curses would fall upon Jerusalem and its rulers like the nation of Egypt from which He delivered them, the Egypt that Israel had now become. 

However, this is not simply a description of Israel long ago, before they went into exile. In the other lectionary reading for this day, the message of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 speaks the same way, using the same language of separating sheep from goats. In that passage, Jesus was talking about his coming in judgment upon Israel in that generation, and their exile culminating in 70A.D. with the destruction of Herod's Temple. In that message of Jesus, a Shepherd-King like David comes in His glory, with all His angels, to visit Israel. All nations are gathered before the Lord because all nations have been given to Him as an inheritance, and on the day of the His visitation Jesus said there would be separation. Interestingly, the judgment Jesus spoke of is not based on what the sheep and the goats believed per se, but rather on what they did, how they behaved toward one another, whether they trampled down good pastures and muddied waters with their feet (or not). And the same is true regarding the salvation he brings to them. When this Davidic-King of Matthew 25 welcomes those among His flock to inherit the kingdom, He doesn't welcome them based on the imputation of Christ's active obedience, or even their belief in such technical scholarly conjectures (however thoughtful or helpful they may be); instead He welcomes them because they fed His brothers with the good portion of their own pastures. They gave others within the fold clean water to drink. When they saw a stranger destitute, they welcomed him into their homes, and if they were naked, they clothed them with their own wool; if they were sick, they tended to their needs. When their brothers were imprisoned for following Jesus and his apostles, instead of following the Scribes and Pharisees, they visited their brothers in prison. They sacrificed what was their own to provide for their brothers. They didn't use their power to oppress others within the fold; instead they used all their power to do what Jesus did for them. 

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we are the sheep of His pasture too. The Church today suffers from the same temptations as Israel in Ezekiel's day and in Jesus' day. And the Lord sees all of it just as he always has. We are all naked and exposed before him. We can't hide our abuse of power. We can't hide our envy of our neighbors. We can't sit idly by and watch our neighbor being oppressed and think that Jesus, the King of kings, is somehow indifferent to it all. Brothers and sisters, He sees it all. He knows it all. And we shouldn't be surprised that many of the judgments we see around us, and around the world, arise as a result of his many visitations upon his people. Jesus comes to His house and inspects his flock every week as we gather together to worship him. Through our assembling together, all of us enter His holy presence in the liturgy, and all of us enter with some sin; all of us enter with some mud or grass on our feet from the good pastures we tread down wrongly. And YHWH sees it. Christ sees it all; which is why, each and every week, we bow down before him on our knees, imploring him for his mercy and forgiveness, so that we can be washed clean, clothed in his righteousness, and welcomed in to His house to feast at his table.

Each and every week the Lord comes to visit us, and He will continue to do this in every place of worship throughout the course of redemptive history; a similar day of visitation awaits this fallen, sinful world too on the last day. Only that day will be a total separation of goats from sheep, evil from good, darkness from light, of muddy waters and trampled fields from a well-watered garden with springs that well up to eternal life. 

Each and every week in the liturgy we gather because the Lord has already separated us from the darkness and welcomed us into His marvelous light. We are gathered together by the Spirit of God to be exposed and judged and shaped by His light, not to hide from it. He gathers us together so that in Christ we become the light of the world. In Jesus' sermon on the mount, Jesus looked at all his disciples and said "You are the light of the world." When you hear God's Word, remember that Jesus is speaking the same message to you, His disciples. As Christ speaks to you, remember that Christ gives light to this world of darkness so that it spreads everywhere. People don't light a lamp and then hide it under a basket. In this same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. Good works are what the Body of Christ, the New Israel of God, is called to do. And we do them not simply because the God tells us to--which, if you think about it, should be sufficient for us to respond favorably--but also because God provides everything we need to want to do so.

Earlier in this chapter, chapter 34 of Ezekiel, we learn that because the shepherds of Israel failed to feed the Lord's sheep, the Lord Himself promised to come down and feed them, leading them to rich pastures. He would come down and visit His people, seeking the lost, bringing back those who strayed away, binding up their broken hearts, and strengthening the sick. All of this He promised to do as the greater David, the great Shepherd-King of the sheep. People of God, this Great Shepherd, our Lord Jesus, invites us today to rich pastures here at His Table. It is in this place of worship that He comes to visit us each week, and it is here in this meal where the lost are found, where those who have strayed are brought together, where the broken are restored, the sick are healed, and the weak are strengthened.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

One Thought

God's entire counsel may be reduced to one thought, that in the end of the ages He may have a Church which shall understand His love and return it.

- Abraham Kuyper

Ignatius of Antioch on spiritual warfare

Labor with one another; contend together, run together, suffer together, sleep together, and rise together; as the stewards and assessors and ministers of God. Please him under whom ye war, and from whom ye receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter; but let your baptism remain as your arms--your faith as your helmet--your charity as your spear--your patience as your whole armor. Let your works be your charge, so that you may receive a suitable reward. Be long-suffering, therefore, towards each other, in meekness, as God is towards you. Let me have joy of you in all things. 

-- St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, fall 107 A.D. [Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna]

"Inerrancy" often works like that

Commenting on God's communication to mankind as mediated through the Holy Scriptures, and the way "biblicism" often fails to understand and appreciate the differences of meaning communicated throughout Scripture, Christian Smith makes these fascinating observations:

   Locutionary acts utter or inscribe words, illocutionary acts use uttered or inscribed words to perform communications concerning the purpose or disposition of the speaker or writer, and perlocutionary acts rely on uttered or inscribed words to accomplish a particular effect in the hearer or speaker. All of it concerns getting things done with speech. But the things gotten done are different in quality and "locution," even when they are all gotten done by means of a single speech act, such as uttering the phrase, "Let him have it."

   The point of distinguishing these three speech acts is to help us to recognize that the use of speech to communicate is not a simple matter of speakers intending to make clear propositional statements that, when properly interpreted, reproduce the original propositional meaning in the minds of those receiving the statements. It is more complicated than that.  

...The meanings of terms such as "error," "mistaken," "inaccurate," and "fallible" become not entirely straightforward when speech acts are understood in this way. Of course, certain kinds of cases can be straightforward about descriptive truth or falsehood. If the illocutionary action of the locution, "Jesus went throughout Galilee," for example, is to inform hearers or readers about actual events in specific locations, then if Jesus had never been to Galilee, the locution would be in error and the related illocutionary act would be performed fallibly. In such cases of reporting mistakes, the readers or hearers would then have good reason to increase their distrust of the speaker or writer.  

   But many cases of speech communication are not that simple. Consider some of the illocutionary acts named above [previously]: commanding, promising, warning, asking, assuring, appealing, criticizing, offering, honoring, bequeathing, and challenging. What would it mean for them to be in error or mistaken? Is it even strictly possible? Can a command itself be inaccurate? No. Commands can be unauthorized or misguided but not inaccurate. Can an appeal be mistaken? Not really. Appeals can be hopeless or unnecessary but not mistaken. Can a promise itself be in error? No exactly. A promise, by virtue of its own future orientation, may later prove to have been empty or untrustworthy. And present knowledge about the one making the promise may provide grounds to judge his or her promises as unlikely to be fulfilled. But promises as promises per se are not the sort of things that either entail errors or do not. 

   Given the richness of the variety of kinds of speech acts that appear to be at work in the Bible, therefore, it seems quite inadequate to try to describe or defend scripture's truthfulness, reliability, authority, and whatever else we might say on its behalf with single, technical terms like "inerrancy." That particular term---a favorite of many evangelicals---tends to zero in on matters of accuracy in reporting on facts and events as a matter of correspondence between propositions and the real states to which those propositions refer. But that term tends not to capture the multitude of other ways in which the locutions of texts and their illocutionary and perlocutionary acts may or may not be reliable, authoritative, compelling, powerful, inviting, and so on.  

   Imagine, for instance. that you comfort someone in distress over her deep personal loss and then the next day have her thank you profusely for your being so precise or aesthetically stimulating. It would not compute. Those terms would simply not capture the quality of the merits of your comforting actions that deserve appreciation and gratitude. "Inerrancy" often works like that. 

   Evangelical defenders of biblical inerrancy are used to the typical charge by more liberal critics that "inerrancy" is too strong, extreme, or demanding of a concept to accurately describe what the Bible is. What I am suggesting here is quite the opposite. "Inerrancy" is far too limited, narrow, restricted, flat, and weak a term to represent the many virtues of the Bible that are necessary to recognize, affirm, and commend the variety of speech acts performed in scripture. I suspect that most evangelicals, including biblicists, more or less intuitively know this. Nevertheless, lacking a richer and more appropriate vocabulary with which to work in thinking about and describing the Bible, far too many evangelicals---who understandably feel the need not to compromise on their "high view" of the Bible---stretch the technical term "inerrancy" to applications and meanings beyond its reasonable use value. But in the end it is not a helpful situation for enabling people to read, understand, and live from the Bible. 

   In sum, recognizing the distinctions between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts forces upon Bible interpreters a difficult set of questions. God may be doing quite different things by "saying" quite different things. So, we need to ask not only what the text appears to say in our English translations and what is as a locution apparently said in the linguistic context in which it was originally spoken or inscribed. We also need to consider what illocutionary and perlocutionary acts the writers and divine inspirer were performing in expressing their various locutions. They could often be any number of things. Insofar as the Bible is at once both a fully human and divinely inspired collection of texts, as evangelicals believe, we also need to ask whether the illocutionary acts of the human writer are the same as the illocutionary acts of God in inspiring them.  

   ...The point of all of this is not to complicate scripture reading so much that we all collapse into exegetical despair, but rather to complicate the scripture reading of evangelical biblicists enough to provoke a shift away from their overconfident, simplistic readings of the Bible in problematic ways. It is never enough to argue, "Well, that's just what it says right there in black and white." If we believe that God wants to communicate to us through the mediation of the Bible, we have to ponder the various things God may be doing in, to, and among us through the locutions of scripture.1

1.  Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press; 2011], pp. 157, 159-162 

 

Taking God Down With Us

Commenting on Genesis 3, Farrar Capon writes:

Eve is not just "the woman" to Adam now; he tells the LORD that she's the woman "YOU gave me." Once the blame game has started, you see, it will stoop to anything to avoid a time out --- even if it might give us a respite from battling God's offensive line-up. On and on we've gone, complaining but never letting up. "Why does God allow terrorists to fly planes into buildings?" "What sort of God would let my innocent baby die of leukemia?" "If God is just, why do the wicked prosper?" "Why did he give me a wife who can't tell north from south?" We will take even God himself down with us, if that will assuage our indignation at a deity we ourselves invented.1

1.  Robert Farrar Capon, Genesis The Movie [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2003], p. 305

Misusing and Abusing the Keys of Christ's Kingdom (Matt. 18, sections A & A')

As noted in previous posts, chapter 18 of Matthew's gospel is one of five discourses that divide the entire book, and it also happens to be structured in a neat 5-point chiasm:

A)  18:1-4  Becoming like children in the kingdom of heaven: Humility before brethren who turn-back
    B)  18:5-9  If a brother causes another brother to stumble
        C)  18:10-14  Do not despise the Father's lost sheep
    B')  18:15-22  If a brother sins against another brother
A')  18:23-35  What the kingdom of heaven is like: Forgiveness of brethren who ask for it

Verse one of chapter 18 begins with a seemingly odd statement: 

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 

I mention that this is seemingly odd because of what narrative it immediately follows. In the last narrative section, Jesus had a private discussion with his apostle, Peter, about the importance of not "offending" (Greek: scandalizomen) a Jewish tax collector (the collector of the two-drachma temple tax in 17:22-27). Jesus did not want to cause his Jewish brother--his brother in covenant with Yahweh--to stumble (scandalizomen) and lose respect for Jesus as a Rabbi (teacher) of Israel. Because Jesus wanted to teach Peter how important that lesson was to learn, as one who was just given keys to the kingdom of heaven, to bind and to loosen people on earth (Matt. 16:19), he told Peter to go fish in the nearby lake and grab a coin out of its mouth, miraculously provided to cover the temple tax for both of them: 

"...not to give offense (scandalizomen) to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a stater.1 Take that and give it to them in the place of you and me." (17:27)

It is after this lesson that Jesus' apostles ask him, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 

The apostles were not concerned about abstract theological or eschatological concepts. They were not concerned about who the most powerful, most important, or most influential human being in heaven was going to be. They were concerned about who, on earth among them, would be the greatest ruler of the Church. Jesus had just finished telling them twice that he was about to go to Jerusalem and be delivered into the hands of the chief priests, elders, and scribes to be killed (16:21; 17:22-23), and Matthew tells us that "they were greatly distressed" (17:23). The very next conversation between Jesus and his apostles involves this same concern, and they want to know who the greatest apostle is among Jesus' disciples. They want to know who the greatest apostle is because it would be Jesus' apostles who would rule over the people of God, the new Israel united with him in his death, resurrection, and ascension (Matt. 10:1-7; c.f. Mark 9:33-41; Luke 9:46-50; 22:24-30). 

At this point it's important to notice that what Jesus does next is just as valuable as what he says next. 

Matthew tells us that Jesus called a child to himself and set him before him.  In other words, an Israelite child within earshot was called by Jesus; after that call, the child turned toward Jesus and was willing to sit before him. Then Jesus spoke, saying: "Truly I say to you" --and the you is plural in the following instruction, referring to his apostles who are in the room with him-- "unless you (plural) are turned back and come to be like children, you (plural) will not come into the kingdom of heaven; whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

This was a warning from Jesus to his apostles that even they could fall from grace. This was a warning that even they might stumble (scandalizo) and fall short of entering the kingdom (and as we find out later, Judas would be one of them in the room to actually do so). If they were to rule the new Israel, they were supposed to rule the way Jesus wanted them to; and Jesus wanted them to heed his call and humble themselves like the child did. If they found themselves straying away from him, they need to turn back around and follow him. They were to do this precisely because they represented Jesus, their king, as they went about exercising authority over the Church in his name. They were  not to expect the people of Israel, like the Jewish Temple-tax collector in the previous narrative, to heed Jesus' call if they were not willing to humble themselves and follow Jesus to the end, just as Jesus humbled himself and followed his Father's will to the end. If they were to be shepherds of Israel, they were to emulate their Chief Shepherd, Jesus. 

Although this comes from the next section of the discourse, Jesus' following comments should not be overlooked either. Immediately after section "A" Jesus says: 

"and whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble (scandalizo), it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (18:5-6)

This echoes something Jesus told his disciples in one of his previous discourses. In chapter ten, when speaking of his coming in judgment upon that generation of rebellious Israelites (10:16-23), Jesus said that "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me" (10:4). The word for "sent" in 10:4 is, literally, apostled. The Father commissioned Jesus to be His apostle, sending him into the midst of Israel, and so Jesus commissioned twelve disciples to be his apostles in the midst of Israel too. Jesus sent them into the midst of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing to rescue his perishing sheep. Jesus sent them to preach and teach that the last days of the old covenant were upon them, and that they needed to follow him if they were to be saved; they needed to put their trust in Jesus and the word of the ones he sent in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 18, Jesus is reminding his disciples again about how serious this responsibility is. It is so serious that if they don't humble themselves and come to be like children before Jesus, even they won't enter the kingdom of heaven. (And as I mentioned a moment ago, Judas was one of the apostles who would fall away prior to entering.) 

As noted above, this entire discourse between Jesus and his apostles is unified. Units "A" and "A'" mirror each other in their emphasis upon the kingdom of heaven (18:1, 23). Between these units we find a discussion about causing fellow Israelite brothers to stumble (scandalizo) in their walk back toward (and with) Jesus. In between these sections we learn why it was important for the apostles to not be a stumbling-block before other brethren, and also what kinds of ways they could behave if they were to confront another Jewish brethren that remained stumbling blocks (scandalizomen) before others. (Throughout the book of Acts, the enemies of the Christians are not Gentiles; they're Jews who don't accept the claims of Jesus and his apostles about his lordship. Imagine how difficult it would have been to minister to Jewish brethren caught in the tension between the faith they were raised their whole lives to believe, i.e. temple-centered Judaism, and the message of the apostles about Jesus-centered Christianity.) In the center of all five sections (seen above) we find the Father's love for His people; we find the very heart of the Father's will in sending His Son into the midst of Israel. We also find the heart of Jesus, who wants his apostles to become like "sons" of their Heavenly Father too. 

In the corresponding section to "A" (18:23-35, section "A'") Jesus provides a parable about a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. This, of course, is a parable about the will of the Father in sending his Son into the midst of Israel to represent him, and the slaves are likened unto Jesus' apostles and their treatment of the people within the King's realm. The "King" visits his people, and the "Lord" goes to collect debt appropriately. After pronouncing judgment against him, the slave begs his Lord for mercy and promises to pay what he owes. Because the slave pleads with him and promises to pay off his debt, the Lord then has compassion upon him, releases him from the pronounced judgment, and forgives him. Mentioning these things is not accidental. It is intentionally illustrative of how Jesus approached his apostles. He came to them. He pronounced judgment upon them, saying "Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" They believed, repented, and followed him; and he showed compassion upon them, absolved them, and forgave them. This was to be the way they ruled the new Israel. This was to be their reminder in their time of trial, when they found fellow Israelites causing others to stumble and fall on their way into the kingdom, on their walk with Jesus, after hearing his call. They were to forgive their "offensive" Israelite brothers in the same way. They could pronounce judgment justly even as their Lord did, but if their brethren were to plead with them, they were to forgive. Even if their brother was to sin against them seventy times, they were to forgive that many times. The reason for this overflowing, abundant amount of forgiveness was, of course, because the people of Israel were living in a terminal generation. God's judgment upon them was at hand (Matt 3:7-12). They were the ones who received "little ones" into the fold of God to receive Christ, and in the receiving of them they were supposed to forgive from the heart too, not just superficially, because that too is what would show the heart of their Father in heaven: that every one of His sheep is worth saving.

These instructions were originally to Jesus' apostles, but they apply to all other apostles of Christ's Church as well. When God calls people to Himself, and then commissions some of them to represent Him and rule over His sheep, that exercise of authority is supposed to be accompanied with humility; and not just any definition of humility will do. Humility, in this case, must be defined by the illustration laid out by Jesus. They must come to be like children before Jesus. They must not be be a stumbling-block among other brothers and they must confront their brothers when they are causing others to stumble too. Even when sinned against, they must show great mercy, absolve those who repent, and forgive as many times as their brothers seek forgiveness. They are the ones who are called by Christ to bind and loosen on earth, and so they are the ones who must hold the keys to Christ's kingdom faithfully.  

Matthew 18 is not a set of "laws" on how to deal with all kinds of conflict among all kinds of Christians. It was never supposed to be viewed that way. It was never supposed to illustrate what absolutely must be done procedurally in order for all perceived "offenses" among all Christian brethren to be resolved. Such over-arching generalizations are preposterous. In its original historical context, chapter 18 was a set of instructions for apostles regarding the way they handled Jewish opposition to Christ's message and Jewish converts who were stumbling (or causing others to stumble) in their faith. By extension, the "procedures" of Matthew 18 only apply to directly to Jesus' apostles and their apostles, but certainly not everybody in the Church. As a private discussion between Jesus and his apostles, those instructions pertained to their responsibility as judges of Christ's Church (which is why there is a repeated reference to "two or three witnesses" and another mention of "binding and loosening" exactly like Jesus' commission to Peter in 16:19; c.f. 18:18). 

Matthew 18 was a set of examples and warnings to the appointed rulers of Christ's Church, examples and warnings about misusing and abusing the keys He gave them. And the first keys He gave them were compassion, absolution, and forgiveness. The officers of Christ's Church would do well in using them first still, instead of shirking responsibility or throwing down the gauntlet on laymen and laywomen. 

1.  A stater is a silver coin worth four drachmas.

Praying with filthy hands

St. Chrysostom offers some fascinating insights about Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 15:

Let us learn then what are the things that defile the man; let us learn, and let us flee them. For even in the church we see such a custom prevailing amongst the generality, and men giving diligence to come in clean garments, and to have their hands washed; but how to present a clean soul to God, they make no account.  

And this I say, not forbidding them to wash hands or mouth; but willing men so to wash is meet, not with water only, but instead of water, with all virtues. For the filth of the mouth is evil speaking, blasphemy, reviling, angry words... If then thou art conscious to thyself of uttering none of them, neither of being defiled with this filth, draw near with confidence.  

...For tell me, hadst thou dung on thy hands, and mire, wouldest thou indeed venture to pray? By no means. And yet this were no hurt; but that is ruin. How then art thou reverential in the different things, but in the forbidden remiss? 

What then? should we not pray? saith one.  

We should indeed, but not while defiled, and having upon us mire of that sort. 'What then, if I have been overtaken?' saith one. Cleanse thyself. 'How, and in what way?' Weep, groan, give alms, apologize to him that is affronted, reconcile him to thyself hereby, wipe clean thy tongue, lest thou provoke God more grievously. 

...Having thus adorned ourselves, let us come to our King, and fall at His knees, not with the body only, but also with the mind. Let us consider whom we are approaching, and on whose behalf, and what we would accomplish. We are drawing nigh unto God, whom the seraphim behold and turn away their faces, not bearing His brightness; at sight of whom the earth trembles. We draw nigh unto God, "who dwelleth in the light, which no man can approach unto." And we draw nigh unto Him for deliverance from hell, for remission of sins, for escape from those intolerable punishments, for attaining to the Heavens, and to the good things that are there. Let us, I say, fall down before Him both in body and in mind, that He may raise us up when we are down; let us converse with all gentleness and meekness.1 

1.  St. Chrysostom, Ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Volume 10 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publsihers Inc., 1995 reprint], pp. 319-20

Thanks, Bunyan.

Selfish salvation sees the gospel primarily as a means of satisfying that individual's desires and prayers. It has little to no sense that the gospel is a kingdom of self-denial or really even contains others, and it certainly doesn't "seek first the kingdom of God" (Matt 6:33). Salvation is all about me, me, me. My needs. My heart. My purpose. My prayers. My goals. My personal sins. My place in heaven. It's an exhausting and redundant autobiography. And yet, selfish salvation is the most common expression of Christian faith in our time. Thanks, Bunyan.1

1.  Douglas Jones, Dismissing Jesus: How We Evade The Way Of The Cross [Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013] p. 116

Breaking tradition by breaking bread (Matt. 14:14-16:12)

Photo by Nicholas Nichols

As noted in a previous post, chapters fourteen through seventeen of Matthew's Gospel talk a lot about bread. 

In 14:14-15:20, Jesus is followed by a great crowd (πολὺν ὄχλον) to a great lake to feed a great amount of people with, presumably, great tasting bread (5,000+). Jesus then gets in "the boat" (ἀναβάντων εἰς τὸ πλοῖον), crosses the lake, and is immediately confronted by Jewish authorities who had been asking, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread" (Matt. 15:2, ESV). (Although most English translations don't include the word "bread," including the ESV, the word is actually there in the Greek text: ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν.) 

A lot of bread was being broken, and so was a lot of Pharisaical tradition.

In the next section (15:21-28) Jesus withdraws to Tyre and Sidon---a distinctively non-Jewish area---and is confronted by a Canaanite woman of great faith. Her faith is, in fact, greater than the Jewish authorities of the previous section. Her faith in Yahweh is so great that she gets excited about bread crumbs. While 5,000 Jews are being stuffed with loaves of bread, this Canaanite woman is satisfied with crumbs from her master's table. Immediately we can see the great contrast that Matthew intended his audience to see. The contrast is between a Canaanite's persistent acceptance of bread crumbs and the Pharisees persistent rejection of entire loaves of bread. The contrast is between a Canaanite's allegiance to the God of Israel--the God of the Bible--and the Pharisee's allegiance to that God as well. While the Pharisees prepare to attack Jesus over washing their hands before eating bread, a Canaanite sees the value of every speck of bread that her master allows to fall on dirty ground.

The Pharisees and scribes were looking for a fight. The Canaanite woman was looking for the Lord, her savior.

This episode is followed by a similar series of events (15:29-16:12) that just occurred, only with a slight twist of emphasis. After Jesus' trip to Tyre and Sidon, Jesus is followed by another great crowd (πολλοὶ ὄχλοι) to the same great lake to feed another great amount of people with, presumably, more great tasting bread (4,000+). The twist this time around is that Jesus is not feeding Jews; instead he seems to be feeding Gentiles. (This may take a few moments to explain, so I'll comment about this shortly.) Afterward Jesus, again, gets into "the boat" (π ἐνέβη εἰς τὸ πλοῖον), crosses the lake, and is immediately confronted by Jewish authorities. Jesus then privately speaks to his disciples, warning them about the "leaven" of the Pharisees and the bread (ἄρτον) they've been feeding the children of Israel. This is neither coincidence, nor is it contrived history; it is a real life series of encounters between Jesus and his enemies. Like the prophets Elijah and Elisha before him, Jesus is gathering together a new school of disciples and preparing the way for another exodus from the land, as the land grows in its apostasy and becomes riper for judgment.

The shocking twist in the midst of this narrative section is Jesus' departure into Tyre & Sidon and his subsequent following of Gentile disciples. As I mentioned a moment ago, this needs more explaining. 

Notice carefully all of the narrative details recorded by Matthew. With the first feeding, Jesus multiplies five loaves. With the second feeding Jesus multiplies seven loaves. In total, that’s twelve loaves, just like the twelve loaves of God’s presence required by Law in the Tabernacle. Jesus was preparing a table of bread in the midst of his enemies and gathering together the people of God on both sides of the sea—the Jews of Galilee (5,000) and the Gentiles of the Decapolis (4,000)—to feast on and with the bread of life. This act of mission in feeding the hungry Gentiles even foreshadows the Eucharistic meal on the night of his betrayal. In 15:36, Jesus gives thanks to God, breaks the bread, and hands it to his disciples, who then in turn distributes the bread to the remaining crowds. The only other time in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus breaks bread and gives thanks is on the night of his betrayal (26:26-29). 

Still not convinced? Consider the following as well.

Throughout Scripture, the numbers five and twelve are associated with Israel, and here it is seen with the feeding of the 5,000. The numbers four and seven are associated with the world and with Gentiles throughout Scripture, and here it is seen with the feeding of 4,000. Also, with the feeding of the 4,000, we find something that is not found among the crowd of 5,000. Just before Jesus multiplies the 4,000 loaves of bread (15:31), Matthew says these new crowds “glorified the God of Israel,” which implies that previously they had not been glorifying the God of Israel because this God was Israel’s, not theirs. This makes perfect sense if these newly acquired crowds are Gentiles. As an additional note to confirm this fact, Mark’s account of this feeding (of 4,000) takes place in “the Decapolis,” east of the Sea of Galilee, which was a well-known Gentile territory.1 

How much more evidence do we need to acknowledge this distinction? 

I'll take one more stab at it, and I'll stick within the larger narrative of Matthew's Gospel too. All throughout Matthew's gospel he uses keywords, all of which are repeated in ways that link previously illustrated events in the Gospel. We find this again in this section. Jesus “sits down” (ἀνακλίνω) to eat bread with the children of Israel (the 5,000 of Matt. 14:19), and the last time this word for “sitting” is used in Matthew’s gospel was with Jesus’ conversation with the Gentile Centurion (8:11-12), saying: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table (ἀνακλίνω) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness.” The “sons of the kingdom” at that time were Israelites. However, as we find out later on in Matt. 14, the Israelites who followed Jesus and ate bread with him (the 5,000) are distinct from those “sons” who would be thrown into the outer darkness mentioned in 8:11-12. The "sons" who remain in the Kingdom are those who eat bread with Jesus and his apostles. Only the "sons" who reject table fellowship with Jesus would be cast out. Those Jews who maintained table fellowship with Jesus and His disciples would be constituted part of the new Israel in Christ, and would be included with the Gentiles who would come from east and west to “sit” with the Patriarchs in the Kingdom.

This message of Matthew's gospel has implications for the Christian Church today. For example, with whom does Jesus break bread today? Or, perhaps another way of expressing the same concern is, with whom do Christians break bread today? Do Presbyterian Christians break bread with Lutherans today? If Jesus welcomes them to his table, they should be willing, because it's the Lord's Table spread before them, not a uniquely Presbyterian table or a Lutheran one. Do Baptists break bread with Roman Catholics, or Pentecostals with Episcopalians? Even though Jesus invites them all to his table, through baptism, some of them still come like the Pharisees with freshly washed hands holding a confrontational axe--always ready for a fight; others come persistently and humbly, satisfied even when they only find crumbs on the floor. 

Which of these characterizes the attitude and perception of your church? 

Which of these characterizes your fellowship with the baptized Body of Christ?

Jesus broke tradition by breaking bread, blessing it, giving thanks, and distributing it to great crowds that followed him--crowds of Jews and Gentiles. Christians of all denominations would be wise in breaking their own Pharisaical traditions too, in order to recline at table with Jesus. Even if bread crumbs are all that's left over for some who seek after Jesus, such would be infinitely better than the outcome of those who are filled with the leaven of Pharisees.

1.  I want to extend my thankfulness to John Barach for pointing these details out to me. For those who may be interested, Pastor Barach has a treasure trove of other biblical insights on his blog: http://barach.us

Iconic Polarization

...The trouble with sharp, polarizing moments is that they become iconic. Like martyrdoms ancient and modern, and indeed like civil wars, they generate loyalties and counter loyalties: you must now take such-and-such a line, because otherwise you're a traitor.

-- N. T. Wright, Surprised By Scripture [New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2014], p. 5 

Lesslie Newbigin: Contrasted Attitudes of Christendom

Within Christendom one is familiar with two contrasted attitudes: on the one hand there is the attitude, typical of a national Church, which accepts a certain responsibility for the whole life of the community, but fails to make it clear that the Church is a separate community marked off from the world in order to save the world; on the other hand, and in opposition to this, there is the attitude of the gathered community -- the body which is very conscious of being called out from the world, and from a merely nominal Christianity, but which yet can wash its hands completely of any responsibility for those of its members who fail to fulfill its conditions for membership.1 

1.  Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church [Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998], p. 9