Podcast #2: Scripture As Art

Well friends, the podcast a friend and I started recording recently is up and can be accessed here. Don't forget to check out the first one as well.

In this episode, Josh and I discuss worship gatherings, the role of art (namely images) in worship gatherings, the nature of scripture, the Ten Commandments and more. Check it out and join the conversation by posting a comment.

The Blue Parakeet: A Much Needed Lesson on Reading the Bible

Scot McKnight has written a new book due out in November called The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. I read an advance copy this week, and let me say this: I can't say it is Scot's best book, but it is definitely the best one that I've read.

The title of the book is a metaphor based on an actual experience that Scot had while bird-watching in his back yard. A "Blue Parakeet" is, in my own words, something that is outside one's bandwidth, outside his or her paradigm or worldview. To be specific, Scot says that there are certain biblical passages that many of us miss because they don't fit within our theological systems. Most of us either ignore them completely ("I never knew THAT was in the Bible") or we dismiss them for another reason ("that verse REALLY means..."). Scot argues that in order to be good students of scripture and faithful readers of the text, we need to examine and deal with the "Blue Parakeet" passages. This is the metaphor that drives the book.

This is such a needed indictment! How many of us claim to purely and objectively read the Bible (yeah right!), when in reality there are entire streams of faith that are clearly addressed in scripture that we do not pay attention to because they are outside of our theological spectrum? On one occasion several years ago, a colleague of mine was asked how a bigger church in our area could do so well while ignoring a certain practice that "our church" stressed. His response was "I guess they just think they can ignore that part of the Bible." It hit me like a ton of bricks. I wanted to shout "We all do that! We all ignore parts! We are just as guilty as they are!" And that is the point, isn't it? We all have blind spots in our theology. Scot's book does a great job of making us see this.

The book starts off by Scot explaining his faith background and spiritual upbringing, followed by the story behind the title (chapters 1 and 2, which serve as introductions). Both are great. He says, "I began to see that Christians read the Bible differently and I began to see that no one group seemed to get it all right." (pg 18). Next, Scot begins to unpack how Christians read the Bible, starting with the wrong ways (inkblot method, puzzle method etc.). He then moves to explaining what the Bible is (a wiki-story). This section, where he is explaining what the Bible is and is not, in my opinion, is the best part of the book. Scot is drawing on his experience of working with college students and diagnosing the inappropriate reading habits of those who read the Bible. As he says, "We need twenty-first-century Christians living out the biblical gospel in twenty-first-century ways" (pg 28).

From here, he moves on to sections titled "Listening: What Do I Do With the Bible?" and "Discerning: How Do I Benefit From the Bible?". Here Scot lays out his method for reading, interpreting, and relating to both God and the Bible. "The biblical way is the ongoing adoption of the past and adaptation to new conditions and to do this in a way that is consistent with and faithful to the Bible" (pg 29), he says. That would be, in its simplest form, Scot method: adopt and adapt. He continues later, saying, "We dare not ignore what God has said to the church through the ages...nor dare we fossilize past interpretations into traditionalism" (pg 34). The highlight for me in these sections was chapter 10 titled "Finding the Pattern of Discernment," and, specifically pages 131-144 where Scot gives a number of examples of putting the interpretation into practice, including circumcision, tongues, and divorce.

Scot finishes the book with five chapters of practical application, using the example of women in ministry as way to demonstrate how to appropriately interpret scripture. It is helpful to have this practical example at the end, with significant space alloted to it, even if you have already dealt with and come to terms with the issue he is addressing.

The Blue Parakeet is definitely one to put on your must read list. Whether you know it or not, you have blind spots, and we could all use a friendly diagnosis from Dr. Scot. But as you read, remember that all of our reading and studying is worthless if it does not lead us closer to God and help us live more like Jesus. As Scot says, "Any reading and any interpretation that does not lead to good works, both as the practical application and as the behavioral result, aborts what the Bible is designed to produce" (pg 111).

Teacher Forced to Resign For Questioning

Think Christian has reported on an interesting story about a High School Bible Teacher at NorthPoint Christian school, Kent Dobson, who hosted a show on the Discovery channel that questioned some elements of the Bible.

Dobson, the 31-year-old son of retired Calvary Church pastor Ed Dobson, resigned his post as Bible teacher at NorthPointe Christian High School last week after the school board questioned his role in the March 16 special, “Jesus: The Missing History.”
On the hourlong program, Dobson questioned biblical scholars on possible contradictions between the Gospels and the historical evidence of Jesus’ life. The questions included:

Was Bethlehem Jesus’ birthplace?
Was Jesus a carpenter or a stone mason?
Was Jesus’ eviction of money changers from the temple a political or religious move?
Is there any truth in the Gnostic gospels?
In the program, which is not scheduled for rebroadcast, Dobson does not definitively answer the questions or take a position. He interviews biblical scholars who present evidence that contradicts the Bible.

Here are some excerpts of the program:



The result was a flood of letters/emails from the parents of students at the school calling for action to be taken. The result was a board hearing, and pressure to resign. In the emails was included this little gem:

We understand that this was done with unbelievers and that parts of this were edited.

The part that actually concerns me that as a Christian the Bible was questioned. The Bible is never to be questioned!

Why as a Christian would one place himself in this type of situation where we would actually be questioning the Bible. (Boldness added, but the exclamation point was original)

Sure, we should never question the Bible. In fact, we should never question anything! We should just accept everything we hear as truth and never investigate anything!

Come on. I'm exaggerating to make a point. This really saddens me. Isn't the educational experience supposed to be less about indoctrination and more about competing ideas and viewpoints? Shouldn't we trust high schoolers to think and wrestle with evidence, ideas, and claims? Isn't all truth God's truth?

Suffice it to say, I completely disagree with this decision and think it runs contrary to education, in addition to making Christians look like indoctrinators rather than educators (which is largely true, unfortunately). When I was a Christian educator (as a youth pastor in a church), my goal was to get students thinking, wrestling, and questioning. I wanted students to think for themselves, rather than accept what I tell them and regurgitate it. The latter does not produce good citizens, thinkers, or disciples, but simply status quo, toe the line young people. and, I think as we see more people in their 20's leaving the church than ever before, it should be a sign to us that indoctrination is not working.

But, there are some other factors that come into play. Regardless of how right or wrong any of us think this decision is, it is a private Christian school making the call, funded on the dollars of the tuition paying parents. If the school wanted to require all teachers to shave their heads and grow beards to their waists, they could, right? So, they technically did nothing wrong from a legal standpoint.

In addition, Kent Dobson is apparently enough of a sought after Bible Scholar that it shouldn't be hard for him to get another job. But it is still sad. It means he has to leave all of his students and colleagues. It means he probably will have to move. It means he will have this black mark (if you can call it that) on his record for the rest of his life. I wish him the best. (And, incidentally, I think I've met this guy. He looks so familiar! I've been having a deja vu moment since I watched the clip.)

What is your take on this whole situation?

Boyd on OT Violence, Continued.

Greg Boyd is moving right along in his series on violence in the Old Testament. He is to the point where he is offering theories, and then critiquing them. Here is an overview of what he has done so far.

Introduction- Linked Previously

What's at Stake?

[L]et's do our best to explain the depictions of God as violent in the Old Testament and to thereby reconcile them with the revelation of God in Christ. But for God’s sake (literally), don’t leverage your faith in Christ on the outcome of this investigation!

The Violent Strand of the Old Testament and Our Picture of God

[W]hatever else is at stake in the issue of explaining the violent strand of the Old Testament, our picture of God should not be. Fix your spiritual eyes on Jesus (2 Cor. 3:17-4:6; Col 3:5; Heb 12:2), not on the warrior God of the Old Testament.

OT Violence and Christian Behavior

Jesus himself seems quite aware that the attitude towards enemies he commands his followers to embrace is very different from some aspects of the Old Testament. For example, in the Old Testament God twice reigned down fire from heaven in judgment on various individuals and groups. Yet, when John and James wanted to do this same thing in the New Testament, Jesus rebuked them (Lk 9:52-55). It violated the spirit of the Kingdom Jesus came to establish to want God to act the way he did in the Old Testament!...Clearly, the way of the Kingdom Jesus was establishing was very different from the way of Yahweh in the violent strands of the Old Testament.

Could Old Testament Warriors Have Been Mistaken?- View #1

This is how God handles all violence, according to Eller. All war is the result of human estrangement from God, and so in this sense all war is a punishment for rebellion against God. “God doesn’t approve of war,” he says, “but this isn’t to say war is completely outside his plan.” Rather, “war is the punishment brought upon themselves by those who foster and create the kind of situations that lead to war. " Moreover, Eller argues, "it is not that the losing nation is the punished one and the winner merely the punisher. War is always punishment both ways”(79). So, as a regrettable concession, God worked with Israel’s Nimrodian mindset, as he worked with the Nimrodian mindset of others, to accomplish his purposes, as much as possible, in the world. And part of this purpose was to punish the sinful violent-mindedness of both the Israelites and their pagan enemies.

And all the while Yahweh was laying the groundwork for a future revelation of who he really is, what his character is really like and what kind of warfare he has really called us to.

A Defense of Eller's Thesis- Support for View #1

The basic point is that the Bible does not give us the unmediated voice of God. It gives us God’s voice mediated through culturally conditioned human witnesses. In this light, it doesn't seem too outlandish to suppose that certain Old Testament warriors and authors were right when they heard God telling them to fight his battles, but reflected their cultural conditioning when they interpreted this to mean they were to slaughter men, women and children. They expressed a God-inspired truth when they affirmed that God wanted to fight for them and give them the victory. But the way they expressed and applied this truth was culturally conditioned.

A Critique of Eller's Thesis- A Critique of View #1

These episodes of God causing carnage seem no more consistent with the God revealed on Calvary – the God who chooses to be killed rather than to kill – than the episodes of slaughtering that involve human agents. Hence, while Eller's thesis nicely removes the inconsistency between the Old and New Testaments regarding how God wants his people to treat enemies, it doesn't at all help remove the inconsistency regarding their portraits of God.


What do you guys think of Eller's view (view #1)?

Boyd on Violence in the OT

I love the way that Greg Boyd continually explores the difficult topics in the christian life, even when they are wildly unpopular. This is no different.

Greg has started a series of blog posts looking into the horrific violence that we read about in the Old Testament. Concerning the verse where the Psalmist talks about bashing his enemies' babies heads against rocks (Ps 137:8-9), Greg says:

Let's be honest. This passage is barbarically ugly, and we've got to wonder what on earth it's doing in the "inspired Word of God"! How are we to see this passage as "inspired" in light of the fact that Jesus taught us to love and bless our enemies, not hate and curse them? How could the same Lord who taught us to turn the other cheek, never retaliate and never use the sword inspire the Psalmist to gloat over the splattering of infants' heads? If harboring anger and speaking nasty words ("Raca") to another person puts us in danger of hell, as Jesus taught (Matt 5), what kind of danger must the Psalmist be in for harboring this utterly vindictive attitude toward the Babylonians?

He also asks the honest question, "doesn't this depiction of God look more like the God of Osama Bin Laden than the Father of Jesus Christ?"

We have to admit that these are some troubling verses. He has only offered an introduction so far, but in the mean time, I was wondering if you guys felt like offering some responses. What have you heard to explain the violence in the OT? Many bad answers, I'm sure (which I want you to share), but any good ones? Let's have a conversation about this.

Love Your Enemies

Thoughts?

The Case for Conditionalism

I read the book Two Views of Hell recently. In the book two scholars, Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, offer the two most common views of Hell. Fudge makes the case for an increasingly popular view called Conditionalism, which is the belief that humans are not kept alive forever in unending torment, but that there is an end to the existence of the unrighteous. Traditionalism is, you guessed it, more traditional, and is the view that the majority of Christians have held throughout history, that souls live forever, the righteous to everlasting life and the unrighteous to everlasting torture in Hell. After each makes their case, the other critiques the author's view, so the book is a sort of conversation.

What I thought I would do is offer a thumbnail sketch of the arguments for Conditionalism. I'm choosing not to argue for Traditionalism because, frankly, so many hold to this view that the argument for it is probably obvious. Before I begin, though, a few words.

1. Please don't assume that I have signed my name on the dotted line for Conditionalism, or Traditionalism for that matter. I think this is an interesting discussion to have, but don't think I am advocating one view over another or that I'm trying to convert anybody.

2. Realize that I'm offering merely a cursory glance at Conditionalism, which may not even be fair to the view. If this topic interests you, I encourage you to check out some more material on this debate (see Fudge, The Fire That Consumes and Peterson, Hell on Trial).

3. I fully expect this picture of Condtionalism to make some people mad. What I want to know is, why? Why is it that the idea of the unrighteous not burning forever angers some so much? And, is that healthy?

Okay, here we go:

The basic premise is this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

We see verses like this throughout scripture and there is no reason to expect that they should not be taken for their clear, literal meaning. The two destinies as presented by scripture are salvation or destruction, eternal life or eternal death, but nowhere in scripture is it stated that the lost will be forever kept alive to be tormented in Hell.

The King James Bible first uses the term "fire and brimstone" (translated in other versions as "burning sulphur") in Genesis 19:24 when talking about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is referred back to as "'an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly' at the end of time. (2 Peter 2:6)" pg 28.

In addition, "The writers of the Bible use the same verbs to describe the eternal fate of the lost that they use to describe the judgment brought by the great flood. Just as with the flood, the ungodly will 'perish,' 'die,' and 'be destroyed.'" pg 27

The wicked end up "like chaff that the wind blows away" (Psalm 1:4-6), and "Their destiny is destruction" (Phil 3:18). They can anticipate "only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Heb10:26-27) etc.

The idea of humans possessing a soul that lives forever was first advocated by Plato. Fudge argues that it is this non-Christian source from which Christians (from about the time of Augustine) derive the idea that the soul lives forever and cannot be destroyed. But, scripture teaches differently. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Let it be made clear that Fudge does not deny Hell, but merely the idea that the wicked live forever in torment. Hell, according to Fudge, is the final destiny of the wicked where they will be consumed and be no more.

The problematic texts:

Now, there are a few instances that seem to suggest Traditionalism, that have been used by Traditionalists as proof texts for years, but it should be noted that they are in the minority, and if taken to advocate Traditionalism, they stand in opposition to many other scriptures that seem clear. Fudge's argument stands on the basic hermeneutical practice that one cannot take a few exceptions and reinterpret the majority of the verses on the topic to agree with the exceptions. On the contrary, one is to seek to understand the few that seem to be exceptions in light of the vast majority of plain and clear verses.

Isaiah 33:14 asks the question "Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?" Taken out of context, this could advocate for Traditionalism, but looking at the rest of the verse shows that wicked nations "will be burned to ashes" and like "bushes that are cut down and set on fire" (vs 12).

Isaiah 66:24 tells of a worm that will not die and a fire that will not be quenched. Concerning this, Fudge says, "In chapter 66, Isaiah anticipates the same scene [as in Isaiah 37] on a massive scale at the end of time. In this prophetic picture, as in the historical event of Isaiah's day, the righteous view "the dead bodies" of the wicked. They see corpses, not living people. They view destruction, not conscious misery. Discarded corpses are fit only for worms (maggots) and fire--both insatiable agents of disintegration and decomposition." pg 32 (emphasis original)

Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is often used by Traditionalists as proof. Fudges argues that "Even taken literally...the story concerns only the intermediate state of two Jewish men who died while Jesus was still teaching on earth" (pg 40). He also says the story "tell[s] us absolutely nothing about the final destiny of the damned" (pg 41). In addition, to take it literally would require that we believe that the saved and the lost can converse with each other after death, in full view of each other and at close range. Fudge says "Few serious interpreters attempt to take the details of the story literally" (pg 41). This takes us to an area that needs a bit of elaboration. Whether there is an intermediate period of torment, and for how long that would be, and if each person would endure the same length of this period is not of Fudge's concern. You would find Conditionalists who hold each of those views. What the view is centrally concerned with, and what Fudge argues that the Bible is clear on throughout, is that the end is destruction for the wicked, not eternal life in torment.

Matthew 18:8-9 talks about the end of the wicked being thrown into "eternal fire." Fudges states: "Gehenna is the "eternal" fire for two reasons. First, it is not part of the present age but the age to come. It does not belong to time but to eternity. Second, those who go into it suffer everlasting destruction. When the unquenchable fire finally destroys the lost, they will be gone forever." (pg 44)

As Fudge wraps it up, he says, "the notion that the wicked will live forever in inescapable pain contradicts the clear, consistent teaching of scripture from Genesis to Revelation." (pg 80)

Thoughts on this compelling, but no doubt controversial view? In my mind, it seems more convenient to believe in Conditionalism rather than eternal torment (asking would a loving God keep sinners alive forever just to punish them?). But, the convenient view is not always true. Your thoughts?

An American Prayer from Dr. Ben Witherington

If you have not checked out the blog of Ben Witherington, you probably should. His most recent gem is this masterpiece he aptly titles An American's Prayer for the New Year. He also includes movie reviews, book reviews, and ongoing commentary on culture. You know, normal blog stuff. Suffice it to say, his blog is definately worth the regular glance.

Here is his prayer (which connects nicely with our series on Myth...). May we take heed to its message.

Lord God:


I am almighty tired of all that is tawdry and cheap about Christianity in America. I am tired of the chest thumping assumptions about God being on ‘our side’. I weary of those who equate their brand of American politics with the will of God for the world, or worse, those who think being a Christian means I should not be involved IN the great causes of the age or the major decisions made in our land. Lord help us not to mistake apathy for true spirituality, or abstinence for action.


Lord is there not a way to help American Christians understand that they are called to be global Christians, not merely American ones? Is there not a way to help us understand that the true patriots are those who will what is best for all humankind, and not just our kind? Is there not a way to make clear that when Jesus said we must ‘love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us’ he was not kidding? Could we not take to heart the words of your servant John Donne when he said ‘any man’s death diminishes me, for I am a part of mankind. Therefore do not think to ask for whom the bell tolls….’


Lord this is an election year, and there is much fervor and ferment. Doubtless much hangs in the balance in regard to the war in Iraq, our relationship with Pakistan, and many other large matters, and yet we seem much more concerned about our own standard of living, and whether our houses will sell or not. Could we not please get a glimpse of a larger world vision and world view that would help us see that our near total preoccupation with ourselves is a reflection of human sin, of human fallenness, of ‘the heart turned in upon itself’? Could we not realize that real family values amounts to realizing that the worldwide family of faith, the family of Christ is the primary family, not our nuclear families?


Lord I do not understand the blindness I encounter repeatedly in church after church. We rant and rave about sexual sin, and yet ignore racism, sexism, and in general the entire social gospel. Is this because we have reduced sin to the private and personal spheres in our lives? Is this because we have forgotten about the body of Christ and how there are both corporate and national as well as personal sins? Why do we strain over gnats but swallow camels when it comes to sin? Why do we repeatedly put the emphasis in the wrong place?


Lord there is much that is good and generous about the American spirit. Yet so often it is myopic, and amounts to helping ourselves, or our near kin. Lord, I would pray that more Christians in America would take on the challenge of cross cultural missions and let it expand their world view, and reshape their mentality about your human creatures. Forgive us Lord for forgetting and letting the Great Commission become the great Omission as we build bigger barns here in America to house ourselves, or for treating the great Commission as if it were only the job of missionaries.


Lord forgive us for our Biblical illiteracy, and for whittling off the hard edges of Scripture because they rub us the wrong way. Forgive us for our arrogance and ignorance which is always a lethal combination. Forgive us Lord for treating our cultural preferences as if they were Biblical absolutes, and forgive us for perverting your Gospel which is Good News for the poor into empowerment for those who long to be richer, wealthier, scratching the itch of a greedy soul. Lord forgive us our sense of entitlement and for treating you as if you were the great Santa Claus in the sky whose mission in life is to fulfill all our worldly longings and desires.


Lord you have said that not many of us should wish to be teachers of your Word, and yet you have made me one. Lord, it is a heavy responsibility, and yet your yoke is lighter than being in bondage to sin. I hear every day the words ‘to whom more is given, more is required’, and sometimes I fear the reckoning, as I fall short, and am not infrequently wrong about things.


Lord I understand that Christ is the model of true humility, and that it involves knowing both who and whose I am. I know it has nothing to do either with false humility or false pride, nor anything to do with feelings of low self worth or self-denigration. I know I am not God or even an angel, and yet Lord I know I am not nothing either. I know I am created in your image and recreated in Christ for good works.


Help me to not mistake my busy-ness for your business in all respects. Help me not mistake my convictions for your truths in all respects. Help me say more often--- ‘I do not know’. Help me to continue to learn before I teach, to love before I critically evaluate, to praise before I blame, to help before I hinder, to listen before I speak.


Lord in your Mercy, and in the name of the Blessed Trinity, hear my prayer,



BW3

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 4

Below is the second half of the conversation j razz and I had almost a year ago. May we continue to involve ourselves in conversations that stretch us.

_________________________________________

Nick said...

Man, these are becoming some long posts, huh?

I appreciate you clarifying some things. I understand that you were not accusing me of anything, but I also think it's clear that I clarify that we do or don’t do certain things.

Now, for some dialogue/commentary:

I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.

See, this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him. We will have all eternity to praise (not that it isn’t important now), but we can only win people for a certain time. I think that is God's “MO” and Jesus' when he was on earth: that for this season, God desiring that his people come back to him.

I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose. It isn’t asking “what's in it for me?”, because evangelism doesn’t always help out the believer. It would be much more comfortable to make church a social club with nice carpet and not do the work to reach anybody, but that would not be God's will. I agree that scripture is concerned with glorifying God through the son, but the reason seems to be so that "he will draw all men unto him." It goes full circle back to that.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.

We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit...

I agree that the Holy Spirit is involved in salvation (of course). The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful. Why aren't we? We have to answer the pragmatic questions. I don’t mean to be too "business minded", b/c the church is not a business, but the bottom line does count. Souls matter.

To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point

Thanks for bringing this up. I forgot about the rich man and Lazarus. Although it seems clear that the point is to use Lazarus as a foil for the Pharisees and make a point about position on earth vs the afterlife. Although, I will grant you, Jesus does talk about Hell here, though I would argue that it isn’t the point. Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die...

Yeah, this argument is used a lot. My response, like I said, is that I think love is a better motivator than fear. For example, if we did a study and told 100 rafters that there was a waterfall and 26 of them listened, then told the next 100 to pull over and that there were many great things to see on the shore and 54 of them responded, we would be fools not to use the 2nd option. I think that is a closer comparison to the point I am making. I believe in urgency and all that, but I think the truth is that the second way works better; that love is a better motivator. Please forgive the analogy, because I know it isn’t exact, it isn’t that black and white, and it seems to suggest that we are keeping the truth from them. That is not what I am saying (analogies are only so good, you know?). I am simply saying that I am making my point on practicality. The argument against this is that those converted based on love are not real converts, or that they fall away when trouble hits, but I have seen enough examples of people being saved this way to be convinced that that theory is simply not true.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well. I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that on the final day there will be 2 kinds of people: those that say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done." People can choose to be their own king and go to hell or to put Jesus as Lord and go to heaven. It is their choice.

Again, I appreciate the dialogue. It is great to have a disagreement where there is mutual respect. Thanks, j razz.

_______________________________________

j razz said...

...this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him.

I think that this is one of our biggest humps to cross. Your foundational element is that God’s primary goal is to attempt to restore as much of creation before His Son returns for the purpose of right fellowship. My foundational element is that God seeks His glory and all of creation’s purpose is to glorify God.

The view I hold is that God cannot and will not fail at anything He seeks to accomplish (He is sovereign). If God supplied a means (Christ’s redemptive work on the cross) then He will see it through to its rightful end (Redeeming a people for Himself). Christ did not die for all to have the opportunity to make it to Heaven (at least I can’t find that in scripture), Christ died for a real, concrete purpose- to save that which was lost (MT. 18.11); He gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1.4); He gave His life as a ransom for many (MT. 20.28); He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people…(Titus 2.14); He loved the church and gave Himself for it… (He even goes on here to explain why He gave Himself for it.)(Eph. 5.25-27). So, if Christ died to fulfill a specific purpose- that being to redeem us, then He either accomplished that goal of redemption on the Cross or He did not. If He didn’t then He failed and would cease to be God and we both would be living and believing a lie. I think you would say that you don’t agree with my premise. I think you would say that Christ died so that all and any may come to Him. (Correct me if I am wrong). I would say that scripture makes it very clear that He died specifically for those that the Father has given Him. If He died for a possibility what do we do with the scripture that says He died for a purpose? Either 1. He died for all of the sins of all people or 2. He died for some of the sins of all people, or 3. He died for all of the sins of some people. If the first, why are people going to Hell? His death and atoning work was effective and wrought redemption; there is power in the blood. If the second, no one would be worthy of being with the Lord as we would still have sin that is un-atoned for. If the third, then Christ’s work on the cross can be said to have merit as it was a means to an end as it brought about the end goal that was established in scripture as mentioned above; redeeming a people unto Himself.

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose.

To respond to this, j razz included a lengthy quote from J.I. Packer that you can find here. I have removed it for space purposes.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.


I believe that God is completely sovereign over every thing that is, was and will be. In addition to that, I also believe that man is completely responsible for every action they commit, every thought they think and every word they say. I would say that these two things appear as contradictory statements, but I would say that appearances are deceiving. For more on this read The So-Called Antinomy Between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man.

The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful.

What do we do with great Christian men like William Carey who did not see one single convert for years into his ministry to India and all the while his wife and children fell ill and some died? What do we do with men like Jeremiah or Jonas? What do we do with men like Paul who went to the market place and few believed? Unless the Spirit gives them a regenerated heart and ears to hear, the gospel message falls on deaf ears. I agree, if no one comes to Christ, then something is wrong, but our time and our wisdom is not the timing of God nor His wisdom. What we think to be right and good is folly to God.

Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I do not think that we should avoid it either. I also do not think that we should over emphasize it either. That was really the point I was making. It has its place and if we leave it out, then we neglect the whole of the message. We need not build up one side to the detriment of the other else we find ourselves being partial and witholding truth.


As for the waterfall argument, my main point is not that I would rather be told about Hell than Heaven, it is that I would rather be told both that Christianity has much to offer as well as Hell is a real place where those who do not believe in Christ will be placed after the judgment. I followed up that paragraph with that statement as I would rather be told the truth than only part of the truth.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well.

If God institutes a certain method that is to bring about a salvific response and that response hinges on the Holy Spirit first regenerating a heart to be able to respond to the gospel message, I would conclude that God is demonstrating His authority over salvation. I would further conclude that man is responsible for what he does with the gospel message whether or not he has a heart to believe as the Gospel is a command, not an option. If the man has no desire to obey the command as he is given over to his own wickedness, he is held accountable for his disobedience. What separates that man from you or me? God’s intervening grace in our lives in that He chose to regenerate our hearts and give us ears to hear the truth of the gospel so that we would respond in obedience to the gospel call. God is not impotent; He does not let man dictate their future to Him. In the same way, God lets no sin go unpunished. If men disobey His gospel command, they stand judged already and will be placed in their appropriate place. If men obey the gospel command, they too will be placed in their rightful place based solely on the merits of Christ.

Nick again, it has been a pleasure. If only all my dialogues could be of this caliber. Have a great day buddy and just for the record, I do give 2 craps :)

j razz

________________________________________

Nick said...

thanks for the comments, j razz. I must say though, I am diducting two points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

I think we have hit a wall. Let me recap what I think we have found that our differences are, and see if you agree.

You hold to a sort of divine election belief, a "no man will be saved unless God chooses him" idea.

vs

I hold to a "whosoever will come, can come" idea.

This is an age old debate the books have literally been written about. Their is honestly biblical evidence for both. I doudt you and I will solve this issue.


You feel that God's purpose is his own glory.

vs

I feel that God's purpose is fellowship with his creation, which can only happen if his creation is being brought back to him, which is the primary purpose of the church.

This is fairly major, but I think what is interesting is how we see each belief playing itself out in practice. That is what originally got us discussing this topic.

You have stated that God actively send those who dont follow him to Hell.

vs

Hell was not meant for people, but for the Devil and his angels, but people choose to go there when they make themselves king over God.

Im not sure how much of this is just semantics, but, again, i think it plays itself out in our practice. Beliefs matter, because they effect us in a myriad of ways.

Does this sound fair, j razz? I am of course better at articulating my side than yours, but I tried to do my best. If you think I'm close, than we can agree to disagree, and walk away from this with a better understanding of the other person's beliefs.

Thanks again, friend.

Nick
___________________________________________


j razz said...

I am diducting to points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

Wow! I am humbled that you think I write like J.I. Packer. You have more than made my weekend! About deducting two points- if you must! He just says it so much better than I.

I will just clarify my position where I think it is necessary and then sign off :)

Divine election vs. Whosoever will...

I would say it is less a vs and more of a both and. Whosoever will come will... because God deemed it so.

I doubt you and I will solve this issue.

Come on Nick, let's give it that old college try :)

God's Glory vs God seeking fellowship with creation

Yes.

God sends people to Hell vs Hell is for Satan and his angels

Yes. I would also add to this that if God never intended Hell to be for the majority of mankind, He would not send them there- he would send them where they belong b/c He is God and He is Sovereign and He never settles b/c He has the means not to.

Nick, this really has been a pleasure and a great example of as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. I think that God has been glorified through this and hopefully whoever stumbles upon this will see how Christians can disagree and still be Christians and still be brothers in Christ.

You have been a gentleman in this and I have gained respect for you.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

j razz

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 3

As we continue to look at how respectful, honest, and fair conversation can be used to help us learn and grow as disciples of Christ, but with those who share our faith and those who do not, I wanted to revisit a post I did back in Febuary and the conversation that flowed from it. My conversation partner was j razz, a dear brother in Christ and a fellow blogger. The first half of our conversation is posted below.

As an intro, here is the basic content of the post. I was thinking about preaching and what my philosophies are on the topic, and wrote the following article.

____________________________________

1. Preach From the Bible

I had a professor that once told my class to always read, quote, and paraphrase the Bible in sermons as much as possible. "That way, when you are done, you know you said something inspired." Well said, Dr. Nunnally. I don't believe every sermon (or even most sermons) needs to be verse by verse expository preaching, but scripture should always be used. How can we get by with not using it?

2. Keep it Practical

My currect senior pastor holds to the idea that sermons should all be very practical. I agree. In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand. They don't want hear about why we should boil goats in their mother's milk, but things like parenting, conflict, influencing culture, God's plan for marriage etc. they tend to care about because it speaks to their lives. There is a place for the esoteric studies of fairly insignificant bits of scripture, but that is not a Sunday morning. Another word for this would be relevance. People need something that is going to pertain to their lives.

3. Use Humor/Entertainment

Erwin McManus was once challenged by someone who accused his church of trying too hard to entertain people. His response, in my own words, was basically that to entertain someone was simply keeping their attention. Some people are entertained by hymns, or organ music, or expository preaching, or drama, or humor etc. I think he makes a great point. We are all trying to communicate a timeless message in new, creative ways. Whatever form that communication takes should depend on the audience. In LiveWire Student Ministries we use lots of humor, video, movement etc., because young people (actually, all people) learn in multi-sensory ways. This is not diluting the message, but rather, becoming better at communicating it. Jesus used stories, object lessons, humor etc. in his teaching, so why are we afraid to?

I must say though, that this, like all things, can easily go too far. Making jokes at a time that needs to be serious can lose a crownd quickly. Also, when the goal becomes entertainment, rather than communicating the message, it has gone too far.

4. Be Semi-Normal

Weirdness is not a spiritual gift; neither is it admirable. Some preachers seem to get off on using "insider language" or "preacher voices." Is there anything more annoying? This is the whole problem with the Christian Subculture that has been created. By pulling back and secluding, we have lost the right and the opportunity to speak into the culture. I am going to a conference in 2 weeks where Donald Miller will be giving a talk called "How to Share the Gospel Without Weirding People Out." I think that is a great point.

Now, I say semi-normal, because it is not entirely normal to lay down one's life for a dead criminal, or to simulate eating his body and drinking his blood or lots of other things for that matter. There is a level of percieved weirdness that all outsiders might have for Christians that involve core doctrines that just come with the territorry. But people need a real person. They are very good at spotting the phony.

5. Talk about Jesus

I tend to think that no matter what topic a person is preaching on, they should involve Jesus in the process. It shouldn't be hard, for he is all over the Bible, even in the Old Testament. It seems that the "model" from the book of Acts is just to tell about Jesus and what he did. That seemed to work pretty well. Therefore, we would do well to involve Jesus in our message every time, and to tell the story of the cross regularly.

There it is. It is certainly not perfect nor is it comprehensive, but I have my thoughts down. Feel free to critique, disagree, and call me a heretic if you must, but may we never give up the journey of becoming better communicators of the most important message in the world.

____________________________________________
Here is the conversation that followed from this post.

j razz said...

In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand.

Nick,

Not picking I promise.

With this statement, why would it be beneficial to dumb down the message for a handful, when you have a faithful majority (or at least those who would claim to be Christians) that needs to move on from the milk to the meat as the author of Hebrews would say?

Would the corporate worship time not be better suited for building up and encouraging the believer with the truths of scripture no matter how hard? The whole of scripture was given to us so that we may learn from it and the examples within. The non-believers only need to hear the gospel to be saved. The believer needs to hear the whole counsel of God to grow in sanctification. If your Sunday morning services are to be geared towards those who would claim no allegiance to Christ, why then use anything other than the gospel- the good news? After all, scripture does state that the gospel is the only means under Heaven by which a man can be saved.
It really seems out of place that preaching to the non-believers would be the primary focus of a Sunday morning service. If it is though, when do the saints gather together and fellowship fulfill Col. 3.16? I will stop there.

Just some questions for you Nick. I hope you have a great weekend buddy.

j razz

_______________________________________


Nick said...

Thanks for the input, J razz.

I dont mean "to dumb it down", I just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about. We can preach a sermon that is applicable to a person who isn't "in" yet, as well as move the "faithful majority" as you say, "from milk to meat." We really can dp both. Our Senior pastor just finished a series on conflict...something everyone deals with and could get better at dealing with, but also talked about Christ and how he has called us to handle it and what our responsibility is etc. I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one for the other.

That being said, we do have other times of more intensive Bible study and small group time where christians have the opportunity to dig deeper.

The other thing is that we need to avoid insider language, like christianity is a club. I dont think you were referring to that here, though.

Just to clarify, preaching to the non-believers is NOT the primary focus of a Sunday morning service, but we do make ourselves aware that some will be present (we hope and pray).

________________________________________

j razz said...

I dont mean to dumb it down, i just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about.

I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement whereas I would say that the Bible is very applicable and sermons should seek to be faithful to the text. 1. I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom. 2. The original authors who were inspired by God wrote with purpose when composing the New and Old Testaments. Their message meant something then and it means something now. I would say it is the preacher’s responsibility to show what the text meant, what it means and how it is relevant today. After all, the prophets and apostles were not writing for the joy of it. 3. Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it. If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

Preaching is not barred by scripture from using any other method than this, but I would dare say that examples are bountiful where this method (expositing/applying) is used over and over again in scripture. If we look at the New Testament’s Pauline epistles and letters, we mainly see instruction/explanation given to the local church dealing with doctrinal issues that leads into application. Paul addresses his readers from truth’s sturdy foundation and then he builds a structure of ethics/application. I think this structure can be found in most any of Paul’s writings, and if he is any example by which we are to learn from, then where is the irrelevance? Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John. It would seem that if the authors of scripture inspired by the Author of scripture wrote the way they did, it was because that is how God deemed it to be so. If we can learn anything from examples, I think it would be their example we would learn most from as I do not know any other men that have been inspired by God to perform the task of building up the church at its very foundation.

I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one (preaching to unbelievers) for the other(preaching to believers).

Here again, I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement as I would agree with the statement on face-value but disagree with some methods of carrying it out. I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer. This is also relevant to a believer as we need to be reminded of the gospel regularly. When Paul spoke in the market place to the Greeks, he told them of Christ in a way that they would understand. He went out to them and spoke to them where they were at. But, when Paul wrote letters to the local churches of Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, etc., he did not make provisions in his letters that spoke to the unbelievers in their mist. He spoke to the church and the local church at that.

Now, if we have unbelievers among us when we worship and hopefully we do, they should be presented with the truth of the gospel message. That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you. Christ has already conquered Satan, Sin, and Death and it is just a matter of time before He comes to claim what is rightfully His. It would seem that if a preacher was faithful to the text- preached through its original meaning, its meaning to today’s believers and its application, one application would always be that if you do not repent and believe and obey Christ, then Hell awaits you. This is how I see the prophets worked: God is passing judgment, if you repent that judgment will pass over you, if you do not then you will face that judgment. That is how I see the Gospel message as working: Jesus has done what Adam could not do. Because of this, those who believe on Him for salvation will escape judgment while those who do not will be forced to face judgment for all eternity.

Now, with all that being said, the Bible does not state that a church service must consist of _____. I would be a legalist if I said it did. The Bible does not give us commands as to what is to be done or said, but again, the Bible does give us examples which we can follow. Now whether you follow those examples or not are up to you.

Good conversation Nick, I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to dialogue with me. I hope you have a great week. By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

____________________________________________

Nick said...

Thanks again J razz. This is a fun dialogue.

I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom

I agree, and notice that my #1 point was to use scripture. Context is equally important.

Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it

I think this is easy to say, and hard to disagree with, but reality is that it is difficult. Communicating this timeless message in a way that is relevant to an ever changing culture is hard. Is scripture relevant? Yes. But we are separated by 2000 years of time and culture (at best), so the job becomes increasingly difficult to communicate the message in a relevant way. I could pick a number of scriptures to speak on, for example, "Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart. Communicating that verse in a way he can understand is hard, and I think we would agree that it is not very relevant or effective. That is an extreme example, of course, but some churches are not far from that, and they never see any new people and they don’t grow as a result. Again, I think we need to consider our effectiveness in every step of this, but never to compromise.

If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong. We are actually very effective (I think) at moving seekers from the outside, to repentance and entrance to the family of God, to deep discipleship and growth, to ministry/leadership etc. Not all of that happens on Sunday morning, though. We have many other programs that help facilitate this growth. But to say we keep people at a certain entry level is inaccurate.


I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect. We share the Gospel regularly, nearly every Sunday. It seems like this argument is assuming a lot of things to be true that are not. Willow Creek gets a lot of flack for supposedly "watering down" the Gospel by critics who have never been to a service there. The truth is that they give a clearer and better communicated presentation of the Gospel that the majority of churches out there. You are right, the gospel is relevant to both the believer and the non-believer. That is one of the reasons we share it so often (that and the whole obedience thing).

That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you.

This is true, but we choose to take a bit of a different route. We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up. For one, we don’t see Jesus using Hell as a scare tactic to get people to follow him (the one exception is the virgins/talents/sheep and the goats stories, but it seems he was talking to his disciples, per 24:3, where his disciples come to him privately). Rather, he used love, but did not compromise his demands. We also see the disciples in the book of Acts focusing on what Jesus had done, not on Hell. The prophets in the OT are a bit of a different animal. I would argue that they were talking primarily to Jews, who were very religious already, and were just not living out what they knew, which is perhaps different than speaking to unbelievers. Nonetheless, it seems that the early church would be a better comparison to our churches today than the days of the prophets.

However, the reason I choose to share the love message before the Hell message is because I think love is a better motivator than fear. Fear comes close to coercion, whereas love is an invitation. Again, this is an opinion, and a bit off topic, but worth mentioning. This is not to say we don’t believe in Hell or that we don’t talk about it, only that we don’t use it in evangelism.

By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

Use it well and often my friend.

Thanks again J razz. I appreciate you challenging me like this. I think it helps us both.

Have a great week and I look forward to your response.

__________________________________________

j razz said...

"Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart.

It is funny that you should mention this as I wrote a paper on it back in University: Deuteronomy 23.12-13. I did go through and find application to modern day man… with that being said, I understand your point but I still think we can find intended relevance.

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

I see your point in what you are saying and I see where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree with the premise. I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son, and that salvation is a welcomed byproduct of Him seeking to glorify Himself. I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.
As it relates to them not being around long, I would respond by saying that God has made it clear He is sovereign. In light of that, if someone is to be saved they will be saved. Now, what I am not saying is that we can just all go about and never share the gospel because God will save who He wills. By no means! I am saying that God has given man a tool (the gospel) and a command (share the gospel). If we are disobedient and do not do what is commanded of us, we are in sin. If we do not use the means He ordained for us to share with man, the glory of God, through the gospel, then we sin. My point here is that we are dead in our sin… not sick, dead. We need life and without the Holy Spirit giving us a regenerated heart, we can never believe in something we don’t have the heart for. God must grant us ears to hear and a heart to believe before we can ever do either of those. We are natural enemies of God as Paul would say. If we are faithful to present the truth to them (which is our responsibility) then the Holy Spirit will not fail in His duties to bring glory to God. No means, as a means, is considered as good in itself, but only as conducible to a farther end; it is repugnant to the nature of means, as such, to be considered as good in themselves. – John Owen We cannot bring anyone to salvation. We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the unregenerate that gives them ears to hear and a regenerated heart that willingly accepts the hard truth of the gospel- we are evil and twisted and in need of a perfect redeemer who died and was buried and was raised on the third day.
So, to summarize all that (I know, I am long winded) I would say that a God-centered gospel message is more biblically aligned than a person-centered gospel message (For supporting information on the above see The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen with the introductory essay by J. I. Packer) and a person-centered gospel message tends to lean itself towards a thought of “what does this have in it for me?”

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong.

I was not insinuating that at all- just making things clear for others who may stumble upon your blog at some point in the future.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect.

Nope. Again, just making things clear for others. I do not know your church nor do I know what is taught or not taught. It would be arrogant of me to presume certain things as facts when in reality I know nothing of the matter. So, don’t take these comments as attacks against you or your church as I have nothing to attack- we are brothers in Christ and I hope that this dialogue shows how brothers in Christ are to carry on talks concerning differences. I hope that you know my character a little better than that just from reading some of my posts on Tim’s blog.

We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up.

Luke 16.14 & f.f. especially the last five verses of the chapter: "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' “But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Here Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and giving them all they need to see the truth of who He is. To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point (vs.14). I don’t think that Hell has to be used as a scare tactic, but it is reality and truth told plainly is far better than part of the story. I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die when I tumble over it than having someone to tell me to please pull over to the side of the river as there are many great things to see along the shore. What is more, I would rather be told both if both are true. If I am in eminent danger, I want to know if the Holy Spirit has enabled me to hear that message and respond to it. If not, I will find myself crashing over the waterfall doomed to my own destruction because I chose not to listen and obey. You can sink thousands of dollars into extravagant Sunday morning services and not a one will be effective unless the Holy Spirit has regenerated hearts and opened ears and the gospel is preached.

I would say that speaking the truth concerning Hell is far from a scare tactic, but it is love to the nth degree. What is more loving, to tell someone here is the blatant truth of the matter or to only focus on one aspect of it? God is both loving and wrathful. God is both merciful and judging. With building up certain aspects of God’s character to the detriment of others, we find we have a different God than the God of the Bible. God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there. He sends them there because they did not believe in His Son and did not glorify Him by believing in the gospel message. Therefore, if we only tell of the good things of believing in Christ, we do it injustice and do not portray the whole of the gospel. (just for clarification Nick, this is not a critique of your theology in that I think you are doing God an injustice by believing only in parts of His character).

Again, it has been good to dialogue with you. Have a good evening buddy. I hope you take this in the manner in which I wrote it, but in the case that you don’t, I don’t give 2 craps :)

j razz

_________________________________________

The rest of the conversation is posted in the next post to save space and to break it up a bit.

A New Take on The Good Samaritan

Let me say it for the first time publicly: I love Greg Boyd. I subscribed to his podcast a few weeks ago and have found him to be one of the best "preachers" I have ever heard. He is not shy to talk about controversial, important issues and take a Christ-like stance on them. But, he does it in a way that doesn't seem preachy, but comes across as both humble and passionate.

I was listening to a message today on The Good Samaritan. Boyd gives the best message I have ever heard on this great parable. I had thought about this for years, and had struggled to come up with a good modern day version that adequately captures the offense that would have been felt by the hearers in regards to their cultural realities and biases upon hearing this parable. I think Greg has done this. Here is his modern version:

There is this girl walking down the street, and she gets attacked by a bunch of muggers and gets raped and beat up and left for dead. Billy Graham happens to be walking by, but he passes by on the other side of the road. And then Mother Theresa comes, but she passes by on the other side of the road. But then there is this transvestite who is just coming back from one of his transvestite parties and he's singing and dancing down the road and he sees this young girl almost dead and beat up. So he picks her up and carries her to a hospital, and she doesn't have health insurances so he tells the hospital "I'll foot the whole bill." And he sacrifices everything he was doing and everything he owns to help out this young girl. Go, now, and be like the transvestite and not like Billy Graham or Mother Theresa.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: If you would like to listen to the entire sermon, which I hignly reccomend, you can find it here. It is the one called Surprised by the Outcast given on 11/11.

Two Common Bible Myths

Here are what I think are the two most pervasive myths when it comes to the Bible. These were first clarified for me in college. I had exposed them as myths for years, but balked a bit when I saw the first one below printed in a book recently, which led me to reexamine. Turns out, they are in fact myths.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Myth: When Jesus said this, he was referring to an actual place in Jerusalem, a gate that was very narrow, where the camel would have to take all of the stuff off its back and crawl through.

Man, I have heard this one for years. I guess it is so pervasive because it is a bit exciting to find out a cultural issue that sheds light on something Jesus said. Unfortunately, it's false.

This is the classic case of interpreting the Bible based on your current surroundings, rather than on the culture and time in which it was written. This myth dates back to 11th century France, when a monk came up with this explanation. The problem is, the gates in the 1st century in this area were big. They did not begin to build elaborate gates with small entrances until centuries later, which would have been observed by the French monk.

Myth: When the High Priest would go into the Most Holy Place in the Temple, he would have a rope tied around his waist, in case he was impure and was killed, they could pull his body out.

This, too, is a myth that dates back to Medieval times. Here is what Dr. Wave Nunnally has to say on this issue:

The earliest text in which it appears is the Zohar, a medieval mystical work that is the basis of Kabbalah. It appears in Emor section 34 (Yom Kippor), line 251, “Rabbi Yitzchak said, ‘A chain was tied to the feet of the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he dies there they will take him out, since it is forbidden to enter there. How did they know whether he was alive or not? By a crimson colored strap. If its color did not turn white, it was known at that time that the priest was there in sin. And if he came out in peace, it was known and recognized by the crimson strap that turned white. Then there was joy among the higher and lower beings. If not, they were all in sorrow and all knew that their prayer was not accepted.’” Note the modern embellishments of this text that is itself a literary fiction: rope versus chain, ankle or waist versus “feet”, no longer hearing the bells tinkle versus the changing of the color of the crimson strap.

No modern speaker accepts this narrative as true in whole, as you can clearly see in some of the weird elements that are included. (All above references come from Dr. Wave Nunnally, New Testament scholar and Jewish Backgrounds expert).

Until next time, may we eternally seek the truth!

Support for the Virgin Birth

Since it is the Christmas season, it seems appropriate to tackle a question/challenge that was brought up to me a few weeks ago.

There has been some question in the past about the New Testament's attestation of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is said that Matthew translated Isaiah 7:14, he translated the Hebrew word for "young girl" (almah)more explicitly as virgin (parthenos, in Greek), when the Old Testament text was not saying that.

This challenge is true, at least on the surface. So, does it follow that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation from the Old Testament and that there was no virgin birth?

Here are a few points in evidence for the validity of the virgin birth, by Dr. Wave Nunnally:

1. The Hebrew word almah can definitely have the nuance of “virgin” because young women were expected to be virgins and because in order to be a “sign”, the young woman MUST be a virgin. Otherwise, it would be a matter of nature taking its normal course and no one would recognize the birth as a sign of anything.

2. The Septuagint or LXX, that is, the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, definitely understood it this way because it uses the more specific Greek term parthenos. It is important at this point in the discussion that it be pointed out that the LXX was a PRE-CHRISTIAN, JEWISH production untainted by NT usage. It is also important that there are no textual variants that would suggest that the original reading was something more generic like gunae, which later Christian scribes were able to subvert. If this was the case, there would be manuscripts that didn’t undergo this subversion that would attest to a more “original” generic reading.

3. When Matthew quotes Isa. 7:14 in 1:23, almost all scholars are agreed that he is NOT quoting from the Septuagint. Rather, this is one of the 12 OT quotes within Matthew that scholars have isolated as coming from the “Testamonia” source, which consists of 12 usually messianically-oriented prophetic texts for which a fresh Greek translation is offered in the text of Matthew. This is significant because now we have not one (the LXX) but TWO sets of ancient authors looking at the same Isaiah text and translating it with parthenos because of the context.

4. Luke makes reference to the same textual tradition in 1:27 and 34. In the first passage, Luke uses the term parthenos to describe Mary’s status; in the second passage, Mary describes herself by the same term. Whether this phenomenon can be described as two independent sources can be debated, but that it is a separate tradition from the Matthean tradition is not a subject for debate. This material is classic “L” (content found only in Luke) material not shared by Matthew or the other two gospel writers for that matter. Thus, it is legitimate to conclude that Luke is yet a third ancient textual witness to the interpretation of almah as parthenos.

5. Whether Matthew is “correct” in his interpretation and application of Isaiah or not is a completely separate issue with respect to the question of the historicity of his report of the virginal conception. Therefore, it is logically acceptable to reject Matthew’s interpretation and application of Isaiah 7:14 and still accept the historicity of his assertion that Mary conceived while still a virgin. All Matthew is doing here is asserting that Mary’s virginal conception took place in such a way that it fulfilled prophecy. Interestingly, Luke makes the same historical assertion WITHOUT reference to Isaiah 7:14, which confirms the feasibility of accepting the historicity of the account without the support of the OT passage.

6. The absence of sexual union is explicit in passages such as Matt. 1:18, 20, 23, 25; Luke 1:27 (x2), 34-35; implicit in 2:5; 3:38. So the case for the virgin birth is certainly made apart from this one "mistranslation."

In conclusion, it is generally accepted that Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, and was interested in making the case that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. We see this thread throughout Matthew. This is certainly the purpose for referencing the passage in Isaiah, not to "prove the virgin birth." Thus, it is difficult to discredit the virgin birth based on this reference. In addition, Matthew, a first century Palestinian Jew who spoke several languages, including Hebrew and Greek, certainly has a better grasp on how the language was used in the first century than we do. It is a bit arrogant to assume that we can tell Matthew a thing or two about his native tongue.

Some Pros and Cons of the Emergent Movement

We are getting to the point where the Emergent Church movement is no longer a new trend. It has been around long enough now that it has established itself, in some sense, in the Church universe. There is still the sense that when we use the term Emergent that people don't know what we are talking about, because people mean different things when they use the term. Mark Driscoll has this great soundbite where he separates out four streams within the Emergent Church movement. The characteristics I am listing below tend to be in place at the core of the whole group that Driscoll talks about, though perhaps not each specific congregation that would deem themselves Emergent.

That being said, I was very positive on the Emergent Church when I first learned about it a few years ago (and still am), but I hesitated to write much about it because it was still working out its kinks. At this point, I think I am ready to offer a look at some of the best things about the movement as well as some pitfalls. Let's start with the good stuff; those things that, from my perspective, the EC does very well. It is important to note that the EC is a reaction against the church as it existed in the 80's and 90's, the church the EC leaders would have grown up with. That is to say that they are reacting against a largely ineffective, dying, and out of touch institution. Most of their pros (and cons) are reactions against this form of doing church from the past 20 years. Here we go.


Pros

1. Relevance

The Emergent churches tend to greatly value relevance and they do a very good job of being relevant. In many cases the churches emerged from culture, so it was born relevant, if you will. The days of organs, pews, shirt/tie etc. are over for the emergents, because that is not what the target group is about. In addition, impractical messages on the theological significance of the Nephilim of Genesis 6 are scarce, whereas messages on social justice, love, peace, and losing a loved one are in, because those are the issues we see and hear about every day. Every part of the Emergent church is much more relevant than than you might find in other churches.

2. Conversational rather than Dogmatic

The tone of the church in the past was "We have the truth, you should (must!) listen to us." The tone in the Emergent Movement is "Let's have a conversation about death. You tell me what you think and I will tell you what I think and we can ask each other questions and stretch one another with our differing perspectives." Why the different approach? Because people felt abused and brow beaten by the church for so long. It is the old adage that "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" put into practice. The Emergents put a good deal of stock into listening to science, the media, the world, in order to learn and gain credibility. Emergents earn the right to be heard, and it is working very well.

3. Emphasis on Community

In the past fifty years, the church has seen salvation and spiritual growth as a very individual thing. The Bible, on the other hand, was written to communities. God created us to live and experience life (the highs and lows, the good and bad)in community. The EC has latched onto this and places a high value on community. The church has been bad at this in the last 50 years, but the EC is living this out in a very real, alive way. Emergent authors such as Joseph Myers and others have written profoundly on this topic.

4. The use of Story

The church of the past did its spiritual formation around certain propositional truths. "Here is the list of things you need to believe. Now change your beliefs to these and go live them." The EC communicates far differently, primarily in the form of stories. That is not to say that they don't communicate truth. Much is communicated when telling a story. The vast majority of the Bible, and specifically, the teachings of Jesus, is story. There is not one bullet point in scripture, as Donald Miller says. The EC has done a great job of effectively using this method.

5. Emphasis on Social Justice

The Evangelical church of the past has been pretty bad at making an impact on the world in the avenue of social justice, and they have certainly paid a price for it not the least of which is the perception to the world. The EC, on the other hand, takes God's call on His people throughout Scripture to care for the poor and to fight for justice for the weak seriously. The Emergent Churches have been the pioneers in the last few years on making social justice issues a big deal again, and the rest of the churches out there would do the right thing to join them.

Cons

Remember, most of what makes up the EC characteristically is a reaction to mainline denominationalism in the last 20 years. These following "cons", in my opinion, are areas where they have reacted too far and over corrected. That does not mean that the swing in the polar opposite direction is correct, but usually that a balance of the two extremes is needed.

1. Culture Supersedes Truth

One of the dangerous pitfalls of the Emergent Movement is that at times it seems that culture can take a precedent over God's truth. This certainly isn't true in all churches that label themselves this way or in all areas, but it can be true. In the attempt to be culturally relevant, they sometimes take it too far and find themselves in error. This is a question that some Emergent Churches still need to answer: when it comes down to matters of doctrine (i.e truth), will Scripture or culture dictate what is right and wrong?

2. Potentially Misleading as to Motives

This is a weird one, because it is a bit contradictory within the movement. What I mean by this is that in some cases Emergent ministries have some sort of a front, be it a coffee shop, bowling alley, whatever, that is there face to the community. Behind the scenes, however, are Christians looking to do ministry without telling you so up front. This seems to contradict the EC's value of authenticity, which I could have put above in the pros. I would say that this is certainly the minority of cases but again, in the attempt to be relevant, the EC can become misleading.

3. Can be Anti-Authority

Lastly, in a reaction against the horrific failure of leaders in the past 20 years in men like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, not to mention the countless others who didn't make such lofty headlines, the EC has really downplayed leadership and authority. It has come to the point in some places to seem as if there is no real , or at least no real power in the authority that exists. Again, this is extreme, and in my humble opinion, error. God established authority and did so for very good reasons. Certainly the failures of the past can be taken into account and accountability can be in place, but to over react and make authority almost meaningless is equally as bad.

There you have it: my amateur thoughts and critiques of a movement that I am certainly no expert on. Disagree as much as you wish. If you feel led to say "Hey! I'm in the Emergent Movement and my church isn't like that at all!" it is okay. I am not pointing to a specific body, and I think we could agree that there is enough variety within the EC that one does not represent them all.

I have a lot of respect for the Emergent Church Movement and see it to be a great thing that God is doing. Despite some flaws, it is certainly a net gain and is reaching a whole sector of people for the Kingdom that the church of 10 years ago never would have.

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 3: Jesus the Copycat

In our third look at the online documentary called Zeitgeist where we are responding to the allegations that are brought up in the first third of the movie about Jesus and religion, we will look at the most vicious and serious attacks the the documentary brings against Christianity. Remember, you can watch the movie by clicking here. Also, check in with parts 1 and 2 of this discussion below. Here we go.

The documentary claims that Jesus is a copycat of a number of other religious figures whose stories are remarkably similar, either Horus, or Mithra, or whoever (there are hundreds). In fact, when you list the essential events of Horus' life, who dates to 3000 BC, 3000 years before Jesus, they are very similar to the essential events in Jesus' life. For example:

Horus was

Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.

He is of royal decent

At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30

He had 12 disciples

He did many miracles, including walking on water

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected

He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others

Do these things sound familiar? Yes, they all existed in the life of Jesus. And, if these elements really were in a common astrological, Egyptian mythical religion that predates Christianity by thousands of years, that would be very suspect. This part of the video troubled me more than any other. So, I went to work to find the truth.

The first step was to talk to a friend who is smarter than me. Here is my question and the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally, professor of Theology from Evangel University:

What is your response to the mentioning of, for instance, the Egyptian god Horus, who dates to 3000 BC, and has very much in common with the birth, life and death of Christ? In fact, there seem to be many examples of this; figures whose stories are very similar to that of Jesus, some of which seem to be older. Your thoughts?

As you learned here, there were many dying and rising god myths in the ancient world. In his NT intro, Robert Gundry dismisses any true parallels with the Jesus event by noting that these stories are all about events that supposedly happened in eons past, for which there was no eyewitness testimony. Also, their deaths were not true, but rather ethereal, quasi-deaths. Finally, their dying and rising were actually ways to personify seasons and other forces in nature. None of these things can be said of the death of Jesus, so the "parallels" are more or less over-generalizations that don't really work out when the details are analyzed.

Interesting response. However, it was too general. I wanted specific evidence of the claims being false. So, I kept going, and there seem to be several issues in play.

My first clue to this should have been the first quote that flashes up on the screen of the documentary: "They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." The author of that quote was listed as G. Massey, or Gerald Massey. Massey was an English poet and (supposedly self taught) Egyptologist who was a somewhat famous conspiracy theorist and Christ-myther (this is a label you will probably see again, there seem to be a whole fraternity of these guys, including the makers of Zeitgeist). If you did a quick search of his name on amazon, you would find many of the books he wrote, but the 2 most notable are The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. Also notice that though he has been dead for like 100 years, that these books have been re-released recently (because religious conspiracies are so huge right now!).

This is all just background to the point I want to make. Massey is the source used by Acharya S, a female author of the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. She is the source of most Christ-mythers today and the primary source for this documentary, as cited on the sources page. So, if you are following the trail, Zeitgeist uses Acharya S, Acharya S uses Massey. Massey never sites a source. Aparantly Massey made all this up, because we find no evidence of this before him. The lies are passed on and on.

All of these sources and all of these Christ-mythers make the same mistake. As I debunked on this website a few years ago, you have probably heard of the similarities often cited between Abraham Lincoln and JFK. Upon further scrutiny, however, it is pretty easily seen that the similarities they claim that exist are either not spectacular, distortions of the truth, or flat out lies. This is exactly what has happened with the list given on Zeitgeist.

This is a great list, looking at the similarities between Horus and Jesus, as cited by Massey and taken from the Egyptian Book of The Dead (which, by the way, you can find at any Barnes and Noble. But, be warned, it is very weird). Using the website, it is not hard to debunk the list that is above, like so.

Horus was

Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

He is of royal decent

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendant of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized.

He had 12 disciples

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers.

He did many miracles, including walking on water

He did perform miracles, but he did not walk on water.

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

Upon further scrutiny, it is clear that these supposed similarities are not that at all. Few are true, but those are very general (miracles, royal decent). Some are distortions, and others are flat out lies. If you click the link that compares Jesus and Horus, it gives more comparisons and goes deeper in the explanations. Here is the root site, that goes into more depth about this issue and also tackles the comparisons between Jesus and dozens of other god myths, in which you find the same issues at play. The site is a fantastic source. I think a quick look at it will pretty much settle the Jesus/copycat issue. It has for me.


While I was in the process of researching this and writing about it, I stumbled across Lee Strobel's new book called The Case for the Real Jesus, which is a response to the attacks that have come against Jesus in the past few years through sources like The Da Vinci Code and The Jesus Family Tomb. One of the issues he discusses in the book is the idea that "christian beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions." Strobel addresses this issue very well. He interviews two experts about this issue and they weigh in on the validity of the argument. Perhaps the most revealing quote in this section is by Dr. Michael Licona who states "I know of no highly respected scholar today who suggests that these vague fables are parallels to the resurrection of Jesus. We only hear this claim from the hyper-skeptical community on the Internet and in popular books that are marketed to people who lack the background to analyze the facts critically." The Case for the Real Jesus p163. To be clear, this is exactly what we are dealing with: the highly skeptical community on the Internet as well as a production marketed to the laymen who typically don't have the background to argue with the claims.

If this has not convinced you, grab Strobel's book and read his chapter on this issue. It is very worth the $22 as it deals with a number of other scholarly issues that Christianity is facing today.

One more resource I should mention briefly is this page on the Always Be Ready website. It is simply a list of scholarly quotes that respond to many of the issues in Zeitgeist. It is worth a quick read, and the site as a whole is a good resource to bookmark as well.

This has been a very long post. Perhaps I should have made it two parts. Nonetheless, it is good info. Next time we will look at the documentary's attack of Josephus. Stay tuned!

-NF