Ancient Hebrew Stone Tablet Affirms Resurrection

Here’s an interesting piece. In the midst of discussing scripture and issues about the Messiah with my Jewish neighbours there comes this announcement about the nature of the Messiah – that is actually already eight years old. Inconvenient truths travel slowly. It comes from a number of reports in newspapers (Haaretz, Israel Today and The New York Times, The French Press and the Jewish Journal) and was reported in Joel Rosenberg’s blog. 

Ancient Discovery Challenges Tradition


At an event marking the 60th anniversary of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Israel Museum unveiled an ancient stone tablet that had been unearthed in the region of Jordon, eight years previously. The tablet, likely dated shortly before the birth of Jesus over 2000 years ago, contains 87 partial lines of ancient Hebrew, which may well provide authentic evidence substantial enough, because of its pre-Christian reference for suffering, death and resurrection, to challenge traditional Judaism as it relates to Jesus Christ and Christianity. Although the tablet requires more scrutiny, initial extensive examinations are proving to be very encouraging. Messianic believer and New York Times best-selling author Joel Rosenberg, widely acclaimed for his prophetic insight, said that the discovery “strongly suggests that religious Jews of the day were expecting the coming of a Messiah who would suffer, die, and be resurrected three days later. Most Rabbis and other Jewish scholars have long argued that the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah was a “Christian” invention, not part of long-established Jewish thought or Biblical teaching. But [this news] has a lot of [Jewish] people asking: Are Jews really supposed to believe their Messiah will actually die and rise again, and was this really Orthodox religious thinking before the time of Jesus?”

The tablet’s text will help to validate, according to leading Israeli Bible scholar, Israel Knohl, that: “a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus….[the tablet proves that] what happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and His followers based on an earlier messiah story.” Notably, Mr. Knohl’s lecture at the anniversary event is entitled: “The Gabriel Revelation and the Birth of Christianity.”

Tsvi Sadan, an Israeli theologian and also a Messianic believer said, “One can agree or disagree with Knohl’s conclusion, but the persistence of one of the leading Old Testament scholars in Israel today [Israel Knohl] to prove that the death of the Messiah for Israel’s sake is not a Christian innovation is commendable in light of the tenuous relationship between the Jewish people and Jesus.”

Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Addendum)

Someone has questioned my assumptions about the role of stewards in the first century CE in the post I just published.  I make the assumption that the steward in the parable can actually be be commended or held responsible for good behaviour because although he was actually using someone else’s money he still had the authority to make decisions about rents and profits. Therefore an explanation is in order concerning how much authority the steward actually had as he took charge of the rich man's accounts.  I believe that he did have the ability and responsibility to act – and with almost complete autonomy. It would have been the steward who set the rents and collected the debts – or actually overcharged the tenants in his desire to make his master wealthy and increase his master’s honor (and therefore his own). That situation was common in first century well-to-do households. A quote from another source (a real book and a first century expert) might help my position here.

I have been reading Ritva William’s book Stewards, Prophets and Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA 2006). It has provided a wealth of insight on the patriarchy and patronage system in place in the first century. A few quotes should make the situation with the steward and his master’s money more clear. First she quotes from another author:

"In the "limited good" world of the first century Mediterranean ... seeking "more" was morally wrong ... Because the pie was "limited" and already all distributed, an increase in the share of one person automatically meant a loss for someone else. Honorable people, therefore, did not try to get more and those who did were automatically considered thieves. Noblemen [like the rich man] avoided such accusations of getting rich at the expense of others by having their affairs handled by slaves [the steward]. Such behavior was condoned in slaves since slaves were without honor anyway.”
Malina, Bruce and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 2003 p.124

Williams continues with these comments:

"Here we see one reason why the majority of private and public oikonomoi [the Greek word for steward] were of servile origin. Slaves were not only regarded by their elite masters as lacking the appropriate sensibilities for honorable activities, they were also actually encouraged to develop the money-grubbing attitudes and behaviors that their masters despised. Slaves and lower status persons (clients [or tenants]) were socialized to believe that their “well-being was completely wrapped up in the well-being and benevolence of the patron. Slaves and freedmen who had been put in charge of their patron’s wealth were proud [and honored] when they were able to increase it.  (p.58)

The unjust steward actually does have significant control over the financial debts owed by the tenants. Others have also asserted this as well - but for different reasons.  I believe Williams gets it right when she asserts that the first century stewards were more like "high roller" profit maximizers [fund managers?] as opposed to hesitant, obsequious "go-fers" [domestic staff like a butler or cleaning lady].

Parable of the Shrewd Manager

We discussed this parable during church this past Sunday. It’s a tough one to understand and we didn’t quite resolve it so we decided to give it another week and take a fresh look at it next Sunday. It seemed like a good way to get back to the blogging. I’ve gone around this parable a few times and looked at it from different angles but I think I figured out a very good interpretation (if I do say so myself).

Unfortunately I didn't have it figured out last Sunday and had made a number of wrong assumptions.  For the Hills gang I apologize.

If you want to look at a couple of other guys who took a stab at it you can check them out here or here or here - not that I necessarily agree with any of them.

The Passage

Luke 16:1-15
The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
1Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions.  2So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.'
3"The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg— 4I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.'
5"So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6" 'Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,' he replied. 
 "The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'
7"Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?' 
 " 'A thousand bushels of wheat,' he replied. 
 "He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'
8"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
10"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?
13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

The Characters

The Rich Man
– he is the householder, the landowner, the patriarch, the patron, the “paterfamilias”
The Steward
– the household manager (oikonomos), a slave elevated to a position of responsibility in the rich man’s household – in a less wealthy home the wife would normally have been the household (and therefore financial) manager
– this steward is called unjust ("dishonest" in the NIV but more properly translated "unrighteous")

- it was the job of the steward to make money for his master - so it was often the steward who determined rents, collected them, reinvested them, etc.
The Tenants/Debtors
- they owe oil and wheat (in the two examples given) to the householder which means that they could be paying back loans or actually paying rent - it was also likely that they were paying too much rent

The Story

Jesus tells a parable about a rich land-owner, his manager who had complete responsibility for the estate, and certain tenants who owed rent to the land-owner. The land-owner accuses his manager of dissipating or squandering his wealth, and tells him to give an account for his work as a steward in his household. The steward (whose position as a slave was precarious even at the best of times) realizes that he is about to become jobless and homeless, but he’s not prepared to do manual labour or beg, so he hatches a cunning plan. He calls in each of the tenants. (Although only two are specifically listed they are only representative of the many more he went to. The KJV says “every one of his lord’s debtors.”) He takes out each one’s contract, filled out in the tenant’s handwriting and signed by himself. The manager gets each tenant to reduce the amount owed, signs it himself, and feels thoroughly satisfied that although he may have lost his home and his job, he has made some new friends who now owe him substantial favours. He has also made life much easier for these lower income, lower class families. He may actually have extended to them justice.

The Problem

The Parable is difficult to understand.
On the surface it seems like the Rich Man commends his steward for cheating his master out of what he is owed to save his (the steward’s) own skin. And then Jesus commends him for using money (actually someone else’s money) to make friends. It seems that the dishonest (more properly “unrighteous”) steward is being commended for his dishonesty. It becomes even more difficult when Jesus instructs his hearers to use worldly money (actually it’s “unrighteous" mammon the same word "unrighteous" or "unjust" used to describe the steward) to make friends here on earth so that they will have eternal dwelling places. The problem is that it seems like Jesus is telling us to be dishonest and to use someone else’s money to buy our way into heaven. But that is only a problem when we make personal application too quickly without understanding the point of the story.


The Explanation

To make sense of this parable, we need to be able to understand a number of issues. We begin by trying to understand the context in which Jesus is speaking this parable. We have to transport ourselves out of our 21st Century understanding of stewardship and into the first century situation of Jesus hearers.

The main clue to understanding the parable is near the end of the section in verse 14 where it says “The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.” Jesus is speaking the parable to the Pharisees and challenging their lifestyles of power, wealth and influence.

It is important to understand who the steward is and what his job is. The steward’s job was to manage the affairs of the household or the estate of the rich man. This estate included people who worked the land or operated a business under the patronage and protection of the householder (the rich man). Through the rich man’s benevolence (or patronage) the tenants were able to ply their trade and in return they paid him rent (in the form of oil and wheat and other things that they may have produced). The steward was the manager – like Joseph in the book of Genesis - second in command only to the householder himself.  He was the communication hub, the leadership conduit for the entire operation. He conveyed the wishes of the master to the tenants and implemented them. The steward was able to bring blessing and justice to the debtors – even though he was a lowly steward – essentially a slave with an office job – because he had the resources of the master under his control.   It was just as easy for him to direct the resources of the estate to his own selfish ends – which he was accused of doing.

The parable is a stinging indictment of the Pharisees, who could be seen as the rich man in this parable – the ones with power, wealth and influence. They had religious authority, political authority and financial authority. They were in effect the local government and had significant influence in all affairs concerning the Jewish people – and could enforce the law in every area including the death penalty (two examples: the woman caught in adultery and the stoning of Stephen). They loved money and placed heavy burdens on the Jewish people – not only with the keeping of the Law and the religious traditions but also in the area of taxation. The peasants (the tenants) were required to bring the firstfruits, their tithes and offerings, and were required to pay a temple tax. They also were required to bring proper offerings to the temple but since many came from great distances they purchased their offering animals in the temple courts. They were of course required to pay for those offerings with the official temple currency which was only available – for a small fee - through the temple moneychangers.

The Real Explanation

However, the real key to the parable is seeing the Pharisees as the steward – for they were actually God’s stewards (only using God's authority, privilege, influence and wealth). God is the landowner and the people of Israel are the tenants. God is the provider, the landowner, the patron and the Father of the children of Israel. The priests were the go-between, the brokers and stewards of God’s blessings and provisions. They were to exercise godly stewardship – to manage well the responsibilities of God’s household. However they were consistently found not to be faithfully exercising their stewardship.  They wasted the Lord's estate using it for their own selfish desires.  They placed unnecessary burdens on the tenants and had become "unrighteous" the very opposite of what they claimed to be.

Jesus is using this parable to contrast the unrighteous steward (who acts shrewdly or wisely) with the Pharisees (who do not). Their Master (kurios =Lord) has heard that they (the Pharisees) have been squandering His resources and so He calls them to give an account of their stewardship. The steward in the parable acts wisely (shrewdly) and blesses the tenants in order to find favour with them. He is commended by his Master. Jesus says that this unrighteous steward (a child of this age) is wiser than the “sons of light” (a term used to refer to the tribes of Levi, Judah and Benjamin and therefore referred to the priests and rulers). The Pharisees are condemned by Jesus for squandering God's "stuff" - the things that belonged to God - when they should have been good stewards bringing honour to their Master and managing the rest of the household (the tenants, relatives, livestock, land, etc.) well.

In that light the rest of the teaching of Jesus in this passage lines up and makes more sense. The steward is not commended for being dishonest. He is being commended for blessing the tenants and for wisely reducing the burden upon them. The key of the parable is in its comparison (don’t be like an unjust steward – be a good steward! But in comparison to the Pharisees even an unrighteous steward deserves more commendation than they do.)

The Rest of the Parable

The rest of the teaching in the parable works out like this:
Verse 9:  I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
The Jewish priests and rulers (Sanhedrin) should be using their wealth and influence (even though it really belongs to God) to be blessing others (making friends) so that they are able to secure eternal blessings (literally an eternal dwelling place) not just to be comfortable here on earth. The wealth of God is to be used to lavishly bless people not to hoard it to yourselves or to be stored in barns – even if the barn is the temple.  The Jewish rulers needed to reduce the burden placed upon the people. Jesus says this about them in Matthew 23:4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

However, Jesus instructions to the people were:
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30

Another interesting application might be that we need to be reducing the sin burden that other people carry by forgiving them.  This may be what it means when Jesus says to his disciples that as they forgive other's sins they will be forgiven, 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." John 20:21-23

Verses 10-12: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?
This is clear. Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for the fact that they have been unfaithful in their dealings with worldly wealth (the small things) so how can they be expected to administer the true riches of spiritual life and heavenly dwellings? The Pharisees have been unfaithful by demanding such a heavy burden from the people. They have squandered the tithes and offerings (worldly wealth) given by people in worship to God. They "dissipated it like the prodigal son did his inheritance. So how could they possibly effectively communicate the love and grace of the landowner or graciously minister that love to the people? The phrase "property of your own" seems to be a direct reference to the eternal dwellings mentioned in verse 9.

Verse 13: "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
If they were truly serving God the Pharisee stewards would not have placed such a heavy burden upon the tenants (the Gospels call them “the multitude.”) It is impossible for your goal to be to gather up worldly wealth for yourself and to also serve God. The true calling must always take pre-eminence.

Verses 14-15: 14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.
No matter how we might justify it to ourselves, bad stewardship is always seen in heaven. Selfishness and dissipation can not be hidden from God.

The Application

We have become God’s stewards in Jesus. The apostle Paul says that we are stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1). How are we exercising our stewardship? Are we using our worldly wealth (the wealth that comes from God for He supplies all our needs) to bless others? Or are we squandering it or merely storing it up for our own use? This wealth will not make any difference in heaven (we can’t take it with us and we can’t spend it there anyways). It only bears eternal fruit if we use it wisely here while on earth.

How are we stewarding the mysteries of God? Are we being faithful to reveal the Lord's desires and purposes with our stewardship - i.e. those around us - those "under our jurisdiction?" Are we faithfully sharing the abundance of spiritual wealth with those around us - with our family, our neighbours, our co-workers, our household?

We have to recognize the humility of our role as stewards. A steward is a slave with some extra responsibility. We must not think too highly of ourselves. We must remember that all the riches we manage are only in our hands because of the benevolence of the Master. They don't belong to us. We are not more exalted than the tenants - in some cases we may even be of much lower status. 1Corinthians 4:2 states: "Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." Have we been faithful?

There are a number of other ways to make application but that can be up to you.

Let me know what you think.

Born Again ... Again!

I was reading someone's blog where they were talking about the phrase "born again." It causes me to search out the original Scripture reference and reflect on it a bit myself. It's interesting how we forget (or maybe just relegate to the back of our minds) those familiar Scriptures that we think we really know. Sometimes we also think we fully understand the concepts behind the Scriptures as well. We have established in our minds what they mean and never need to examine them again.

Fortunately the Word of God is alive and sharper than any sword and cuts into our complacency again and again. The Word speaks to us on so many levels. We can look at it historically or allegorically or as a fresh word for each day. The Spirit makes it alive for today.

The phrase is mentioned in the third chapter of John where Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."Nicodemus a teacher of the Torah asked him the question and Jesus was a bit surprised that he didn't understand the concept.

I pulled two main concepts out of the passage:

1. Each day is a new beginning.
Every day is a fresh start. God has something new for us every day. Lamentations 3 says:

21 Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope: 22 Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. 23 They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

So we can be born again every morning. Each day has endless possibilities. It has never existed before and awaits us experiencing it. If we live looking to the past it binds us and blinds us.

Our bad past binds us with hurts and false expectations. It traps us in a prison of what used to be. We become afraid of trying something new or of praying big prayers because we think it will turn out the same way it turned out last time.

Our good past blinds us from seeing new possibilities. It makes us expect the same good thing that happened last time and closes our eyes to the surprising and creative ways God may want to do things this time.

Jesus quoted Isaiah 61 when He began His ministry by reminding people that He came to set the prisoner free and open the eyes of the blind. To me that speaks of the endless possibilities of a new day.

2. We need to become like little children.
This is the second concept that I pulled out of that familiar passage. The Kingdom of God is backwards. The greatest shall become the least, the first shall be last, in a fight, turn the other cheek. And to become spiritually mature we need to become like a little child. Get born again, start over, become little, become dependent, helpless and small. Instead we too often want to become know-it-alls and super saints. Start over. Be born again, again. Unless we become like little children …

In Matthew 18 Jesus instructs us to become like little children.

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I think this is why Jesus was surprised Nicodemus didn't understand Him. In our religious systems we sometimes think we need to be serious to be mature. I think God wants us to be playful, to enjoy the Kingdom, to celebrate and rejoice with God. Everything is done already. Let the wind blow even though you don't know where it goes.

Finally I think that Jesus' resurrection is about being born again. He died, was buried and then on the third day became alive again. What joy he must have experienced! "for the joy set before him He endured the cross!" What a fresh new beginning!

Scripture finishes of with a new beginning.

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." 5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

Enjoy the new day!

And in case you didn't notice - I did a new thing - shaved my mustache! (Check out the new profile picture.)

Maintaining Focus

We had a great discussion at our last men’s breakfast. Someone presented the scenario of wanting to be a passionate follower of God, having devotions and prayer in the morning but then falling short in so many ways by the evening. It seems we are stuck in Romans 7 where Paul talks about wanting to do the right thing but not being able to get there.
We want to do well but often the day drags us down;
- or we get frustrated
- or someone rubs us the wrong way
- or temptation has its way with us
- or our prayers are ineffective
Life is just so “daily” sometimes. But why does that happen if we have been praying, and committing our day to God?

We came up with five responses.

1. Vision and Desire
2. Faith
3. Know who I am in Christ
4. Don’t lose heart
5. Walk in community

I'll look at the first one in this post.

1. Vision and Desire
We need to focus on God’s vision for us rather than a legalistic or moralistic approach to our Christian life. Ethics and morals are hard to maintain if they are only being done as a list of correct things to do – especially since morals have become so relativistic in our culture. In the workplace morals are being compromised at the very highest level. In movies, and in almost every sitcom the “conflict” is almost always about selfishness and dishonesty. Someone gets in trouble, lies about it and then needs to face the relational consequences. In the end the lie is justified and life goes on.

It is extremely tough to be honest merely for honesty’s sake (even though sometimes it is the only motivation we can muster). To act with consistently high moral standards we need a vision and a goal – something that gives us (or will give us) joy. We cannot maintain a lifestyle that is moral or obedient or ethical out of blind obligation. It must be motivated by a higher vision and desire. We need to have a reason for our behaviour. The writer of the book of Hebrews says it this way:

Hebrews 12
1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

The three higher motivations expressed here are:
i. witnesses.
There are people who will watch us doing good - cheering us on to do good. We are accountable. This is external motivation and is very powerful if the people cheering you on are those you respect and want to please.
ii. joy.
This is internal motivation. This is “doing it for me.” There is a joy that needs to be envisioned to carry out a difficult task. It may be the joy of accomplishment. It may be the joy of a reward. It may be the joy of knowing that what you believe was right actually worked the way is was supposed to.
iii. Jesus.
We need to focus on the author and perfecter of our faith. We need to consider Him who endured much more opposition. The goal is to follow Him and become like Him.

The apostle Paul puts it this way:

Philippians 3
10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

I will continue the rest of the five points on another post.

My Imaginary Friend - the Problem with "True for You"

I was over at the Off the Map site (and their Church Rater site) the other day where they are having ongoing conversations stimulated by the book Jim and Casper Go To Church. It is interesting and in some ways a beneficial conversation. As Christians we need to always be open to evaluation and correction because it is easy to get off track in our world. The view from an atheist has been helpful in correcting some of the things we take for granted in our sometimes cloistered church world. I made a comment on their blog (some of which is repeated below) which got me thinking a lot about this whole conversation.

A guy in Canada (Drew Marshall) also “copied” the project and attended half a dozen churches in the Toronto area with two “atheists.” Some good comments there as well. I reviewed the book here and also responded to the Canadian version here. Each of those has links to the original works.

My main “critical” comment directed to atheists reviewing church life is one that they have probably heard before and probably have responded to somewhere, sometime. It’s simply this - that as atheists they don’t really “get” the God piece. Maybe it goes without saying and maybe that’s part of the point of the book. But I’m not sure that they really get that deep real experience of those who simply connect to God.

The "certainty" about God that Christians have that drives atheists nuts is the certainty of a real experience and a real conversation with God/Jesus. So spending time interacting with that God in worship and adoration is never wasted or pointless or irrelevant to life. Deep personal interactive worship of God (alone or with a group) is always worth the time and the effort - even if at times it produces no tangible "result." God always deserves to be worshipped and it is the chief end of humans to worship God. However, I do agree with Matt Casper that it certainly doesn’t need all the bells and whistles that some of the churches he visited attach to it.

I mean I stumble in the dark as much as the next guy. I wish I could control or explain more articulately how I interact with God or he with me. But what keeps me coming back to God is this certainty for me of this knowledge that I’ve interacted with the creator of the universe. The fundamental reality of the experience of connecting with God is what makes sense of the world.

The argument about "certainty" can definitely lean towards being quite condescending to those who are firm in their faith. Really, skepticism can be quite "certain" as well. Matt Casper asks us to affirm that faith is empirically unprovable and so by nature uncertain. He says this on their blog:

That’s the nature of belief and faith! It cannot be empirically proven, that’s why it can never be wrong. Faith is, in essence, your personally held belief. Like an opinion, it requires no proof to be true for you.

My goal is to get people of faith to be people of faith. Because when you start calling your faith “right,” then others’ faith must be “wrong.” And that leads to statements like “We’re good, they’re evil.” And that leads to conflict. And conflict leads to an ongoing horrorshow of people of different faiths killing each other (and millions of innocents, too), which simply has to stop.

While I agree that the church has a history of forcible conversions that often resulted in wars and the death of innocents, I take exception to some of the comments he makes because of the unspoken implications. Yes, there are stupid people out there who take wrong actions because of their faith. It doesn't mean their faith is wrong or untrue. Nor does it necessarily make someone else's faith more right or true. He also makes a logic leap from being "right" and "wrong" to being "good" and "evil" (which is a whole other post).

The implication he makes is that what I know to be true is considered only personal truth - which then is not really truth at all - and I really shouldn't take it so seriously. After all I can't risk offending someone else who might actually be wrong. Is there an empirical truth outside of myself? Yes. Can I prove it? No, not with a "scientific" empirical means because it is not necessarily scientific.

When we speak this way, faith then only becomes what I imagine to be true in my head. The implication is that I am out of touch with reality and only imagining it. It becomes "true for me." This is a polite (or perhaps politically correct) way of saying I'm crazy.

Because the only options available to me are:
1. My experience really is true and real. I know God and speak to Him and He to me. My assumption must be that if God is God there should be some consistency in His behaviour and that my experience should be somewhat similar to yours. We should be able to compare notes and determine some common denominators about who God is and how He speaks and the nature of His character. This is what Christians affirm the world over in different cultures and times and places. Their experiences are similar and they line up with the general flow of Scripture.

2. This experience is actually not true or real. Therefore I am either ...
a. deluding myself (thinking that I am actually speaking and listening to something I think is a divine being who is actually not really there). This is the affirmation of most atheists and most of the "pluralists" in our world. The god I interact with is actually a god of my own making and a god of my own understanding (true for me). I have made him up and I have conversations with my imaginary friend as if he is real. Therefore I am basically insane or schizophrenic.

... or,

b. I am being deluded (which means that someone or something has deceived me). This may be as a result of my upbringing or my culture or the preacher/pastor/televangelist that I listen to. The implication is that I am simple, gullible, dependent, brainwashed, stupid, uneducated, naive, uninformed, not intellectual, etc., and the religious scam artists have got me believing their schtick.

So for Christians to line up with Matt Casper's thinking, we should say the thing we are experiencing (that we call God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit) is actually a product of our unscientific, unprovable faith and therefore it provides no real certainty. It is just my experience of God (which may be different than yours). However to say that my experience of god is fundamentally different than your experience of god means that god is not actually real and not consistent in his actions with people - which means he does not exist except in my (or your) delusion.

That is the whole point of the atheistic argument. If there is no God everyone can have their own idea of God or even be god. But if there really is a God, I can be certain about it because He is found by those who seek Him.

The "Other"

I am continuing to post some of the writing I have done in conjunction with my DMin course. This section is about postmodernity and metanaratives. [A metanarative is story that explains all the elements of life with one overarching thesis or paradigm. All the world religions presuppose a metanarative. Christianity's metanarative has been at times been summed up with John 3:16.] Postmodernity will get lots of press as my paper continues. Enjoy.


We are facing a changing view of life itself that challenges many of the things that have been part of the understanding of society for centuries. We live in a postmodern world, where people “embrace pluralism and place value in the diversity of worldviews and religions that characterizes contemporary society.” Also, Postmodernity certainly influences Christianity, and may in some ways actually be interpreted as a reaction to Christendom.

Among numerous definitions of Postmodernity, Paul Lakeland provides a succinct description. The basic tenets of Postmodernity are:

1. No standpoint is neutral or above suspicion. All are rhetorical.
2. Metanarratives erase otherness by including the other within “my” metanarrative, thereby removing its otherness. Therefore all metanarratives are suspect.
3. The task of understanding or interpreting society, if attempted at all, must be conducted through piecemeal, tactical, pragmatic, and tentative means.
4. The task of changing society if attempted at all, must be conducted through grassroots, localized (though sometimes networked) tactical, pragmatic and incremental means. The social activist must be committed to dialogue and consensus building.
5. Postmodernity contains within it elements both of the emancipatory and the demonic. No theoretical grid is available that will easily allow the discernment of which elements are which, though the kinds of totalizing impulses that would reject points 1-4 provide important hints.

One of the predominant characteristics of Postmodernity, according to Lakeland, is the explosion of communication technology that has, for the first time in history, created a world culture. This world culture allows us to be in contact with many divergent viewpoints and has contributed to a pluralism that challenges Christianity’s exclusive claims – at least in the public forum. It has also contributed to the “small world” phenomenon whereby we are much more closely connected to every other person upon the earth.

Similarly, communication technologies shift how our society views people in leadership positions. With instant and mass communication leaders are now under much closer scrutiny than ever before. This concept of globalization (or a global spirit) will continue to present challenges to the understanding of the exclusive claims of Christianity.

Also a world culture creates scrutiny of metanarratives. One of the main problems with metanarratives, whether or not they are consciously adapted or unconsciously reflected, is that they shape a singular view of the world and its peoples. It is only when the metanarrative is abandoned that voice can be given to people who are marginalized – who are defined as the “Other.”

Lakeland gives this example: “… the privileged citizens of any developed Western nation, and that of course meant a white male, and probably a Protestant, did not have to confront the Other … Women, slaves, native peoples, and homosexuals were of course not invisible, but were successfully deproblematized, incorporated into a monological schema of untroubled serenity. So, while they were undoubtedly “others,” their status as “Other” was unrecognized.” Therefore in a postmodern world, the minimized other is genuinely accorded the status of “Other” and is to be heard. This shakes some of our Evangelical certainty and must be considered as we examine the church’s sensitivity to existing paradigms of power, exclusiveness and inclusiveness, the role of laity, women, children, language and other religious systems.

In the midst of the challenges to Christianity, interest in spirituality in general and more specifically Jesus, is actually increasing. The popularity of a postmodern Jesus is the result of the perception that “he’s a pluralist, he welcomes outsiders. He welcomes women, he is against organized religion, he’s for economic justice. Jesus comes dressed up in the clothes of our own culture.”

Evidence of this interest in spirituality finds expression in New Age events like psychic fairs or like the Burning Man Festival , and in movies like David Fincher’s Fight Club (based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk). In describing the attraction of the movie, Frost and Hirsch say: “Theirs is a community of male empowerment with a strongly anti-consumerist sentiment. Like the Burning Man festival, it is also about belonging, liberation, rebellion and the rejection of middle-class American values.

There is an untamed energy about Fight Club. It has a dissident wildness about it … both are prime examples of the desperate yearning that has been unleashed in the Western world … (raising) within the West many expectations for an experiential, activist form of religious, mystical experience. The Christian church has not met these expectations.” Even though Jesus may be attractive, the Church is seen as the LEAST likely option for those seeking an “artistic, politically subversive, activist community of mystical faith.”

The End of the World As We Know It

As many of you know I am in the process of studying for a DMin. The title to this post is the title of my first paper. I thought I would include a bit of the paper in a few posts. I actually posted the introduction here a few months ago. A lot of the paper is a collection of ideas and quotes from other sources. I will try to cite the major contributors as I go along. Anything in [square brackets] is stuff that would normally go into footnotes. Sorry if that makes it too confusing but I tend to like to include more information rather than less.

The world is changing. It really is the end of the world as we know it (and we don’t feel fine – most of the churched world has serious misgivings). [With apologies to band REM, who wrote the apocalyptic song with the title: “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine).”] The consistent message of many current authors on the state of the church today is that Christendom is over and has been for quite some time. The church must either adapt to the changing culture or die. Parts of the traditional church may already be dead.

“It is quite possible that in the early part of the third millennium only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, on the one hand, and evangelical Protestantism, on the other, will survive as ecclesial communities. What used to be called the Protestant mainline churches are in acute danger of disappearing. I expect they will disappear if they continue neither to resist the spirit of a progressively secularist culture, nor to try to transform it.” [Wolfhart Pannenberg. “Christianity and the West: Ambiguous Past, Uncertain Future.” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, 48, no. 4 (1994): 22. These comments were made more than a decade ago and in many ways still ring true. However, there are many indicators of new life within some streams of the traditional mainline churches. There is also a renewed interest, especially among the emerging generation, in the historic liturgy typically found in more “high church” traditions.]

The “culture Protestantism” of the Western world that existed in one way or another since the Reformation, has been rejected, or perhaps ignored, arguably ever since the first World War.

Robert Jenson [“The Hidden and Triune God.” International Journal of Systematic Theology. (2000) 2, no. 1: 5] suggests that the church “is in the midst of divorce proceedings from the culture.” This divorce between the church and culture is not a new phenomenon. Many are drawing historical parallels between the pre-Constantinian and postmodern ages, where religious options abound, and there is a distinct separation of church and culture (state). As Rodney Clapp has stated: “Western Civilization is no longer content with a single religious sponsor.”

The core of this Christendom thinking is that much of Christianity still expects to be the chief sponsor of Western culture. Just as Nike sponsors Tiger Woods to piggyback on his success in order to dominate the golf equipment business, Christianity has sponsored Western culture to piggyback on its power and influence so as to dominate the religious worldview and win more converts. However, today’s church must recognize that it is confronting a culture that has lost its predominant guiding theme or authority, and a culture that has lost sympathy for the church’s cause. The Western church must reevaluate its accumulated Christian tradition and balance that tradition against Postmodernity’s insistence upon a multitude of equally acceptable and often conflicting views.

Theological Reflection

Well after the buzz of last week (Halloween, All Saints, prayer over the visit of the Dalai Lama), I haven’t been good for much blogging this week. I realize that blogging consistently requires a certain level of personal awareness and reflection. And if one wants to describe things from a Christian perspective it also requires theological reflection – not just “This is a biblical idea” but “What is this idea saying to me or to my situation?” This week I’ve had a lot of the first but not much of the second.

I conducted a funeral this week. The deceased was only 55, thin, active and fairly healthy but died of a heart attack. He had just this past weekend finished the cottage he had been working on for years (well made it livable with plumbing and electricity). He had a 16 year old daughter who read a letter to her dad as part of the eulogy. That hit fairly close to home. I have a 16-year-old daughter. It’s my birthday in a week and 55 is, well … I’m not there yet but I can see it from here.

I also spent a day at a conference about key indicators of a transformed city. I posted about those last year. We had Glen Smith here discussing how they came up with those for Montreal. Basically the concept is “How do you know when what you’re doing is working?” If we are praying that we would have good government, that we would see neighbourhoods improved and cities transformed, then what does that really look like? How do we know we are going in the right direction?

These twelve indicators are a great paradigm but they need to be developed for the city of Toronto and many of them will be different – or at least some of them will be. That will take a lot of work – and theological reflection. If you want to check out the graphic I’ve included below in more detail, check out their website or the direct link to the twelve indicators PDF.

The Godhead in the Old Testament

Most of us recognize the Jewish roots of Christianity and most of us also acknowledge that Christianity wouldn't even make much sense without an understanding of the Jewish context. Unfortunately much of our Jewish understanding has come from the New Testament without really understanding how that was shaped by the Torah and the Prophets. I have long been fascinated with the precursor images of Jesus presented in the Old Testament and even how Jewish scholars also recognize that these passages speak of a less than rigidly monotheistic YHWH. (If you really don't find this type of stuff interesting you might want to skip this post. My daughter just came down and saw what I was working on and said "That looks really boring Dad." I said; "Actually, it is fascinating!" Her answer? "That's nice Dad.")

Some of this material is found in a number of excellent books that speak of the Jewish roots of Christianity (Our Father Abraham and In The Shadow of the Temple). One of the best Christian apologetic books in my mind is actually a series of books by Michael L. Brown called Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus particularly Volume 2: Theological Objections.

The other excellent online resource is a lecture given by Michael Heiser called The Concept of a Godhead in the Old Testament. It is available as a podcast or MP3 - but you can see the powerpoint presentation he used if you listen to it online. (You will need a high speed connection) If this is interesting to you or if you have frequent conversations with Jewish Rabbis, it is worth the hour it takes to listen to it.

In this lecture Heiser presents material that shows that there are:
1. a number of very significant Old Testament passages which show the presence of YHWH and of "another" God-like figure at the same time (Exodus 3:1ff with Moses at the burning bush, Exodus 34:5-7 where the Lord passes by while also covering Moses eyes; Judges 6:11-14 where the angel and YHWH are both called the Lord and Genesis 31 and 32 where Jacob wrestles with an angel and says he wrestled with God).
2. an even greater number that speak of YHWH appearing in physical form, speaking, touching and even eating (the angel wrestling with Jacob, 1 Sam 3:10 where the Lord comes and stands beside Samuel, Jeremiah 1:1-9 where the word of the Lord reaches out his hand and touches Jeremiah and Genesis 18 where the Lord appears to Abraham and actually sits down and eats).
3. a number of Jesus style "descriptors" that are used that are considered to be God or to be equal to God (the "name of the Lord, the angel of the Lord, the word of the Lord and even "wisdom").
4. And that there are even a few passages that suggest the Trinity (Isaiah 63:7-10 mentions YHWH, the angel of the Lord and his Holy Spirit especially when seen in parallel with Psalm 78:40-41).

Up until the second century Jewish scholars acknowledged these passages as evidence of two YHWHs - one seen and and the other unseen. Philo even calls the seen YHWH the Logos! But of course after the explosive growth of Christianity after the second century (and perhaps because of some anti-semitic behaviour and of course the destruction of the temple) Judaism distanced itself from the emerging Christian movement by reinterpreting some of these OT Christian precursors.

If you can, I would highly recommend listening to the lecture. I think you would enjoy it.

Three Days and Three Nights

As my Jewish neighbours are breaking their fast as Yom Kippur ends I am thinking about another Jewish High Holy Day - Passover. Someone asked me a question about the High (or special) Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31. The subtext is a question about the resurrection of Jesus and the apparent inconsistencies of only two nights in the grave (if there was a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection) if Jesus said he would be in the earth for three days and three nights. I thought the answer was worthy of a post.

The question: "During the week of Christ's crucifixion there was a 'High Sabbath' mentioned in John. That basically this high Sabbath occurred earlier in the week. (A Wednesday?) And that is when Christ was actually crucified. That Jesus actually was in the tomb for a 'full' three days and rose on the Saturday Sabbath.
Could you explain the 'High Sabbath' and if it is possible to find out if the Jewish community would have 'two Sabbaths' in one week or simply would celebrate 'both' Sabbaths on Saturday?"

The answer:

As for the High Sabbath, John 19:31 says

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

It also says in Mark 15 that Jesus died on the Preparation Day.

42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.

and in 16:1

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

and Matthew 28:1

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

So the information that we have is that Jesus died on the Preparation day and rose again after the Sabbath on the first day of the week (Sunday). It also talks about being raised on the third day like in Luke 24

6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' "

This is not really a problem because Sunday is the third day after Friday (including Friday and Sunday). However the problem comes with passages like Matthew 12:40

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is where this concept of the double Sabbath comes in. Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples on the night before Passover. However it is more likely that he ate it with them two nights before Passover because the trial never would have happened on a Sabbath and it says he died on the "Preparation Day." Not every Sabbath has a preparation day - only the feast Sabbath days. So Jesus had supper with his disciples on the eve (which was Wednesday evening - keep reading) of the Preparation Day before Passover. That evening he was arrested, tried and the next morning brought before Pilate, beaten, crucified. He was placed in the tomb on that evening before Passover (before Thursday sundown - the start of the special Sabbath) and then was in the the tomb Passover (a High Sabbath - Friday) then also on the Saturday Sabbath and then on the third day (Sunday) he rose from the dead. That gives you three days and three nights. Although Scripture does not specifically mention two Sabbaths in that week, I know of no Scriptures that specifically would eliminate that possibility.

The Jewish community would never move the celebration of Passover to the Saturday so as to only have one Sabbath. Also the women would not have come with the spices on a Sabbath (ie they would not have been allowed to do the work of carrying them and preparing the body - also touching a body and defiling themselves on a Sabbath). So Jesus must have risen on the Sunday - and the Scriptures also say it was the first day of the week (the Sabbath is the seventh - the day God rested) that he rose.

Whose Estimation Counts?

In the article in the Christian Century I referred to in the last post, Samuel Wells has a nice turn of phrase in his review of N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God. There is a sentence in the intro paragraph that speaks volumes about our consuming passion with ourselves: "The philosophical tendency for at least the past three centuries has been to assume that the human estimation of God is more significant than the divine estimation of humanity."

The Bono version of this line is: "I love it when people on bar stools rub their chins and say 'do you believe in God?' That’s so presumptuous. A much more important question is 'does God believe in us?'" (I found this over on “Beth’s” blog (she doesn’t give her last name) Until Translucent.

It really does show the anthropomorphism [the human self-centeredness] of all our questions about God. As if our questioning the existence of God actually determines anything in the heavenlies. When we begin focusing on ourselves in introspection and self-analysis it can become pride and pride comes before a fall.

Brennan Manning says it this way:
“The humble heart wastes little time in introspection, navel gazing, looking in the mirror and being anxious about their spiritual growth. Their self-acceptance without self-concern is anchored in the acceptance of Jesus in their struggle to be faithful. They fasten their attention on God.” Ruthless Trust, pp125-6

I actually did a little chart on humility versus pride that I used in a sermon in August. [The numbers line up with each other as point and counterpoint.]

Signs of pride
1. thinking about self – focused on self – introspection, being anxious
2. selfishness
3. comparing yourself to others
4. self abasement (trying to get low, feel bad about self)
5. fear – what if I don’t measure up, not good enough – resulting in inaction, paralyzed by fear or fear of failure
6. unforgiveness/bitterness – not being able to let it go
7. legalism, moralism, ethics
8. man-pleaser – trying to find your identity in what others think of you – you wear a mask hiding behind your false self

Signs of humility
1. thinking about God – focused on God – accepted by God and anxious for nothing
2. crucified self – it’s no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me
3. serving others
4. courage/abandoned to do God’s will
5. obedience – actively living out what God has given you to do knowing that He has already paid for your failure
6. forgiveness – release it into the hands of God
7. listening to God
8. pleasing God – finding your identity in Him free to be who He made you to be

Neil Anderson's definition of pride is "confidence rightly placed." The goal of humility is not to feel bad about yourself – that is merely another indicator of pride. But we need to see ourselves with the eyes of God. Our identity is in Him. My identity is imputed to me by God and God alone. So He sees me as His child, in relationship with Him.

Confluence

con·flu·ence n.1. a flowing together of two or more streams, a point at which streams combine, or a stream formed by their combining. Also called conflux.

An interesting confluence happened in the past couple of days. I meet with a number of groups to pray for the city of Toronto and the GTA region. We have been wondering and praying about how to overcome some of the evil influences in our city with the rise of crime and violence and traffic accidents and spiritual apathy. In our prayer and discussions one of the chief things that came out was that when we focus on evil we actually accentuate or even glorify that evil and miss what God is trying to do and say.

Then I got an email from someone who spoke about the same thing in the context of a Christian response to the Halloween season. "Interestingly, I was listening to a teaching on the way home - he was talking about redeeming time, and specifically focused on Halloween as a specific time where through the ages there has been much demonic defilement, reinforced again and again over the years, that the actual time seems defiled. His strategy? Worship gatherings. To redeem the time (the date on the calendar) by filling the air with worship of the One True God to displace all the demonic worship. Here's my thinking. I think if we gather [a prayer team to confront evil activity or teaching], it would "give it place." However, what if we were to just have a worship gathering - or several worship gatherings that night, as others have suggested? We don't have to focus on or even mention anything about evil at all - Halloween is enough of a reason to implement the strategy of "displacement".

I also just read a review of N.T.Wright's book "Evil and the Justice of God" and the reviewer (Samuel Wells in Christian Century) says:

"In a lucid treatment of this perennial conundrum, N. T. Wright argues that pondering the "problem of evil" is an activity that displaces us from the business of implementing the healing, restorative justice of God. The problem of evil is philosophically located in theoretical analysis of an inherently distant God-that is, the deist God of the Enlightenment. By contrast, Wright engages with the scriptural God, revealed through narrative rather than theory and addressed through lament, obedience, discipleship and faith rather than through dispassionate analysis-in short, the God of Jesus Christ. Christ's death and resurrection, the promise and embodiment of forgiveness, and the hope of God's final victory make the people of God a people who bring into the present a reconciliation that is assured in the future."

That's a long way of saying that focusing so much on evil means we have a deficient view of God. Focusing on evil displaces us from our position as worshippers of God, as seeing Him in His incarnation, and often blinds us from seeing Him at work in the world.

So our response to evil - implement the healing, restorative justice of God through worship, prayer and action.

God is not Great? Deluded Evangelistic Atheists

There have been a number of very popular books written recently that have questioned a great many things about Christianity - and religion in general. The blockbuster that seemed to open the gates was The Da Vinci Code (first the error-riddled book and then the pitifully awful movie). The book recycled (according to some, plagiarized) some discredited theories about Mary Magdelene, Da Vinci and of course Jesus. Despite being a work of fiction, the author presents these claims as historical fact: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In fact, almost nothing Brown claims about art, history, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Bible, secret documents or the Catholic Church is either true or accurate. Many web sites and books point out the factual errors.

However, The Da Vinci Code as well as a renewed interest in Intelligent Design has released a flood of books about the Gnostic Gospels (like The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels) and a great deal of anti-God books written primarily by atheists, like:
"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris, and "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Some of these books have been on the New York Times bestsellers list for months.

At the same time, these books have received some scathing reviews - and not just by those sympathetic to a religious worldview. Stephen Prothero in the Washington Post, points out something I have observed about atheists before. They fundamentally refuse to understand their own faith (atheism is after all a faith position) or the faith of anyone else. A quote from the review ...
"What Hitchens gets wrong is religion itself. Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery." Prothero finishes off his review with ...
"Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep."

For a more point by point critique of Hitchens' book by a pastor and a New Testament scholar, Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts creates at least eight posts on his blog. This is lengthy and fairly focused on the Christian critiques sections in Hitchens' book.

The more popular book has been "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and has written a number of books on that topic - some of them countering the Intelligent Design school of thought. Andrew Brown reviews the book in a British Publication called the Prospect Magazine. The title and sub-title speak volumes. "Dawkins the Dogmatist: Incurious and rambling, Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault of Darwinism."

However the most enjoyable review I read (including the comments and responses) was by H. Allen Orr in the New York Book Review. I quoted a couple of sections that I really enjoyed (this is also a very long and detailed review).

"The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. Its arguments are those of any bright student who has thumbed through Bertrand Russell's more popular books.
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it.
But as I made clear, I have no problem with where Dawkins arrived but with how he got there. It's one thing to think carefully about religion and conclude it's dubious. It's another to string together anecdotes and exercises in bad philosophy and conclude that one has resolved subtle problems. I wasn't disappointed in The God Delusion because I was shocked by Dawkins's atheism. I was disappointed because it wasn't very good."

And now my favorite quote: "Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur."

I have not read any of the books I mentioned above (except for the Da Vinci Code - which really wasn't worth the time invested - but that was before I started the DMin) - nor do I plan to - unless there is a relational component to it (ie I meet someone who is so impressed with it and wants to get my feedback). At any rate, atheism or belief in God is really not countered or overcome with one book or one debate. Actually I think we (both Christians and atheists) suffer from a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of each other. As one reviewer (I think it was Mark Roberts) said: "We inhabit different universes." I think that is so true. As a Christian I can't even begin to think that this world makes any sense without the existence of God. It seems so self evident to me. To believe otherwise is irrational to me. To disagree about the nature of that God and how he is revealed to us is understandable - but to deny the evidence of something much greater than us seems the height of folly. As the writer of the Proverbs says: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding" Proverbs 9:10.

Wondering about Anabaptists

I’m working through some personal theology. Our church is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) even though we would be very non-traditional and quite unique among the PAOC churches in Canada. Although I have a very strong sense of the power and sovereignty of God I think I am fairly firmly planted in the Anabaptist tradition (as most Pentecostals would be – at least if they gave it some thought. I realize that I have heard very little conversation or teaching offered up in my 30-year history within the PAOC that actually clearly describes this area of distinctiveness.) So, I’ve been trying to settle in on where I really am. Although I think theology is somewhat flexible and I tend to resist firm “Statements of Faith” (because Jesus didn’t come preaching statements of faith, he came telling parables and inviting us into relationship with him and his Father) I would still consider myself an orthodox Evangelical. But as I’ve been reading some material on the Reformation, Pietism and the emerging church movements, I feel quite a bit of affinity with the Anabaptists. The following paragraphs were quoted from a small brochure on Anabaptism that can be found here.

The Anabaptist movement had its genesis as the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation. It began in Zurich in 1525 when a small group of men and women gathered to baptize one another. This group and those that followed them became known as Anabaptists because they believed that Christians must choose baptism as consenting adults rather than as infants. The concept of believer's baptism was rejected by more moderate reformers who still believed in the Christendom model in which baptism of infants served as entry into both the church and the state. The Anabaptists were hunted down and persecuted by both the Catholic and Protestant authorities for their baptism of adults as well as their rejection of the sword, swearing oaths and their focus on evangelism.

The Anabaptists were convinced that the church was ‘fallen’ and beyond mere reform. A thorough restoration of New Testament Christianity was necessary. This would require the church to be free from state control and from ecclesiastical traditions. Anabaptists urged separation of church and society rather than the confusion of these two that had characterized Europe since the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine early in the fourth century. They asserted that for over a thousand years the church had been in error, not only in certain doctrines, but on the fundamental issue of its identity and its relationship with society.

The Reformers feared that Anabaptists were reverting to salvation by works, because of their stress on repentance and the importance of discipleship. The Anabaptists feared that the Reformers were preaching ‘cheap grace’ and accused them of failing to address moral issues and tolerating unchristian behaviour in their churches. Balthasar Hubmaier insisted: ‘We must not be merely mouth-Christians, we must live our faith.’ The Anabaptists gave a much larger role in practice to the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer, and they emphasized that Jesus was to be followed as well as trusted, obeyed as well as relied upon. He was not only Saviour but Captain, Leader and Lord.

One Anabaptist, asked under interrogation what Anabaptist meetings were like, explained: ‘They have no special gathering places. When there is peace and unity and when none of those who have been baptized are scattered they come together wherever the people are. When they have come together they teach one another the divine Word and one asks the other: how do you understand this saying? Thus there is among them a diligent living according to the divine Word.’

Anabaptists rejected the Reformers interpretation of evangelism whereby people were coerced to come to church and participate based on the parish model (i.e. everyone who lived in a certain district was a Christian and belonged to the church and must be convinced to live a good life and coerced to come to church). Instead, they embarked on a spontaneous and explosive missionary enterprise to evangelize Europe. They traveled widely, preached in homes and fields, baptized converts and planted churches. Some, such as George Blaurock, even interrupted state church services! Such evangelism, which ignored national and parish boundaries, by untrained men and women (such as Margaret Hellwart, who had to be repeatedly chained to her kitchen floor to stop her evangelizing.) The Reformers relied on pastors; Anabaptists sent out apostles and evangelists.

Anabaptist Network Core Convictions
In light of our understanding of the Anabaptist tradition and of the contemporary challenges Christians face today in western culture, the Anabaptist Network (found on this website) has developed a statement of convictions and commitments, which are listed below. This has seven sections and (in typical Anabaptist style) is subject to revision as our understanding of Jesus and his kingdom grows:

1. Jesus is our example, teacher, friend, redeemer and Lord. He is the source of our life, the central reference point for our faith andlifestyle, for our understanding of church and our engagement with society. We are committed to following Jesus as well as worshipping him.

2. Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faithas the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.

3. Western culture is slowly emerging from the Christendom era when church and state jointly presided over a society in which almost all were assumed to be Christian. Whatever its positive contributions on values and institutions, Christendom seriously distorted the gospel, marginalised Jesus and has left the churches ill-equipped for mission in a post-Christendom culture. As we reflect on this, we are committed to learning from the experience and perspectives of movements such as Anabaptism that rejected standard Christendom assumptions and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.

4. The frequent association of the church with status, wealth and force is inappropriate for followers of Jesus and damages our witness. We are committed to vulnerability and to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless and persecuted, aware that such discipleship may attract opposition, resulting in suffering and sometimes ultimately martyrdom.

5. Churches are called to be committed communities of discipleship and mission, places of friendship, mutual accountability and multivoiced worship. As we eat together, sharing bread and wine, we sustain hope as we seek God’s kingdom together. We are committed to nurturing and developing such churches, in which young and old are valued, leadership is consultative, roles are related to gifts rather than gender and baptism is for believers.

6. Spirituality and economics are inter-connected. In an individualist and consumerist culture and in a world where economic injustice is rife, we are committed to finding ways of living simply, sharing generously, caring for creation and working for justice.

7. Peace is at the heart of the gospel. As followers of Jesus in a divided and violent world, we are committed to finding non-violent alternatives and to learning how to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society and between nations.

Much of this stuff is what I have been thinking through in my DMin coursework and in our process of developing a house church. Who knew that these thoughts have been written down for hundreds of years and give some guidelines for how to proceed after the end of the world as we know it.

The Power of Blessing

My DMin classmate Ron Zook's thesis is about "Blessed to be a Blessing." I liked his stuff so much that I used some of it as the theme for this morning's service. He presents a good theological summary of blessing and I thought I would include it here. It's good work. By the way he is in South America right now learning Spanish while on a short Sabbatical and he is blogging his experiences here. Thanks Ron for blessing me with this work! Be blessed in South America!

Blessing is life giving. To be blessed is to receive life and to bless is to give life. Blessing is intentionally choosing life – receiving life from God and helping others find life in God. God has created us to be blessed and to be a blessing. When we walk in the way of God’s extravagant blessing, we will experience extravagant life – a life that gives life to others.

God desires to extravagantly bless us and to make us a people of extravagant blessing. Spiritual renewal and growth occur as we become a people of joyful blessing. We encounter the blessing of God when the Spirit of God brings to life the Word of God in our lives. It is out of this heart and mind encounter with God that we experience extravagant life and give life to others.

A. Blessing is God’s Intent from the Beginning
Blessing was God’s intent right from the beginning of creation. God created man and woman in his own image and then God blessed them. Blessing were the very first words God spoke to Adam and Eve. God’s words of blessing were life giving. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."" Genesis 1:27-28

B. Blessing and Cursing – Life and Death
God loves life. God created us for life. A blessing is anything that gives life. The opposite of a blessing is a curse. A curse is anything that takes away life or robs one of life. God repeatedly makes it clear that his purpose and desire is to bless his people by giving them life. But when his people disobey, they suffer the effects of God’s curse. When Adam and Eve yielded to the serpent’s temptations and disobeyed God, God cursed the serpent.

C. God’s Covenant with Abraham - I will bless you… and you will be a blessing
Rather than destroying his people, God established a new covenant with his people through Abraham – a covenant that is saturated with blessing and life. "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
“I will bless you… and you will be a blessing” is a theme throughout scripture – God blesses his people to make them a blessing. From the overflow of the blessings we receive, we bless others.
In Psalm 1, God gives a picture of what blessing and life looks like – Blessed is the man… He is like a tree planted by streams of water which yield fruit in season. A tree that is not dying; but a tree that is full of life, drinking deeply from streams of water and yielding fruit.

D. Blessing is Choosing Life
Blessing is a choice, choosing life over death, righteousness over evil, blessing over destruction. Those who choose the way of righteousness and blessing in Psalm 1 are promised wholeness and everlasting life. They will be like a tree full of fruit and whose leaves never wither. Those who choose wickedness and evil will be like chaff the wind blows away.
In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, Moses brings people to the edge of the Promised Land and confronts them to choose between life and death.
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."
Blessing is freely offered to us as a gift, but we must accept it and receive it. The way of blessing leads to joy and life, the way of cursing leads to destruction and death.

E. Jesus Gives Life
In the New Testament, the word of the Lord has become a person and in that person was life. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men." The blessing and life given to Abraham now comes to all of us through this real person Jesus.
He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of Spirit. (Gal. 3:14)
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. (John 11:26)
Jesus also confronts the people with a choice between life and death. Jesus makes it clear that his purpose is to bless, to give life, and to give it to the full. But Satan, the thief’s purpose is to steal, kill and destroy life.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10 Jesus laments and warns, cajoles and threatens, beseeches and tells stories, all with the intent of breaking hard hearts who will not hear or believe so they will choose life over death.

F. Blessing is Favor with God.
For Mary, the mother of Jesus, God’s blessing was favor – “You have found favor with God!” God’s blessing was a state of being for Mary, a way of living each day knowing that God looked upon her with favor. Blessing is God casting his gaze upon her with favor and grace. Blessing is being on the receiving end of God’s favor rather than God’s curse.

G. Beatitudes – The Way of Life and Blessing
The beatitudes show us the way of life found in the way of Jesus. Sin is losing your way and destroys life. The beatitudes help us find our way and gives life. In the New Testament, the Christians described themselves as those “who belonged to the Way”. They instructed one another in the “Way of God”. Jesus was the pioneer of their faith, who went ahead of them, pointing out the way of life for them to follow. Jesus is both the way and a way of life. By following Jesus, we find our way and also a way of life.

The beatitudes describe the way of life in the kingdom of God. It is a way that confronts the logic of the mind. The beatitudes lead us to an encounter with God by speaking directly to the heart and the soul. The beatitudes often seem like contradictions, and yet they remain true forever. They are a way of mystery and love. The way only makes sense if you understand the self-sacrificing love of Christ. It is through Christ’s example of love that it is possible to find wealth in poverty, joy in sorrow, glory in meekness, wholeness in righteousness, justice in mercy, clarity in purity of heart, equality in peacemaking, and victory in persecution.
Beatitudes are the incarnation of Christ – God with us. They are how God chooses to be with us and grace us with His divine favor. They assure us that in the face of sorrow, hunger and thirst, and even persecution, that we are capable of following the way of compassion and peace. We become able to love others as we are loved by God.

The beatitudes are eight keys that unlock the way of life. They paint a picture of a community of people loved into the freedom of God rather than being tormented by oppressive imperatives. Beatitudes are all about inner transformation of the heart and spiritual formation. They call us to a way of being that is opposite of what the world expects. Rather than dominating others to find life, we are to be gentle and full of mercy. Instead of running away from suffering, we are to welcome persecution for holiness’ sake. Instead of amassing possessions, true life comes from being poor in spirit.

The beatitudes in a nutshell are a choice! They call us to choose our attitudes and actions, and then act upon that choice with others, and finally, to go forth telling what we have seen and heard. Beatitudes teach us positive attitudes that bring healing and life in contrast to negative attitudes that destroy life and bring sickness and death.

H. God’s Dream for His People
God’s dream for his people is that we become full of life – like a tree of blessing planted by streams of water bearing fruit in season. This is God’s dream for us! This is God’s dream for every family and person in our community. It’s up to each person to receive it or reject it. And if we choose to receive it, it will joyfully overflow to others around us. Blessing thus becomes a powerful act of evangelism and outreach. Blessing also builds up the church.

God’s blessing is the gift of unconditional love and approval. Each of us is created with a God-given need to feel blessed—to be loved and accepted for who we are, regardless of what we have done or failed to do. In many homes, the blessing is withheld and family members suffer for the rest of their lives. Many seek to fill the void with busy activities, career, wealth, possessions, and other distractions. Others spend a lifetime striving for acceptance and blessing.

When family members feel the security of acceptance and blessing, their present and future relationships will be impacted forever. The church is the central means by which God wants to pass on the blessing to each family today. A father's or mother’s blessing can give a child the inspiration, reassurance and confidence to live life to its fullest potential. Nothing is more rewarding to the giver and the receiver than the amazing, affirming results of a blessing.

The Search to Belong

I've been reading through the book The Search to Belong: Rethinking Intimacy, Community and Small Groups by Joseph R Meyers. I thought I would review a few chapters here on the blog to give you a sense of the book and to help me create some good review notes for my studies as well. Scott McKnight does this all the time with a number of books over at Jesus Creed.

Chapter One: The Myths of Belonging
The title of the book tells us that the book is about the search to “belong.” It is not necessarily a how-to book on small groups. In that way (although definitely a Christian book) it is actually more sociological than theological.
Community is a complex creature.
He starts the chapter by telling about his own (negative) small group experienced in a very organized and institutional small group ministry, with planned icebreakers, a preformatted covenant and published small group material. The group made him angry because "This group was expecting more from me than I wanted to deliver and this group was trying to deliver to me more than I wanted." He then goes on to describe the false assumptions people have about belonging.

6 Myths of Belonging
1. More time = more belonging
- time has little to do with belonging
- belonging is often the result of spontaneous connections
- sometimes two people (or a group) just don't click
2. More commitment = more belonging
- When we search to belong we aren’t really looking for commitment. We simply want to connect.
- To experience healthy community we need significant relationships – significant is not the same as close or committed
3. More purpose = more belonging
- Looks at Tom Peters "In Search of Excellence" and the focus on “teams” and purpose statements
- The assumption is that people who strive together toward a common goal connect closely to one another.
- This can happen (and in my experience it often happens) but not necessarily
4. More personality = more belonging
- The more extroverted the more you connect with people and deeper relationships result – not really true
- Extroverts often contribute more in small groups but introverts tend to connect more deeply with people
5. More proximity = more belonging
- Close proximity gives more opportunity for connectedness but it doesn't always translate into belonging
- just look at neighbours – sometimes good relationships develop and sometimes not.
- Proximity is also not about geography – especially with technology (texting, instant messaging, internet, facebook, blogging, etc.)
- it is more about connecting over shared interests even though you are 1000 miles away
6. Small groups = more belonging
- Small groups deliver only one or two ways of connecting to others
- For many people it is not sufficient or does not scratch where they itch
- Typically only 30% of congregation will participate in a small group

"Belong before you believe" has become a current concept within emerging movement. It means that people often want a sense of belonging to people of a group before they will accept everything it stands for. Do I like these people? Do I get along with them? Do I feel accepted. Only after those questions are answered do people actually begin to incorporate the belief system of the group. This has strong implications for how we do church.
In what ways does the concept of “belonging” play a central role in our lives?
How do we communicate belonging? And how should we?
Can we allow people to belong before they fully understand what they are getting themselves into?

Edward T. Hall coined the term "proxemics" for the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space. He describes Four Spaces used to develop personalities, culture and communication.
a. public space (12 feet +)
b. social space (4-12 feet)
c. personal space (18” to 4 feet)
d. intimate space (0-18”)

Belonging is multidimentional – people belong to us on different levels
Space is not just real estate – we employ specific spaces to communicate belonging

The value of this chapter to me is that in many ways we have deified small groups as the be all and end all of good community. Meyer points out that many people don't connect with the typical church constructed, contrived small group system and have different ways of feeling connected.