In the recent election race played a prominent role.
Race is a profoundly volatile topic. One has only to look at outbreaks in the last 15 years or so of racially motivated violence and see that this is a problem that plagues humanity as a whole. In such places as Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, race has played a prominent role in the perpetration of violence.
What is meant by the term race?
It is a term that carries profound meaning and at the same time is meaningless. It can be used in a helpful way to acknowledge obvious distinctions in species and can be used to maliciously assert distinctions where none exist.
One meaning of the term is “a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.” This is how Winston Churchill used the term when speaking to the Nazi Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, in the run up to World War II. He warned the foreign minister about the English. They were a “curious race” and should not be underestimated in a fight. But, as the end of the definition indicates, this is closer to what we understand today as ethnicity.
Usually we try to apply the term in a scientific way. For instance, in biology race indicates “a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially. a subspecies.” This is a clinical and somewhat useful term and can apply to both people and animals. It is an acknowledgment that within species there are characteristics that exist among certain subcategories. This is a benign process when considering animals, but when used to categorize humans it consistently produces terrible effects.
Consider the following from the American Oxford Dictionary: “Although ideas of race are centuries old, it was not until the 19th century that attempts to systematize racial divisions were made. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination.” For example, in our country, the current story line that declares as fact that we are about to inaugurate our first “black” president despite the fact that he is as equally white as he is black says more about our history than it does about his biology.
The roots of malicious and malignant use of racial categories are deeply intertwined in the fall of human beings. Soon after their rebellion we see relationships between humans begin to break down. The accusation against God by Adam that “the woman you gave me” was the source of all the trouble was not only an attempt to shift blame to God, but shows a willingness to consider oneself as better than another. Human beings, almost from the very beginning, have sought to build themselves up by devaluing others. It is the conferring of privilege and power upon a certain category of people that proves most deadly. In our country, the history of slavery reveals economic, scientific, and even religious justifications for the subjugation and humiliation of fellow human beings.
That being said, “theories of race asserting a link between racial type and intelligence are now discredited. Scientifically it is accepted as obvious that there are subdivisions of the human species, but it is also clear that genetic variation between individuals of the same race can be as great as that between members of different races” (American Oxford Dictionary). Such may be clear, but it is not forsaken. The abuse of these distinctions persists and proves a stubborn problem.
What has this to do with the incarnation?
Hear the words of Simeon upon being presented with the newborn Messiah:
“Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,
according to your word;
for my eyes have seen your salvation
that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32).
The baby in Simeon’s arms is the fulfillment of promises made from the very beginning. At the very outset, God promised that one born of a woman would come and crush the evil that had been unleashed through the serpent’s deception. As Simeon declares this “salvation” will be realized in all peoples.
The gospel of Jesus Christ cuts across ethnic, racial, economic, gender, in short, all categorical lines. For the preaching of the gospel creates a new people, a new race if you will, who are united not by cultural (and potentially sinful) distinctions or by genetic make up. What unites them is faith in the only-begotten Son of God as the promised redeemer; who by his life and death secured peace with God for all who believe in him, irrespective of nation, tongue, or tribe. And this power to embrace under one banner such disparate groups demonstrates that the mercy of God transcends our vile, sinful inclinations.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Politics and the Incarnation
Given the recent election, the length of the campaign, the amount of money spent, the hyperbolic language thrown around, and the unbridled expectations attached to our president-elect, it’s hard to imagine that there is anything more important than politics and politicians. We in the church are not immune to this. Our own perceptions of the future seem to rise and fall depending upon who gets elected. Why is this? I suspect it has to do with the relationship between the power wielded by politicians and the power of God
All authority (the power to rule) resides in God and God alone. He it is who is sovereign, who possesses supreme authority, not being ruled by another. This assertion is based upon Romans 13:1 “. . . there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” This reality is why Jesus responds as he does when brought before Pontius Pilate just prior to his crucifixion: “. . . Pilate said to him, ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him, ‘You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above . . .’” (John 19:10,11). What does this make political rulers? They are in the words of Paul in Romans 13 “servants of God.”
I think it is possible that people place so much hope in politics and politicians because people, whether they realize it or not (most likely not), sense that politicians handle the very power of God and are, therefore, in a position to do tremendous good or evil.
People spend their lives living. And living life brings with it all manners of joys and sorrows, victories and defeats, necessities and wishes; the list could go on and on. Living life is a complex, multi-faceted enterprise. It is made even more complicated by the fact that, while we each live out life as individuals, we do so in society with others. Our individually experienced lives are somehow to be lived out among others who are likewise experiencing their lives. Most times this poses few problems, as people find enough social space to live their lives. But at other times problems are presented because, living in society, an individual’s actions have the potential to significantly affect another, and human beings have demonstrated that their impulses are not always good. That is, they will do things that affect others in ways that do not respect the rights, dignity, and humanity of the other. This kind of anti-social behavior can be done by on a very small scale, one on one, or on a larger, societal scale. In the times when we feel that the line has been crossed we look to someone to wield righteous power to right the wrong and maintain a society that allows for social discourse and civility
You see we need to be governed; this is the way we were designed by God. And, as it is represented for us in Scripture, we discover that human beings were to be governed by God. The Lord created them and set before them how they were to live. They rejected that rule, however, and suffered the consequences. But their rejection of God’s rule did not mean that they no longer needed to be governed. We were created to be ruled. The process only became much more complicated when we rejected the direct rule of God.
So, along comes another election cycle and hopes are renewed that one who is wise, humble, self-sacrificing, and merciful, who is at the same time is courageous, forthright, and willing to stand up to injustices and brutes, will emerge. I believe the near messianic descriptions of the coming presidential tenure is grounded in the fact that we know, or intuit, that we need to be governed and we want a leader, an individual, who will lead us to peace, prosperity, and justice. That being said, I can safely predict that such expectations will meet with disappointment. For the ruler in whom hope has been placed himself needs to be ruled, for he is subject to the same failings as the ones he has been elected to govern.
This is why we need to proceed with caution. History is replete with men, and occasionally women, who have been given, or seized, what is inherently God’s authority, and wielded it as though he or she was God himself. “Power will intoxicate the best hearts as wine the strongest heads. No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited power” warns C.C. Colton. Indeed as Plutarch observes: “There is no stronger test of a man’s character than power and authority.”
There is only one man who has lived in whom such trust can be placed. He alone understands divine authority, being divine, and through his obedience to the will of his heavenly Father, won the name that is above every name (Philippians 2:9), and is declared to be “King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).
This is the One of whom we sing during this season of Advent.
All authority (the power to rule) resides in God and God alone. He it is who is sovereign, who possesses supreme authority, not being ruled by another. This assertion is based upon Romans 13:1 “. . . there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” This reality is why Jesus responds as he does when brought before Pontius Pilate just prior to his crucifixion: “. . . Pilate said to him, ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him, ‘You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above . . .’” (John 19:10,11). What does this make political rulers? They are in the words of Paul in Romans 13 “servants of God.”
I think it is possible that people place so much hope in politics and politicians because people, whether they realize it or not (most likely not), sense that politicians handle the very power of God and are, therefore, in a position to do tremendous good or evil.
People spend their lives living. And living life brings with it all manners of joys and sorrows, victories and defeats, necessities and wishes; the list could go on and on. Living life is a complex, multi-faceted enterprise. It is made even more complicated by the fact that, while we each live out life as individuals, we do so in society with others. Our individually experienced lives are somehow to be lived out among others who are likewise experiencing their lives. Most times this poses few problems, as people find enough social space to live their lives. But at other times problems are presented because, living in society, an individual’s actions have the potential to significantly affect another, and human beings have demonstrated that their impulses are not always good. That is, they will do things that affect others in ways that do not respect the rights, dignity, and humanity of the other. This kind of anti-social behavior can be done by on a very small scale, one on one, or on a larger, societal scale. In the times when we feel that the line has been crossed we look to someone to wield righteous power to right the wrong and maintain a society that allows for social discourse and civility
You see we need to be governed; this is the way we were designed by God. And, as it is represented for us in Scripture, we discover that human beings were to be governed by God. The Lord created them and set before them how they were to live. They rejected that rule, however, and suffered the consequences. But their rejection of God’s rule did not mean that they no longer needed to be governed. We were created to be ruled. The process only became much more complicated when we rejected the direct rule of God.
So, along comes another election cycle and hopes are renewed that one who is wise, humble, self-sacrificing, and merciful, who is at the same time is courageous, forthright, and willing to stand up to injustices and brutes, will emerge. I believe the near messianic descriptions of the coming presidential tenure is grounded in the fact that we know, or intuit, that we need to be governed and we want a leader, an individual, who will lead us to peace, prosperity, and justice. That being said, I can safely predict that such expectations will meet with disappointment. For the ruler in whom hope has been placed himself needs to be ruled, for he is subject to the same failings as the ones he has been elected to govern.
This is why we need to proceed with caution. History is replete with men, and occasionally women, who have been given, or seized, what is inherently God’s authority, and wielded it as though he or she was God himself. “Power will intoxicate the best hearts as wine the strongest heads. No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited power” warns C.C. Colton. Indeed as Plutarch observes: “There is no stronger test of a man’s character than power and authority.”
There is only one man who has lived in whom such trust can be placed. He alone understands divine authority, being divine, and through his obedience to the will of his heavenly Father, won the name that is above every name (Philippians 2:9), and is declared to be “King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).
This is the One of whom we sing during this season of Advent.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
It's All of Grace
I have been preaching through Mark and recently spent two weeks on the institution of the Lord's Table. Among other things, it is Jesus entering into covenant with those gathered, complete with bloody sacrifice and ratification ceremony (Cf. for example Genesis 15, Exodus 24). As in all the covenants (in truth, they all add up to one) God makes with humans, it is something he thinks up, sets the terms for, and then carries out and upholds despite all the failings of his “partners” in the agreement.
This consistent dynamic is played out in the upper room on that Passover night. Jesus enters into covenant with those gathered, promising them protection from God's wrath (typified and foreshadowed in the Passover). Yet, within hours they had all abandoned him, even denying they ever knew him. Despite the disciples' unfaithfulness, does Jesus withhold his mercy? Does he not carry through on his promise? Does he not pour out the Holy Spirit on these same faithless men so that they, these fallen, wretched sinners, could be his witnesses? The only exception is the one who had been ordained from the beginning to betray him (Acts 1:16; 2:23).
What did they bring to that covenant ceremony that Passover night? They brought nothing but their depravity and its attendant frailty.
When Martin Luther teaches on justification by faith in his famous Treatise on Christian Liberty (or Freedom of a Christian), he utilizes the concept of covenant, expressed in marriage, to demonstrate just how impoverished in righteousness are we and how rich in mercy is God. The “partnership” is all one sided:
“The . . . grace of faith is this: that it unites the soul to Christ, as the wife to the husband, by which mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul are made one flesh. Now if they are one flesh, and if a true marriage--nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages--is accomplished between them (for human marriages are but feeble types of this one great marriage), then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in common, as well good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ possesses, that the believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own, and whatever belongs to the soul, that Christ claims as His.
“If we compare these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain. Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin, death, and condemnation. Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell will belong to Christ, and grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if He is a Husband, He must needs take to Himself that which is His wife's, and at the same time, impart to His wife that which is His. For, in giving her His own body and Himself, how can He but give her all that is His? And, in taking to Himself the body of His wife, how can He but take to Himself all that is hers?”
Each time we celebrate the Supper we reiterate our faith in a covenant making and covenant keeping God. We express our gratitude that we are saved “by grace . . . through faith. And this is not [of our] own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
This consistent dynamic is played out in the upper room on that Passover night. Jesus enters into covenant with those gathered, promising them protection from God's wrath (typified and foreshadowed in the Passover). Yet, within hours they had all abandoned him, even denying they ever knew him. Despite the disciples' unfaithfulness, does Jesus withhold his mercy? Does he not carry through on his promise? Does he not pour out the Holy Spirit on these same faithless men so that they, these fallen, wretched sinners, could be his witnesses? The only exception is the one who had been ordained from the beginning to betray him (Acts 1:16; 2:23).
What did they bring to that covenant ceremony that Passover night? They brought nothing but their depravity and its attendant frailty.
When Martin Luther teaches on justification by faith in his famous Treatise on Christian Liberty (or Freedom of a Christian), he utilizes the concept of covenant, expressed in marriage, to demonstrate just how impoverished in righteousness are we and how rich in mercy is God. The “partnership” is all one sided:
“The . . . grace of faith is this: that it unites the soul to Christ, as the wife to the husband, by which mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul are made one flesh. Now if they are one flesh, and if a true marriage--nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages--is accomplished between them (for human marriages are but feeble types of this one great marriage), then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in common, as well good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ possesses, that the believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own, and whatever belongs to the soul, that Christ claims as His.
“If we compare these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain. Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin, death, and condemnation. Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell will belong to Christ, and grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if He is a Husband, He must needs take to Himself that which is His wife's, and at the same time, impart to His wife that which is His. For, in giving her His own body and Himself, how can He but give her all that is His? And, in taking to Himself the body of His wife, how can He but take to Himself all that is hers?”
Each time we celebrate the Supper we reiterate our faith in a covenant making and covenant keeping God. We express our gratitude that we are saved “by grace . . . through faith. And this is not [of our] own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
Friday, July 25, 2008
How Do Walls Come Down?
“Quotation of the Day” in the email notice for the New York Times, July 25, 2008
“‘The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.’
- SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, speaking in Berlin”
I am sure Mr. Obabma has in mind the putting away of ancient and contemporary animosities that keep disparate groups from working together (at best) or killing each other (at worst). I assume he makes these comments when he does because of where he is, the city that was once divided by a wall.
The wall that once stood in Berlin was built by ideology. The wall came down, however, not as a result of compromise, a shifting of position by both sides, as Mr. Obama’s admonition above seems to suggest. Rather it was the steadfast, even aggressive, posture of the West, and in particular the US, that brought it down.
Lumping all of the entities in tension into the same list raises questions. For instance, what is the wall that separates “Christian and Muslim and Jew”? If those who stand on either side of the wall do so because of their theological commitments, how does the candidate envision the wall being torn down? Does it come down by asserting that there is little to no difference between them (which relegates the truth claims of each to something less than truth claims), or conversion? In a sense, it was conversion that brought down the wall in Berlin.
“‘The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.’
- SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, speaking in Berlin”
I am sure Mr. Obabma has in mind the putting away of ancient and contemporary animosities that keep disparate groups from working together (at best) or killing each other (at worst). I assume he makes these comments when he does because of where he is, the city that was once divided by a wall.
The wall that once stood in Berlin was built by ideology. The wall came down, however, not as a result of compromise, a shifting of position by both sides, as Mr. Obama’s admonition above seems to suggest. Rather it was the steadfast, even aggressive, posture of the West, and in particular the US, that brought it down.
Lumping all of the entities in tension into the same list raises questions. For instance, what is the wall that separates “Christian and Muslim and Jew”? If those who stand on either side of the wall do so because of their theological commitments, how does the candidate envision the wall being torn down? Does it come down by asserting that there is little to no difference between them (which relegates the truth claims of each to something less than truth claims), or conversion? In a sense, it was conversion that brought down the wall in Berlin.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Re-humanizing Our Enemies
We need to re-humanize our enemies if we are going to serve them.
Consider Jonah’s stated reason for fleeing away from Nineveh. God had called Jonah to preach to the people of that city: “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me” (Jonah 1:2). Yet Jonah refused because he knew that God was “a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness, one who relents from doing harm" (Jonah 4:2). He sensed from the beginning that the Lord’s intent in sending him was to bring the people of Nineveh to repentance and God’s mercy was not at all what Jonah wanted for the Ninevites. He wished for their destruction, not their preservation. Why would Jonah possess such a hard heart toward the Ninevites? Because they had harried and provoked Jonah’s people and were their sworn enemies. His hatred of the Ninevites allowed him to dehumanize them, which, in turn, caused him to not balk at the thought of their demise.
How do we know that he had dehumanized them? In the closing verses of the book, Jonah exhibits more compassion for a plant than he does for the inhabitants of Nineveh. God calls him on this and in so doing re-humanizes the Ninevites: “ . . . the Lord said, ‘You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?’” (Jonah 4:10,11). With this provocative question, the Lord indicates that even these who did not recognize Yahweh as the one, true, living God, and were the agents of much harm and destruction in the life of God’s people, were deserving of more respect and compassion than Jonah had a mind to give.
This rebuke of God runs very close to the heart attitude that Jesus demands of us as regards our enemies: “. . . I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:44,45). We need to remember that Jesus embodied his prayer when he "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:7,8). Jesus looked upon his enemies with compassion and served them, even to the point of death, in order that his enemies might receive of the grace, mercy, and abundant loving-kindness of God. In this taking on of our existence we could say that Jesus re-humanized us, we who had fallen so far from the humanness that was ours in Eden.
The truth is, we all have Ninevites upon whom we would love to see the righteous wrath of God poured out. If we are going to be faithful to the Lord’s call, however, we must learn the lesson that the he sought to teach Jonah: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” If we will pray for our enemies in this manner we will better resist our tendency to dehumanize them making it more difficult for us to feel justified in our hatred them.
Consider Jonah’s stated reason for fleeing away from Nineveh. God had called Jonah to preach to the people of that city: “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me” (Jonah 1:2). Yet Jonah refused because he knew that God was “a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness, one who relents from doing harm" (Jonah 4:2). He sensed from the beginning that the Lord’s intent in sending him was to bring the people of Nineveh to repentance and God’s mercy was not at all what Jonah wanted for the Ninevites. He wished for their destruction, not their preservation. Why would Jonah possess such a hard heart toward the Ninevites? Because they had harried and provoked Jonah’s people and were their sworn enemies. His hatred of the Ninevites allowed him to dehumanize them, which, in turn, caused him to not balk at the thought of their demise.
How do we know that he had dehumanized them? In the closing verses of the book, Jonah exhibits more compassion for a plant than he does for the inhabitants of Nineveh. God calls him on this and in so doing re-humanizes the Ninevites: “ . . . the Lord said, ‘You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?’” (Jonah 4:10,11). With this provocative question, the Lord indicates that even these who did not recognize Yahweh as the one, true, living God, and were the agents of much harm and destruction in the life of God’s people, were deserving of more respect and compassion than Jonah had a mind to give.
This rebuke of God runs very close to the heart attitude that Jesus demands of us as regards our enemies: “. . . I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:44,45). We need to remember that Jesus embodied his prayer when he "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:7,8). Jesus looked upon his enemies with compassion and served them, even to the point of death, in order that his enemies might receive of the grace, mercy, and abundant loving-kindness of God. In this taking on of our existence we could say that Jesus re-humanized us, we who had fallen so far from the humanness that was ours in Eden.
The truth is, we all have Ninevites upon whom we would love to see the righteous wrath of God poured out. If we are going to be faithful to the Lord’s call, however, we must learn the lesson that the he sought to teach Jonah: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” If we will pray for our enemies in this manner we will better resist our tendency to dehumanize them making it more difficult for us to feel justified in our hatred them.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Led Anyone to Christ?
As the Area Representative for the CCCC I am occasionally called upon to do an interview with a prospective candidate who is seeking to be credentialed for ministry within the conference. One of the questions I am supposed to ask the interviewee is whether or not he has ever “led anyone to Christ.” The question slightly rankles my Calvinist sensibilities for it raises other questions about how someone is saved and who is doing the saving. But I am not criticizing the question. It is intended to find out if the candidate is willing and able to share the Good News with someone else. One who is seeking to enter into the ministry of the Word should be willing and able to share the faith. But someone recently offered an insight to me and I pass it along to you. When such a question is asked of him his response is, “Every day.” What does he mean? He is suggesting that leading someone to Christ is not a particular kind of activity, such as getting someone to pray the “sinner’s prayer.” Rather, he realizes that every day he is either leading someone to or away from Christ. This he is doing by his words and actions.
The woman who was healed of the hemorrhage of blood (Mark 5:25-34) was emboldened to seek out Jesus and touch the hem of his garment because “she had heard the reports about Jesus” (v. 27). Clearly, what she had learned about Jesus was compelling. Note that this being exposed to Jesus by secondary means (i.e., she did not see him personally prior to her going out to find him) was sufficient to birth faith within her heart. That faith was motivating enough to cause her to leave her law-imposed isolation and risk embarrassment and rejection in order to receive the life that was in Jesus.
This reporting and receiving of the truth of Jesus is the lifeblood of the church. We see in Paul’s teaching from Romans 10, if a soul is to be saved from death by the life that is in Christ they must have faith in him. And yet, for someone to believe in Christ they must learn who he is; and, for one to learn who he is another must tell him. This is the process summed up by the words, “faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).
But what the fellow was suggesting to me when he acknowledged the daily responsibility of leading people to Christ is that we should not think that our preaching is done only with our mouths. What we say and what we do are inextricably linked. The emphasis that James makes in his letter is to the point: “someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18).
For the woman, faith was engendered in her soul and she was led to the savior through her learning about what Jesus had been teaching and doing. What report do we offer to those around us who are as burdened down by their circumstances as she? Let us ask God for the grace to lead them to Christ.
The woman who was healed of the hemorrhage of blood (Mark 5:25-34) was emboldened to seek out Jesus and touch the hem of his garment because “she had heard the reports about Jesus” (v. 27). Clearly, what she had learned about Jesus was compelling. Note that this being exposed to Jesus by secondary means (i.e., she did not see him personally prior to her going out to find him) was sufficient to birth faith within her heart. That faith was motivating enough to cause her to leave her law-imposed isolation and risk embarrassment and rejection in order to receive the life that was in Jesus.
This reporting and receiving of the truth of Jesus is the lifeblood of the church. We see in Paul’s teaching from Romans 10, if a soul is to be saved from death by the life that is in Christ they must have faith in him. And yet, for someone to believe in Christ they must learn who he is; and, for one to learn who he is another must tell him. This is the process summed up by the words, “faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).
But what the fellow was suggesting to me when he acknowledged the daily responsibility of leading people to Christ is that we should not think that our preaching is done only with our mouths. What we say and what we do are inextricably linked. The emphasis that James makes in his letter is to the point: “someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18).
For the woman, faith was engendered in her soul and she was led to the savior through her learning about what Jesus had been teaching and doing. What report do we offer to those around us who are as burdened down by their circumstances as she? Let us ask God for the grace to lead them to Christ.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Self-Salting
In the closing words of Mark 9 , Jesus exhorts, "Have salt in yourselves." In its context I believe this is a call to purifying self-examination. We are to actively purify ourselves by examining our motives and actions in the light of Jesus' call to humble service in his kingdom. If his followers would do this then pride (the source of contention among his disciples, Mark 9:34) would be tempered and we will "be at peace with one another."
I came across the following from this morning's entry of Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening." He gives a helpful and humbling means by which we might do this:
"June 12 | Morning | 'Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.' - Daniel 5:27
It is well to frequently weigh ourselves in the scale of God’s Word. You will find it a holy exercise to read some psalm of David, and, as you meditate upon each verse, to ask yourself, 'Can I say this? Have I felt as David felt? Has my heart ever been broken on account of sin, as his was when he penned his penitential psalms? Has my soul been full of true confidence
in the hour of difficulty as his was when he sang of God’s mercies in the cave of Adullam, or in the holds of Engedi? Do I take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord?' Then turn to the life of Christ, and as you read, ask yourselves how far you are conformed to his likeness. Endeavor to discover whether you have the meekness, the humility, the lovely spirit which he constantly inculcated and displayed. Take, then, the epistles, and see whether you can go with the apostle in what he said of his experience. Have you ever cried out as he did-'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Have you ever felt his self-abasement? Have you seemed to yourself the chief of sinners, and less than the least of all saints? Have you known anything of his devotion? Could you join with him and say, 'For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain'? If we thus read God’s Word as a test of our spiritual condition, we shall have good reason to stop many a time and say, 'Lord, I feel I have never yet been here, O bring me here! give me true penitence, such as this I read of. Give me real faith; give me warmer zeal; inflame me with more fervent love; grant me the grace of meekness; make me more like Jesus. Let me no longer be "found wanting," when weighed in the balances of the sanctuary, lest I be found wanting in the scales of judgment.' 'Judge yourselves that ye be not judged.'”
In other words, "have salt in yourselves."
I came across the following from this morning's entry of Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening." He gives a helpful and humbling means by which we might do this:
"June 12 | Morning | 'Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.' - Daniel 5:27
It is well to frequently weigh ourselves in the scale of God’s Word. You will find it a holy exercise to read some psalm of David, and, as you meditate upon each verse, to ask yourself, 'Can I say this? Have I felt as David felt? Has my heart ever been broken on account of sin, as his was when he penned his penitential psalms? Has my soul been full of true confidence
in the hour of difficulty as his was when he sang of God’s mercies in the cave of Adullam, or in the holds of Engedi? Do I take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord?' Then turn to the life of Christ, and as you read, ask yourselves how far you are conformed to his likeness. Endeavor to discover whether you have the meekness, the humility, the lovely spirit which he constantly inculcated and displayed. Take, then, the epistles, and see whether you can go with the apostle in what he said of his experience. Have you ever cried out as he did-'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Have you ever felt his self-abasement? Have you seemed to yourself the chief of sinners, and less than the least of all saints? Have you known anything of his devotion? Could you join with him and say, 'For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain'? If we thus read God’s Word as a test of our spiritual condition, we shall have good reason to stop many a time and say, 'Lord, I feel I have never yet been here, O bring me here! give me true penitence, such as this I read of. Give me real faith; give me warmer zeal; inflame me with more fervent love; grant me the grace of meekness; make me more like Jesus. Let me no longer be "found wanting," when weighed in the balances of the sanctuary, lest I be found wanting in the scales of judgment.' 'Judge yourselves that ye be not judged.'”
In other words, "have salt in yourselves."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Free Will?
What is the relationship between our will and God’s will? Just how “free” are we to act contrary to the will of God? The subject of the human will and how it functions in a universe that is governed by a sovereign God has been well treated by greater minds than mine (if you want to explore the subject more fully I would encourage you to pick up a copy of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edward’s Freedom of the Will). However, let me offer a few frail observations using the book of Jonah offers a helpful starting place to examine this complex subject.
Firstly, in this brief book we discover that human beings are very capable of making decisions that are contrary to the will of God. In the story, Jonah determines to go in the opposite direction than the one directed by God. At another point, mariners, with Jonah on board, struggle to row their boat back to shore in the face of the threatening storm though they had been told that the way to save their lives was to toss Jonah over the side. Both of these incidents demonstrate that human beings are capable of using their will in ways that are contrary to the will of God. This is important to keep in mind when we assert the sovereignty of God. We should not think that because he is governing all things to his good end that this turns humans into robots. The book of Jonah illustrates otherwise.
But does this mean that man’s will is “free”? In the two instances I related above, the best we can say is that humans can act against but not overcome the will of God. Both Jonah and the mariners are eventually brought to the place intended for them by God. Clearly, their will is not truly free. Though they try, they are not able to accomplish what they want to accomplish. In Jonah, God is the superintending agent who is bringing his will to pass no matter how hard anyone tries to prevent it.
There is another way in which the story of Jonah demonstrates that human will is not completely free. When Jonah exercises his will in a manner contrary God’s he becomes subject to other forces that are in place. Try this exercise to get a sense of what I mean. Hold a book aloft in your hand. As soon you remove your hand, what happens? The book falls to the ground. Why is that? Because the book is subject to the law of gravity and only your hand causes it to be anywhere else than where it is destined to be, on the floor.
In a similar manner, the Bible describes the world, and every human being in it, as being corrupted by sin. As we push off from the safe harbor of God’s will, like Jonah, we are inevitably battered about by the winds of sin that are resident with our heart. This is to say that our will is not some neutral, independent force within us. Like gravity working on the book, our will responds to our desires. When God’s desires are not our desires then we will use our ability to act in ways that our innate sin drives us to act.
Lastly, we see in Jonah, that even though we are capable of conceiving and acting upon choices as individuals we are not free to act as independent agents, operating within our own private sphere. As we exercise our will we must be mindful that our choices, though we might make them as individuals, are not solitary. They are felt by others and seen by God. This is inescapable for this is the way we are made. Being made in the “image of God” we reflect the one in whose image we are made. The God who has made us, and given us his will to obey, dwells in relationship as three-in-one.
So, in the end we would have to say that our free will is not so free. It is certainly not free enough to evade God’s will. The one who sits in the heavens and laughs at the futile schemes of men (Psalm 2) will have his way.
Firstly, in this brief book we discover that human beings are very capable of making decisions that are contrary to the will of God. In the story, Jonah determines to go in the opposite direction than the one directed by God. At another point, mariners, with Jonah on board, struggle to row their boat back to shore in the face of the threatening storm though they had been told that the way to save their lives was to toss Jonah over the side. Both of these incidents demonstrate that human beings are capable of using their will in ways that are contrary to the will of God. This is important to keep in mind when we assert the sovereignty of God. We should not think that because he is governing all things to his good end that this turns humans into robots. The book of Jonah illustrates otherwise.
But does this mean that man’s will is “free”? In the two instances I related above, the best we can say is that humans can act against but not overcome the will of God. Both Jonah and the mariners are eventually brought to the place intended for them by God. Clearly, their will is not truly free. Though they try, they are not able to accomplish what they want to accomplish. In Jonah, God is the superintending agent who is bringing his will to pass no matter how hard anyone tries to prevent it.
There is another way in which the story of Jonah demonstrates that human will is not completely free. When Jonah exercises his will in a manner contrary God’s he becomes subject to other forces that are in place. Try this exercise to get a sense of what I mean. Hold a book aloft in your hand. As soon you remove your hand, what happens? The book falls to the ground. Why is that? Because the book is subject to the law of gravity and only your hand causes it to be anywhere else than where it is destined to be, on the floor.
In a similar manner, the Bible describes the world, and every human being in it, as being corrupted by sin. As we push off from the safe harbor of God’s will, like Jonah, we are inevitably battered about by the winds of sin that are resident with our heart. This is to say that our will is not some neutral, independent force within us. Like gravity working on the book, our will responds to our desires. When God’s desires are not our desires then we will use our ability to act in ways that our innate sin drives us to act.
Lastly, we see in Jonah, that even though we are capable of conceiving and acting upon choices as individuals we are not free to act as independent agents, operating within our own private sphere. As we exercise our will we must be mindful that our choices, though we might make them as individuals, are not solitary. They are felt by others and seen by God. This is inescapable for this is the way we are made. Being made in the “image of God” we reflect the one in whose image we are made. The God who has made us, and given us his will to obey, dwells in relationship as three-in-one.
So, in the end we would have to say that our free will is not so free. It is certainly not free enough to evade God’s will. The one who sits in the heavens and laughs at the futile schemes of men (Psalm 2) will have his way.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Our Best Defense
The Apostle Peter warns of the devil’s prowling around as a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). It is not a pleasant thing to think of. I suspect the first response for most of us is, “I hope he doesn’t sniff me out and decide to pounce on me.” Between this verse and the picture of the devil in Job 1 and 2 where he reports that he has been going to and fro in the earth, it would appear that the devil doesn’t rest much in his pursuit of the righteous.
What is it that allows us to resist the devil, as we are told to do in Peter’s warning, and remain “steadfast in the faith”(v. 9)? I would suggest that solid doctrine is our strongest weapon. When the “father of lies” (John 8:44) tries to discourage, intimidate, sow doubt, or harm, it appears to be with the intent of getting us to curse or deny God. But it is just here that our knowledge of the truth as revealed in God’s word is what will allow us to “quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one” (Ephesians 6:12).
The Bible teaches us that the devil has no rightful claim upon any of God’s elect. It is true that we “once walked according to the prince of the power of the air” but now, by God’s grace, that is no longer the case (Ephesians 2:1-2). Or, as Paul says elsewhere, “Who can bring a charge against God’s elect?” for it is God who has justified us and Christ who has redeemed us (Romans 8:33-34). No matter what may come our way, or who may be behind it, we are to be assured with the apostle that nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38).
Peter knew this first hand. When he issued his admonition he spoke from experience. Jesus had warned him, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat” (Luke 22:31). And sift him he did. Soon after Jesus issued this statement our Lord was arrested and Peter was denying he ever knew him (Luke 22:47-62). But Jesus also said that he had prayed for Peter and so directed him “. . . when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." Peter did return and was restored in the love and mercy of Christ (John 21:15-19). He personally experienced what Paul was talking about. He learned that nothing could separate him from the love of God, not even a determined devil who sought to sift him like wheat. From this place of tested and proven truth he did what Jesus asked of him, he wrote his epistle in order to strengthen his brethren in the face of their struggles against the prowling lion.
God’s Word and what it reveals about our election in Christ (or to put it another way, the gospel, or, the faith), is what strengthens us to stand against the lies of the devil when he connives to get us to believe that God has forgotten and forsaken us. Resist him steadfast in the faith.
What is it that allows us to resist the devil, as we are told to do in Peter’s warning, and remain “steadfast in the faith”(v. 9)? I would suggest that solid doctrine is our strongest weapon. When the “father of lies” (John 8:44) tries to discourage, intimidate, sow doubt, or harm, it appears to be with the intent of getting us to curse or deny God. But it is just here that our knowledge of the truth as revealed in God’s word is what will allow us to “quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one” (Ephesians 6:12).
The Bible teaches us that the devil has no rightful claim upon any of God’s elect. It is true that we “once walked according to the prince of the power of the air” but now, by God’s grace, that is no longer the case (Ephesians 2:1-2). Or, as Paul says elsewhere, “Who can bring a charge against God’s elect?” for it is God who has justified us and Christ who has redeemed us (Romans 8:33-34). No matter what may come our way, or who may be behind it, we are to be assured with the apostle that nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38).
Peter knew this first hand. When he issued his admonition he spoke from experience. Jesus had warned him, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat” (Luke 22:31). And sift him he did. Soon after Jesus issued this statement our Lord was arrested and Peter was denying he ever knew him (Luke 22:47-62). But Jesus also said that he had prayed for Peter and so directed him “. . . when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." Peter did return and was restored in the love and mercy of Christ (John 21:15-19). He personally experienced what Paul was talking about. He learned that nothing could separate him from the love of God, not even a determined devil who sought to sift him like wheat. From this place of tested and proven truth he did what Jesus asked of him, he wrote his epistle in order to strengthen his brethren in the face of their struggles against the prowling lion.
God’s Word and what it reveals about our election in Christ (or to put it another way, the gospel, or, the faith), is what strengthens us to stand against the lies of the devil when he connives to get us to believe that God has forgotten and forsaken us. Resist him steadfast in the faith.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
“Peypahz, Peypahz, Peypahz Pleese”
I know - that's a pretty lame attempt at replicating the cliché of a Nazi interrogator expecting some sort of authentication from the protagonist of the movie. But if we've been caught up in the plot, we sense the growing tension. Will his credentials past muster? Will he make it through the checkpoint?
The demand for authentication is at the heart of the confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees. In Mark 8 we learn that they “argue with him” and seek “from him a sign from heaven to test him.” They were not looking for another miracle. Jesus had done miracles in abundance, even before their eyes. What they wanted was proof that what he did, he did with the blessing of heaven and thereby verify that he was who he was purported to be, the Messiah.
“Peypahz, peypahz, peypahz pleese.”
Jesus refuses. He is not going to subjugate the glory of the Covenant of Grace to the self-justifying, man-made, Pharisaical conceptions of the Messiah. There was enough already before their eyes to authenticate who he was: the testimony of Scripture, the fulfillment of prophecy, the anointed teaching, and, in fact, extraordinary, unparalleled miracles. They had seen enough if only they had eyes to see.
The demand for an authenticating sign persists. It manifests itself every time someone asks a Christian why Jesus should be regarded as the “only way.” “Why should I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh? Why should I believe that it is only faith in him that saves me from the torments of hell? What proof do you have that authenticates these claims?”
“Peypahz, peypahz, peypahz pleese.”
Though we are to prepare thoughtful answers for such questions (1 Peter 3:15) and we are to faithfully preach Christ and him crucified (that in and of itself being a sign, 1 Corinthians 1:22-24), the sign we have been given to authenticate that Jesus was who the Bible says he was is our love. This love is to be evident to those watching. It grows out of our being in union with Christ (John 13:31-35, 17:20-23).
Why would the world make the connection between Christians loving each other and his coming? Perhaps Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians helps us to understand: “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’” (1 Corinthians 1:28-31).
Prior to these words Paul acknowledges the world’s demand for authentication. Yet, he says, God has chosen the despised things of the world to expose the motivation of such expectations. He uses sinful human beings who've been redeemed by him; they stand as a testimony to his grace. As this passage attests, there's no room for boasting among Christians for we cannot think of ourselves as deserving such favor. There is only room for humility and love. We cannot put ourselves forward. We can only put Christ forward. As Paul says, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” In fact, Paul writes elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (13:1-3) that if love is lacking in our Christianity all authenticating signs amount to nothing. It is love extended in humility toward all that marks us out as people who understand the need for a heaven sent Savior. It is our answer to the demand for “Peypahz, peypahz, peypahz pleese.”
The demand for authentication is at the heart of the confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees. In Mark 8 we learn that they “argue with him” and seek “from him a sign from heaven to test him.” They were not looking for another miracle. Jesus had done miracles in abundance, even before their eyes. What they wanted was proof that what he did, he did with the blessing of heaven and thereby verify that he was who he was purported to be, the Messiah.
“Peypahz, peypahz, peypahz pleese.”
Jesus refuses. He is not going to subjugate the glory of the Covenant of Grace to the self-justifying, man-made, Pharisaical conceptions of the Messiah. There was enough already before their eyes to authenticate who he was: the testimony of Scripture, the fulfillment of prophecy, the anointed teaching, and, in fact, extraordinary, unparalleled miracles. They had seen enough if only they had eyes to see.
The demand for an authenticating sign persists. It manifests itself every time someone asks a Christian why Jesus should be regarded as the “only way.” “Why should I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh? Why should I believe that it is only faith in him that saves me from the torments of hell? What proof do you have that authenticates these claims?”
“Peypahz, peypahz, peypahz pleese.”
Though we are to prepare thoughtful answers for such questions (1 Peter 3:15) and we are to faithfully preach Christ and him crucified (that in and of itself being a sign, 1 Corinthians 1:22-24), the sign we have been given to authenticate that Jesus was who the Bible says he was is our love. This love is to be evident to those watching. It grows out of our being in union with Christ (John 13:31-35, 17:20-23).
Why would the world make the connection between Christians loving each other and his coming? Perhaps Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians helps us to understand: “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’” (1 Corinthians 1:28-31).
Prior to these words Paul acknowledges the world’s demand for authentication. Yet, he says, God has chosen the despised things of the world to expose the motivation of such expectations. He uses sinful human beings who've been redeemed by him; they stand as a testimony to his grace. As this passage attests, there's no room for boasting among Christians for we cannot think of ourselves as deserving such favor. There is only room for humility and love. We cannot put ourselves forward. We can only put Christ forward. As Paul says, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” In fact, Paul writes elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (13:1-3) that if love is lacking in our Christianity all authenticating signs amount to nothing. It is love extended in humility toward all that marks us out as people who understand the need for a heaven sent Savior. It is our answer to the demand for “Peypahz, peypahz, peypahz pleese.”
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Loaded Language
“Judge Acquits Detectives in Bell's 50-Shot Killing
By MICHAEL WILSON
Three detectives were found not guilty in the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell, who died on his wedding day in a hail of police bullets.”
This was the synopsis of an article that reported on the outcome of the trial of three New York City detectives for the shooting of Sean Bell. It appeared in the email notice for the electronic version of the New York Times (04/26/08).
They sound pretty displeased with the verdict. The inclusion of “50-shot killing” in the title and the descriptive “died on his wedding day in a hail of police bullets” appear designed to cultivate in those reading the synopsis a sense that a great travesty of justice had taken place in the judge's acquittal. I don’t know whether that’s the case or not; the judge rendered his verdict and I assume that it will be challenged by those who disagree with it. But the NYT seems to think that this is so.
What does the fact that fifty shots were fired have anything to do with the police officers guilt or innocence? One shot wrongfully fired would render them just as culpable. The inclusion of the detail in the title infers that the police were way out of line. They misread the perceived threat and abused their power. This is bolstered by the descriptive “died in a hail of bullets on his wedding day.” The "wedding day" marker also appears calculated to promote Mr. Bell as innocent victim. One would assume from the description that Mr. Bell was on his way to the ceremony and got into a violent altercation with out of control police that left the bride standing at the alter. The clock had passed midnight so that it was technically his wedding day, but the incident took place in the wee hours of the morning as the groom-to-be was leaving a “bachelor party” at a strip club known for its unsavory activities (hence the presence of the detectives). Of course, if what the police did was a crime then its context doesn’t mitigate its criminality (though, ironically, context appears to have played a large in role in the judge’s decision). But to use the term “wedding day” seems calculated to heighten the innocence of the slain and the guilt of slayers.
By MICHAEL WILSON
Three detectives were found not guilty in the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell, who died on his wedding day in a hail of police bullets.”
This was the synopsis of an article that reported on the outcome of the trial of three New York City detectives for the shooting of Sean Bell. It appeared in the email notice for the electronic version of the New York Times (04/26/08).
They sound pretty displeased with the verdict. The inclusion of “50-shot killing” in the title and the descriptive “died on his wedding day in a hail of police bullets” appear designed to cultivate in those reading the synopsis a sense that a great travesty of justice had taken place in the judge's acquittal. I don’t know whether that’s the case or not; the judge rendered his verdict and I assume that it will be challenged by those who disagree with it. But the NYT seems to think that this is so.
What does the fact that fifty shots were fired have anything to do with the police officers guilt or innocence? One shot wrongfully fired would render them just as culpable. The inclusion of the detail in the title infers that the police were way out of line. They misread the perceived threat and abused their power. This is bolstered by the descriptive “died in a hail of bullets on his wedding day.” The "wedding day" marker also appears calculated to promote Mr. Bell as innocent victim. One would assume from the description that Mr. Bell was on his way to the ceremony and got into a violent altercation with out of control police that left the bride standing at the alter. The clock had passed midnight so that it was technically his wedding day, but the incident took place in the wee hours of the morning as the groom-to-be was leaving a “bachelor party” at a strip club known for its unsavory activities (hence the presence of the detectives). Of course, if what the police did was a crime then its context doesn’t mitigate its criminality (though, ironically, context appears to have played a large in role in the judge’s decision). But to use the term “wedding day” seems calculated to heighten the innocence of the slain and the guilt of slayers.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Is God's Wrath Justified?
Last night we finished a look at Hosea in our weekly Bible Study. Chapter 13 ends with a very disturbing image:
"Though he may flourish among his brothers,
the east wind, the wind of the Lord, shall come,
rising from the wilderness,
and his fountain shall dry up;
his spring shall be parched;
it shall strip his treasury
of every precious thing.
Samaria shall bear her guilt,
because she has rebelled against her God;
they shall fall by the sword;
their little ones shall be dashed in pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:15-16)
This is God's pronouncement upon the nation he had created, redeemed, and nurtured. Because of their persistent and unrelenting lack of repentance they would experience his unrelenting wrath. Before we charge God with unjustified cruelty we must remember that God understands the concept of appropriate retributive justice. He is the one who specified that "if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25). This is the biblical version of the punishment fitting the crime and is intended to rein in the darker impulses of people.
Given this we can only assume that the punishment that awaits the Northern Kingdom of Israel at the hands of the brutal Assyrians is appropriate to the offense. The crime against his majesty demands punishment of majestic proportions.
"Though he may flourish among his brothers,
the east wind, the wind of the Lord, shall come,
rising from the wilderness,
and his fountain shall dry up;
his spring shall be parched;
it shall strip his treasury
of every precious thing.
Samaria shall bear her guilt,
because she has rebelled against her God;
they shall fall by the sword;
their little ones shall be dashed in pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:15-16)
This is God's pronouncement upon the nation he had created, redeemed, and nurtured. Because of their persistent and unrelenting lack of repentance they would experience his unrelenting wrath. Before we charge God with unjustified cruelty we must remember that God understands the concept of appropriate retributive justice. He is the one who specified that "if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25). This is the biblical version of the punishment fitting the crime and is intended to rein in the darker impulses of people.
Given this we can only assume that the punishment that awaits the Northern Kingdom of Israel at the hands of the brutal Assyrians is appropriate to the offense. The crime against his majesty demands punishment of majestic proportions.
Unifying Power of Christ
Pontificating that religion is the source of many of the world’s problems has renewed fervor these days. Given the sectarian strife that fills the media it is understandable that such a conclusion would be reached. People clinging to a particular view of what constitutes obedience to true religion commit violence in the name of that conviction, and that to great destruction. It is hard to deny that throughout history great evils have been perpetrated “in the name of God.” But to reason that because something evil has been done in the name of religion therefore all religion is evil, is fallacious. Making general or sweeping statements is rarely helpful. It usually signals that the hard work of thinking through an issue doesn’t want to be done. Nevertheless, whatever the reason, the atmosphere for asserting a positive role for religion in society is fouled. I would suggest, however, that despite what might be popularly understood, Christianity has true potential for unifying disparate groups.
Consider Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman recorded for us in Mark 7:24-30. The encounter as well as its placement by Mark in the context of a discussion of what constitutes true obedience to God, signals that the blessings of the Messiah are not constrained by ethnicity. The Syrophoenician was a gentile. Yet when she humbly acknowledged the power and person of Christ he graciously extends the benefits of his presence to even her. It is important to note that he does this despite that fact that he teaches on several occasions that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). This intention was, in the end, not to exclude but to fulfill his Messianic role for, as he said to the Samaritan woman at the well (also someone not expected to receive of the blessings of the Messiah) “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22).
What we see beginning in the ministry of Jesus is expanded in the apostolic era. The directive by Jesus to his disciples to wait until endued with power in order that they might be his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), is accomplished and they dutifully carry out their commission. As a result Peter is soon sent to a gentile soldier’s household and Paul will declare that those who are inheritors of the covenantal promise come from every strata and strain of society: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
The unifying work of the gospel brings together in loving communion people from across the entire spectrum of humanity. No matter what our gender, education, ethnicity, social status, or previous religious commitments, we are all sinners in need of saving for “there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22,23). Only in Christ will a sin-fractured humanity find its unity for he alone in the “Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).
Consider Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman recorded for us in Mark 7:24-30. The encounter as well as its placement by Mark in the context of a discussion of what constitutes true obedience to God, signals that the blessings of the Messiah are not constrained by ethnicity. The Syrophoenician was a gentile. Yet when she humbly acknowledged the power and person of Christ he graciously extends the benefits of his presence to even her. It is important to note that he does this despite that fact that he teaches on several occasions that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). This intention was, in the end, not to exclude but to fulfill his Messianic role for, as he said to the Samaritan woman at the well (also someone not expected to receive of the blessings of the Messiah) “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22).
What we see beginning in the ministry of Jesus is expanded in the apostolic era. The directive by Jesus to his disciples to wait until endued with power in order that they might be his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), is accomplished and they dutifully carry out their commission. As a result Peter is soon sent to a gentile soldier’s household and Paul will declare that those who are inheritors of the covenantal promise come from every strata and strain of society: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
The unifying work of the gospel brings together in loving communion people from across the entire spectrum of humanity. No matter what our gender, education, ethnicity, social status, or previous religious commitments, we are all sinners in need of saving for “there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22,23). Only in Christ will a sin-fractured humanity find its unity for he alone in the “Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
