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.”
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
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)
