.jpg)
“Was Jesus rich?”
There’s a well-known theological answer to this question, but I’m guessing our anonymous questioner can Google “rich” and “Jesus”, and come up with 2 Corinthians 8 as fast than I can, so that’s probably not what he has in mind. He’s curious whether Jesus the man actually had shekels a-plenty during the time of his ministry.
Two years ago, I would have called this a silly question. Today, not so much.
“God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.”
Based on his personal experience, Peter could have finished this sentence any number of impressive ways. He could have said, “God made him appear to us ... who saw with our own eyes the rolled-back stone and the empty tomb,” or “... who witnessed him perform miracles,” or “... who were shown the marks of his crucifixion in his hands and his side,” or even “... who saw him taken bodily into heaven and heard the testimony of angels about it.”
Instead, he talks about sharing food with the risen Christ: “God made him appear to us who ate and drank with him.”
.jpg)
All over the world and all through history, wherever you have kings, dynasties invariably follow — at least until some nasty person ends them prematurely. I suppose over the course of the last several millennia, there may have been one or two gentle fellows who ruled a nation for thirty years and then thought, “Say, I’m not going to live forever, am I? Maybe the throne should go to the man who will do the best for my kingdom.”
Well, there may have been. I have no evidence of it. What happened instead was that — good, bad or indifferent — son replaced father if someone didn’t kill dad first.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
What constitutes “hate speech”? A fairly standard definition goes something like this: “Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.”
Tom: Now, personally I’d consider even that arguable, not least because the word “attacks” is nebulous, which leaves hate speech to be defined by the party claiming injury (a bad idea), not to mention it takes for granted that “sexual orientation” is a valid concept even though science has not yet demonstrated it is anything more than a personal preference.
Last week, we left off with these questions: if the morals of a social justice advocate seem to us, at first inspection, to be good, well-intended and earnest, can there still be a serious problem with her methods? And to follow this up, is it possible that by allying ourselves with her, could we be opening the door to something that should make us, as Christians, rightly hesitant?
Those are good questions. They deserve an answer. So what I propose to do here is to speak to how the fundamental values of Social Justice ideology are different from the values the Bible lays out for the church. To make the contrast perfectly clear, I have chosen to put the values in pairs. In each case, there’s a choice to be made about what kind of church we may think we should have.
(An aside: teaching an AI anything about authority is next to impossible, let alone biblical authority. All it will give you by way of illustration is a group of random people holding hands in a circle, presumably singing Kumbaya.)
Regardless of their home denomination or personal theological quirks, most remotely orthodox Christian readers will not take issue with the contention that the Son is the intrinsic equal of the Father. It’s the plain statement of the New Testament.
Philippians says prior to the incarnation the Son was “in the form of God”. Hebrews says the Son is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature”. John calls him the one who makes God known in the world, and this statement has the approval of the Lord Jesus himself.
We are living in an age that presumes to know the contents of our heads and hearts. Woke culture is full of thought crimes and guilt-presuppositions, projection being one of the political left’s favorite tools.
You braided your hair this morning to appropriate black culture. You didn’t talk to an Indian co-worker as much as others, obviously deliberately “othering” him. All the elders at your church are old, white males; you clearly don’t value women. That fellow is very curt; he surely disapproves of my lifestyle.
Quod erat demonstrandum, I suppose. Maybe.
.jpg)
“How would you counsel young Christian men whose parents cannot seem to let go?”
Moses left the care of his parents as an infant in a basket. Jacob left home, by many calculations, at the age of 71, finally and unexpectedly forced out of the homestead by circumstances he had himself set in play.
Somewhere in between those extremes lie the rest of us. The ideal scenario is becoming financially, domestically and emotionally independent at some point prior to both our parents wishing we would — please!
I don’t know if you’ve been following the saga of the Disney remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs [Er, yes … Ed.], but it’s instructive in several ways.
In brief, the old legend that launched the Disney empire has, at long last, been remade by Hollywood as a semi-live-action film, starring a vociferous and petulant adolescent named Rachel Zegler in the titular role. Having finished the film cinematically, Zegler has opted to “finish” it at the box office as well, primarily by dissing the original myth as “weird” and “creepy”. In the process, she seems to have managed to sink her own career prospects.
Two verses about possible futures:
“What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
“Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, ‘The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.’ For he thought, ‘There will be peace and security in my days.’ ”
Right. Now let me describe for you an increasingly familiar scenario.
It’s Sunday morning, 11 a.m. The coffee is piping hot in its urn, a few handfuls of plain Dare cookies are laid out in a basket with napkins, and the would-be worshipers are chatting in twos and threes in the chapel basement. I count ten. Number eleven is the speaker.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Faith alone. Scripture alone. 2017 marked the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s historic declaration of these biblical truths — truths fundamental to Protestantism and, more importantly, to a clear and consistent understanding of what God has spoken to mankind in his word.
Tom: This piece ran in Christianity Today earlier this year, Immanuel Can, in which Sarah Zylstra argues (based on the findings of a Pew Research poll) that many of the estimated 560 million Protestants around the world today no longer believe justification with God depends on faith alone or that scripture is the only final authority for Christian faith and practice. They are nominally Protestant, but leaning Catholic.
If true, that would seem a little discouraging.
“Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? They eagerly seek you, not in a commendable way, but they want to shut you out so that you will seek them.”
So you’ve had this nice person start to speak up in your church.
This hasn’t happened before. You are, perhaps, an elder, or a leader, or a pastor, or a committee chair, or just a sincere and involved member of the congregation.
You are aware that your church is a bit traditional. Maybe it’s one of the more Scots-English or North American patterns set in the 1800s such as a gospel hall or chapel; or maybe it’s one of those post-hippie era evangelical churches, or a “community church”, or even a modern megachurch of some kind. The important thing is that whichever it is, it’s probably based on a pattern set by some sort of Anglo-American heritage.
Some people live in active denial of the trends around them, oblivious to the spirit of the age and to all intimations of God’s coming wrath. They are dull by choice.
For example, the Lord Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees for failing to correctly interpret the “signs of the times”. They were skilled at predicting the weather and ordering their workdays accordingly, but blind to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy all around them. More evidence would not be given to them because they willfully ignored the signs they had already seen.
This is not that.
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to sinning: Eve’s and Achan’s.
At Jericho, Achan saw treasure forbidden by the word of God, lusted after it, took it and hid it away, buried in the earth inside his tent. But I can assure you it would not have stayed there. Achan had never stopped to work out any sort of strategy by which he might benefit from his sin. That was just plain stupid.
At least the Eve Method — wicked, shortsighted and ultimately destructive as it was — had the advantage of being intellectually coherent.
.jpg)
“Does God really care about the little things that trouble us?”
Last night was prayer meeting, and I sat listening to others pray, thinking about corporate prayer and what it means to the Lord. One after another, men stood up and took their concerns to their Father in heaven: a full-time worker struggling with health issues; the preparations for this summer’s camp work; the regular meetings of the congregation; a father, brother and grandmother who do not know Christ; a family with its head under church discipline. All the ordinary concerns of a local church had their moments, and we said our amens as others expressed them.
But I couldn’t help thinking about all the things we were not requesting.
What does biblical leadership look like?
The answer in many quarters these days is “servanthood”. The term “servant leadership” is said to have been coined by Robert Greenleaf in a 1970 essay, allegedly after reading a story by Hermann Hesse. Greenleaf’s concept has since been promoted by numerous evangelicals, including John Piper and the Acts 29 network of churches, of which ubiquitous YouTube presence Matt Chandler is president.
At one level, who can argue? “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve.” “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.”
Pretty unambiguous, really.
Taw, pronounced tav [ת], is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet and the last letter in the Hebrew phrase translated “In the beginning”, with which the book of Genesis — and every Bible — commences. Scholars take this formulation to signify that with respect to the plans and purposes of God, the end of this world and its story was always determined from the very outset. We could argue that case persuasively from many scriptures, some including the phrase “from the foundation of the world”.
Taw’s meaning is “mark” or “seal”, and it signifies completion. With this last letter, our unknown psalmist concludes his effusive and unsurpassed paean to God’s law.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Christianity Today has an interesting piece on Benny Hinn’s nephew Costi, who no longer preaches the prosperity gospel like the rest of his family.
Tom: Costi’s description of the financial benefits of preaching the gospel and performing “healings” is a bit jarring, especially for those who’ve grown up in the family of a full-time Bible teacher. I don’t recall the 10,000 square foot mansions, the Benzes, the exotic vacations or the summer homes.
What do you think, IC? Was my dad doing something wrong?
For the last two weeks, we've been working on a direct contrast between the church as Christ intended it to be and the church as Social Justice ideology aims to make it. And we've seen that they're not even close to the same thing. This week, let's complete that line of thought.
The church is a community of peace.
It’s where every person understands that his or her unique circumstances in life are given by God. It’s a grateful community.
But it’s also an active community. The disparities and injustices that persist in this world are not to be left alone. As much as we can, we are to lift up one another, and the lofty are to lower themselves, so that every person achieves the maximum that he or she can, in terms of conquering the challenges and fulfilling the opportunities God has given to him or her. We are to help one another, not live as monads, individuals uninterested in each other’s welfare. It’s a sharing community, a compassionate community, a merciful community.
I’m sure Christians other than Doug Wilson are writing about the delayed release of the nastier bits of the Epstein files, but since I’m not familiar with any of them, let’s go with the online post-millennialist whose website I’m most likely to cruise by on any given day of the week. Douglas, you are on!
Until recently, delays in getting the files into the public domain had been persuasively attributed to a lack of cooperation from the FBI, as usual pursuing its own agenda notwithstanding instructions from Attorney General Pam Bondi to come across with everything they’ve got in their records, as her position entitles her.
“There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”
If the COVID era had a defining passage, surely it was Romans 13. To say that large numbers of Christians employed verses 1-7 to justify passivity under pressure of government mandates and/or fear of negative opinions from our neighbors, families and friends is no exaggeration. While no small number of believers balked at the extended closure of church buildings and seemingly arbitrary health-related rules of conduct enforced on us, others simply submitted to any and all restrictions, no matter how bizarre or ineffective, as “God’s will”.
Romans 13 was their evidence. “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” Of course, they were also letting our rulers define “good” and “bad” for us.
.jpg)
“What does an eagle signify in the Bible?”
Birds of prey are majestic, beautiful, horrible creatures. If you’ve ever watched a winged predator drop out of the sky to pluck a smaller bird out of the air then calmly shred its screaming victim to pieces, all the while brazenly meeting the gaze of horrified onlookers through the glass pane of a full length 21st storey office window, you will know exactly what I mean. You may taste your own lunch a second time.
Eagles soar with mesmerizing elegance, then eviscerate mercilessly in a matter of seconds. You do not mess with such creatures.
For all the good they do, the English Bible’s chapter divisions often break up the text in ways that don’t much help the interpreter in his task. One of the things I have learned to do over time is to back up from the first verse of the chapter I am trying to understand to the beginning of the “scene” in which it takes place, which may be a chapter or more earlier. Then I continue from the end of the passage to the end of the “scene”.
Sometimes these fall on chapter divisions, and that’s great. Often they don’t.
The penultimate letter of the Hebrew alphabet has two different names, though it’s technically the same letter. Jews pronounce it Shin [שׁ] when it has a dot over the right side, symbolizing kindness, and Sin [שׂ] when it has a dot over the left, symbolizing judgment or severity. Its three vertical lines (or fiery branches, depending on the font you read it in) denote will, intellect and emotions, although a host of more obscure ideas are also associated with the letter. (The tefillin sports a rare four-branched version of shin.) Shin’s numeric value is 300. Written in full, the five letters of Elohim (aleph-lamedh-he-yodh-mem) also total 300.
Make of that what you will. I’m not sure I can do a lot with it. As with much Hebrew symbolism and numerology, I just file it under “interesting” and move on.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Wow. Christians going to court with one another.
You’d think this issue would be put to bed speedily by even the most cursory glance at Matthew 5:25-26 or 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. But no, believers are keeping their lawyers on speed-dial in significant numbers. It used to be the primary reason was child abuse, but last year it was something new: property rights.
Tom: Here I thought we’d all be meeting in cell groups in homes sooner than later as a result of lawfare trial balloons from the transgender, feminist or gay lobbies. But no, this is even stranger: we’re doing it to ourselves, Immanuel Can; not just as individuals, but whole congregations. And most of it involves issues related to church buildings.
We’re continuing our exploration of what Social Justice ideology does to the church. We began by looking at the scriptural pattern for fellowship, a higher vision for the church. We’ve now shifted to looking at the counter-offer, the kind of dynamic Social Justice produces.
It’s not a pretty picture. Instead of the “fruit of the Spirit” (love, joy, peace, self-control and such), we find that Social Justice thinking opens up a Pandora’s Box of nasty character qualities that issue in a suspicious, mutually-hostile and unloving environment. When we last left off, we’d just introduced the realization that advancing this program inevitably means resorting to the use of some sort of compulsion or force. Let’s build on that.
The Old Testament is full of hints, winks and nudges. Or so it seems to me.
For example, I cannot read Abraham’s words to Isaac, “God will provide for himself the lamb,” without marveling at the subtlety of the wording. It works as a double entendre in either Hebrew or English. Was Abraham a straight man or a prophet? I can’t tell you, but I love that line. From thousands of years down the road we look back and say, “He certainly did.”
That’s not a comment on our cleverness, of course.
.jpg)
Assurance of salvation and eternal security are not identical concepts. The former describes my level of confidence in my relationship with God, while the latter refers to what God has actually done, whether I fully understand it and benefit from that knowledge or whether I quiver in terror of eternal damnation every time I catch myself sinning yet again.
Which I will, and so will you. One may feel confidence with no scriptural basis. One may also feel fear for which there is no biblical reason.
.jpg)
“How do you feel about prayer in public schools?”
My family returned to Canada from overseas when I was due to enter grade 4, resulting in the school system bumping me into grade 5 a year early. Awkward and shy, I pretty much accepted everything the way it came, at least initially. Each morning at school started the same way: with the day’s announcements, preceded by rising for the national anthem and a rote recitation of the “Lord’s prayer”.
How did I feel about it?
The verb “to emote” derives from “emotion”, but with a slight change in emphasis. Merriam-Webster says it means “to express emotion,” then adds “in a very dramatic or obvious way”.
That gets to the root of it. Emotions are spontaneous. Emoting is calculated. Emotions are genuine. Displaying them for others may easily become just a pose.
We’ve all seen actors or singers apparently in the grip of deep feelings of angst, joy or sorrow. A moment’s consideration reminds us they are only doing a job. The singer has probably performed this tune hundreds of times. It is impossible she’s feeling the lyrics the way she appears to be, as she might have the first time she sang them. She’s selling the song for the benefit of her audience, and may feel nothing at all.
The Hebrew letter Resh [ר] signifies poverty or need. Scholars say it looks like a man bent over. It’s appropriate, then, that in these eight verses the psalmist most acutely expresses his awareness of his need and inability to help himself. If you are keeping track, he asks for help in seven different ways.
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” said the Lord Jesus, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Significantly, resh (spiritually impoverished) transforms into rosh (head or leader) by swapping out a single vowel. There are no vowels written in the Torah, so this ambiguity is part of the package. The last shall be first.