tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55967083325680872782024-03-19T00:30:32.554-04:00Coming Untrue“Every act of faithful leadership will be met with an equal and opposite act of sabotage.” — Joe RigneyDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger3766125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-46579531803185920672024-03-19T00:30:00.116-04:002024-03-19T00:30:00.135-04:00The Statsman Always Posts Thrice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi947YlkLKPSwFdKOVVFmn9dmeFTjzk9LdR8O1Sn86JfhQMNCKA3SLxu_oKxIypsJt0OH7llmooyybkufmYyfVLjBhVTvsToHA-mHr0aKC2N64o7roRXqOrYws2IwI7M9MX0aYpw_Ce2gnmyda6DFrYLqzxk_emTNGLxF4Wxq4GjQ1YShUwTN3CLFJFcuNS/s763/24-03-19%20T%20The%20Statsman%20Always%20Posts%20Thrice.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi947YlkLKPSwFdKOVVFmn9dmeFTjzk9LdR8O1Sn86JfhQMNCKA3SLxu_oKxIypsJt0OH7llmooyybkufmYyfVLjBhVTvsToHA-mHr0aKC2N64o7roRXqOrYws2IwI7M9MX0aYpw_Ce2gnmyda6DFrYLqzxk_emTNGLxF4Wxq4GjQ1YShUwTN3CLFJFcuNS/s320/24-03-19%20T%20The%20Statsman%20Always%20Posts%20Thrice.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>My inexplicable obsession with statistics has been chronicled <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2017/03/the-statsman-cometh.html">here</a> and <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2023/01/the-statsman-cometh-again.html">here</a>, but I do try to keep a handle on it,
recognizing it ain’t everyone’s cuppa. Mind you, the first stats post was in 2017, and the
second only last year, so they are coming faster every time. As one hard-bitten detective might say to another on
your favorite cop drama, “Uh oh, he’s decompensating!”</p>
<p>I’ll try not to run on too long.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Running the Numbers</h2>
<p>Let’s start with this rather unpleasant <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+52%3A28-30&version=ESV">series
of stats</a> from Jeremiah:</p>
<blockquote>“This is the number of the people whom Nebuchadnezzar
carried away captive: in the seventh year, 3,023 Judeans; in the
eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem
832 persons; in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan the
captain of the guard carried away captive of the Judeans 745 persons; <b>all the persons were 4,600</b>.”</blockquote>
<p>Wow. Is that possible? So few survivors in Jerusalem to
carry away captive to Babylon after over two years under siege? Did
Nebuchadnezzar leave more in Judea than he carried away? How bad was that siege
really?</p>
<p>Let’s look at those numbers a little more closely.</p>
<h2>Daniel, Kings and Jeremiah</h2>
<p>Now, there was an earlier siege and there were other deportations.
Daniel tells us in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+1%3A1-4&version=ESV">the
third year of Jehoiakim</a> (ab0ut 605 BC), Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem
and took some of the nobility captive, including Daniel himself. Daniel gives
us no numbers for that deportation, but the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar is
close enough to the dates in Daniel to suggest he and his friends were among the
3,023 Judeans in Jeremiah’s first group. Then, 2 Kings records that
10,000 Judean captives were again taken during <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+kings+24%3A14-16&version=ESV">the
three month reign of Jehoiachin</a> (597 BC), which, as usual in
Hebrew records, is probably a men-only total. That would have been Ezekiel’s
deportation. Jeremiah does not mention that second group.</p>
<p>Jeremiah refers to two other occasions when Judeans
were forcibly deported. Yet another deportation occurred
at the tail end of the final siege, since Jerusalem burned <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+52%3A12-14&version=ESV">in
the fifth month of the nineteenth year</a> of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. So then,
the 832 persons included former king Zedekiah, after the Babylonians broke
through the walls of Jerusalem and Zedekiah staged his abortive escape attempt.</p>
<p>The final deportation is mentioned nowhere but Jeremiah, and
would have taken place four to five years after Jerusalem burned, possibly in
the wake of the foolish rebellion staged by Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, a
member of the royal family, who murdered Nebuchadnezzar’s appointed governor. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+kings+25%3A26&version=ESV">All
the remaining Judeans</a> then fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah (see
Jeremiah 41-43). That was only a few months after the end of the siege, so
the 745 persons deported around 581 BC either returned to Judea from
other surrounding countries to which they had fled, or were scooped up from
Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar.</p>
<h2>Four Deportations</h2>
<p>So then, we have four deportations for which numbers are given.
The figure of 10,000 during Jehoiachin’s reign is obviously rounded.</p>
<font size="3">
<table align="center" border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: arial, "times new roman", serif; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-top: 18px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="background-color: #cccccc; vertical-align: center;"><b>Year</b></td>
<td align="center" style="background-color: #cccccc;"><b>Number<br />deported</b></td>
<td align="center" style="background-color: #cccccc;"><b>King of<br />Judah</b></td>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc;"><b>Deportees</b></td>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc;"><b>Notables</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc; vertical-align: center;"><b>605 BC</b></td>
<td align="right" style="vertical-align: top;">3,023</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Jehoiakim</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Nobility</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Daniel</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc; vertical-align: center;"><b>597 BC</b></td>
<td align="right" style="vertical-align: top;">10,000</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Jehoiachin</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Mighty men, craftsmen, smiths</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Ezekiel</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc; vertical-align: center;"><b>586 BC</b></td>
<td align="right" style="vertical-align: top;">832</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Zedekiah</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Poor, deserters, artisans</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Zedekiah</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc; vertical-align: center;"><b>581 BC</b></td>
<td align="right" style="vertical-align: top;">745</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">—</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">Probably refugees and the poor</td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="background-color: #cccccc; vertical-align: center;"><b>Total</b></td>
<td align="right" style="vertical-align: top;"><b>14,600</b></td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;"></td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;"></td>
<td align="left" style="vertical-align: top;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</font>
<p>All dates are rough estimates, but the order is correct. If
we assume the numbers are men only, then a maximum of 14,600 Judean men
were deported by Nebuchadnezzar, and probably not many more than 30,000 Judeans
total. We do not know how many fled to Egypt, but we know (1) they were
not numerous, and (2) there were no great men among them. After the
deportation of 586 BC, the only people left in the land were “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+39%3A10&version=ESV">some
of the poor people who owned nothing</a>”, to whom the captain of the guard
gave fields and vineyards, deeming them no threat and wanting to maintain the
value of the land. Gedaliah governed these until his murder.</p>
<p>Some relevant statistics that may or may not be accurate,
given they do not come from scripture. Archeological estimates are that the walls
of Jerusalem during the period of the sieges enclosed 160 acres. The city probably
had <a href="https://www.drandrewjackson.com/the-population-of-jerusalem-through-history/">a
normal population of no more than 8,000</a>. In the event of a siege, however,
many Judeans would have come into the city from the countryside for protection,
increasing the population temporarily. Still, there would have been an upper
limit on the number of refugees imposed by Jerusalem’s relatively small size. Large numbers of poor Judeans must have remained in the countryside. The estimated
population of the entire nation at that time was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity#Aftermath_in_Judah">about
75,000</a>.</p>
<h2>What Can We Conclude?</h2>
<p>Putting all these bits and pieces together tells us a few
interesting things.</p>
<p>First, the total Judean deportation of 14,600 men over
a quarter of a century was <b>much smaller than the Israelite deportation to
Assyria</b> 130-odd years earlier. Assyrian records claim Sargon took <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_captivity#Assyrian_cuneiform">over
27,000 Israelites</a> captive after the fall of Samaria alone (again, men). That
total does not include captives taken in the earlier conquests of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+chronicles+5%3A26&version=ESV">the
Transjordan tribes</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+kings+15%3A29&version=ESV">Naphtali</a>,
which may well have been considerably greater. Some estimates have the total
numbers taken captive by Assyria over a twenty-year period exceeding 100,000.
Compare this to the 832 persons deported at the fall of Jerusalem, and you
get an idea how seriously depleted Judah had become by the time Nebuchadnezzar
completed his conquest. Even if you add in the 745 persons deported later
on, it’s a sad picture, but exactly what God had promised. As Isaiah put it
many years earlier, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+1%3A9&version=ESV">we
should have been like Sodom</a>, and become like Gomorrah.” At this point in
history, the only “hosts” were heavenly. They weren’t living in Judah.</p>
<p>Second, <b>the siege was brutal</b>. Far more had died than lived. After Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon, Jeremiah had
received a word from the Lord that the remaining Judeans who resisted
Nebuchadnezzar would die by <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+24%3A10&version=ESV">sword,
famine and pestilence</a>. This prophecy evidently came true. Not only was there attrition
from defending the walls and a series of leadership executions ordered by the Chaldeans, including <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lamentations+2%3A20&version=ESV">right in the temple sanctuary</a>, but by the time the city fell, there was
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+52&version=ESV">no
food at all</a>. In Lamentations, Jeremiah records that Judean <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lamentations+2%3A20&version=ESV">women ate their own children</a>, and that the Chaldeans entering the city struck down <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lamentations+2%3A21&version=ESV">young men and women at random</a> with the sword. Who knows how many died of malnutrition, disease or other
afflictions in the two-plus years Jerusalem was under siege? It may have been
that as few as a tenth of the Judeans living there when Nebuchadnezzar invaded
survived to go into exile.</p>
<p>Third, from this tiny remnant of 14,600 in 581 BC, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra+2%3A64&version=ESV">an
assembly of 42,360</a>, mostly Judeans, returned to Jerusalem a little over
40 years later under Zerubbabel and Joshua. That’s <b>a
pretty impressive recovery</b>, especially since it is believed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Zion#The_return_to_Zion">more
Jews remained in Babylon</a> in 538 BC than returned to Judah. Ellicott
comments that a repopulation of as much as tenfold in forty years is “more
than can be accounted for by the natural increase of population”, and
speculates that poor Judeans left by Nebuchadnezzar migrated voluntarily to
Babylon to join their brothers in exile. Naturally, there is no record of any
such thing, though it’s equally difficult to explain how, if there were any
Jews left by Nebuchadnezzar in Judah after 581 BC, few appear to have maintained
their distinctive identity until 538 BC. Instead, the returning exiles
faced hostility from the people from the surrounding nations who had migrated
into the area. There is an indication that <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra+6%3A21&version=ESV">some
in the land</a> separated themselves from the uncleanness of the nations and
joined the exiles in celebrating the Passover, but it is unclear whether these were the descendants of poor Jews or leftovers from the northern kingdom. We are not even sure they were ethnically distinct. All the Jews with genealogies to prove their lineage were coming home
from Babylon.</p>
<h2>Increasing the Surplus Population</h2>
<p>Despite the disbelief expressed by some commentators at the incredible resurgence of the Jewish population in Babylon in a very short period, there is no difficulty with the logistics. Jews lived in peace and safety for most of those years, unlike the previous hundred or so, and those who embraced their exile
obediently enjoyed the blessing of God, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+29%3A4-14&version=ESV">as
he had promised through Jeremiah</a>. These included the command to seek the
welfare of the cities in which they sojourned and the instruction “multiply
there, and do not decrease”. Apparently, the Jews took that part to heart. With
good sanitation, good food, no persecution and the will and opportunity to
reproduce, a tenfold population increase in a bare minimum of forty years is not
unreasonable, especially since the vast majority of the deportees (13,023 out of 14,600) would have had a 16- to 24-year headstart on the later ones.</p>
<p>In the book of Esther (between 486 and 465 BC), Jews in
127 Persian provinces killed <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=esther+9%3A16&version=ESV">over
75,000 of their enemies</a> in a purely defensive conflict. That suggests that
either Jews had developed unbelievable fighting skills during peacetime, or
else there were an awful lot of Jews living throughout the Persian Empire by
the mid-fifth century before Christ.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">God was disciplining his people in exile, but he was also rebuilding their numbers, much as he did in Egypt, and simultaneously sharing Moses and the Law with the world in a way that would never have happened otherwise.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-30687650820267056412024-03-18T00:30:00.037-04:002024-03-18T00:30:00.236-04:00Anonymous Asks (294)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifdXA7tUn-bfqozrjomAhdPeNoazuDNOhhntAzPn8u76YbeAYEKoqCErkcp1KdzAOiVih4prjB8fsFLfpiIpDtlYKlJElAE4Yzl8SaCSDqva7LDinYfZfD8HbtbVDcfctRfgWeE-iunFhyhOM493DdfT4HHh1DzHLc5rzvP7ijcrb81FNPSBgIhJAEMPX3/s1024/24-03-18%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(294).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifdXA7tUn-bfqozrjomAhdPeNoazuDNOhhntAzPn8u76YbeAYEKoqCErkcp1KdzAOiVih4prjB8fsFLfpiIpDtlYKlJElAE4Yzl8SaCSDqva7LDinYfZfD8HbtbVDcfctRfgWeE-iunFhyhOM493DdfT4HHh1DzHLc5rzvP7ijcrb81FNPSBgIhJAEMPX3/s320/24-03-18%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(294).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“Should I join an accountability group?”</i></p>
<p><a href="https://redeeminggod.com/why-accountability-groups-dont-work/">Jeremy
Myers</a> says accountability groups fail miserably in that they “force”
members to lie. His sexual temptation accountability group fell apart when police
arrested a fellow member and successfully prosecuted him for molestation. Naturally,
his attraction to minors had never come up once in all the group’s
conversations about lust.</p>
<p>Understandable? I think so. I mean, would you talk
about it? I wouldn’t. I’d spend all my energy trying not to even
think about it.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>The Pros and Cons</h2>
<p>Numerous Christian websites say accountability is the bee’s
knees, and tell you how to go about setting up your own group. Benefits include
“<a href="https://www.embracingasimplerlife.com/accountability-groups-resources-make-happen/">intentional
friendships</a>” and helping the people of God to “<a href="https://www.pastoralcareinc.com/resources/accountability-groups/">stay
pure and faithful</a>”, “<a href="https://www.pastoralcareinc.com/resources/accountability-groups/">overcome
temptations</a>” and grow to be more like Christ. You can even buy an accountability
software package with “<a href="https://accountable2you.com/blog/accountability-in-church/">real time
reports</a>” to help you manage your choices more responsibly. Accountability
groups and partners usually promote themselves with stock appeals to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+6%3A1-5&version=ESV">Galatians 6</a>
and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+5%3A16&version=ESV">James 5</a>.</p>
<p>On the “nay” side of the balance sheet, accountability group
detractors point to <a href="https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/145836-why-i-don-t-believe-in-christian-accountability-giveaway.html">the
large number of major moral failures</a> among members, the tendency to “<a href="https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/145836-why-i-don-t-believe-in-christian-accountability-giveaway.html">game
the system</a>”, the inevitable emphasis on <a href="https://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/christian-trends/the-dark-side-of-christian-accountability.html">works-based
Christian living</a> and the <a href="https://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/christian-trends/the-dark-side-of-christian-accountability.html">focus
on sins</a> rather than Christ. Accountability groups provide the appearance of
intimacy for people who crave it, but it may turn out the disclosures you hear
and make are as authentic and current as your Facebook profile.</p>
<p>That’s not surprising. Groups cobbled together from a single
demographic may not be suited to all participants. It is doubtful the young
Christian husband whose biggest problem is setting aside devotional time with
the pressures of work and family has much useful to say to the single former drug
addict secretly craving his old habits, even if the two men are exactly the same age.
If they do click and somehow help one another, it’ll be entirely by the grace of God.</p>
<h2>Contriving Intimacy</h2>
<p>My own experience in life is that you cannot contrive or
program intimacy. The more desperately you go after it, the more you drive it
away. That includes group settings designed to produce it. They produce a false
intimacy instead, one that fools those who participate into believing they are
getting to the core of something important and real, when it is often just
another layer of self-masking.</p>
<p>Real intimacy is a lovely by-product of trust, and trust is
built by knowing one another and living shared experiences of service that lead
you to say, “Hey, that guy’s competent” or “That guy’s spiritual” or “That guy’s
trustworthy” because you’ve seen them in action and know what they are like. Experience
leads you to think, “Here’s somebody I could trust with something
difficult. Here’s somebody I know would understand.” When the time is
right, you may take advantage of the trust that has been banked.</p>
<p>Real intimacy requires ongoing fellowship, and fellowship comes
from getting together over something bigger and more important than either my
problems or yours.</p>
<h2>Giving an Account</h2>
<p>The word “accountable” does not appear in the New Testament.
“Account” does, and it’s the familiar Greek word <i>logos</i>, which literally means “word”. Each will “give a word”. But
here’s the thing about accountability as the New Testament describes it: it’s
all <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=account&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1">future</a>,
and it’s all <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=account&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1">giving
account to God</a>, not to men. Scriptures about giving an account have nothing
to do with pre-emptive discussion of temptation or confessing sins and
shortcomings to fellow believers, and everything to do with living in perpetual
awareness of the future judgment of God. Beware of scriptural terms used in
non-scriptural ways!</p>
<p>I have people in my life who call me to account when
they see me drifting away from what I ought to be doing in the Christian
life, but they are all people who have become part of my life organically:
siblings, old friends, coworkers, elders, people I knew from camp, at one
time my parents, and so on. We have an investment in one another. We have
history. I would do the same for them.</p>
<h2>What Produces Holy Living?</h2>
<p>If we want to look at what really leads to holy living, the
biblical example is Job. How can I say that? Well, God held him up as an
example. “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on
the earth, a blameless and upright man, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job+1%3A8&version=ESV">who
fears God</a> and turns away from evil?” If you want to see the ways in which
Job’s unique godliness in his day demonstrated itself, you can find them <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2021/06/serving-and-being.html">listed here</a>,
or just read <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job+31&version=ESV">chapter 31</a>.
Isn’t that what accountability groups are trying to produce: a character that
causes God to say, “I am pleased with you”?</p>
<p>What produced Job’s godly character? Definitely not a sense
of accountability to his fellow men, even his good friends. Not weekly meetings
full of self-disclosure and discussion of his temptations. In fact, when Job’s
friends start to show up to give advice and support, everything comes off the
rails. Imagine if they had been privy to his inmost secrets before they started
ripping him to shreds!</p>
<h2>Of Himself to God</h2>
<p>So are accountability groups a good idea? It depends on what
they are attempting to accomplish and how formally and mechanically that is
carried off. Some people seem to find them beneficial, but mostly these are
women looking for Christian gal pals rather than believers struggling with
secret sins they can barely manage, out of control thought lives or disorderly living
patterns. Others fear accountability groups don’t work, or do more harm than good.</p>
<p>Even at their best, however, the sort of accountability they
foster and promote is nothing the scriptures teach. The bottom line is
I am not accountable to you, and you are not accountable to me. When push
comes to shove, that reality tends to assert itself. We will never know what is
in another believer’s heart, no matter what comes out of his mouth. He may not
even know for sure.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">What produced Job’s godly character was the fear of God,
plain and simple. He saw himself as directly responsible to the Almighty. As we
all are. That’s the key to godly, consistent living.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-54188534368889595952024-03-17T00:30:00.058-04:002024-03-17T00:30:00.124-04:00Back to the Pigsty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcydIw5CHLIeSMbWyIqp9VsknrOw6b_Ic2eRJaxD9452MIUvQ2LsuxPY3D3ljqZZZRRmOSgfbsJAClZCS2UylGUc4Jn-KPMh737k_GbAc1hkLapDsO1wpQyFIDYkQI-75DAanECpZE4UosemZebhvgTFyF-6cXnIdnTpTipy5gMilvfjf1nE0z-KGix7so/s1024/24-03-17%20T%20Back%20to%20the%20Pigsty.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcydIw5CHLIeSMbWyIqp9VsknrOw6b_Ic2eRJaxD9452MIUvQ2LsuxPY3D3ljqZZZRRmOSgfbsJAClZCS2UylGUc4Jn-KPMh737k_GbAc1hkLapDsO1wpQyFIDYkQI-75DAanECpZE4UosemZebhvgTFyF-6cXnIdnTpTipy5gMilvfjf1nE0z-KGix7so/s320/24-03-17%20T%20Back%20to%20the%20Pigsty.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>Is brokenness desirable?</p>
<p>Unless you are around great numbers of mainstream
evangelicals on a regular basis, you may not think so. But if you have been in
such esteemed company, you’ve probably heard the enviable qualities of a broken
spiritual state touted so enthusiastically over the last few years that you may
have come to believe Christians ought to seek out and cultivate it.</p>
<p>Okay, let’s consider that.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>A Biblical Promise and Eternal Gift</h2>
<p>A 2016 article by Christian pollster George Barna talks
about “<a href="https://www.asrmartins.com/why-brokenness-matters-to-god/">the
importance</a> of being broken” and the desirability of “<a href="https://www.asrmartins.com/why-brokenness-matters-to-god/">willingly
becoming a broken vessel</a>”. He speaks of God exposing his children to “harsh
circumstances <a href="https://www.cfaith.com/index.php/audio-test/22-articles/christian-living/26927-how-brokenness-happens">in
order to break us</a>”. He says brokenness “<a href="https://www.cfaith.com/index.php/audio-test/22-articles/christian-living/26927-how-brokenness-happens">is
a necessity</a>”. He even calls brokenness a “<a href="https://www.asrmartins.com/why-brokenness-matters-to-god/">biblical
promise and eternal gift</a>”.</p>
<p>Hoo boy, sign me up for that!</p>
<p>Uh, no.</p>
<p>But with such high praise heaped on brokenness, it’s hardly
surprising many Christians talk about it as something to be earnestly sought
after. Barna says many true and useful things about the Lord’s dealings with
his children in the linked articles on brokenness, but in the process of doing
so, he paints a picture of broken spirituality that is almost unrecognizable
from the way the Holy Spirit of God actually uses the term “broken” in
his word.</p>
<h2>When God Breaks Stuff</h2>
<p>The Bible teaches brokenness is far from desirable. The Hebrew
word translated “broken” literally means <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7665/kjv/wlc/0-1/">maimed,
crippled, wrecked and shattered</a>. Does that sound like a technique Christians parents ought to use on their believing children? And, if not, why would we expect our Father to use it on us?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+2%3A13&version=ESV">Broken cisterns</a> are to be avoided; that’s
where the waters fail. The Lord breaks his enemies, not his children. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+6%3A12-15&version=ESV">The
worthless person</a> “will be broken beyond healing”. Likewise the person who
is “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+29&version=ESV">often
reproved, but stiffens his neck</a>”. God breaks the ships of Tarshish, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+48%3A7&version=ESV">assembled
against Zion</a>. He breaks <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+14%3A5-6&version=ESV">the
staff of the wicked</a> that struck people in wrath. Of the nations, it says he
will <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+2%3A26-27&version=ESV">break
them in pieces</a> like earthen pots.</p>
<p>When God breaks stuff, brother, you don’t want it to
be you. Breaking is his last-chance option, when every other attempt has failed.</p>
<h2>A Bruised Reed</h2>
<p>Now, of course God treats truly broken people gently. The
Lord Jesus <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+42&version=ESV">would
not break a bruised reed</a> or quench a faintly burning wick. God sent him to
“<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+61&version=ESV">bind
up the brokenhearted</a>”. “The Lord is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+34%3A18&version=ESV">near
to the brokenhearted</a> and saves the crushed in spirit.” Amen to all that. Blessed
are the poor in spirit. But how exactly does the truth of God’s immeasurable
grace to the downcast and defeated make brokenness a <i>desirable</i> state (unless, of course, you are in desperate need of
either being broken, or else perishing), let alone suggest that it is <i>God</i> who has done the breaking as part of
his perfect plan for his children’s spiritual development?</p>
<p>What has happened is that George Barna and evangelicals
generally have simply started using the word “broken” as a broad euphemism for being
under God’s discipline or “having a tough time” and learning from it to depend
on the Lord and abide in Christ. Some writers even talk about the baggage they
have carried around from their youth undealt with as “brokenness” and a
prerequisite to great things in the spiritual life.</p>
<p>In scripture, brokenness is not that. Brokenness is what God
does to the obdurate, and they rarely recover from it. Nobody should want that.</p>
<h2>A Solitary Exception</h2>
<p>There’s a solitary exception to the undesirability of
brokenness, and you can probably think of it. David writes, “The sacrifices of
God are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+51%3A17&version=ESV">a
broken spirit</a>; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not
despise.” Again, amen to that. The situation is Psalm 51, David’s prayer
of repentance after committing adultery with the wife of one of his servants,
having the man murdered and involving who knows how many servants in the
subsequent cover-up. Thank the Lord that he will not despise a broken and
contrite heart. But notice that David had to be brought to that place not
because of his normal learning curve as a child of God, but because he had
stopped behaving like the man he was when God chose him to be king and had
begun acting like the kings of the nations; taking what he pleased from others,
heedless of the cost.</p>
<p>To call Davidic brokenness desirable is perilously close to
continuing in sin “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+6%3A1&version=ESV">that
grace may abound</a>”. Yes, by all means, when you have sinned and covered it
up, and God sets out to break you, you should certainly accommodate. Break, and
break as quickly as possible. But how much better not to have provoked his
anger in the first place! No child of God should ever covet having displeased
his Father, notwithstanding the restoration that may come after it. It would be as if the week after the big party celebrating his
return, the prodigal son thought, “Boy, I’d sure like another fatted calf” and
headed back to the pigsty to try to replicate the situation that got him his
last bout of serious parental attention.</p>
<p>Bad idea, that.</p>
<h2>Brokenness, Surrender and Despair</h2>
<p>I have been broken exactly once in my life, on a Saturday
night at the end of a long period of resisting God’s will for my life, fighting
my own conscience, and doing still-unquantified damage to others in the
process. I gave up and said, “Lord, you win. What do you want me to do
next?” I have had many subsequent, lesser surrenders of will since that
night in one area of Christian living or another, but the Lord has never had to
come close to breaking me, and I have certainly never come close to
seeking it.</p>
<p>Brokenness is not God’s desire for his people, let alone a
regular state Christians ought to try to cultivate. You will only end up doing
a bad parody of the real thing. If the Lord has to break you every week,
brother or sister, you are doing something wrong. Broken is what the world
wants you to be. In absolute contrast, the Lord enables his servants to stand
up under impossible, unprecedented weights and burdens. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+corinthians+4%3A8-11&version=ESV">Paul
writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>“We are afflicted in every way, <b>but not crushed</b>; perplexed, <b>but
not driven to despair</b>; persecuted, <b>but not forsaken</b>; struck down, <b>but not
destroyed</b>; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life
of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being
given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be
manifested in our mortal flesh.”</blockquote>
<p>Paul was the opposite of broken. He took a licking and kept
on ticking. The whole point was not to break under the pressure, recognizing it
was not the Lord but the enemy who was trying to break him, and the Lord who
was bearing him up during immense difficulty.</p>
<h2>Brokenness and Death</h2>
<p>David took the medicine of a broken spirit as an alternative to certain death under God’s righteous judgment, or else becoming like Saul, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+51%3A11-12&version=ESV">rejected by God as king of Israel, and set aside</a>. If you require that medicine to live, so be it. Drink away.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">It just wouldn’t be my first choice of beverage.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-14928877444544609862024-03-16T00:30:00.108-04:002024-03-16T00:30:00.128-04:00Mining the Minors: Zechariah (9)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivwiqNRl9QgYrwfcrTj-XouFcVMaUjbZKHiwE-okAx2ZQxtu-2uhclBUzQM_ooRHr6aab06KQotI6cc3EUwKLbyQLJL5yryQ_Kb3HUeeHZrJMWFt7enAnzmAhtT4xE3rcBf8tvvn_PZBymbzCLRQGRuUmpQt8EGzUe1EEpI6ikUiZbs6WLdncDMZ82Cn5u/s1024/24-03-16%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(9).jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivwiqNRl9QgYrwfcrTj-XouFcVMaUjbZKHiwE-okAx2ZQxtu-2uhclBUzQM_ooRHr6aab06KQotI6cc3EUwKLbyQLJL5yryQ_Kb3HUeeHZrJMWFt7enAnzmAhtT4xE3rcBf8tvvn_PZBymbzCLRQGRuUmpQt8EGzUe1EEpI6ikUiZbs6WLdncDMZ82Cn5u/s320/24-03-16%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(9).jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<p>There’s no getting around the fact that the Bible’s pictures
of wickedness are frequently female. We’re going to study one today.</p>
<p>Commentators occasionally feel the need to apologize for
this, as if maybe the Holy Spirit might be a tad misogynistic, or perhaps the prophets of God went
off the reservation and used imagery consistent with their patriarchal biases
that he might not have personally approved.</p>
<p>Hey, we all know <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2016/03/inbox-things-jesus-did-for-women.html">the
Lord Jesus loved women</a> …</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Get Over It</h2>
<p>My attitude to such political posturing is a big shrug and a
“Get over it.” Nobody even notices when the Bible’s illustrations of evil are male,
let alone becomes offended. In Christ’s parables, for example, it was a
prodigal son, not a prodigal daughter. It was a rich man in Hades who despised
Lazarus, not a rich woman. The unforgiving servant was a man, the guy who got
tossed out of the wedding feast was a man and the dishonest manager was a man,
as were the rich fool, the rebellious tenants and the citizens who refused to
come to the wedding feast. And if we want to talk about personifying evil, Satan
is always portrayed as male, while the personification of wisdom <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+1%3A20&version=ESV">is
a woman</a>.</p>
<p>The depiction of the sexes is all pretty even-handed in
scripture, but people want to find something to carp about. It’s almost as if
all that comparing and competing is totally irrelevant to the Lord …</p>
<h1>I. Eight Visions and Explanations <span style="font-size: medium;">(continued)</span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">7/ A Woman in a Basket</h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">Zechariah 5:5-8 – The Vision</h1>
<blockquote>“Then the angel who talked with me came forward and said to
me, ‘Lift your eyes and see what this is that is going out.’ And I said, ‘What
is it?’ He said, ‘This is the basket that is going out.’ And he said, ‘<b>This is their iniquity in all the land</b>.’
And behold, the leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the
basket! And he said, ‘This is Wickedness.’ And he thrust her back into the
basket, and thrust down the leaden weight on its opening.”</blockquote>
<h2>Wickedness as a Woman</h2>
<p>So then, why did Zechariah see wickedness depicted as a
woman? It probably has more to do with the besetting sins of that particular
period than with pointless competition between the sexes. Consider that, like
Zechariah’s sixth vision, the seventh probably depicts <i>a particular sort</i> of wickedness, rather than wickedness in all its
forms. In this case, I believe the sin is idolatry, a case I will
make shortly. In this period of Judean history, portraying idolatrous wickedness
as peculiarly feminine turns out to be a perfect fit.</p>
<p>As far as foreign gods go, idolatrous Judeans worshiped many
male pseudo-deities, most famously Baal. But the hot little foreign deity among
Judeans during the exilic period was portrayed as a woman and honored by her
worshipers with the title of “the queen of heaven”. Her name was Ishtar or Astarte. In Canaan, she was Ashteroth or Asherah.</p>
<p>Asherah is a little less well known
than her male counterpart, but still rates frequent mention from Deuteronomy
all the way to the Minor Prophets. Her worship originated in Assyria and continued in Babylon. Jeremiah complained about
her from the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+7%3A18&version=ESV">beginning
of his ministry</a> to his <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+44&version=ESV">enforced
exile in Egypt</a> in chapter 44, where he mentions her four times, quoting
back the brazen self-justifications of the Jews left in the land by Nebuchadnezzar.
They adulterated the worship of
YHWH by pouring out drink offerings and baking cakes for her. Their superstitions
led them to believe their problem was not being too idolatrous, but not being
idolatrous enough!</p>
<p>So, yes, if God wants to depict wickedness as a woman in
this chapter, remember, he didn’t start it. The Assyrians did, and the Jews
bought into the scam big time. Sending the queen of heaven back to Babylon in a basket was merely packing her up and sending her home. If think you detect an element of mockery in this vision, you may well be on to something.</p>
<h2>The Basket</h2>
<p>The word “basket” is literally <i>ephah</i>, which was a Hebrew measure, usually of grain. Since it was
probably a common measurement used in markets everyday, there may be little to
be learned from that. It is interesting, however, that almost everywhere the
word is used in the Old Testament, from Exodus through Zechariah, the ephah as
a measurement is consistently associated with <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h374/kjv/wlc/0-1/">acts of
worship</a>. All grain offerings were measured in relation to the ephah.</p>
<p>Translating the size of an ephah into English turns out to
be a dodgy exercise: estimates in commentaries range from five to twelve
gallons. Even at the largest possible size, the basket would have been far too
small to serve as even a temporary prison for a normal sized woman. This leads
some to speculate that the woman Zechariah saw was really a graven or carved
image like a household idol, rather than an actual being. This is certainly
possible, but the presence of the lead weight to keep her inside strongly
suggests the potential for escape. Zechariah probably saw a living being, if a
little undersized.</p>
<p>Then again, we’ve just had a vision of a wildly oversized
flying scroll, so I’m not sure size is all that relevant to the interpretation.
Probably the implicit association of the ephah with worship is more significant
than the size of the woman inside it!</p>
<h2>Their Iniquity in all the Land</h2>
<p>The angel tells Zechariah that the woman in the basket
signifies “their iniquity in all the land”. The same enigmatic language issue
exists here as in the first vision of chapter 5, which is that the Hebrew
word translated “land” in the ESV (meaning Judah) may equally signify the
entire earth. Here, I believe “land” is the correct translation. The woman
in the basket is “going out”, not off-planet, but from Judah to Shinar.</p>
<p>The word translated “iniquity” is even more nebulous.
Perhaps a scribal error is involved, or perhaps there is a bit of Hebrew
wordplay going in that we can’t decipher. In any case, it’s a very common word
meaning “eye”, “sight” or even “<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5869/kjv/wlc/0-1/">source</a>”. This is the only occasion in the entire Old Testament
where it is translated as “iniquity” in English, which probably resulted from
the ESV translators reading the angel’s explanation (“This is wickedness”) back into
their interpretation. However, if the angel said, “This is their eye in all the
land”, he may simply have meant that Judah had a chronic problem with idolatry,
which was in fact the case. Idolatry was the fountainhead of all wickedness for them. The nation was fixated on foreign gods, and
repeatedly returned to them.</p>
<p>Perhaps the significance of the vision is that God intended to
change that for good. He had been restraining idolatry in Judah, as suggested
by the lead cover on the basket. Now he was getting rid of it for the foreseeable
future. Metaphorical idols such as greed might still be a problem for
individual Jews, but national, literal idol worship involving high places,
groves, icons and poles was going to exit the land. In fact, this is precisely
what occurred. The final prophet of the Old Testament period, Malachi, mentions
religion repeatedly throughout his four chapters, but never once does idol
worship come up in association with Israel. And the only times non-metaphorical
idolatry is mentioned in the Gospels and Epistles is in a Gentile context. After Zechariah’s
vision, literal idolatry would not remain a Jewish problem much longer.</p>
<h1>Zechariah 5:9-11 – The Explanation</h1>
<blockquote>“Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women
coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a
stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven. Then I said
to the angel who talked with me, “Where are they taking the basket?’ He said to
me, ‘<b>To the land of Shinar</b>, to build
a house for it. And when this is prepared, they will set the basket down there
on its base.’ ”</blockquote>
<h2>The Land of Shinar</h2>
<p>I will pass on the question of what the two women with
stork wings signify. Commentators are split on whether these are agents of
heaven or servants of Satan, and I’m not sure much turns on the answer. Sometimes
God works through angelic powers, sometimes he works through people, and
sometimes he glorifies himself and accomplishes his purposes through the most
unlikely agents, very much against their expectations. What is evident is that
the Lord is behind the removal of institutionalized idolatry from Judah to the
land of Shinar, and at very least allows it to have a home there. The woman in
the basket will have a house built for her far away from the people of God. She
is still a spiritual threat to the world, but one we will not see directly
affecting the nation of Israel again until the time of the end.</p>
<p>The term Shinar is relatively rare in the OT compared to
Babylon or Babylonia. It goes all the way back to the table of nations in
Genesis 10, where Nimrod made his kingdom, and again in Genesis 11,
where construction on the Tower of Babel began. The robe that so successfully
tempted Achan was from Shinar. It’s also <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+11%3A11&version=ESV">the
millennial designation</a> for the area, at which point Babylon the great will
be no more. We must remember that Chaldean Babylon had already fallen to
Persia, and the Spirit of God through Zechariah may have wanted to avoid any
potential confusion with one of the two contemporary Persian seats of power. The
vision has nothing to do with empiric Persia. Its significance is spiritual,
not political.</p>
<p>Referring to the land of Shinar suggests, perhaps, that the Lord
is having false religion taken out of Judah and tucked quietly away in a far-off
place, to reappear as a major player in Israel’s storyline at a future date.
While Christ is building his church, Satan is hard at work extending the
influence of his own.</p>
<h2>A House on a Base</h2>
<p>The winged women were going to build a house for the woman
and set the basket down on its base. The word translated “house” is a very
common one in Hebrew, but frequently refers to a temple, and this is how we
should probably think of it. The word translated “base” is yet another religious
term, used frequently in the chapters that detail the construction of Solomon’s
temple. Altars, pillars and lavers all had “bases”. As I hinted earlier,
this plethora of blatantly religious terminology makes it extremely difficult
to identify the “wickedness” of the woman in the basket with any sin other than
idolatry. This woman symbolizing false religion will have her place in the
years to follow Zechariah’s visions, but it will not be in Israel. Moreover,
she will not be associated with literal, empiric Babylon of the recent past,
but rather with mystery Babylon of the future.</p>
<p>Let’s cut to the chase. I think we are seeing a
spiritual allegory for the rise of mystery Babylon, the great whore whose fall Revelation 17-19
depicts. By the time we find her in Revelation, her sphere of influence has
greatly expanded: from her origins in Assyria and her corruption of God’s
people, to being spirited away to Shinar, and from there, teaching <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+14%3A8&version=ESV">all
nations</a> to drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality. To me at
least, this suggests something much more pervasive than merely the ungodly
aspects of Catholicism (the fact that some call Mary “the queen of heaven” is unfortunate but not conclusive), or even Islam. A false religious system that corrupts <i>all</i> nations and that is responsible for
shedding the blood of God’s servants is something we have yet to see explicitly
revealed in the world in its final form, where its ultimate object of worship will be indisputably male. Or perhaps bestial.</p>
<h2>Mystery Babylon’s Judean Origins</h2>
<p>What should not be lost in all this imagery is the intimation that mystery Babylon will have a strong Jewish influence. That is what I think Zechariah is telling us. In Revelation, we
see this in the person of the second beast, who rises “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+13%3A11-18&version=ESV">out
of the earth</a>”. (As in the Zechariah passage, I believe that is better
translated “land”, meaning Israel, in contrast to the first beast, who rises “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+13%3A1&version=ESV">out
of the sea</a>”, meaning the nations or rest of the earth. In Greek, <i>gē</i> has the same ambiguity as its Hebrew
equivalent.)</p>
<p>This beast is a false prophet, the religious energy behind
the first beast’s political power. He has two horns like a lamb, but
speaks like a dragon. All this suggests a Jewish connection to the worship of
the beast, who starts as a political figure and ends as a religious one. In
2 Thessalonians 2, we discover this man of lawlessness takes his seat
in the temple of God, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+thessalonians+2%3A4&version=ESV">proclaiming
himself to be God</a>.</p>
<p>This will be the ultimate idolatrous temptation for the Jews
of the future: bow to the man of sin and acknowledge him as God, or take your
chances with the persecuted and occupied remnant of faithful Israel praying for
the return of Messiah. It will be the dividing line between spiritual life and
death, between who is Christ’s in future Israel and who belongs to Satan and his agents.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">And it’s all been in the works for 2,500 years or so,
since God took idolatry out of Israel and gave it a house in Shinar.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-72454320766737496482024-03-15T00:30:00.032-04:002024-03-15T00:30:00.129-04:00Too Hot to Handle: The Discipline of Discipline<p><i>In which our regular writers toss around subjects a
little more volatile than usual.</i></p>
<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl2j2cJTKXb9vV6ZonXKSTWfl9lOsg5o0YO3SVkoBPFbYjCmy1U1R-XPVF_YXgqEvN9fkMG1qGuFn1HfU6cQ6OxUOYZWGnjWwHyN6hAHo41qGOt2YWZBnM6LO3xzmfT874LzrNXIzwnkdK/s1600/15-11-13+THH+The+Discipline+of+Discipline.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl2j2cJTKXb9vV6ZonXKSTWfl9lOsg5o0YO3SVkoBPFbYjCmy1U1R-XPVF_YXgqEvN9fkMG1qGuFn1HfU6cQ6OxUOYZWGnjWwHyN6hAHo41qGOt2YWZBnM6LO3xzmfT874LzrNXIzwnkdK/s320/15-11-13+THH+The+Discipline+of+Discipline.jpg" width="280" /></a></p>
<p><b>Immanuel Can:</b> The only verse in the Bible that everyone today seems to know is “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7%3A1-3&version=ESV">Judge not lest ye be judged</a>.”</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Sounds about right.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Okay, so that verse seems to people to be conveying something important. Maybe it needs some
closer examination.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Fair enough. Well, it seems to me there’s an obvious incentive on the part of those who use
it to rebut any potential critique of their own behaviors — or the
behaviors of those for whom they choose to be advocates. I mean, quoting a verse to an unbeliever would
carry no weight at all, so it’s clearly a device to disqualify dissenting Christian
opinion and shut down any debate before it begins.</p>
<p>It’s saying to you and me, “Aha, see, you’re not allowed to
have a view on this.”</p>
<a name='more'></a><p><b>IC:</b> More than that: it’s usually employed as a kind of threat that if you do, you are going
to get some terrible consequence yourself. People who use it are often trying
to turn defense into offense, effectively declare any possible accusers
hypocrites, and even to call for divine judgment upon all such.</p>
<h2>The All-Encompassing Rule?</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Indeed. When
you read the Lord’s statement in Matthew, do you take it to be an
all-encompassing rule? Do you understand it to mean that followers of
Christ are to pass no judgments at all?</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Well, it’s funny how unaware these same quoters of Matthew are of all the injunctions TO judge, such as
Christ’s command in John 7:24, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” That would be a bit hard to obey if you couldn’t judge at all, wouldn’t it? Or
how about Luke 12:57, in which he asks, “And why
do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?” It seems he finds some fault in the crowd’s<i>
failure </i>to judge — surely a strange indictment, if judging of all
kinds is just plain wrong. So something needs to be nuanced better here.</p>
<h2>Looking for Examples</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Well, yes. Whenever I come across a command of Christ (or the apostles
for that matter) whose meaning is disputed, I look to see
how the speaker modeled that command. What does <i>not judging</i> look like in
action? For the Lord, it looks like calling a brood of vipers <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+23%3A33&version=ESV">a brood of vipers</a> and warning them they were headed to hell. For
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude+12&version=ESV">Jude</a> it means calling
false teachers “shepherds feeding themselves; waterless
clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead”.
For Paul and Peter, you pick the passage. There are tons. It is idle to say,
“Well, that was Christ.” How do you explain the apostolic examples? They were
men indwelt by Holy Spirit, as we are.</p>
<p>Clearly the injunction not to judge is limited in some way
that the casual reader is not equipped to discern.</p>
<h2>Finding an Audience</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> I should add
that my most recent exposure to this verse was when I was watching a philosophy
film in which a felon was shown raging in his cell about how he would have his
revenge on all of society. He was expatiating in minute detail on his plans for
torturing the general public whenever he might get the chance. In the middle of
all this, he threw in an off-the-cuff reference to this verse, before plowing
ahead with his various graphic imaginings. And that seemed to me a very poor
character reference for the sorts of people who have tended to limit their scriptural
repertoire to that particular verse.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Indeed. And
such people are not usually correctable. They’re not generally inclined to sit down and look at the
New Testament with us. My concern is more for the Christian masses who feel
muzzled by this sort of cynical retort; whose tender consciences are
incorrectly calibrated to believe that speaking the truth plainly about sin and
its consequences is going too far. If we’re going to go on the offensive from
time to time as the apostles did, we need to be able to do so in confidence
that we are acting according to the will of God.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Yes, that’s the right focus
of concern, I think. Christians sometimes do feel shut down by that sort of
retort. Being aware of the importance of humility, and being also attuned to
their own need of forgiveness, this sort of <i>carte blanche</i> condemnation of judgment makes them
second-guess themselves, even on things they <i>know </i>to be evil. So they
hesitate to condemn things like abortion, homosexuality or premarital sex, on
the one hand, or “respectable” sins like gossip and greed on the other, not because
the Bible is unclear in what it says, but because they feel personally
vulnerable to judgment if they are too assertive. But if there is a clear
limitation to the application and scope of that verse, and a clear contrary
commandment to judge positively in other situations, that changes the whole
game, doesn’t it?</p>
<h2>Motives and Actions</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Unfortunately, yes. But that
requires discernment. I think we have to be careful about judging the motives
of men’s hearts. It’s clear from scripture that people <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+17%3A9&version=ESV">don’t always know why they do what they do</a> and that sometimes <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+timothy+3%3A13&version=ESV">deceivers are deceived themselves</a>. So I think it’s wise to be
careful about that. But when we judge actions by calling attention to what the
Bible says — always provided that we are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+2%3A21&version=ESV">condemning conduct that we do not engage in ourselves</a> —
it seems to me that we are following a path well trodden by saints all
throughout history.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Yes, I think that’s a good
distinction. We’re not called to judge other people’s worth, nor to judge their
motives. But, as Christ said, “By their fruits you will know them.” When we
look at actions, we not only can judge, we should. And if it turns out that
we’re not able to do so, it’s not a sign we’re generous of spirit; rather, it’s
a sign we’re deficient in discernment (if not disobedient in disposition).
How’s that for alliteration?</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Should I capitalize the
‘D’s? I think our readers are shrewd enough to pick it up.</p>
<h2>A World Without Judgment</h2>
<p>Crazy thought here: What happens if we can’t be bothered to call out the wicked in
this world when they blatantly speak or act against God? Say we take the advice
of the felon in your philosophy film and zip it. What are the consequences?</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> The obvious one is that evil
goes forward unquestioned. But there’s more. We also lose our own moral
bearings, fail in our own moral duties, and become useless to ourselves and to
the world in terms of our service as moral signposts to truth. In respect to
our service, testimony and obedience, we simply become confused and toxic. What
say you, Tom?</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Very practically, there’s
also the judgment of God. That’s a serious concern. I’m thinking here of Eli.
His sons were said to be “blaspheming God” by the way they behaved as priests
of Israel, and God condemns not just the sons but Eli, because their father “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+samuel+3%3A13&version=ESV">did not restrain them</a>”. Now this is an old man with adult sons, so physical restraint is probably not
an option. But it seems that while Eli asked his sons, “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+samuel+2%3A23-25&version=ESV">Why do you do such things?</a>” and even warned them of the potential consequences of their actions, <i>he did nothing effective</i> to prevent them
from continuing. As a result, the whole household of Eli was judged by God and
replaced in the priesthood.</p>
<p>So we might ask the question “What COULD Eli have done?”
Where was he derelict in his duties?</p>
<p><span style="color: #f6b26b;"><b>Lack of Correction Is Lack of Love</b></span></p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Certainly. His failure to
judge his sons’ actions and rein them in was no sign of open-mindedness, but
rather a failure of nurture. Ultimately, his tolerance led to their judgment by
God. It reminds me of something one of my students once said to me. She’d done
a series of some rather anti-social things, been caught and reprimanded by the
admin. When she came by to see me afterward, she suddenly said, “I don’t think
my mother loves me.”</p>
<p>I was stunned. Since I knew her mother (a kind-hearted but rather indecisive
sort), I defended her: “I think she does … why do you suppose that?”</p>
<p>She responded, “If she loved me, she’d stop me.”</p>
<p>See? She got it: lack of correction is a sign of lack of love. So then, what are we
saying to the world when we declare that we are content to let them pursue
their own self-destructive course to a lost eternity unimpeded by even a moral
objection from us? Is there even a smattering of real love in that?</p>
<h2>Kind To Be Cruel</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> I think that’s a good point. And sometimes as parents, it’s that we don’t want the
fight, especially as we get older. Or it becomes more important to us to be
liked than to do and say the things we know are right but that may get a very
immediate and negative reaction. But I think we’re shortsighted in that: if I were to name the five people who have had the greatest impact on my Christian
life and whom I respect the most, every one of them has had reason to dress me
down or speak plainly to me at least once. It didn’t change my opinion of them,
except to the extent that it may actually have risen. I don’t have the
same respect for people who reinforced my delusions of adequacy.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Right. Love
intervenes when danger approaches. And <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+13%3A5&version=ESV">love takes no thought for whether or not it’s hard to intervene</a>. It’s too absorbed with doing the right thing for a person to care what it
costs, or even whether or not that person is instantly understanding. It does
the right thing anyway.</p>
<p>We need to be reminded of that, especially in our era of
instant, easy ‘love’.</p>
<h2>What Could Eli Have Done?</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> True. I’d
like to go back to my earlier question though, because we never really explored
it: What could Eli have done that he didn’t do?</p>
<p>I mean, as an older father with adult children he was
limited, and he did everything he could in that context. He said, “Why are you
doing this?” and warned them what would come of it and that God would be their
judge. And God still calls Eli out for failing to “restrain” his boys.</p>
<p>My thought is that he did what he could as a father. He did
NOT do all he could as a priest. As a senior priest, he could have called his
sons out publicly. He could have drawn attention to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+samuel+2%3A12-17&version=ESV">their thefts and their threats</a> and the fact that they were a disgrace to the name of the Lord. If everyone in
Israel knew what they were up to, there would have been some public resistance
to their behavior and some peer pressure exerted on them to dial back the
predations a notch or two. They might have been restrained by that.</p>
<p>But he didn’t. Maybe he didn’t want to embarrass the family name.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Maybe. Or
maybe a feeble protest is all he was willing to risk. His boys were hard types,
for sure; and if judged publicly, they might well have paid a very severe
penalty. There was something he surely can have done — and we cannot
speculate on precisely what that was, as scripture doesn’t say — but the
Lord’s judgment on Eli was that he still had cards to play, and didn’t
play them.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">But if he had, and if he’d turned them, it’s possible his
sons souls might have been saved. As it is, it looks like Eli let them pay the
ultimate price. And that just cannot be
what love does.</p>
Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-19913631519994845032024-03-14T00:30:00.033-04:002024-03-14T00:30:00.122-04:00The Mercy of Fire<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUrcLKUnNkuwLsIcgFZV-eBPWKDI5xMq5zaAnY7OjvlUPMHzuNJWpoWUmLsss3RPZNC9S0dfB-Sznp52OX7VZigXOTJhhKH0DEJoo66icXK8TgPQ8n5s0qNOcO4wfqKRhB87hcTZPG45o/s1600/20-07-02+IC+The+Mercy+of+Fire.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUrcLKUnNkuwLsIcgFZV-eBPWKDI5xMq5zaAnY7OjvlUPMHzuNJWpoWUmLsss3RPZNC9S0dfB-Sznp52OX7VZigXOTJhhKH0DEJoo66icXK8TgPQ8n5s0qNOcO4wfqKRhB87hcTZPG45o/s320/20-07-02+IC+The+Mercy+of+Fire.jpg" width="280" /></a></p>
<p>“Some bells cannot be unrung.”</p>
<p>So goes the saying when something has been done that cannot be undone. The ink has been spilled,
the glass has been shattered, the clock cannot be rewound, the world has moved
on. The arrow has flown, the words said cannot be recalled to the mouth, and
“send” has been pressed. There is no going back, no fixing things “as they
were”, or maybe “as they should have been”.</p>
<p>From now on, for good or for ill, things can never be the same.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>There aren’t many situations like that in life. But there are some, as King David discovered after
<a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+12%3A10-14&version=ESV">his sin with Bathsheba</a>. Forgiven he could be; restored, yes, that
too. But whole again in the way he would wish? No, that he could not be. Having
taken the wrong path, he was going to have to play out the hand he’d drawn for
himself. A child would die, and his home would be fouled by defilement and
riven by the sword.</p>
<p>This he had done. It could not be undone.</p>
<h2>Living with Losing</h2>
<p>I don’t think David is unusual. To live in this world is to make many mistakes, and in any merely
human life, some of these are bound to be irrevocable. That’s the nature of
reality; it takes the print of what we do to it. Not all these prints are
eradicable after the fact. Actions have consequences.</p>
<p>Now, let it be said this is never an excuse for failing to do everything you can to make right what
you have done wrong. But let us not think of that. Let us instead presume that guilt
on all sides has been fully acknowledged. The apologies have been made, and
sincerely too. Repentance has been sought, restitution offered and perhaps even
accepted. The book has been closed, the tally balanced so far as it can be. Insofar
as biblical reconciliation can be effected, all that has been done.</p>
<p>Still, what’s done sometimes cannot be undone.</p>
<p>What’s to be done with things like that?</p>
<h2>Fires of Judgment and Holiness</h2>
<p>Thinking about them has brought a strange thought to me: sometimes, there is a mercy in fire.</p><p>What do I mean?</p>
<p>After all, fire is almost always in scripture a depiction of wrath, destruction and perdition. One has only to
think of such things as the <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+19%3A20&version=ESV">lake of fire</a> or
<a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+peter+3%3A7&version=ESV">the consumption of the earth by fire</a>, or of the destruction of Nadab and Abihu in
Leviticus 10. At the same time, fire is also symbolic of purification by the holiness of God, as in
<a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+9%3A24&version=ESV">the Levitical sacrifices</a>. And so, when we come to this verse, we need
to carry the whole package of what “fire” means in scripture in our minds, I think.</p>
<p>And a key verse says <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+3%3A15&version=ESV">this</a>:</p>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but <b>only as through fire</b>.”</blockquote>
<h2>What is Not There</h2>
<p>Now, let this be clear at the start. The passage is NOT talking about <i>a man</i> being burned up, but about <i>his</i> <i>work</i> being burned up. That “work” is explicitly whatever he does pertaining to the Church. Some work is “gold, silver, precious stones”; some is “wood, hay, straw”. Some is combustible, some is not. Some things done survive the
fire; some are instantaneously incinerated. This, I think, is a function
of their association with the holiness of God as delivered to the Church in the
Foundation Stone, Christ himself. The holiness of God burns away everything
that cannot endure association with holiness.</p>
<p>And since we Christians ourselves are to endure association with a holy God, the man himself is “saved”, not burned up. So
there is no speaking of the loss of a soul here. But there is an interesting
difference between the man so described and his companions who built with “gold,
silver and precious stones” — he is saved <i>only as through fire</i>.</p>
<p>What does that mean? Well, when a fire’s really gone through something, there’s nothing solid left … just ash,
which then blows away in the wind and is seen no more. In all of earthly
experience, there really isn’t a more thorough picture of a thing really being <i>gone</i>. But the fire of God does not leave
anything at all. Gone is gone.</p>
<h2>Analyzing the Facts</h2>
<p>Here we have a picture of a man who has tried to build within the Church. His work has perhaps been impressive in its
day, but it had no spiritual substance. When the fire came through, the entire
edifice of his work was incinerated. The man stands and watches … saved, but
only as through fire.</p>
<p>But notice this: at the same time, he is saved <i>by</i> the fire. Fire is the
instrument of his deliverance. He is saved from having his ill-wrought deeds institutionalized
in eternity. He is delivered from his complicity in harming the Church. He is
saved from having made such mistakes as would impair others perpetually. He is
saved from having his earthly sin permanently before him. He is saved from the
shame of having created a permanent monument to his own human failure and folly.</p>
<p>And I suspect that as he watches the flames, a twinge of gratitude appears in his heart: “Lord, thank you for not
hanging that permanently around my neck. Thank you for getting rid of that
which I did so ill. I am sorry to lose my work, but I am grateful to lose the
failure in my work. Thank you for the mercy of fire.”</p>
<h2>Merciful Heavens</h2>
<p>All that to say simply this:</p>
<p>We know that some things cannot be redeemed. They’re just too bad, too complicated and too consequential. That’s
life. And when we’ve done all we can to make the wrong right, and there isn’t
one more thing we can think of to fix things, and things still aren’t okay, we
have the mercy of fire.</p>
<p>One day, all those things we thought were our permanent failures will be gone. God in his grace will destroy them in such
a way that not the tiniest bit of our failure, shame or sin will exist anymore.
Were they as inaccessible as that which is buried in <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah+7%3A19&version=ESV">the
depths of the sea</a>, still we might think about them existing; but as been
also pointed out, there will be <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A1&version=ESV">no
more sea</a>. They will be farther gone than that, <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+103%3A12&version=ESV">as
far as the east is from the west</a> (which, you will notice, is infinite).
They will be <i>burned</i>.</p>
<p>These things will be gone. They will come back no more.</p>
<p>O, the mercy of fire!</p>
<p>Will it not be a relief to know those things are <i>gone</i>? And not merely gone
as they are today, meaning only, “in the past, but still a painful memory”? The
time will come when they are as gone as if they never existed. Eternal
perspective will put all of that right; and by the grace of God, no person ever
again will be able to hold to our charge our failures and our shame. Scars will
be gone. Joy will be full. And when it is, do you think we will spare even one
thought for regretting what has been so removed from us?</p>
<h2>At the End of the Line</h2>
<p>There is a time to bury the past. On earth, we often just make the best of it we can. We can’t quite get rid of the old
mistakes, so while they’re no longer “alive” to us, we live with them propped
up in the corner, a corpse that cannot quite be buried. They continue to limit
our relations with others, to produce concatenations and consequences that pop
up irritatingly when we least expect them. They live on as a haze of sadness
over what should be happy and free-spirited situations.</p>
<p>Regret, too, hangs about … and shame, sometimes, at least in our moments of private reflection. And even when other
people are too kind to raise them in our faces, they remain as an uncomfortable
aura around certain of our relationships. Until eternity, it seems, that’s just
how it’s going to be.</p>
<p>Thank God that is not the end of the story. There is the mercy of fire. And one day, we can anticipate restored
relationships, the obliteration of failure, the extinction of shame, the
blessedness of unimpeded fellowship with the Lord, and an eternity without even
a twinge or shadow of guilt. All gone, all burned away forever.</p>
<p>Imagine the relief.</p>
<p>That’s the mercy of fire.</p>
<h2>For Now</h2>
<p>That time is not yet. For now, it seems inevitable we shall live with some measure of pain from the past. It was our
fault. It was our mistake. We did it. It’s done. But Christians should be
living as those who have hope. Our failures are not permanent possessions; we
know one day they will be gone, and gone with absolute finality. Until then,
though, we sometimes do well to live in the shadow of our failures. They are
our learning. They are our reminder not to make poor decisions twice, or to
devote ourselves to a style of life-building that is ultimately destructible.</p>
<p>We should listen to our shame, but not be slaves to it. We can and should repent. We can and should make all possible
restitutions. We can and should eat the consequences some of those of the bad
decisions we’ve made, including accepting that some of our relationships may
remain damaged, severely impaired or even impossible to restore before the judgment.
And doing so can be the affirmation of our sincerity in actually regretting and
changing them. So we must accept that.</p>
<p>And note this: <i>we cannot demand that people forgive us or take us back into their good
graces</i>. Not even if we happen to think that’s the “Christian” thing for
them to do. We are in no position to give such lectures; and adding hypocrisy
to our sins by posing as moral instructor to those against whom we have offended
will not make them any better.</p>
<p>When we have fallen short, our offenses are always ultimately <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+51%3A4&version=ESV">against
God</a>. And it is with him alone that they can be finally settled. Until then,
we simply need to take responsibility as much as we can.</p>
<p>Going forward, we must make every effort to do better. But when we have done all we can, we should rest — that is,
rest in the certainty of the destruction of these things in the future. Some
things really cannot be salvaged for eternity; and if we’re of God’s mind, we
should be glad they cannot. We would not want them to exist forever.</p>
<p>Sometimes, even the fire is a mercy of God.</p>
<br />
___________________________<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Photo by: newsanna [<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0">CC BY 3.0</a>]</span>
Immanuel Canhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06945630347684988672noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-16427161771781224412024-03-13T00:30:00.086-04:002024-03-13T00:30:00.139-04:00The Confession Session<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRmM3v2RfKbEg7QcxZlI88TsPKPd60gxyPNsuqTzffCV89ZsqqUL3Y_1bJ67vUFBxtHCFTeTo2A76WoSHwyoyUV4LO6GSf6pwthywlf1gAMToGyFYieABmeRB0vPPlGecjbS2topCXkQiv7fiNpK6HLnT2GB85kvKkG9ga7DUZCAl52lIHEp-9eljuAoox/s1024/24-03-13%20T%20The%20Confession%20Session.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRmM3v2RfKbEg7QcxZlI88TsPKPd60gxyPNsuqTzffCV89ZsqqUL3Y_1bJ67vUFBxtHCFTeTo2A76WoSHwyoyUV4LO6GSf6pwthywlf1gAMToGyFYieABmeRB0vPPlGecjbS2topCXkQiv7fiNpK6HLnT2GB85kvKkG9ga7DUZCAl52lIHEp-9eljuAoox/s320/24-03-13%20T%20The%20Confession%20Session.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>As is often the case, this week’s instalment of <a href="https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/wile-away.html">Doug
Wilson’s letters column</a> turned out to be thought provoking. A reader
notes that he can’t recall a single time in the lengthy history of Doug’s blog
that Doug has spoken about his own struggles with specific sins.</p>
<p>It raises a perfectly reasonable question: When is public confession of my sins
appropriate, and when isn’t it? What constitutes a legitimate Christian “confession
session”?</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Christian Views on Confession</h2>
<p>Christian views on confession are all over the map, as I have noted previously in
posts about the <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2022/12/anonymous-asks-226.html">appropriate
level of detail</a> in a confession, about <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2019/10/confession-and-edification.html">how
confession can go wrong</a>, about the relationship of <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2017/05/desultory-spiritual-noises.html">confession
to repentance</a> and about <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2022/09/anonymous-asks-213.html">whether
adultery should be confessed</a> to one’s spouse. Where public confession is
concerned, the differences are even starker. Some take the command in James to “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+5%3A16&version=ESV">confess
your sins to one another</a>” as a mandate to talk about all our struggles with
fellow believers in the interests of honesty and authenticity. There are
churches that encourage this practice in their gatherings. Having aired their
dirty laundry, some Christians may be disappointed and even discouraged to find
other believers do not always respond in kind, or in a satisfying level of
detail. There may be good reasons for this, as Doug Wilson notes in his
response to the letter.</p>
<p>I do not believe James was teaching that all sins ought to be publicly confessed to all
Christians “in the interests of transparency”, as we like to say today. The
context in James is a sick man who believes his illness is the consequence of
some hidden sin, and so confesses it to his elders in hope of being healed in
answer to their prayers. If James was teaching universal, exhaustive
transparency between Christians, then he’s the only New Testament writer who did
so. I read the words “to one another” as being a direction to confess your
sins to whichever fellow believers <i>are
appropriate</i> in any given situation. There is no need to take it further
than that, and many good reasons not to.</p>
<h2>Types of Biblical Confession</h2>
<p>I will leave out private confession to God, for which there is plenty of scriptural
precedent, as the subject of the letter was public confession of ongoing
spiritual struggles. Here are some biblical examples of appropriate
confessional situations, both prescriptive and descriptive:</p>
<h4>1/ Help! I’m Drowning</h4>
<p>The situation in James points out the first type of confession that is appropriate,
and that is <i>when you need help</i>. If
you are struggling with a besetting sin or the consequences thereof, by all
means reach out to someone more mature whom God has equipped to come alongside,
give advice and comfort, and pray for you. In this case, it’s the elders, which
seems entirely logical under the circumstances.</p>
<h4>2/ Personal Confession</h4>
<p>The object of personal confession is to clear up an issue between brothers and sisters in
Christ. It is not to satisfy curiosity, compare detailed notes about one’s
sins, or make others feel that they’ve “got it together” spiritually to the
same extent their peers do. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+corinthians+10%3A12&version=ESV">Comparing
ourselves with ourselves</a> isn’t wise and doesn’t help. If you know that your
brother has something against you, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5%3A23-24&version=ESV">go
get reconciled to him</a>. If he has sinned against you, go and tell him his
fault <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+18%3A15&version=ESV">between
you and him alone</a>. In neither instance does the matter need to proceed
further. This is still the case if sin and confession happen <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+18%3A21-22&version=ESV">seventy-seven
times in a day</a>. There’s no need to expand the circle. The
appropriate sphere of confession remains precisely one.</p>
<h4>3/ Collective Confession</h4>
<p>We have a good example of appropriate collective confession <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+19%3A18-20&version=ESV">in
Acts 19</a>, where the gospel came to Ephesus and awakened the consciences
of new converts. They made public confession of dabbling in magic arts and
burned their books together to show their repentance. But this was a particular
situation where collective conviction produced decisive, collective action, and
it appears to have been a one-off. No record of similar confession sessions
exists, and there is no indication in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians that this
practice continued. The word “confess” does not even occur in Ephesians. Luke’s
record certainly provides us with no model for weekly corporate or individual
public confessions. If, as mature followers of Christ, we have that much to confess to one another weekly, I would estimate we are doing Christianity all wrong.</p>
<h4>4/ Liturgical Confessions</h4>
<p>Some churches see value in liturgical confession, by which I mean they have the
congregation read a written prayer of confession together aloud. Such
confessions are, of necessity, general in nature (and therefore largely
useless). It is abundantly clear that “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+3%3A2&version=ESV">we
all stumble in many ways</a>”, but unless that thought has a relevant
application, as it does in James, it is of little value to dwell on it. The
point is not to wallow in our sinfulness, but to learn to avoid stumbling.
I cannot bring myself to join in liturgical confessions, and usually find
myself thinking, “This doesn’t have anything to do with me!” I may have my
own problems, but I don’t need to be confessing other people’s.</p>
<h2>Struggling with Sin</h2>
<p>Of these types of confession, the first three are biblical and the last, while questionable,
at least has the virtue of entirely lacking detail, and therefore being neither
titillating nor an act of self-exhibition. But you will notice the sphere of
any specific confession is limited. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+4%3A29&version=ESV">Talking
about sin</a> just for the sake of it is not a biblical practice.</p>
<p>As for the reader’s question about what Doug Wilson struggles with, I cannot think of a
single verse of scripture that might encourage us to pour our hearts out to one
another about our ongoing battles with specific sins, let alone write them up
for an internet audience. In my 2,500+ posts here, I have made occasional
reference to the various sins of my youth, as well as to <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2021/09/strange-applications-or-how-i-learned.html">my
learning curve about stewardship</a> and how it works. Some might refer to
these as “confessional” pieces, but I can assure you that has never been
the intent. Whatever confessions needed to be made have been made years ago, to
the appropriate individuals. If I share the stories here (in minimal
detail), it is entirely for the purpose of encouraging my fellow believers by
saying, “Yes, I once had this problem too, though you might find it hard
to believe if you didn’t know me. I beat it with the Lord’s help, and here’s
how.” <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+6%3A11&version=ESV">Such
were some of me</a>, but I’m not that anymore. I cannot imagine for a
moment what value might exist in exhibiting myself to the world over an ongoing
struggle.</p>
<h2>The Dangers of Confession</h2>
<p>Confessing one’s sins in excessive detail or to the wrong people presents certain
spiritual dangers to both confessor and confessee:</p>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 0; margin-top: 18px; margin: 18px 0px; mso-add-space: .0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;">
<ol>
<li><b>You may not be able to forget what you’ve
heard.</b> I used to read a Christian blogger who made a public confession
of what-was-then-recent infidelity. He has since been restored to the Lord and
to his family, and now writes again, years later. I’ve never been particularly
interested since his confession. Spiritual leadership requires a consistent
Christian walk. I have enough temptation to inconsistency in my own life
without taking advice from people who are intermittently faithful. That is
probably a defect in me; nevertheless, it would not be surprising to find
people respond to my own public confessions (should I make any) the
same way. To be clear, I am not suggesting a Bible teacher who has
stumbled never be allowed to teach again, but I am saying it is up to
individual Christians to decide if they feel like hearing what he has to say.
Some won’t.</li>
<li style="margin-top: 18px;"><b>Talking about temptation can be discouraging.</b> By definition, any “ongoing struggle” involves repeated
failures. It may seem comforting in the short term to hear that other people
are having the same experience I am, but my rehearsing of my own repeated
failures is more likely to discourage my brothers and sisters (or provide them
with excuses and self-justifications) than it is to strengthen them
spiritually. If we are going to talk about our spiritual battles, let’s talk
about the ones the Lord has helped us win.</li>
<li style="margin-top: 18px;"><b>Talking about temptation can lead us to question God’s faithfulness.</b> <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+10%3A13&version=ESV">God
will not let us be tempted beyond our ability</a>, but with the temptation he
will also provide the way of escape, that we may be able to endure it. Do you
believe it? Then repeated failures at conquering temptation are ours, not the
Lord’s unfaithfulness to us. Dwelling on our failures is not constructive and
can lead us to identify with our besetting sins (for example, Christians who
refer to themselves as “gay” because they are tempted by same-sex lust).</li>
<li style="margin-top: 18px;"><b>Talking about temptation can lead us to normalize it.</b> Being tempted need not lead
to sin, but endlessly rehearsing it and reminding ourselves that it is “common
to man” may lead us to feel no particular urgency about conquering it.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<p>I believe the current mania over constant personal disclosure among Christians has less to do with rediscovering the biblical teaching about confession, and a great deal
more to do with inadvertently channeling the spirit of the internet age, which is all about me, me, me. I actually had someone tell me a while back that failing to talk about my personal temptations is hypocrisy. (I recommended she look up the definition of the word.) </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">I am all for confession so long as it is biblical in
character and sphere. There is a time and place for sharing personal struggles,
and it is always with a view to building up one another rather than tearing
down. For Christians, talking about ourselves is only useful when we believe it may help the other guy.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-39310655856058645292024-03-12T00:30:00.051-04:002024-03-12T00:30:00.124-04:00Quote of the Day (47)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn50KhjhaOiPpUDG2vZro7EFqTF_7vL84N4lHAdVSSwSb9hDCJWYF2IL_V4DfpLgMmWkvQVmhBLFDV35TfdjIg2HIZmJuWrqzzecNLM4FVf3VxpU4TkVR_bK-mS_-cBc2h5IzlfDS9oiNIfC6G4nus_WhkA-fKUVX1ny_E7FRP1D_Bpl1P7_61xn96BOwj/s1021/24-03-12%20T%20Quote%20of%20the%20Day%20(47).jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn50KhjhaOiPpUDG2vZro7EFqTF_7vL84N4lHAdVSSwSb9hDCJWYF2IL_V4DfpLgMmWkvQVmhBLFDV35TfdjIg2HIZmJuWrqzzecNLM4FVf3VxpU4TkVR_bK-mS_-cBc2h5IzlfDS9oiNIfC6G4nus_WhkA-fKUVX1ny_E7FRP1D_Bpl1P7_61xn96BOwj/s320/24-03-12%20T%20Quote%20of%20the%20Day%20(47).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“He hated
congregational religion. He hated the smiles and the manners of the
Sunday-dressed Scottish Protestant, the emphasis on a communion not with God
but with your neighbours. He had tried seven churches of various
denominations in Edinburgh, and had found none to be to his liking. He had
tried sitting for two hours at home of a Sunday, reading the Bible and
saying a prayer, but somehow that did not work either. He was caught; a
believer outwith his belief. Was a personal faith good enough for God? Perhaps …”</i></p>
<p align="right" style="margin-top: 6px; text-align: right;">— Ian Rankin, <i>Knots & Crosses</i></p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Not Doing Church at All</h2>
<p>Rankin did not play up the Christian faith of detective John
Rebus much in his later novels, but it strikes me his most enduring character’s
ruminations about finding a church may resonate with any number of Christians
who have failed to make it back to a local gathering of believers in the
post-COVID era. They always meant to get to it, but it just never happened.</p>
<p>I keep hearing the phrase “doing church at home” these days,
by which is actually meant “not doing church at all”. After all, church is not what you <i>do</i>, it’s what you <i>are</i>.</p>
<p>Is private communion with God really enough? To make it very
practical, are we really so likely to continue in communion with God once we
have laid aside God’s own method for the maintenance and growth of Christian faith? I believe the Bible’s answer is no.</p>
<h2>Consumerism and Individualism</h2>
<p>We often hear that if a local church is doing what it should be doing, it will be growing.
That is the expectation, and few of us are seeing it these days. Even the more
well attended congregations I’ve worshiped with in the last few months are
experiencing something more like churn than measurable growth. Don’t get me
wrong: churn is fine, but you want some of those visitors to stick eventually.
It’s all well and good to attribute declining interest in corporate expressions
of faith to the age of individualism and a consumer mentality. <i>What’s in it for me? Why is the preaching
more up my alley on YouTube? Don’t the Baptists have better programs? I really
prefer a more modern musical style …</i></p>
<p>But I wonder if the fundamental unseriousness of many professing Christians
about gathering may owe most of its staying power to a widespread failure to teach,
hold and put into practice a biblical view of the church.</p>
<p>You cannot believe what the apostles wrote about the church and expect anything good to
come from staying away from it.</p>
<h2>A Biblical View of the Church</h2>
<p>If you really believe the church is “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+5%3A10&version=ESV">a
kingdom and priests to our God</a>” or a “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+2%3A9&version=ESV">royal
priesthood</a>” whose purpose in life is to proclaim the excellencies of the
one who called us out of darkness, you cannot imagine solo Christianity serving
the same purpose. How exactly are you “proclaiming” anything by watching Andy
Stanley on YouTube in your pajamas with an espresso? Who are you serving but
your own preferences? Where is the ‘hood’ aspect of your priesthood?</p>
<p>If you really believe the church is the “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+2%3A19-22&version=ESV">household
of God</a>”, joined together to become a dwelling place for God by the Spirit,
what are you doing <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+3%3A10-14&version=ESV">to
build it</a>? There’s a reward for building with the right materials. There’s
none for stones left lying in the quarry.</p>
<p>If you really believe the church is a group of believers <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+12%3A12-31&version=ESV">baptized
into one body</a>, in what way do you manifest the interaction between the
body parts at the initiative of the Head of the Church? How are you using your
gift to build up others and glorify God? It’s in these very interactions <i>between</i> believers that Christ is seen by
the world. If the love of the disciples one for the other was the means by
which “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+13%3A35&version=ESV">all
people</a>” would identify them, then to whom are you demonstrating Christ’s
love? Moreover, you’re missing the love others would like to show you, and the
interactions that were designed to transform your character over time into that
of Christ himself.</p>
<p>If you really believe the church is Christ’s bride, the Lamb’s wife, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+corinthians+11%3A2&version=ESV">betrothed
collectively to one husband</a>, how can you not love those the Bridegroom
has chosen? You are going to be <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A17&version=ESV">with
them for eternity</a>. That’s going to be tough slogging for people who hate
congregational religion. Those smiling, Sunday-dressed Scottish Protestants may
occupy the suite right next to you in the Father’s house.</p>
<h2>Isn’t Personal Faith Good Enough?</h2>
<p>No, personal faith is not “good enough” for God. He designed your faith to grow
through serving your fellow believers and worshiping corporately, not through
absorbing messages, music and programs passively as if all that matters is your
own pleasure.</p>
<p>Now, of course, mere attendance is not fellowship. If your local church doesn’t resemble a priesthood because one man
does everything or because no actual worship goes on … if it doesn’t seem
like a bride because love is absent or cold … if it doesn’t function like
a body because nobody serves anyone else or cares for its members … if it
doesn’t look like a building because nobody is ever built up by being part of
it … well, that’s another story. Maybe you ought to look for another one.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">But you won’t make it on your own. If recollection serves, I don’t believe John
Rebus did.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-17957799202138274572024-03-11T00:30:00.021-04:002024-03-11T00:30:00.128-04:00Anonymous Asks (293)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBz6qs41UTxfHm7cB31dHWmlgoZlDzojTfvVIcGbEWCPX4oIbgAK0Iulft4eopjSZ9f7SWlHlCr3z8BJr1XsZe0CxZBzzu7wNV4_g_NcseQk3hbUY2HgGu0bMSS_BdLexiswwSbkkdDSZImfHKUjwptlqw2QliAF7KZM_lAkKhJYIEfGZdkrkPotJMeBP-/s1024/24-03-11%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(293).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBz6qs41UTxfHm7cB31dHWmlgoZlDzojTfvVIcGbEWCPX4oIbgAK0Iulft4eopjSZ9f7SWlHlCr3z8BJr1XsZe0CxZBzzu7wNV4_g_NcseQk3hbUY2HgGu0bMSS_BdLexiswwSbkkdDSZImfHKUjwptlqw2QliAF7KZM_lAkKhJYIEfGZdkrkPotJMeBP-/s320/24-03-11%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(293).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“Is the sanctity of human life a biblical concept?”</i></p>
<p>Scripture is clear throughout that human life has intrinsic value.
God made man <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1%3A27&version=ESV">in
his own image</a> and after his own likeness, a statement made about no other created
beings in the universe.</p>
<p>That alone should make us cautious about taking the life of
another.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Judged to Die</h2>
<p>If you believe Google’s Ngram viewer (an online search
engine of printed sources published between 1500 and 2019), the “sanctity of
human life” is an expression coined around 1830. Its usage peaked (so far at
least) in 2003. The phrase does not come from the Bible itself, but occurs in
both Catholic and Protestant moral theology. The idea is that human life is
precious or sacred, with which scripture would agree. Some conclude this means
human life is never to be taken under any circumstance, with which scripture
would firmly disagree.</p>
<p>The phrase “deserving of death” [in Hebrew, literally “judged
to die”] occurs many times in the Old Testament, not merely quoted from the
mouths of men but from God himself. The first occurrence is in
Deuteronomy 17, where God commands Israel to stone convicted idolaters. Those
responsible were to make diligent inquiry to ascertain the facts of the case.
If found guilty on the evidence of two or three witnesses, the sinner was to be
stoned in order to “purge the evil from your midst”. God values human life, but
evidently that value does not transcend all other considerations. Under certain
circumstances, whatever right to life human beings may be said to have became
forfeit. Other offenses deserving of death under the Law of Moses include <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+21%3A12-14&version=ESV">murder</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+21%3A16&version=ESV">kidnapping</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+20%3A1-5&version=ESV">child
sacrifice</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+22%3A25-27&version=ESV">rape</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+22%3A18&version=ESV">witchcraft</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+24%3A14&version=ESV">blasphemy</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+18%3A20&version=ESV">false
prophecy</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+31%3A14&version=ESV">profaning
the Sabbath</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+21%3A15&version=ESV">violence
against father or mother</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+20%3A10&version=ESV">adultery</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+22%3A19&version=ESV">bestiality</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+20%3A13&version=ESV">homosexuality</a>
and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+19%3A16-19&version=ESV">perjury</a>.</p>
<h2>Getting What We Deserve</h2>
<p>The same phrase occurs in the New Testament only once, in
the book of Romans, where Paul writes about the actions of people who have
debased minds, and lists their acts: envy, murder, strife, deceit,
maliciousness, gossip, slander, hatred of God, insolence, arrogance, pride,
disobedience and so on. He goes on to say God’s righteous decree is that “those
who practice such things <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1%3A32&version=ESV">deserve
to die</a>”. Literally, death “befits” them. You may notice the list of
potential death-worthy offenses has gotten a lot longer than under the Law of
Moses. The Lord does not expect or require modern societies to enforce all
these things (how would human beings police bad attitudes?), but again, they
lead to spiritual death and eternal separation from God. Apart from the work of
Christ, every one of us could and should be declared death-worthy. Thankfully,
he has made provision through faith in his Son so that we do not all get what
we deserve.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">So then, the unqualified, unlimited sanctity of human life
is not a biblical concept.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-55879859017509115682024-03-10T00:30:00.047-05:002024-03-10T00:30:00.137-05:00Waking and Breaking<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMBRdlIWgcKDOsFGkl5XWWHaVw2-9RPiZaKjQMJAvOGtrfhmly5px9FuSfOOngM6LWeOSeXeY1zU60Q2L1XA2XlOkC7Q2Wn9vxUs-HtdenIgn3tXwpX5CpQya5H7a2uxcoKKqsGwqqpcRrh5eN_OhdayjQdvc4vKcmUGZ2TcdQ9MDjnecxQwHtzfb1rAk7/s1016/24-03-10%20T%20Waking%20and%20Breaking.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMBRdlIWgcKDOsFGkl5XWWHaVw2-9RPiZaKjQMJAvOGtrfhmly5px9FuSfOOngM6LWeOSeXeY1zU60Q2L1XA2XlOkC7Q2Wn9vxUs-HtdenIgn3tXwpX5CpQya5H7a2uxcoKKqsGwqqpcRrh5eN_OhdayjQdvc4vKcmUGZ2TcdQ9MDjnecxQwHtzfb1rAk7/s320/24-03-10%20T%20Waking%20and%20Breaking.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<p>We live in a broken culture. Not breaking. Broken. They did not see fit to acknowledge God, and God has given them up to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1%3A28&version=ESV">a debased mind</a> to do what ought not to be done.</p>
<p>In Romans, that manifests in heartlessness and ruthlessness, dishonesty and
disobedience, among a litany of other bad things. In reality, a debased mind
manifests in all these ways at the expense of others, but it is also unbelievably
self-destructive and internally contradictory.</p>
<p>Debased thinking is fundamentally unfit to accomplish anything. But debased people make
the best pawns imaginable.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Unfit for Use</h2>
<p>The word translated “debased” or “reprobate” in Romans is <i>adokimos</i>, properly used of metals and coins unfit for use, and
which one throws away. Quality control would not allow <i>adokimos</i> coins in circulation. The mint would reject them.
Likewise, nobody would deliberately build an <i>adokimos</i> bridge. You’d end up sinking in the bay instead of
driving into San Francisco in style.</p>
<p>But try applying this principle to the human mind. That’s a
scary thought. Not just one useless bridge, but a whole generation of <i>adokimos</i> engineers who just keep
replicating the same failing structures because all the schools in which they
learned their craft were equally <i>adokimos</i>.
Not just a single <i>adokimos</i> coin to be
kept out of circulation, oh no. The entire mint is worthless, and the basis for
a functional economy no longer exists. </p>
<p>That is where we are today. Our culture is broken, not just
in little ways but in every way. By broken, I mean that institutions
no longer effectively serve their most basic intended functions. In their devotion to
woke ideology, none of them do the things they were designed to do any longer.</p>
<h2>Problems without Solutions</h2>
<p>Colleges exist to educate, but Canadian colleges serve <a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761752581129359501.html">as clearing
houses for mass immigration</a>. Some are literally student-free. The gender
imbalance in American universities is <a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/mar/why-women-outnumber-men-college-enrollment">2-1
in favor of women</a>. The labor markets are broken, rewarding the ability to
get a degree over <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/03/why-so-many-thirtysomething-women-are-leaving-your-company">long-term
reliability on the job</a>. Hotels in Ontario are turning into <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/10011043/refugees-churches-hotels-ontario/">long-term
residences for refugees</a>. I guess it’s better than having
asylum-seekers lying on street corners in winter, but it doesn’t address the
basic problem with a welfare state stressed to the point of unsustainability.
Furthermore, housing the homeless is not what hotels were designed to do. None
of this is coincidental. Someone is trying to break the system.</p>
<p>American judges have <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/">no
idea what a woman is</a>, or haven’t the courage to say so if they do. The
incapacity to deal with reality is no minor problem for those to whom we commit
the interpretation of the law. An entire New York state Supreme Court
bench is composed of black women. Nothing wrong with black women, except that
they make up only 1.5% of lawyers, which means the composition of this state
Supreme Court <a href="https://twitter.com/katewerk/status/1761746188846387654">is
entirely artificial</a>, reflecting not the best, brightest and most
accomplished, but the most politically correct, angry New York leftists.
It’s hardly surprising, then, to find <a href="https://twitchy.com/dougp/2024/02/24/they-flaunt-their-corruption-ny-ag-letitia-james-keeps-posting-updates-trumps-fines-n2393268">Attorney
Generals engaging in lawfare</a> rather than law. They are convinced social
justice trumps getting to the truth. They did not get there by accident.
Somebody is trying to break the system.</p>
<h2>Everything is Broken</h2>
<p>The responses generated by Google’s AI, the hope for the
great technological convergence or singularity in which man is fused with
machine, sound like <a href="https://therabbithole84.substack.com/p/woke-turing-test-investigating-ideological">the
ramblings of the insane</a>. This is not because it’s “a work in progress”, but
because Gemini is <a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761909916799803763.html">programmed to spew woke lunacy</a>. Even <a href="https://www.bing.com/images/create">Bing’s AI image generator</a> is so
laden down with deliberate limitations that six out of ten attempts to
have it draw anything for you are short-circuited by its politics. Why image
generators need to have built-in political biases has yet to be addressed, and
it will never be, because there are people for whom breaking the system is not
a bug, but the main feature of their agenda.</p>
<p>Our eco-friendly energy sources do <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-green-policies-can-actually-harm-progress-on-climate-change-130904">more
damage to the environment</a> than traditional energy, are <a href="https://pipelineonline.ca/for-four-days-in-a-row-saskatchewan-gets-next-to-no-power-from-wind-turbines-two-days-saw-negative-power-production/#/?playlistId=0&videoId=0">brutally
inefficient</a>, and the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energys-hidden-costs/">hidden
costs</a> of subsidizing them are staggering. Doctors and nurses in Canada <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/maid-growth-steady-as-number-of-practitioners-grows-before-expansion-next-year-report-1.6617757">killed
patients at a record rate</a> last year. The Hippocratic Oath (“First do no
harm”) needs a serious rewrite when those taking it are being trained to do the
ultimate harm. If they weren’t debased when they started helping people end
their lives, they are certainly debased now. Not all the forces pushing for the
changes to the Canadian legal system that allowed such degradation to flourish
did so out of malice, but they were acting at the behest of those who are
trying to break the system.</p>
<h2>Deliberate Mismanagement</h2>
<p>The war in the Ukraine instigated by NATO was appallingly
mismanaged from the get-go. Its effect has been to strengthen the economic ties
between Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab
Emirates, effectively moving us towards a new world order in which the West is
no longer a prominent player and Israel is increasingly isolated. (Hmm. Why
would anyone want that?) The <a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1307668.shtml">thirteen rounds of
sanctions</a> imposed by NATO countries on Russia have been a complete failure,
but nobody responsible says, “Hmm, this isn’t working and needs to stop.”
That’s because the purpose of the war was to break the system, and it’s
succeeding admirably.</p>
<p>You may be surprised to find I am not pointing a finger for
all of this deliberate self-destruction at George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Justin
Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden or the various leaders in
Europe. All are pawns at one level or another, including those at the top
who think they know what’s really going on. We are witnessing the end game of
not decades but centuries of hard work on the part of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+6%3A12&version=ESV">the
cosmic powers over this present darkness</a>, the spiritual forces of evil in
the heavenly places. Their objective is to break the world as we know it. When
the system no longer functions: when men and women cannot eat, or work, or
travel, or buy or sell, or find places to live or any firm place on which to
plant their feet, and when all hope of order and peace have been lost, the
principalities and powers will bring forth their “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+thessalonians+2%3A1-11&version=ESV">lawless
one</a>”. He will receive <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13%3A1-10&version=ESV">unprecedented
authority</a> over every tribe, people, language and nation, and our broken world will happily embrace him as the answer to all our problems.</p>
<p>But in order to present the world with an answer that is not
Christ, we first need problems for him to pretend to solve. That is what all
the waking and breaking is about right now. We must become the problem so
that he may be presented as the solution.</p>
<h2>T.S. Eliot was Wrong</h2>
<p>You may think I find this discouraging. Not at all. It
is exactly what the apostles of Christ and the Jewish prophets foretold
thousands of years ago. This is the way the world ends: not with either a bang
or a whimper, but with the glorious return of the rejected Messiah whom God has
exalted to his right hand and given the name above every name, in order that he
may claim what belongs to him and make every last one of his enemies his
footstool.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">Everything about the present chaos affirms every word of
scripture. Now, if we could all just start paying <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+2%3A1&version=ESV">a
little more careful attention</a> …</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-87847587041569777022024-03-09T00:30:00.121-05:002024-03-09T00:30:00.128-05:00Mining the Minors: Zechariah (8)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS1qzAADk_NkOQzLKiuUikDXQD_QhLMJnqb82Y2Elqf51XCqGGbQA5tHxbRoRrp_XEasaGv9oKMGsvloAVrVYYKfrQe7uCUAMuhkwwzSo7e77L9tBJTSwklqJCL5ItrTbXsYH3t04UrdZEV-tlBsr9rnHJ1MCtkYHQQDdrrW3P11AOw8MNrsdo4o3T0SRn/s967/24-03-09%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(8).jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS1qzAADk_NkOQzLKiuUikDXQD_QhLMJnqb82Y2Elqf51XCqGGbQA5tHxbRoRrp_XEasaGv9oKMGsvloAVrVYYKfrQe7uCUAMuhkwwzSo7e77L9tBJTSwklqJCL5ItrTbXsYH3t04UrdZEV-tlBsr9rnHJ1MCtkYHQQDdrrW3P11AOw8MNrsdo4o3T0SRn/s320/24-03-09%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(8).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>In interpreting Zechariah, a great deal depends on the
systematic theology of the reader. When you start with an ironclad overview of
the prophetic scriptures in mind, it’s next to impossible to interpret
individual passages without inflicting your prejudices on them. I’ll try to
keep that in mind as I go along.</p>
<p>The next two visions are considerably more difficult. They
must be, as scholarly opinions about their meanings are all over the map. I’ll
give a quick summary of the major viewpoints and then, in most cases, tell you
where and why I disagree with them, and what I’d suggest as alternatives.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Five Positive, Three Negative</h2>
<p>So far, Zechariah has received five positive visions, at least
insofar as his people are concerned. <i>The
man on the red horse</i> reminded Judah of the Lord’s zeal for Zion and anger
at the nations. <i>The four horns and
four craftsmen</i> assured them the bad guys would get their just desserts
in due course. <i>The man with the measuring
line</i> spoke of the glories of millennial Jerusalem and the presence of
Messiah among his people. <i>Joshua’s
cleansing</i> symbolized the purification and restoration of the priesthood,
and <i>the golden lampstand</i> reminded Judah
that the Spirit of God was with the Jews in the work of rebuilding the temple
of the Lord.</p>
<p>Now the visions turn ugly. If we have read the history of
this period, we know they had to eventually. I believe the most
responsible way to interpret them is by keeping their historical context front
and center.</p>
<h1>I. Eight Visions and Explanations <span style="font-size: medium;">(continued)</span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">6/ The Flying Scroll Curse</h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">Zechariah 5:1-2 – The Vision</h1>
<blockquote>“Again I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, a flying scroll!
And he said to me, ‘What do you see?’ I answered, ‘<b>I see a flying scroll</b>. Its length is twenty cubits, and
its width ten cubits.’ ”</blockquote>
<p>The scroll was flying and written on both sides, so it could be seen by all; unrolled,
so the message was plain; and very large, so nobody in Judah could fail to read its characters. The measurements equate to 15 × 30 feet, the same as the
dimensions of the porch of Solomon’s temple. Nobody really knows what to make
of that, and I’m not sure there’s any great message to be dredged out of it.
What we can say with confidence is that the Lord did not intend the contents of
the scroll to be a secret.</p>
<p>If he did, he failed miserably. God doesn’t do that.</p>
<h1>Zechariah 5:3-4 – The Explanation</h1>
<blockquote>“Then he said to me, ‘This is <b>the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land</b>. For
everyone who steals shall be cleaned out according to what is on one side, and
everyone who swears falsely shall be cleaned out according to what is on the
other side. I will send it out, declares the Lord of hosts, and it shall
enter the house of the thief, and the house of him who swears falsely by my
name. And it shall remain in his house and consume it, both timber and stones.’ ”</blockquote>
<h2>Time and Place</h2>
<p>The ESV has “whole land”, but a familiar interpretive difficulty
raises its head here, namely that the words for “land” (meaning Judah) and
“earth” are the same in Hebrew. Naturally, some commentators want to make this
about the rest of the planet and refer it to Christ’s purging of evil at the
end of the great tribulation period. Given that the first five visions
have been directed at the returned exiles, the mission in which they were then
engaged and the state of affairs in Judah around 520 BC, I just can’t
see the logic of that. Even the hints concerning Messiah and the millennial
glories of Israel existed primarily to encourage the workers in their labors at
that time.</p>
<p>I think it’s far more likely this vision concerns Judah
as well, rather than being a message about some remote judgment on the entire
world. I believe it foretells a divine purge of the wicked among God’s
people that took place during the next few decades after the vision.</p>
<h2>The Content of the Message</h2>
<p>Numerous commentators point out that the two sins
identified in this purge (stealing and swearing) are forbidden, respectively, in the eighth and third of
the Ten Commandments, though not all agree about how the curse on swearing
should be understood. Some see it as a curse on profane people, others as a
curse on oath breakers. I favor the latter, for reasons disclosed shortly.</p>
<p>The commentators bring the Commandments into it in order to suggest
that these two identified sins really represent the entire law by synecdoche
(meaning they effectively serve as an executive summary of the law <i>in its entirety</i>). They
assume swearing is intended to represent the contents of Moses’ first stone tablet, and stealing the second.</p>
<p>Again, I respectfully disagree with their reasoning. For
one, why choose the third and eighth commandments, rather than the first and
sixth, which would surely have topped the two tablets? Secondly, why reverse
the order of the tablets (stealing comes after swearing) if we are supposed to
associate the sins with the entire Ten Commandments?</p>
<p>I don’t think the scroll and its curse have anything to
do with the Commandments beyond the fact that both named sins were,
coincidentally, violations of the big ten rather than one of the other
603 laws given to Moses. In fact, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah
demonstrate the two sins specified by God are <i>not</i> merely
representative sins intended to stand as a proxy for the entire law. Rather, the chosen violations of the law were the two most
significant national sins peculiar to Jews of the post-exilic era. It was in
these two areas — thievery and oath breaking — that Judah was most
negligent before God. Not only that, the two areas are connected, and both
are associated with curses.</p>
<h2>Oaths, Curses and Thievery in Ezra and Nehemiah</h2>
<p>If we stay glued to the historical accounts of this period,
we cannot help but notice that both Ezra and Nehemiah are full of oath taking
followed by oath breaking. “Oath” is exactly the same Hebrew word used in
Zechariah, where it is translated “swears” or “swears falsely”, and both Ezra
and Nehemiah use “covenant” as a synonym for it. Jewish marriage in those days was solemnized with, yes, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2%3A13-16&version=ESV">an oath or covenant</a>. That’s right, you’d swear, even back then. I don’t know if they said <i>’til death do you part</i>, but they definitely made a solemn promise of fidelity.</p>
<p>In Ezra 10, Ezra makes the leading priests and Levites
and all Israel <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra+10%3A1-5&version=ESV">take
an oath</a> to put away their foreign wives and children. Then in
Nehemiah 5, a great outcry arises about <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+5%3A1-13&version=ESV">thievery
on a national scale</a>. Rich Jews were stealing fields, vineyards, olive orchards
and houses and exacting interest from their poor countrymen, to the point where
they were taking their sons and daughters as slaves. What does Nehemiah do? He
makes them <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+5%3A1-13&version=ESV">take
an oath</a> to return the stolen property to their brothers, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+5%3A1-13&version=ESV">invoking
a curse</a> on those who do not.</p>
<p>In Nehemiah 13 (and this is definitely much later than
the issue in Ezra 10), the governor catches <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+13%3A23-27&version=ESV">even
more Jews marrying foreign women</a>. This time he is beside himself with
anger, cursing and beating the culprits and pulling out their hair. What does
he do? He makes them <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+13%3A23-27&version=ESV">take
an oath in the name of God</a> not to do it anymore.</p>
<p>Each time they took an oath, the sinning people of Judah risked
putting themselves under the curse of Zechariah when they failed to keep it.</p>
<h2>Oaths, Curses and Thievery in Malachi</h2>
<p>Finally, Malachi, who wrote some considerable time after
Zechariah’s visions, specifically identifies the Jews who divorced their Jewish
wives to marry foreign women as “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2%3A13-16&version=ESV">covenant
breakers</a>” and condemns adulterers side-by-side with <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+3%3A5&version=ESV">those
who swear falsely</a> [same word again] and those who oppress the hired worker
in his wages, the widow and the fatherless. These are the Jews to whom the Lord
will “draw near for judgment”, and Malachi shows they were still at it,
stealing and swearing, generations later.</p>
<p>The thievery, oaths and curses are all there side by side in
the same historical passages from the period right after Zechariah saw his
vision. I believe in Zechariah’s vision of the flying scroll curse, the
Lord was confirming his own judgment on the evildoers in Judah who failed to
keep their promises, and there were definitely no small number of these around.
The angel promises Zechariah a curse will rest on the house of any individual
who continues to violate, much like the curse once laid on the man who would
dare to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua+6%3A26&version=ESV">rebuild
the city of Jericho</a>.</p>
<p>History tells us <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+kings+16%3A34&version=ESV">how
that played out</a>. You don’t mess with a curse God has affirmed.</p>
<h2>The Law and the Curse</h2>
<p>In a way, it’s understandable how this happened. The people
of Judah were largely ignorant of the Law of Moses. This had happened before at
various times during Israel’s history, and ignorance of the Law was widespread
again during the reigns of the final four kings of Judah and during the
seventy years of judgment.</p>
<p>Nehemiah records that this changed under Ezra’s leadership.
Like a scroll flying through the heavens with the commands of God writ large, Ezra
had the Law of Moses <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+8%3A1-9&version=ESV">read
clearly to the people</a>, and the Levites gave the intended sense so they
could understand it. Ezra stood on a wooden platform made for the purpose as he did so. Nehemiah does not record the size of the platform, but if it turns out to have been twenty cubits by ten, I would not be all that surprised. Let’s just say that, like the contents of Zechariah’s scroll, nobody in Judah could miss the implicit threat to those who wished to continue in their sins. Men and women wept together as they realized their many
violations and the curses pronounced on those who did these things. The people
confessed their sins and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+9%3A38&version=ESV">made
a covenant</a> to obey the Law. From that point on, they made themselves
personally accountable to God. Then, as we find out in Malachi, within a
generation or so, large numbers of them went right back to the same sinful
patterns of behavior.</p>
<p>Zechariah’s flying scroll was no harbinger of national judgment,
but it promised the individual oath breakers and thieves that they would not
get away with it. God himself would curse their houses. In good time, we can be
sure he did just that.</p>
<h2>For Death or Banishment</h2>
<p>How did he do it? we might well ask. Ezra probably answers that too. He received the following instructions from King Artaxerxes of Persia several years after Zechariah’s vision: “Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on him, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra+7%3A26&version=ESV">whether for death or for banishment</a> or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">That’s a pretty broad mandate, and it probably explains why the governor of Judah felt entirely comfortable <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+13%3A25&version=ESV">personally assaulting Jews</a> who were still violating the law. There is no way to do an end-around the commands of God while maintaining a reasonable expectation of prosperity.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-60611822921602315472024-03-08T00:30:00.026-05:002024-03-08T00:30:00.122-05:00Too Hot to Handle: Majoring on the Majors<p><i>In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.</i></p>
<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENzeeon7ODf1gQVcoFvrqctYRxIyA1qznTt-LnZrVUSkvSsh-ib8jRIBKC97gLPKYMPZkn3HV01wAE9ATKq-GmTCyaBaQ_wr1L6BTlc2pct1nfACSOyz9MZnutJAMAgbbwUc80S4pRzsG/s1600/15-10-30+THH+Majoring+On+The+Majors.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENzeeon7ODf1gQVcoFvrqctYRxIyA1qznTt-LnZrVUSkvSsh-ib8jRIBKC97gLPKYMPZkn3HV01wAE9ATKq-GmTCyaBaQ_wr1L6BTlc2pct1nfACSOyz9MZnutJAMAgbbwUc80S4pRzsG/s320/15-10-30+THH+Majoring+On+The+Majors.jpg" width="280" /></a></p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> There’s a line I keep hearing these days that goes something like this:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“We should keep unity for the sake of the gospel. Major on
the majors, and not on the minors. We shouldn’t fight over secondary issues.”</i></p>
<p>Immanuel Can, some things <i>are</i> worth fighting over. Jude
urges his readers, who appear to be a very general believing audience, to “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude+1%3A3&version=ESV">contend for the faith</a> that was once for all delivered to the saints”.</p>
<p>So what’s really worth contending for, and what should be
set aside for the sake of unity? In short, what makes something “major” or “minor”?</p>
<p><b>Immanuel Can:</b> Ah. What do I mean, or what do most other people I meet seem to mean? Can you clarify?</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> I take it there’s a significant difference then.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p><b>IC:</b> Oh yes … there certainly is.</p>
<h2>Let Him Be Accursed!</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Let me try it this way then: Galatians 1, for example, Paul has an issue he is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+1%3A6-10&version=ESV">prepared to fight about</a>. It would be difficult to argue convincingly that for the sake of
unity we should all accept the necessity of circumcision and obedience to the
Mosaic law, since Paul spends an entire book of the Bible declaiming against it,
even to the point of stating that if anyone preaches a gospel contrary to
the one Paul preached, he is to be accursed. So that would qualify as “major”, I think.</p>
<p>And you could go through the epistles asking this question:
What do Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John and the writer to the Hebrews think is
worth fighting about? That would give you a good list of biblical “majors”.</p>
<p>But would that be an exhaustive list of everything worth contending for?</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Well, perhaps it might; but I suggest that would be true only if one reads very carefully and
with an eye to the fact that some things may not be a comprehensive example so
much as an indicator of a precedent.</p>
<h2>Christ and the Pharisees</h2>
<p>For example, the slanders raised against Christ by the
Pharisees in the gospels and Acts are clearly “major” errors, and are treated
as <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8%3A24&version=ESV">heaven-or-hell issues</a> by the text itself. But those same texts don’t list
every slander that can be raised, or has been raised against the Lord since.
The larger principle one must take away from those incidents is that <i>any</i> slandering of the Lord, not just the particular slanders of the Pharisees,
is an issue of major concern.</p>
<p>Discerning all the precedents requires more than just
reading the explicit words; it requires submission to the Spirit of God to
reveal how those also function as precedents for issues of equal or greater importance.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> So what we
might be saying here is that there are a large number of issues significant
enough to the Lord that we ought to go to the wall for them.</p>
<h2>Pews and Chairs</h2>
<p>Here’s what I <i>don’t</i> want to fight about with other Christians: pews vs. chairs; the color of the
walls; the order of meetings on a Sunday … these sorts of things. These are
truly minors, though I likely will have a preference about them, and it’ll
generally be based on common sense and a perception of what best serves the
Lord’s interests. But I am prepared to cave on such issues for the sake of
unity. Unity’s important.</p>
<p>And yet these are the sort of things that often become
intensely divisive, while when a truly important issue is raised, many
Christians can’t be bothered to be bothered.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Agreed. The caviling over small, non-scriptural issues like the kind of wallpaper for the
nursery is admittedly a problem. But today, I’m even more concerned with the
categorizing of important issues as “secondary” and hence negotiable. It seems
the modern church thinks that there are very, very few things indeed that are
non-negotiables … far too few.</p>
<h2>Consequences for Christology</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> That is certainly true. To me, the most troubling aspect is the almost systemic failure
by some Christians to react strongly to negative implications of any particular
new teaching about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. If a doctrine has consequences
for our Christology, we need as believers and followers of Christ to have an
abundance of concern. These sorts of things seem to rile the apostles a great
deal (see, for instance, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A1-8&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 15</a>, where Paul is troubled about the
casual way in which people were evidently teaching in Corinth that resurrection
was not a reality).</p>
<p>This is what immediately got under my skin about Michael
Gungor and his dismissal of both the Eden story and the story of Noah as
unhistorical. It suggested that he thought the Lord, who referenced both, was
therefore fallible or possibly a bit of a con man. And sure enough, give Gungor enough rope and that’s exactly what he comes out and says.</p>
<h2>Primary and Secondary</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> Yes, that’s a good case in point. I’ll give you another: Many churches today emphasize two things as major: “the gospel” and “unity”. Everything else is treated as secondary or doubtful.
But we need to ask, how wisely are they determining what is part of the gospel
and what is genuinely secondary: for many things which may appear to them
secondary have very serious implications for matters that even they would
probably recognize as major. So they often dismiss things that are deeply
theological, things that have to do with differences of church practice, or
things about prophecy as secondary. But these things don’t stay secondary very
long before they impinge on the primary things.</p>
<p>For example, the secondary practice known as infant baptism
immediately implies that salvation is not through faith but by church ritual,
and so belies the gospel itself. Or
treating Covenant Theology as secondary, and thus allowable and not worth
hashing out, opens the door to things like Determinism and antisemitism to
spread throughout the congregation unchallenged.</p>
<p>Very soon the church is far from where it should be — on the
major as well as secondary issues.</p>
<h2>Conflict-Averse Christianity</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> How much of this love of “unity” is genuinely scriptural and how much is simply an aversion
to conflict? Because conflict is reliably unpleasant. Having been involved from
time to time in disputes between believers, even if I was sure I was in the
right (and years later find myself still convinced of it), when confronted by
anger and hostility I found myself questioning my position and seeking the Lord
a great deal. It didn’t mean I was going to back down without solid scriptural
evidence for the other person’s position but it was — and would be for most
people, I think — a very unpleasant experience. Unless you’re very slightly on
the sociopathic side.</p>
<p>Is it possible this is really Christendom’s manifestation of
the spirit of the age, which can be summed up in the statement “The only thing
we can’t tolerate is intolerance”?</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Aversion to conflict? Certainly it’s that. It’s also the desire to think of oneself — and
to be thought of by others — as open-minded and kind, but without the dirty
work of earning that reputation. If I were cynical, I might point out that it’s
a great ruse to escape the hard work of thinking. For you see, pretending to be
open-minded is the sort of posture one can take to hide one’s actual
theological ignorance, and to evade the duty to inform oneself of the truth.
Again, if I were cynical, I would suggest it’s actually stupidity or laziness,
but decorated with the virtue of tolerance.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> So really,
it’s a good thing you’re not cynical …</p>
<h2>Pseudo-Tolerance and Real Tolerance</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> Of course, as I have argued in earlier posts, this sort of tolerance isn’t actually a virtue:
only knowledgeable, principled toleration is virtuous. The sort of
pseudo-tolerance that is born of an unwillingness to think and an inability to
discern is no virtue at all. It’s nothing more than fleshly pride coupled with intellectual sloth.</p>
<p>Interestingly, tolerance in the church is mentioned in scripture. It occurs four times: twice in 2 Corinthians, and twice in
Revelation. Twice Paul chastises the church at Corinth for their <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+corinthians+11%3A19&version=ESV">excessive, ignorant</a> and
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+corinthians+11%3A20&version=ESV">unprincipled tolerance</a>. In the first mention in Revelation a church is greatly praised
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+2%3A2&version=ESV">for NOT being tolerant</a>. And in the final mention the Head of the Church says to another church, “I have this against you:
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+2%3A20&version=ESV">that you tolerate</a> …”</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> So, wait … toleration is NOT the cardinal virtue of Christianity?</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Well, not THAT kind of tolerance, anyway.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">To tolerate people’s foibles, preferences, mistakes or human frailties, to “bear one another’s burdens” and to live with each other in understanding ways, these are all forms of righteous tolerance. But to preserve a space for evil, to let error persist uncontested, to give range for wicked people to hurt others, to refuse to judge what God has commanded us to judge, or to pretend not to know what God has given us reason to know … these things are not any kind of godly virtue at all.</p>
Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-30148060967059800422024-03-07T00:30:00.058-05:002024-03-07T00:30:00.126-05:00Let’s Get Together and …<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggmnwAFosw8stI1t6kMif3x0MONt6DLXrgbQcckdpWoDKcEs3tlGxy9QDHJDw6VbDRzbMKnQt6Kac7XhBXP65wLjFyVWxRIP_3B_cJLuHeu-BJk4VJrzMRzD7ip8t8Vuen9hyphenhyphenbSyhLrG5x/s1600/20-06-24+IC+Let%2527s+Get+Together+and.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggmnwAFosw8stI1t6kMif3x0MONt6DLXrgbQcckdpWoDKcEs3tlGxy9QDHJDw6VbDRzbMKnQt6Kac7XhBXP65wLjFyVWxRIP_3B_cJLuHeu-BJk4VJrzMRzD7ip8t8Vuen9hyphenhyphenbSyhLrG5x/s320/20-06-24+IC+Let%2527s+Get+Together+and.jpg" width="280" /></a></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“They said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose
top will reach into heaven, and </i><a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+11%3A4&version=ESV"><i>let us make for ourselves a name</i></a>…’ ”</p>
<p>I’m going to write today as briefly, as bluntly and yet as informatively as I can.</p>
<p>I will do this because I feel we are dangling presently on a precipice of a major
social crisis. The Christian position in this must be made clear, and made
clear now, if Christian choices are to be well made.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>Right now, a great feeling of “What’s going on?” is pervading our world. Things have hit the fan suddenly, it seems. Large interest groups are beginning to collide with increasing viciousness on a scale that has not been seen, in modern Western countries at least, for a long time. Some Western cities are burning. People are being labeled and hunted, not just by radical factions, but with the collusion and assistance of political parties and the mass media. Hot language is being spewed about who deserves to have power or be crushed by power, who can legitimately prosper or must be destroyed, who should be heard or silenced, and even about who gets to live and die.</p>
<p>George Orwell is spinning in his grave.</p>
<p>My Christian friends are confused. Some are a little frightened. All are saddened by what they see. And they want to know firstly, <i>what’s going on</i>, and secondly, <i>what’s a Christian to do about it</i>?</p>
<p>I’m going to try to answer both questions ... the first one in today’s post and the second in next week’s.</p>
<p>With me so far?</p>
<h2>Understanding Collectivism</h2>
<p>Pardon me for being a bit long today. I want to move slowly, carefully and comprehensibly, in stages of thought that we all can follow and that make sense. The issues are significant, but by no means complex: and at the end, I hope you’ll find yourself much more confident about what you’re seeing in the daily news reports.</p>
<p>My comments today will take us a little into the territory of political philosophy, and we
might even say political psychology as well. I apologize for that. Political
philosophy is not — and, I suggest, probably <i>should not be</i> — a Christian taste. It is wordy, obscure,
and often downright misleading as well, given that it is generally shaped by
the perspectives of godless men. In any case, not everyone is built for it. So,
I will compensate for that by being as plainspoken and straightforward as
I can so as to meet the ordinary Christian where he lives.</p>
<p>However, there are times when a little political philosophy is necessary, especially when the
political winds of the day blow strong. And today they surely do. We live in an
age of radical political polarization. Terrorism still stalks the globe, and
commercial corruption is rife everywhere. The great masses of the world are
agog at the dancing delusions of the internet, the marvels of technological
innovation and the various baubles of the commercial world. At the moment, we
are coming off the world’s first pandemic in living memory, and are now
suddenly submerged in a bizarre sequence of new events such as the burning and
sacking of major cities for reasons that are not clear even to the
participants.</p>
<p>It is with this goal that I am writing. It is also my conviction that this is
actually a very doable task — nowhere near so hard as the news media and
the various pundits of this world make it out to be. The issues in hand are
actually basic, spiritual, and, I think, quite clear.</p>
<p>Truly, there is “<a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes+1%3A9&version=ESV">nothing
new under the sun</a>”, as Solomon so rightly said.</p>
<h2>Two Options</h2>
<p>Let me start with a very simple distinction. There are only two ways for a human being
to reckon — <i>with</i> God, and <i>without</i> God. Got it?</p>
<p>Either the Lord is an issue in life, and he alone establishes justice in eternity, or else you
have to have some scheme to achieve your justice in this life right now,
before you die. The option of just having no justice is, of course, not
something most people will entertain.</p>
<p><i>With God</i>, we look to eternity for our final answers to
questions like “How shall we become happy?” or “When shall we have justice?” or
“How will the purpose of life be fulfilled?”</p>
<p><i>Without God</i>, the answers to those questions have to be
found now, here, on earth, in life, by some solution we can make happen, before
we decline and die … because otherwise, it will never happen at all.</p>
<p>So there are those two ways to go. And most people, at least in the modern West, are
reckoning <i>without God</i>. That means that if they are going to experience any justice, any fulfillment, any
happiness, any joy in life, even any improvement in the present situation, it’s
got to be now.</p>
<p>They have to say, “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.”</p>
<h2>Step 1: Become a Collectivist</h2>
<p>But this instantly raises a very serious problem: one person alone is powerless to
change anything.</p>
<p>We are all comparatively small, weak and insignificant by ourselves. In moments of absurd
overestimation, we might imagine we’re very important; but even the strongest
among us actually has limited power, knowledge, resources and time. Is there
any reasonable chance that a lone person can change the world — or even
his own circumstances — greatly enough to produce the better world he
longs for?</p>
<p>God could do it; but the man who reckons without God does not have that option. So what’s
left? The obvious alternative is to muster <i>more
men</i>. What the individual lacks power to do, maybe a big enough collective
of men can empower him to achieve. So he must mobilize others to remove the
obstacles.</p>
<p>So step 1 after the rejection of God is this: the secular individualist
naturally becomes a <i>collectivist</i>. That is, he looks to groups of people to help him achieve what he cannot achieve by
himself.</p>
<p>Of course, does it need to be pointed out that this strategy is doomed to fail? There is
nothing about adding a few more men to a project that makes the project itself
any more rational, and nothing about adding a few more fallen men that makes it
any less likely to fail. A few more will not produce the ideal society, social
justice, personal happiness or eternal life, anymore than adding a few more
muddy bricks will raise <a href="https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+11%3A4&version=ESV">a
tower from the earth to heaven</a>. It’s not just <i>too far</i>; it isn’t even a <i>practical
method</i> for that goal.</p>
<p>As futile as it is, however, it remains the only hope of godless men. The alternative is
to try nothing at all; and to live without possibility of betterment is an
alternative most simply will not endure.</p>
<h2>Step 2: Adopt an Ideology</h2>
<p>Next problem: how to mobilize men? Other people are individuals. They are not always
cooperative, and don’t always like to be told what to do.</p>
<p>So they must be convinced.</p>
<p>How? Well, there will need to be a common vision — something that will unite other
men in a single perspective and focus them on the objectives the individual
hopes to achieve. But this is not easy: few of us are eloquent, clever and
convincing enough to draw other people into our schemes. There are a few, to be
sure, but most of us are not great propagandists.</p>
<p>Not only that, but many of us do not really have clear vision about what we actually
want. We know we want to be happy, say, but we don’t really have a specific
sense of what will get us there. Or we want society to be fair, but maybe we
only can think of a few ways in which we want to see that play out. Or we want
progress, but don’t really know what progress is going to look like.</p>
<p>For all these reasons, it’s easier and more automatic not to try to invent some new
vision ourselves, but rather to look around for an existing vision that attracts
us by some of its high points; something already created and thought-through by
others can be the vehicle of our personal ambitions. And we can more easily
induce others to join a program that’s already in motion and which others are
already joining.</p>
<p>So the second step is this: to design, or more likely adopt, a collective political
ideology. Become its supporter and advocate, and ride that train to its destination.</p>
<h2>Step 3: Double Down and Try Harder</h2>
<p>Now a new problem emerges from our secular ideology, one of which we are not perhaps
even conscious: it doesn’t really work. It can’t quite deliver the goods we
want. It can’t really make us happy, doesn’t really deliver justice or
fairness, and as an answer to the meaning of life has an ultimately hollow ring
to it. Maybe this is because we know we made it up ourselves; or maybe it’s
because human productions are all so flawed and ultimately unconvincing; or
maybe it’s because we still have a conscience that quietly nags us that we are
lying to ourselves and missing the point of life. But for whatever reason,
ideology does not satisfy, and does not deliver.</p>
<p>We could repent, and rethink our rejection of God. But men generally don’t. What they do
instead is to double down. If our hopes are not being achieved, if our efforts
so far have not been successful, and if our heaven-on-earth is not approaching
as fast as we’d like, perhaps the problem, we think, is that we are <i>not trying hard enough</i>.</p>
<p>Not enough effort is being exerted. Not enough belief is being exercised. Not enough
people are presently drawn in. We must push much harder, and the vision must be
simplified, clarified and intensified, so as to motivate a more singular
effort. Of necessity, deceptions and evasions must be introduced into the
narrative to conceal its emerging flaws and inevitable failures. Doubts must be
erased and enthusiasm renewed. Ideology must become <i>dogma</i> and <i>propaganda</i>.</p>
<p>But something else, too: we must account for why our ideology, which we believe so
fervently and on the strength of so many others, has not yet yielded the goods
for which we adopted it.</p>
<p>Present failure must be explained and cured.</p>
<h2>Step 4: Fanaticism</h2>
<p>Now, what’s the handy explanation? It’s quite simply this: the present situation is holding us back. There are not enough
people who believe in our cause yet. Our collective has not reached the
critical mass to produce its promised benefits. And why is this? It is because
the status quo, the existing regime of things, is entrenched and has the
resistance of inertia on its side. We have not yet exerted enough force to
dislodge it.</p>
<p>Moreover, there are those who have created the present states of affairs and
are benefiting from them, who have no stake in our revolution. And even among
our ranks are those who are insufficiently committed, lazy, freeloading, or
perhaps even traitorous to our cause. The collective is being let down, and it
is those who are not committed to our ideology who are doing it.</p>
<p>What can we do? Well, we must convince them. And what if they will not be convinced? That
cannot be allowed. We cannot have a small group of unimaginative nay-sayers
holding us back from our happiness, from the good society, or even from a
heaven-on-earth, can we?</p>
<p>We must create more dedication to the cause. We must ratchet up our propaganda. We must
command more loyalty. We must demand more sacrifice. We must incentivize
passion. And with all that, we must be more thorough in dealing with
dissenters, holders-back, and the various betrayers and deniers of the cause. We
must weed out the problems and redouble the push. We must use more force.</p>
<p>Thus, ideology is inevitably drawn to <i>fanaticism</i>.</p>
<h2>Step 5: Hatred and Destruction</h2>
<p>When human beings find their purposes frustrated the first emotion they
experience is naturally anger. And we cast about for something or somebody to
blame.</p>
<p>Secular ideology finds the object of its hate in those who have not joined the cause,
and in the institutions of the status quo. It pours out its venom on them
in proportion to the perceived greatness of its own ambitions. The more the
secular ideology has promised, the greater the ire it directs at its opponents:
how dare they stand against such an obviously great, good and just cause? They
are truly vile!</p>
<p>Ginning up hatred is also very serviceable to the collectivist cause. Not only does it
unite and focus the “faithful” on common objects of shared hatred, but it does
two other handy things as well. First, it allows the program of the collective
to focus on negative goals, goals of destroying or removing things and people
that are near, visible, identifiable and within human scope. But secondly, it
also keeps the ideology from having to articulate any comprehensive positive
vision of what it will do when all the negative goals have been achieved.</p>
<p>Destruction is easy and building is hard, but the building work can remain unspecified so
long as the enemies are many, the objects of hatred on every side, and the
status quo still exists to be smashed.</p>
<p>Any residual deficiencies inherent in the collectivist ideology (and there are
always many) can be concealed by the focused goal of hating and destroying the
establishment, and put off for the indefinite future. The promise is that when
our revolution has been achieved we will be able to sort out the details from
there. For now, there is still only the inspiring work of overthrowing things. That
is enough.</p>
<h2>Step 6: Rhetoric and Sanctimony</h2>
<p>Next, we must make ourselves seem holy.</p>
<p>The downside of smashing things, hating things, destroying and overthrowing, is that it can make us feel as if we
are bad people. Our consciences can be irritated by the unpleasantness of
what we have to do in order to achieve our goals. So we will need to salve that.</p>
<p>To anesthetize our consciences we will need high rhetoric.
So the chains of conventional morality must be shed. In their place, a new
language of virtue must be introduced. “Good” has got to become a synonym for
“doing whatever is necessary to progress the cause” and “evil” must become a
synonym for “falling short, in any way, of the fervency of devotion to the cause
that will make it successful”.</p>
<p>In a twisted bit of logic, we must come to convince
ourselves that the worse we <i>behave</i>,
the better we <i>are</i>.</p>
<p>How does this work? Well, something like this: we shall
reason that all who identify with the establishment, and all those who have benefited from it, and any who
are not white-hot dedicated to our cause are, to one degree or another, simply
enemies of truth, goodness, justice and humanity. After all, they hold us back
from these things, in which both the good of the collective and our own future
happiness obviously consist.</p>
<p>It follows, then, that they are very, very bad people. They are obdurate. They are selfish.
They are narrow. They are conservative. They are probably also sexist, racist,
fascist and any other kinds of “-ist” we can summon.</p>
<p>And then the thought follows, “What good people on a very good mission can do to people
who are very bad is practically limitless. Really, we can legitimately denounce,
demean, defeat, humiliate, incarcerate, bludgeon, pillage and even kill those
who persist in having any affection for the former state of things. They are
evil. And we are good when we spit on them, when we kick them, when we stone
them, when we beat them to a pulp; our anger will be righteous, and their
debasement and destruction will be richly deserved. We shall be virtuous in the
hotness of our hatred.”</p>
<p>Now, all of this is done with the highest rhetoric, the greatest show of virtue that the
collectivist ideologues can muster. For in order for it to be permissible to do
such hideous acts as they think they must do, they must serve nothing less than
the highest cause. Since we all must shatter, debase, bully, burn, shame,
brutalize and kill, our purity must be white hot in order to sustain in us the
conviction that all we are doing is moral and right. We must always feel we are
morally superior, especially while we are necessarily drawn to do things which
any conventional morality would make us feel are immoral. No visiting
compunction of conscience must be allowed to break through to us and cry,
“Hold, hold!”</p>
<p>The worse the movement, the higher the rhetoric must be.</p>
<h2>Step 7: Rage</h2>
<p>But it all doesn’t really work.</p>
<p>Utopia does not arrive. Neither does the equity and justice
for which we longed. Happiness eludes us. “The Great Society” does not emerge
out of the clamor and smoke of our striving. And most troublingly, the more our
revolution seems to achieve, the more clear it becomes that we shall not
achieve our goals before we die — and maybe, we begin to suspect — not
at all.</p>
<p>This occasions <i>rage</i>. How could such a high and noble cause possibly fail? More excuses, more
explanations, more objects of blame must be found … but inevitably, such
are in insufficient supply. The strategies we used to salve our consciences and
stave off our looming fear of failure are not working anymore. So we determine
to ride our revolution flaming into the ground. Like Macbeth, we declare, “For
my own good, all causes shall give way,” and to our enemies, like Captain Ahab
from <i>Moby Dick</i>, we cry out, “To the last I grapple with thee;
from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last
breath at thee.”</p>
<p>Then the tumbrils roll through the streets on the way to the guillotine, and in the market square
the flames lick hungrily at the waists of the infidels. The pogroms, the
purges, the gulags and the death camps open for business. No cruelty, no
savagery, no brutality or insanity is left untried. Conscience is gone, reservation abandoned, all given over to
immolation in the bonfire of the cause. And the promised utopia of secular
collectivist hopes turns into a hell on earth.</p>
<p>This is the final step in the downward decline of all the godless schemes of men.</p>
<h2>Summary So Far</h2>
<p>Now you understand collectivism. You know why it happens and why it should not surprise us. You also know what to expect from the various collective factions that are storming across our world. What you do not perhaps yet know is where we Christians fit into the situation. And that’s for next week’s post.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">Fair enough?</p>
Immanuel Canhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06945630347684988672noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-84350399569767701652024-03-06T00:30:00.052-05:002024-03-06T00:30:00.134-05:00Letters from the Best Man (8)<p><i>The following is absolutely fictional and increasingly common. There is no Brad and definitely
no Jill, in case that is not obvious. There are, however, way too many people
in their position.</i></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEJtCE69uQ32fi4Ss7Bcu3PGcLXzexf4IQ5_auI6CmlO046pHwUoEbRVbypL-86TxK9iZQmIGVPH2f7xNWTKFfvUVwd1t-OnbEwVyXwejbQi0CYesLMJv0z4KUSNgqNgvRXvlHubLbcPDGtU9DS53wsHTbURqStMF3Q6aAMuJ63Wa7A64DVuD5NBnEYBE3/s1024/24-03-06%20T%20Letters%20from%20the%20Best%20Man%20(8).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEJtCE69uQ32fi4Ss7Bcu3PGcLXzexf4IQ5_auI6CmlO046pHwUoEbRVbypL-86TxK9iZQmIGVPH2f7xNWTKFfvUVwd1t-OnbEwVyXwejbQi0CYesLMJv0z4KUSNgqNgvRXvlHubLbcPDGtU9DS53wsHTbURqStMF3Q6aAMuJ63Wa7A64DVuD5NBnEYBE3/s320/24-03-06%20T%20Letters%20from%20the%20Best%20Man%20(8).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">You still up, Tom?</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Sadly. Surprised you are. Don’t
you have to be out the door by <nobr>six-thirty?</nobr></p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Can’t sleep. Decisions, decisions …</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">What’s on your mind, Brad?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Two girls. Well, women, obviously. Friends who started
coming to my Thursday Bible study.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">And?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">They’re both showing obvious interest in me.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">This is a bad thing?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">I thought you might think so. I was going to write you
another letter. Texting seemed quicker.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Refresh my memory … why
would I think you finally moving on from Jill is a bad thing?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Well, you were kind of equivocal about Christians remarrying,
if I remember correctly. I’ve got <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2017/06/letters-from-best-man-6.html">the
letter</a> somewhere …</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">No need. I remember now.
I wasn’t equivocating, bud. I was just a little concerned you might
be thinking too much about other possibilities before the judge’s ink was dry
on Jill’s divorce decree. Let me think: that was the end of 2017. Feels like we’ve
both lived three lifetimes since then.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">So what took you so long?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">COVID, for starters. When Winston Heights stopped having
services, it also killed the fellowship night <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2017/06/letters-from-best-man-5.html">you
encouraged me to start</a> at the house. That was a real disappointment. It was
going better than I ever could’ve imagined. One week, I had fifteen
believers from the chapel and a neighbor couple who walked in. Amazingly, there
were enough ribs for everyone. Kind of a “feeding the 5,000” moment.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Then came the scamdemic, and it was Zoom-only for a year and
a half. So much for my social life! But it also kept me out of circulation
until Jill had gotten her divorce, even if I had been tempted. Probably a
good thing. Then in 2022, I restarted the fellowship night every Thursday
as a Bible study for young Christians in my new apartment. That seemed to be a
bigger need. Fewer bodies, but the conversation is way more intense. We still
eat together regularly, but we’ve had some serious discussions about scripture.
And it sure kept me occupied. I’ve been working less, and reading and writing more.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Well, that’s all I was
concerned about when I cautioned you not to think too far ahead. Keeping
you out of circulation, I mean. <span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: Georgia; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Georgia; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">J</span></span></p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">All good then. So, if you had been writing about remarriage
back then, what would you have said? I’m curious.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Well, you’re familiar with <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5%3A32&version=ESV">the
so-called exception clause</a> in Matthew 5: “But I say to you that
everyone who divorces his wife, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">except
on the ground of sexual immorality</b>, makes her commit adultery, and whoever
marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” And the Lord said it again in
Matthew 19. So it obviously means something. Though <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2022/09/what-does-your-proof-text-prove-20.html">John
Piper doesn’t think so</a>. And I’ve seen others who say the exception wasn’t
actually intended to be an exception.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Yes, but what do YOU think, Tom?</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">It does start with the word “except” …
in Greek as well as English.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">I think if Jill hadn’t been
sexually immoral with that married guy before she left you, she certainly is
now that they are living together. It sounds to me like the Lord never intended
a (comparatively) innocent party to be bound for life by somebody else’s sinful
choices. But the important thing isn’t what I think. It’s <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+23%3A1&version=ESV">your
own conscience</a> before the Lord, obviously. Violate that, and you’ll be
miserable, or at least perpetually doubtful. You know how <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+1%3A6-8&version=ESV">double-minded
men</a> are …</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Understood. And that’s not really the problem with these
two gals. My freedom to remarry, I mean.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Okay, you’ve got me interested
now. What exactly IS the problem, Brad?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">They’re both really appealing women in different ways. Barb
can basically finish my sentences. We’re very compatible. Her ex-husband has
remarried too. It’s like my situation in reverse. But if I’m honest,
I find Rebekah more physically attractive and exciting, though I’m not
sure she’d be hospitable. It sounds like she has most of her meals in
restaurants. And she is a little on the heavy side, which wouldn’t bother me
except I feel like there might be self-control issues to be concerned
about. Spiritually, it’s probably a saw-off. They are both committed
Christians, hard-working, enjoy the scriptures …</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">I’m still looking for a major
problem here.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">You’re going to laugh. I feel like I should be
more interested than I am.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Come again?</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Okay, I guess that requires more of an explanation. Jill
and I were not great for years. It was wonderful when we were going out.
She was super-supportive, spiritually alert, funny, carefree. Then, after maybe
a year of being married, she became moody, maybe even a little paranoid. She was
getting into arguments with people at work over trivia, and then bringing it
home and venting about it all night, every night. She thought people at church
were being hostile when it seemed to me they were just shy or awkward. She picked
fights all the time. I felt like I spent all my time trying to manage
her emotions, and she would get angry any time she thought I was being
less than fully supportive of the way she perceived her relationships. But it
was difficult. I could see she was instigating some of the problems she
experienced with people, and I was trying to encourage her not to do that.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">I didn’t know that.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">It’s not a situation I felt free to talk about. But
what happened about two months after Jill walked out the door and
I had begun to get used to the new reality, is that I felt this huge
wave of relief. I still wanted my wife back, but I sure didn’t want to
live with all that conflict. And then I started having people over every
week, and my life was suddenly full of good things. More time to study the Word. A quiet time every morning before work. More
freedom to choose how to spend my time. No dickering over every little
choice and compromising most of the time. No skimpy salad-only dinners because
she was on a diet, so I couldn’t eat anything she couldn’t. No dreadful TV shows I could barely get through.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Tom, I’m realizing I’m not sure I want to give that up.
Is that normal?</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Hah. So, Brad, you’re basically
telling me an unmarried man is anxious about how to please the Lord, but <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+7%3A32-34&version=ESV">a
married man’s interests are divided</a>? Boy, that really sounds familiar …</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">You know, I don’t think it
would hurt you to re-read 1 Corinthians 7, bud, and watch how many
times Paul says commendable things about being single. I don’t think he
was a closet misogynist. He genuinely wanted the Corinthians to be free from anxieties.
That sounds exactly like what you are describing.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Is what you’re feeling common?
Maybe not. But it sure sounds normal to me.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">I’ve been reading a book written by a Christian who’s never
been married and probably never will be. He talks about something he calls “kitchen
floor moments” when he just sits on the floor and cries from loneliness. Maybe
I felt overwhelmed for the first couple months Jill was gone, but
I never feel like that now. Cry from loneliness, are you kidding?
Sometimes I feel like I could use a night off with all the activities
going on at church.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">What I’m asking is which of us has the right perspective on
his situation?</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">I don’t know if there’s a “right
perspective” on loneliness, because <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19%3A10-12&version=ESV">everybody
is different</a>. For one, this guy you’re talking about has never had the
experience of marriage, so he’s fighting an imagination full of things that
might never happen in any alternate universe. He sees other couples together
and thinks the way they are in public is the way they are in private, and
imagines marriage is all about companionship and fulfillment. And it can be.
But not every marriage is like that. Yours clearly wasn’t. </p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Brad, there is something very
different about looking at marriage in the rearview mirror rather than through
the windshield. You can see what was good about it, but you are also brutally
realistic about the costs associated with it. Nobody looking forward to
marriage knows what they are actually getting into until they take the leap.
Maybe you’re just not ready to leap again, and that’s fine.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Whew! Thank you. I thought I was getting a little
nutty there. It’s not that I can never see myself remarrying, Tom. It’s
just I’m not feeling any urgency about it. And I’d want to be very, very sure
what I was getting into.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">So what do I do about Barb and Rebekah? I don’t
want to lead anybody on. </p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">No, of course not. I would
say <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+5%3A2&version=ESV">treat
them as sisters, in all purity</a>. Enjoy their company but don’t spend all
night texting them, or a lot of time with either one alone. If you want to make
sure the situation is clear, you could always offer to set them up with Gavin
and Kev. That sends the message without being insulting, and I doubt those
guys would mind.</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Well, yeah. The other problem is Barb and Rebekah are close
friends. I don’t know how well that might work if I chose one over
the other. Women can be very competitive, and that includes Christians.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px;">Whoof! Indeed. No, I’d say enjoy
the Bible studies, hope they hang around and see how you feel down the road.
Sounds like you’re in a really good place right now. I’m so happy to hear it,
I don’t even mind that it’s almost 2:00 a.m. …</p>
<p style="color: #073763; font-family: arial; margin-right: 36px;">Oh man, sorry. Hit the sack. Talk to you soon, Tom.</p>
<p style="color: #990000; font-family: arial; margin-left: 36px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Sleep well, Brad.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-66923825958821969012024-03-05T00:30:00.063-05:002024-03-05T00:30:00.127-05:00To Die a Virgin<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV3T1d5fyQ1SocppyanbNE2b12igxraxqstoODTq2pTj6bKRLdorKvBI1AwvxzrAOWvkpggnjSRhSJZATopGpIAYkSVjtIt7xlGBujJnsuGgIIHylY8hR35PyXRPb-Y3XauNnbS6aBWdanrfKghK_DBi42lxoQI8CLtWUH13zxMLS6Td4RuaspudSHdNWu/s998/24-03-05%20T%20To%20Die%20a%20Virgin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV3T1d5fyQ1SocppyanbNE2b12igxraxqstoODTq2pTj6bKRLdorKvBI1AwvxzrAOWvkpggnjSRhSJZATopGpIAYkSVjtIt7xlGBujJnsuGgIIHylY8hR35PyXRPb-Y3XauNnbS6aBWdanrfKghK_DBi42lxoQI8CLtWUH13zxMLS6Td4RuaspudSHdNWu/s320/24-03-05%20T%20To%20Die%20a%20Virgin.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>Ed Shaw is attracted to men. Out of love for Jesus Christ,
he never acts on those impulses. He hopes and expects to die a virgin.</p>
<p>That gives him enormous credibility as the author of 2015’s <i>The Plausibility Problem: The Church and Same-Sex Attraction</i>, in
which Shaw affirms the scriptural basis for the orthodox Christian position on
homosexuality.</p>
<p>In doing so, Shaw has a challenge for the church.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>Shaw says we’ve helped make the choice of lifelong
abstinence implausible to the world, especially the current generation of young
Christians. The vast majority of <i>The
Plausibility Problem</i> is devoted to explaining where we’ve gone wrong, and
how the spirit of the age at work in the church has made it that much harder to
sell chastity as a virtue.</p>
<h2>Nine Theological Missteps</h2>
<p>He identifies nine “missteps” the church has made, increasingly common false assumptions in dire
need of being confronted with the plain teaching of scripture:</p>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 0; margin-top: 18px; margin: 18px 0px; mso-add-space: .0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;">
<ol>
<li>Your identity is your sexuality</li>
<li>A family is Mum, Dad and 2.4 children</li>
<li>If you’re born gay, it can’t be wrong to be gay</li>
<li>If it makes you happy, it must be right!</li>
<li>Sex is where true intimacy is found</li>
<li>Men and women are equal and interchangeable</li>
<li>Godliness is heterosexuality</li>
<li>Celibacy is bad for you</li>
<li>Suffering is to be avoided</li>
</ol>
</div>
<p>These false assumptions are rarely stately plainly, and their
subversiveness makes them that much more effective. Our failure to confront
them, both from scripture and in practice, Shaw says, makes it that much harder
for same-sex attracted Christians to commit to living godly, sacrificial lives.
He devotes a full chapter to scripturally debunking each of these modern myths
and making the teaching of the New Testament about godly living plausible
again.</p>
<h2>Strengths and Weaknesses</h2>
<p>There is very, very little to find fault with here. Shaw is
relentlessly honest about his own struggles (without prurience or details) and thorough in his presentation of
the biblical position on homosexuality. A few stray pages of beating the equality drum, an emphasis entirely absent from scripture, are the single
structural weakness in any of Shaw’s arguments, but that’s <a href="https://www.cominguntrue.com/2017/09/better-than-equal.html">a common problem</a>
these days and easily overlooked among a wealth of more persuasive rebuttals.
I find expressions like “beautiful man” icky, but then I’m not a sensitive
character.</p>
<p>All the chapters are excellent, but my favorites are those
on identity (impulses are not identity), family and suffering. Equally helpful
are two appendices: one on the plausibility of the traditional biblical view
when examined in the context of the great themes of scripture, demonstrating that
it does not stand on a few isolated proof texts; a second on the sheer
implausibility of the new interpretations of scripture foisted on us by gay
theologians and their enablers. Shaw neatly points out the weaknesses in all
the major attempts to reframe the teaching of the Bible to permit monogamous homosexual
relationships.</p>
<p>As I have been working my way through
1 Corinthians, it strikes me that Shaw’s portrayal of the benefits of celibate
life is no lame attempt to make a positive out of a negative; it is the plain
teaching of chapter 7. There are definite advantages to being single, something
rarely pointed out from the platform.</p>
<h2>A Wake-Up Call</h2>
<p><i>The Plausibility
Problem</i> is primarily intended as a wake-up call for Christians who are not
same-sex attracted to come to the defense of their fellow believers by teaching
lifelong abstinence in the context of the whole counsel of God, where it
becomes much more plausible, rather than simply the flat denial of what is
perceived as a basic human need. But despite the fact that Shaw’s main thrust
is not toward helping <nobr>same-sex</nobr> attracted believers deal with the moral,
spiritual, intellectual and emotional baggage that results from their predisposition, I can’t
imagine any way that recommending the book to a young Christian struggling to stay faithful
to Christ in that area could make their situation worse.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">I’ve got to hand it to him. It’s hard to sell the appeal of
dying as a virgin, but Ed Shaw does it convincingly. After all, he had the best role model in human history.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-54201843344376529402024-03-04T00:30:00.034-05:002024-03-04T00:30:00.127-05:00Anonymous Asks (292)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifFmrJGOCDlgD4AM13eCI3G1HrnABz7D2dGo5NjuGjgx6dKWikMgjqSOyclWPa9mTjpzHFh3j1HACjNhbAwvu8tQXVQL31W0-Hm7qrXBuowGMVyTBWvdyndbhtaxrCmpznnSP88iwv7AVFZApZq9oSfsR3wHJayh8X4i-3h20LLGza3bVAWdlZDqyLmRQi/s1024/24-03-04%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(292).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifFmrJGOCDlgD4AM13eCI3G1HrnABz7D2dGo5NjuGjgx6dKWikMgjqSOyclWPa9mTjpzHFh3j1HACjNhbAwvu8tQXVQL31W0-Hm7qrXBuowGMVyTBWvdyndbhtaxrCmpznnSP88iwv7AVFZApZq9oSfsR3wHJayh8X4i-3h20LLGza3bVAWdlZDqyLmRQi/s320/24-03-04%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(292).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“Why are there so many Christian
interpretations?”</i></p>
<p>Knowledge is fundamentally divisive. The moment any of us
determines to “get to the bottom” of this or that subject, he begins to depart
from the popular narrative about it. One possibility is that he gets labeled a
conspiracy theorist and marginalized by society. Another is that he becomes an
expert and people start turning to him for advice.</p>
<p>Any exposure to increased information, true or false, creates
divisions.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Knowledge = Division</h2>
<p>This is one reason politicians are so desperate to control
the popular narrative, whether through their lapdog media, censorship, internet
policing or public shaming: knowledge divides. Freedom of information may lead
to public disagreement over your climate change initiatives and fewer people lining up for your
vaccines or voting for Justin Trudeau. The holy grail of governments everywhere
is the single, unquestioned, universally accepted storyline about everything.</p>
<p>Bible study increases knowledge, so it has exactly the same
effect. The serious Bible student may be a wingnut or a deep theologian who
helps many people, but his efforts to understand the meaning of scripture for
himself take him off the beaten path and separate him from his peers. Each
effort to learn more about what scripture really teaches creates the potential
for a new interpretation, right or wrong.</p>
<p>My point is that the divisiveness of increased information is
not a feature unique to religious studies. It is true in every area of
knowledge: in science, economics, medicine, politics, art, music or anything
else. In business, the mantra for years has been that diversity is a strength,
and that listening to a variety of opinions will make your business that much
more successful. It ain’t true, but nobody complains about diversity in the
boardroom the way they complain about diversity from the platforms of churches.</p>
<h2>All Truth</h2>
<p>When the Lord Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+16%3A13&version=ESV">guide
his apostles into all truth</a>, his promise came with no ironclad guarantee
that everyone who heard or read what the apostles taught would understand it
the same way or pass it on in unmodified form. Understanding in any area is a
process. That is why we talk about learning curves. Truth is not dispensed in a
moment in time like a flash of lightning, but arrived at by comparing scripture
with scripture, praying, meditating, consulting with others, eliminating false
interpretations, going down rabbit trails then backing up and going down others.
It’s a laborious, time-consuming process, and it should come as no surprise
that we all do it at a different pace.</p>
<p>If 100 people set out to walk to the West Coast from
Boston, unless they stay together and move at the pace of the slowest among
them, they will all arrive at different times, not to mention with different
stories about how they got there and what happened along the way. Health,
strength, good judgment, knowledge of the territory, unforeseen circumstances
and any combination of other factors will quickly separate them from one
another as they travel. They are all heading for the same destination, but the
further away that destination is, the farther apart they may be from one
another at any given point along the way. And all this assumes they start
at the same place at the same time, which is never the case with any
two Christians whose stories we might compare.</p>
<p>Christlikeness is not a walk down the block to the corner
store. For most of us it’s a life-long journey, with plenty of missteps in the
process.</p>
<h2>Feature, Not Bug</h2>
<p>Amazingly, this is not a bug but a feature. Paul writes, “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+11%3A19&version=ESV">There
must be factions among you</a> in order that those who are genuine among you
may be recognized.” Bad doctrine leads to bad practice. It doesn’t work out in
the real world. Bad doctrine leads to inconsistent thinking. It doesn’t work
out in your head. Even the most obstinate among us eventually realize this and
move on. This is the nature of learning. It involves a lot of trial and error.
If not, what we’re listening to is probably just propaganda, not truth.</p>
<p>The good news is the Bible anticipates a variety of
interpretations in circulation at any given time. The New Testament teaches us
to expect <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+13%3A36-43&version=ESV">weeds
among the wheat</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+peter+2%3A1&version=ESV">false
prophets and teachers</a>, “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+corinthians+11%3A5&version=ESV">super-apostles</a>”
who are not super at all, and good men who need to have the way of God <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+18%3A24-28&version=ESV">explained
to them more accurately</a>. If there are those who <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+timothy+2%3A15&version=ESV">rightly
handle the word of truth</a>, there will be those who don’t.</p>
<h2>The Word of God</h2>
<p>Hebrews says, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you
the word of God. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+13%3A7&version=ESV">Consider
the outcome of their way of life</a>, and imitate their faith.” How do we know
when we are hearing the true word of God? Well, look hard at the outcome, at
what any given teaching produces and how it plays out in the real world.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">It may not be obvious today, but it will be one day
soon.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-60845067383235839362024-03-03T00:30:00.031-05:002024-03-03T00:30:00.124-05:00Quote of the Day (46)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzAq5krt7yl0b703qQem9l7SPBk92VL0zRmVjWMA6HfgHb5JC2hhqEzyP00auVZCPLnvNhwKy5dFS7nDCni9BYDmPOyNUHLr_8anDzVjWiVfLHbBbtFKXPuqCL8GucUZiorPuVwuTnwQH2TiqOwNHRxLILByRa0GsiOVtJHeBRRaGig4XR3LCR8itCmFn6/s1024/24-03-03%20T%20Quote%20of%20the%20Day%20(46).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzAq5krt7yl0b703qQem9l7SPBk92VL0zRmVjWMA6HfgHb5JC2hhqEzyP00auVZCPLnvNhwKy5dFS7nDCni9BYDmPOyNUHLr_8anDzVjWiVfLHbBbtFKXPuqCL8GucUZiorPuVwuTnwQH2TiqOwNHRxLILByRa0GsiOVtJHeBRRaGig4XR3LCR8itCmFn6/s320/24-03-03%20T%20Quote%20of%20the%20Day%20(46).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>I’ve told this story before, but it perfectly illustrates
the mentality addressed in today’s quote.</p>
<p>In the mid-eighties, I was introduced to a fellow
college student who claimed to be very interested in Jesus Christ, but had a
“few” questions about the Bible first. I naturally offered to help in any
way that I could. He handed me a list of familiar posers along the lines
of “Where did Cain get his wife?”</p>
<p>Okay, the issues seemed important to him, so fair enough.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>None of the questions was beyond my ability to handle,
though one or two required a little research. After a couple of days,
I gave him back six or seven pages of notes in response. He barely
glanced at them before handing over a list of another fifteen to twenty
questions of exactly the same sort.</p><p>
</p><p>I quickly realized my efforts to help him come to faith
were likely to be fruitless.</p>
<p>From a post entitled “<a href="https://churcheswithoutchests.net/2024/02/20/letters-to-stagnant-christians-12-the-paralysis-of-analysis/">The
Paralysis of Analysis</a>” by David de Bruyn:</p>
<blockquote>“The Bible teaches that believers who want to <i>know</i> God’s will must be prepared to <i>do</i> God’s will. This is all over Proverbs
(Prov 1:7, 1:28-29, 2:5, 8:13, 9:10, 14:26-27, 15:33). In other words, <b>submission precedes knowledge</b>. No one
gets the right to swill God’s will around in the test-tube of our own
ruminations before we actually begin doing His will. God’s will is not a
project we get to dissect with the scalpel of our own limited logic. No one is
permitted to first challenge the coherence of the will of God like some kind of
mental Sudoku, and then decide if he will actually submit to it. If you aren’t
interested in loving your neighbour, God has no reason to help you understand
the mysteries of predestination. If you won’t be nice to your cat and dog, it’s
frankly laughable to imagine that the Creator of the universe is going to
explain to you why he permitted Satan’s fall. God is not playing mental chess
with us; He is interested in worshippers and friends.”</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">Amen to that. Especially the part about being nice to your cat and dog.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-31305252897961684692024-03-02T00:30:00.052-05:002024-03-02T00:30:00.129-05:00Mining the Minors: Zechariah (7)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5XDwQ6fY43je7hRngj9cMEA6mQNrSr1e_orc7GvP-i-dL75uywfnQoIa-My0g-Kg8g3i3OZKbluqX9uMWI0o4oPNeheBCFM-ymyaTQzEWzIyT_WRZy5DpVPoL7vgSp5nz70_G3WqJf-tDN8joEn7tm2_HhbfOjTo3XeB9_Ki04QVx7zizRHLN5IPzX23/s600/24-03-02%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(7).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5XDwQ6fY43je7hRngj9cMEA6mQNrSr1e_orc7GvP-i-dL75uywfnQoIa-My0g-Kg8g3i3OZKbluqX9uMWI0o4oPNeheBCFM-ymyaTQzEWzIyT_WRZy5DpVPoL7vgSp5nz70_G3WqJf-tDN8joEn7tm2_HhbfOjTo3XeB9_Ki04QVx7zizRHLN5IPzX23/s320/24-03-02%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(7).jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>Wikipedia says, “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion">A perpetual motion
machine</a> is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an
external energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, since its existence
would violate either the first or second law of thermodynamics, or both.”</p>
<p>In the real world, systemic failure is inevitable. The most
sophisticated humanly devised machinery eventually breaks down and grinds to a halt.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>The concept of a device that continues to operate in
perpetuity without human intervention is intriguing even if nobody has been
able to invent one yet. In chapter 4, Zechariah saw a vision of a
perpetually self-sustaining lampstand. Unlike the lampstand in the temple or
tabernacle, this one required no priests to service it and no regular
replenishment of oil.</p>
<p>That was all built into the design.</p>
<h1>I. Eight Visions and Explanations <span style="font-size: medium;">(continued)</span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">5/ The Golden Lampstand</h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">Zechariah 4:1-3 – The Vision</h1>
<blockquote>“And the angel who talked with me came again and woke me,
like a man who is awakened out of his sleep. And he said to me, ‘What do you
see?’ I said, ‘I see, and behold, <b>a lampstand all of gold</b>, with a bowl on the top of it, and seven
lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it. And
there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the
other on its left.’ ”</blockquote>
<h2>Imagining the Lampstand</h2>
<p>Dozens of artist’s conceptions of Zechariah’s vision of this
lampstand exist online. I’ve reproduced one of the better ones above. It has
the virtue of not putting candles in the lamps, which would be an anachronism. Ancient
lampstands burned oil directly, without wax or tallow. Nineteen out of twenty
artists imagine the lampstand [Hebrew: <span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><i>mᵊnôrâ</i></span>]
as a traditional seven-branched Jewish candelabrum with a big golden bowl on
top, but few of these include the golden pipes Zechariah mentions extending down
from the branches of the olive trees, which are an important feature of the
vision. Only one has the lamps equally spaced around and below the rim of the
bowl, which is how I picture it, the seven extended “lips” of the lamps
receiving oil from the bowl. (The menorah has become the modern state of
Israel’s official emblem.)</p>
<p>Regardless of how it’s drawn or painted, it seems evident
the intention of the vision is to show a light source that, like a perpetual
motion machine, is self-sustaining. The olive trees naturally produce oil, the
branches and pipes direct the oil to the bowl and the bowl disperses oil to the
lamps.</p>
<h2>The History</h2>
<p>Lampstands similar to the one Zechariah saw (without the
olive trees and bowl) were common to both tabernacle and temple service from
the time of Moses onward. God gave <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+25%3A31-40&version=ESV">the
original design</a> to Moses at Sinai. A Judean named Bezalel crafted the first
one. The priests consecrated the lampstand with a special anointing oil and
considered it most holy. It was positioned on the south side of the tabernacle outside
the veil that divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy, fed with pure oil from
beaten olives and kept lit from evening to morning “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+24%3A1-4&version=ESV">that
a light may be kept burning regularly</a>” during the night. Tending the
lampstand was the job of the high priest. Later, Solomon had <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+chronicles+4%3A7&version=ESV">ten lampstands</a>
made for the first temple.</p>
<p>The obvious improvement of the lampstand in Zechariah’s
vision over the original is that its lamps are alight in perpetuity. Once lit,
the lamps would remain lit not just from evening to morning but forever. Unlike
the cleansing of the priesthood in Zechariah’s previous vision, regular service
by human beings was not required at all.</p>
<p>The lesson? In God’s spiritual economy, the second law of
thermodynamics does not apply.</p>
<h1>Zechariah 4:4-10 – The Explanation</h1>
<blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0px;">“And I said to the angel who talked with me, ‘What are
these, my lord?’ Then the angel who talked with me answered and said to me, ‘Do
you not know what these are?’ I said, ‘No, my lord.’ Then he said to me, ‘This
is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: <b>Not
by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit</b>, says the Lord of hosts. Who are
you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain. And he
shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of ‘Grace, grace to it!’</p>
<p>Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘The hands of Zerubbabel
have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then
you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. For whoever has
despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plumb line in
the hand of Zerubbabel.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">These seven are the eyes of the Lord, which range through
the whole earth.’ ”</p></blockquote>
<h2>Building the Temple</h2>
<p>The task of building the second temple in Jerusalem loomed
before the Jewish governor Zerubbabel like a great mountain. In fact, the
rubble from the destruction of King Solomon’s temple may have been the size of
a small mountain. Though the new design was much smaller and humbler than the original
temple, the governor may still have wondered if the immense task of building it
was beyond the abilities of his small group of exiles returned from Babylon. In
verse 10, the Lord refers to those who had “despised the day of small
things”. Older Jews who remembered Solomon’s temple looked at the task before
them as unworthy in comparison to glories of the previous temple. Perhaps they
also felt it would never happen. God says, “Not so.” He promised even the most
sceptical among the people of Judah would rejoice at the completion of the
project.</p>
<p>Zechariah’s vision provided assurance to the governor and
the faithful Jews working obediently on the new temple’s foundation that God himself was thoroughly committed to the project. It
might be human hands at work with hammers, saws and chisels, but divine energy
maintained their commitment to accomplish the work. The Spirit of the Lord to
aid the workers in their labors was in bottomless, perpetual supply.</p>
<h2>The Great Mountain Becomes a Plain</h2>
<p>The angel who interpreted the vision to Zechariah continued
with the Lord’s own word: “Who are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel
you shall become a plain. And he shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts
of ‘Grace, grace to it!’ ’’ The daunting task would be accomplished “Not
by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit.” The Lord of hosts promised it.
Not only would the work get done, it would be completed in the governor’s
lifetime. “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his
hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has
sent me to you.” The plumb line in the hands of Zerubbabel as he checked
the completed construction against its design was the evidence the vision would
come true.</p>
<p>Fleshly energy accomplishes nothing useful in God’s service.
Only when the Spirit of God works through his people does the story end with
the cry of “Grace to it!” or the modern equivalent. The book of Ezra tells us
Zechariah’s vision came true. The temple was finished within four years
from foundation to capstone, and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra+6%3A13-18&version=ESV">dedicated
in 516 BC</a>.</p>
<h2>These Seven</h2>
<p>“These seven,” said the angel, “are the eyes of the Lord,
which range through the whole earth.” Which seven? The only “sevens” in this
vision are the seven permanently lit lamps filled with the oil symbolizing the
Spirit of God.</p>
<p>I mentioned last week that when the Lamb, the Lord
Jesus, is seen glorified in Revelation 5, he appears with seven eyes,
“which are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+5%3A6&version=ESV">the
seven spirits of God</a> sent out into all the earth”. Likewise, the stone in
Zechariah’s previous vision had seven eyes. The seven lamps that
never go out symbolize the same truth, except Revelation applies it to the Lord
Jesus explicitly: God is active everywhere and observing everything that
happens.</p>
<p>Jesus may be a localized manifestation of the Godhood, the
Word made flesh, but he has all the awareness possessed by God enthroned in
heaven. During his time on earth, he proved that repeatedly. Whether he gives
his assurance that a mountain will become a plain or a temple built from
nothing, he does it with all possible divine authority and accuracy.</p>
<h2>The Eyes of the Lord</h2>
<p>The expression “the eyes of the Lord” used here first
appears in Genesis 6 in connection with Noah. First, the Lord examined the
earth and found that the wickedness of man was great upon it. Then we read
this: “But Noah found favor in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+6%3A1-8&version=ESV">the
eyes of the Lord</a>.” In examining the entire planet, God did not overlook the
deeds of a single righteous man.</p>
<p>Concerning the eyes of the Lord, the psalmist writes that
they are “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+34%3A15&version=ESV">toward
the righteous</a>”. Solomon says they are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+15%3A3&version=ESV">in
every place</a>, keeping watch on the evil and the good. He adds that the eyes
of the Lord “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+22%3A12&version=ESV">preserve
knowledge</a>”. They are the means by which God keeps his records. All in all,
the anthropomorphism occurs in scripture 22 times, pointing out that the Lord
was watching the deeds of not just David, but also Asa, Omri and Ahab. Good and
bad, God observed and took note of everything they did.</p>
<p>That is a scary prospect for the wicked, but a great source
of comfort to those who serve the Lord and need his assurance he is present with them. It’s
as true of those who serve him today as it was true of the obedient Jews
building the temple in 520 BC.</p>
<p>The first part of the vision is relatively easy to interpret,
though we should note that these last two sentences are subject to <a href="https://biblehub.com/zechariah/4-10.htm">a variety of translations</a>
and interpretations. These include that the rejoicing when they “see the plumb
line in the hand of Zerubbabel” is not the rejoicing of those who despised the
day of small things, but that of “the seven”. That’s certainly one possibility,
though it doesn’t change the positive tone of the overall message. </p>
<p>The rest of the chapter is a little more difficult.</p>
<h1>Zechariah 4:11-14 – Two Olive Trees</h1>
<blockquote>“Then I said to him, ‘What are these two olive trees on
the right and the left of the lampstand?’ And a second time I answered and
said to him, ‘What are these two branches of the olive trees, which are beside
the two golden pipes from which the golden oil is poured out?’ He said to me, ‘Do
you not know what these are?’ I said, ‘No, my lord.’ Then he said, ‘These
are <b>the two anointed ones</b> who stand
by the Lord of the whole earth.’ ”</blockquote>
<h2>Two Anointed Ones</h2>
<p>Zechariah asks about the meaning of the olive trees and
receives no answer. Then he asks a more specific question about the
two branches from which the oil drips into the pipes that fill the golden
bowl and power the lamps. The angel tells him these are the “anointed ones who
stand by the Lord of the whole earth”. Given their prominence throughout
Zechariah’s visions and prophecies, it’s reasonable to assume the “anointed
ones” Zechariah saw were Zerubbabel, symbolizing the continuity (if not the royal power) of the Messianic line, and Joshua, symbolizing the
priesthood. The Spirit of God was working through both offices.</p>
<p>But these two men are only branches on trees. Other branches
have stood before the Lord and other men will in days to come, including <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+11%3A1-13&version=ESV">the
two witnesses of Revelation 11</a>, who are called “the
two olive trees and two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the
whole earth”, unmistakably a reference to Zechariah. It’s also possible that
Moses and Elijah served a similar purpose as witnesses along with the apostles
to the transfiguration of Jesus Christ.</p>
<p>The expression “anointed ones” is literally “sons of new oil”,
those men through whom the Spirit is working in their day. The point is
not that everyone who stands before the Lord is either a priest or king. The
oil in the lamps was not the oil of anointing. The sacred anointing oil was <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+30%3A22-33&version=ESV">a
unique recipe reserved for the job</a>, not fresh olive oil from the tree. These
“sons of new oil” are instrumental in the ongoing work of the Spirit in the
world. It is probably unimportant which, if any, office they occupy.</p>
<h2>Standing Before</h2>
<p>Standing before the Lord means occupying a place of confidence
and trust, as Abraham did when he stood before the Lord on behalf of Lot, privileged
as a friend of God to participate in the Lord’s deliberative process concerning Sodom. Joseph stood before Pharaoh in a similar capacity, one of trust and
service. The “sons of oil” are the Lord’s agents and confidants, a privileged
position indeed.</p>
<br />
___________________________<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Original art courtesy Jw.org, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0">CC BY-SA 4.0</a></span>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-82179839819942213892024-03-01T00:30:00.048-05:002024-03-01T00:30:00.123-05:00Too Hot to Handle: Making Merchandise<p><i>In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.</i></p>
<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3jojtDFyiqgPV-fnPEjoqDsG99IrtcFxa4G1FNTlRdwO0Gqm1sZb8mDTVc7jminUh3BRobErRRmJZaE_0sb6q4iOVEdNnHCu4vhF0NwwgV6jkIlKs4-krOPRTP7cU2cugG1t13F7SQ7X8/s1600/15-10-30+THH+Making+Merchandise.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3jojtDFyiqgPV-fnPEjoqDsG99IrtcFxa4G1FNTlRdwO0Gqm1sZb8mDTVc7jminUh3BRobErRRmJZaE_0sb6q4iOVEdNnHCu4vhF0NwwgV6jkIlKs4-krOPRTP7cU2cugG1t13F7SQ7X8/s320/15-10-30+THH+Making+Merchandise.png" width="280" /></a></p>
<p>As long as there has been a people of God
in the world, there have been those who looked to take advantage of them. The
Israelites had their false prophets, and Peter warns the young church to expect
their share of false teachers. He says, as the translators of the King James
Version so eloquently put it, “Through covetousness shall they with feigned
words <a href="http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-3.htm">make merchandise of you</a>.”</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> But of course the trick is always identifying such people, isn’t
it, Immanuel Can? I mean, what does that look like in the real world?</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Spiritual Merchandise</h2>
<p><b>Immanuel Can:</b> I think there are some obvious cases: those
alleged “televangelists” who bilk credulous people out of their cash in exchange for prayer cloths and candles and phony
healings, or for special promises of prosperity or prayer ... clearly
they’re turning the name “Christian” into a license to print money. But finding those guys is an obvious take on that verse.</p>
<p>Let’s be more subtle: let’s ask ourselves if it has any application beyond
the obvious.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> This is one of those rare instances where the KJV is actually more “on”
than some of the modern translations. Most other versions say something like “they
will exploit you with false words”. In a general sense, I think that’s true.
But the “merchant” image in the verse is an accurate translation of the Greek,
which is literally “they will make gain of you”. It’s a word that only occurs
one other time in the New Testament, when James criticizes those who say, “Today
or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and
trade and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+4%3A13&version=ESV">make a profit</a>.” So that’s
the sense of it, I think.</p>
<h2>The Profit Motive</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> Yes, that’s right. So what we’re talking about is people who are
calling themselves Christians and proposing to aid, teach, serve or lead the
people of God, but doing so with a profit motive: they’re turning Christians
into salable goods, making a tidy packet off religious activities.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Essentially the same trick used by the merchants in the temple at the time of Christ, and his condemnation of them is in the same language: “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house
<a href="http://biblehub.com/john/2-16.htm">a house of trade</a>.” There was nothing wrong with the sale of oxen, sheep or pigeons in the
appropriate venues. The problem is when the house of God — which in our
day is synonymous with the people of God — is targeted as a means of
making a profit.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Okay, right. But maybe it’s time to pin it down: who does this today? I mean other than the televangelist set?</p>
<h2>The Christian Relationship Industry</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Well, there’s Jim Daly and Dr. David Clarke of <i>Focus on the Family.</i> Daly (the president of <i>Focus</i>) gives Clarke (a “Christian relationship expert”) a radio forum
<a href="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/moving-from-loneliness-to-intimacy-in-your-marriage-pt1#transcript">to promote the sale of his self-help goodies</a>. Their racket is fomenting marital discontent by stoking the fires of petty
interpersonal grievances, giving every sufficiently gullible Christian woman a
problem that can only be solved with the expertise of the folks who diagnosed
the problem in the first place. You can buy Dr. Clarke’s book, or you can
donate to <i>Focus</i> and they’ll send it
to you “free”.</p>
<p>In the same vein, there’s Joel and Kathy Davisson, who label anything husbands do that wives don’t like “abuse”. Their redefinition of the term is so broad and all-encompassing that even a husband who inadvertently misinterprets scripture to his wife is an “abuser”. If every woman has an abuser at home, thankfully the Davissons and their guru Dr. Paul Hegstrom
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130402211509/http://joelandkathy.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/390-dont-develop-bitterness-by-joel-kathy/">have answers for them</a>. You can buy
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Hegstrom/e/B001KI6NHK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1446075027&sr=1-2-ent">Hegstrom’s books</a>, or
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_15/179-7255947-3928117?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=joel+and+kathy+davisson&sprefix=joel+and+kathy+%2Caps%2C149">the Davissons’</a><i>.</i> Better still, get yourselves to one of the Davissons’ INTENSIVE seminars (only $200).</p>
<h2>Selling Books to Christians</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> Alright. So there are some clear cases. However, I suspect that
most of us are not in danger of being abused by such people. I have doubts
about things closer to home. At one point in my life, I worked for over a year
for a company that sold various nominally “Christian” goods: Bibles, cross
pendants, Sunday school pencils and curricula, music, workout tapes, plastic
gewgaws with verses printed on them, and books of various kinds … self-help,
romance, celebrity bios and study aids of various kinds. We also sold a whole
lot of stuff that had no right being regarded as Christian at all. We must have
sold a hundred “Christian” romance books for every Bible or study aid we shipped.</p>
<p>Really, it was pretty much a business, not a ministry. And like all businesses, we mostly catered to the base and trivial
tastes of people immersed in pseudo-Christian culture, focusing on what sold,
not what was good or edifying for people. And eventually I came to realize that
we were not really selling “Christian books”: we were selling books to
Christians. That’s a very different thing.</p>
<p>Is that a relevant case?</p>
<h2>The Element of Deception</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> It certainly could be. To me, it depends very much on how these
things are conceived and promoted. The intent is relevant. The wannabe novelist
who hawks her romantic fantasies to middle-aged Christian women may be under
the delusion that she’s doing something creditable. She may even call what she
is engaged in a “ministry” and believe herself when she says it.</p>
<p>But Peter’s condemnation of false teachers has two aspects: (1) they “make merchandise of you” and (2) they do
it “with feigned words”, which I think refers back to Peter’s earlier statement
that they will “secretly bring in destructive heresies”. These people are not
just out to make a buck; they are consciously lying about what scripture
teaches to do it.</p>
<p>Some of the product in Christian bookstores absolutely falls into the “false teaching” category. But I suspect much of that
stuff is either a product of well-intentioned stupidity or a cynical cash grab
with no particular intent to distort scripture behind it.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Now, there’s also another dimension to this issue more closely
related to church life and practice. Some years ago, I read an essay on
clerical sex abuse, in which the author identified two components of modern
expectations of spiritual leaders that are conducive to abuse: we expect our
leaders to have (a) expertise, and (b) charisma.</p>
<h2>The Fetishization of Expertise</h2>
<p>According to sociologist Edwin Freedman,
expertise is seductive on two levels: firstly, the more “expert” we perceive
the leader to be, the more passively followers yield power and influence to
that leader, and secondly, his reputation for “expertise” seduces the leader
himself to believe that only he knows what needs to happen, and followers have
less and less value to add to the situation. The higher his knowledge and
spiritual activity goes, the more he is distanced from the “flock”.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> We certainly see that dynamic in the workplace. The opinion of
overcompensated consultants is worth far more to management than that of the
people actually doing the job who know both the product and the marketplace far
better than any expert. But there’s a mystique about (alleged) expertise that
makes companies willing to pay millions for it, no matter how ineffective
the advice that comes from experts actually turns out to be.</p>
<p>It would hardly surprise me to see that sort of sensibility among some Christians.</p>
<h2>The Lonely Narcissist at the Top</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> And then there’s the problem of charisma. A leader with magnetism,
energy and a sense of direction stirs people to enthusiasm, to a sort of
spiritual “high”. Freedman says this is particularly attractive to people who
lack self-motivation, and they expect the leader to “move” them. While this
grooms his ego and predisposes him to overestimate his own value, it
also forces him to operate at a high level of stress and further distances him
from the flock. The result at least some of the time is increasing narcissism and isolation in
the leader and, simultaneously, an increasing sense of entitlement to all the
support — in enthusiasm, participation and finances — that he can
get. He becomes the lone, underpaid leader … the one who can do no wrong …
the possessor of the vision and the hope of the future.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> That is a job description totally antithetical to that conceived of
by the apostles when they gave us the scriptural qualifications for leadership.</p>
<h2>Exploiting the Flock</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> The result is that the “best” leaders on this modern, single-man
model are also the most likely candidates to become abusers of their position
and exploiters of “their” flock. Their reputation for expertise and charisma,
coupled with the stressful demands of meeting astronomical expectations, makes
them least likely to be humble, deferential or correctable.</p>
<p>So the profile of the “admired modern pastor” is also the psychological profile of the spiritual abuser. Not
surprisingly, the one sometimes tips over into the other.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> That’s pretty grim. Under these sorts of pressures and temptations,
it would hardly be surprising to find the scripture misused in ways that
sanction, support and further the agenda of the man in charge.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Or of people who realize his susceptibility to flattery and exploit
it toward their own ends.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> Really?</p>
<h2>Manipulating the Manipulator</h2>
<p><b>IC:</b> Oh yeah. I saw this in a church a short time ago. The pastor was a
new guy, and no sooner was he installed then a parachurch organization with a
rather sinister theological agenda began to woo him. First, they came to the
church on a missionary-information day and subtly introduced their bad
doctrine. Then they gave the pastor a free trip overseas and feted and guided
him to see their situation their way. And then when he returned, they gave him
a high position on their board. He, of course, praised them in front of the
congregation, established them as a funded cause on the mission budget, and
then began to parrot their poisonous doctrine from the platform.</p>
<p>Now, when eventually confronted on the
matter by a few discerning leaders, the pastor took it very personally. He
misrepresented his critics and acted like a martyr, denying that he was wrong
to take a salary from the congregation and also receive perks from the
organization; and he refused to see what his compromise had done to his
teaching. We might say his attitude became like that of Shakespeare’s <i>Macbeth</i>:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: center;">
“We will proceed no further in this business.<br />
[They have] honored me of late, and I have bought<br />
Golden opinions from all sorts of people,<br />
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss,<br />
Not cast aside so soon.”
</blockquote>
<p>At length the situation ended, but unhappily. Both sides lost, and many were wounded. The pastor never did see how he had been played; how the incentives and praise he had enjoyed had been
bestowed strategically rather than as expressions of honor. Yet the truth was
that he had been turned into a Trojan Horse for bad doctrine.</p>
<h2>The Damage from Outside</h2>
<p><b>Tom:</b> We talked a little about this “off the record”, and you’ve just
given me a good example of a false teacher with a greed motive inside the local
church whose misbehavior was curtailed because he found himself accountable to
other members of his local fellowship. But my observation is that a lot of
damage today is being done from outside the local church. Many leaders in the
greater Christian community have built platforms for themselves through the
internet, seminars, personal appearances and book sales that give them a
disproportionate influence on your congregation and mine; maybe even an
influence beyond that of any single pastor or elder.</p>
<p>And this with zero accountability. I mean, other than at the Judgment Seat of Christ, where can people like the parachurch
organization you speak of, or John Piper, or <i>Focus on the Family</i>, or the
Davissons be called to account? How can their influence be managed at the
local level?</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> Well, one big problem is that discernment now has a bad name. If you
say a person’s (or an organization’s) actions don’t add up to good doctrine or
scriptural practice, you’re immediately accused of being mean-spirited. Many
people do not understand the difference between someone who’s nice, intense,
charismatic or highly regarded by others, and someone who’s speaking the truth.
And they think that questioning the doctrine of a man (say, John Piper or Joel
Osteen) is tantamount to character assassination. They think Christians ought
never to question nice people.</p>
<h2>The Case for Discernment</h2>
<p>But the Berean Jews are praised for questioning and examining the doctrine of
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+17%3A11&version=ESV">the apostle Paul himself</a>.
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+2%3A11-12&version=ESV">Paul took Peter square on</a> over the issue of legalism and
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+timothy+4%3A1-3&version=ESV">repeatedly exhorted Timothy</a> to be on guard against the prevalence of
false doctrine in the church. Keeping up a façade of niceness, tolerating anything while allowing doctrine to slide is
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+2%3A18-20&version=ESV">roundly condemned</a> by the Head of the Church himself.</p>
<p><b>Tom:</b> All true.</p>
<p><b>IC:</b> So why, oh why, is it considered
such a sin among us to examine anyone else’s doctrine or practices? That’s a
tragedy for the Church, because those who exploit us for material ends
invariably do so by the lethal combination of errant doctrine and
corrupt practices. If we have no discernment anymore, or if we think that
questioning “experts” and charismatic leaders is just plain bad and
unchristian, then how shall escape being “made merchandise”?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">We need to recover a key Christian virtue: the humility that allows teachers
and leaders to be called to scriptural account. But where is that
being practiced today?</p>
Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-85301424353006096712024-02-29T00:30:00.031-05:002024-02-29T00:30:00.122-05:00Even More Offensive<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs_98FmX1lg4s-wKpOyonRlh4KbCEQFqgSjh6ryl0x7FZJRZq2q6Jj6xDKsUrz0W2CdDt1wqrWsW2mbEY4EAUqub6zOgSck4Dhx-12A77vx52dW7j9uJLosfRv8UY24Zu-4JW4MPcpS5Y/s1600/20-06-18+IC+Even+More+Offensive.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs_98FmX1lg4s-wKpOyonRlh4KbCEQFqgSjh6ryl0x7FZJRZq2q6Jj6xDKsUrz0W2CdDt1wqrWsW2mbEY4EAUqub6zOgSck4Dhx-12A77vx52dW7j9uJLosfRv8UY24Zu-4JW4MPcpS5Y/s320/20-06-18+IC+Even+More+Offensive.jpg" width="280" /></a></p>
<p>In my previous post,
“Offensive Christianity”, I argued that many of us misunderstand the choice we
have in facing Christ: we think it’s between faith and <i>doubt</i> —
but in scripture, it is between faith and <i>being offended</i>.</p>
<p>Everybody struggles with doubt. And perhaps we tend to think that when we do, it signals something
very, very bad. Maybe it means our faith has failed. Maybe it means we were
never sincere in the first place. Maybe it means we’re lost.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>The Occasion of Faith</h2>
<p>Maybe. But maybe not. Actually, doubt is often the <i>occasion</i> of faith.
It’s when we doubt that we need to decide anew what we really believe. As
momentary doubt gives way to faith, we grow and are strengthened. It is by
conquering doubt that faith triumphs. So naturally, moments of doubt are going
to come in the life of faith, just as shadows get created by the presence of
light. At least, that’s the way it is on earth. In eternity, neither doubts nor
shadows persist any longer.</p>
<p>Seen this way, doubt isn’t the <i>opposite</i> of faith. Not at all.
The true opposite of faith is <i>taking offense and refusing to believe</i>. Really, these are the two ever-present
alternatives within the life of faith — to believe, or to be scandalized
and reject.</p>
<p>Back in the 1800s, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard pointed this out. “Offense,” he wrote, “[is] a highly
characteristic note of Christianity and stands in close relation to faith.” What
he meant was that if you are a Christian, and have never passed through the
phase where you could have been offended, you are not a Christian at all. Likewise,
if you are a Christian and your testimony is inoffensive to your society, you
are gravely deceived about its worth — either you have misspoken the truth
of Christianity, or you have not spoken at all.</p>
<p>Now, Kierkegaard was writing in an era rather different from ours, when to call oneself a Christian was comfortable, socially-respectable and shallow. It was little
more than a synonym for “civilized” or “decent”, really — and it came with
no fear, no danger, little sacrifice, no pain and considerable reward from
one’s peers. But Kierkegaard sought to unsettle this ethos of self-satisfied,
pseudo-Christian posturing, and to restore the essential offense to the
decision to follow Christ. He set out to bring back to consciousness the
totality of the commitment required, and all its fearful, trembling
implications.</p>
<p>To become a Christian is to have endured a moment of choice when <i>one could have been</i> offended instead, and to have made a deliberate choice of
faith instead. Without offense there is no choice, and no Christianity. Wrote Kierkegaard, “From the possibility of the
offense, a man turns either to offense or faith.”</p>
<h2>The Offense of the God-Man</h2>
<p>What was so offensive about Christ? It had to do, Kierkegaard continued, with “the God-Man”, meaning
the Incarnation, of course … God being manifest in flesh. And the offense
had two possible directions, which Kierkegaard labeled <i>the offense of loftiness</i> and <i>the
offense of lowliness.</i></p>
<p>In the first, someone who is clearly a <i>man</i> also claims to be <i>God</i>; but if one gets over that, then a second offense leaps in, namely that one whom we have decided to believe
to be God — and on whom we have fixed high hopes and from whom we expect
grand gestures, miracles, political achievements, free food, deliverance from
worldly sorrows, the establishment of earthly justice — behaves instead
like a man, being unassuming and unprepossessing, declines to perform the
expected interventions, and takes to wandering around looking for a bite to eat
or a place to lay his head. Then, like the most ordinary sort of man, he is
taken and nailed to a wretched piece of wood ... and still he calls us to
follow him.</p>
<p>We have lost sight of just how offensive the God-Man really is. But this was his manner from
beginning to end. To see this, he said, we modern Christians must take a
position of “contemporaneousness” with Christ. That is, modern people must
cease to think of the events of the Lord’s life as they have been depicted to
us so often in misguided Sunday School lessons and the chintzy picture-books of
modern Christian bookstores. Instead, we must see from the perspective of those
living at the same time as Christ, and imaginatively reconstruct how totally
shocking he and his actions really were. Only if we grasp the history this way
will we see the choice that is before every Christian, even today.</p>
<h2>Proof Positive</h2>
<p>Let us bounce off just a few cases, very quickly.</p>
<p>Consider his birth. What is this “Messiah in a manger” business? How should he be born to be greeted by wretched
shepherds, in precincts suited to them, instead of among the lofty, clothed in splendor and housed in palaces? How offensive
to every expectation in Israel! His offense was <i>lowliness</i>.</p>
<p>What about his upbringing, among the townspeople of Nazareth? They were genuinely annoyed that
anyone from that town and country should propose to do miracles or speak from
God. Was he not merely “one of them”, the son of a local carpenter and his
wife? Who gave him the right to go putting on airs? They were offended. His offense was <i>loftiness</i>.</p>
<p>How about his claim to forgive sins? What sort of a man is allowed to speak this way? Is this not
outright blasphemy? The Pharisees certainly said so … and more, accused him
even of collusion with demons. This was offensive indeed. It was again the offense of <i>loftiness</i>.</p>
<p>But lest we think offense of that kind can only come to the sceptical, consider faithful John,
locked up in jail, and unable to reconcile that situation with his heartfelt
expectation that Christ would be the one whose sandal he was unworthy to untie? How offensive to think that such a one should look so <i>lowly.</i></p>
<p>“Blessed is he who is not offended in me,” Christ responded.</p>
<h2>Even More Offense</h2>
<p>What about all those offended after the feeding of the five thousand? At first, the crowd wanted to
come and make him king by force. Should not one so clearly empowered by God to
feed his people use that power? And he evaded their company, so they sought him
out to press him. Instead, he told them that his flesh and blood were real food
and drink, and they should have that. And those who had hailed him as Messiah
turned around and exclaimed, “This is a hard saying! Who can listen to it!” And
all those nominal disciples were gone in one stroke of offense.</p>
<p>Even the twelve core disciples struggled with the offense of the God-Man. They would ask him
questions like “Is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” And
even after his death, some former disciples lamented, “We had hoped …” But
they were of little faith, and could hope no more, because their expectations
were offended in him.</p>
<p>What about his accusers? They charged him with wanting to destroy the temple and rebuild it in
three days! What? A mere man? Blasphemy! What do you think? “He’s deserving of
death,” they said. How offensive. The Romans agreed, and placed a mocking title
above him, “King of the Jews”. As he hung on the cross, the cynical observers
said, “He saved others; himself, he could not save” and “Let’s see if Elijah
comes to save him.” What an offense that he claimed these things! Even the
thieves who were dying beside him could not (at first) forbear to mock the very
idea of a human God hanging on a cross.</p>
<p>In all these cases, the offense again and again was this: a God was man, and a man was God. These
things were not to be believed together … Too lofty! Too lowly! How offensive!</p>
<h2>Where is the Offense Today?</h2>
<p>Now, today, we face the same choice. We can be offended by the <i>loftiness</i>
and <i>lowliness</i> of Christ.</p>
<p>To become a Christian, one has to face this challenge: that One who was very clearly a real man, a
“mere” human being — of ancient historical note, to be sure, but not a
very impressive modern man — claimed to be God. And one has to believe
from the heart that that claim is true. If you cannot believe that, you are not
a Christian. If you think he was only a man, even if you admire his ethics or
revere his character, and even if you emulate his example, you are a mere
dilettante with no more connection to him than any other rank unbeliever.</p>
<p>But having come to Christ, are you now offended at his humanity? Does the fact that he now suffers
such infamy at the hands of cynics and mockers cause you to put your hand over
your mouth? And when you consider that, being God, he might easily do a miracle
to show his bona fides, or might even grant you wealth, health and prosperity,
or relieve you from suffering or your own unfortunate circumstances, and yet he
does not — does that cause you offense?</p>
<p>But if you side with him, how is it that your Christianity is not more offensive, in itself? How has it
come about that the world is not shocked and angered by your claim, which is
that God is a man, and a man is God? How has that claim, so shocking to the
contemporaries of Christ, disappeared into the air? Where did it go? Could it
be that you have not really been making that claim, or have been making it only
in your heart and not declaring it to the world? That would explain why the
offense of the gospel has been banished.</p>
<p>And what is our complicity in that, today?</p>
<h2>Ending the Offense</h2>
<p>But if Christ is Messiah, then he rules. And the times and proportions of things are in his
hands, not ours. Do we have the courage to believe that? Do we have the faith
to believe that what is appropriate to the days of his humiliation and what is
appropriate to his status as God Incarnate are only rightly proportioned by him?</p>
<p>Does our faith falter when we see the upheaval of the world around us, so that we forget that he is
coming again? Or are we scandalized that he does not do more to interrupt the
reckless courses of men, and establish justice for our society?</p>
<p>Or does our imagination fail at the thought of a God who understands our weakness, who has
compassion for our trials and testings, and who knows and feels the depths of
our humanity? Do we grow weary, fail to hold our course, raise a testimony,
walk sacrificially, and wait for the Son of God from heaven, because he now
seems too distant from where we presently are?</p>
<p>“Blessed is he who is not offended in me.” But there <i>will</i>
be offense, and much offense too, if all is being done according to the
deliberate purposes of God. Christianity is an inherently offensive belief.</p>
<p>What ends the offense? Either <i>compromise</i> or <i>conviction</i>. There is nothing to offend the world when the
Christian falls silent, and neither speaks nor embodies the testimony of
Christ. Likewise, in the life of the individual, there can no longer be offense
when one has thoroughly disbelieved, or when one has believed so fully that one
is no longer capable of being offended anymore.</p>
<p>It is in the in-between times that the offense persists: when the God-Man is presented or
modeled by his followers, and that in front of the disbelieving world.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">Now is the time for the offense of Christ to be most pronounced. More on that, if the Lord grants
time and means.</p>
Immanuel Canhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06945630347684988672noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-66883862064343004442024-02-28T00:30:00.054-05:002024-02-28T00:30:00.128-05:00The Substance Belongs to Christ<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGljSBrK7h8gonRl6OAjomNZ5nyohrQfv-b07Gtz30iddbPBjQqBUgCVk5IALpOIVjLD9_8Odqy_0hqjp_M47-m-PRTOcr88bJdebc3_RsQWrqIQ4ZtcIVNt0o3eJ0TiFQRVwEc7TrmqxhHzCbtFUtBkV15Vl4PBQQvqd9bko4TkSCFElFoj1to8Zdduc4/s542/24-02-28%20T%20The%20Substance%20is%20Christ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="542" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGljSBrK7h8gonRl6OAjomNZ5nyohrQfv-b07Gtz30iddbPBjQqBUgCVk5IALpOIVjLD9_8Odqy_0hqjp_M47-m-PRTOcr88bJdebc3_RsQWrqIQ4ZtcIVNt0o3eJ0TiFQRVwEc7TrmqxhHzCbtFUtBkV15Vl4PBQQvqd9bko4TkSCFElFoj1to8Zdduc4/s320/24-02-28%20T%20The%20Substance%20is%20Christ.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<p>It is remarkable
that the only mention of Sabbath-keeping in all the epistles comes in
Colossians 2, where Paul identifies it as one of the requirements of
Jewish law eclipsed in Christ. The apostle writes:</p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and
drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+2%3A16-17&version=ESV">or
a Sabbath</a>. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance
belongs to Christ.”</i></p>
<p>The Sabbath, Paul says, was a <i>shadow</i>. That’s important.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Copies and Shadows</h2>
<p>That’s the same word [<i>skia</i>]
used twice by the writer to the Hebrews concerning the entire order of priestly
sacrifices. He says of the priests of Judaism, “They serve <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+8%3A5&version=ESV">a
copy and shadow</a> of the heavenly things.” Again, in chapter 10, he
writes, “Since the law has <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+10%3A1&version=ESV">but
a shadow</a> of the good things to come instead of the true form of these
realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered
every year, make perfect those who draw near.” Concerning the
sufficiency of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, he concludes, “There is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+10%3A18&version=ESV">no
longer any offering</a> for sin.”</p>
<p>Accordingly, Christians have abandoned the shadow of the
ceremonial law. Frankly, so have the Jews, but for a different reason. They
haven’t got a temple in which to sacrifice.</p>
<p>Shadows are not substance. Those who possess Christ have
everything we need in him. He is our Sacrifice and he is our Sabbath Rest. For
that matter, he is also our Circumcision, which is the argument Paul is making in
Colossians just prior to his remarks about the Sabbath being a mere shadow. He
writes, “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+2%3A11&version=ESV">In
him also you were circumcised</a> with a circumcision made without hands, by putting
off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” He wrote this to a church that was mostly or entirely Gentile. It may be that no man among the saints in Colossae was literally circumcised.</p>
<h2>A System Superseded</h2>
<p>So then, Christ superseded the literal and material
sacrificial system of Judaism. As a result, Christians do not make sacrifices
on an altar. We possess the reality of which the sacrifices only spoke. Likewise, Christ superseded literal circumcision, and Christians
are therefore <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+7%3A18-19&version=ESV">under
no obligation to be circumcised</a>. We possess the spiritual reality of which circumcision was only a picture.</p>
<p>How then do some Christians preach the
mandatory keeping of the Sabbath-shadow when the other shadows have all been
done away with? It too was only a picture of the rest available to the believer in Christ.</p>
<p>Hebrews 4 is all about the rest that is already ours in
Christ. “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A3&version=ESV">We
who have believed</a> enter that rest,” says its writer. He goes on, “There
remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” It is not that this Sabbath rest
is still future for the Christian (for example, to be obtained in heaven), but rather (if you follow his argument), this final Sabbath rest
remains to be identified in the same way Paul has identified the other “rests” of scripture in
the previous verses (God’s seventh day rest and Israel’s rest from war
provided by Joshua).</p>
<p>So let’s identify it. What then is this “Sabbath rest” that remains for us? It’s
certainly not yet another rule to keep or a day to abstain from any labor on pain of
displeasing God. Hebrews goes on to expound on it: “For whoever has entered God’s
rest [by trusting in Christ, see verse 3] has also rested from his works
as God did from his.”</p>
<h2>Entering into Rest</h2>
<p>The believer rests from dead works. That includes
Sabbath-keeping and the pale mimicry of the Sabbath that legalistic Christians
still introduce into their faith with <nobr>so-called</nobr> Lord’s Day rules and regulations. The substance belongs to Christ. Clinging to
a shadow is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+2%3A18&version=ESV">an
act of self-disqualification</a>, not from salvation but from the enjoyment of
the true Sabbath rest God has provided in Christ.</p>
<p>There is a reason the epistles don’t mention Sabbath-keeping
except to disparage it as superfluous for the believer in Christ (“See to it
that no one takes you captive”, “Let no one pass judgment on you”, “Why
do you submit to regulations according to human precepts and teachings?”). Like
the circumcision question, the Sabbath question was put to bed for good in
Acts 15. The apostles wrote to the Gentiles in Antioch that “It has seemed
good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+15%3A28&version=ESV">no
greater burden</a> than these requirements …” </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">Keeping the Sabbath was not one of them. The rest the
Sabbath symbolized <i>is already ours</i>,
and it’s not literal but spiritual. That’s the message of Colossians 2.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-4588545074049535692024-02-27T00:30:00.034-05:002024-02-27T00:30:00.126-05:00Before the Rationalizations<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxU-yfL6X1rBrbOJCYKWJfhxRPVGc43CCufeC0c-sLpY3zhUhxzzrnGAsYfgEJbI8MipdP4_3a5jNm6Zin6SKPcBSK-NjUAGzXTub7DyrggkwrxV_udfGrIklNHqWlOnvzQvO099XPrZqantVsFwujN9C1AQeCVwXeRq8VJB_8ORyuQxduFvHLS24e-k6g/s1024/24-02-27%20T%20Before%20the%20Rationalizations.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxU-yfL6X1rBrbOJCYKWJfhxRPVGc43CCufeC0c-sLpY3zhUhxzzrnGAsYfgEJbI8MipdP4_3a5jNm6Zin6SKPcBSK-NjUAGzXTub7DyrggkwrxV_udfGrIklNHqWlOnvzQvO099XPrZqantVsFwujN9C1AQeCVwXeRq8VJB_8ORyuQxduFvHLS24e-k6g/s320/24-02-27%20T%20Before%20the%20Rationalizations.jpg" width="260" /></a></div>
<p>I recently had a long, serious conversation with a lovely woman who is spending far too
much time contemplating a possible course of action she knows unequivocally is
destructive and displeasing to the God she claims to love and serve.</p>
<p>My reaction: This will not end well. It never does.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>The thought life is a huge theme in the scriptures. References to the faulty thought lives
of Adam, Eve and Cain show up as early as Genesis 3 and 4. By
Genesis 6, God saw that every intention of the thoughts of men’s hearts
were “only evil continually”. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+6%3A5-6&version=ESV">Evil
thinking</a> led to the behavior that resulted in the Flood.</p>
<p>That widespread wickedness God saw in his creation didn’t sprout out of nowhere. It was the
direct and inevitable consequence of wrong thinking.</p>
<h2>The Magnitude of the Problem</h2>
<p>It is tempting to consider evil thinking less dangerous than evil behavior even though it is
far more common. After all, it should be obvious that not every evil thought
produces a corresponding evil action. Many things may operate on the human will
to restrain it, including conscience, shame or, most often, fear of getting caught.
We may add love and the work of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate heart.</p>
<p>But what happens when these “containment buffers” cease to operate, as they will
one day when <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+thessalonians+2%3A6&version=ESV">that
which restrains</a> the man of lawlessness is taken out of this world? Cellphone
cameras trained on inner city rioters over the last few years captured huge
numbers of “upstanding citizens” with no previous criminal records in the act
of looting, damaging property and engaging in violence right alongside the
usual suspects, often outnumbering the career criminals ten to one. The reason?
“Everyone was doing it”, so the chances of negative consequences dropped
astronomically. Take away <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes+8%3A11&version=ESV">the
deterrent effect of properly enforced law</a>, and you quickly get an idea of
how much evil thinking is really out there in the hearts and minds of men.</p>
<p>Seen from God’s perspective, then, evil thoughts are a major issue, the fountainhead and
energizer of all other evils. God, who knows the heart, sees not just
everything we do, but everything we <i>would</i> do if we thought we could get away with it. No wonder he was grieved to the
heart and regretted he had made man on the earth. The utter worthlessness of
the human condition was readily evident to the Creator at a level and to an
extent we can only imagine. He is just as aware of it today.</p>
<h2>Dialoguing with Evil</h2>
<p>The word used in the New Testament to describe the thought life is <i>dialogismos</i>. It refers not to the innumerable
silly notions that sometimes flash through our minds, and which we instantly
dismiss as inappropriate or unworthy, but to the conscious deliberations of the
heart, the choices to meditate on things not worthy of meditation, and the
reasoning processes by which men and women will later attempt to justify their
actions. These are where the human race gets into major trouble.</p>
<p>A quick scan of the way the word is used throughout the New
Testament shows the sort of wrong thinking we are prone to excuse in ourselves:
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A7-8&version=ESV">an
accusatory spirit</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9%3A46-47&version=ESV">delusions
of grandeur</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A37-38&version=ESV">groundless
fears</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1%3A21&version=ESV">ungratefulness</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+3%3A20&version=ESV">vanity</a>,
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians+2%3A14&version=ESV">disagreeability</a>
and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+2%3A4&version=ESV">partiality</a>.
None of these may be obvious to those around us, who may think us just
wonderful, but they are readily apparent to the Lord.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">For the Christian then, the real task of becoming more like
Christ starts not with managing behavior, but with what we allow to fester in our
hearts and heads. It’s not so much about preventing the consequences of
the undesirable traffic in our craniums, but about obediently shutting down the mental conversation
before the rationalizations start.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-68308978616905666152024-02-26T00:30:00.075-05:002024-02-26T00:30:00.126-05:00Anonymous Asks (291)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigxbY0G3sLAlkPsmaFIcI-6kEdmaDC7lVjtuCPHk7ax-jpdksgftTlISFKw46Mhp_H091Z1X7YI-LU2Luhnt57IGMvFbvwa3MY5SkVua5iX_29taWt-DpjruEz2PxtkUcmOx3v1nGr-6UAOZIYUBv-7u2aF1v8kMp14zGUhuqWhAcdLjLQvK625CqcfDGN/s1024/24-02-26%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(291).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigxbY0G3sLAlkPsmaFIcI-6kEdmaDC7lVjtuCPHk7ax-jpdksgftTlISFKw46Mhp_H091Z1X7YI-LU2Luhnt57IGMvFbvwa3MY5SkVua5iX_29taWt-DpjruEz2PxtkUcmOx3v1nGr-6UAOZIYUBv-7u2aF1v8kMp14zGUhuqWhAcdLjLQvK625CqcfDGN/s320/24-02-26%20T%20Anonymous%20Asks%20(291).jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
<p style="margin-left: 0.2in;"><i>“How should a Christian respond
to being in a loveless marriage?”</i></p>
<p>People have different personalities and experiences, as well
as different levels of character development and maturity, so it should not
come as a surprise that we enter married life looking for different things. In
general, men are looking for respect from their wives, and women are looking for
love from their husbands.</p>
<p>I am getting that from a couple of places.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h2>Love and Respect</h2>
<p>The most important place is scripture, in which Paul writes,
“Let each one of you <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+5%3A33&version=ESV">love</a>
his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+5%3A33&version=ESV">respects</a>
her husband.” This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament. It suggests
that, generally speaking, the sexes have different primary needs and different
blind spots to the primary needs of their partners. In Colossians, the command
for the husband is “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+3%3A18-19&version=ESV">love</a>”
and for the wife is “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians+3%3A18-19&version=ESV">submit</a>”.
Peter commands the Christian husband to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+3%3A1-7&version=ESV">be
understanding</a> and to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+3%3A1-7&version=ESV">show
honor</a> to their wives, and for the Christian wife to “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+3%3A1-7&version=ESV">be
subject</a>” to her husband. Do you see a pattern there that hints at different
primary needs? I do.</p>
<p>The other place I’m getting it is purely anecdotal. I’ve
talked to many women who have left their husbands, saved and unsaved, and their
consistent refrain is “I just want to be loved.” The perceived lack of
love is what made married life undesirable to them, or at least served as a passable excuse for leaving. Likewise, I have asked
almost all of my male friends or family members at one time or another, “What
is the one thing you crave most from your wife?” Without exception, every
one of them said “Respect.”</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. I can manage quite well
without being fawned over. In many ways, I’m low maintenance: I do
not need endless verbal affirmation, cute gifts, overly-calculated attempts to
carve out regular “couple time” or even a pet name. All are perfectly fine, but
I can live without any of them. However, to be unappreciated, gossiped
about to friends or family, disregarded, manipulated, verbally abused or constantly
contended with is intolerable. All are signs of a serious respect deficit.</p>
<h2>The Perception of Lovelessness</h2>
<p>As I say, people are different. You will find the odd
woman who prizes respect over love, and the occasional man who prizes love over
respect. Most of us would agree that if we could have it our way, we’d like to
have both. But our great Designer knows us better than we know ourselves, and
his prescription for a successful marriage patterned after the relationship of
Christ and his church is abundantly clear: husbands, love your wives; wives,
respect your husbands.</p>
<p>All this is to say that husbands and wives will perceive
their marriages as “loveless” for different reasons. If a husband is
unaffectionate, harsh, inconsiderate or fails to pay attention to her, his wife
will likely conclude he does not love her. Likewise, if he consistently puts
his own needs before hers, she will draw the same conclusion, which is probably
why Paul tells husbands to love their wives “as themselves”. If your bridge
game with the boys, hockey practice, workout or favorite video game is more
important to you than finding out what pleases your wife, expect her to
perceive her marriage as loveless. At very least it is love-deficient.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if a wife runs her husband down to her
friends, is unsupportive, self-occupied, contentious, or shows no practical interest
in her husband’s well being and the condition of the home they have together, his
perception that he is unloved will not be wildly off base. This is likely even
if his wife is a devoted mother, a loving daughter, busy in Christian service
and possesses endless other fine qualities. It will also be true even if she
calls him “Honey” and says, “I love you” as he’s going out the door to
work. Actions speak louder than words.</p>
<h2>Talking Past One Another</h2>
<p>In my experience, unless one or both parties are having
affairs or are sociopathic, few Christian marriages are actually loveless. It is far more
likely your partner is expressing love, but doing so in a way you do not
recognize. This is often a function of their upbringing.</p>
<p>I read Gary Chapman’s <i><a href="https://5lovelanguages.com/learn">The 5 Love Languages</a></i> years
ago and found it an imperfect but largely accurate predictor of marital
happiness, and a persuasive explanation for why even Christians sometimes feel
unloved by their partners. Chapman breaks down the “love languages” as follows:
acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, words of affirmation and
physical touch. He suggests that we all “speak” one or more of these love
languages, based on a combination of personality traits probably related to
birth order, upbringing, maturity and prior relationship experience. When we
experience someone speaking to us in our love language, we feel loved. When
they don’t, we don’t.</p>
<p>Chapman’s framework may be completely unscientific. I have
no idea. What I do know is that it is consistent with Peter’s command to
husbands to “live with your wives <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+3%3A7&version=ESV">in
an understanding way</a>”. The Greek word for “understanding” means literally “according
to knowledge”, and strongly suggests it is incumbent on the Christian husband
to figure out what love means to his wife. He needs to learn to express his affection
to her in a way she can most easily comprehend. If giving her a break from
changing the baby is what she’s looking for, flowers are not going to cut it.
If she wants to hear how much you love her, constant touching may just irritate
her. If she grew up in a home where love was expressed in a particular way,
loving her the way your own parents loved each other may not communicate the
same thing to her.</p>
<p>In short, a Christian woman who perceives her marriage as “loveless”
may find there is actually more love going on than she thinks. She and her
husband may just be talking past each other. I spent many years in and out of the home of the stereotypical loveless Christian couple. They were not loveless. They were typical Brits: poor communicators who lived lives of quiet desperation. I am convinced both cared deeply, but they just never understood one another. Both were full of goodwill but hopeless at recognizing the other’s emotional needs. Life would not have been better for either if they had parted, but as far as I know, neither one ever figured out who they were living with.</p>
<h2>No Love Left</h2>
<p>Then again, there are cases in which no love language
appears to move one’s partner. I have a friend who tried all five of
Chapman’s love languages on his wife over the years and eventually concluded
she suffered from anhedonia, or the condition of being unable to feel pleasure.
Such situations surely exist. In his case, it turned out to be an insufficient
explanation of her behavior. His wife was quite okay with being touched; she
just didn’t want <i>him</i> touching her,
and she eventually found someone else to do the job. This was not a Christian
marriage, so it should not come as a surprise that she took her commitment
lightly. When emotional connections fail, as they often do for a time during
married life, mature Christian couples can fall back on the commitment they
made before God, and trust him to help the appropriate feelings reassert
themselves over time. Unbelievers don’t have that kind of support system.</p>
<p>Another friend is struggling with what feels to him like a
loveless marriage. Unsurprisingly, the primary issue is that his wife does not
respect him. Sometimes, as we have mentioned, that’s the fault of the wife, and
the scriptures prescribe the remedy of voluntary respect and submission on her
part. Other times, however, a husband who is not behaving in a respect-worthy
manner becomes his own worst enemy. Men who are lazy, self-indulgent, poor providers, let you lead them around by the nose, and
never pursue any kind of admirable goal in life are notoriously difficult to
respect even if you are trying. Men who do not take the lead spiritually can hardly
expect to motivate a spiritual response in their partner. That doesn’t excuse a
disrespectful Christian wife from her obligations to her husband, but it does
suggest a permanent solution may require some changes in the husband’s
performance.</p>
<h2>A Partner in Rebellion</h2>
<p>Sometimes it’s difficult to tell a Christian out of
fellowship with the Lord from an unbeliever. A third friend married a girl
from a Christian home who had made a profession and was apparently going on for
the Lord. For a time, the marriage appeared to thrive. Years later, when she
left him, she was not attending church, was out of touch with most of her
Christian friends, overly occupied with an unsaved male co-worker and entirely
uninterested in either her marriage or her Christian testimony. Perhaps she
had gradually drifted away from the Lord unnoticed by her husband. Or perhaps marriage
simply allowed her the occasion to stop maintaining a pretense that went back
to childhood. There’s no way to know, and she’s not saying.</p>
<p>Where society is concerned, like Elvis, shame and embarrassment
have left the building. They will not hold together a loveless marriage to
which one party is no longer committed, no matter how committed the other
is. In such a case, Paul’s counsel is to let the unbelieving (or apparently
unbelieving) partner <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+7%3A12-16&version=ESV">go
in peace</a>.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">Just <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+7%3A12-13&version=ESV">don’t
be the one walking</a>.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-21158989478742705392024-02-25T00:30:00.085-05:002024-02-25T00:30:00.141-05:00What Does Your Proof Text Prove? (29)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI8ZPHkzx7IiKK5QZ1J5Vy9IA8wZWNxblcOL-gCr78fZURv-J92CMBekDQAZE7WyLea5ml650aoDxtdeUoGATdQ8k3K4VsopUr3chDEwCX_KJi-HoTVrYNI-W0Bwl7-vwxymyoDnRDQc75o7868sXPCObz-3DU3ce8cz2o3uBOVDx3pp7Z5C8uuYPfCdfc/s758/24-02-25%20T%20What%20Does%20Your%20Proof%20Text%20Prove%20(29).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI8ZPHkzx7IiKK5QZ1J5Vy9IA8wZWNxblcOL-gCr78fZURv-J92CMBekDQAZE7WyLea5ml650aoDxtdeUoGATdQ8k3K4VsopUr3chDEwCX_KJi-HoTVrYNI-W0Bwl7-vwxymyoDnRDQc75o7868sXPCObz-3DU3ce8cz2o3uBOVDx3pp7Z5C8uuYPfCdfc/s320/24-02-25%20T%20What%20Does%20Your%20Proof%20Text%20Prove%20(29).jpg" width="230" /></a></div>
<p>Grant Richison inquires what Paul meant when he ends <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians+3%3A8-11&version=ESV">a
long statement in Philippians 3</a> with the words “… that by any means
possible I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”</p>
<p>In English, Richison says, the wording seems to express doubt about the certainty
of Paul’s resurrection (and by implication the resurrection of others as well).</p>
<p>“<a href="https://versebyversecommentary.com/1996/01/16/philippians-311/">Does he
question the assurance of his salvation?</a>” Richison asks. He goes on to
examine the passage for clues.</p>
<a name='more'></a><p>First, here’s Paul’s entire statement for context:</p>
<blockquote>“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the
surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have
suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may
gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that
comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the
righteousness from God that depends on faith — that I may know him
and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like
him in his death, <b>that by any means
possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead</b>.”</blockquote>
<p>The argument against using this verse as an anti-eternal security
proof text is multi-pronged, and we should probably consider each of the
interpretive possibilities.</p>
<h2>1/ The “If-Since” Argument</h2>
<p>Richison points out that there are four ways of saying “if”
in Greek, and the one used here can be translated “since”, as in “<i>since</i> I will attain to the
resurrection from the dead. This is obviously the line taken by the ESV, which
I’ve quoted above, since they translate it “<i>that</i>
by any means possible” rather than “if”. There must be some credibility to this
solution, since <a href="https://biblehub.com/philippians/3-11.htm">only
fourteen of thirty-two translations</a> on Bible Hub use the English word “if”
to translate the Greek [<span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;">εἴ</span>].</p>
<p>However, this still leaves the average reader with questions.
Even if the “if” is properly translated “since” or “that”, it still leaves us
with a statement that in English appears conditional. It reads as if
resurrection is something Paul is concerned about qualifying for or attaining
to. Richison proposes further examination.</p>
<h2>2/ The “Resurrection” Argument</h2>
<p>The second argument is complicated, and turns on the word “resurrection”.
I’ll let Richison make it in his own words:</p>
<blockquote>“The word for “resurrection” in this phrase is used nowhere
else in the Greek New Testament. The idea is a resurrection <i>out from among</i> the dead. There are two
resurrections, but only one is out from among the dead. The one is for
Christians and the other for non-Christians (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+5%3A28&version=ESV">John 5:28</a>).
There is a resurrection of the dead, and there is a resurrection from the dead.
The resurrection from the dead is the first resurrection of believers to be
with their God. The resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of
non-Christians to face judgment. Everyone will surface in one resurrection or
the other. The resurrection of this passage is a <b>partial </b>resurrection out from among the corpses of non-Christians.
Literally, this word means ‘<i>out-resurrection</i>.’ ”</blockquote>
<p>Again, there is a certain credibility to this argument.
Richison thinks Paul is speaking of the rapture. Paul’s rapture teaching of
1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians preceded his letter to the
Philippians by as much as seven to ten years. All three cities were in
Macedonia <a href="https://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN092MAPS1.htm">no more
than 250 miles apart</a>, so it’s plausible Paul would make
reference to the rapture without further qualification, assuming his readers to
be familiar with the specific teaching about resurrection from his other
letters.</p>
<p>Technically, there are at least three resurrections if we
include the tribulation martyrs who “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20%3A4-5&version=ESV">came
to life</a> and reigned with Christ for a thousand years”, but this latter group was revealed by John after Paul’s death. In any case, Paul never puts limits on the number of resurrection events. <i>All</i> future resurrection events, including any
not previously mentioned in scripture, fall into one of two categories: they will be phases
of either the “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+5%3A28-29&version=ESV">resurrection
of life</a>” or the “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+5%3A28-29&version=ESV">resurrection
of judgment</a>” (an event called “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+20%3A14&version=ESV">the
second death</a>” in Revelation). John makes the important distinction that the
saved and unsaved are not raised together. Early Christians had no expectation
of a single, common resurrection event for all men, but rather a series of partial
resurrections, each with different purposes in view.</p>
<p>In using a word that means “out-resurrection”, Paul
seemingly eliminates the possibility of his being present at the resurrection
of judgment or second death, since this is not a partial resurrection event but
the final awakening, however brief and disappointing, of all those left
unraised. John stresses in Revelation that <i>everyone</i>
not previously raised from the dead earlier on is now raised to stand before
the great white throne: “The sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and
Hades gave up the dead who were in them.” There is no question of attaining or
not attaining to that resurrection. If you do not know Christ, you will be
there, like it or not. So then, there is no way Paul could have been concerned
about his own eternal security. His use of “attain” eliminates that possibility,
assuming we accept that word as the best possible translation from the original
language. It probably isn’t, but we’ll get to that …</p>
<h2>3/ The “By Any Means Possible” Argument</h2>
<p>The phrase “by any means possible” also introduces an apparent
element of uncertainty in English, but this quickly disappears when we look at
the Greek. That four word English phrase is a single Greek word, <span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><i>pōs</i></span>, 99 times out of 103 translated
“how”. Obviously that doesn’t work as English syntax (“since how” or “that how”
are word combinations we just don’t use, and “if how” is no improvement even
when we assume a non-conditional “if”).</p>
<p>So then, we might not have 100% certainty about how best to
translate a phrase that doesn’t easily move from one language to another. What
we can say with confidence is that there is no implicit uncertainty being
expressed in the Greek. Paul is talking about the <i>mechanism</i> of coming to the resurrection state, not questioning its <i>likelihood</i>.</p>
<h2>4/ The “Attain” Argument</h2>
<p>The Greek underlying “may attain” lacks the “may” or “might”
found in some translations that hint at ambiguity. Furthermore, the word itself
does not imply effort on the part of the one doing the “attaining”. The vast
majority of the time <span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><i>katantaō</i></span> appears
in the NT, it simply means to arrive at a destination. That arrival can be active or passive. Luke uses it often in
Acts to describe the act of going from port to port on board ship (“we came to
Ptolemais”, “we came to Rhegium”). Nothing could be more effortless than being
a passenger on a boat owned and operated by others. Further, in 1 Corinthians,
the use of <span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><i>katantaō</i></span> implies no effort
at all. Paul writes, “they were written down for our instruction, on whom <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+10%3A11&version=ESV">the
end of the ages have come</a> [<span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif;"><i>katantaō</i></span>]”.
There is no question of struggling to “attain” to the end of the ages. It’s
catching up with us, folks!</p>
<h2>In Summary</h2>
<p>All this is <i>not</i> to
malign the efforts of particular translators, but to point out the great
difficulty of translating some Greek and Hebrew passages into a precise English
equivalent. Sometimes there just isn’t one, and any effort to make the text
flow and read dynamically — or even intelligibly — allows for possible misunderstandings of authorial intent that have to be
dismissed as untenable once we look a little more closely. Whether you recognize one or more
of the four difficulties with the English translation identified above, it
should be abundantly clear Paul is neither questioning his salvation nor suggesting
he might arrive at his eternal destination by performing good works.</p>
<p>I believe the best way to understand this verse in English is as follows:</p>
<blockquote>“… that I may know him and the power of his
resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. <b><i>That</i>
is the way</b> I want to arrive at the resurrection out of the dead!”</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">In any case, using this as a proof text for works-based
salvation or saved-then-lost is only remotely conceivable in English. No first
century Greek would have given those arguments a second thought.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-57466532216715177002024-02-24T00:30:00.044-05:002024-02-24T00:30:00.156-05:00Mining the Minors: Zechariah (6)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg57D0sYjushZqt7XMMbQ8z5zCLP2YOg5OBlBayyaCv1moWYYdfJtlIEqd1jydEELhqsaJzh90B8qY2UC7mf6Oi-628CeGAqJl86KweRZs07KmfACDlppb-BomjXh51vc_7wWXsVWa43ZPL-OIMoWyNe6oHiIim_2cTr84NDh-BnbhdohK8MbYzuBjlPXBg/s687/24-02-24%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(6).jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg57D0sYjushZqt7XMMbQ8z5zCLP2YOg5OBlBayyaCv1moWYYdfJtlIEqd1jydEELhqsaJzh90B8qY2UC7mf6Oi-628CeGAqJl86KweRZs07KmfACDlppb-BomjXh51vc_7wWXsVWa43ZPL-OIMoWyNe6oHiIim_2cTr84NDh-BnbhdohK8MbYzuBjlPXBg/s320/24-02-24%20T%20Mining%20the%20Minors%20-%20Zechariah%20(6).jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
<p>Zechariah is the penultimate Minor Prophet and the penultimate
book of the Old Testament in the order we have it in English, as well as
historically. He is also the penultimate prophet in the Hebrew Old Testament,
though not the next-to-last book, which is Chronicles.</p>
<p>Given his proximity to the New Testament, we should not be
surprised to find Christ so prominent in Zechariah, as we have mentioned. Zechariah’s vision in
chapter 3 portrays Messiah in at least four different
aspects: (1) as priest, (2) as the angel of the Lord, (3) as the
Branch, and (4) as the stone with seven eyes.</p>
<p>Let’s dive in.</p>
<a name='more'></a><h1>I. Eight Visions and Explanations <span style="font-size: medium;">(continued)</span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">4/ Clothing the High Priest</h1>
<h1 style="margin-top: 14px;">Zechariah 3:1-5 – The Vision</h1>
<blockquote>“Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before
the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And
the Lord said to Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen
Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?’ Now Joshua
was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said
to those who were standing before him, ‘Remove the filthy garments from him.’
And to him he said, ‘Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and
<b>I will clothe you with pure vestments</b>.’ And I said, ‘Let them put a clean turban on his head.’ So
they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the
angel of the Lord was standing by.”</blockquote>
<h2>Before the Angel of the Lord</h2>
<p>Next, Zechariah had a vision of the high priest Joshua, a person he
surely knew in real life, standing in a place he could not possibly be, in
front of the preincarnate Christ (the angel of the Lord) and “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+12%3A10&version=ESV">the
accuser of our brothers</a>”, as John calls Satan. The words “standing before”
suggest Joshua was not merely there to be an object lesson or to make a report,
but to minister to the Lord. The moment he did, we would have a problem. The
accusation Satan intended to make against the high priest almost surely concerned
the condition of his priestly garments, which were filthy with the guilt of
generations. This was a legitimate concern. After all, how could a defiled
priesthood possibly make atonement for a defiled nation so recently returned
from exile among the pagans?</p>
<h2>A Defiled Priesthood</h2>
<p>Prior to the exile, the prophets uniformly and specifically
indicted Judah’s priesthood. Jeremiah cried out, “The priests … <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+2%3A8&version=ESV">did
not know me</a>.” The manifestations of the immense moral distance between the
pre-exilic priesthood and its holy calling were many: the priests <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+5%3A31&version=ESV">took
their direction from false prophets</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+26%3A11&version=ESV">conspired
to have true prophets murdered</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lamentations+4%3A13&version=ESV">shed
the blood of the righteous</a> (Jeremiah), <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+22%3A26&version=ESV">profaned
the holy things</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+22%3A26&version=ESV">disregarded
the Sabbaths</a> (Ezekiel), <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea+6%3A9&version=ESV">committed
villainy</a> (Hosea), <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah+3%3A11&version=ESV">took
bribes</a> (Micah) and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=zephaniah+3%3A4&version=ESV">polluted
the sanctuary</a> (Zephaniah). Such things were common among priests prior to
the exile and, while their descendants now offered burnt offerings and freewill
offerings on the altar on the temple site on behalf of the returned exiles, they
had yet to make atonement for the evils of previous generations of priests. If
Satan was about to point out the deplorable historic state of the priestly
institution, he was only stealing lines from God.</p>
<p>If that were not enough, the priesthood of Zechariah’s day
had its own issues. Records had been lost during the seventy years of
exile. There were <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+7%3A63-65&version=ESV">genealogical
gaps</a> that excluded some families with claims to priestly service, and some priests
had <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah+13%3A28-29&version=ESV">intermarried
with foreigners</a> in violation of the law.</p>
<p>In short, the accuser had plenty of ammunition to work with.</p>
<h2>A Brand Plucked from the Fire</h2>
<p>But in Zechariah’s vision, Satan never gets a chance to make
his case. The Lord rebukes him with the words, “Is not this a brand plucked
from the fire?”</p>
<p>When the Lord asks, “Is not <i>this</i> a brand?” he may be speaking of Joshua personally, but more
likely he is referring to the current high priest as the representative head of
religious life in Judah. The image of the brand comes from the prophet Amos
nearly three centuries earlier. He referred to the former northern kingdom as “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=amos+4%3A11&version=ESV">a brand
plucked out of the burning</a>”. The image is of a single burning stick
retrieved from the ashes after the fire has gone out. Applied to the Judean
priesthood, it is a picture of absolute weakness, just a bare flicker of life.
The Lord is telling Satan it is wicked to seek to prosecute a priesthood that
has just about destroyed itself already. Isaiah assures us the Lord Jesus never
had this sort of harsh spirit. He does not treat even sinners as badly as we
deserve. “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+42%3A3&version=ESV">A faintly
burning wick he will not quench</a>,” he says. He blesses the poor in spirit
and the downtrodden, while Satan would see them crushed if he were able.</p>
<p>Next, he shows Satan how to treat a brand plucked from the
fire.</p>
<h2>Pure Vestments and a Clean Turban</h2>
<p>First, Joshua has his filthy garments removed. Later, it
will become clear he is not the only priest present in the vision. Zechariah
will refer to “your friends who sit before you … men who are a sign”. The
angel instructs these men who are standing before him to remove the filthy
garments as a symbol of the spiritual reality that God has unilaterally taken
away the iniquity of the priesthood and forgiven its former evils. The symbols
and process in the vision recall the original institution of the priesthood in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%208&version=ESV">Leviticus 8</a>,
and the ceremony in which Aaron the high priest was dressed in clean garments
and a new turban, ready for service. This visionary cleansing of the priesthood
is more low-key (and spiritual) than the original event, but it is just as
effective in rebutting Satan’s implicit accusation.</p>
<p>The presence of Christ on the scene in the form of the angel
of the Lord (“the angel of the Lord was standing by”) is no surprise in this
context. Apart from the shed blood of Christ, no sins would ever be completely
dealt with. Hebrews reminds us that it was <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+10%3A1-4&version=ESV">impossible
for the annual sacrifices of the Old Testament</a>, including the priestly
purification rituals, to perfect those who draw near. Rather, these were only a
reminder of sin.</p>
<p>Next, the high priest is clothed with pure vestments and a
new turban. All defilement is gone.</p>
<h1>Zechariah 3:6-10 – The Explanation</h1>
<blockquote>“And the angel of the Lord solemnly assured Joshua, ‘Thus
says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then
you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you
the right of access among those who are standing here. Hear now, O Joshua
the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who
are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch. For behold, on the
stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven eyes,
I will engrave its inscription, declares the Lord of hosts, and <b>I will remove the iniquity of this
land in a single day</b>. In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, every one of
you will invite his neighbor to come under his vine and under his fig tree.’ ”</blockquote>
<h2>The Right of Access</h2>
<p>The presence of other priests or Levites in the vision in
the form of Joshua’s “friends” is probably a safeguard from singling out the
high priest as an individual specially gifted or uniquely blessed. He is merely
a proxy for the institution. The Lord is symbolically cleansing and preparing the
entire priestly house for his service in the person of Joshua. The right of
access the Lord is promising to the priesthood is not just for Joshua in his
day, but also for those descended from him so long as they walk in the Lord’s
ways and keep his charge. These men in the vision are a sign to the nation, a
reminder that God will continue to deal with Judah through the priesthood until
he has put something better is in place.</p>
<h2>My Servant the Branch</h2>
<p>The “something better” is a great high priest after the
order of Melchizedek, a priest whose sacrifice was once for all, and who lives
eternally to make intercession for his people. I don’t want to steal too
much from Zechariah 6 before we get there, but Melchizedek was a
priest-king, and we will see in chapter 6 that the Branch symbolizes a
priest enthroned, looking forward to the rule of the Lord Jesus during the
millennium.</p>
<p>The word “branch” is <i><span style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria;">ṣemaḥ</span></i>, meaning a living sprout or growth.
With Judah’s priesthood reduced to a mere brand plucked from the fire, the
Branch the Lord would bring in its place was full of life. He would extend his
influence into areas previously barred to the priesthood. The branch symbolism
comes from Isaiah and Jeremiah. Isaiah calls the Branch “<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+4%3A2&version=ESV">beautiful
and glorious</a>” and associates him with the final glorification of Zion.
Jeremiah prophesies of a day in which the Lord will <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+23%3A5-6&version=ESV">raise
up for David a righteous Branch</a> who will reign as king and deal wisely,
executing justice and righteousness. Again, the context is the millennium.</p>
<p>Zechariah’s contribution is to associate the Branch with the
priesthood as well as the throne.</p>
<h2>The Stone with Seven Eyes</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+28&version=ESV">original
priestly garments of Aaron</a> had two onyx stones as shoulderpieces and
twelve precious stones set in rows on a breastplate. Both sets of stones were
engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel. They were borne on the high
priest’s shoulders and carried next to his heart. (I probably don’t have
to beat that symbolism to death.)</p>
<p>Here, the stone is not part of the priestly garments.
Rather, it is “set before” Joshua. Like the stones on the high priest’s garments,
it too was to be inscribed. God himself would do the engraving. This stone has
seven eyes. There may be some wordplay going on there. The Hebrew word
translated “eyes” is occasionally translated “face”, so it may mean the
precious stone has seven facets that could each bear inscription. Then
again, the same symbolism seems to crop up again in chapter 4, this time
connected with Zerubbabel as a symbol of the throne of Israel. There,
Zerubbabel brings forth the top stone (of the temple). So we have a stone,
and a verse later, we read “These seven are the eyes of the Lord, which range
through the whole earth.” So now we have another stone and seven eyes. The
seven eyes appear again in Revelation, where <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+5%3A6&version=ESV">the
Lamb has seven eyes</a>, “which are the seven spirits of God sent out
into all the earth”. There is obviously a connection there.</p>
<p>We do not know what the Lord will engrave on this stone, but
it is probably not associated with the tribes of Israel given the odd number of
faces or eyes. What we can say is: (1) it is a single stone, unified
rather than fragmented, (2) it is associated with both the priesthood and
the throne, and (3) it is connected with the person of Christ, and
especially his omniscience. Christ on the throne will be the reunification of
Israel, but also the unification of the priesthood and the throne. All things
are summed up in him.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0px;">I can only see the seven-eyed stone, like the Branch,
as yet another symbol of Christ.</p>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.com0