What's missing?

First Corinthians 1:18-25 draws us into the heart of the difficulty that third-millennium Christians share with those of the first century. It helps us remember that the Corinthian church was not unlike many burgeoning American congregations today. The church parking lot is always full, new services have been added, signs and wonders abound, testimonies are given about changed lives, and there seems to be no limit to the enthusiasm of the congregation. Paul, however, sees grave danger ahead, because the Corinthians’ life is oriented to the wrong center.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 85

<idle musing>
She's talking about the scandal of the cross. When was the last time you heard someone at a megachurch preach or teach about the cross? Right! The pews might be full, but without the message of the cross, it's just therapeutic deism. No cross, no real power.
</idle musing>

Tozer for Tuesday

If Jesus Christ cannot change me; if my Christianity is not real; if the problem I face is not a real problem; if it does not mean heaven, hell, death and the grave; then I do not want to be wasting my time with it at all. I would rather take a walk and listen to the birds sing than listen to any man preach who tries to smooth me down or to put up a problem that does not exist and play with it. That is what is going on all the time.

The giveaway of this religious word game is that a person says he is fundamentally different, but the same old principles motivate the life.—A.W. Tozer, Reclaiming Christianity, 97–98

Jesus! the name high over all

400 Gräfenberg. C. M.

1.Jesus! the name high over all,
   in hell or earth or sky;
   angels and mortals prostrate fall,
   and devils fear and fly.

2.Jesus! the name to sinners dear,
   the name to sinners given;
   it scatters all their guilty fear,
   it turns their hell to heaven.

3. O that the world might taste and see
   the riches of his grace!
   The arms of love that compass me
   would all the world embrace.

4. His only righteousness I show,
   his saving truth proclaim;
   'tis all my business here below
   to cry, "Behold the Lamb!"

5. Happy, if with my latest breath
   I may but gasp his name,
   preach him to all and cry in death,
   "Behold, behold the Lamb!"
                         Charles Wesley
                         The Methodist Hymnal 1939 edition

<idle musing>
Not one of Wesley's more popular hymns, only occurring in 295 hymnals. I don't recall ever singing it, but it was retained in the 1989 update. Interestingly, that update to the United Methodist Hymnal inserts a verse after our verse 3:

4. Thee I shall constantly proclaim,
   though earth and hell oppose;
   bold to confess thy glorious name
   before a world of foes.

</idle musing>

Sophia? Not so much

Contrary to the reductive way sin is often spoken of in regular discourse, the Pauline epistles evidence not one but three complexly intertwined ways of speaking about what sin is. It is, first, a cosmic condition, an inescapable fact about the (broken) structure of the world in which humans emerge and out of which they cannot extract themselves (see Rom 8:18-26). It is, second, a description of certain behaviors, dispositions, or acts that contravene the moral order of Gods law—“sins” (see Rom 7:5), “trespasses” (see Rom 5:14; Gal 3:19), or “transgressions" (see Rom 5:16–18; 11:11–12). And it is, third, a power (see Rom 7:7–25), something that can, it seems, act within the world, seizing even the best that life can offer to its own destructive purposes.

Precisely because of its multifaceted reality, sin’s reach is broad and its damage deep. What normally appears as wisdom, for example—the quintessence of the philosophical quest—turns out to be nothing of the kind. Foolishness, says Paul, is the real name for human Sophia in the sight of God. Standing the truth on its head, he tells the struggling church in Corinth that genuine wisdom is what looks like foolishness. “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe … [and] we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:20–21). In short, Paul argues, sin blinds us, and our quest for the wise life leads us to reject as foolishness that which is really wise, the crucifixion of Christ (1 Cor 1–3).—One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 97

Stephanus did us a disfavor

I was reading along in Mark this morning in the CEB (my version of choice at the moment), when I stumbled across something that made me do a double-take. In Mark 3, Jesus is calling the twelve with distinct purposes in mind. But what are the purposes? Here's a smattering of popular English translations in no particular order along with what it seems that the purposes are (we'll ignore the textual issue here because it's not important to the point):

13 Jesus went up on a mountain and called those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve and called them apostles. He appointed them to be with him, to be sent out to preach, 15 and to have authority to throw out demons. (CEB)

Seems that he has three purposes in mind: (1) to be with him, (2) to be sent out to preach, and (3) to have authority over demons.

13 He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. (NRSV)

Again, the same three purposes.

13 And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. 14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons. (NASB)

Not as clear here. Is it three purposes, or only two? (1) to be with him, (2) to be sent out, and maybe (3) to cast out demons. The first two are introduced by "that" or "so that," while the last one is just an infinitive—but the verse number makes me subconsciously want to make it an independent point. So, we'll say three purposes.

13 And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons. (ESV)

Also not as clear. But it does seem that there are two purposes, with verse 15 being a subset of "send them out." But, again, the verse number makes me want to posit three purposes.

13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve[—designating them apostles—]that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. (NIV)

Again, not as clear, but it might be two or three purposes. Because of the verse numbering, I would again say three purposes.

OK, now we're ready to look at the Greek

13 Καὶ ἀναβαίνει εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ προσκαλεῖται οὓς ἤθελεν αὐτός, καὶ ἀπῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν. 14 καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα [οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν] ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν 15 καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια· (Mark 3:13–15)

OK, what do we have? In verse 14, he appoints the 12 "in order that (1) they might be with him, in order that (2) he might send them out for the purpose of (2.1) announcing (the gospel) and for the purpose of (2.2) having authority to cast out demons."

So, what were the primary purposes for calling the twelve, according to the Greek? Two: (1) to be with him and (2) to be sent out. The secondary purposes are (2.1) to announce the gospel and (2.2) to have authority to cast out demons, both or which are dependent on being sent out.

So, the CEB and the NRSV don't convey the Greek well, and the other ones try to, but the verse break gets in the way of our seeing what the Greek says. Stephanus did us a disfavor!

Christians and thinking

Roger Olson talks about anti-intellectualism in this post. Read the whole thing, but to give you a taste of it...

To a very large extent American “Christianity” simply fits in with our overwhelmingly secular and increasingly pagan culture that is driven by money, entertainment, celebrity obsession, sex, personal autonomy (“above all be true to yourself”), and “freedom” (lack of accountability).

One aspect of this I’d especially like to point to is—anti-intellectualism. American society is saturated with antipathy toward the life of the mind. We love “experts” but disdain “scholars.” How often is someone identified on a television news or talk program as a “scholar?” Almost never. I recognize some as scholars but see that they are routinely introduced as “experts.” What’s the difference? A scholar is a researcher who knows all knowledge is ambiguous and continually growing. A scholar is someone who only reluctantly, if ever, will offer a media talking head’s required “sound byte.” An “expert,” on the other hand, is someone who is knowledgeable about a particular subject, usually a skill, has statistics at her fingertips, and is willing to package information without ambiguity or complication. One person can be both, of course. Americans despise scholars but love experts.

Isn't that the truth! You can't nuance things in a sound bite. And you can't take more than 15 seconds of the viewers time or they will turn off...we have more important things to do than think! After all, there are new cat videos on the Internet!

A little further on he laments:

Some years ago there was a television commercial for black colleges with the motto “A Mind Is A Terrible Thing to Waste.” If we were honest about it, the motto of many American Christians would be “A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Use”—especially in relation to faith.

Many contemporary American churches do not even care whether their pastoral staff members have any formal education. The big question is whether they are talented, attractive, charismatic, articulate and personable. The result is the pastor I heard preach at a mega-church a few months ago. His “sermon” was nonsense—literally. It made no sense. He claimed the Bible says things it absolutely does not say. But he was handsome, youthful, animated, well-dressed, wore the right glasses, passionate and engaging. And funny. If he ever went to seminary he has left whatever he learned there behind. He had the approximately one thousand people in that one service eating out of his hand.

His parting shot is so true it hurts:

A great irony is that supposedly “conservative” churches are often the most eager to imitate secular/pagan culture in terms of style and substance—even as they point accusing fingers at “liberal churches” for accommodating to modern or postmodern thought forms.

Miscellaneous wanderings and musings

It's been a while since I posted stuff from elsewhere—not that I don't read it, I just fail to post it. Usually what happens is that I mark something and then fail to post it until it is so old that it doesn't make any sense. Well, for some reason this week brought more than the usual number of "must reads," so I'm linking to them. Enjoy!

Brian Zahnd asks how the Church is different from America. He challenges you to list 5 ways and then to his own amazement comes up with a dozen. Then he sums it all up:

Don’t get me wrong. I love America. I really do. It’s my home. For the most part it’s a fine place to live. But it’s not where my faith or my supreme allegiance lie. America is not the “last best hope of the world” (as claimed by Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama). The first and last and only hope of the world is Jesus Christ and his kingdom. My supreme faith and allegiance is reserved for Jesus and what he is building. I am a revolutionary Christian. And I am willing to suffer for it.

Amen! Sounds like good theology to me. That shouldn't cause too many Christians a problem, should it? Well, apparently it does, as a certain chaplain found out recently. Apparently if you preach on forgiving your enemies as a chaplain in a Christian school, you can anger some important donors and get demoted. There are lots of links I could post here, but this one is a nice summary (as always, avoid the comments after the story!).

As you know two movies came out recently. Selma, the story of one of the 20th century most influential Christian leaders, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent movement that changed the course of American History forever. And American Sniper, the story of the most deadly Navy SEAL sniper in American history. Selma has made 29-30 million so far. American Sniper made over 103 million in the first 4 days. Gives you an idea about who our heroes are. I don’t think it is an under-statement to say that our culture is addicted to violence, guns, war, revenge and retaliation. Unfortunately, so are a lot of Christians.

You can read the full transcription of the sermon here. He was demoted from VP of Community Formation and Chaplain. Now he is Chaplain. My question? How long before he is Unemployed? He has experienced what a friend of mine refers to as the right boot of fellowship...

By the way, "Beckum is currently on leave from the campus until March 13. A statement given by the president’s office said that Beckum was 'provided paid administrative leave for rest and an opportunity for the transition to occur.'” (source). As I said, how long before he joins the ranks of the unemployed?

How about something a little different now? A good (Lenten) sermon over at Faith and Theology

In the early 1950s a man named Clarence Jordan founded an interracial farm in Georgia called the Koinonia Community, which at the time was a very foolish and dangerous thing to do. He asked his brother Robert, a lawyer, to act as counsel for the farm. “Clarence,” Robert said, “I can’t do that. You know my political aspirations. If I represented you, I might lose my job, my house, everything I’ve got.”

“We might lose everything too,” Clarence replied.

“It’s different for you,” Robert said.

“Why is it different?” And Clarence went on to remind his brother how, when they were baptised, they were asked: “Do you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour?” “What did you say, Robert?”

Robert paused, and then said, “I follow Jesus – up to a point.”

“Could that point by any chance be – the cross?” his brother challenged him.

“That’s right. I follow Jesus to the cross, but not on the cross. I’m not getting myself crucified.”

“Then,” Clarence said, “I don’t believe you’re a disciple. You’re an admirer of Jesus, but not a disciple.”

What about me? Am I an admirer or a disciple? What about you? John Michael Talbot had a song back in the 1970s with the line, "When you are ensured this world's friendship, it's easy to live." (I can't find the full lyrics on Google...)

Meanwhile, Roger Olson has a good post on being an Egalitarian Complementarian. Sound like an oxymoron? Maybe, but what he says resonates with me. Read the whole thing, but here's the concluding paragraph:

We need to overcome our polar oppositions and recognize both man and woman as uniquely gifted by God, equal in every way, interdependent, and yet really different ways of being human.

And, finally, a review of a book that I just put on interlibrary loan request after reading the review:

If the truth is that our very first relationship when we come into being is one that is not reciprocal, we can understand why a pregnant woman might, at least some of the time, experience her encounter with the newone [his word for a fetus/unborn child] as burdensome and onerous. That, of course, is to forget momentarily how she herself first emerged, but, more important, it means that we have a decision to make. Shall we regard the burden of this asymmetry as an indication that human beings should be independent and self-sufficient? Or should we see in it an intimation of the truth that, from the start and always thereafter, we are dependent on each other? A phenomenological analysis of human emergence suggests that “the secret to the meaning of human life — our need of each other — is given away by its newest members.”

Interesting, to say the least. Something for everybody to hate in the book by the sounds of it; he's attacking the philosophical foundations of western individualism—both right and left won't stand for that! And I love his word "newone" to describe the life that is forming in the womb. (With thanks to Scot for the link)

I dare you

So I would urge churches to ramp up their teachings on the nature of covenant love and the sacredness of marriage. Churches must have the courage to teach that divorce is never the will of God, and that divorce is only permitted because of the hard-heartedness of humans. These are the words of Jesus, and we do not have the option of toning them down (5:17–20) or pretending they don’t exist.— Sermon on the Mount, page 105

<idle musing>
I dare you to preach/teach/share that! If you do, let me know the responses you get...
</idle musing>

Impossible?

Because the fact is that if you were in step with the Holy Spirit, listening to and obeying Him, you wouldn’t sin (Gal 5:16). In any given moment, it is impossible to live in the power of the Spirit and sin at the same time. Sin is wholly opposed to everything that is of the Spirit. They really are mutually exclusive and totally contrary to each other.—Forgotten God, page 129

<idle musing>
Preach it brother! I'm reading Fanning's Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek right now—thank you interlibrary loan! Oxford, what are you thinking? $160!? Anyway, he examines the various ways of translating 1 John 3:4–10:

Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.

Τεκνία, μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς· ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν· ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου· πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

Or, in the NRSV:

Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters.

Rather infamous passage, isn't it? Well, after examining all the possible ways of translating it, including the most popular one: the habitual sense—which the NIV, ESV, and NLT all use— of "keeps on sinning," he comes to this conclusion: "On purely grammatical grounds, therefore, the absolute interpretation of 1 John 3:4–10 is to be preferred." page 217 (the full discussion is on pages 212–17).

In other words, on the basis of Greek grammar, the NRSV that I quoted above is correct, "No one who abides in him sins." That's what it says, period. You have a choice, either you theologize it away, or you modify your theology to match the scripture...

Personally, I think the whole tenor of scripture agrees with 1 John—but only by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that is where Chan has it correct in the original quotation that started this whole
</idle musing>

Nothing really changes

He [Edwin Lewis, Methodist theologian from the mid-20th century] stood up and said, “Now, I can divide you right down the middle on one question. Your answer to that question will tell me whether you have a gospel to preach or not, and that question is this: Was Jesus the son of Mary who became the Son of God? Or was He the eternal Son of God who became the son of Mary? And if you go with the first, you have no gospel because there is nothing saving that is in us. Salvation is in God and in God alone. So if Jesus emerged out of us, He can do nothing more for us than we can do for ourselves. But if He came to us out of the nature of the eternal Deity, then He can do for us what only God can do.”— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 54

<idle musing>
Did he just read Ehrman's new book? Oh wait, he said that in the 1950s...nothing really changes, does it?
</idle musing>

Exalted King

There is a huge difference between the gospeling of Acts and our Plan of Salvation approach today, and alongside that difference, the gospel of Acts has almost no similarity to our Method of Persuasion. The difference can be narrowed to this single point: the gospeling of Acts, because it declares the saving significance of Jesus, Messiah and Lord, summons listeners to confess Jesus as Messiah and Lord, while our gospeling seeks to persuade sinners to admit their sin and find Jesus as the Savior.

We are not creating a false alternative here. The latter can be done within the former, but much of the soterian approach to evangelism today fastens on Jesus as (personal) Savior and dodges Jesus as Messiah and Lord. If there is any pervasive heresy today, it’s right here. Anyone who can preach the gospel and not make Jesus’ exalted lordship the focal point simply isn’t preaching the apostolic gospel.— The King Jesus Gospel, pages 133-134

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! A.W. Tozer used to bemoan the "Jesus as savior" approach to salvation. For him, either Jesus was preached as Lord or he couldn't be preached at all—no lordship, no salvation. It's that simple. I agree.

We need the full gospel—from Genesis 3, where God takes the initiative and seeks mankind as they try to hide, all the way through the descent of the bride clothed in white at the end of Revelation. God taking the initiative, humanity responding. Always God, always love, always reaching out to us...
</idle musing>

That's a serious charge

If we preach the Plan of Salvation as the gospel, we will find ourselves doing everything we can to get people motivated or, to used words from earlier, bucking up our efforts to get more people into column three, The Discipled. But, if we learn to distinguish gospel from Plan of Salvation, we will discover an altogether different world. I am convinced that because we think the gospel is the Plan of Salvation, and because we preach the Plan of Salvation as the gospel, we are not actually preaching the gospel.— The King Jesus Gospel, page 40

<idle musing>
That's a serious charge he's making—but I believe he is right! We are doing both God and people a disservice by selling the gospel as a salvation package apart from discipleship and restoration. There is no salvation without transformation!
</idle musing>

Basics of Biblical Aramaic

I recently received a copy of Basics of Biblical Aramaic by Miles van Pelt (thanks Jesse!). It is the most recent contribution to Zondervan's biblical languages series.

It would be easy to point out the places where I would have done things differently, but first let's see what van Pelt aims to do and if he succeeds:

This grammar was not written for Aramaic scholars or for students interested in comparative Semitic grammar. Rather, the purpose and design of this grammar is to provide the average student with a working knowledge of the Aramaic language appearing in the Old Testament. It was written for those students who desire to study, teach, and preach faithfully from those portions of the Bible that appear in Aramaic. (page x)

I kept reminding myself of this paragraph as I read through the grammar. It is not fair to evaluate a textbook on the basis of what I would have done; I'm far more interested in comparative Semitics and historical grammar than the average student :)

As far as layout, the book is 8.5 x 11 inches and the text is large enough that even my eyes could easily read it. The tables are well laid out and clear. The use of footnotes for interesting, but not essential, information is good, allowing the interested student to obtain more background.

The book assumes the knowledge of biblical Hebrew; there are repeated comparisons to how biblical Aramaic is/is not like Hebrew. Here is where I would have brought in some comparative Semitics and historical grammar to explain the ש/ת interchange, as well as other consonantal differences. He does mention the Canaanite shift, which is good. But, again, I reminded myself of his purpose paragraph. The average student would probably be more confused than helped.

He begins with the nominal system, including particles, conjunctions, and prepositions, and then proceeds to present the verbal system, beginning with the Peal and then giving the derived stems. There is a great deal of emphasis and explanation of weak verbs, which is very helpful when you consider that the majority of the verbs in biblical Aramaic are weak.

The grammar section ends with paradigm charts before launching into the reading section. The book includes all the Aramaic sections of the Hebrew Bible, complete with extensive annotations. The annotations include things like identifying a difficult to figure out root, metathesis, idiomatic phrases, etc. The strange thing about the reading section is that the order of pages is English, not Aramaic. You start reading on the left hand page, then proceed to the right, and turn the page as if it were English. I'm not sure what the logic of that is. I would think that the page order would be Aramaic, but that is a minor quibble.

The book concludes with a dictionary, based on HALOT, with one-two word glosses. Adequate for reading the passages, but for more extensive background, HALOT or BDB should be consulted.

What do I think of the book? As one who learned biblical Aramaic via the “here's a text, lexicon, and Rosenthal, now read it!” method, this book is a vast improvement. I suspect a highly motivated individual could teach themselves Aramaic using it—as long as they already know Hebrew. The explanations are clear enough and the notes in the reading will keep you from getting discouraged.

In answer to the opening question, did he succeed in doing what he set out to do? I would answer, "Yes, he did." As I mentioned, the layout is attractive and the explanations are good. As anyone who has ever taught a language will tell you, there is no perfect first year grammar for any language—except the one you write yourself! If I were to teach biblical Aramaic, I would probably adopt this book, but assign background readings in Rosenthal's A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Of course, if someone were to create an immersion course in Aramaic, that would be best!

Where's the cross?

Roger Olson asks where the cross has gone:

Why this trend over the past 50 years away from preaching and singing about the cross of Jesus? Why do we no longer sing “What can wash away my sin (nothing but the blood of Jesus)?” or “There is a fountain filled with blood” or “At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light”? Or at least similar hymns and songs about the cross?
...
What can explain this? Given the centrality of the cross and atonement in the New Testament and in evangelical tradition, the only explanation I can think of is accommodation to culture. We know talk about “the blood” is offensive to many people and maybe it is to us as well. It doesn’t fit very well with our shiny new sanctuaries and all the shiny new cars in the parking lots. We’re educated and upwardly mobile now. We’re affluent and sophisticated. The imagery of the cross just doesn’t sit very well with us.

Another possible reason for the dearth of language about the cross (especially blood, wrath of God, etc.) is that churches that consider themselves moderate and non-fundamentalist don’t want to do anything that smacks of fundamentalism. But I ask why give the rich New Testament and historical evangelical emphasis on the cross over to the fundamentalists? We are so often ruled by what we’re against or afraid of. We need to overcome that.

I would go so far as to say that crossless Christianity is not real Christianity. Or at least it is seriously defective, accommodated, negotiated, shallow Christianity. (Of course, most evangelical churches are not quite totally “crossless” yet, but my fear is they may be on that path.)

<idle musing>
He's right. I was at an evangelical church building recently that didn't have a cross anywhere. I asked about it, and they said they wanted to be able to make the building available to the community and that the cross would be a stumbling block. Amen! It's supposed to be a stumbling block! What does Paul say? "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." (I Cor. 1:23-25 TNIV)

John Fischer wrote a book On a Hill Too Far Away that looks at the disappearance of the cross from Christianity. Great book; still true—even more true—10 years later. In fact, I think that book is a new edition of something he wrote back in the early 1990s, but I might be wrong.

Maybe we should put the cross back in Christmas?
</idle musing>

The work of the cross

More from the Ugandan revival:

The work of the cross was more than forgiveness. The cross also provided the foundation for a holy life. Joe Church [of Uganda] who was exposed to the Keswick message of complete surrender as a student at Cambridge believed that it was this model of holiness that produced the revival. “We never remember anyone coming to us...to hold meetings on revival or to preach to us about it. Revival is not a program but a way of life. A God-given hunger for more holiness and Christ-likenss has come upon us and what is known as revival followed.

This emphasis on the cross and its power both to liberate the conscience and transform the life was the basis for “walking in the light” and its spiritual two-step of public confession and brokenness before God and others.&mdash Global Awakening, page 100

<idle musing>
The cross is central to Christianity; without the cross, there is no forgiveness, and—just as important—there is no deliverance. We shy away from the cross, but it is our only hope!
</idle musing>

To obey is better than...

“The stories of Jericho and Ai indicate the need to obey YHWH through the covenant. It is this, rather than military tactics, that grants Israel success. If Israel obeys YHWH then impregnable walls and obstacles will fall (Jericho) and Israel will not have to worry about her enemies. But if Israel disobeys, then the simplest battle in which a ruin is attacked (Ai) will be lost. Israel does not have to worry about how to possess the land or how to ‘dispose’ of her enemies, for YHWH will take care of this. Rather, Israel must worry about obeying YHWH, an obedience that will lead to blessing and rest. The stories of Rahab and Achan, refracted through the battles at Jericho and Ai, demonstrate the significance of Josh 5:13-15. YHWH is not ‘for’ ethnic Israel on her own ‘national’ terms, something rather unexpected in view of ideas of the favour and the election of Israel, rather, YHWH is ‘for’ those who confess his power and glory, who ‘do חסד [hesed]’ and obey him, made concrete in obedience to the covenant.”—Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, p. 153

<idle musing>
And it is still true today. God is not “for” the U.S.; he never was. He is “for” those who do חסד. More conferences and laws and petitions and protests and hand-wringing aren't doing חסד.

The early church lived in a far more amoral society than the U.S., but we have no record of them being concerned about who was the emperor, or local ruler, or the rampant immorality of society. No, they simply went about loving their neighbor and living a life that drew attention to God and his love for people. They didn't downplay sin, but they didn't expect non-Christians to act any differently than they were. When Paul went to Corinth, he didn't try to close the brothels or shut down the pagan sacrifices; he preached Jesus as crucified and risen from the dead! And, just as important, he preached a gospel of transformation. Christians were transformed by the power of God, not by “trying to live a moral life” under their own power.

New Testament Christianity is uncomfortable; it demands that you live dead to self. That doesn't preach well in a suburban church. It doesn't fill the offering plates; it doesn't pay the mortgage. I don't see Paul or Peter being concerned about that, though!
</idle musing>

Why do people walk away?

There is an article at Out of Ur on why people leave the church. He identifies two reasons:

The biblical understanding of a “wonderful life” looks dramatically different than the consumer culture’s definition of a “wonderful life.” If this assumption is never identified, named, and deconstructed, a person may hear “God love you and has a wonderful plan for your life” very differently than we intend. This is the problem we must begin to address if we hope to slow the exodus of people from the church. It’s not that we are failing to preach the gospel, but that we are failing to deconstruct the consumer filter through which people twist and receive it. The result is a hybrid consumer gospel in which God exists to serve me and accomplish my desires in exchange for my obedience—voila, Moralistic Divination.

He calls that the false gospel. People leave because their theology demands a god who serves them. The other reason he identifies is the structure of many churches:

Unfortunately for the last few decades, our ecclesiology in North America has been heavily influenced by the values of secular corporations. And I can’t think of a profitable corporation that has achieved success by promoting love above efficiency.

<idle musing>
Take the time to read the whole thing. But, it seems in both cases it boils down to a church that is too enamored with the world to be different from it. Jesus said that we would be known as his disciples by our love—not the size of our congregations or budgets. Not by the correctness of our doctrine, but by our love. Why do we always get it backwards? (Rhetorical question)
<idle musing>

The Perfect Parent

When I saw the cover of Christianity Today this month, I had to laugh. I've been waiting for the lead article to become available ever since. They posted it on Friday, but I didn't discover it until today. The article title is The Myth of the Perfect Parent and it is loaded with gold, like this little snippet:

...We have absorbed the cultural belief in psychological determinism but spiritualized it with Bible verses, and one verse in particular. The result is a Christianized version of the cultural myth. It reads something like this: "Christian parenting techniques produce godly children."

Proverbs 22:6 has been widely adopted as both psychological premise and theological promise, despite the widespread recognition that hermeneutically, the Proverbs are not promises from God, but general observations and maxims. (Ironically, if King Solomon did pen this proverb, as many biblical scholars believe, he himself failed to exemplify its truth: In his old age, he abandoned the teaching and example of his father, as "his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been" [1 Kings 11:4].)

Despite these problems, entire formulas and programs have been created to divine and instruct on the kind of parental training that will secure the desired outcome. At least one of these programs, claiming to instruct in God's ways of raising children, has sold in the millions...

<idle musing>
Yep. It isn't a promise, it is what is called a "gnomic saying"—a general observation that is usually true. Of course, that doesn't preach as well, or sell as many books. And, to be totally honest, there were times in parenting when I used it as a promise to console the "failures" that happened.

I praise God that both our kids love Jesus, but I can't take the credit. Sure, I tried my best; sure, I prayed and fasted; sure, I agonized and disciplined them. But, they were and are God's, not mine. It wasn't until Debbie and I really realized that and stopped criticizing and critiquing the kids that we were able to relax and actually enjoy parenting. Well, maybe that isn't totally true, but hindsight isn't always accurate :) But, the pressure was off them and us. We just were called to be faithful; the results weren't in our hands.

If you are (or will be—actually even if you don't ever think you'll have kids) parents, you should read the whole article (although I would quibble with certain statements she makes...). Hopefully, after reading it, you'll be able to relax and enjoy the ride. I can guarantee you it will be interesting!

How about that, Renee? I didn't even share embarrassing stories :)
</idle musing>

Preach? Or announce?

A while back, actually way back in December/January, I posted some excerpts and thoughts on the book To Preach or Not to Preach?. Just a week or two ago, Alan Knox did a series on the Greek verb κηρύσσω, commonly translated "preach." His conclusion was that the verb is more accurately translated "announce." I'll let him say it in his own words:

In three posts, I’ve looked at the use of the term κηρύσσω (kērussō – usually translated “preach”) in the Old Testament. I’ve explained why it is important for us to study the meaning of words in the Old Testament, especially in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. I’ve posted all passages in the Old Testament and the non-canonical books which include the term κηρύσσω (kērussō). I’ve concluded that in these passages, the meaning of the term is closer to the English verb “announce” than to any of the definitions of the English word “preach”.

He then proceeds to look at the works of Josephus and Philo, who lived in the same general time period as the New Testament was composed, to see if the word had changed in meaning. His conclusion: Nope.

<idle musing>
Hmmm. Does that line up with the arguments in To Preach or Not to Preach?, or not? I'll give you a hint: Yes! It's always nice to see scholars agree on something :)
</idle musing>

The Sermon

A while back I posted a series of quotes from To Preach or Not to Preach. His basic premise was/is that preaching to the saved is a waste of time.

Over the weekend (I'm way behind) I read Ben Myers blog from April 30, when he ran a guest post entitled On sermons: a rant. Here's a nice little excerpt:

...I’ve heard the sermon in nearly all its forms: a 15 minute homily is far too long, while a 45 minute “message” is plainly unanointed. A lifetime pulpit pounding and sanctified lecturing has led me to one obvious conclusion:

There should be a moratorium on the sermon. Let’s go straight from the Gospel to the Creed and cut the drivel in between. I may have heard fourteen sermons a week in Bible college, but I don’t remember the one I heard last week.

Preaching puts me to sleep which, by my definition, is the last thing preaching should do. The sermon should be revelatory – generating ambiguity, disrupting expectation. (Okay, so I stole this from Rowan “Ray-of-Darkness” Williams, but since this rant is about sermons, stealing someone else’s ideas is acceptable.) But, in fact, we already know exactly what to expect – fifteen minutes of nothing. Edward Schillebeeckx says the service of the word should be like the “roaring of the lion” – it is more like the yawning of a sloth.

Amen!

Ironically, most preachers genuinely believe they are above-average public speakers. (They can’t all be right, can they?) And as Gabriel Moran notes, most preachers also believe that all theology is homiletically-centered. Demurring, he says: “Probably only a clergyman could believe that preaching is a good model, let alone the best model, for understanding the religious life of mankind. It would be a near impossibility to find any non-clergymen who think of preaching and sermonizing as significant at all. Most people who give a thought to it conclude that preaching is an anachronism which is allowed existence because it bothers no one. However, if one’s professional life is centered on any activity, it is possible to view the whole world in light of that endeavor.”

Definitely read the whole thing...