Thought for today

"This is what the LORD says to you, house of David:

“‘Administer justice every morning;
rescue from the hands of their oppressors
those who have been robbed,
or my wrath will break out and burn like fire
because of the evil you have done—
burn with no one to quench it.
I will punish you as your deeds deserve,
declares the LORD.
I will kindle a fire in your forests
that will consume everything around you.’”"—Jeremiah 21:12, 14 TNIV

<idle musing>
Hmmm. Do you get the idea that maybe justice matters to God?
</idle musing>

Maybe I'm all wet here

but, all this hoopla amongst Reformed folks about Rob Bell's book strikes me as ironic. Usually Wesleyan-Arminian folks are the ones being accused of being universalists (they aren't, by the way), but this appears to be a in-house fight.

That being said, I can sympathize with the poor Calvinist here. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they take the wrath of God seriously—and they do—and the love of God seriously—and they do—what are their options? They believe that God, in some mysterious way for purposes known only to him, chose some to be saved (some Calvinists go further and say he chose others to be condemned). How do you reconcile these? I know the mental gymnastics and theological arguments, but they fail to convince me.

The Wesleyan, on the other hand, doesn't need to consider the universalist option. They believe that God, by his prevenient grace (grace that comes before), raises a person from depravity far enough that they are able to make an informed decision for or against God. Mind you, this is all by grace! But, it is a real decision. The sinner chose to reject God. Now, I would go a step further and agree with Augustine that the Holy Spirit is "the hound of heaven," in other words, he doesn't give up, but keeps pursuing the sinner.

Just an
</idle musing>

A link or two a day...

It's nice to see Peter Kirk blogging again, especially when he says things like he did today:

The furore about Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins” has drawn a lot of attention to hell. But surely we Christians should be focusing our attention elsewhere. For John Wesley was surely right...

By salvation I mean, not barely, according to the vulgar notion, deliverance from hell, or going to heaven; but a present deliverance from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth.

— From John Wesley’s “A Further Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion

<idle musing>
Yes. We would do well to dig a bit more into Wesley; he had a better grasp of salvation than many today. Of course, when you look at the reformers, you find they were not just concerned with salvation by grace, but with sanctification by the power of the Holy Spirit, too. Why did that part get lost by many who claim descent from them today?
</idle musing>

Wise words from Larry Hurtado and David Meadows about the latest "find" in the Middle East—and just in time for Easter, too. How convenient. Here's Hurtado's words:

I don’t like being played with when it comes to scholarly issues. I don’t see the point of fellow scholars speculating in the press as to what these items “might” be. Why play into the game of those who hold the items and could, if they really wish to do so, simply make them available for competent analsys? I understand that it’s flattering for scholars to be approached by the press for comment on something (anything!). But instead, we should all simply say, “No comment until the items are placed into the hands of competent experts.” I tire quickly of the self-serving antics of the people who claim to be in possession of items of great scholarly significance but prefer to conduct their business through press releases instead of inviting competent testing and analysis.

<idle musing>
Maybe Eisenbrauns should publish everything in lead? Our tomes are weighty enough :)
</idle musing>

Roger Olson is clarifying the difference between a neo-fundamentalist and what he calls postconservative Evangelicals (I would just call them traditional Evangelicals...):

The neo-fundamentalists are recognizable among the conservatives by their aggressive behavior toward fellow evangelicals, their willingness sometimes to use underhanded means to “win,” their inclusion of non-essentials of doctrine among the essentials of Christian orthodoxy and their obsession with “evangelical boundaries” with the clear intention of excluding people from evangelicalism who grew up in it, have always been part of it, are influential within it, but whom they consider doctrinally unsound using extremely narrow definitions of doctrinal soundness.

<idle musing>
A sane voice! Do read all of this and other recent stuff he's posted. He may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but he needs to be heard.
</idle musing>

Final DJD volumes finally

I meant to post this last week and forgot. The final two volumes of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) were finally published and arrived last Friday. The copyright date says 2010, but they just were printed recently. This marks the end of the series, as far as I can tell. Initially they thought it would take what, 10 years? Well, 1947-2011 is a bit longer than 10 years—more like 64 years, but it beat the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary!

Here's a question, though: how many of the original editors are still alive? The only one I can think of is Frank Moore Cross. Is there anybody else?

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXXII
Qumran Cave 1. II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Caves and Transcriptions
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert - DJD 32
Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint
Oxford University Press, 2010
176 pages with 61 color and 22 b/w plates, English
Cloth
ISBN: 9780199566662
Your Price: $180.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/DJD321

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXXII
Qumran Cave 1. II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert - DJD 32
Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint
Oxford University Press, 2010
240 pages, English
Cloth
ISBN: 9780199566679
Your Price: $145.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/DJD322

And then there is this...

article in the Wall Street Journal: "Book retailer Borders Group Inc., which is shuttering hundreds of stores in a bid to stay alive, is seeking bankruptcy court approval to hand out as much as $8.3 million in executive bonuses, including nearly $1.7 million to President Mike Edwards."

<idle musing>
Let me get this straight. Upper management drives the company into bankruptcy—and gets paid a bonus for doing so. OK, I understand; I think they call it trickle down economics: the workers get peed on...I wonder if they are familiar with this text:

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self–indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.—James 5:4-5 TNIV

<idle musing>

I couldn't have said it better myself

than this bookseller did:

Let’s also dispel a very common and inaccurate misconception: just because one company closes does not mean that people will flock to their competition. IE: Borders impending doom does not mean that people will flock to Russo’s Books or Barnes & Noble. I’m so over this so called customer loyalty. Customer loyalty has gone the way of chivalry. We'll all want to believe it, we’ve heard of it, and we love to wax nostalgia over it, but its gone man. Gone. Customers are loyal to their pocketbooks. Game. Set. Match. I know, I know there are your exceptions and I appreciate you. But for the other 98%… spare me.

And, on their frontpage:

"The Russo's family and our staff send best wishes to our bookselling brethren at Borders for a long battle well-fought and encourage our community to hold on to what it still has... support your libraries, B&N, & of course, your local, independent bookstore (sorry folks, Amazon is not part of our community)."

<idle musing>
Yep. I couldn't have said it better, so I won't even try...
</idle musing>

I'm going to jail

Yep; you read that right. I've been "drafted" to go to jail on April 13. You can see all the details here: Kosciusko, IN Lock-Up 2011: James Spinti. I'm supposed to raise $1600 to get free. I know some of you would rather I never got out, but that's another story all together! Can you help? The cash goes to the Muscular Dystrophy Association; I get to go home :)

What's up with Wisconsin?

I commented on Wisconsin a while ago. I wasn't going to say anything more—even though I could :) But, today, I saw this, which got me steamed again. You should definitely take the time to read the whole post (it's long), but here's a short snippet:

My most important observation is that I find it simply outrageous that the Wisconsin Republican Party would seek to employ the state’s Open Records Law for the nakedly political purpose of trying to embarrass, harass, or silence a university professor (and a citizen) who has asked legitimate questions and identified potentially legitimate criticisms concerning the influence of a national organization on state legislative activity. I’m offended by this not just because it’s yet another abuse of law and procedure that has seemingly become standard operating procedure for the state’s Republican Party under Governor Walker, but because it’s such an obvious assault on academic freedom at a great research university that helped invent the concept of academic freedom way back in 1894.

<idle musing>
He isn't even a Democrat and he isn't against the Republicans. He just published a study guide on his blog and did an op-ed on the NY Times site. If that is how you treat people who are conducting research, what do you think is happening to "serious" opposition? I've mentioned it before

Oh, on a side note, did you see this one?

As an aside, I've been involved in GOP politics here in Indiana for 18 years, and I think that the situation in WI presents a good opportunity for what's called a "false flag" operation. If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the public unions. Currently the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest. Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions.

Sounds like a page right out of Hitler's playbook, doesn't it? I'm not suggesting they are Nazi's, so don't misread that! What I am saying is that the techniques are similar. It does raise the question as to whether or not the goals are similar, though, doesn't it?...just an
</idle musing>

Insult the poor at your own risk

“If you insult the poor, you insult God. The principle is that God personally identifies very closely with the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant, the most powerless and vulnerable members of society. When the Old Testament says God identifies with the poor that is a strong statement. But it still is basically a figure of speech. Not until you come to the New Testament can you fully grasp the degree to which God has done this.

“In Proverbs we see God identifying with the poor symbolically. But in the incarnation and death of Jesus we see God identifying with the poor and marginal literally.”— Generous Justice, page 185

<idle musing>
That's the end of the excerpts from Keller's book. I'm not sure what I'll be extracting from next. I'm currently reading at a very slow rate due to other things going on, but maybe I'll extract from A Severe Mercy...we'll see.
</idle musing>

The role of the strong

“The strong must disadvantage themselves for the weak, the majority for the minority, or the community frays and the fabric breaks.”— Generous Justice, page 180

<idle musing>
That's quite a prescription! But, the alternative looks pretty bleak, doesn't it? I once heard someone joke that of course the meek will inherit the earth—they will be the only ones left after everybody else destroys each other!
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an
optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march
of events."--Robert A Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

And what color state are you from?

“...no current political framework can fully convey the comprehensive Biblical vision of justice, and Christians should never identify too closely with a particular political party or philosophy.

“Many churches have uncritically adopted a liberal political agenda, one that has a very expansive view of government. Others adopt a politically conservative approach to justice, one that insists that poverty, at least in America, is not the result of unjust laws, social structures, and racism, but only a matter of family breakdown. As we have seen, the Biblical material is too nuanced and balance to fit neatly into either of these schemas. And if we tie the Bible too tightly to any particular economic system or set of public policies, it bestows divine authority on that system.”— Generous Justice, pages 163-164

<idle musing>
If only we listened to such sage advice. I know I am guilty of reading in a certain direction—bet you can't guess which one :)

We have a high and holy calling that far transcends the current political climate. What's that old Anabaptist line? "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" is how it goes, I think. (I've heard it attributed to Wesley, but don't remember seeing it in anything of his that I've read.) Now, if only we could agree on what the essential are!
</idle musing>

Reclaiming Pietism

Roger Olson has a long, but very much worthwhile, post on reclaiming pietism. Here's a nice little snippet, but do read the whole thing; I doubt you will regret it!

According to Spener and all Pietists, the gospel aims at transformation of the inner man; it is not enough for the outer man to confess doctrines correctly or practice charity or engage rightly in sacraments and liturgy. If the inner man of the person is not transformed by the Word and Spirit, all those activities of the outer man, though performed to perfection, are useless.

And, a bit further down:

Too often pastors and congregational leaders are so frightened of fanaticism and religious weirdness that they back away entirely from the whole idea of experiencing God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. But this is to ignore the natural craving to feel something and be changed that lies deep within the human breast. We are not made to live by doctrines and ceremonies alone; while we are shoving religious experience (except perhaps a quiet Yoga meditation class in the basement) out the door, people are seeking spiritual experience wherever they can find it. Pietism insists that authentic Christianity will always include an appeal to affections and not only intellect or will. Pietist scholar Hansgünter Ludewig’s description of Pietist Gerhard Tersteegen (1697-1769) well expresses the longing of most, if not every, human heart: “His quest was less for a gracious God than for the presence of God. He desired to know by living experience that God is with him.” Many, if not most, people today are, like Tersteegen, less concerned about issues of guilt and justification than about issues of God’s personal presence with and in them. Pietism points the way toward a non-fanatical, experiential Christianity that brings transformation and assurance through a personal relationship with God that is felt and not only promised.

And, near the end:

Pietism aims at the inward transformation of the affections leading to change of the will resulting in acts of compassion.  Too often our churches try to manipulate congregants into giving and working because there is no inner impulse giving rise gratefully and voluntarily to these practices.  A dose of spiritual experience brought about through repentance and faith in response to powerful preaching of the cross just might result in more kingdom building than all the appeals we make in our newsletters and from our pulpits.

<idle musing>
Sounds like a good, biblically based, definition of true Christianity to me, with a healthy dose of Holy Spirit transformation that results in a natural concern for the community around them...We could use a good bit of that, don't you think?
</idle musing>

Systemic evil

“Most of the time systemic evil is simpler and more subtle. Failing schools and inadequate police protection in poor neighborhoods is far more common. It is often the result of unjust neglect. Our political and economic systems do not listen to people without money and other forms of social power. The residents of poor communities do not have either the influence or the skills to attract more private and public resources to come into their community. They need help, but it can't come merely in the form of relief and development. Someone must resist and change the legal, political, and social systems.”— Generous Justice, pages 129-130

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! No need for a conspiracy theory, just follow the money...no money, no power in this world's system.
</idle musing>

Worship--again

Scot McKnight makes an important observation about worship:

But “belief” is not “worship,” and so Volf carefully spells out the meaning of “worship”: and here he departs from the populist mode of thinking, which sees worship as raising hands in a “worship” service and expands the word to its biblical proportions: it is how we live. What we worship and how we worship tell us who our God is. I totally agree with him here: our worship reveals our God.

<idle musing>
This is huge. In our culture of intellectual assent to a set of doctrines, or “feel-good” music sessions (commonly called worship!), we need to recapture the essence of worship. Someone may say they worship Jesus, but what does their life show? What does my life show? If it doesn't reflect Jesus, then something is wrong!
</idle musing>

Serving...or controlling?

“It is difficult not to think of the elder brother in Jesus's parable of the prodigal son. The people God addresses, like the elder brother, complain that God is not doing their will, and that they deserve his support since they have been so obedient. But the truth is that their obedience is only formal and external; it is filled with self-righteousness and is motivated by a desire to control God, not actually serve him. Such people show they are complying with religious observances as a way of 'getting ahead' with God and others. This deadly spiritual condition shows itself in a lack of loving service toward others, and particularly an indifference to the poor.”— Generous Justice, pages 96-97

<idle musing>
This sounds like his book The Prodigal God, which I blogged through a while back. Still true today.
</idle musing>

Whose advantage?

“Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke concludes, after studying both the word mishpat and its kindred word tzadeqah (righteousness), that in the Old Testament

the righteous [tzaddiq]...are willing to disadvantage themselves to advantage the community; the wicked are willing to disadvantage the community to advantage themselves.”

— Generous Justice, page 90

<idle musing>
Wow! That is a heavy thought and a high calling. Am I willing to disadvantage myself for the advantage of the community? If I have the mind of Christ, I should be...
</idle musing>

So that's what e-readers are for!

Here is the source—a great librarians (and booksellers, too!) strip.

It's all a gift

“...God gave humanity authority over the world's resources but not ownership. We have received what we have in the way a fund manager receives other people's money to invest, or as, in ancient times, the steward of an estate received his authority over the estate. The steward of a great estate lived comfortably and enjoyed the fruits of his labor, but he never made the mistake of thinking that the wealth under his care was all his. He was tasked to manage it in a way that pleased the owner and was fair to his fellow servants.

“This concept is counterintuitive for most Americans. We believe that if we have had success in life, it is mainly the result of our own hard work, and we therefore have an absolute right to use our money as we see fit. But while the Bible agrees industriousness or the lack of it is an irreplaceable part of why you are successful or not (Proverbs 6:9-11; 10:4), it is never the main reason...In short, all your resources are in the end the gift of God.”— Generous Justice, pages 88-89

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! We are called to use our resources wisely—all of them—and for the furtherance of God's kingdom, not our own. Reminds me of a recent post with a quotation from Finney.

I wonder how Keller would feel if he knew I just tied him to Finney :)
</idle musing>

Knowing versus doing

“You could make a good argument that our problem in society today is not that people don't know they should share with others and help the poor. Most people do know and believe this. The real problem is that, while knowing it, they are insufficiently motivated to actually do it.”— Generous Justice, page 79

<idle musing>
Too true...it is easy to give assent to it and say a little prayer—and then go on with life as if that took care of everything. James says something about that:
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?"—James 2:15-16 TNIV
The Greek looks like this:
ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν· ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος, τί τὸ ὄφελος;
</idle musing>