Books!

While we were away visiting Debbie's parents, IVP Academic was kind enough to send me the following books. You'll be seeing excerpts and a review of each in the next month or so (deo volente):

The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction by Roger E. Olson

The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority by John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy

Different paradigm

As far as Gen 1–11 protohistory was concerned, the Israelites “did history” in ways similar to other ancient Near Eastern cultures because it was part of their common cultural heritage—this common way of doing history was the result of the common ancient cognitive environment. The importance of this for our purposes is the way the ancients, and by association the Israelites (in this section of Genesis), did history was through the medium of myth. They “did indeed make it their practice to express their speculations about world forces and their situation amid them by means of very sophisticated compilations of mythological motifs and patterns.” In other words, the ancient mind tended to (as we would describe it today) mythologize their past. That is, they speculated about their past in mythological terms. Kitchen rightly observes that in the ancient Near East they “did not historicize myth (i.e., read it as an imaginary ‘history’). In fact, exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather, a trend to ‘mythologize’ history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.” Furthermore, our modern tendency to separate myth from history would be a completely foreign notion to them—that was not the way they “did history.” Again, all of this should make perfect sense in light of the values and concerns of ancient history writing discussed above. Mythological language was the perfect means by which to communicate the relevance of such weighty historical matters.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 48-49

<idle musing>
We need to learn to let the text speak for itself. We have tried for too long to squeeze scripture into our Western, mechanistic materialism mold. It doesn't work!
</idle musing>

Ride those bicycles!

Via Mother Earth News:
For a given journey, the energy consumed by a driver is at least 42 times more than by a cyclist, a bus passenger uses 34 times as much, and a train passenger 27 times as much. The cyclist requires less space than all but the train passenger and pedestrian. For journeys of up to 6 miles (10 km), the bike is definitely best for both rider and the planet. In terms of lifespan, life-cycle analysis at MIT shows that the bicycle consumes the lowest energy per passenger-mile across its entire life, compared to other forms of transport.

<idle musing>
And that doesn't include the health benefits, which save how many $$ because it's hard to be obese when you ride a bike : )
</idle musing>

Myth defined

Myth is therefore more rightly defined as a reflection on the human world (immediate to the author) “by describing or imaging creative analogies between the circumstances and experiences of human beings in the world and beliefs about the world of the gods.” Here, we find the “analogical thinking” that Averbeck has mentioned. Mythological analogical thinking is the tendency of the ancient mind to relate their beliefs about the distant past (a usual subject of mythological writing) in terms more familiar to them. That is, they tended to analogize known elements from their world around them in order to explain the unknown (or lesser known) elements of their past.— Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 46-47

<idle musing>
Or, as a seminary professor of mine said, "reasoning from the given to the divine." We still do that, but we don't call it myth anymore...
</idle musing>

iOS 7.04 woes

A while back I posted about my woes with iOS 7 and my iPad . Since then I have figured out a bit more of what's going on. As long as the iPad is plugged into either a power outlet or computer, it will come back on when you push the home button. Considering this is supposed to be a mobile device, that kind of puts the skids on it, doesn't it?

Anyway, if it isn't plugged into some power source, the screen is supposed to go black to save battery power. If it is allowed to do so, it goes into recovery mode. Usually you can get it back by holding the home and power keys at the same time until the Apple logo shows up. But not always right away; sometimes it takes dancing on the keys a bit and waiting around. Sometimes I plug it into the laptop and let it go through the restore—it doesn't really restore though. The Apple logo shows up on the iPad, then the progress bar quickly moves to finished—and it sits there, and sits there, and...well, you get the idea. The only thing to do is kill it by holding down the home and power buttons at the same time until the power goes off. Then, I can usually get it to come back by holding down the power and home buttons at the same time.

Unless, of course, it is an iOS software update...up until last night, I have always been able to get it to come back after an iOS update, but it would take a bit longer. This time, iOS 7.0.4, it won't come back. I can get the Apple logo to come up and the progress bar runs to done. But when I kill the power, I can't get it to come back. At all. Unless I run it through recovery mode; but then it freezes at the progress bar being done.

I've been messing with this for almost 24 hours and it's getting old...there doesn't seem to be any answers on the support forum and Google isn't being terribly helpful, either...

I'm sure it is a software issue; it only started happening with iOS 7. And it only happens when the software does the power shut off—unless it is an iOS update.

Anybody got any ideas? Otherwise, I just have an expensive paperweight...bummer!

It's in the mindset

Myth, however, is a different way of thinking from that of science, similar to the way that the ancient notion of history is different from our modern conception, so concerned with facts. “At all events,” Fawcett says, “it has become clear that myth and science work in two quite different areas of human concern and that a comparison of the two is misleading rather than enlightening.” As a possible example from the Hebrew Bible, it seems most unlikely that the ancient author of Gen 1:1–2:4 was concerned at all with disproving our entirely modern theory of evolution. As obvious as that may seem to many, certain schools of thought persist in wrongly defending this as a focus and concern of the ancient text.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 46

<idle musing>
We take our preconceptions and our issues to the text—probably via a concordance—and come out with the answers we already wanted. That's not inductive Bible study!

We need to let the text dictate to us. Granted, that's harder and requires real humility. We have to be willing to admit we are/were wrong. We have to be willing to let the Holy Spirit transform our thinking and consequently our life. But isn't that what Romans 12:2 is saying?

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

</idle musing>

Myth

From Xenophanes onward, then, the concept of myth has been misunderstood and misrepresented. The shift in thought favoring logic and reason has affected us to this day, to the end that when someone declares something to be “mythical” it is tantamount to saying that it is “untrue.” This, as Doty says, is a result of the “heavy burden of our cultural background” upon us that causes us to give myth the sense “unreal” or “fictional.” Myth has become a disparaging term that suggests an immediate dismissal of the account as credible or reliable. In the field of biblical studies, to be sure, many scholars perpetuate this unfortunate misconception by equating myth with fiction. Garbini, as one example of this sense, speaks of the Hebrew Bible as “a mythic reconstruction of Israel’s past.” It is understandable, then, how the term myth has come to be so sharply contrasted with the modern critical (scientific) notion of history as well. All of this is a logical consequence of equating myth with fiction.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 44-45

It's a matter of perspective

He [Averback] suggests that the underlying problem for us today is that we require an explanation for the presence of myth or legend in a historical work in the first place. The ancients would have understood this to be normal, whereas we today do not.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 44

<idle musing>
Indeed! Postmodernism has helped a bit, but we still tend to read everything through a mechanistic materialism viewpoint. Cold logical positivism is our default method. That doesn't leave much room for a more mythopoetic reading of things...
</idle musing>

What's the point?

J. Glassner says that the accuracy of chronological material in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions “did not matter much” to the ancient historian. Rather, the point was that chronologies, inaccurate as they may have been, put things in proper perspective for author and audience. That is, the historian’s interpretation and, in a sense, “use” of the past lent credibility and meaning to a present reality, and that was its purpose. This was its significance. We may not dismiss or exclude those historical accounts that are (by our standards) inaccurate, for that is to miss the point of ancient Near Eastern history writing entirely. Neither may we dismiss ancient history that speaks of the world of the gods and their involvement in human affairs, for this too misses the point.— Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 41

No atheists

To begin, it is important to understand that the cognitive environment of the Near East was “thoroughly transcendent.” That is, deity and a desire to make sense of the divine realm were central to almost all thought and writing in the ancient world. This of course directly applies to ancient history writing in that most accounts were concerned in some way with the divine role in history. “History,” to the Near Eastern mind, was considered “the doings of the deity revealing the will of the deity.” [Walton] If this is true, history, and the task of writing history, was important not because it recounted events of the past with any accuracy (though it may have to varying degrees), but because it assigned meaning and purpose to the present by orienting author and audience properly to deity.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 40

Bridging the gap

The Bible reader’s role is further complicated by the fact that he or she today is significantly removed from the author’s original, intended audience. Indeed, a dominant premise of this study is that there actually is such a temporal divide between today’s audience and an original audience and also that this divide needs to and can be bridged. This is the end in mind when attempting to reconstruct the ancient cognitive environment surrounding our passage in Genesis. We are trying to reconstruct, in other words, the “givens” of the particular cognitive environment that the author and original audience shared.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 27

The power of preconceptions

One final caveat: an interpreter’s preliminary generic conception will color all that is subsequently understood until, somehow, that conception is changed. In the case of the text of Genesis, when an interpreter’s religious values may also be intertwined with the interpretive process, the issue can become even more complex—it becomes all the more difficult for one’s generic conceptions to be altered. All too often, it seems, interpreters’ preliminary generic conceptions of the text (or, religious import) blind them to generic signals in the text. It is a difficult task, then, religious or not, to become alert to a text’s generic signals, referential ambition, and truth claims. We must do our best to allow the text to speak for itself. —Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 20-21

<idle musing>
Virtually impossible as it is...Personally, I think it is only the power of the Holy Spirit that can blast through our preconceptions—and we have to be willing to let it happen. I don't know very many people who are willing to have their preconceptions altered...

It's a miracle that communication happens at all, isn't it?
</idle musing>

The gospel

Good thoughts from Scot McKnight on the Sermon on the Mount:

Some don’t see gospel in the Sermon on the Mount because they are looking for the wrong thing: the plan for personal salvation.

<idle musing>
Amen to that! I've run across that quite a bit lately in my reading. One of the problems with the evangelical church in the U.S. is that the gospel has become nothing but a ticket to heaven once you die. In the meantime, it's every person for him/herself. God is way off there someplace; he's given us the Bible so we can figure it out, but it's up to us.

That is not the gospel. That is Pelagianism (a heresy that said we can work our way to heaven and be righteous on our own strength)! The gospel is about God transforming us and communing with us via the Holy Spirit.
</idle musing>

Myth? or History?

[W]e should not confine ourselves to the traditional generic (form critical) categories myth, history, legend, folklore, and so on when speaking of Gen 1–11. This section of Genesis is inherently more complex than any of these categories could adequately account for, due in part to the apparent blending of genres found within it. For example, the language in places appears mythological, though at the same time seems to consider what it is communicating to be historical. Is this myth or history? At times certain names appear to be highly symbolic, and elsewhere they seem to be used more conventionally. Is it literal or symbolic language? Must we choose between the two genres in each of these examples? Could we rather deal with the data in an open and honest way and practice generic nominalism? The following sections will demonstrate, among other things, that the ancient mind often made much less of the distinctions between myth and history and also between the literal and the figurative than we do today. —Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 16-17

Watch out!

We're starting a new book today:

Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11
Reading Genesis 4:17-22 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Background
Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement - BBRSup 7
by Daniel DeWitt Lowery
Eisenbrauns, 2013
Pp. xii + 284, English
Hard cover, 6 x 9 inches
ISBN: 9781575068169
List Price: $47.50
Your Price: $42.75
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/LOWTOWARD

As our understanding of ancient materials advances, we find that the concerns of the text—being ancient itself—might be slightly other than what we had once thought. This becomes a safeguard for us today, as recognizing the ancient questions and concerns allows us to avoid reading back into Genesis what Longman calls our own “modern scientific perspectives and questions."—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 12

too cool

We're at Debbie's parents right now, and Debbie's dad pointed this out to me today in the paper, the world's largest camera:

The camera is 35 feet long! You can read the full article here.

True peace...

It is built on the foundations of the apostles (Rev 21:14), not on the foundations of violence or greed, but on the gospel of the truth of God. The new city exists to bring peace and healing to the nations (Rev 22:2), rather than to establish “peace” by controlling, dominating, and subduing. The city faces no threat (the gates are never shut, Rev 21:25). Military conquest, international strife, struggles for maintaining a balance of power, are all done away with in this vision. Resources are expended no longer in futile wars and power struggles but rather for the well-being of all.— Unholy Allegiances, pages 124-125

<idle musing>
Even so, come Lord Jesus!

That's the final snippet from this book. I encourage you to read it all; it will repay your effort.
</idle musing>

A challenge

John faithfully portrays a facet of God that many find distasteful, a facet that, though reflected throughout the Scriptures of both testaments, many exclude from the image of the God they worship. Nevertheless, John's proclamation challenges us to ask, if we are to worship the God known in the whole counsel of Scripture, whether we might stand in need of recovering a reasonable fear of God, a healthy respect for God's justice and God's power that will keep a fire kindled within us to get in line with God's agenda sooner rather than later, more rather than less, to the degree that God merits rather than to the degree we can comfortably accommodate. John's emphasis on judgment—and that primarily in terms of what we have done rather than what we have believed—challenges us to examine whether we are really hearing and heeding the words of Jesus when he said, “What's the use of calling me 'Lord' if you don't do what I tell you?”— Unholy Allegiances, page 124

<idle musing>
Ouch. I would sometimes prefer the comfortable God over the real one...but that's not what God calls us to. He demands all of us that we might know all of him.

When I stop to think about it, we're getting the better end of the deal! Of course, if you have a distorted view of who God is (and we all do to an extent), then you might not realize you're getting the better end of the deal...
</idle musing>

Wake up!

John's proclamation of a God who opposes domination systems challenges hearers in every age to examine themselves and their practices lest they be found among those who profit from and are privileged by the same, and who will therefore receive their share in God's judgment of the same. Rather, Christ-followers are called to take up their stand alongside God, God's prophets like John, and Jesus himself against the practices that interfere with God's good vision for all people—those practices that safeguard the interests of some at the expense of others.— Unholy Allegiances, page 111

<idle musing>
May we hear the call and take our stand! Lord, show us how to do it! Show us where we are so inculturated that we don't even know we are a part of the system!
</idle musing>

Blind mice

The label “domination system” has come to be applied to systemic social arrangements that institutionalize unequal power relationships and that use those power relationships in the interest of the empowered, often to the detriment of the less empowered or unempowered. Domination systems are the standard operating modes of societies that have ordered themselves around the goals of securing the privilege of the few, or the pursuit of wealth or power by the few, as the highest considerations. Such orderings of a society lead inevitably to the disregard for the fair distribution of this world's goods and to disregard for the socially, politically, and economically vulnerable. These systems develop their own “logic” into which they typically indoctrinate all participants, so that ongoing commitment to the system is assured even by those who are most disadvantaged by the system. They are also often accompanied by ideologies of self-aggrandizement, if not self-worship, that also serve to mask the costs of the systems in terms of human suffering and dignity.— Unholy Allegiances, pages 108-109

<idle musing>
If that doesn't describe the U.S. today, then it doesn't describe anybody! And it all stands under the judgment of God...Lord, remove our blinders that we might see how you want us to live!
</idle musing>

Good theology

Interesting post I ran across today (not sure where I saw it) about a person who left the Anglican Communion to become Orthodox and then left it after 2 years. Here's the part that drew me, as I can strongly identify with it:

I was drawn to the Orthodox Faith because of it’s faithfulness to the ancient understandings of the Faith. My theology is very heavily informed by the theology of the Orthodox Church. I understand sin as bondage and sickness rather than as transgression. As a result, I have an Orthodox transformative understanding of salvation rather than a judicial one, meaning that the real object of salvation is God effecting an inner change in us. Again, the model of atonement I have is an Orthodox one of recapitulation, rather than appeasement. In other words, the need for the atonement was not to satisfy a need God had for punishment, but rather to recreate in us the image of God that we had lost, and to free us from the bondage of sin. I also share with the Orthodox church the focus on theosis – our participation in the divine life which changes us into the likeness of Christ. In that sense I see salvation not as a one time act, but as a growing relationship with God. I also am certain that the Orthodox church is right in their understanding of original sin, not as inherited guilt, but as our inheriting the consequences of living in a sinful world.

<idle musing>
Good stuff. I agree with these aspects of the Eastern Orthodox faith, but have a hard time with all the added stuff...probably the same reason I could never be a part of a "high" church—I'm too much a product of the Jesus Movement and house church culture of the early 1970s...
</idle musing>

Everyday Worship

It is important to qualify this, however, by saying that a “worship service” is not the same as “worship.” A worship service fits into the realities of Monday thorough Saturday (and may even be dull by comparison), but worship puts one in touch with the realities that change Monday through Saturday. Entering into this kind of genuine worship is not as simple as choosing one music style over another, or seeking one emotional effect rather than another. Indeed, where the conversation centers on these externals, people seeking life-changing worship are barking up the wrong tree entirely. Rather, it involves becoming so fully aware of God's presence, character, and power that worship is the natural response of ourselves and those around us.— Unholy Allegiances, pages 99-100

<idle musing>
Amen! The "worship wars" show just exactly how wrong-headed we are...only the grace of God through the Holy Spirit can open our eyes to true worship. And true worship flows out of a transformed life on a daily basis.
</idle musing>

Image of God?

Fascinating idea about the image of God at Peter Leithart's blog Note especially the last paragraph:

"Why don’t we spring from the earth full grown, or at least with enough vitality to fend for ourselves? The answer must lie in the fact that human beings are made in the image of God, which in this case means two things: First, to be the image of God is to be a being in need of other beings, to be essentially a member of a community; autonomous animals are lesser precisely in their autonomy. Second, to be image of God means that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, individual development anticipates and recapitulates the history of the race, from infancy to sonship to adulthood (Galatians 3-4)."

<idle musing>
Interesting idea, isn't it? If the Trinity is relational—and I believe it is—then it makes sense that humanity comes into the world in need of a relationship to survive. And it is especially appropriate that it is a relationship of total dependence! Not I but Christ...
</idle musing>

Affliction goes both ways

Even more problematic for John are those congregations that seem to coexist all too peaceably with their neighbors in the shadow of Rome. There is not a hint that the Christians in Sardis and Laodicea have experienced rejection by their neighbors. Indeed, the indictment of these churches appears to stem from the fact that they blend in all too well and mingle all too effectively with the partners of Rome and worshipers of idols all around them. As we think about the diversity of the congregations John addresses, we should always bear in mind that John is equally interested in comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.— Unholy Allegiances, page 86

<idle musing>
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11-12

"Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets." Luke 6:26

That about sums up God's view, doesn't it? Of course our response to this is love:
"Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." I Peter 3:13-16
</idle musing>

Where does our allegiance lie?

If, with John, we know Jesus as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” and as the “one who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, who made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father,” our primary identity will be rooted in our place in the kingdom of God, which we share with the redeemed from every people, tribe, nation, and language group. It will not be rooted in some national or political body constructed by human beings and their party lines. Our primary allegiance will be to this One Lord and One God in every aspect of our lives, out of gratitude for our costly redemption and in acknowledgement that we have been made part of a very real political entity whose head is Christ.— Unholy Allegiances, page 82

<idle musing>
I've been reading Bonheoffer the Assassin?. This excerpt fits in very well with what they are saying about the transformation of Bonhoeffer's thinking. He began (in 1929) as a typical nationalistic German, but by the mid-1930s he had realized, through an encounter with the Jesus of the gospels, that the church transcends national and political allegiances...
</idle musing>

Here's the rub

Again because of our immersion, often from birth, in the assumptions, values, goals, and practices of our own society and its systems, we have a tendency to domesticate the voice of Scripture so that Scripture can live in the house that we have built in our society, rather than invite Scripture to tell us how to rebuild the house from new foundations. One strategy for pushing past this is to be particularly attentive to the places where Jesus, Paul, James, or John rubs us the wrong way. Where do we say, in response to something we're reading in the New Testament, “No, he can't possibly mean that”? Where do we jump to find some consideration that will blunt the force of the challenge or demand the text poses, so that we can move on without letting that word change the way we think, live, or relate to others? Where do we find ourselves making excuses for our country (“Nations have to do that kind of thing”) or for ourselves (“We've got to be practical as well, and not get carried away with this religion stuff”)?— Unholy Allegiances, page 72

<idle musing>
Good advice. If we think Jesus couldn't possibly have meant that, there's a good possibility that is exactly what he meant and you've just discovered an idol...
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

You can be straight as a gun barrel theologically and as empty as one spiritually.—A.W. Tozer

The goal of theology

The Psalms portray Israel at prayer. And it is when we pray that we find out what we really believe, what our theology actually is. Furthermore, true theology ought to end in prayer. If theology is the study of God, the knowledge of God, and if God is God, then the end of our study ought to be worship. If it is not, if it has been only a study about a subject and our thoughts on that subject, that is idolatry; I have made God a thing. It does not matter how accurate my thought is; if it does not bring me to Him as a living Person, I have only found a substitute for Him, a knowledge of something other than God. When one comes to know the true God, the only response is, in the language of the Old Testament, fearful worship. I do not mean fearful in the sense of craven terror, but rather a deep-seated awe that you have come into the presence of the Holy One of Israel, the Creator and Lord of all. In every one of those passages in the Scripture where we find a person meeting God, that response of fearful worship is always there. Whether it is Isaiah or Moses, or whether is it Paul on the road to Damascus or John on the island of Patmos, there it is. So in your study, whatever else you look for, look for God. You will know that you have found him if you find yourself on your face before him.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 15-16

<idle musing>
That's taken from a sneak peak of the book online; I'm going to have to get it via interlibrary loan, but I suspect I'll end up buying it. Kinlaw and Oswalt (he edited it) were both professors of mine while in seminary. Good stuff...watch for more excerpts once I manage to snag a copy—which won't be until December, probably.

I did a paper for Kinlaw on theophanies for his Old Testament Theology course. Life-changing stuff...
</idle musing>

How do we respond?

Exerting control and maintaining peace through violent suppression of dissent; promoting an economy arranged for the great benefit of the few; the prominent use of religious language and ritual to legitimate these arrangements—this is both the genius of Rome and the heap of her sins for which John excoriates her. To enter into partnership with Rome is to fall victim to its deceit (Rev 18:23), which intoxicates the ignorant (Rev 17:2), and thus to be united with her in her sins and their punishment at the hands of the just and judging God.— Unholy Allegiances, page 70

<idle musing>
Substitute the U.S. for Rome and you have the current state of affairs. As I asked on Saturday, what should our response as Christians who live in the U.S. be?

I still don't have an answer that fully satisfies, but I firmly believe we need to model lives that are full of the Holy Spirit. That means loving those who hate us, embracing those who are scorned by society, living lives of conspicuous nonconsumption in contrast to the conspicuous consumption of society. The list could be expanded, but the bottom line is probably summarized best by what Scot McKnight calls the Jesus Creed: Love God and love others...
</idle musing>

Share the responsibility

The wealth to be enjoyed by participating in the larger global economy was, as far as John was concerned, a dangerous lure toward sharing in the violence and political injustice that undergirded such an economy, as well as sharing in the economic injustice that allowed the resources and produce of the provinces to be siphoned off to satisfy the immoderate cravings of Rome's inhabitants and worldwide elite. John understood long before the modern era that a person cannot share in the profits of domination without also sharing in responsibility for its crimes.— Unholy Allegiances, pages 68-69

<idle musing>
John understood long before the modern era that a person cannot share in the profits of domination without also sharing in responsibility for its crimes.

Food for thought, isn't it? How do we respond to the rampant consumerism of the world around us? How do we respond to the conspicuous consumption that floods our culture? These are honest questions on my part. I grapple with this everyday.

One way we can respond is by being the opposite of what the culture around us is. If it is greedy, we should be generous. If it is selfish, we should be selfless. If it is controlling and power hungry, we should be open and humble. This response disarms the spirits behind the behavior.

What do you think?
</idle musing>

Rome unveiled

John calls attention to the parasitic side of the Roman imperial economy, countering any feelings of gratitude toward Rome by drawing attention to the pervasive self-interest that underlies Roman rule. Roma [the goddess] is an anti-benefactor, whose influence and interventions ultimately seek to secure self-serving ends. John includes no notice of anything Rome has done purely on behalf of her subjects. The emphasis on luxury, intemperance, and conspicuous consumption also nurtures indignation, as Rome is seen to consume more of the world's good than any one city, enjoying more than is due—and this often to the detriment of the provinces under her far-from-beneficent rule. If Rome brings prosperity, she does so only to the merchants and shipmasters and others who profit (or profiteer) as they direct the world's wealth and resources to her ravenous maw.— Unholy Allegiances, pages 67-68

<idle musing>
Ouch! There goes all the wonderful marketing, right out the window. John sees things as they really are—now let's turn that same light on the U.S. today...how does the U.S. differ from Rome of John's day? Exactly; it doesn't...
</idle musing>

Looking behind the curtain

John helps his audiences to look at Rome and Roman imperialism especially through the lens of the Hebrew prophets, who had long ago spoken against the self-serving practices of empires as contrary to God's good will for human beings in every nation. In particular, he accuses Rome of (1) violence against dissenters, especially against Jews and Christians; (2) economic exploitation, nurturing a system that caters to the luxury of the powerful at the expense of the many; and (3) idolatrous presumption in its claims on its own behalf. John develops each of theses in such a way as to arouse indignation against Roman imperialism, supporting his call to Christians to keep themselves free from supporting or participating in such an unjust system of domination.— Unholy Allegiances, page 65

<idle musing>
Anybody else see the United States in that description, at least in numbers 2 & 3? Think 1% controlling 40% of the wealth. Think "American exceptionalism" which is just a variation of the 19th century's "white man's burden."
</idle musing>

For each and every

It's been a while since I posted some Finney, so here's a good one:

We are not to suppose that He died for the sum total of mankind in such a sense that His death is not truly for each one in particular. It is a great mistake into which some fall, to suppose that Christ died for the race in general, and not for each one in particular. By this mistake, the Gospel is likely to lose much of its practical power on our hearts. We need to apprehend it is Paul did, who said of Jesus Christ, "He loved me and gave Himself for me."—Charles Finney

It depends on your viewpoint

[According to John in Revelation] The emperors themselves are not pious figures or mediators of divine favor, as the public image of them declares. Rather, they are founts of blasphemy against God (Rev 13:1, 5, 6). The emperor's divine titles (typically including “son of a god,” divi filius) are illegitimate, the “names of blasphemy” that offend the Most High. Flattering courtiers of Rome and local authorities in Asia Minor addressed their emperors as “lord and God”: what was for most of Asia Minor a matter of gratitude and welcome security was, for John, an insult to the one Lord and one God in the highest degree. Indeed, many of the titles ascribed to God and the Lamb throughout Revelation are stolen back by John from the emperor for the True God and for Christ throughout Revelation.— Unholy Allegiances, page 44

<idle musing>
How you see the reigning powers depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? May we all have the viewpoint of John: centered on the Lamb. Then we will be able to see clearly; our vision won't be distorted by incorrect priorities and desires.

Even so, come Lord Jesus!
</idle musing>

The center of our lives

The vision of all creation centered in worship and obedient waiting upon God and God's Messiah invites us first of all into the experience of God's throne as the pivotal center of our lives, prompting us to make this the focal point of our corporate worship and our personal prayer and meditation. John calls us to center ourselves, and to remain centered, here. This centering for John does not belong to the fleeting moments of structured times of worship, however. It is the business of God's creatures “day and night without rest” (4:8), which for human beings must mean bringing every facet of life into orbit around the enthroned God, centered on God, on God's prompting, on God's service. In John's vision of the cosmos, there is no room for gathering around God's throne at one time as one's cosmic center and at another time in the fellowship of idols and their worshipers.— Unholy Allegiances, page 42

<idle musing>
Indeed! Serving God is an all-consuming business. Take a look at today's Jesus Creed for a good bit of commentary on that. The "two kingdoms" model is bogus—and I'm being generous! Either Jesus as the Lamb of God is LORD or he isn't. You can't choose to have him lord in one area without allowing him to be lord of all areas of your life.
</idle musing>

The center of the universe

John's visions begin at the center of John's universe, at the very throne of God (4:2). The way John unfolds hist vision of the cosmos is rhetorically significant. Many modern readers jump to the dragon and beasts as the focal point of interest; but for John the key figures in this drama are not the “bad guys.” God and the Lamb, not the beast, occupy the center stage. This is in itself an attack on Roman imperial ideology, which depicted the emperor (and the gods that give him his power) at the center of the conceptual universe.— Unholy Allegiances, pages 36-37

<idle musing>
Why do we seem to always focus on the "bad guy" in the modern world? John had it right—focus on God!
</idle musing>

Repentance

...sin has been so ingrained into our minds that we are unable to repent and have to repent even of the kind of repentance we bring before God.— The Mediation of Christ, page 95

<idle musing>
Pretty hopeless, isn't it? That's why we need the grace of God!

That's the final excerpt from this book. It's got more, but I got it through interlibrary loan and the time ran out before I could transcribe all of them...such is the time pressure of the cabins in the summer : )

Next up will be Unholy Allegiances from Hendrickson (thanks Bobby!). Stay tuned...
</idle musing>

I wish...

Discovered via Out of Ur:

Minutes before the end of John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference, with attendees all together in the convention hall, suddenly there was a sound like the rush of a giant wind, which filled the entire auditorium where they were seated. People reported seeing flashes of fire that subdivided and landed on each person. Everyone was filled with the Holy Spirit, and began speaking in other languages as the Spirit empowered them.

Conference delegates included people from other nations who were baffled by the sound of their mother tongues being spoken. Amazed, they asked, ‘Aren’t all these people Americans? How then are we hearing them in the national languages of our countries?’ Confused, they started saying, ‘What the heck is going on?’

Some, however said perhaps after three days of this, some of them had a few drinks during the Friday supper break.

Then John MacArthur stood up and went to the microphone and addressed the crowd.
“Well,” he said; “This is ironic.”— Thinking Out Loud

A problem with forensic theories of the atonement

...if Jesus is a substitute in detachment from us, who simply acts in our stead in an external, formal or forensic way, then his response has no ontological bearing upon us but is an empty transaction over our heads, A merely representative or a merely substitutionary concept of vicarious mediation is bereft of any actual saving significance.— The Mediation of Christ, page 90

<idle musing>
Brains on a stick...by the way, that phrase comes from something I read a couple of years ago by a Calvin College Philosophy professor. A little help from Google and I see his name is James Smith...
<idle musing>

Brains on a stick

The human heart is so desperately wicked that it cunningly takes advantage of the hiatus between what we are and what we ought to be in order to latch on to the patterns and structures of moral behaviour required of us, so that under the image of what is good and right it masks or even fortifies its evil intentions. Such is the self-deception of our human heart and the depravity of our self-will that we seek to justify ourselves before God and our neighbours by a formal, impersonal fulfillment of the divine law in which we remain untouched in ourselves and uncommitted in our own persons.— The Mediation of Christ, page 81

<idle musing>
yep...
</idle musing>

Preconceptions and their impact on our findings

Interesting post over at Black, White and Gray, a blog by some Christian sociologists:

This gets us back to thinking about the institution of science. What is true for the individual can be even truer in a community that reinforces previously accepted corporate assumptions. Thomas Kuhn argued that scientists develop paradigms based on previous ideas. This paradigm is accepted and defended until it reaches a point when there is so much disconfirming evidence that it becomes nearly logically impossible to believe in the paradigm. But usually the paradigm goes relatively unchallenged and scientists attempt to defend it against all attacks. According to Kuhn, the normal state of affairs is scientists fighting to maintain the paradigm against all attacks instead of looking for all possible answers to research questions. We like to think of scientists as individuals open to all possible answers. But the result of the article reinforces the reality that scientists, like others, when looking for answers to research questions tend to look for those that fit their presuppositions.

<idle musing>
Read the whole thing to get the full context. But, in a nutshell, it is very hard (and draining) to look beyond your presuppositions—and the Internet makes it even harder! You can search for what you want to find, thereby short-circuiting any semblance of critical thinking. It's definitely easier and makes you feel like you did real research, but the whole time you were simply looking for confirmation of your preconceptions. I've done it far too often : (

I'm convinced only the Holy Spirit can break through our preconceptions...
</idle musing>

Is he mad?

Fearful anxiety arises in the human heart when people cannot connect Jesus up in their faith or understanding with the ultimate Being of God, for then the ultimate Being of God can be to them only a dark, inscrutable, arbitrary Deity whom they inevitably think of with terror for their guilty conscience makes them paint harsh angry streaks upon his face.— The Mediation of Christ, page 70

<idle musing>
Again, I ask, "Is he mad at us?" Some theologies would have us believe that God is mad at us, but the Biblical picture is dramatically different! Praise God for that!
</idle musing>

A hidden god?

To claim that Jesus Christ is not God himself become man for us and our salvation, is equivalent to saying that God does not love us to the uttermost, that he does not love us to the extent of committing himself to becoming man and uniting himself with us in the Incarnation. But if God's love stops short at becoming one with us, what kind of God would that be whose love is limited but some finite Deity and not the Lord God Almighty. If there is no unbreakable bond of being between Jesus Christ and God, then we are left with a dark inscrutable Deity behind the back of Jesus Christ of whom we can only be terrified.— The Mediation of Christ, pages 69-70

<idle musing>
This is exactly why the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to salvation and to Christianity!
</idle musing>

The hinge

Everything hinges upon the fact that he who became incarnate in Jesus Christ, he who mediates divine revelation and reconciliation to mankind in and through himself, is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God — that is to say, Jesus is to be acknowledged as God in the same sense as the Father is acknowledged as God, for it is in virtue of his Deity that his saving work as man has its validity.— The Mediation of Christ, page 64

<idle musing>
The doctrine of the deity of Christ is no small matter; as Torrance says here, it is the hinge upon which everything—and I mean everything—turns. If Christ isn't the pre-existent Son of the Father, then he can't be our mediator; we're still lost...
</idle musing>

The root of it

That is not, of course, what the world today wants to believe, any more than Jesus' contemporaries in Israel wanted to believe it, for the Cross has the effect of emptying the power-structures that the world loves so much, of their vaunted force. And so people continue trying to make Jesus serve their own ends in the world, thereby 'crucifying' him all over again. Let us be quite frank. Jesus was crucified by the political theology of his own day, but is that not what people, even in the Church, continue to do when under a programme of putting Christian ideals into effect they politicise the role of Jesus in human society and in international relations today? The deadly root of man's inhumanity to man, the source of all human violence, is in the wickedness of the human heart, and it is there that it must be undone.— The Mediation of Christ, page 41

<idle musing>
Appropriate timing...
</idle musing>

Offended by the light

...the mediation of divine revelation through Israel has the effect not only of disclosing something of the nature of God but of disclosing the natural offence to God deeply embedded in the human heart.— The Mediation of Christ, pages 20-21

<idle musing>
He goes on to trace antisemitic behavior to this antipathy. Interesting thought...
</idle musing>

ios 7 woes

I've heard about this on the Internet, but nobody seems to know the answer: Ever since updating to IOS 7, my iPad 2 randomly locks up. I have to press the home and sleep buttons at the same time—and even then it doesn't always come back! It's thrown it into recovery mode 4 times now...

Anybody know what the problem is? Is there a fix out there? Why isn't Apple offering another update to IOS 7?

This time it really died...the Apple logo is on the screen, but it won't move. Won't shutoff, won't respond to plugging into the Macbook...I hate computers!

Update: it came back—again! But this is getting old...

Renewal

To be the bearer of divine revelation is to suffer, and not only to suffer but to be killed and made alive again, and not only to be made alive but to be continually renewed and refashioned under its creative impact.— The Mediation of Christ, page 20

<idle musing>
I borrowed this book from the library via inter-library loan. Great book! I didn't have time to transcribe all the great thoughts in it before I had to return it (busy summer with the cabin work!), but I did finish the book. Maybe someday I'll borrow it again and have time to really absorb all the great stuff. Meanwhile, enjoy the next few days of excerpts...
</idle musing>

Ouch!

From Guy Muses's blog

One of the most common questions I am asked in church planting training is: at what point do we start taking the new believers to church? This question always frustrates me, but I understand the paradigm struggle many face with house churches being "real churches."

The response I am tempted to give is, "what I hear you asking is at what point do we stop making disciples, and allow them to just start attending church services?" Of course, I bite my tongue before saying this, but it reflects the difficulty we have of understanding the who, what, when, where, and why of the true nature of the New Testament ekklesia.

Read the whole post; well worth your time!

Remember when

Remember when Bonhoeffer wasn't an Evangelical?

He isn't, of course; he was a liberal German Lutheran. But he's been "adopted" into the evangelical world, just like C.S. Lewis. But, he wasn't always welcomed by evangelicals; I was warned not to read him in the early-mid 1970s—I was told he was "dangerous." Ain't that the truth! But not for the reasons that person had in mind...

That change got me thinking about changes in general. Here's a few that came to mind:

Did you know that the "Pledge of Allegiance" was written by a socialist?!
Did you know that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge was added in the 1950s to distinguish "godly" America from the "godless" Soviet Union?
Did you know that the Puritans were against the celebration of Christmas? So much for putting the Christ back in Christmas, eh?
Did you know that "In God we trust" has only appeared on paper money since 1957? Check it out!

Book comments

I read When a Nation Forgets God over the weekend. I went into it knowing the politics of the author (typical right-wing Evangelical), so it didn't surprise me that the warnings were mostly about left-wing agendas. As you probably have gathered, I'm not a big "culture wars" proponent—the church did just fine when the Roman Empire was arrayed against it! Nor am I a big fan of the right-wing. OK, that's an understatement! I'm closer to socialist than I am to capitalist...

That being said, there are some good points in the book. He does make a point of saying that God doesn't favor one political or economic system over another. But he does use socialist almost as a swear word—as if capitalism has done a better job of the economy : (

The final chapter is definitely the best. He expounds on the danger of equating nationalism with Christianity. He sees this one of the reasons that the German church was unable to stand against Hitler. I think he's right.

If I had written the book, I would have included a few chapters on the problems of the right-wing agendas. For example, the left may be trying to expunge God from the public square, but the right is fine with him being there as long as he is the nationalistic, cultural god. They want to keep god confined to the U.S.'s interests—in short, God is an American.

I also would have included a chapter on the dangers of unbridled greed (read capitalism). The prophets rail against the greed of the upper class continually—there are more rebukes for exploiting the poor than there are about sexual immorality. Lutzer is silent on that, although he warns against the state. I fear big business more than big government! Big businesses are multinational, which means no government can control them. At least with government, you can either "vote the bums out" or perform a coup (I'm not advocating that!). Try that with a big business...

Hitler came to power promising to restore the values of Germany. Sound familiar? Octavian (Augustus) became emperor (technically, he wasn't called emperor, but he was in fact) promising to restore Roman values. Sound familiar? I haven't done a formal study, but my gut feeling is that more totalitarian regimes have come to power to restore traditional values than the ones promising to transform things in a new direction...

Just an
</idle musing>

The end of the matter is this...

This brings us back to a point I made in the first chapter: Jesus didn't come to hurt us; He came to kill us. If we want to follow Him, we must deny ourselves, crucify the flesh, die to our flesh and selfish desires, and let the Spirit of God live through us. That's what it means to die to self and live to God. Anything less may taste great, but it can't fill the gnawing emptiness in our hearts. We were made for more than painkillers and empty pleasures. We were meant to live an adventure, but first we have to die.— Christianity Lite, page 211-212

<idle musing>
And that's the end of this book. I hope you enjoyed the excerpts enough to read the whole thing.
</idle musing>

A couple good posts

I haven't posted any links to other blogs for a while. Don't take that to mean that I think there haven't been good posts on other blogs! But, this morning I ran across two that I think deserve a wider audience—not that my readership is large enough to make a difference (right, Ted).

On the Simple Church blog:

Although most of us understand that we, as God’s people, are the church, we consistently misuse that term and many others. I remain guilty of this myself. But, the result is that we use language that continuously waters down the true wonder of who we are in Christ and our purpose in Him.

When we say, “I’m going to church,” we are not affirming that we, His people, are His church, His spiritual temple, filled by the Spirit of God in order to take His fragrance everywhere we go. We must regularly declare the truth of who we are in order to fully walk in it!

He goes on to note other ways we misuse the word and why it matters. Good stuff! Read the whole thing, it's short.

And Alan Knox links to a good article that he wrote on "doing" as opposed to "being" in the life of the church:

I know how to do a Bible study. For as long as I can remember – at least from elementary school – I have been in Bible studies. They have had many different names: Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, Discipleship Class, Youth Group, Bible Fellowship. But, they all had something in common: a bunch of people got together to hear someone teach a passage or topic from the Bible...

But, I have also learned something else. Bible studies, participatory church gatherings, and communal serving are very important. However, they often work to segregate our lives into “sacred times” and “regular times.”

Living as the church of Jesus Christ together does not mean holding Bible studies, participatory church gatherings, or service projects. Instead, living as the church of Jesus Christ means sharing our lives together – all of our lives, including the dull times and the messy moments.

Spend time together. Eat together. Talk together. Play together. Work together. Serve together. Study together. Grow together. This is the essence of life in the Spirit of God together as the church of Jesus Christ.

Amen! Do read the whole thing. It's a window into modern american church life—whether house or institutional—and how we fall short of what God desires for us as a body.

It's terminal

If we had an operable cancer but the doctor offered only a painkiller, we'd rightly accuse him of malpractice. We'd walk out of his office and find a doctor who would do the painful surgery to rid us of the disease. It's no different with spiritual cancer. Many people go to churches where the pastor prescribes painkillers instead of exposing ugly, deadly sin. Spiritual sedatives feel good for the moment, but having the courage to be honest is the only way sin can be eradicated. Forgiveness requires truth about two things: the depravity in our hearts and the cleansing blood of Jesus.— Christianity Lite, page 210-211

<idle musing>
And that, my friends, is the gospel in a nutshell. Unfortunately, it seems that people tend to concentrate on either one side or the other. Some only talk about the depravity of humanity and make it sound like there is no hope this side of heaven. Others tend to go light on the depravity and speak only of the cleansing we have in Christ. But without the realization of how deeply depraved we are, we can't fully appreciate the extent of the cleansing. Likewise, if we only concentrate on the depravity, we minimize the power of God. You have to hold the two together—that's the true gospel.
</idle musing>

Envy

From our perspective the broad road often looks very appealing. In fact, many people on the narrow road envy those who are on the broad road. We look at their power, their money, their lavish lifestyles, their beauty, and their prestige, and we long to be just like them. The broad road is the source of unspeakable crimes and abuses, but more often it's subtle: It lures people in with seductive charms. It promises ease, plenty, and power with no cost to them and no sacrifice for others. No wonder it's so attractive! But it's a dead-end street.— Christianity Lite, page 186

<idle musing>
Yep. It's seductive; after all, Satan doesn't come waltzing in saying, "Here, try this. It will kill you." No, he makes it look attractive to the senses. The end results are hidden by the eye-candy of the moment...and far too often it works! : (
</idle musing>

Thoight for today

Even in darkness light dawns for the upright, for those who are gracious and compassionate and righteous. Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice. Surely the righteous will never be shaken; they will be remembered forever. They will have no fear of bad news; their hearts are steadfast, trusting in the Lord. Their hearts are secure, they will have no fear; in the end they will look in triumph on their foes. They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor, their righteousness endures forever; their horn will be lifted high in honor. (Psalm 112:4-9 NIV)

Is it good news?

Maybe they [people who don't talk about God/Jesus in their daily conversation] aren't convinced the gospel is really “good news.” To them, maybe Christianity is just a long list of dos and don'ts, a strict moral code no one can meet. Or maybe a watered-down gospel seems irrelevant to their hopes, fears, and relationships.

If that's what we're to proclaim from the housetops, no wonder we're quiet! But that's not the real gospel. We have the life-changing, life-saving message of grace—nothing weak, nothing superficial, nothing phony.— Christianity Lite, page 176

<idle musing>
Could it be? Do we not believe the gospel is "good news?" I suspect he's right. We read these great claims in scripture, but—for whatever reason—we don't see them in our own lives. So we shrug and figure we must be doing something wrong. And we leave religion in its Sunday morning slot.

What do you think? Is he right? Have we bought into a watered-down, superficial gospel that isn't really a gospel at all?
</idle musing>

Talk, talk, talk

<idle musing>
The fact that a bill was passed to pay the military—but nothing else—says far more about our priorities as a nation than any amount of speech-making can...Just an
</idle musing>

What drives you?

What do we value above all else? In the lite version of Christianity people see Jesus as their consultant but not their King. They see Him as their butler, maid, or cook—running around wearing a chef's hat and apron and waiting for their next command. When we only value Jesus for what He can do to make us happy and successful, we live to advance our career and our reputations. We don't care much about the eternal destiny of others. But that's not real Christianity. When our hearts are filled with the grace and power of Jesus Christ, nothing matters but His honor—nothing. What breaks His heart breaks ours. The passions that drove Jesus drive us.— Christianity Lite, pages 174-175

<idle musing>
I like that word picture: Jesus as consultant versus Jesus as their king. Huge difference! A consultant gets paid, but you don't necessarily listen to their advice. Sounds suspiciously like a lot of christianity these days...
</idle musing>

Quick! Hide!

If we don't know our identity in Christ, we'll be constantly insecure and full of self-doubt. In our desperate need to be accepted we work compulsively to prove we're worthy of praise, we please people to earn their approval, or we hide to keep them from knowing how flawed we really are. We buy the right clothes, drive the right car, get the right position at work, and live in the right neighborhoods so people will think we're cool. In church we want to serve where we'll be noticed. We wear masks to pretend we have it all together, but we're dying inside. We're terrified somebody will know we're phonies.— Christianity Lite, page 158

<idle musing>
Genesis 3 all over again. We run and hide—especially from God! And, ironically, God is the only one who can rescue us, but we have such a warped view of who God is that we don't see he loves us. We see him only as a stern judge...

Lord, deliver us from our warped perspective of who you are!
</idle musing>

This is going to hurt

Well, that's their decision [to not take a chance of being hurt in a relationship], but it's one that puts severe restrictions on their ability to give and receive love for the rest of their lives. Self-protection has some value, but it comes at a very high price. It limits love and makes them utterly miserable.

God made us relational beings. We were meant for love. Sure, it's a risk, but refusing to take a risk—with God and with people—eliminates the greatest source of joy and meaning in our lives.— Christianity Lite, page 156

<idle musing>
Ain't that the truth?! Life and love open one up to hurt, but the alternative is death, despair, and depression. I'll take my chances with love. What about you?
</idle musing>

Good stuff

I've been woefully behind in mentioning a few books that I've received recently. I won't have time to read them for at least another month. Between the cabins, getting the garden ready for winter, and editing/proofreading work, and sneaking a hike or two in, there isn't much time left for reading.

Anyway, a long, long, long time ago (July, I think), Adrianna from InterVarsity Press sent me a copy of Atonement and a copy of Incarnation by T.F. Torrance. I'm really looking forward to reading these...look for snippets to begin appearing later this fall.

Much more recently—in fact, just last week—Bobby K. from Hendrickson Publishers sent me a copy of Unholy Allegiances by David deSilva. This looks really good. Here's part of the blurb on the book:

This is a truly unique book that studies Revelation by (1) stating the context in which it was written (Roman Asia in the first century), (2) noting why John wrote what he did to the church, and (3) powerfully applying John’s message to the church today. It is concisely written and carries a genuine spiritual message.

And, earlier this week, Jeremy from Baker Academic sent me a copy of Bonhoeffer the Assassin?. This one piqued my interest when I saw it in the Baker catalog earlier this year. Here's the blurb from the book:

Most of us think we know the moving story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life--a pacifist pastor turns anti-Hitler conspirator due to horrors encountered during World War II--but does the evidence really support this prevailing view? This pioneering work carefully examines the biographical and textual evidence and finds no support for the theory that Bonhoeffer abandoned his ethic of discipleship and was involved in plots to assassinate Hitler. In fact, Bonhoeffer consistently affirmed a strong stance of peacemaking from 1932 to the end of his life, and his commitment to peace was integrated with his theology as a whole.

We'll see...I'd love to believe them, being a person of nonresistance myself and liking Bonhoeffer's theology.

Oh, and much earlier, Jeremy also sent me a copy of Cook and Holmstedt's Beginning Biblical Hebrew which has an integrated reader. Well, actually the reader is more a graphic novel than anything. They use their insights from linguistics and second language acquisition studies and attempt to bring them to bear in teaching Biblical Hebrew. Good stuff...

Got friends?

Many of us give up on people if they hurt us. If that's the case, we won't have any meaningful relationships because sooner or later every human being will let you down.— Christianity Lite, page 154

<idle musing>
And we let ourselves down, as well. So, I guess there's no hope—under the sun, that is (to steal a phrase from Ecclesiastes). We need divine intervention!
</idle musing>

Offenses

Nursing offenses is one of the enemy's traps that keep us in bondage to old hurts. Forgiveness releases us from the trap. We don't wait until the person asks for forgiveness or promises to never hurt us again. We forgive the way Jesus forgave us. Author and pastor Lewis Smedes commented, “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you.”— Christianity Lite, page 142

<idle musing>
Like the old saying, "Unforgiveness does more damage to the vessel in which it is stored than that upon which it is poured." Unforgiveness eats away at you, poisoning everything you see or experience. Get rid of it! Real and imagined hurts are a trap you don't want to fall into. Walk in forgiveness!
</idle musing>

Itching ears

Offenses are windows into our hearts. Disappointments can reveal our deepest desires and expectations. If our hopes line up with God's values and purposes, we'll handle suffering with calm assurance that God will work everything out for good according to His eternal purposes. If our hearts don't line up with God's, we'll complain, gripe, lash out, and run away. And we'll keep looking for somebody to tell us what we want to hear.— Christianity Lite, page 130

<idle musing>
And we'll deny that we could possibly be at fault in any way, right? It's always "the other guy" who is to blame; if only they had done things differently, then everything would be fine. NOT!
</idle musing>

Pardon me, but your biases are showing

When many of us read the Bible, we don't pay attention when we find God's requirements and demands. We only pay attention when it says things that benefit us and promise to make our lives easier and more fun.— Christianity Lite, pages 129-130

<idle musing>
Because fun and easy living are the goals in life, right? At least that's the american dream version of life...
</idle musing>

More on the changes

When I changed the title of the blog yesterday, I also changed the description. The previous description mentioned what I did as a bookseller; I still wanted to include what I'm doing now, but wasn't quite sure how to say it.

Right now, I do freelance copyediting and proofreading of ancient Near Eastern and biblical studies monographs. I also edited a couple of DMin dissertations and I did some stuff for Baker for the Cook/Holmstedt grammar. Those all bring in money to live on, but most of my time right now is tied up in the cabins, which gives us a place to live, but no cash. So, how do I describe that?

I do a lot of different things: maintenance, repairs, painting (although Max does most of that), lawn mowing, laundry, housekeeping, and on and on it goes. But, the one thing that none of these really mention is that I clean toilets. Somebody has to, you know! Hi, I'm James and I clean toilets for a living!

But, if the creator can become human and stoop to washing the feet of his betrayer and denier, surely I can clean toilets and not let it define who I am. That shouldn't define who I am anymore than, "Hi, I'm James and I just copyedited a Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Grammar." Which one sounds better to our ears? But neither of them should define us. In God's eyes, the toilet cleaning is just as important as the book I'm editing. Both are what he has called me to do right now. Both should be done with rejoicing and to his praise and glory.

But I still would rather say, "Hi, I'm James and I copyedit academic books...!" Although, the "Hi, I'm James and I clean toilets" does have a nice shock value to it...

Self-centered or other-centered, that is the question

When we're easily upset about things going wrong in our lives, the cycle is self-feeding: We become even more self-absorbed and self-righteous. We play the role of victims, and we demand that everybody on the planet jump to make us happy—which, of course, doesn't work out very well, which causes the cycle of demands and despair to continue.— Christianity Lite, page 127

<idle musing>
Viktor Frankl said that the best cure for this kind of mental illness—and it is a mental illness!—was to get involved in helping others. Once you get involved in the lives of others, you realize that you aren't the center of the universe and that others have problems that are even worse than yours. Sounds like biblical advice, doesn't it?
</idle musing>

Changes

As you can see, the name of the blog has changed. My official employment with Eisenbrauns is now over—fourteen months after leaving Indiana. Not that I've done much since January anyway. In fact, in the whole of June-September, I only worked two hours and twenty minutes for them!

Now that I'm no longer employed by Eisenbrauns, I can share a story that I've wanted to share since it happened...get ready for some juicy gossip. NOT! This story reveals the character of Eisenbrauns as a company, and especially Jim as a person of integrity.

Last fall (2012), right around this time, I believe, a book went to press (I don't recall the title). I was reading through the PDF when I came across what looked like a lacuna; it appeared that a Hebrew word had dropped out of the text. The Hebrew was essential to the argument that was being made, so it wasn't a minor issue. This was on a Saturday morning.

I immediately sent Jim an e-mail, pointing out the possible error. I figured that maybe the book was still at the point where the press could make the correction before the book was printed. Jim responded within an hour or so, confirming my observation. He made the correction to the PDF and forwarded it to the press. Because it was a weekend, nothing more could be done until Monday.

Monday revealed that the book was already printed, but not yet bound. A choice had to be made. The book could be bound, as is, with the error. Or, at the cost of an additional 10%, that particular signature could be reprinted. It would also delay the delivery of the book—which also had repercussions for the cash flow. Tough decision; 10% may not sound like much, but on short-run academic books, that's very significant.

As you probably guessed (at least if you know anything about the quality of Eisenbrauns' books), Jim decided to reprint the signature and eat the cost...

That's just one of the many reasons I enjoyed working for Eisenbrauns for 10 years.

Trapped!

How do we act when we're trapped? The same way an animal responds when it's captured. We fight back, we wrestle, and we try to get out. Some animals have been known to chew their leg off to get free from a snare. I've seen people who blamed everybody in the world, including God, for their problems instead of learning the lessons God wanted to teach them through suffering. They were deeply offended that God didn't do what they expected Him to do.— Christianity Lite, page 126

<idle musing>
I guess it all boils down to our view of God. Do we see him as our butler, just waiting for our command? Or do we see him as an ogre, just waiting for us to step out of line? Both views are wrong. Both sell God far short of who he is.
</idle musing>

That can't be in the Bible!

We like the glowing promises, but we feel deeply offended by Jesus's demands. Deny ourselves? No, we'd rather indulge ourselves. Pick up our cross? We prefer to buy the newest gadgets, kick back and watch television, and go on nice vacations. Die daily? That can't be in the Bible, can it?— Christianity Lite, page 123

<idle musing>
It all comes back to our desire to be gods—no, our belief that we actually are god!
</idle musing>

The saccharin gospel

I'm not suggesting that we need to lay grace aside and impose oppressive rules on anyone. That's not the gospel, either! We need a full-orbed gospel message—the one Jesus taught, modeled, and imparted to His disciples. Anything else leaves us with a saccharin-sweet taste in our mouths but feeling empty. A lite version of the gospel simply can't satisfy the deepest needs and longings of the human heart. We can't be truly saved by a “Lite Savior.” We need the Lamb of God to die for us, but He's also the Lion of Judah who demands everything we have as we follow Him.— Christianity Lite, page 122

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! We have to hang onto grace while preaching a serious message of death to self. It we drop grace, we end up with empty legalism. But if we drop death to self, we end up with a cheap imitation of the gospel. The hymn Trust and Obey got it right: we have to trust, but we also have to obey. If try to do one without the other, you end up with a sorry caricature of the real thing...
</idle musing>

High calling

If we don't feel offended by God from time to time, it's not the real God we're following. If we don't feel confused by Him, we don't realize that His infinite wisdom is far beyond human comprehension. If we don't have spiritual anxiety at the demands of discipleship, we haven't really heard His clear command to follow Him into sacrifice and suffering. Jesus gave all, and He demands all. That's a chilling prospect, even for the bravest among us.— Christianity Lite, page 120

<idle musing>
But that doesn't preach very well, does it? Tough to fill the auditorium with a calling like that. Ask Jesus. When he preached about death to self and the cost of discipleship, the crowds just seemed to melt away. They loved the miracles and the love—but the cost was a bit tough to swallow for most of them.

The same with the early Christians. They had a great reputation—the emperor Julian used them as an example of conduct for his pagan priests!. But, the cost was martyrdom. A high calling indeed!
</idle musing>

Interesting little tidbit

Fill in the blank:

Christ Jesus our ________.

Did you answer "Lord?" That's my natural response, and the most common one in the epistles. Did you answer "Savior?" That's the second most common one in the epistles. But, how many of you answered "hope?"

Yep. "Christ Jesus our hope." It occurs but once, in 1 Timothy 1:1. I've read that hundreds of times over the years, but yesterday it hit me for the first time...

The gospel

Does the cost seem too high? Does following Jesus seem too demanding? If it doesn't, you don't understand what He requires. Following Him with your whole heart isn't hard; it's impossible! We can't do it by turning over a new leaf, trying harder, or gritting our teeth. To follow Jesus, we need a supernaturally transformed heart. We need the wonderful love, grace, and acceptance of God, and we need the power of the Holy Spirit to work in us and through us. Nothing else will do.— Christianity Lite, page 112

<idle musing>
And that, my friends, is the gospel. We can't do it! But God can and does! And we get to participate in it!
</idle musing>

There isn't any shortcut

Crucifixion is excruciating, but it's the only path to a resurrection.— Christianity Lite, page 111

<idle musing>
I'm reminded of Hebrews 12:2b-3, "For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (TNIV)

You have to die in order to really live. Death to self leads to the resurrection life of Jesus living inside us.
</idle musing>

It's all a matter of perspective

The difficulty, of course, is that sin doesn't look evil and wrong—unless we see it in someone else. In our lives it appears to be benign, attractive, and even indispensable. How could we live without it? We're so familiar with our sins that they seem second nature. That's the problem!— Christianity Lite, pages 109-110

<idle musing>
Yep! He pegged it, didn't he?
</idle musing>

Who's in charge?

Christians today are soft. We complain at the slightest disappointment. We criticize God if we suffer any inconvenience.— Christianity Lite, page 105

<idle musing>
Because we all know that God exists to make our lives comfortable, right? I mean, after all, I'm the center of the universe, right? So, bow down and worship me and serve me! NOT!
</idle musing>

Who defines it?

When we write the definition of a disciple, we make it easy. We make the door really wide and the requirements simple. The concept, though, isn't ours to define. It's up to God to define the concept and establish the requirements. He has only one condition: We have to put Him above everything. No exceptions. Everything.— Christianity Lite, page 99

<idle musing>
What part of everything don't we understand? That's a high and lofty calling—but one that the Holy Spirit living within us enables us to fulfill.
</idle musing>

Blessings?

If we're willing to sign on to put Him first, we'll have countless blessings thrown in. But if we focus primarily on the blessings, we'll get neither Jesus nor the blessings. There are a lot of people in churches today who come every Sunday, but only for the blessings. They don't really love Jesus more than anyone or anything else. They're consumers, not worshippers. They just want the blessings, and they're very disappointed in Him when He doesn't deliver.— Christianity Lite, page 91

<idle musing>
That is so true! We are a society of consumers—but the Holy Spirit is stronger than culture, if we let him transform us...
</idle musing>

What kind of god do you see?

Excellent post this weekend on Jesus Creed. It's actually a repost from another blog, but Scot posted it in full. I'll just pull out a snippet, but definitely read the whole thing.

God hates you. God’s fed up with you. God’s sick and tired of you. God’s suffered long enough with you.

God’s against you.

You would NEVER say that to someone else. Ever.

But here’s the thing- and maybe you do need to be a pastor know this:

There are plenty of you

who say things like that

to yourselves

all the time.

Not one of you would ever say things like that to someone else, but, consider it on the job knowledge, plenty of you say it to yourself every day...

But I wonder.

I wonder if we persist in imagining that God is angry and impatient and unforgiving and at the end of his rope- I wonder if we imagine God is like that because that’s what we’re like.

I wonder if we imagine God must be angry because we carry around so much anger with us?

I wonder if we imagine there are some things even God can’t forgive because there are things we won’t forgive?

I wonder if we imagine that God’s at the end of his rope because there are plenty of people with whom we’re at the end of ours?

<idle musing>
Go! Read the whole thing! And then revise your opinion of who God is. Let God be the Christian God, not a theological construct that reflects who you are.

I had a professor in seminary who said that we reason from the given to the divine. We look around us and figure God must just be a bigger version of what we see.

To an extent, that is true. But—and the but is huge—God is more than that. God revealed himself in Jesus. If your image of God is anything other than an image of Jesus, you've missed who God is...
</idle musing>

The easy life

We live in an age of softies and quitters. We want to eat chocolate cake without gaining weight. We expect to have lean bodies without the effort and discipline of exercise. We want new cars and houses without thinking about the ravages of debt. We demand easy love, sex, money, school, marriage, parenting, and everything else imaginable. We're sure life should be fun. When we have to put out some effort and exercise a modest amount of discipline, we soon quit because “it's just too hard.”

Christianity Lite follows the same lines. May people who claim to be believers are absolutely sure God exists to make their lives pleasant. They love promises of blessings, and they don't want to hear anything about struggle, pruning, testing, and the process of growth.

Jesus was under no such illusions.— Christianity Lite, pages 88-89

<idle musing>
People want a vending machine god—no, that's not it. A vending machine god would require us to put something in! They want a Santa Claus god—no, that's not right either! A Santa Claus god would have a list, checking to see if you've been naughty or nice. They want a butler god; a god who is standing there, just waiting for their next command.

The problem is that no such being exists. Life can be hard. Life can be full of troubles. Life can be, well, life. We live in a fallen world; troubles and trials are a part of it. But, we have the promise of a loving God that he will be with us—no, he will be in us—through it all. That's a promise worth getting excited about!
</idle musing>

Far more than a butler

When we pray, we need to remember who is listening. We have a real relationship, but we're not equals, We need a huge dose of respect for our heavenly Father. He dwells “in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16 NKJV). He knows the end from the beginning, and He knows our thoughts and hidden intentions far better than we do. We often treat Him like a butler or a fairy godmother, but He's nothing of the kind.— Christianity Lite, page 81

<idle musing>
God is far greater than a heavenly dispensing machine! When we treat him like that, we sell him and ourselves far short of the relationship he wants with us. It would be like getting married just so you have someone to do your laundry and wash the dishes! That's not a relationship—you can hire a servant for those things!

It's the same with God. Sure, he answers prayer and gives us all kinds of blessings. But that's not the point or the goal of the relationship. We were created for far more than that! We were created for fellowship with God.
</idle musing>

Prayer

Prayer is the umbilical cord between heaven and earth. When we pray, we're tapping into God's heart, God's will, and God's power here and now.— Christianity Lite, page 78

It's overwhelming

When we look into the abyss of our struggles, we first frantically try to control the people and the situations. Sooner or later we realize all our efforts are useless. The problem is much bigger than anything we can handle. When we pray, we bow in humble admission that we're powerless. Pride insists that we know it all and can make it work out, but humility acknowledges there's a far greater power and far higher wisdom than our own.— Christianity Lite, page 75

<idle musing>
Some people never get to the point of acknowledging that the struggle is too great. Others just give up, overwhelmed by the immensity of it all. The wise person is the one who in humility acknowledges that only Christ can handle life with all its complications.
</idle musing>

False promises

New technologies promised to make our lives simpler, easier, and less troubled, but today our lives are more complex, full of things that need to be fixed, and clouded by worries over the added activities and responsibilities. The levels of stress are exceptionally high, even among those who have plenty of money and are the envy of their friends.— Christianity Lite, page 72

<idle musing>
The false promise of a fake messiah. Technology is a marvelous thing—but it can never fix the problem of a broken relationship with God.
</idle musing>

What's wrong with this picture?

Most of us can talk for hours on the phone with someone who has no ability to fix our problems, but we find it hard to spend more than five minutes in prayer with the One who has all power in heaven and on earth. Claiming to be too busy is a lame excuse.— Christianity Lite, page 69

<idle musing>
Yep. Might be because we don't really believe God has the ability to answer...what do you think?
</idle musing>

Things that make you go hmmm...

I was reading in 2 Corinthians yesterday and came across this:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” (2 Cor 8:13-15 TNIV)

<idle musing>
Sure sounds like the classic definition of socialism to me: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Granted, that is impossible among the unredeemed; everyone is told to grab for everything they can in this life. But, shouldn't it be the goal among the redeemed?

Unfortunately, I don't even see it being attempted in most of the U.S. church. Sermons are preached about the evils of socialism; people are encouraged to follow the American Dream. Precious few sermons are preached on self-denial or death to self. Significant chapters of scripture are conveniently ignored.

The early church was known for its giving—and not just to believers! I suspect the American church of the late twentieth to early twenty-first centuries will be known for its selfishness and lack of generosity... Just an
</idle musing>