Limited (to) atonement

[T]he gospel for the apostle Paul is the salvation-unleashing Story of Jesus, Messiah-Lord-Son, that brings to completion the Story of Israel as found in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. To “gospel” is to declare this story, and it is a story that saves people from their sins. That story is the only framing story if we want to be apostolic in how we present the gospel. We can frame the “gospel” with other stories or categories, but there is one holy and apostolic framing story for the gospel.

This story begins at creation and finally only completes itself in the consummation when God is all in all. This is Paul’s gospel, and while it includes and encompasses the Plan of Salvation and leaves open how one might construct a Method of Persuasion, the gospel of Paul cannot be limited to or equated with the Plan of Salvation.— The King Jesus Gospel, page 61

<idle musing>
A truncated gospel, the "atonement only" or "soterian" gospel just doesn't do justice to the love of God—and it doesn't transform people. We need a fully-formed gospel—the apostolic gospel, as Scot calls it—in order to see people transformed. Anything less is a mockery of what Christ did.
</idle musing>

Nothing

Let me lay out some facts as I see them.
There is nothing about what you do that is 100 percent secure.
There is nothing about what you have that cannot be taken from you.
There is nothing about what you desire that cannot change.
Do you disagree with these statements? To me they seem beyond disagreement—not because I’m so wise and profound, but because the claims they make seem clear and warranted. As far as I can tell—and I’ve thought about this a great deal and talked to hundreds of people in all walks of life about this very issue—these three statements are solid, universal descriptions of what it means to be human.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
Pretty much sums up the human condition, doesn't it?
</idle musing>

A complete circle

One could say the end of ends in 1 Corinthians 15:28 completes the task God gave to humans in the opening chapter of the Bible on day six (creation of humans). Humans were given just one charge: to govern this world as God’s representatives. So, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, when we are finally connected to God in this eternal union with God through his Son, humans will be doing exactly what God intended for his creation. God will be God and we will be God’s people—and the whole Story will be about God.— The King Jesus Gospel, pages 56-57

<idle musing>
God will be God—it's so simple, but we want to be God, so we end up as "foolish puppets, who desiring to be kings, now lie pitifully crippled after cutting our own strings." (Randy Stonehill </idle musing>

Thought for today

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,

but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov 14:31 TNIV)

<idle musing>

Those in Congress and more than a few wealthy magnates would do well to remember that...

</idle musing>

That's a serious charge

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

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

It's deeper than that

Here’s the deal with Jesus. He’s egalitarian when it comes to this issue, and He wants everyone to repent of their sexuality because everyone is broken sexually. Straight, gay, bi, whatever … if there is something truer to our fundamental identity than Jesus and what it looks like to follow Him, we’re not really following Him.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
Amen! I've never heard it put so well before. We are more than sexual beings and we all need to repent of our dysfunctional sexuality. And far more important than our sexuality is who we are in Jesus and how we respond to his overtures.
</idle musing>

Half-baked

In this book I will be contending firmly that we evangelicals (as a whole) are not really “evangelical” in the sense of the apostolic gospel, but instead we are soterians [Greek for salvation]. Here’s why I say we are more soterian than evangelical: we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the word salvation. Hence, we are really “salvationists.” When we evangelicals see the word gospel, our instinct is to think (personal) “salvation.” We are wired this way. But the two words don’t mean the same thing…— The King Jesus Gospel, page 29

<idle musing>
I think Jim Wallis calls it the "atonement only gospel." Either way, it is a defective, half truth—at best! God gives us more than that in Jesus!
</idle musing>

Fickle

What we desire, whether noble or corrupted, is not the truest thing about us. Building our identity on the foundation of what we desire guarantees that our identity will change every time our desires change.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
We're fickle, aren't we? If we reduce who we are to what we want, then every time we see a new advertisement, we become something new. Of course, that is what the advertisers want us to think, isn't it? They are no longer selling stuff, they are selling a feeling, a new you, a new image. No wonder we buy at unprecedented rates! And the whole time we are ignoring our real needs...I'm reminded of something well over 2500 years old:

  “Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.

   Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and you will delight in the richest of fare. (Isa 55:1–2 TNIV)

</idle musing>

Decisions, decisions, decisions

I believe the word gospel has been hijacked by what we believe about “personal salvation,” and the gospel itself has been reshaped to facilitate making “decisions.” The result of this hijacking is that the word gospel no longer means in our world what it originally meant to either Jesus or the apostles.— The King Jesus Gospel, page 26

<idle musing>
To our great loss, I might add.
</idle musing>

The sum of the parts...

When we take any one of our strongly felt desires and construct our entire identity around it, we discover that we are making a part of who we are into the whole of who we are.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
The old saying, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, is so true. We are more than a collection of felt desires—we are a unique creation of God, but he'll get to that!
</idle musing>

Truest and things

What we have—or don’t have—is not the truest thing about us.

Building our identity on the foundation of what we have means that we’ll always be focused on ourselves. A world of self-focused individuals sounds strangely like the world we live in now. . . and it’s the lonely experience of living in that very world that sends us in search of something truer.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
What is that old saying? A man (or woman) wrapped up in himself makes a very small package. Self-focus is a dead end; we need to focus outside ourselves—of course focusing on God is the best—but as Viktor Frankl found, even focusing on others, without God, pulled people out of depression...how much more when we focus on God!
</idle musing>

Whose gospel?

Isn’t the more important question about whether Paul preached Jesus’ gospel? Moreover, there’s another problem: Piper’s assumption is that justification is the gospel. The Calvinist crowd in the USA—and Piper is the leading influencer in the resurgence of Calvinist thinking among evangelicals—has defined the gospel in the short formula “justification by faith.” But we have to ask whether the apostles defined the gospel this way. Or, better yet, when they preached the gospel, what did they say?— The King Jesus Gospel, page 25

<idle musing>
Ah, that is the question, isn't it? We revere Paul so much that we start with him rather than with Jesus or the other apostles. Not that Paul is wrong, but without the added input of what Jesus and the apostles taught, we can put undue emphasis on certain aspects of Paul that the early church—and Paul himself—didn't...
</idle musing>

I should have expected this

This showed up in my inbox this morning:

Last month, “Big Food,” in the form of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a trade organization that represents more than 300 businesses, sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advising that it intends to petition the agency to allow foods containing GMOs to be labeled as “natural.”

Right! But if GMOs are natural, then why this a bit further in the article:

General Mills, Inc., has started producing GMO-free Cheerios. The company expects this new product, which will bear the label, “Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients,” to be available to consumers “shortly.” However, this change does not affect other General Mills brands such as Honey Nut Cheerios.

Anything for a quick buck...Lord, deliver us from ourselves!

Grammar musings

I'm always wondering about grammatical usage of words. The question in my mind today was which is the correct way to say something: online, on line, or on-line. I've seen it all three ways, with online being the most common of late. When I worked at Eisenbrauns we always used on line as two words. But, which is correct in the minds of the rest of the world?

Google to the rescue—or not!

Here's what one grammatical source said:

Although all forms are seen in written communications, only two forms are correct (on line and on-line); the difference between them (ie the use of the hyphen) is very important and applies to many other grammatical forms.

To say that you are ‘online’ would be like saying that a tennis player is ‘oncourt’ or that a builder is ‘onsite’, rather than saying she/he is ‘on site’. We will never see the back of ‘online’, however, and the overall situation may change. To remain consistent though…

Where the phrase is just a factual statement, we use two words.
Where the entire phrase is used to further describe something else, we must use the hyphen to show this.

Seems straightforward enough—but can you trust a source that says "ie" instead of "i.e.,"? Plus, it is a site in the U.K. and their usage varies from American usage sometimes...

How about this: Purdue Online Writing Lab which is the next site Google lists after an ESL site. They don't raise the issue, but just use online as one word in their title. What does that say?

I could cite a bunch of sites (see the pun?), but this one says a lot (two words—not alot!): what is the name of the Merriam-Webster dictionary's Internet presence? Yep, you guessed it: Merriam-Webster Online!

Or, what about the venerable Chicago Manual of Style, my constant companion? Their Internet presence is The Chicago Manual of Style Online!

And my second companion, the The SBL Handbook of Style, what do they say? It might be getting a bit dated, being published in 1999 (before the Internet became the default source for research, what with JSTOR, WorldCat, and others), but even then, in paragraphs 7.3.13 and 7.3.14, they use online as one word...

What's a person to do?

The trials of being a copy editor...the question raised by all this searching? Does one still capitalize Internet? : )

True or truest?

But here’s the truth: what we do is not the truest thing about us. Building our identity on the foundation of what we do creates an identity that can crack or break or tumble down at any moment.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
But that's exactly what we do all the time. We take transient things about us and make them the absolute definition of who we are. The problem is that life is full of changes—and not all of them are better! If you have a minor (or major) setback/disappointment, you have to redefine yourself. Stress, anyone? But in Christ, we don't need to accept the merely true things as ultimate—that's what this book is all about—who you already are in Christ. And it's good news!

I read this in the electronic version, so I don't have page numbers, instead I will be citing the excerpts by chapter number.
</idle musing>

With open eyes

As a result of my Evangelism Explosion experience and its aftermath in my own thinking, I developed a cynicism about evangelism. It took deep root as I continued through my college, seminary, and doctoral education. I began to pay close attention to the connection of gospel and evangelism and salvation and our methods of persuasion, which (embarrassingly at times) border on the slick and manipulative. I am convinced there is something profoundly wrong with our evangelism and so have developed over the decades a sensitive ear for anyone with a thought about this problem.— The King Jesus Gospel, page 21

<idle musing>
Isn't it sad that we feel we have to stoop to slick marketing and emotional manipulation in order to get people to become Christians? As if the God of the universe is something we can put in a neat little package and sell!

We can be so blind...
</idle musing>

Security

So many of us grew up in homes where we never felt secure. We had to work extra hard, trying to earn approval or love that never came. Our tendency is to carry that mind-set into our relationship with God. We end up anxiously working to gain approval, not realizing that we already possess it.—Francis Chan in foreword to The Truest Thing about You

<idle musing>
I'm not sure that you need to grow up in such a home to feel that way. I didn't, but I still felt the need to earn God's love. Granted, it could be culture, but I suspect it's deeper than that. I think we know we don't deserve God's love—how can we? We're just created beings and he's the creator—infinite, all-powerful, totally other—how can we hope to gain his favor? But that's exactly what the gospel is all about. We are accepted in the beloved; we are the righteousness of God, we are...you get the idea. Later in the book, Lomas will list a whole slew of things that we already are and have...
</idle musing>

The two Ds

Most of evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples. Those two words—decision and disciples—are behind this entire book. Evangelism that focuses on decisions short circuits and—yes, the word is appropriate—aborts the design of the gospel, while evangelism that aims at disciples slows down to offer the full gospel of Jesus and the apostles.— The King Jesus Gospel, page 18

<idle musing>
Forget the American obsession with numbers! A thousand "decisions" that don't result in a transformed life are worthless. If a transformed life isn't the result of that raised hand, then I question if there was a real encounter with the living God...but that's just my
</idle musing>

Thorn bushes

Looking back, I can see how I’ve tried to get others to perform, regardless of their motivation. I’ve focused a lot on their work and not enough on their identity. In hindsight, I realize I was shooting myself in the foot. I was trying to squeeze Christ-like actions out of people who hadn’t been transformed by Christ. You’ve helped me remember that when we trust in Christ, and take hold of that identity, our actions begin to happen naturally—or supernaturally.—Francis Chan in foreword to The Truest Thing about You

<idle musing>
Good stuff. I've been guilty of the same thing over the years...we can't get apples off of thorn bushes. We have to let God transform people from the inside out. We are frequently trying to get people to whitewash the tombs instead of pointing them to Christ, who can make them alive so they aren't a tomb.
</idle musing>

There's so much more

Multitudes in the Church walk around as if they are in mourning—never knowing rest of soul or the peace of Christ’s presence. They picture themselves under the thumb of God’s wrath rather than under His protective wings. They see Him as a harsh taskmaster, always ready to bring a whip down on their backs, and so their lives are filled with fear, guilt and despair. They live unhappily, with no hope, more dead than alive…The real problem is our lack of faith in God’s covenant promises. We refuse to accept His unconditional love, His unlimited forgiveness, His free reconciliation. We are not willing to believe He pardons and restores us simply because He loves us. Instead, we become focused on our sin, losing all sight of what God wants from us most.— It Is Finished, pages 180-181

<idle musing>
Wow. That aligns perfectly with what I posted yesterday. We just don't know who we are and what that means. Or, more likely, we just can't believe it—it seems too good to be true.

Part of the problem is the way the "gospel" has been presented to us (I put gospel in scare quotes for a reason). We are told that God-is-mad-at-us-and-hates-us-and-we-are-on-our-way-to-hell-unless-we-turn-and-repent-right-now-because-Jesus-may-come-at-any-moment-and-you-don't-want-to-go-to-hell-do-you?

Who in their right mind would turn down an offer like that! But that isn't the gospel! That is a small portion of the gospel—the salvation part of the gospel. The gospel is the story of God at work in the world from Genesis 1 through Revelation and beyond. The gospel is the good news that God loves you—always has—and wants to restore you (and all of us) to what we were in the garden. And he won't stop until he accomplishes that.

That's the final snippet from this book. Tomorrow I'll begin pulling stuff from Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel. He goes on at length about what the gospel really is and how we got to where we are today. Good stuff...
</idle musing>

It's true

I just finished reading a new book (relaased February 1). I rarely read popular Christian literature, and even more rarely read a new release. But, Olive Tree offered a free book last Friday. Now come on, who can resist a free book?! But the funny thing is, I actually read this one! (Be honest now, how many of you have at least a hundred free books stashed in your computer/tablet/phone that you've never even opened!?)

And you know what? It was actually a good book!

Yep. A popular Christian paperback that I liked. And has good theology. And is practical. And is readable.

OK. Enough hype : ) You get that I liked it...

The name of the book is The Truest Thing about You, written by David Lomas and published by David C. Cook. That's right, the Sunday School people. Well, that's how I always thought of them anyway, but they've been doing some good non-Sunday School stuff in the last 10 years or so. When I worked at Eisenbrauns, one of the reps who called on me (Jerry Gortmaker—a great rep!) also represented them; we didn't carry their stuff—not academic enough—but he would periodically offer me an advance reading copy. One I remember especially is The Furious Longing of God by Brennan Manning.

Anyway, the thesis of the book is that there are many true things that can be said about you, but only one is truest—who you are in Christ. The whole book is an outworking of what that means and what it should look like in your life. Good stuff, and I'll be excerpting from it for the next few weeks or so. But, right now, I'm going to jump to the very end and throw in the last few paragraphs, because this is usually where books like this fall apart. Ready? Here we go:

At this point in the book you might expect application points. A “to-do list” of identity. Some journal questions. Five things you can do in the next five weeks to actualize your new identity.

But that’s not what this book is about. Unless you drive the single message of this book to the core of your being—beyond belief, to the place of your deepest trust—no application will stick.

So here it is.

You will not find your identity in what you have, but in who has you. You will not find your identity in what you do, but in what has been done for you. And you will not find your identity in what you desire, but in who has desired—at infinite cost to Himself—a relationship with you.

Christ is your life. He gives you a new identity and will work that new identity out in your life until the day when He appears. On that day you will finally see clearly, as Christ sees you now. You will know as you are known.

And you will understand that the truest thing about you—that in Christ God called you His beloved in whom He is well pleased—has been true all along.

And is now true forever.

Believe. Trust. Base your entire identity and worth on that fact.

Isn't that great? No long (or short!) list of "things to do to make this real" or other such garbage! You get the idea that he actually believes what he's writing! Once you know who you already are in Christ, you will begin to live like it! In the words of Augustine, "Tolo! Lege!" (Pick it up and read it!)

Almost too good

The secret of the Lord is a life-freeing revelation of His lovingkindness toward us at the point of our failures. It is the Holy Spirit enduing us with a powerful revelation that nothing can separate us from the covenant love of God. He is not mad at you, so get your eyes off your sin and gladly receive the free access you still have to the Father, through the cross of Christ.— It Is Finished, page 171

<idle musing>
The Hebrew Bible has a word for that: ḥesed
<rabbit trail>
Note the dot under the h; it sounds like the ch in loch, so you'll sometimes see it as chesed. A nice exposition of it is in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), both BibleWorks and Accordance have TWOT by default, not sure about Logos because I don't use it; Strong's number 698 (but don't use Strong's dictionary!) for those of you who don't do Hebrew.
</rabbit trail>

This does not mean he is easy on sin! Quite the opposite! God hates sin because it is contrary to his nature and destroys the ones he made imago dei (in the image of God—his image). He hates sin so much that his intent is to destroy it in you. He will stop at nothing less! That's why we are a new creation in Christ; that's why the old is gone. That's why we need to fix our eyes on Jesus, not on ourselves. It is only as we we fix our eyes on Jesus that we begin to realize the riches we have in Christ. That is the gospel—good news! I'm not a better me. I'm a new me, clothed with righteousness and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit!

Can you tell this stuff gets me excited? : )
</idle musing>

There is no way

God did not say, “Shame on you, Elijah; you have fallen too far, reproaching Me in the eyes of this heathen people. Now you’re on your own until you wake up to your sin.” Instead, the Lord said lovingly, “Elijah, what are you doing in this cave? I want you to gird yourself and get back to work.” There was no harshness in these words. God’s call to Elijah was meant to restore and redirect a man in the midst of seeming failure and deep despair.

Here is the secret of the New Covenant: It is not some sudden rush of a supernatural power in us, enabling us to resist an overwhelming temptation. Rather, it is God’s still, small voice, revealing His love to us in the midst of our failure and testing.— It Is Finished, page 167

<idle musing>
We're always looking for a big splash, or in the words of Steven Curtis Chapman, are we "waiting for lightning" and "listening for thunder while he quietly whispers your name?" (Complete lyrics:Waiting for Lightning.) I suspect we are; we love a big splash—that's probably why we don't often get one...
</idle musing>

Then why even ask?

When I was a pastor, persons of the church occasionally asked me for advice on what the Bible has to say about various matters, and whether we are obligated to follow its views on these matters or not. I often asked a counter-question: if my answer was yes, were they willing to follow those admonitions in the Bible? In other words, I asked them, would they be willing to accept the Bible’s judgments on their behavior and act accordingly? If not, then, of course, the Bible would not function as a canon for them; they would simply be asking historical questions that they might, or might not, choose to follow when answered. Formation of the Bible, page 161

<idle musing>
I like his response; it cuts to the heart of the issue. Are we or are we not going to submit to the authority of scripture? If not, then don't even pretend that you want to hear the answer...
</idle musing>

Learn it all

A believer can memorize all the glorious promises of the New Covenant, master complex theological outlines and trace each of the biblical covenants for the Adamic to the New. But only a few will set their minds to seek the Lord diligently for understanding of His life-giving New Covenant.— It Is Finished, page 158

<idle musing>
If study doesn't lead you to worship, then it is just a dead end.
</idle musing>

The best translation

I am often asked which translation of the Bible is the best one to read today. My response is often “the one you most enjoy and read most often!” Formation of the Bible, page 141

<idle musing>
Excellent advice! The truth is that most all of the translations out there today are good. I would quibble with some of the choices of all the translations—some translations more than others, but they are all adequate.
</idle musing>

Is this what you believe?

God is faithful to fulfill His promise to cause every enemy to flee from us. Think of Israel standing on the Egyptian side of the Red Sea. The enemy was closing in, trapping God’s people, allowing no way of escape. Do not think that at that point God said to them, “I’m sorry, Israel—I can’t deliver you. You have thousands of little golden idols packed away in your luggage. You have to get rid of your idolatry before I’ll bring deliverance. Otherwise, you’re as good as dead.”

The very thought that God would respond in this way is impossible. What kind of God would refuse to deliver His own people because they still struggled with a lust?

God will not abandon you at your Red Sea. Your temptations, habits and besetting sins may look like impossible roadblocks before you, but the Lord promises to deliver you, for His own name’s sake. Our God is faithful to keep His covenant.— It Is Finished, pages 154-155

<idle musing>
But, isn't that the "gospel" we too often preach? "Clean yourself up!" "Get your act together—God can't hear your prayer until you stop sinning!" And, my favorite: "God made the first step, now it is up to you to make the next one." Semi-Pelagianism, anyone?

Why is it so hard for us to get it through our thick skulls that God loves us?

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Romans 5:6–11 TNIV

By the way, Michael Bird has a great post today on sin.

And while we're mentioning some good posts, you really ought to check out Robin Parry's take on Intelligent Design. I agree with him—we end up with a God-of-the-gaps, not a transcendent God.
</idle musing>

Derived authority

What Jesus said and did was authoritative for the early Christians and his authority was never transferred to any other. The literature that comprises the New Testament largely focuses on Jesus, his significance, and the implications in daily life and ministry for what it means to follow him. The literature of the New Testament points us not to itself, but to Jesus who is the final authority for Christian faith (Matt 28:19). Formation of the Bible, page 89

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Finney was asked what he thought about double predestination (that God sends some people to hell for no other reason than his glory) . Here's his response:

It presents not the real and true God, but a different being. It is practicing  a deception on him, by holding out  the idea that God desires his  damnation, and he must submit to it; for God has  taken His solemn  oath that He desires not the death of the wicked, but that he  turn  from his wickedness and live. It is a slander upon God, and charging  God  with perjury. Every man under the gospel, knows that God desires  sinners to be  saved, and it is impossible to hide the fact. 

Some thoughts

I just don't get it. In the 1970s Coke did the "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial. Nobody thought it was terrible—at least I don't remember it. I suppose there might have been some who claimed they were promoting an antichrist world order, but I didn't hear about it.

Now, they do a similar thing and it's the end of the world as we know it? I haven't seen it and don't intend to—after all, it's all about selling a sugar-laced drug that will make you sick and fat. Why should I watch it? I don't buy their product and I don't need to buy their worldview, either. It's bankrupt. But rather than argue about the commercial, why not live a life that shows how bankrupt that worldview is?

All I see is people who buy the same worldview arguing about who's in and who's out in a boat that is sinking. There are enough lifeboats around to rescue them all, but they are ignoring them and drinking their way to death. OK, bad analogy and bad logic. But really, how is the current situation in the world any worse than the first century was? Do you hear Paul, Peter, Barnabas, James, etc. arguing in this way? No. They present Jesus as the alternative and then draw out the ramifications of what that means.

Forget the "culture wars" and live for Jesus in your daily life. The rest will take care of itself. Just an
</idle musing>

Laying your cards on the table

As a matter of full disclosure, let me say at this point that I view the Bible, both Old and New Testaments in all of its teachings, as the church’s sacred and authoritative Scripture. Christian faith is bound to this book in all that we believe and practice as Christians. While we recognize that the Bible is an authoritative and sacred book, we also recognize that this authority is a derived authority and that the final authority for all Christians is Jesus Christ (Matt 28:19). He is the Lord of the church (Rom 10:9) and the Scriptures accurately reflect his teachings, his life, his fate, and his significance for the church today. We do not worship the Bible, but the God to whom the Bible directs our obedience, worship, and praise. Formation of the Bible, page 17

<idle musing>
What a great way to start a book on the canon and its formation!

Thanks for Bobby at Hendrickson Publishers for the book—way back when! It got put on a bookshelf when we moved up here and didn't get read as quickly as it might have...I'll be pulling a few snippets out over the next few days.
</idle musing>

Not what you think

The only weapon that scares the devil and his armies is the same one that scared him in the wilderness temptations of Jesus. That weapon is the truth of the New Covenant—the living Word of God. Only the Lord’s truth can set us free. He promises to be God to us...to cleanse us, forgive us and cast away all our sins...to fill us with His Spirit...to lead, instruct and guide us by His Spirit and put within us all the power we need to walk in holiness and obedience.— It Is Finished, page 153

<idle musing>
Got ya! I'll bet your thought he was going to say "quoting from scripture" or "the Bible" didn't you? That's what you've been taught, isn't it? But only Jesus, the living Word of God, can face the enemy and temptation without losing. You can quote scripture until you're blue in the face, but without the living power of the Holy Spirit inside you, you'll still lose; I know, I've done it in the past—many times...always lost, too unless I allowed the Holy Spirit to control my thoughts and actions! You can win too, but you have to stop worshiping the Bible and start relying on the Holy Spirit!
</idle musing>

The cost of unforgiveness

Or, the devil may try to convince you that you have a right to hold on to bitterness because you have been wronged. He will try to destroy your marriage by persuading you, “You can’t endure this relationship any longer unless your spouse changes.” If you keep listening to his lies, you will begin to believe them after a while. And once you buy his evil argument, it will become embedded in your mind and heart—and then it will become a stronghold. This will keep Satan empowered over you through your thought life. He does not have to possess your body; all he needs is a foothold in your mind. Soon you will not be able to worship or praise God anymore, because his “worm” of a lie will constantly twist and turn in your mind, tormenting your thoughts.— It Is Finished, page 152

<idle musing>
Forgiveness is so important. We need to remember—continually—the parable of the ungrateful steward, reproduced here for your enjoyment and edification:

“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of golde was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.a He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’ “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive a brother or sister from your heart.”—Matthew 18:23–35 TNIV

</idle musing>

The higher the cost...

But it is not merely that more demanding religious groups attract and hold more members than do the less demanding faiths. They recruit them! That is, their members are sufficiently committed so that they seek to bring others into the fold, something members of the less demanding faiths seem reluctant to do. Nearly half of all members of the various evangelical Protestant denominations report that they have personally witnessed to a stranger within the past month and two-thirds have witnessed to friends. The Triumph of Christianity, page 363

<idle musing>
That explains the draw of cults, doesn't it? So it's a two edged sword—true Christianity demands everything, but so do a lot of the cults. We definitely, desperately need the Holy Spirit to enlighten us!

By the way, that's the last excerpt from this book. Not sure what I'll be extracting from next. I guess we'll all find out tomorrow, eh? : )
</idle musing>

What they don't tell you

Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said. (Acts 14:21b-22 NIV)

<idle musing>
When was the last time you heard someone in the USA preach a sermon on this text?!

Our gospel is defective if it doesn't allow for—scratch that—if it doesn'twarn you that you will endure hardship in order to enter the kingdom...
</idle musing>

Too good to be true?

Have you accepted this incredible truth? Do you believe that Jesus agreed in covenant to keep you from falling, guaranteeing you would never be forsaken, and you would be able to obey Him fully and live in victory? Believe it—because He guaranteed it on His own worthy name. You were not the one who made a worthy oath, who provided a co-signer, who found an attorney. God did all of this for you, and now He wants to use it all to redeem you fully from the dominion of sin.— It Is Finished, page 117

<idle musing>
Sounds almost too good to be true, doesn't it? That's probably why most people don't believe it. Oh, they may say they do, but if you look at their lives, it doesn't line up with what they're saying.

I'm not faulting anybody here, just observing. We look at our experience; we look at the world around us; we look everywhere but into the face of Jesus. That's why we don't believe it's true.

But if we look at the face of Jesus and remember that "all the fulness of the Godhead" dwells there—that the Father is just like the Son—then, and only then, can it become believable.

And a funny thing happens. We become like what we are gazing at; we become more Christlike. We become saints—which is what the Bible always calls Christians, by the way. We become a light in a very dark place...
</idle musing>

As we were

In 1776, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, only about 17 percent of those living in one of the thirteen colonies actually belonged to a religious congregation; hence more people probably were drinking in the taverns on Saturday night than turned up in church on Sunday morning. As for this being an “era of Puritanism,” from 1761 through 1800, a third (33.7 percent) of all first births in New England occurred after less than nine months of marriage, and therefore single women in Colonial New England were more likely to engage in premarital sex than to attend church. The Triumph of Christianity, page 353

<idle musing>
Talk about an interesting little tidbit, eh? What does that do to the "let's get back to the founding fathers" mentality!

And remember, just because they were members, doesn't mean they attended! So, probably you were 2–4 times more likely to be having premarital sex than to attend church. That doesn't seem to be too much better than where we are at now, does it? The "good old days" don't look so different from today when you look at the actual facts and records.

Of course, we don't do that; we look at the past through an ideology. And the dominant ideology of some is that the past was an ideal time that we should try to get back to—whether you are a Tea Partier or a secular person; it doesn't seem to matter, because if you ignore the facts, you can find something to bolster both sides...

No wonder we need the Holy Spirit! Only he can remove the blinders from our eyes so that we can see the truth...
</idle musing>

The terms

Now, for any covenant to be made, both parties have to be trustworthy. They must be dependable, able to fulfill the agreements made between them. And they have to have the resources available to keep their promises.

The problem with humankind as a party in covenant with God is that we are neither trustworthy nor dependable. That is why God cut the covenant with His own Son. We are in no position to keep our end of any kind of agreement.— It Is Finished, page 112

<idle musing>
This is the thesis of the book of Hebrews; Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. He is our surety. And he is the one who is able to fulfill the terms. You and I are the beneficiaries of his sufficiency. Praise God!
</idle musing>

Whom are you going to invoke?

Although the people’s religion did often call upon God, Jesus, Mary, and the various saints, as well as upon some pagan gods and goddesses (and even more frequently invoked minor spirits such as fairies, elves, and demons), it did so only to invoke their aid, having little interest in matters such as the meaning of life or the basis for salvation. Instead, the emphasis was on pressing, tangible, and mundane matters such as health, fertility, weather, sex, and good crops. Consequently, the centerpiece of the people’s was, as it had always been, magic. The Triumph of Christianity, page 266

<idle musing>
The issue, as it always has been, is control. We want to be in control in order to protect ourselves. We are scared and don't trust God to take care of us. After all, he might not do what we want him to do! Genesis 3, anyone?
</idle musing>

Powerless

His people were powerless, without the strength or ability to deliver themselves [from Pharaoh]. Their salvation had to come by His grace and mercy alone—through covenant. This is the one truth we must fully grasp if we are to understand the purpose of the New Covenant. God swears by oath that He will take matters into His own hands and by His power alone deliver us from all dominion of sin.— It Is Finished, page 109

<idle musing>
Reminds me of a song by the Jesus Movement group Daniel Amos. Here's the chorus:

No bribin', no conivin', no strivin' will do
They'll never make no change in you
You can hold your breath, stand on your head
Still the changes won't come, till their Spirit led
Abidin', that's when the changes come
Abide in Jesus, He's the best at gettin' it done

You can see the whole song and listen to it at the link above.

The point is that we can't do it. We're powerless, and the sooner we realize it and abandon ourselves to hispower, the better off we are.
</idle musing>

Whose job?

All across Europe, the established churches failed to convert and arouse the “masses,” by failing to recognize that it was a job for preachers, not professors. But the clergy seemed unable to grasp the point that sophisticated sermons on the mysteries of the Trinity neither informed nor converted. The Triumph of Christianity, page 265

<idle musing>
I'm all for doctrine! But, if it doesn't have an effect on the way a person lives, then it isn't being taught in a practical way. The doctrine of the Trinity should be taught in such a way that one ends up in worship. Unfortunately, it is usually taught in such a way that you end up in confusion.

Of course, there is an underlying assumption in this quotation: it is the paid, trained clergy who are the core of the church and that the institutional form of the church is the "real" church. But, throughout church history, there have been many lay-led revivals—beginning with Acts 2.
</idle musing>

Perspective matters

Very simply, the Holy Spirit changes the way we look at our sin. He knows that as long as we continue to take our lusts lightly, we will never be set free. So He shows us how deeply it grieves and provokes Him.— It Is Finished, page 92

<idle musing>
Wesley said we should pity the partially religious man: he has enough of religion so as not to enjoy sin, but not enough to truly enjoy God. The Holy Spirit wants to fix the last half of that statement by showing us the way out.
</idle musing>

Is this history?

In contrast, early Christianity was attractive to the laity because it offered a model of Christian virtue that improved their quality of life by urging attractive family norms, a tangible love of neighbors, and feasible levels of sacrifice, along with a clear message of salvation. The Triumph of Christianity, page 264

<idle musing>
Is this really history? Or is this drawing conclusions that fit preconceptions about what Christianity is supposed to look like? Sometimes historians walk a fine line—the facts can be interpreted several different ways. I fear that happened in this case...what do you think?
</idle musing>

Which is it?

OK, which is it? Warmer or Colder?! Not that either one is all that different anyway; neither one is predicting anything better than 3°F!

The overcomer

And I must emphasize again that no one in his own strength is able to live an overcoming life, free from sin’s power and dominion, He may grieve over his sins, shedding a river of tears, but in his own willpower and ability he cannot defeat powerful, besetting sins.— It Is Finished, page 73

<idle musing>
Ain't it the truth! But there is deliverance—the indwelling presence of God in the form of the Holy Spirit! Praise God for that!
</idle musing>

Reaching the rest

The primary reasons that even vigorous efforts failed to reach the peasantry and urban lower classes was the failure by both Protestant and Catholic clerics to propose a Christian lifestyle that was appropriate and attractive to ordinary people, and their failure to present Christian doctrines in simple, direct language rather than as complex theology. The Triumph of Christianity, pages 263-264

<idle musing>
The problem we have now is that nobody even tries to preach/teach basic Christian doctrines! The logic seems to be that because it is difficult to make doctrine understandable, we just won't teach it! After all, what counts is making people feel good, right? NOT! No doctrine equals bad doctrine; unexamined theology equals bad pop theology—cultural christianity at its worst...
</idle musing>

Dead-letter?

Please do not misunderstand me—I believe doctrine is essential. We need to understand important theological concepts such as justification by faith and sanctification. But if our knowledge of these things does not produce life in us, it is all just dead-letter.— It Is Finished, page 54

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! Life without doctrine produces wacko spirituality, but doctrine without a living encounter with God produces death. Both extremes have happened to the church far too many times in its history. Think of the confessionalism that followed the Reformation—and gave rise to skepticism. On the other side, you have many of the camp meetings of the 1800s that gave rise to interesting cults...we need both doctrine and experience or we lose our way.
</idle musing>

Ignorance is...well, just ignorance

Not only was the medieval public lacking in Christian commitment; the same was true of the rank-and-file clergy. In fact given how ignorant the clergy were, it is no surprise that their parishioners knew so little. The Triumph of Christianity, page 260

<idle musing>
The Reformation and Counter-Reformation definitely changed that! Even the Roman Catholic Church should thank Martin and company for their contribution there...
</idle musing>

Brrr...

Take your pick. We're closer to the harbor than we are to the airport, but it's still cold! The wind is definitely blowing; I suspect the gusts are about 30-35 MPH—a good bit less than the 46 MPH that they show for earlier in the day. You can definitely feel the cold radiating off the windows—and we have lots of nice big windows on the south, east, and west sides of the house. Granted, they're double-paned, but it's still cold!

When we go for our 4 mile walk later today, we probably won't see a whole lot of people! We'll probably stop at the store to pick up a few things (we carry backpacks for that), but our walking won't raise any eyebrows; it's fairly common around here for people to walk—no matter the weather. And you don't hear people complaining about the weather. Well, that's not quite true; last year they complained we didn't get enough snow! : )

Works holiness?

Of course I believe in high standards for Christians, including decent dress codes, holy living and separation from the world. But God help us if we even hint to people that any such observance can ever make us acceptable in His eyes.

Many believers remain under constant bondage to some doctrine of works because they think it makes them holy. They simply do not want to believe that all their sacrifices through the years are for naught. And so, when they hear the message of the cross—that no human striving or works can save us, and that only the grace of Christ assures our salvation—they become offended. They cry out, as the first-century Jewish converts did, “You’re teaching permissiveness. You don’t believe holiness anymore.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Only one person is holy—Jesus Christ—and all our holiness must come through faith in Him. It Is Finished, page 49

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! </idle musing>

Medieval attendance

There are very few statistics on religious life in medieval times, but there are a surprising number of trustworthy reports from many times and places, and they are in amazing agreement that the great majority of ordinary people seldom if ever went to church. The Triumph of Christianity, page 256

<idle musing>
Interesting, isn't it. I suspect that the influence of the church was largely through the upper class, but have no way of proving that. It would make sense; all the big wigs in the church were from the upper class...
</idle musing>

Give me that Power Bar!

This is an ongoing problem with many Christians. We look to the Holy Spirit as some kind of booster shot to empower or energize our human will. We expect Him to build up our supply of grit and determination, so we can stand up to temptation the next time it comes. We cry, “Make me strong, Lord! Give me an iron will, so I can withstand all sin.” But God knows this would only make our flesh stronger, enabling it to boast. It Is Finished, page 34

<idle musing>
When I teach about the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person's life, as an avid bicyclist, I use the example of a Power Bar™. Those of you old enough to remember Underdog might recall the secret compartment of his ring that conveniently held a power pill. But all of these illustrate the same point—the Holy Spirit isn't going to work that way; we can't do it—even with a power pill. Only the presence of God via the Holy Spirit can do it.

And I praise God for that; if it depended on my strength, grit, and determination, it wouldn't happen...
</idle musing>

Abolitionists for the 8th century!

At the end of the eighth century Charlemagne opposed slavery, while the pope and many other powerful and effective clerical voices echoed St. Bathilda. As the ninth century dawned, Bishop Agobard of Lyons thundered: “All men are brothers, all invoke one same Father, God: the slave and the master, the poor man and the rich man, the ignorant and the learned, the weak and the strong…[N]one has been raised above the other…there is no…slave or free, but in all things and always there is only Christ.” Soon, no one “doubted that slavery in itself was against divine law.” Indeed, during the eleventh century both St. Wulfstand and St. Anselm successfully campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery in Christendom. The Triumph of Christianity, pages 247-248

<idle musing>
Only 1000 years before the emancipation proclamation! Interesting that the same arguments were being used...I guess there reallyis nothing new under the sun!
</idle musing>

The end of the matter

By nature, man does not want to be delivered from his sin. He simply will not respond to a gracious mercy call. So, God has to implement a plan or device that will allow a person to see the exceeding wickedness of his sin. This person has to become sin-sick, aware of how wicked and devastating his sin is, before he will yearn for deliverance. He has to come to his wits’ end, where he sees he is being ruined by sin—helpless, wretched, empty, ensnared and deceived by sin, and laden down with guilt. It Is Finished, pages 29-30

<idle musing>
I normally avoid pop Christian culture authors, but a friend of mine who was reading this book began quoting from it. The excerpts he shared piqued my interest, so I had to read it as well...I hope you enjoy the next few weeks of excerpts!

By the way, thanks to Jeremy Wells at Baker Academic for supplying me with a copy.
</idle musing>

I didn't know that

Finally, claims that Muslims have been harboring bitter resentments about the Crusades for a millennium are nonsense: Muslim antagonism about the Crusades did not appear until about 1900 in reaction against the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the onset of actual European colonialism in the Middle East. The Triumph of Christianity, page 216

<idle musing>
Interesting, isn't it? Again, we read back our current situation into history...
</idle musing>

It's got to be relevant

Biblical criticism that does not labor for the good of the church and of the world is truly a dead letter. For this reason African biblical scholars are explicit that they are reading the Bible with their commitments and interests declared up front. They do not hide their hopes that their scholarship may have some kind of small impact on a suffering world. They do not write merely for the sake of scoring debating with their fellow scholars. Africa’s problems are many, and they are serious: HIV/AIDS, famine, desertification, political instability, war, ethnic tension, gender inequality. The Bible is not silent about these issues. Biblical scholars who claim to follow the God of life should not ignore the groanings of creation all around us as we study, teach, and write. Global Voices, page 112

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching!

Too often, scholars are writing for scholars. Without compromising the scholarship, scholars should write for the growth of the church. I had a theology professor who used to say that his goal was "every pastor a theologian and every theologian a soul-winner." A noble goal indeed.

That's the final excerpt from this book. As I said in the first post, this is a great book. I'm glad I read it; it definitely broadened my horizons. We need more books like this. Thanks again to Bobby for making it known to me—even though it took me a year to read it!
</idle musing>

It's not that simple

This is not to say that the Muslims usually were more brutal or less tolerant than were Christians or Jews, for it was a brutal and intolerant age. It is to say that efforts to portray Muslims as enlightened supporters of multiculturalism are at best ignorant.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 208

<idle musing>
Why do we always insist on importing our current social context into historical interpretation?! We can never learn from history when we do that. Of course we rarely learn from history anyway! But that's another matter all together...
</idle musing>

A sure-fire way to shrink the church

First, I suggest that we bring the biblical worldview of the spirit world to the forefront of our conversation in hermeneutics since trends in global Christianity suggest a link between this worldview and church growth. The emphasis on prayer, spiritual warfare, and healing in non-Western Christianity is rooted in this world concept. Western scholarship is losing credibility in this regard as our scholarship is increasingly perceived as “peer talk” with no substantial contribution to faith in the transcendent. Even our foreign students who return home are sometimes branded “evangelical without power” and portrayed as a threat to church growth due to the “misguided” notions of scholarship and “Bultmannian” readings of biblical texts. Global Voices, page 97

<idle musing>
That is a convicting paragraph! "...foreign students who return home are sometimes branded “evangelical without power” and portrayed as a threat to church growth due to the “misguided” notions of scholarship and “Bultmannian” readings of biblical texts." Something is wrong! We need to recover the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives! We need to cease being practical atheists and start expecting God to be present in our daily lives!.
</idle musing>

Religious tolerance

Granted that the early church fathers were certain that theirs was the Only True Faith, and therefore they could not, and did not, commit themselves to ideals of religious freedom. Nevertheless, the church did not exploit its official standing to quickly stamp out paganism, nor did the emperors accomplish this on behalf of the new faith.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 198

It's a fact

Believers are to clothe themselves with the armor that only God provides. It is a complete outfit because the soldier must be fully protected. Paul does not call the believer to enter into spiritual warfare. He simply announces it as a fact. The fact that our real battle is not against flesh and blood is lost on many Christians, who put all their efforts in that direction. Global Voices, page 89

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! Now, the question is, what does that mean in practical terms?
</idle musing>

Protect the tax revenue

In the end, of course, the pagan temples did close and Christianity become, for many centuries, the only licit faith, although most peasants and members of the urban lower classes seem never to have been fully Christianized. Even so, to the extent that Europe was Christianized, it didn’t happen suddenly not did it involve substantial bloodshed; the latter was mainly limited to conflicts among Christians which sometimes resulted in military action against various heretical movements.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 192

<idle musing>
Follow the money! Tax revenue must be protected at all costs! How ironic...but unsurprising.
</idle musing>

Did it ever really die?

It is important to recognize that paganism was not merely a set of superficial practices and only half-believed myths—or, as Lactantius put it, “no more than worship by the fingertips.” In past work I have been as guilty as most early church historians of underestimating the depth of paganism. Indeed, late fourth and fifth century pagans often are portrayed as little more than “nostalgic antiquarians.” But, in fact, theirs was an active faith “premised upon the conviction that the world was filled with the divine, and that proper sacrifice brought the human into intimate communion with the divine.” Although the rapid and extensive Christianization of the empire showed that pagans were very susceptible to conversion by their friends and relatives, the failure of legal prohibitions to dent paganism demonstrated that coercion was no greater deterrent to commitment to the gods than it had been when used against commitment to the One True God.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 190-191

<idle musing>
Again I ask, did it ever really die? I would suggest that most of what passes for Christian belief is just paganism with a light Christian veneer. As long as the emphasis remains on me, we show that we don't understand the good news that is the gospel...
</idle musing>

It just works

Pentecostal spirituality is very much at home in Africa because its interpretation of and responses to evil are continuous with traditional religious ideas in which evil is believed and understood to owe its presence to spiritual causes. It is a worldview in which there is no dichotomy between belief and experience: they always belong together. As a Pentecostal minister I can say that the ministries of exorcism, healing, and deliverance have been important tools of evangelization wherever Pentecostalism has emerge and thrived. In such contexts, believers see the existential meaning of Christ’s ministry in their lives. Global Voices, page 86

<idle musing>
You've probably heard the slogan of a famous computer company, "It just works!" Well, that's true Christianity. In the west, we've watered it down to just intellectual assent—brains on a stick, if you will. No wonder there aren't converts! It just doesn't work!

Real Christianity, on the other hand, works. Look for God to work in your life today. Renounce your practical atheism!
</idle musing>

Me, a Judaizier? Never!

While we may balk at considering how we have historically resembled the Judaizers, at least in terms of seeking to replicate our practices and ethos among Christians in foreign cultures, we need to become even more discerning in terms of how our involvement in a particular country, for example, Sri Lanka, nurtures the growth of Sri Lankan Christianity and how it nurtures the Westernization of Sri Lankan Christianity (often in concert with the Westernization of Sri Lanka occurring through other venues). Jesus wants to take on Sri Lankan flesh, coming to life there as he did both in Judea and in Galatia in different ways, and Sri Lankan churches need to worship, function, and grow in Sri Lankan ways—in part, so as to have a positive effect and witness there. Global Voices, page 53

<idle musing>
Bobby at Hendrickson Publishers gave me this book over a year ago. He said I would enjoy it. I wasn't sure, but let me tell you, this is a great book. You don't even realize the degree to which you are culture blind until it hits you in the face.

This book did that to me. It hit me square in the face. I've been a charismatically inclined Christian since I became a Christian back in 1972. I didn't think the reigning anti-supernaturalism of our culture had affected me a deeply as it has. This book showed me that it went deeper than I thought.

You should read this book. You might disagree with a lot in it, but at least you need to consider what it is saying. After all, two-thirds of the world does believe in the supernatural in more than a cerebral way!

Watch for other goods snippets from this book in the next week or so...
</idle musing>

Pardon me, but your biases are showing

And although historians long reported bitter outcries by pagans against Constantine’s support of Christianity, the best recent scholars now agree that there is no evidence of such protests and propose that even those pagans most directly involved regarded the emperor’s favors to the church as a “bearable evil.”— The Triumph of Christianity, page 186

<idle musing>
Not a popular view, is it? But what if it is true? We'll have to rewrite a few Church History books, won't we? And a few late Roman Empire history books as well...
</idle musing>

Take control of your food

The most important step [to breaking big Pharma and big Food’s grip over our lives] is to change the way you eat. The diet is simple: eat whole, plant-based foods, with little or no added oil, salt, or refined carbohydrates like sugar or white flour…There is nothing more convincing than experiencing the change for oneself. That crucial shift in the way we think about our health will happen, one person at a time. Eventually, policy will begin to change. Industry, deprived of the income produced by ill health and our ignorance, will follow.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 19

<idle musing>
This is especially important with the recent ruling in favor of Monsanto. And the reluctance of congress to take a stand on labeling GMO foods—despite the overwhelming support amongst consumers. Mind you, I'm not talking about passing a law to ban GMO foods, just a requirement to label them as such! We have a right to know what we are eating and then choose whether to consume it or not.

By the way, have you seen the video where the little girl tries to make a sweet potato grow? No? Very enlightening; you can see it here. Be prepared to cease buying non-organic potatoes, sweet potatoes...well, the list goes on. Even among organic, local wins out. Watch the video to see what I mean...
</idle musing>

The making of a book

It is safe to believe that the way God communicated to humans is more complex than we have been accustomed to think. In the past we too easily thought in modern terms about an author sitting down and writing a manuscript, which is then published as a book. (As authors we only wish it were that simple!) When thinking about how the Bible was written, many Christians modified the simplistic notion of authorship only slightly to included God’s Spirit revealing the specific words that an author wrote. But this model is foreign to the ancient world (and in reality, to the majority of book production in the modern Western word); it should not serve as the premise for formulation of biblical authority. The process was much richer and more sophisticated.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 293

<idle musing>
Having worked in publishing for 10 years, I can vouch for their statements about modern bookmaking! And having studied the ancient world, I can assure you it wasn't any simpler then...
</idle musing>

The fall of paganism?

Consequently, and despite the prevailing historical view, paganism wasn’t quickly obliterated. Instead, it seeped away very slowly. The Academy at Athens did not close until 529, and “even in most Christian Eddessa, organized communities of pagans were still sacrificing to Zeus-Hadad in the last quarter of the sixth century.” …In fact, there were still many active pagans and functioning temples to the gods in Greece and further east as late as the tenth century. Moreover, for a considerable time in many parts of the empire, including some major cities, the prevailing religious perspectives and practices consisted of a remarkable amalgam of paganism and Christianity. Finally, paganism never fully died out in Europe; it was assimilated by Christianity. For example, many pagan festivals continued to be celebrated and many of the gods lingered under very thin Christian overlays.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 185

<idle musing>
I would argue that paganism is still the prevailing religion amongst most people. And as the veneer of christianity wears thin, it is reasserting itself. The only hope is a revival—a true revival among christians first so that what is shared isn't a fix yourself, do better, try harder, self-actualization religion, but true heart holiness...
</idle musing>

Where it all goes

Factory-farmed animals on this planet consume more calories than all the humans, by a long shot. Through this lens, the issue of world hunger seems a lot less like a problem of production or distribution and more like a problem with our personal priorities.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 12

<idle musing>
There was an article in the Atlantic a few years ago discussing the food shortages. The author found that even countries with a chronic food shortage had enough to export food! It was all a case of finances. The food growers could make more money by exporting it, so they did—even though their fellow citizens were starving. It's all a case of greed...it all goes back to Genesis 3.
</idle musing>

Visit

We had the grandkids over yesterday for one of the last times before they move. They love the split door between the office for the cabins and the rest of the house. Here's a picture of them with Debbie:

Thought for a Saturday in January

Our best doctrinal formulation should not be constructed to convince skeptics but to truly describe out actual beliefs.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 284

Embrace the mystery

Mystery can be a liberating theological reality. We’re not expected to systematically explain all truth about God. Actually, we probably try too hard to do so, since the closer we come to explanation, the further we move from veneration. Often the more logic, the less wonder.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 258

<idle musing>
I would say this is the best line in the book! Embrace the mystery and worship the creator.
</idle musing>

The seed of the church

Of all the proofs and all the testimonials, nothing approaches the credibility inherent in martyrdom. How could mere mortals remain defiant after being skinned and covered with salt? How could anyone keep the faith while being slowly roasted on a spit? Such performances seemed virtually supernatural in and of themselves. And that was the effect they often had on the observers. Christian viewers could “see” that the hand of God was on the martyrs. Many pagans also were amazed: the distinguished physician Galen wrote of Christians that “their contempt of death…is patent to us every day.” Accounts of martyrdom make frequent mention of pagans having gained respect for the faith from having observed, or even having taken part in, the torture of martyrs. The pagan onlookers knew full well that they would not endure such tribulations for their religion.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 151

<idle musing>
Origen said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. While I think he is overstating it, their testimony (that's what martyr means in Greek) is definitely inspiring and compelling. I pray that I would have sufficient grace not just to endure but to be a conqueror if I were put in such a position.
</idle musing>

It's in the water

Population studies begun forty to fifty years ago show that when people migrate from one country to another, they acquire the cancer rate of the country to which they move, despite the fact their genes remain the same. This strongly indicates that at least 80 percent to 90 percent—and probably closer to 97 percent to 98 percent—of all cancers are related to diet and lifestyle, not to genes.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 9

<idle musing>
Obviously then, as the old saying goes, "it's in the water!" : )

Actually, anymore it probably is in the water, what with agricultural runoff, fracking runoff, and the runoff from road salt. And don't forget the chemicals that leach from all that bottled water...
</idle musing>

Further thoughts on reductionism

Reading Whole has made me reflect a bit more on the phenomenon of reductionism. It still holds sway in the academic community, the hard sciences, the medical world, and popular culture.

The one place it isn't the supreme paradigm is in industry. Oh, it used to be—think of the motion-study experts of the early 20th century. They were extremely reductionistic; every motion was studied in an effort to make every motion efficient. But all that started changing with Deming and his marble experiment. In a nutshell, he showed that reductionism wasn't the answer; the system was bigger than the sum of its parts.

Sure, the change didn't happen overnight, but the corner had been turned. The dominant industrial paradigms of today, Toyota Production System and the Theory of Constraints are systemic approaches. Another good example is Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline approach to problem solving. The result has been the dissolution of what is called "silos" in the industry. Silos are narrow concentrations on your specialty to the virtual exclusion of other aspects of an organization; they are named after the round silos found on farms. The assumption behind siloing is that nothing outside my specific area has any affect on what happens. Right! It is extremely reductionistic.

So why did atomization fall out of favor in industry but nowhere else? Simple; follow the money!

In industry, throughput means more income (this is hugely simplified, but bear with me!). When one part of an industry adopts a systemic approach, their throughput increases and their costs drop. They can afford to sell things for less than their competitors with no reduction in quality. Money talks! Pretty soon, their competitive advantage is adopted by others.

Now look at the medical and food industries. Keeping people sick and fat is good for business. Healthy, fit people don't eat as much junk food. They don't need prescriptions. They don't get sick as often. They don't guzzle carbonated, sugared beverages.

In short, they don't contribute to the bottom line of the food and medical industries...no conspiracy theories needed. In our money-oriented society, where results are measured by quarterly Wall Street results, there is no incentive to keep people healthy via a whole foods, plant-based diet.

I could go on, and probably will over the next few weeks...

Overwhelmed

If the universe overwhelms our cognitive abilities, the Designer and Creator of the universe does so all the more. Our brains are Tinkertoys in comparison to DNA, matchsticks in comparison to birthing galaxies. The divine genius and creativity reduce all scientific calculation, philosophical supposition and theological postulation to nursery rhymes. We can only let God be God.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 256

<idle musing>
Amen! I was reading The Journey of Modern Theology the other day. One of the things that Olson commented on was the rationalization of theology. Another book I just finished, Whole (by a Ph.D. in the hard sciences) stressed the complexities of DNA. All of this causes me to bow in humility before the creator and redeemer.

Let the mystery remain! We are only created beings; if we think we can understand all the mysteries, we are hubristic to the extreme. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek them out! It just means that we need to acknowledge that God is bigger than all our explanations!
</idle musing>

The role of leaders

The Romans assumed that the bishops and clergy were the active elements of the church and should they be destroyed, the masses of ordinary Christians would simply drift away. This was no doubt true of the pagan temples and perhaps for the Oriental faiths. But it was a misreading of Christianity where behind each bishop, priest, and deacon there was a line of lay persons ready and able to replace them.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 150

<idle musing>
For all the faults of the institutional church, I think this is still true today. I know it is true in house churches...
</idle musing>

The genes made me do it

Genes are the starting point for health and disease events; they are the “nature” part of the equation. But it is nutrition and other lifestyle factors, the “nurture” part, that control whether and how these genes are expressed. The influence of nurture (i.e., nutrition) has far more influence on health and disease outcome than nature (i.e., genes).— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 8

<idle musing>
Yes, that means you are the one who holds the key. No excuses of "the devil made me do it"—oops I mean, "The genes made it happen."

Once again, a whole foods, plant-based diet is the safest option for a long, healthy life. And living by the power of the Holy Spirit within you is the best option to make it fulfilling—notice I didn't say "safe" or "easy!"
</idle musing>

Wrong focus

Ancients did not have the same interest in events that we do, and so they did not record them in ways that could readily feed our interests. If we are truly going to understand their literature and culture, we have to stop pursuing the transformation of their illocutions, realities and values into ours. This is misguided. Historiography is our label, our enterprise, our value, our way of framing reality, our way of understanding events. We cannot base our assessment of truth, authority or inerrancy on our cultural conventions of historiography, though we continue to be interested in all three of those concerns.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 201

<idle musing>
You can learn a lot about a person by noting the personal pronouns they use...our occurs how many times in those sentences? Other-centered is how we are to be as Christians...maybe we should start with how we see scripture. Let's ask different questions, ones that center on God and others. What do you think?
</idle musing>

Hang on

Romans believed that one was forever obligated to honor the religion of one’s ancestors; hence Jews were usually given an exemption from actions in violation of their ancestral faith. But the Romans were contemptuous of all who had abandoned their ancestral faith as of course, all Christians had done, making their refusal to comply with the edict [to sacrifice to the emperor] doubly offensive.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 143

It's in the cards—sorta

Do we simply accept the [genetic] cards dealt to us, or do we consider the possibility that we can control our own destiny? If our health trajectory is mostly predetermined by our genes, then there’s no point in trying to be healthy. If our choices trump the cards we were dealt at birth, then there’s a reason for us to do what we can to achieve and maintain health.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 8

<idle musing>
Hmmm…sounds a lot like the arguments in theological circles over divine determinism versus free-will, doesn’t it?
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

The reason why wicked men and devils hate God, is because they see Him in a relation to themselves. Their hearts rise up in rebellion, because they see Him opposed to their selfishness. - Charles Finney

We're first

When we neglect the goals of the ancient literature and instead use the literature to accomplish our own goals, we engage in a cultural imposition that subordinates what the ancients considered as the reality and values of their literature (i.e., their illocutions [intended communications]) to what we moderns consider to be a higher pursuit. We will never achieve a sound understanding of the literature, let a lone a legitimate understanding of biblical authority, if we are always judging its suitability for reaching our modern objectives. We need to start approaching the literature as their literature rather than simply transforming it into our literature from which we then draw theological inferences.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 201

What we really want

What we really want from science is an end to randomness. We want to know why diseases strike some people and not others. We want to know how to protect ourselves against the scourges that have our names on them. We want, in short, to banish unpredictability.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 8

<idle musing>
No, what we want is for science to allow us to be gods…not much has changed since Genesis 3, has it?
</idle musing>

Misreading Rome

Too often, historians have ignored the sincerity of pagans, misreading their casual forms of worship for indifference. But Rome was far more religious than other societies in the ancient world, and large numbers of Romans, especially those making up the political elite, sincerely believed that the gods had made Rome the great empire that it had become. That being the case, Christianity was an obvious affront to the gods, given that the church denied the existence of the gods and charged that to worship them was blasphemy. It was entirely logical to assume that for Rome to tolerate Christianity was to risk bringing down the displeasure of the gods upon its affairs.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 140-141

<idle musing>
The Romans had a "I give that you will give to me" (do ut des in Latin) attitude towards the gods. They firmly believed in oracles and omens—you could say they were "superstitious" to the extreme; the world was full of gods. The early Christians were called atheists because they only believed in one god. That upset the balance of power dramatically in the mind of the Romans; they didn't know how to handle it, so they worked to eliminate it...if it itches, scratch it!
</idle musing>

Whether you like it or not

That was yesterday morning. Here's this morning:

Round hole

If orality is a round hole, inerrancy could seem to be a square peg. Common definitions of inerrancy do not fit scenarios understood in light of orality (though some responsible constructive theological accounts come close.) Yet orality was the way God chose, which must mean it was the right way. Evidently we need to adjust our understanding of inerrancy to the evidence we find in Scripture.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 196

<idle musing>
Or discard it...which will never happen, unfortunately.
</idle musing>

An apple is an apple is a pill...

As it turns out, an apple does a lot more inside our bodies than all the known apple nutrients ingested in pill form. The whole apple is far more than the sum of its parts. Thanks to the reductionist worldview, however, we don’t really believe the food itself is important. Only the nutrients contained in the food matter.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 5

<idle musing>
Americans love their pills, though. Eat garbage all day and night and then pop a pill to make everything right again...except it only works on the Jetsons.
</idle musing>

Egalitarianists?

But recent, objective evidence leaves no doubt that early Christian women did enjoy far greater equality with men than did their pagan and Jewish counterparts. A study of Christian burials in the catacombs under Rome, based on 3,733 cases, found that Christian women were nearly as likely as Christian men to be commemorated with lengthy inscriptions. This “near equality in the commemoration of males and females is something that is peculiar to Christians, and sets them apart from the non-Christian populations of the city.” This was true not only of adults, but also of children, as Christians lamented the loss of a daughter as much as that of a son, which was especially unusual compared with the other religious groups in Rome.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 124-125

<idle musing>
Now if only we could get some of the extreme complementarians in the US to read church history...
</idle musing>

Would you care to define that for me, please

To say there are errors in the Bible is to read Scripture anachronistically. Conversely, those who say there are not errors need to make clear that they are representing an ancient view of reliable representations of truth. Modern print culture simply must not be the standard by which the customs and practices of ancient composition and transmission are judged.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 196

<idle musing>
But I'll bet that if you asked the average person in the pew, they would tell you that they hold to an oral dictation version of inspiration. At least that has been my experience when I ask average people to define inerrancy and inspiration for me. I should put up a survey and measure the results...
</idle musing>

But what else does it do?

When you hear about at wonder pill that lowers blood pressure, always get curious about the additional (“side”) effects of the pill. In reality, there are no side effects, just effects. What is this health intervention doing beyond its stated goal?— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 2

<idle musing>
Indeed. We need to remember that the body is a system, not a bunch of discrete parts that don't interact. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction—and we don't know enough to know what those reactions are...why don't we go with a proven, systemic treatment that cures the causes? Instead we go for a band-aid that simply addresses a symptom—and has a massive number of "side" effects.

Pop a pill. It's easier. No need to exercise any kind of self-control. After all, it's all genetic anyway. I'm predestined to it...What a bunch of lies!

A whole foods, plant-based diet will keep you healthy. And if you aren't healthy, it will allow your body to become healthy because you won't be flooding it with garbage...
</idle musing>

Mercy is a defect

In contrast, in the pagan world, and especially among the philosophers, mercy was regarded as a character defect and pity as a pathological emotion: because mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it is contrary to justice.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 112

<idle musing>
Doesn't sound much different than some of the rhetoric we're hearing today, does it? How the mighty have fallen...
</idle musing>

Healthcare?

We talk about the health-care system in American, but that’s a misnomer; what we really have is a disease-care system…The United States spends more money per capita on “health” care than any country on earth, yet when the quality of our health care is compared with other industrialized nations, we rank near the bottom.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 1