Judgment with a purpose

Suffice it to say that if we were to investigate every case of theophanic judgment in the Old Testament, we would find not only that the language of extreme destruction typically describes some intrahistorical event, but also that it is always for the ultimate purpose of salvation.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 122

It's more than just a song

The logic of the prophetic critique is that although “worship” is an explicit claim of allegiance to YHWH, such a claim must be backed up with justice, which is a concrete demonstration of this allegiance. Wliat God really wants is human flourishing, embodied in the healing of the social order, and those who want what God wants will manifest this in their lives. Indeed, the bond between allegiance to YHWH and practice of justice toward the neighbor is so strong that Jeremiah tells King Jehoiakim that doing justice (particularly caring for the marginal) is equivalent to knowing God (Jer. 22:15-16). 104

<idle musing>
Would that someone would tell many modern-day "evangelicals" this! I really like the Anabaptist saying, "No transformation, no salvation." Now, before you accuse me of works righteousness and all that, let me say that all of the transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit, empowering and giving the desire to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).
</idle musing>

He pegged it!

Just as the Torah affirms that the love of God should lead to a life of obedience, the prophets emphasize that Israel’s allegiance or submission to YHWH, the God of the exodus, ought to be manifest in a life that embodies righteousness and justice, since these are central to the interhuman flourishing that God desires. In the prophetic perspective, allegiance to the one true God inevitably flows into a life of obedience characterized especially by justice in human relations; by contrast, idolatry or false allegiance flows into a life of disobedience characterized by injustice. This is most fundamentally a matter of imaging God; the life of a person or community reflects the sort of god they are committed to. The two main targets of prophetic critique are thus idolatry and injustice, since false worship is inextricably linked to corrupt living.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 103

The goal

The God of the Scriptures (unlike the deity imagined in some of our churches) is concerned for the entire range of earthly life and desires flourishing, well-being, and shalom—in short, salvation—for both humanity and the nonhuman creation. The way of wisdom, which is parallel to obedience to Torah, is meant to nurture holistic earthly flourishing, restoring the whole of life to what it was meant to be.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 102

Psalm for the day

No matter your political position, this one is for you (and me):

1 Give thanks to the Lord because he is good,
     because his faithful love lasts forever.
2 Let Israel say it:
     “God’s faithful love lasts forever!”
3 Let the house of Aaron say it:
     “God’s faithful love lasts forever!”
4 Let those who honor the Lord say it:
     “God’s faithful love lasts forever!”

5 In tight circumstances, I cried out to the Lord.
     The Lord answered me with wide-open spaces.
6 The Lord is for me[a]—I won’t be afraid.
     What can anyone do to me?
7 The Lord is for me—as my helper.
     I look in victory on those who hate me.
8 It’s far better to take refuge in the Lord
     than to trust any human.
9 It’s far better to take refuge in the Lord
     than to trust any human leader.

<idle musing>
Especially verses 8–9: don't put your trust in anyone but the Lord.

Whoever "wins" this thing is subservient to—and must someday answer to—the Lord. Our calling as Christians is to be peacemakers, spreaders of shalom in the fullest sense of the meaning of that word: not just peace, but wholeness, healing, flourishing.
</idle musing>

Public Service Announcement

This is from Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health. You can read the whole post here.

In other words, if most Americans pulled together to do the right thing and wore a mask in public [95 percent, from the previous paragraph], this simple, selfless act would save more than 130,000 lives in the next few months alone. If mask-wearers increased to just 85 percent, the model predicts it would save about 96,000 lives across the country.

What’s important here aren’t the precise numbers. It’s the realization that, under any scenario, this pandemic is far from over, and, together, we have it within our power to shape what happens next. If more people make the decision to wear masks in public today, it could help to delay—or possibly even prevent—the need for future shutdowns. As such, the widespread use of face coverings has the potential to protect lives while also minimizing further damage to the economy and American livelihoods. It’s a point that NIH’s Anthony Fauci and colleagues presented quite well in a recent commentary in JAMA.

<idle musing>
In my words: If you love your neighbor, you will keep social distance, wear a mask, and wash your hands. What is so difficult about that? It's time to grow up and realize the world isn't about you and what your so-called rights. Especially as a Christian, you are called to love your neighbor.

If you can't even put on a mask, that doesn't speak well of your commitment to Jesus. Just an
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

Today is election day in the United States—as if anybody needed to be reminded. All I can say is to pray: Pray for peace. Pray for wisdom. And live as a person of peace—whatever your politics are—and that is a not-so-idle musing.

Hermeneutics count

God’s norms for creation are constant, but the articulation of these norms might need to change in order to address the actual historical situation that God’s people find themselves to be in.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 101 n. 10

Torah and wisdom

Torah and wisdom are not exactly the same in the Old Testament. Yet the convergence between the two is uncanny. Both Torah and wisdom describe, in strikingly parallel Ways, God’s norms for life and blessing (that is, the way of salvation or flourishing), and both are contrasted with paths that lead to death.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 96

Psalm for the day

 

For the music leader. Do not destroy. A psalm of Asaph. A song.

75 We give thanks to you, God. Yes, we give thanks!
    Your name is near. Your marvelous deeds are declared.

2 God says,[a] “When I decide the time is right,
    I will establish justice just so.
3     The earth and all its inhabitants will melt,
    but I will keep its pillars steady.” Selah

4 I said to the arrogant,
    “Don’t be arrogant!”
To the wicked I said,
    “Don’t exalt your strength!
        
        Don’t speak so arrogantly against the rock.”[b]
6 Because what exalts someone
    doesn’t come from the east or west;
    it’s not from the south either.
7 Rather it is God who is the judge.
    He brings this person down,
        but that person he lifts up.
8 Indeed, there’s a cup in the Lord’s hand
    full of foaming wine, mixed with spice.
    He will pour it out,
    and all of the earth’s wicked people
    must drink it;
    they must drink every last drop!

9 But I will rejoice[c] always;
    I will sing praises to Jacob’s God!
10 God says:[d]
“I will demolish every bit of the wicked’s power,
    but the strength of the righteous will be lifted up.”

<idle musing>
I needed that today. The psalm starts out and ends with praise to YHWH, what is called an inclusio. The inclusio surrounds judgment on the evil and those who wield power unjustly. We live in the midst of that, we are called to live in the inclusio, praising God. It's a choice—sometimes not an easy one—but a choice nonetheless. We make that decision every moment of every day.

That's where I'm choosing to stand today. And I trust God for the power of the Holy Spirit to live it in me, because I can't do it on my own.

What about you? What will you choose?
</idle musing>

John Stuart Mill is still relevant

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and without the means which he helps supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”—John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address: Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867, People’s Edition (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1867), 36

Silence isn't always golden

I overcommitted. I have too many projects right now and no time for recreational reading. The blog will reflect that for the next couple of weeks until I finish up a few of the projects I'm working on.

Repentance?

The fact that obedience is a crucial aspect of salvation underlies Paul’s encouragement to the New Testament church to “work out your own salvation” (Phil. 2:12)—this from the theologian of grace par excellence. Likewise, when the tax collector Zacchaeus pledged fourfold restitution for defrauding others (Luke 19:8), thus fulfilling the requirements of the Torah (Exod. 22:1), Jesus announced, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9). It is certainly possible (and traditional) to read ]esus’s comments in terms of a truncated view of salvation as some internal “spiritual” transformation to which Zacchaeus’s visible actions testify. However, the text reflects the biblical perspective that obedience (especially when it concerns the reestablishment of justice) is itself a crucial component of salvation, in the sense of the restoration of communal well-being.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 88

The exodus as model

The point is that by remembering their own bondage and by modeling their actions on their holy and gracious deliverer God (who was attentive to them in their need), Israel will enact righteousness toward the vulnerable in their midst. The exodus thus functions as a lens for understanding the requirements for societal flourishing in a broken world by generating a special concern among the covenant people for the needy or marginalized. The experience of the exodus grounds Israel’s insight that human society cannot function properly—salvation is incomplete—unless the most vulnerable members are protected, provided for, and nourished.——J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 88

Beware what you say

Beware what you say, because it can be used in the future to show how far off the wall you were! Case in point, a very good scholar, Bernhard Duhm, said this about Ps 119 in 1922:

What sort of purpose the author had in view during the composition of these 176 verses, I do not know. In any case, this “psalm” is the most meaningless product that one ever used to blacken paper; one could more easily wear down a heretic with it than with all seven penitential psalms.

Original German:

Was der Autor bei der Abfassung dieser 176 Verse für einen Zweck im Auge gehabt hat, weiss ich nicht. Jedenfalls ist dieser ‘Psalm’ das inhaltsloseste Produkt, das jemals Papier Schwarz gemacht hat; mit ihm könnte man einen Ketzer eher mürbe Machen als mit sämtlichen sieben Bußpsalmen.—Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen, 2nd ed., KHC 14 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922), 427–28

Cited in ch. 3 of Bernd Schipper, The Hermeneutics of Torah: Proverbs 2, Deuteronomy, and the Composition of Proverbs 1–9 (Atlanta: SBL Press, forthcoming). Needless to say, very few people would adhere to that view today!

Well, who did it then?

One of the paradoxes of the exodus account is the interplay of divine and creaturely freedom in bringing salvation. Moses tells the people that they are to stand by and watch the salvation that God will work at the sea (Exod. 14:13), yet God tells Moses to actively participate in the deliverance by stretching out his hand with the staff, thus dividing the waters (Exod. 14:16); in this participation Moses replicates God’s primordial action of separating the waters on the second and third days of creation (Gen. 1:6—10). Even more strikingly, we find that YHWH calls Moses to “bring my people, Israel, out of Egypt” (Exod. 3:10), whereas he had just told Moses that he (YHWH) would “bring them up” (Exod. 3:8). This correspondence of human and divine action is rooted in our creation in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-28), which allows us to adequately represent God on earth. That God is the ultimate agent of salvation, therefore, does not conflict with the fact that human agents are often used in the process of bringing salvation. And yet, while Moses directly confronts Pharaoh with the demand to let the Israelites go and even stretches out his hand over the sea, it is significant that neither he nor Israel has any direct role in fighting against the Egyptians; this is YHWH’s victory.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 84

The Exodus

It is significant that while the exodus is a case of sociopolitical or even military deliverance, in no case does Moses or Israel fight directly agalnst Egypt; that is solely God's job. Thls anticipates the theme, found throughout the Bible, that salvation is accomplished only by God; it is never achieved by human “works.”—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 83 n. 10

Two-fold salvation

The most fundamental meaning of salvation in Scripture is twofold: it is God’s deliverance of those in a situation of need from that which impedes their well-being, resulting in their restoration to wholeness. Wholeness or well—being is God’s original intent for creation, and that which impedes wholeness—sin, evil, and death in all their forms—is fundamentally anti-creational. Both the deliverance of the needy and their full restoration to well-being (in relationship with God, others, and the world) are crucial to salvation, and the term may be used for either or for both together.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 79

It's endemic—no, not the virus, misuse of power

Indeed, we live in a world that glorifies violence and makes an ideal of conquest and military supremacy. Whereas God wants the cloud of his Glory-presence to fill and cover the earth (as it did the tabernacle), we, by our violent misuse of the power entrusted to us, have covered the earth with a cloud of pollution, both physical and moral, thus shutting earth off from God’s full presence.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 55

God's initial (and continuing) intent (hint: It's not what you think)

God’s intent from the beginning is thus for a cooperative world of shalom, generosity, and blessing, evident most fundamentally in his own mode of exercising power at creation. In the New Testament, Jesus even grounds love for enemies in the imago Dei, suggesting that this sort of radical generosity toward others reflects the creator’s own “perfect” love toward all people, shown in his causing sun and rain to benefit both the righteous and the wicked (Matt. 5:43-48; cf. Luke 6:27-35). In the end, nothing less than God’s own exercise of creative activity ought to function as the ethical paradigm or model for our development of culture, with attendant care of the earth and just and loving interhuman action. By our wise exercise of cultural power we truly function as imago Dei, mediating the creator’s presence in the full range of earthly activities, thus fulfilling the initial narrative sequence of the biblical story.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 52

Complementarians take note!

I started a new (in the sense that I hadn't read it yet) book yesterday: J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth (2014). It is written in such a way that it doesn't lend itself to excerpting very well, so there probably won't be a lot of posts on it. In fact, the first one is from almost 20 percent into the book, on page 52. So far, although there are a few nitpicky things I disagree with him on, the book is very good, a much needed correction to most people's eschatology (my own included in that I hadn't put all the pieces together in a coherent way). So, here's the first excerpt:

The Genesis creation account provides a normative basis to critique interhuman injustice or the misuse of power over others, whether in individual cases or in systemic social formations. Specifically, since both male and female are made in God’s image with a joint mandate to rule (Gen. 1:27-28), this calls into question the inequities of power between men and women that have arisen in patriarchal social systems and various forms of sexism throughout history. And since the imago Dei is prior to any ethnic, racial, or national divisions (see Gen. 10), this provides an alternative to ethnocentrism, racism, or any form of national superiority; beneath the legitimate diversity of cultures that have developed in the world, people constitute one human family.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 52

A different kind of mask

No, not a mask to prevent COVID-19, but the mask that too many women feel forced to wear every day. Here's one woman's discussion of it and the freedom she has felt during the lockdowns. A brief snippet, but do read the whole thing to feel to force of what she's saying:

What I’m ultimately railing against is compulsion. The compulsion to groom yourself a certain way to meet (usually very white and bourgeois) standards of “respectability.” Why do I feel “better” when I’ve blowdried my hair? What is better about allocating fifteen minutes of my precious day to standing on front of a mirror with a round brush? What I really crave is the same sort of relief I did back as a teen: I’ve met the status quo, and can breathe comfortably, at least for a bit, within it.

But hair, and makeup, has to be redone. Clothes need to be repurchased. The body has to be regimened to maintain its “appropriate” size. Hair needs cutting, blow dryers need replacing, skin care needs refreshing. The work of meeting the status quo is never finished, and depending on your race and class and body and age, the amount of work to do is not just exhausting, but impossible. (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
I remember reading a few years ago that most women wear makeup for the sake of how they appear other women. A survey done in Britain actually found that most men prefer women without makeup. I know I do. The natural vitality of a person shows so much better without being hidden by a foundation that is designed to make everything "perfect." Consider joining the women who are experiencing the freedom from vanity!

Just an
</idle musing>

Read this post

No, not mine, but this one from Bob on Books. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite:

It’s time, and past time, for the adults in the room to step forward, and for those who should be adults to act like it. We cannot keep escalating our toxic discourse, including our toxic social media postings that are just kindling for the fire. Whether our future is authoritarian, or one of Balkanization, or civil war in our cities (which we have already tasted in some places), each signals the death of “the land that we love.” Each signals the triumph of the argument over the game.

Are you an adult? Act like it and think before you hit posst! Better yet, post something that reflects the concern for the person(s) involved that reflects the idea that they are created in the image of God, as are you. Get out of the judgment seat and into the compassion seat. Let the Holy Spirit guide you, not vengeance and hate. 'Nuff said.

Some good advice

Exploitation and domination are utterly foreign to genuine piety, and possession of things leads only to loneliness. Instead, the pious person’s “affinity with God is his persistent aspiration to go beyond himself," to be devoted to goals and tasks and ideals. For the pious person, destiny means not simply to accomplish, but to contribute. “In aiding a creature, he is helping the Creator. In succoring the poor, he is taking care of something that concerns God. In admiring the good, he is revering the Spirit of God.” xxi

<idle musing>
Some of today's "religious leaders" would do well to heed his advice! It seems that far too many of them are more concerned with amassing things and influence than they are in "aiding a creature." I suspect that is why Jesus said that the last shall be first and the first shall be last—and stressed that the leader should be the servant of all. As usual, we turn Jesus on his head and do the opposite and call it piety! Lord, have mercy!
</idle musing>

The presence of God

Yesterday we finished up Salvation by Allegiance Alone. I hope you enjoyed it. Today we continue with Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity: Essays, by Abraham Joshua Heschel, and edited by his daughter, Susannah Heschel.

In Man Is Not Alone he wrote: “Evaluating faith in terms of reason is like trying to understand love as a syllogism and beauty as an algebraic equation.” Instead, he argued that piety is a phenomenon that must be described on its own terms, as an attitude, a way of thinking in which the pious person feels God to be always close and present: “Awareness of God is as close to him as the throbbing of his own heart, often deep and calm, but at times overwhelming, intoxicating, setting the soul afire.” Piety gives rise to reverence, which sees the “dignity of every human being” and “the spiritual value which even inanimate things inalienably possess.”—Susannah Heschel in Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity: Essays, xxi

Are you a slick salesperson?

Second, hearing a good story is more compelling than analyzing a list of propositions. A salvation procedure says: “Let me walk you through a few facts, and let’s see if I can get you to agree with them, and if so, then I challenge you to take action.” When an audience is marched half-willingly through a salvation procedure, they can perhaps be excused for feeling that a slick salesman is trying to hoodwink them into buying a product. A good story immerses—and the gospel is the greatest of all stories. It allows the hearer to enter into another time, place, and space to recognize his or her own face among the hostile crowds wrongly putting Jesus to death. The hearer feels the plot tension rise to a climax in the crucifixion, and then is flooded with glad relief when it resolves in the resurrection and enthronement.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 201–2

The ANE is more timely than ever

From chapter 6 of the forthcoming Eisenbrauns book, Law and (Dis)Order in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 59th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at Ghent, Belgium, 14–19 July 2013:

“It is a commonly accepted idea that law was introduced in human societies as a shield against revenge and retaliation, both expressions of disorder.[1] It is assumed that order depends on rigorous respect for the law issued by political authorities or local communities.[2] This is true up to a certain point, inasmuch as a legal rule usually meets the implicit requirement of justice, in other words when it does not contradict the notions of fairness, honesty, and rectitude.

“But the assumption that the rule of law is necessarily and always just is far from self-evident. Examples of unjust laws are numerous nowadays, and lead to popular revolts when the brink of acceptance is reached. Law then reveals itself unable to maintain order. What brings peace and stability is basically justice. A rule of law is just a tool, a technical instrument framing the relationship between individuals or institutions. The purpose of the rule is to follow justice, namely the ethical and moral values that are supposed to underlie it. If not, law becomes nothing but a hollow sham or even worse, a means of oppression.”

[1] This opinion is summarized in the following statement by Francis Bacon (1625): “Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out.”

[2] One of the best modern examples is probably the law and order movement that developed by the middle of the 1960s in America, both as a social ideal and a political slogan. See Flamm (2005) [Law and Order: Street Crime, Civil Unrest, and the Crisis of Liberalism in the 1960s. Columbia Studies in Contemporary American History. New York: Columbia University Press.]

<idle musing>
Who knew when she wrote those words in 2013 how timely they would be in describing our world today! We can still learn much from the ancient world!
</idle musing>

"I" this and "I" that...

First, the full gospel keeps the focus squarely on Jesus rather than on the self, compelling the self to be swept up into the saving story of Jesus, rather than allowing the self to remain at the center. The gospel proper is not a salvation procedure focused on the individual. It is the universe—wide story of Jesus’s entire revealed life—from preexistence to anticipated return—a story that unveils God’s saving power for the whole created order. It is a salvation story into which the individual can be whisked up when he or she joins the allegiant community. Gospel culture facilitates total integration of the forgiven self into the cosmic Jesus story; salvation culture encourages the self to stanch the flowing sin—wounds by applying a forgiven-so—I~can—go-to-heaven tourniquet, but it does little to remove the self from the center. 201

Cheap grace?

Most of the confusion about the gospel in our contemporary church culture stems from a failure to see that “Jesus is the king” is the high point of the good news. In a “salvation culture” it may be eagerly acknowledged that “Jesus is Lord,” but Jesus’s cross is what saves us, not his resurrection or lordship, so that lordship can be freely ignored without risking salvation. This is a dangerous error. A “gospel culture,” on the other hand, recognizes that “Jesus is king” is integral to the good news itself, affirming that we indeed are saved by Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection, but these are only personally effective when allegiance to Jesus as king forges a union with him.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 199

<idle musing>
Bonhoeffer had a word for that: Cheap grace. Which isn't really grace at all; it is presumption. And it cheapens the cross and makes a mockery of Christianity.
</idle musing>

It's no legal fiction! It's the truth!

Our past and present justification is not a legal fiction, for if we have given allegiance (pistis) to Jesus the king, we genuinely share in the unshakable, irreversible verdict of innocence that the resurrected Jesus enjoys. Jesus will never be judged again in the future. Jesus the king already stands justified, and so does every person who gives allegiance, because they are incorporated into his righteousness, found to be “in him.” In this indirect sense the Christian does not come under judgment but has eternal life, because the one who gives allegiance is united to the head, King Jesus. That person has died, and his or her life is now “hidden with the Christ in God,” so that when the Christ appears, that person as a member of the Christ’s body will also appear with the Christ in glory (Col. 3:3ndash;4).—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 191–92

Maybe our ordo salutis is defective…

Protestants urgently need to reassess their grammar of salvation. For such distinctions between initial righteousness(so-called justification) and subsequent righteousness (so-called sanctification) simply cannot be consistently maintained by a careful exegesis of the specific terms, thought structures, and categories actually used by even a single one of our biblical authors. Such terminology promotes an individualistic one—time transaction model of justification and in so doing does not deal seriously with justification’s past, present, future, communal, and creational dimensions. In the final analysis Scripture does not make consistent qualitative distinctions between the declared righteousness of the Messiah attained at our initial moment of justification (When we are united with him) and our righteousness in the Messiah as subsequently nurtured and maintained by the Holy Spirit, as if one or the other were more primal or important for our final salvation.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 186

Read this!

If there is only one thing you read today (and I hope that you read more than this!), read Ed Yong's latest piece at The Atlantic on the US and the pandemic. Here's a taste, but please, do read the whole thing. He's one of the few sane voices out there.

Army ants will sometimes walk in circles until they die. The workers navigate by smelling the pheromone trails of workers in front of them, while laying down pheromones for others to follow. If these trails accidentally loop back on themselves, the ants are trapped. They become a thick, swirling vortex of bodies that resembles a hurricane as viewed from space. They march endlessly until they’re felled by exhaustion or dehydration. The ants can sense no picture bigger than what’s immediately ahead. They have no coordinating force to guide them to safety. They are imprisoned by a wall of their own instincts. This phenomenon is called the death spiral. I can think of no better metaphor for the United States of America’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. enters the ninth month of the pandemic with more than 6.3 million confirmed cases and more than 189,000 confirmed deaths. The toll has been enormous because the country presented the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus with a smorgasbord of vulnerabilities to exploit. But the toll continues to be enormous—every day, the case count rises by around 40,000 and the death toll by around 800—because the country has consistently thought about the pandemic in the same unproductive ways.

Many Americans trusted intuition to help guide them through this disaster. They grabbed onto whatever solution was most prominent in the moment, and bounced from one (often false) hope to the next. They saw the actions that individual people were taking, and blamed and shamed their neighbors. They lapsed into magical thinking, and believed that the world would return to normal within months. Following these impulses was simpler than navigating a web of solutions, staring down broken systems, and accepting that the pandemic would rage for at least a year.

<idle musing>
Do read the rest and ponder it. The US is a broken system (calling it a system, even a broken one, is a compliment!) that is in dire need of overhaul. And that overhaul needs to start in every heart; we need to address the fact that our radical individualism is destroying us, and I mean each one of us. We are not independent entities who can create our own meaning. There is a reality out there that is larger than each person and it can destroy us if we don't work together. Sure you might "sacrifice" a little bit, but it isn't really a sacrifice because in the end all will benefit.

I could go on, but you already know everything I would say—most of you could probably say it better than I anyway. Just crying into the wind in an
</idle musing>

Transactional faith? Not rich enough!

But here we run into an obstacle. Not only is pistis capable of a richer definition, but the transactional idea of the Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us so that it covers our unclean sins is nowhere to be found in Scripture. There are passages that urge the Christian to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 13:14) or that affirm that “as many of you as were baptized into the Messiah have put on the Messiah” (Gal. 3:27) and so forth. Meanwhile, there are texts that speak of God counting or reckoning righteousness on the basis of pistis (e.g., Rom. 4:5, 9-11). One passage speaks of the Messiah as having become “wisdom for us from God, and also our righteousness, holiness, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30), but the context does not pertain to legal declaration. Finally, several of the passages reviewed above speak of our genuine sharing in the righteousness of God as that righteousness has been manifested or made available through and in the Christ (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:8—9). But these various images are not combined.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 182–83 (emphasis original)

More on election (not the political kind!)

]A]lthough Romans 8:29-30 gives rock-solid promises of eternal security for the collective people of God, these promises only lend assurance to the individual who remains “in the Messiah”—that is, within the body or group. Since Paul has the collective in view here, his words about foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification apply to the company as a whole, but he does not speak to the security of individual membership in the company. Contrary to the conclusion of many systematic theologians,Paul says nothing here directly about the election of specific individuals to eternal life (or condemnation) or about the inevitability of final salvation for any such chosen individuals.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 173 (emphasis original)

About that "elect" category…I don't think it means what you think it means

Although undeniably systematizing the true order of salvation is a worthy goal, biblical scholars, myself included, generally remain wary of such systems. For even when such systems employ biblical terms as conceptual categories or organizational rubrics, they tend to foist alien concerns onto the biblical text rather than allowing the biblical narrative to supply the framework, and this leads to skewed emphases. For instance, a common category in the order is “election.” This is a biblical term (eklektos and cognates), and it is indeed sometimes used in the Greek Old Testament and the New Testament to emphasize God’s sovereignty in choosing specific individuals and groups for various purposes. But as it is mobilized by systematicians, the tendency is to treat it as a special “salvation” category pertaining to God’s eternal (or slightly later) decree to save or damn certain individuals, when in fact the word means merely “choosing” and frequently doesn’t have eternal salvation or condemnation in view at all, especially not with regard to the individual. My intention is not to suggest that systematics is unnecessary or unhelpful in clarifying Scripture through philosophical inquiry; my point is rather that the biblical story has not always been correctly aimed for systematic inquiry.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 169

Thought for the day

 

For the music leader. According to Jeduthun. A psalm of David.

62 Only in God do I[a] find rest;
    my salvation comes from him.
2 Only God is my rock and my salvation—
    my stronghold!—I won’t be shaken anymore.

3 How long will all of you attack others;
    how long will you tear them down[b]
    as if they were leaning walls or broken-down fences?
4 The only desire of this people
    is to bring others down low;
    they delight in deception.
With their mouths they bless,
    but inside they are cursing. Selah

5 Oh, I[c] must find rest in God only,
    because my hope comes from him!
6 Only God is my rock and my salvation—
    my stronghold!—I will not be shaken.
7 My deliverance and glory depend on God.
    God is my strong rock.
    My refuge is in God.
8 All you people: Trust in him at all times!
    Pour out your hearts before him!
    God is our refuge! Selah

9 Human beings are nothing but a breath.
    Human beings are nothing but lies.
    They don’t even register on a scale;
    taken all together they are lighter than a breath!
10 Don’t trust in violence;
    don’t set false hopes in robbery.
When wealth bears fruit,
    don’t set your heart on it.
11 God has spoken one thing—
    make it two things—
    that I myself have heard:
    that strength belongs to God,
12     and faithful love comes from you, my Lord—
    and that you will repay
    everyone according to their deeds. (CEB)

Footnotes

1. Psalm 62:1 Or my soul
2. Psalm 62:3 Correction; MT kill them
3. Psalm 62:5 Or my soul

Huh?

Get this! We have a president who is encouraging people to break the law by trying to vote twice. That's bad enough, but this same president is running as a "Law and Order" candidate! Whose law? What law? Obviously not the law of the land! Rather, the law of personality. That's truly unamerican, where the rule of law is supposed to be the distinguishing feature.

Just another step down the ladder to totalitarianism. He's got his Brown Shirts already in the form of the "proud boys." And he's tried to make the DHS people his personal thugs. The cities are burning (not as much as he would have us think they are) because of his policies and he wants us to think it is because of his opponents?

Sorry. I don't follow the logic there.

Something to look forward to

We often think of God and humanity as opposites. Humans are error—prone, God is infallible; humans are sinful, God is sinless; humans are mortal, God is immortal; humans are weak, God is all—powerful. This, however, is to reflect upon humans as we find them, not upon humans in light of God’s ultimate intentions for them. All humans are made in the image of God. Yet the ability of fallen humanity to act as the idol of God (i.e., to represent God dynamically by exercising stewardship over creation) has been hampered by the fall. In the incarnation, Jesus comes to us as the genuinely human one, the fulfillment of God’s intentions for what it means to be most completely human. The stunning mystery of what it means to be a flourishing human is this: to be fully human doesn’t mean to be the opposite of God; it means to fully image God, to reflect and represent God flawlessly in God’s entirety, glory, and splendor.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 155

Lost touch with reality? Maybe this is why!

Idol worship, in both its ancient and modern forms, involves a movement away from the domain of the real and thus a concomitant inability to engage the real accurately. In speaking of the false worship of the Israelites, the author of 2 Kings says, “They went after empty idols [hebel] and became empty” (17:15). The prophet Jeremiah echoes this sentiment, saying that in departing from true worship of Yahweh, the people of Judah “went after emptiness, and became empty” (2:5). So idolatry’s trajectory away from the real leads the worshiper finally into a vacuum, a total disconnect from reality—the idol worshiper has become like the insensate idol. As such, she or he is in the end totally unable to use the senses to connect to the domain of the real—God’s truth, beauty, goodness, and oneness as these can be accessed through encounter with God’s creation, which God has given as a gift. Human encounter with God’s glory has been exchanged for an encounter with false images so that humans lack the glory of God.

The good news, on the other hand, is that when we participate in worship of the one true God, the result is that we become increasingly sensate and insightful——we see, hear, smell, and touch the God~crafted reality of the created order, and we correctly recognize that it points to truths about God’s very self. And in so doing we are set free to be fully human once again; that is, we are increasingly conformed to the image of the Son, the truly human one, the one who fully images God.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 155

Hearing what we want to hear

Second, idols lead humans into practical harm because there is a tendency for the idol—maker to “trust in his own creation” (Hab. 2:18). Idols themselves are in truth speechless, but those who provide speech for them “utter nonsense,” and those that seek divination from them “see lies,” for “they tell false dreams and give empty comfort” (Zech. 10:2). In other words, there is a strong human proclivity to cause idols to “say” what we want them to say, and to hear from them what we want to hear. Thus, idols are used to legitimate and rationalize the self—serving interests of those who prophesy and interpret through them. The result is that, rather than being led by God and by the truth, the people are led astray so that they “wander like sheep” (Zech. 10:2).—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 153

Imaging God

How does unauthorized idol worship harm humanity? It results in a defacing, so that humans do not appropriately bear the glorious image of God to creation. That is, when a person is truly acting as the image of God, he or she serves as a genuine contact point between God and creation, mediating God’s presence to creation (including other humans and all other creatures). But when a person worships false idols, the capacity to serve in this way is undermined. The glory of God that the image is to radiate has become distorted. So other humans, animals, plants, and the rest of the earth fail to experience God’s sovereignty through that human as God would desire it to be exercised, and the creation falls into corruption. As Paul puts it, “The creation waits eagerly for the revelation of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19). And why? Because it is awaiting the fullness of the glory of the children of God as they reign alongside the Son (Rom. 8:17; cf. Col. 3:4; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6). In fact, it is in association with the “freedom of the glory of the children of God” that creation is finally “released from its bondage to decay” (Rom. 8:21). In short, if I fail to act as the full image of God, then my neighbors, family, pets, livestock, and the places on the earth over which I have royal stewardship will be bereft of God’s life—giving, wise, ordered rule. 152

About that image thing

The nations surrounding Israel felt their idols did not just represent but actually were a localized manifestation of the god or goddess. They believed that the idol gave the worshiper genuine access to the presence of the god or goddess, because the image made the deity’s presence real, actual, and tangible. This does not mean, however, that the idol and the deity were thereby deemed identical or coterminous; rather, the god or goddess was “the reality that was embodied in the image” [Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 115–16] but at the same time was transcendent beyond the specific embodiment in that discrete idol in such a fashion that the deity could be fully and equally present in other idols.

From the above, we can conclude that what it meant to be in the image/idol of a god in the ancient Near East was not about having a singularly unique capacity, such as reason or a soul that might separate humans from the animals; rather the image served as a holistic manifestation of the divine presence to those who might encounter the deity in and through the image. Yet the deity remained transcendent beyond the image. Not just in the ancient Near Eastern world of the Old Testament but also during the time of Jesus, many pagans living in the Mediterranean region believed that their idols were a nexus of the mundane and the divine, a complex portal where heaven and earth kissed. As Nijay Gupta has recently concluded on the basis of his study of Greco-Roman cult statues, from the pagan vantage point idols (1) were not merely human creations but also divine; (2) were living; (3) were able to see, hear, and speak; (4) could sometimes move; and (5) were capable of “saving” their worshipers from illness, danger, or trouble [Gupta, "They Are Not Gods!," 712–718]. To meet the image was to encounter the god or goddess who was imbued and manifested in the image and who acted through it.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 150

Who decides?

Nearer the time of Jesus, Minucius Felix, a late second- or early third-century Christian apologist, gives an insightful mockery of pagan idol worship that gives a handy compressed description of the process by which an idol came to be considered fully divine in his day and age: “When does the god come into being? The image is cast, hammered, or sculpted; it is not yet a god. It is soldered, put together, and erected; it is still not a god. It is adorned, consecrated, prayed to—and now, finally, it is a god once man has willed it so and dedicated it” (Oct. 22.5).—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 149

And there was no more sea

John’s vision in Revelation describing an oceanless new heaven and new earth thus anticipates but goes beyond the vision of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God promises in his covenant with Noah that he will never destroy all flesh again by unbounding the reservoir of waters (Gen. 9:11). Moreover, God will one day slay the great writhing dragon of the sea (Isa. 27:1—2). A river flowing from the temple will make the Dead Sea fresh (Ezek. 47:1—12). Yet John’s vision brings this line of thought a step further. At the end of God’s story the sea will not even exist! John’s vision indicates that the danger posed by the untamed waters (and the beasts associated with the waters) in times past and present will no longer even be possible in the the new earth. The perilous sea will not just remain tame but will have been entirely removed. John’s vision of an oceanless new order, then is best read as announcing the utter and absolute removal of all external threats to life for humankind.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 135 (emphasis original)

But how much faith is necessary?

It is better to ask what sort of allegiance than how much, because allegiance depends on what Jesus the king commands each of us individually to do and whether he determines now and at the final judgment that you and I have given pistis. If we give pistis to Jesus as Lord by declaring allegiance, determining to enact loyalty, and showing through bodily doing that our determination was not just lip service, then we can rest assured that his death on our behalf is utterly and completely efficacious—all of our sins are forgiven in the Messiah (even our selfish acts of temporary disloyalty). And the Holy Spirit invariably comes alongside us to assist us in faithful living.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 124–25 (emphasis original)

Aaaggghhh!

I feel better now... sometimes you just have to vent to the air. The psalmists do it all the time, and that's where I've been spending most of my time lately, reading the Psalms over and over. They understand the ups and downs of life and don't sugar-coat reality. They do always end up acknowledging God's overarching direction, and so do I. But sometimes the day-to-day clouds your vision. Screaming into the air, to God, can clear that fog. So that's what I just did.

Wrong-headed question

When I find myself wondering whether my allegiance is enough, I am forced to remind myself that this is to ask the wrong question. Indeed, those who are concerned enough to ask it are probably those who are in the least danger of a lack of allegiance—although they may be drawing nigh to a risky legalism. To seek to quantify or develop a set of hard and fast rules by which one could measure sufficient loyalty is antithetical to the gospel—indeed, it is precisely this rule—based approach that causes Paul so much consternatlon in his polemic against works of law. Enacted loyalty is required as the Holy Spirit empowers us, and this enacted loyalty means a settled intention and truly changed bodily behavior. But a personalized description of how much loyalty is necessary for me or for you is not only impossible; it is wrongheaded.

Allegiance cannot be quantified or enumerated. How would you feel if you were getting married and your spouse wanted a list of rules issued in advance describing how far he or she could go sexually in a relationship with another before it would be considered cheating? Or what, if you were a soldier during wartime, would your general think if you wanted a list defining how much military aid you could give to the opponent before it would be considered treason? The desire for an enumerated list is often indicative of one of two things: either a failure to know and trust the goodness of Jesus the king or a what—can-I-get—away—with orientation.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 124

Works of the law

So the Mosaic law, even though it is God-ordained, nonetheless was subject to the limitations of all such rule-based systems. Law makes the sin problem worse by exciting the flesh. Thus it cannot result in the kind of righteousness that God desires. As Paul puts it elsewhere, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive” (2 Cor. 3:6). That is, the letter of the law associated with the Mosaic covenant kills, but the Holy Spirit supplies life. Why? Because the Spirit sets us free from the performance demands of the Old Covenant (2 Cor. 3:17), allowing us to be transformed into the image of Jesus the Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). The good works that the law was really directed toward all along are indeed fulfilled for those who walk in accordance with the Spirit:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not consummate the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are contrary to the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are contrary to the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, so that you do not do the things you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality. (Gal. 5:16-19)

In other words, allegiance to the Christ entails life in the Spirit (which is precisely what it means to be part of the church) rather than life under the law—and this allegiance is manifest as a concrete way of life that puts to death the flesh’s wicked practices. It also means that the fruit of the Spirit Will be embodied, but not necessarily in a simple cause—and-effect relationship between initial “faith” (as “belief” or “trust”) and subsequent “good deeds.” Rather the Spirit’s actions in the midst of the community that continues to profess “Jesus is Lord” is the cause, and the effect is spiritual gifts that manifest “good deeds” performed as ongoing allegiance (see 1 Cor. 12:1—3).—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 120-21

Wrong focus

Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 569, puts it summarily: “The priority of the gift is everywhere presupposed, but Paul rarely draws out predestinarian conclusions, as in the Hodayot [of the Dead Sea Scrolls] or in the theologies of Augustine and Calvin.” That is, Paul himself is not nearly as interested in perfecting the volitional priority of God’s personal electing grace (God’s choosing specific individuals before their birth for final salvation) as some of Paul’s interpreters have been. While God’s all—encompassing knowledge of the past, present, and future is everywhere presupposed (e. g., Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:9), and Paul frequently speaks of specific events that God has arranged in advance (Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 15:51-55; Gal. 3:8; Eph. 1:3—14; 2:10; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:9), Paul’s emphasis is consistently on God’s choosing of the Christ and the corporate people of God in the Christ, not on individual predestination unto eternal life or damnation.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 106 n. 5

That's NOT the point!

Although philosophical consistency suggests that it is almost certainly the case that God—who transcends ordinary categories of space and time—knows in advance the eternal destiny of each individual person, this is not Paul’s point here or elsewhere (contra Calvin and others). Even Paul’s example vis-a—vis Pharaoh in Romans 9:16-23 does not speak directly about Pharaoh’s eternal fate, but only shows that God may harden individuals in order to assist others and to bring greater glory to God’s own self. God retains the prerogative to reshape that vessel of wrath into something new even as he uses it as an instrument of his mercy. Misshapen potter’s clay was not generally thrown away or destroyed in antiquity but rather put back on the wheel and crafted afresh (for evidence, see Jer. 18:4-6 as the background to Rom. 9:16-23). Even in this particular case, as the Bible presents the matter, God’s hardening is in full cooperation with Pharaoh’s free will, as the God-ordained consequences of Pharaoh’s own choices move him to a state of ever—greater (but from his vantage point still potentially revocable) hard-heartedness.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 106

Words matter

Words, he often wrote, are themselves sacred, God’s tool for creating the universe, and our tools for bringing holiness—or evil—into the world. He used to remind us that the Holocaust did not begin with the building of crematoria, and Hitler did not come to power with tanks and guns; it all began with uttering evil words, with defamation, with language and propaganda. Words create worlds, he used to tell me when I was a child.—Susannah Heschel in Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity: Essays, viii

<idle musing>
A timely reminder, as we have a president who gushes lies and hate. What he says matters—not in the way he thinks, but in the world that his words are building. Is that the world you want to live in? I don't! It's not a godly looking world; there is no shalom in it.
</idle musing>

By grace, through faith, yes. But what does that entail?

In short, we cannot say in an unqualified fashion that final salvation is by grace and by faith apart from embodied obedience, for this misunderstands the nature of both charis (“grace”) and pistis (“faith”) in antiquity and in Paul’s Letters. We must recognize the bankruptcy of our current selves, especially our self—centered indulgences and ambitions. Through participation in the Christ’s death and resurrection, we must die to our old selves with the Messiah and become new selves, and in so doing follow the road of obedient service that our Lord commands by enacting allegiance. For Paul “faith” recognizes we are utterly dead and totally undeserving of God’s grace, but the grasping of God’s life-from-the—dead grace demands a trajectory of loyal obedience.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 105

Prayer and Abraham Joshua Heschel

Over the weekend, we went to a thrift store; it's one of the few outings we've done in the last 4 months. As always, I browsed the books while Debbie looked at clothing. I rarely find anything, but this time I found a real gem: Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity: Essays, by Abraham Joshua Heschel, edited by his daughter, Susannah Heschel. It's a collection of his essays and begins with a biographical introduction by his daughter. Here's a nice little snippet to start us out:

He used to say in his lectures, "Just as you cannot study philosophy through praying, you cannot study prayer through philosophizing."—Susannah Heschel in Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity: Essays, xxi

Grace and behavior

Contemporary Christian notions of grace also frequently fail to take into account the effective nature of grace. That is, the aim of God’s gift of the Christ is to set us free from our slavery to sin, the law, and evil powers and to transform us so that we become new creatures, righteous in the Messiah (Rom. 5:20-21; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Gal. 1:1-6; 6:15; Titus 2:11-14). In the Christ, we are ruled by grace, “grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life” (Rom. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:17; 1 Cor. 15:10). It is inappropriate, then, to suggest that God’s gift of the Messiah, if the gift is accepted and subsequently held, would be ineffective in bringing about God’s transformative aims. So we should not set grace at odds with the required behavioral changes (good deeds) associated with allegiant union to Jesus the king.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 104 (emphasis original)

Thought for the day

3 When the very bottom of things falls out,
     what can a righteous person possibly accomplish?

4 But the Lord is in his holy temple.
     The Lord! His throne is in heaven.
His eyes see—
     his vision examines all of humanity.
5 The Lord examines
     both the righteous and the wicked;
     his very being hates anyone who loves violence.
6 God will rain fiery coals and sulfur on the wicked;
     their cups will be filled
     with nothing but a scorching hot wind
7 because the Lord is righteous!
     He loves righteous deeds.
     Those whose heart is right will see God’s face.— Ps. 10 (CEB)

If you confess with your mouth…

[N]otice that in the other portion of the verses under discussion, Romans 10:9—10, Paul states that for a person to be saved, he or she must “confess” with the mouth that “Jesus is Lord.” It is important to recognize that Paul does not say “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus fulfills the Davidic promise” or “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus died for your sins.” With regard to confessing, the focus lands squarely on one specific stage of the gospel—Jesus as Lord. Why? This is not mere happenstance.

Confession of Jesus as Lord is an expression of allegiance to him as the ruling king. Paul is pointing at our need to swear allegiance to Jesus as the Lord, the ruling sovereign, precisely because this lordship stage of Jesus’s career expressly summarizes a key aspect of the gospel, describes Jesus’s current role in earthly and heavenly affairs, and is the essential reality that must be affirmed to become part of God’s family. Public acknowledgement of the acceptance of Jesus’s rule is the premier culminating act of pistis. The verb that Paul selects to describe what is necessary, homologeo, refers in this sort of context to a public declaration, as is made clear by the “with your mouth.” Paul does not envision raising your hand in church or silently praying a prayer in your heart as a sufficient “confession” (nor does Paul say that such an action couldn’t initiate salvation, but he clearly intends something more substantive). Paul is talking about something public and verbal, like what might happen at an ancient baptism.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 97–98 (emphasis original)

So who reigns?

Other terms that we today traditionally associate with Christianity were also popular as part of imperial propaganda. In the broader Greco-Roman world, the word euangelion, “gospel,” could mean good news of military victory or of the emperor’s birth or reign. The term kyrios, “lord,” along with sōtēr, “savior,” was a favored term used by the emperor. In fact if one had ceased to be a Christian and wanted to prove that to the Roman authorities, then one could offer a sacrifice in the presence of a statue of the emperor while saying “Caesar is Lord,” which was understood in such contexts as incompatible with the sworn confession “Jesus is Lord.” We have a detailed description of this process in the letter of Pliny to the emperor Trajan, written around AD 112. Pliny certainly understood that allegiance to Jesus as a sovereign was more fundamental to Christianity than anything else, even if it is not readily recognized today.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 88

<idle musing>
Indeed! We see all too much evidence of that everyday here in the US, with christianity being equated with nationalism. The early church wouldn't understand any of our culture war mentality. They knew Jesus was Lord and that he reigned. And because of that, they were not manipulated by fear, the weapon of choice today against christians.
</idle musing>

The weekend that was

We had a storm come through on Saturday afternoon, with winds up to 60 MPH. It knocked down both my pole bean trellis and my cucumber one; they were both made from 1x2 and 2x2 lumber. I spent a few hours yesterday rebuilding them and reinforcing them by tying them to the garage, the old clothesline post, and a pair of fenceposts. I don't think they will come falling down again. Miraculously, none of the plants were destroyed.

We also were without electricity for about 10 hours. The electricity had flickered a couple times, and then a blast of lightning hit so close that the boom was almost simultaneous with the flash. Probably the closest I've ever experienced. Later we found out that most of our side of town was without power. We got ours back around 2:00 AM. Others didn't get their power back until Sunday afternoon.

When we went out for a walk after the storm, there were limbs down everywhere. On East Avenue, tree had fallen across the road, blocking it. It had also taken out some power lines. It was an older maple that was hollow inside, so it basically snapped into pieces.

Sunday afternoon, about 20 hours after the storm, I was working the garden (putting the trellises back together) when I heard a loud crash from the front yard. I thought maybe someone was doing some cleanup across the street and kept working. A minute or two later, a neighbor told me to look out front. A limb from our maple, weakened by the storm, had cracked and fallen across the street! Normally, there is a vehicle parked under that limb, but they were gone. Five minutes later, they came home. Needless to say, they were extremely thankful that their vehicle wasn't parked there when the limb fell.

Here are a couple of pictures of it.

So, what is this faith thing?

“Faith is not an alternative achievement nor a refined human spirituality, but a declaration of bankruptcy, a radical and shattering recognition that the only capital in God’s economy is the gift of Christ crucified and risen” ([Barclay, Paul and the Gift] 384—85; cf. 390n5). Perhaps faith, then, is best understood as an allegiance to the Christ predicated on the recognition that nothing apart from this allegiance has saving value.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 83 n. 15

Why foreground "Christ"?

I would argue that the probability that Paul specifically intends to foreground the allegiance aspect of pistis in passages such as these is moved from possible to highly probable when we consider that, for Paul, Jesus above all is the Christ or the Lord. “Jesus is Lord” is in fact where the gospel above all reaches a climax. When Paul speaks of Jesus Christ—and note that he does speak in this way every time Jesus is mentioned in all of the passages quoted above—Christ is not a last name or a meaningless addition; it is an honorific designation. It means Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the long-anticipated but now-ruling Jewish-style universal king. I cannot overstate the importance of this. In other words, Paul everywhere presupposes that the most basic identity of Jesus is that of the enthroned divine—human king, the actively ruling Son of God. So contextually the most obvious and natural way to speak about the proper relationship between the king and his people is allegiance or loyalty.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 82–83

What is the gospel?

The Gospel: An Outline

Jesus the king

1. preexisted with the Father,
2. took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David,
3. died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4. was buried,
5. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
6. appeared to many,
7. is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and
8. will come again as judge.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 74

<idle musing>
Straight out of 1 Cor 15. It's usually called the kerygma, a Greek word meaning announcement. Unfortunately, most people truncate the gospel to items 3 through 5, possibly including 6 as an afterthought. They totally neglect the other ones, which are what frame the gospel and make it Good News.
</idle musing>

A logical reaction

Is it any wonder, then, that upon hearing Jesus’s shocking allusion to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7, the high priest tore his garments, exclaiming, “Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What is your decision?” And then we find it summarily reported, “They all condemned him as deserving of death” (Mark 14:63—64). Knowing full well that he was going to die, Jesus had claimed that he was nonetheless about to be installed as the king at God’s own right hand, as the ruler over a universal and everlasting kingdom, and that his accusers would soon be condemned by God. Jesus anticipated that his death and resurrection were in the final analysis purposed toward his enthronement as the king of heaven and earth. In other words, in the Gospels Jesus is described as proclaiming the good news that he would be seated at the right hand of God as the cosmic king or universal lord.Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 72

Turning the tables, or things aren't what they seem to be

Two things are particularly noteworthy here [Dan 7:13–14]. First, not only is this “one like a son of man" given glory and an eternal kingdom; the scope of his rule is also universal, “that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.” Second, Jesus has deliberately alluded to this particular vision from Daniel 7 with his provocative words “and you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.” The images evoked—a trial scene, the coming of the Son of Man, the clouds of heaven, and receipt of heavenly authority to rule—are far too specific to suggest anything otherwise.

So Jesus, before a human tribunal, makes the outrageous statement that he indeed is “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,” implying that even if he is falsely judged by a human court, he will be vindicated by God, seated at God’s right hand, and given an everlasting kingdom over which he will rule. And in so doing, Jesus once again has subversively turned the tables on his accusers, bringing out the deep irony of the entire trial scene. For if those who are trying Jesus—the Jewish high priest, ruling council, and their lackeys—find him guilty, then Jesus has insinuated that they will in fact be acting not as the Ancient of Days would desire, but rather in collusion with the fourth beast and its arrogant horn by attacking Jesus. And these are the very ones who fancy themselves to be standing in the legitimate place of the God of Israel in giving a verdict, especially the high priest! Jesus’s words have turned the entire trial scene upside down, for Jesus has asserted that this earthly trial is an inversion of the heavenly reality. It is in fact, as Jesus has painted the picture, the high priest and his minions who are really on trial in association with the fourth beast’s hostile activities, and they will be condemned and ultimately destroyed by God! Meanwhile, Jesus is about to be declared innocent and installed as king, sharing in God’s very throne.Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 71–72