There have been some excellent theological blog entries of late, so I thought I'd share a few of them here...
1. Mockingbird's piece on beauty (a look at the Dove advert on how women see themselves) - fascinating stuff (not just the piece, but the comments are also superb).
2. A New Name's recent post on what really makes us Christians (thanks, Emma & Glen).
3. Heart, Mind, Soul & Strength's latest on what do we mean by 'Grace'?
4. Christ the Truth's entry on how being trinitarian always points us to Jesus.
Enjoy!
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Shocker
"As for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
bring them here and slaughter them in front of me". Luke 19:27.
I watched a short you tube video recently, in which a Muslim teacher raised this particular verse with Christians as evidence that Jesus preached the islamic message (presumably, a message of submission to God through Islam or, alternatively, facing annihilation), and that this verse verified his argument. The Christians, sadly, denied the verse was there until it was looked up, and then didn't really know what to say, so the Muslim appeared vindicated, but what was really happening, on both sides of the discussion, was eisegesis, not exegesis. What's really being stated here is meant to make us stop in our tracks, but is imperative to understand why, and that means looking at this statement in context.
The statement comes at the end of a parable, which is clearly about two distinct groups of people and their relationship to the rightful heir to a kingdom. The first group are those who are servants of this nobleman. As He departs to legally claim His inheritance, he gives them a task - to keep His estates lucrative until He returns (Luke 19:13). There is also a second group identified in the story - the citizens of the realm where He will become King. We are not told why, but these people really do not want this Lord as their King (possibly because of the responsibility - the value and the weight of serving Him - that this will entail), and they demonstrate this by sending a delegation to make their view clear.
Well, the noble's claims are verified, and sure enough, He returns as King of the realm.
One of His first concerns is to see how well His servants have done with the tenure of what He entrusted to them whilst He was away. Most of them have done well, but there is one (verse 20), who clearly didn't see such an entrusting as a privilege, but, perhaps because he shared the thinking of the masses, did nothing with the sum he'd been asked to risk.
In Matthew's version of the story, the servant here is deemed entirely worthless (Matthew 25: 30), not only because he did nothing of value (vs 27), but because, as both versions show (Luke 19:21, Matthew 25:24), He only viewed his Lord as someone who judges and punishes, not as someone who delights to bring joy and reward.
It's interesting how often people want to place Jesus Himself into a similar mould here - we're fine with a 'jesus' who is about love and peace and non-interference in what we're about, but the moment we're faced with His requirements to trust only in Him, we define those as harsh and callous, and totally refuse to listen to what He has to say. "God", in other words (whatever we make 'it' to be), is just fine as long as He's at arms length (or preferably, even further away, in a distant land), not close enough to be making demands on us.
The fact remains, however, that the one who has given us so much (life is staggering when you begin to unpack what it is and how we can engage with it), expects us to value and use it well - to really discern the goodness of the one who not only furnished us with such splendor, but wants us to truly understand and employ these gifts, because we come to understand Him. The gifts themselves, then, merely become means of something much richer and enduring - they allow us to nurture a growing relationship with the giver of life. Life is all about gaining that wisdom - realizing that when it comes to the moment of reckoning, we can say we've done something meaningful and of value with what has been bestowed upon us, however large or small that gift may have been, because the King Himself was paramount in what transpired. The King really isn't worried how much or little is made - what counts is that we jump in and do something and are truly enriched in the process, because it makes more aware of what He truly wants for us.
So, that's the story for the servants. These are people, for the most part, who recognize the rightful claim of the nobleman to be King, and are rewarded on His return, but there are clearly others who do not. That brings us back to the other group mentioned in the start of the story - those who would have nothing to do with their true King. Their rebellion and rejection is clear from the word go, but notice the same mistake as that of the unproductive servant - they don't know their own king.
This nobleman's rights are verified and vindicated, so we are not dealing with a usurper here - this Lord is claiming what is rightfully His. The rejection of and rebellion against this Lord, then, is entirely wrong. It is, in essence, taking everything from someone, miss-using what you have taken, and then refusing in any way to acknowledge the wrong in what you have done.
These wayward citizens of the realm reject their King because they know it means the end to their self determination of what counts to them, but, even more importantly, it's a refusal to take up their responsibilities - the mantle of their true identities, and to participate in what truly counts... their relationship to the King and to each other. Really being citizens carries that role.
The judgement at the end of the story - 'kill off' (literally, removed from life) - is uncompromising because the rejection of these people of who and what they really are (citizens of a kingdom) is equally as total. They want nothing to do with this King, His Kingdom, or any part of that. That sums up our natural state - we reject the one who has made us, and we rebel against any of His claims upon us by placing something, anything, in His place. Judgement is essentially about God giving us over to the consequences of our choice - hell is quite literally the absence of all that gives value and meaning to our being human (made in His image and likeness). If we don't participate, but reject what's really going on in this 'realm' of ours, then we are most certainly building our own cell.
One final question, then, remains - who is the 'King' in this tale? Who is the one who has come amongst us, been rejected by all but the few 'servants' who know Him, and is coming back to reign over all men? When we look at the words of Jesus Himself (regarding the final judgement in Matthew 25:31-46, and His entry into and weeping over Jerusalem before cleansing the temple in Luke 19:28-48), it quickly becomes clear who the 'King' over us is - not an estranged or distant god, vengeful and capricious in judgement, but one fully aquatinted with us, who's actual purpose is to bring life. It is only when we reject this astonishing truth - truth personified in the humbled, suffering King of Kings; a truth which shows us who we are meant to be as citizens of value and worth - that darkness leaves us impoverished and exiled from all that counts.
The King comes! The one 'investment' that truly counts, here and now, is we live life in the awareness of the unchangeable reality, or face the consequences of our stubborn rejection.
There, then, is the only ultimate meaning. It is to live in waiting for, preparing for, that approaching return. Everything else, says Jesus, amounts to nothing but our end. That end is terrifying - no meaning, no significance, no true being - cut off from all that really counts. The alternative couldn't be more stark - life filled with relevance, now and forever.
In a world which is all about living for the moment, such a choice, of course, sounds too deep, too radical, too good to be true, but the King Himself is the one telling us that it is.
Isn't it time to stop playing with what Jesus says, and to really think about Him and what He's saying? This story is shouting the answer at us.
bring them here and slaughter them in front of me". Luke 19:27.
I watched a short you tube video recently, in which a Muslim teacher raised this particular verse with Christians as evidence that Jesus preached the islamic message (presumably, a message of submission to God through Islam or, alternatively, facing annihilation), and that this verse verified his argument. The Christians, sadly, denied the verse was there until it was looked up, and then didn't really know what to say, so the Muslim appeared vindicated, but what was really happening, on both sides of the discussion, was eisegesis, not exegesis. What's really being stated here is meant to make us stop in our tracks, but is imperative to understand why, and that means looking at this statement in context.
The statement comes at the end of a parable, which is clearly about two distinct groups of people and their relationship to the rightful heir to a kingdom. The first group are those who are servants of this nobleman. As He departs to legally claim His inheritance, he gives them a task - to keep His estates lucrative until He returns (Luke 19:13). There is also a second group identified in the story - the citizens of the realm where He will become King. We are not told why, but these people really do not want this Lord as their King (possibly because of the responsibility - the value and the weight of serving Him - that this will entail), and they demonstrate this by sending a delegation to make their view clear.
Well, the noble's claims are verified, and sure enough, He returns as King of the realm.
One of His first concerns is to see how well His servants have done with the tenure of what He entrusted to them whilst He was away. Most of them have done well, but there is one (verse 20), who clearly didn't see such an entrusting as a privilege, but, perhaps because he shared the thinking of the masses, did nothing with the sum he'd been asked to risk.
In Matthew's version of the story, the servant here is deemed entirely worthless (Matthew 25: 30), not only because he did nothing of value (vs 27), but because, as both versions show (Luke 19:21, Matthew 25:24), He only viewed his Lord as someone who judges and punishes, not as someone who delights to bring joy and reward.
It's interesting how often people want to place Jesus Himself into a similar mould here - we're fine with a 'jesus' who is about love and peace and non-interference in what we're about, but the moment we're faced with His requirements to trust only in Him, we define those as harsh and callous, and totally refuse to listen to what He has to say. "God", in other words (whatever we make 'it' to be), is just fine as long as He's at arms length (or preferably, even further away, in a distant land), not close enough to be making demands on us.
The fact remains, however, that the one who has given us so much (life is staggering when you begin to unpack what it is and how we can engage with it), expects us to value and use it well - to really discern the goodness of the one who not only furnished us with such splendor, but wants us to truly understand and employ these gifts, because we come to understand Him. The gifts themselves, then, merely become means of something much richer and enduring - they allow us to nurture a growing relationship with the giver of life. Life is all about gaining that wisdom - realizing that when it comes to the moment of reckoning, we can say we've done something meaningful and of value with what has been bestowed upon us, however large or small that gift may have been, because the King Himself was paramount in what transpired. The King really isn't worried how much or little is made - what counts is that we jump in and do something and are truly enriched in the process, because it makes more aware of what He truly wants for us.
So, that's the story for the servants. These are people, for the most part, who recognize the rightful claim of the nobleman to be King, and are rewarded on His return, but there are clearly others who do not. That brings us back to the other group mentioned in the start of the story - those who would have nothing to do with their true King. Their rebellion and rejection is clear from the word go, but notice the same mistake as that of the unproductive servant - they don't know their own king.
This nobleman's rights are verified and vindicated, so we are not dealing with a usurper here - this Lord is claiming what is rightfully His. The rejection of and rebellion against this Lord, then, is entirely wrong. It is, in essence, taking everything from someone, miss-using what you have taken, and then refusing in any way to acknowledge the wrong in what you have done.
These wayward citizens of the realm reject their King because they know it means the end to their self determination of what counts to them, but, even more importantly, it's a refusal to take up their responsibilities - the mantle of their true identities, and to participate in what truly counts... their relationship to the King and to each other. Really being citizens carries that role.
The judgement at the end of the story - 'kill off' (literally, removed from life) - is uncompromising because the rejection of these people of who and what they really are (citizens of a kingdom) is equally as total. They want nothing to do with this King, His Kingdom, or any part of that. That sums up our natural state - we reject the one who has made us, and we rebel against any of His claims upon us by placing something, anything, in His place. Judgement is essentially about God giving us over to the consequences of our choice - hell is quite literally the absence of all that gives value and meaning to our being human (made in His image and likeness). If we don't participate, but reject what's really going on in this 'realm' of ours, then we are most certainly building our own cell.
One final question, then, remains - who is the 'King' in this tale? Who is the one who has come amongst us, been rejected by all but the few 'servants' who know Him, and is coming back to reign over all men? When we look at the words of Jesus Himself (regarding the final judgement in Matthew 25:31-46, and His entry into and weeping over Jerusalem before cleansing the temple in Luke 19:28-48), it quickly becomes clear who the 'King' over us is - not an estranged or distant god, vengeful and capricious in judgement, but one fully aquatinted with us, who's actual purpose is to bring life. It is only when we reject this astonishing truth - truth personified in the humbled, suffering King of Kings; a truth which shows us who we are meant to be as citizens of value and worth - that darkness leaves us impoverished and exiled from all that counts.
The King comes! The one 'investment' that truly counts, here and now, is we live life in the awareness of the unchangeable reality, or face the consequences of our stubborn rejection.
There, then, is the only ultimate meaning. It is to live in waiting for, preparing for, that approaching return. Everything else, says Jesus, amounts to nothing but our end. That end is terrifying - no meaning, no significance, no true being - cut off from all that really counts. The alternative couldn't be more stark - life filled with relevance, now and forever.
In a world which is all about living for the moment, such a choice, of course, sounds too deep, too radical, too good to be true, but the King Himself is the one telling us that it is.
Isn't it time to stop playing with what Jesus says, and to really think about Him and what He's saying? This story is shouting the answer at us.
Friday, 17 May 2013
As necessary as bread and water....
A really vital approach to spirituality from the White Horse Inn:
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Sorrow
"Such are waterless clouds, fruitless trees in the season, twice dead and uprooted, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved forever" Jude 12&13.
It is, without doubt, one of the worst things that can be done - when someone is intentionally defrauded of their true value or their true status by deceit and guile. It lies at the very core of our current poverty and misery as a race - we were sold a lie of meaning which negated confidence in the one who cherished us, nurtured us, and furnished our existence with a world filled with good things for us to discover, contemplate and understand. We have become such twisted things that we are no longer those capable of drawing near to the splendor for which we were made, but are severed from the beauty and the majesty of all that was meant to be.
So works the horror of false doctrine.
Truth protects us from becoming beings motivated by or acting through anything other than agape - an encompassing, volitional love that finds its true joy in honoring and pleasing another. Deceit first mutilates our affections, selfishly conforming our aspirations to an immediate gaining of a desire, be it material or spiritual (and loosing something of infinitely more value as a result). By our acting from such a stance, we become creatures disconnected from anything but our sole obsession. A lie blinds us to what we should see about ourselves and the nature of reality, turning us into those who are at war with the very essence, the very fiber, of what life is meant to be - partaking of a gift which causes us to know love and to delight in sharing that love.
We know that in Eden we were intended to express that manner of life to all that God had made, but since the fall, God had worked through His people, saved by His Son (Jude 5), to speak the truth in love to our fallen world, thus, the church has become the temple, the garden, where the life which is meant to fill creation can be evidenced (Jude 2). As in that first realm, however, the church itself has become the focal point of conflict (vs 3) - the maelstrom at the very heart of the war between love and deceit. We commonly see this in teaching and teachers (Vs 4) which follow the pattern of defrauding evidenced in the garden - they 'turn' (twist) the living word of life into something which causes us to pursue an allure - a "form of godliness" which is hollow - empty of the love of God given to us in His Son (vs 1).
Jude gives us numerous examples of such authorities and leaders (verses 5 to 11), but what is imperative in all of these examples is that these rebels chose not to believe in the word that God Himself had spoken, but sought to establish something other as true, and thereby perpetuate a deceit and a lie. The essence of corruption is to place weight in a mandate which divorces us from the source of life, mercy, grace and care. All to often, our priorities, our decrees, our "anointed" revelations, can become such chains, for they neither truly makes us free as His children, or lift up the one who saves us to the uttermost.
We are admonished to discern such poison, to avoid it, and to take heed to the words of those who have pointed to God's living work, to find our encouragement and aid there, because only then are we keeping ourselves in God's astonishing love (vs 21), and can aid others who are wounded by such guile (vs 22). This is the only remedy to the murder of life. It is our role to see satan crushed by our looking to the life from God in Christ, and not the wiles of those seeking to defraud us from such wondrous grace.
It is, without doubt, one of the worst things that can be done - when someone is intentionally defrauded of their true value or their true status by deceit and guile. It lies at the very core of our current poverty and misery as a race - we were sold a lie of meaning which negated confidence in the one who cherished us, nurtured us, and furnished our existence with a world filled with good things for us to discover, contemplate and understand. We have become such twisted things that we are no longer those capable of drawing near to the splendor for which we were made, but are severed from the beauty and the majesty of all that was meant to be.
So works the horror of false doctrine.
Truth protects us from becoming beings motivated by or acting through anything other than agape - an encompassing, volitional love that finds its true joy in honoring and pleasing another. Deceit first mutilates our affections, selfishly conforming our aspirations to an immediate gaining of a desire, be it material or spiritual (and loosing something of infinitely more value as a result). By our acting from such a stance, we become creatures disconnected from anything but our sole obsession. A lie blinds us to what we should see about ourselves and the nature of reality, turning us into those who are at war with the very essence, the very fiber, of what life is meant to be - partaking of a gift which causes us to know love and to delight in sharing that love.
We know that in Eden we were intended to express that manner of life to all that God had made, but since the fall, God had worked through His people, saved by His Son (Jude 5), to speak the truth in love to our fallen world, thus, the church has become the temple, the garden, where the life which is meant to fill creation can be evidenced (Jude 2). As in that first realm, however, the church itself has become the focal point of conflict (vs 3) - the maelstrom at the very heart of the war between love and deceit. We commonly see this in teaching and teachers (Vs 4) which follow the pattern of defrauding evidenced in the garden - they 'turn' (twist) the living word of life into something which causes us to pursue an allure - a "form of godliness" which is hollow - empty of the love of God given to us in His Son (vs 1).
Jude gives us numerous examples of such authorities and leaders (verses 5 to 11), but what is imperative in all of these examples is that these rebels chose not to believe in the word that God Himself had spoken, but sought to establish something other as true, and thereby perpetuate a deceit and a lie. The essence of corruption is to place weight in a mandate which divorces us from the source of life, mercy, grace and care. All to often, our priorities, our decrees, our "anointed" revelations, can become such chains, for they neither truly makes us free as His children, or lift up the one who saves us to the uttermost.
We are admonished to discern such poison, to avoid it, and to take heed to the words of those who have pointed to God's living work, to find our encouragement and aid there, because only then are we keeping ourselves in God's astonishing love (vs 21), and can aid others who are wounded by such guile (vs 22). This is the only remedy to the murder of life. It is our role to see satan crushed by our looking to the life from God in Christ, and not the wiles of those seeking to defraud us from such wondrous grace.
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Beautiful Lies
"But I fear, that as the serpent deceived Eve by cunning, so your thoughts will be lead astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus, or if you receive a different spirit or gospel from the one you accepted from us, that you will indulge it readily enough". 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 4.
Back in the 1970's, Paul Billheimer published a 'revolutionary' book on Prayer and the overcoming Christian life. Nestled in the second chapter of this work, was his teaching about the 'supreme rank of redeemed humanity'.
This is what he stated: "Created originally in the image of God, redeemed humanity had been elevated by means of a directly conceived genetic process known as the new birth to the highest rank of all created beings...
Angels can never have the heritage, the genes of God - they can never become partakers of the divine nature...
2 Peter 1:4 speaks of us being partakers of the divine nature, impregnated with His genes, called the seed or sperma of God...
Here is a completely new and exclusive order beings - a new species.
Thus, through the new birth, we become the next of kin to the trinity".
(Destined for the Throne, 1975 edition).
It should be noted that Billheimer didn't view this, in any sense, as physical process in the present, but as a spiritual reality. Sadly, in his use of language, however, there was allusion to another ancient Gnostic teaching doing the rounds amongst certain popular 'faith' teachers at the time that found such a teaching very useful indeed...
Back around the 9th century, the Jewish Kabbalist's introduced a new wrinkle into their writings: "Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial -- good wine mixed with bad."(Zohar 136)
Christianity was entirely silent on such a notion until modern times. Then, in the 1940's, American faith teacher William Branham began to introduce, by revelation, this notion into the growing revivalist and pentecostal strains of American Christianity, where it became an essential part of 'latter rain' theology. During the 70's, this teaching was thrown into the mix of dualstic 'revelations' which defined the ministry of men such as Copeland, Hagin, Swaggart and others engaged in 'faith' ministries. What is shocking is just how enduring such errors can be - they are still doing the rounds, so it's imperative we look at the Bible's teaching on the matter of the nature of our being alienated from God, not because of sex, but because of sin, and what it truly means to be adopted and thereby redeemed.
To begin with, the scriptures make it abundantly clear that we're not expelled from Eden because of Eve's succumbing to the lie of the serpent (you shall be 'as god's' by eating from a particular tree in the garden), but because of the willful disobedience of Adam. Sin, Paul affirms, came into the world through one man, and death through that sin, which spread to all men (Romans 5:12). All the emphasis on Eve, therefore, having children from 'Adam and the Serpent', is not only nonsense (see Genesis 4:1 & 2), it's entirely irrelevant to the reason we are fallen - because we all come from Adam, we are all concluded under sin (Romans 3:9-19). We can seek to make all kinds of religious or racial distinctions until the sun turns to blood, but they are of no value or merit whatever (as Jesus tells those who thought they were special because they biologically descended from the Patriarchs - what truly mattered was to do the will of God, which is to believe on His begotten Son).
Secondly, if the big sin was Eve having sex with a serpent, why was Adam hiding, feeling equally guilty for also having 'eaten' of the fruit of the tree? It makes no sense.
Genesis does indeed record some very strange events in the times after Eden (Genesis 6 and 11 in particular), but these in no way change the reason why we are fallen - the disobedience of Adam.
Mankind was made in the image or likeness of God in a very particular manner. The use of the Hebrew word tselem in Genesis 1 reveals that we were made to represent God's nature and character - to express and proclaim this amidst creation. We are, therefore, an image which 'is like' the creator in certain respects. The goal, therefore of our being redeemed is to restore and renew what was lost in the fall - to make us, once more, those within creation who express something of the reflection of the 'weight' and the splendor of the relationship that is shared between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of creation is yearning for that day.
Billheimer's book was amended in its later editions to omit the material I've referred to here. Sadly, most of the 'revelations' we've touched on above continue to be evident amongst 'anointed' teachings in many sections of the modern church.
How readily, tragically, we still receive 'another spirit' and 'another gospel'.
Back in the 1970's, Paul Billheimer published a 'revolutionary' book on Prayer and the overcoming Christian life. Nestled in the second chapter of this work, was his teaching about the 'supreme rank of redeemed humanity'.
This is what he stated: "Created originally in the image of God, redeemed humanity had been elevated by means of a directly conceived genetic process known as the new birth to the highest rank of all created beings...
Angels can never have the heritage, the genes of God - they can never become partakers of the divine nature...
2 Peter 1:4 speaks of us being partakers of the divine nature, impregnated with His genes, called the seed or sperma of God...
Here is a completely new and exclusive order beings - a new species.
Thus, through the new birth, we become the next of kin to the trinity".
(Destined for the Throne, 1975 edition).
It should be noted that Billheimer didn't view this, in any sense, as physical process in the present, but as a spiritual reality. Sadly, in his use of language, however, there was allusion to another ancient Gnostic teaching doing the rounds amongst certain popular 'faith' teachers at the time that found such a teaching very useful indeed...
Back around the 9th century, the Jewish Kabbalist's introduced a new wrinkle into their writings: "Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial -- good wine mixed with bad."(Zohar 136)
Christianity was entirely silent on such a notion until modern times. Then, in the 1940's, American faith teacher William Branham began to introduce, by revelation, this notion into the growing revivalist and pentecostal strains of American Christianity, where it became an essential part of 'latter rain' theology. During the 70's, this teaching was thrown into the mix of dualstic 'revelations' which defined the ministry of men such as Copeland, Hagin, Swaggart and others engaged in 'faith' ministries. What is shocking is just how enduring such errors can be - they are still doing the rounds, so it's imperative we look at the Bible's teaching on the matter of the nature of our being alienated from God, not because of sex, but because of sin, and what it truly means to be adopted and thereby redeemed.
To begin with, the scriptures make it abundantly clear that we're not expelled from Eden because of Eve's succumbing to the lie of the serpent (you shall be 'as god's' by eating from a particular tree in the garden), but because of the willful disobedience of Adam. Sin, Paul affirms, came into the world through one man, and death through that sin, which spread to all men (Romans 5:12). All the emphasis on Eve, therefore, having children from 'Adam and the Serpent', is not only nonsense (see Genesis 4:1 & 2), it's entirely irrelevant to the reason we are fallen - because we all come from Adam, we are all concluded under sin (Romans 3:9-19). We can seek to make all kinds of religious or racial distinctions until the sun turns to blood, but they are of no value or merit whatever (as Jesus tells those who thought they were special because they biologically descended from the Patriarchs - what truly mattered was to do the will of God, which is to believe on His begotten Son).
Secondly, if the big sin was Eve having sex with a serpent, why was Adam hiding, feeling equally guilty for also having 'eaten' of the fruit of the tree? It makes no sense.
Genesis does indeed record some very strange events in the times after Eden (Genesis 6 and 11 in particular), but these in no way change the reason why we are fallen - the disobedience of Adam.
Mankind was made in the image or likeness of God in a very particular manner. The use of the Hebrew word tselem in Genesis 1 reveals that we were made to represent God's nature and character - to express and proclaim this amidst creation. We are, therefore, an image which 'is like' the creator in certain respects. The goal, therefore of our being redeemed is to restore and renew what was lost in the fall - to make us, once more, those within creation who express something of the reflection of the 'weight' and the splendor of the relationship that is shared between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of creation is yearning for that day.
Billheimer's book was amended in its later editions to omit the material I've referred to here. Sadly, most of the 'revelations' we've touched on above continue to be evident amongst 'anointed' teachings in many sections of the modern church.
How readily, tragically, we still receive 'another spirit' and 'another gospel'.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
All we need is a miracle...
"By the Word of God, the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged and perished".
2 Peter 3:5&6.
Emptiness and darkness. Then, void and water. Not, we would say, what could be called ideal conditions for creating the universe. What is described appears to be more like total desolation after what was has been destroyed than the initial stage of creation, but that, surely, is the reason why Genesis chapter 1 provides us with such a clear and vivid description of how the heavens and the earth began. The 'nothingness' which we begin with isn't sufficient at all to furnish and produce what will come from such bleak beginnings.
The same problem comes up several times in the creation account. On day five, for example, we read of God commanding birds and winged creatures to come from the waters (1:20). As Martin Luther notes in his commentary, "who would conceive of the possibility of bringing such creatures from the water - beings which, clearly, could not continue to exist in water?"
We're back to our original conundrum. God 'works' to bring about form and substance to our world, but we are really none the wiser about what has happened here - how is it possible?
Through employing reason and examination, we seek to unpack the mystery. We define all manner of schemes of measurement and hypothesis to unweave the fabric of our reality, believing we have the tools for the task, but the very notion that we can - the possession of a capacity, a need to know - tells us more than any model or theory we may devise which 'best fits' our present level of comprehension.
Luther shows us how Genesis zero's in on the answer to the matter.
"God speaks a mere word, and immediately, life is formed from the water".
The defining requirement for life, then, was not what 'natural' element (water or earth) it appeared from, but the Word of God, which causes it to be. As with the creation of light on the first day, so here - it is when God says 'be' that things are so.
It's vital we see this, because what is true of God's work in creation is equally the case when it comes to His work in redemption.
Think of the Crucifixion.
When we examine this in a 'natural' fashion, we see nothing but desolation and tragedy. Our empirical tools lead us to only one conclusion - the life of the one known as Jesus of Nazareth was terminated in a cruel fashion, but the rational definition of this event entirely robs what has occurred of its true power and significance, because it does not have the ability to truly 'see' and penetrate the event itself.
This is no everyday execution of a common thief, or even the mere death of a troublesome teacher. The Gospels speak of an event, a moment in history, which continues to impact upon the purpose of our very existence.
What we are confronted with in both of these (and other) occasions are events where the Word of God creates a reality which is far deeper than what we now determine or measure as real, and it is this reality which must take precedence amongst what we can see and hear.
The desolation which is in evidence 'in the beginning' and, so very often, in our analysis of our existence, is the absence of the Word - surely, the most miserable famine of all, for "all things are made by this", and without it, nothing which has been made exists. The same, of course, is true in human reason - God becomes unnecessary, even absurd, when we define life as something entirely possible from, essentially, nothing.
The purpose and intention of God, woven into the very fabric of all that is, is to 'speak' to us of the fact that all we are comes from and will continue to have relevance because of only one thing - His living word. This wisdom, as rare as the most precious stones, continues to 'cry out' to this, if we have the means to listen.
2 Peter 3:5&6.
Emptiness and darkness. Then, void and water. Not, we would say, what could be called ideal conditions for creating the universe. What is described appears to be more like total desolation after what was has been destroyed than the initial stage of creation, but that, surely, is the reason why Genesis chapter 1 provides us with such a clear and vivid description of how the heavens and the earth began. The 'nothingness' which we begin with isn't sufficient at all to furnish and produce what will come from such bleak beginnings.
The same problem comes up several times in the creation account. On day five, for example, we read of God commanding birds and winged creatures to come from the waters (1:20). As Martin Luther notes in his commentary, "who would conceive of the possibility of bringing such creatures from the water - beings which, clearly, could not continue to exist in water?"
We're back to our original conundrum. God 'works' to bring about form and substance to our world, but we are really none the wiser about what has happened here - how is it possible?
Through employing reason and examination, we seek to unpack the mystery. We define all manner of schemes of measurement and hypothesis to unweave the fabric of our reality, believing we have the tools for the task, but the very notion that we can - the possession of a capacity, a need to know - tells us more than any model or theory we may devise which 'best fits' our present level of comprehension.
Luther shows us how Genesis zero's in on the answer to the matter.
"God speaks a mere word, and immediately, life is formed from the water".
The defining requirement for life, then, was not what 'natural' element (water or earth) it appeared from, but the Word of God, which causes it to be. As with the creation of light on the first day, so here - it is when God says 'be' that things are so.
It's vital we see this, because what is true of God's work in creation is equally the case when it comes to His work in redemption.
Think of the Crucifixion.
When we examine this in a 'natural' fashion, we see nothing but desolation and tragedy. Our empirical tools lead us to only one conclusion - the life of the one known as Jesus of Nazareth was terminated in a cruel fashion, but the rational definition of this event entirely robs what has occurred of its true power and significance, because it does not have the ability to truly 'see' and penetrate the event itself.
This is no everyday execution of a common thief, or even the mere death of a troublesome teacher. The Gospels speak of an event, a moment in history, which continues to impact upon the purpose of our very existence.
What we are confronted with in both of these (and other) occasions are events where the Word of God creates a reality which is far deeper than what we now determine or measure as real, and it is this reality which must take precedence amongst what we can see and hear.
The desolation which is in evidence 'in the beginning' and, so very often, in our analysis of our existence, is the absence of the Word - surely, the most miserable famine of all, for "all things are made by this", and without it, nothing which has been made exists. The same, of course, is true in human reason - God becomes unnecessary, even absurd, when we define life as something entirely possible from, essentially, nothing.
The purpose and intention of God, woven into the very fabric of all that is, is to 'speak' to us of the fact that all we are comes from and will continue to have relevance because of only one thing - His living word. This wisdom, as rare as the most precious stones, continues to 'cry out' to this, if we have the means to listen.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
The End of the Line?
"At its very heart, Christianity is about facing the real world. It’s not about fanciful illusions, where we just accept ourselves as a slightly evolved species, essentially just here for a good time, but a faith which drags us before the deepest longings and understanding in our souls – that the beauty we know in love, the majesty we view in creation, the passion we encounter in life, resonates with the fact that there is much, much more going on than the oft vaunted facile/popular escapism (philosophically and practically) often tagged ‘life’". From a review I wrote in 2008.
Over a decade ago, after watching Richard Dawkins taunt a group of theologians on television, I recall conversing with friends about the dangers of Christians seeking to hold to a theistic evolutionary view of our origins (he was making the argument that if you hold to Darwin's theory, you make the need for God redundant). The response at the time, of course, was that there was room for both - God used the evolutionary process to bring about the development of life, whilst the origins and purpose of this were clearly still His domain.
It's been interesting, then, to see how over the last few years, the 'progress' of naturalistic views of our origins have, essentially, removed the need for our first parents, and recently, how thestic theologians have, again, followed such reasoning, advocating the need to do away with any concept of a historical Adam.
The actual conclusion, which clearly illudes such thinking, is that you may as well throw in your faith and be done with it.
If there was, in fact, no Adam, no Eden, no Fall, then there is essentially no design to what has transpired, no paradise lost, no true purpose to the incarnation and to the cross - Christianity (and, in essence, all monotheistic religion which aspires to a form of redemption from this present age) is no more than a grand illusion. If our history is in fact concluded in our consciousness deriving from a pool of randomly- developed hominoid genes which, of themselves, were a result of chance processes forming life, then the very notion that sin, death, pain and suffering are spawned from something entirely alien to the cosmos - evil - is indeed fanciful and absurd, and we are, without question, locked into a cycle of meaningless futility. Our 'natural' estate is to merely exist, briefly, amidst a cold universe which itself is no more than a fluke, probably in the throws of a long but inevitable death. Nietzsche was right when he argued that once we have 'killed' God, we are only left with despair.
Christian optimism is the backdrop which has informed our culture for centuries, but if Christianity itself is now stripped from our world-view, if that sense of destiny defined by an order beyond our own with regards to existence is lost, what replaces this, when soberly comprehended, will be terrifying indeed. Modernity is a brutal force which leaves us without hope, empty and alone - orphans in a freak event termed existence. The reality, as Dawkins himself notes, is entirely bleak and pessimistic, especially if the grand intentions of scientism fail to deliver us from our present growing fragility in a world teetering on the eve of disconnection from enormous troubles.
It flies in the face of popular thinking to believe there is an alternative, but, beyond our ability to 'speed' data around, there is nothing new here. In the 1920's and 30's, as European thought continued to shape our society to the beat of man's ambitions being the true determining factor of the age (with dark and heinously tragic results), some theologians began to realize that the only solution was to return once again to the Word revealed through the message of scripture, and to affirm the validity of that message in the face of massive opposition. We are faced with the very same choice. Do we submit to the consensus which surrounds us today, and see the principal truths of faith dissolve, or do we reject this and affirm the rightness of what scripture reveals?
In the second epistle of Peter, we are warned of the dangers of the message of false teachers. They will speak with an air of authority, with the promise of liberation, but they seek to merely tie men to the immediate and the material, negating any reference to the divine in relation to us or the work of creation. Such 'works', says the Apostle, will be found wanting, exposed and removed on the day when the new is seen.
Christ's incarnation was for the primary purpose of rescuing those who stemmed from Adam (Luke 3). If we are to find aid and meaning in this broken world, it must be here, for no where else can our kind find deliverance from the prison of our short but alienated existence.
The choice is, as it always been, entirely clear - meaning or oblivion?
"Therefore, beloved, as you wait for what is coming, be diligent in standing in Christ, and thereby be at peace.
Count upon the patience of God in these troubles - for there is the surety of our salvation. Do not be carried away by the
folly of those who are unstable in what they know and teach, but mature in the goodness and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, now and forever".
Further reading:
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?, Edited by Norman Nevin (IVP).
Moral Darwinism by Benjamin Wiker (IVP).
Over a decade ago, after watching Richard Dawkins taunt a group of theologians on television, I recall conversing with friends about the dangers of Christians seeking to hold to a theistic evolutionary view of our origins (he was making the argument that if you hold to Darwin's theory, you make the need for God redundant). The response at the time, of course, was that there was room for both - God used the evolutionary process to bring about the development of life, whilst the origins and purpose of this were clearly still His domain.
It's been interesting, then, to see how over the last few years, the 'progress' of naturalistic views of our origins have, essentially, removed the need for our first parents, and recently, how thestic theologians have, again, followed such reasoning, advocating the need to do away with any concept of a historical Adam.
The actual conclusion, which clearly illudes such thinking, is that you may as well throw in your faith and be done with it.
If there was, in fact, no Adam, no Eden, no Fall, then there is essentially no design to what has transpired, no paradise lost, no true purpose to the incarnation and to the cross - Christianity (and, in essence, all monotheistic religion which aspires to a form of redemption from this present age) is no more than a grand illusion. If our history is in fact concluded in our consciousness deriving from a pool of randomly- developed hominoid genes which, of themselves, were a result of chance processes forming life, then the very notion that sin, death, pain and suffering are spawned from something entirely alien to the cosmos - evil - is indeed fanciful and absurd, and we are, without question, locked into a cycle of meaningless futility. Our 'natural' estate is to merely exist, briefly, amidst a cold universe which itself is no more than a fluke, probably in the throws of a long but inevitable death. Nietzsche was right when he argued that once we have 'killed' God, we are only left with despair.
Christian optimism is the backdrop which has informed our culture for centuries, but if Christianity itself is now stripped from our world-view, if that sense of destiny defined by an order beyond our own with regards to existence is lost, what replaces this, when soberly comprehended, will be terrifying indeed. Modernity is a brutal force which leaves us without hope, empty and alone - orphans in a freak event termed existence. The reality, as Dawkins himself notes, is entirely bleak and pessimistic, especially if the grand intentions of scientism fail to deliver us from our present growing fragility in a world teetering on the eve of disconnection from enormous troubles.
It flies in the face of popular thinking to believe there is an alternative, but, beyond our ability to 'speed' data around, there is nothing new here. In the 1920's and 30's, as European thought continued to shape our society to the beat of man's ambitions being the true determining factor of the age (with dark and heinously tragic results), some theologians began to realize that the only solution was to return once again to the Word revealed through the message of scripture, and to affirm the validity of that message in the face of massive opposition. We are faced with the very same choice. Do we submit to the consensus which surrounds us today, and see the principal truths of faith dissolve, or do we reject this and affirm the rightness of what scripture reveals?
In the second epistle of Peter, we are warned of the dangers of the message of false teachers. They will speak with an air of authority, with the promise of liberation, but they seek to merely tie men to the immediate and the material, negating any reference to the divine in relation to us or the work of creation. Such 'works', says the Apostle, will be found wanting, exposed and removed on the day when the new is seen.
Christ's incarnation was for the primary purpose of rescuing those who stemmed from Adam (Luke 3). If we are to find aid and meaning in this broken world, it must be here, for no where else can our kind find deliverance from the prison of our short but alienated existence.
The choice is, as it always been, entirely clear - meaning or oblivion?
"Therefore, beloved, as you wait for what is coming, be diligent in standing in Christ, and thereby be at peace.
Count upon the patience of God in these troubles - for there is the surety of our salvation. Do not be carried away by the
folly of those who are unstable in what they know and teach, but mature in the goodness and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, now and forever".
Further reading:
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?, Edited by Norman Nevin (IVP).
Moral Darwinism by Benjamin Wiker (IVP).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
