The random technotheolosophical blogging of Reid S. Monaghan
I saw these posters online and thought they provoked many thoughts and ideas. However, I find these sorts of statements, though provocative, to be far too simplistic. I have no issue with the center poster - it is beautiful to me...the outer images however make me ask a few deeper questions.
OK - sometimes people's thinking is so ridiculous, off the wall and sad that it demands mockery. In this case, it is also very funny...and sad. I have received this video through e-mail several times over the last few days and have sent it on to many pastor friends...today I decided that the POCBlog reader might enjoy.
A couple of pre-thoughts. Did this guy not know that verse and chapter numbers were "added to" the writings of the Bible and not part of the inspired writings? His application of what this wonderful phrase means also is quite ridiculous. I have nothing but pity for his "this is what's wrong with our country bit" - but when he starts railing on the NIV and NKJV editors I just lose it...so the best thing to do is just laugh.
One reminder...Passion without reason and the Bible without any care of context can be dangerous things...
There are two books that I am greatly anticipating this spring, one of which just shipped from Amazon.com and will soon arrive in one of the sheik little brown boxes to my door step. The two books are the kinds that you hope to be able to give to others who have questions about Jesus or the historic Christian faith...but will not be too simplistic or boring to actually give to someone. The books are written for different audiences, but I think the reader of the POCBlog will love both.
For the Sophisticated Skeptic and the Thoughtful Believer
(Updated - There is now a dedicated web site for the book)
Keller is a well known Presbyterian minister at Redeemer Prebyterian Church in New York City. He was recently interviewed in Newsweek magazine (see The Smart Shepherd) and is well known and loved in the missional/theologically driven church planting movement. The book is a work of Christian Apologetics which is sectioned into two main parts. Part I, entitled, “The Leap of Doubt” an exercise in defensive apologetics seeks to answer some objections to Christian faith:
The second half, entitled “The Reasons for Faith,” the move is to more positive apologetics and shaping a case for the gospel.
This book will surely interupt my current reading and jump to the front of the line. I may however tell Keller to wait as I really want to get to After the Baby Boomers - How Twenty and Thirty Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion by Robert Wuthnow .
To purchase Keller's new book Westminster Books has it for 15.47. If you have some car time allotted in life, there is also an audio book version (read by Keller) which Westminster books has for 18.87
For the Indie, Emo and Younger Crowds - And Just About Everyone
If there is anything that the Christian faith is centered upon it is the person and work of Jesus. Far too often he is the subject of much revisionist theology, much cultural invention and just plain misunderstanding. In this work you have pastor Mark Driscoll and theologian Gerry Breshears doing a marvel team up to put out some biblically faithful yet relevantly communicated Jesusology. From reading Mark's other books and having interacted with Dr. Breshears on a few different occasions I really look forward to this book. Driscoll's wit, erudite mind and humor will certainly come through as will Breshears theological care and acumen. You want good theology and the laugh out loud - this is the book. I think this is one you could give to any non Christian person under 35 without any concern. Jesus will be honored, the Bible's actual teaching about him on display and by God's grace the reader just might meet Jesus in the process.
Amazon has it for cheap here. The sermon series upon which Driscoll based the book is also online for free (audio/video) at Mars Hill Church's web site. Audio book coming in March.
JI Packer - who is really getting up there in years - wrote this endorsement:
“This book reveals Mark Driscoll as a highly powerful, colorful, down-to-earth catechist, targeting teens and twenty-somethings with the old, old story told in modern street-cred style. And Professor Breshears ballasts a sometimes lurid but consistently vivid presentation of basic truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.”
J. I. Packer, Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College
Wrestler and Ultimate Fighter Matt Lindland wrote this one:
“This book presents an honest view of Jesus without giving in to the pressure to soften him up. I had to grapple with the real vintage Jesus. This is a Savior worth fighting for.
Matt Lindland, 2000 Olympic silver medalist in wrestling; top-ranked middleweight mixed martial arts fighter
A friend put me on to a trailer for an upcoming documentary entitled "Second Skin" which features the lives of several people who are addicted to massively multiplayer online role-playing games (mmorpg). These games immerse players into online worlds and communities which consume massive time and resources. The most popular combine fantasy worlds, powers, quests etc. World of Warcraft is one of the most well known. Anyway, the trailer for the documentary is below.
Looks to shed some interesting light on the world of the gamers in your life. For those not familiar with games such as WoW you may recognize the world from this Toyota Tacoma Commercial
Here is the Newsweek deal - The Smart Shepherd (good title for a fun, spooky smart guy to listen to)
2 Timothy 1 contains an amazingly long and amazingly beautiful sentence. Now you may think, Reid, it is just weird to call a sentence beautiful. The fact is there is so much wonderful theological truth packed into this sentence that I almost called it a sexy sentence-but that is definitely weird. Let me go ahead and share the sentence with you:
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.
There is much to say about this sentence, but here I want us to focus on the nature and description of the manner in which God saves. When we break down what is said here we will be coming very close to biblical teachings on election (God's choosing and calling of sinners to himself) and a word that causes many people to twitch-predestination. I know even writing these words may bring an emotional response, but stay with me as we look at what our sacred writings teach us about these things...for as we do, I do believe that worship will be the end of our discussion. In this essay I have very modest goals. First, I want to track through the above verse and cross reference what it is teaching with other parts of Scripture. Hopefully, it will become clear as to what Paul is saying here. Second, I want to look at some objections to what is being taught. The first of these objections will be theological in nature, the second with be existential-or dealing with our thoughts, emotions and experiences surrounding this teaching. Since I believe it is pre-ordained, let us begin.
On Self Salvation
The first phrase I want to look at is this: it is God who "saved us." Let me build a bit towards my conclusion which will simply be this: The Bible knows nothing of "self salvation." First of all there is no self creation. The universe and every particle that makes it up only exists because the creator God desired it to be so. Neither we, nor stars, nor pulsars, nor dark matter, nor monkeys or eggplants choose their own existence or bring their own existence about. Our sacred Scripture teaches us that all things were created by him and for him (Colossians 1:16) and for from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11: 36). Secondly, there is no ultimate self determination. Think about how much of your life is simply out of your control. I know it feels a bit un-American to realize that you are not the captain of your own destiny, but think about all the things of your life you did not, and could not choose. We did not determine the time or place set for our birth. In fact, Scripture teaches that God determined these things for his purpose (Acts 17:22-34). Furthermore, you did not choose who your parents would be-whether we like it or not our parents are the culmination of a long line of circumstances that we had nothing to do with. Additionally, we do not choose to get sick, get hit by a bus, create your own personality, or choose the actions of others (whether good or bad). I know there are books out there that will tell you "the secret" is that you can control all things, make reality obey you...but let me tell you, that is a devastating lie. Now I am not saying that our attitude is inconsequential, your choices do not matter, or that good or bad consequences do not result from wisdom or foolishness. This of course is true. But we must not believe the nonsense that you can control everything and everyone around you-everyone who is in therapy is trying to get off of that drug. Only God could sit in such a sovereign position-so just realize that we have very limited control. Finally, there is simply no self-salvation. I know there are aisles and aisles of books in Barnes and Nobles which will tell you how to fix it all, but new ones must be written all the time promising the same things as the old ones. We know that humans are seeking redemption, salvation and ways to fix ourselves, but the only book which holds the truth of that matter has already been penned...and its author is God.
You see God knows the reality of the human predicament. The Scriptures teach a very high and very low view of human nature. We are created in the image of God and therefore the most important and valuable creatures in the world. Yet Scripture is also clear that we are sinful and in rebellion against God. No one by nature is running to God; we are running away. Romans 3 teaches us there is none that seeks God, none that does good. Additionally the prophet Isaiah teaches us that we all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one-to his own way (Isaiah 53:6). We are in rebellion, our desires are for self, sin, not submission to and the worship of God.. Paul in his first letter, the book of Galatians, he is clear that self salvation is pure mythology. In his last letter to Timothy he again is clear. If we are to be saved, it is he that saves us-there simply is no self-salvation. If we could save ourselves we would not need a Savior. We would declare ourselves without need of God for we could make ourselves perfect without his initiative. Friends, this is the very essence of sin.
The Scriptures make this clear from beginning to end. He saved us! He saved Noah and his family when God's judgment fell upon the wicked on the earth. He saved Abrahams family again and again. He saved Israel from brutal slavery in Egypt, warring nations and its own self-destructive tendencies. He redeemed Israel from exile in Babylon by raising up leaders such as Ezra, Nehemiah and Zerubbabel to bring people back to the land. Ultimately and finally he saves his people and calls them to himself through Jesus Christ, the great high priest, the sacrifice given for our sins, the great King and Savior of the world. Salvation is of the Lord ! This is the clear message of Scripture. As such it is therefore of his initiation and volition. He created, he redeems-all worship, credit praise and glory then go to God. We have no place to boast in self-righteousness or self salvation; we only marvel that he saves sinners such as ourselves.
On Calling
The second thing Paul tells us is that God calls us. Calling is a theme throughout the Scripture which states that God calls to all people generally and to those whom he saves particularly. In other words, there are two ways described in Scripture by which God calls people back to himself. The first we simply call a general call. It is a theme of the Bible that God desires all people to be saved and come to him in repentance in faith (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). He gives common grace to all by allowing us to have life, breath, gladness, sunshine to grow food to eat and rain for water to drink (see Matthew 5:43-45; Acts 14:17). He also reveals himself to us in nature and conscience (see Romans 1-2). This common grace is an expression of the love and care of God for all he has made. Yet people resist this call because they do not desire God. Hence, God further calls to some with saving grace and what we might say is the effectual call of God. We see this when people's hearts are changed so that Jesus now looks lovely to them, God gives them new desires, a new heart and saves them. Jesus himself described this reality when he said for many are called, but few are chosen (see Matthew 22:1-14). In a similar parable he tells his servants to go out and bring people in to his wedding feast. The wording he uses is "compel them to come in." He calls them, liberates them from the bondage to sin, so that they now want to love, follow and worship God. Additionally, Jesus also said that no one can come to him except he be drawn by the Father (John 6:35-44). Finally, Paul discusses calling in 1 Corinthians 1 and Romans 8. Those whom God desires to save, he calls to himself such that they can and do respond to the gospel. This calling brings us to God, gives us a desire for holiness and makes us part of his people.
Not Because
The third thing Paul tells Timothy is that our salvation and calling is not because of our own works. By saying that God's salvation is not based upon works, something unbelievably liberating is revealed here in the gospel. If we are saved by grace, not by works, not from our selves (See Ephesians 2:1-10) then no matter how bad we are, God can forgive and redeem us. There is no one too bad for the grace of God. Furthermore it devastates human pride and self righteousness. No Christian should see themselves as saved by God because of how good they are. In fact, such pride in one's own "goodness" is an offense to the gospel. Paul over and over in his letters stresses that our only boast is in Jesus (Galatians 6:14) not in our own goodness. He saved us not because of what we have done good or bad. Nobody is good enough, no one is too bad. This is great news guys, unbelievable news. In fact, many will not believe it as the default nature of our souls is to want to "do it ourselves" or "make ourselves better" or "prove our worth to God." Such is the ruin of our hearts-only when he calls us to the free grace of the gospel are we set free from the dance of trying to earn the favor of God and man. In the cross we receive the gift of salvation to us-and worship and obedience is now a response, not a dreaded duty. So why did God save us?
Because
Here we have only a marvelous mystery to ponder. God saved us for his own purpose and grace. His own purpose of grace is another way to put it. One of the great mysteries of the Bible is why God saves rebellious, undeserving people. Why am I loved and forgiven and accepted by God? Because of grace and for whatever purpose he has. I know that I deserve God's wrath, his judgment as I am guilty of sinning against him. If not convinced quickly read the 10 commandments-guilty! Yet God gives grace. Why? I have no freakin clue but I am glad he has a purpose. All who come to him will in no way be cast out-yet we will not come. What is the solution? God saves us, calls us, for his purposes in the gospel. I have no access to the master game plan of God. Yet he picks me for the team, places me in positions in life, calls me to follow him and gives me a part to play. A Gift Given provokes gratitude-gratitude wells up into worship.
When?
The final section of our sentence tells us when he gives grace to his people . Here is where our heads begin to explode. Paul tells us grace was given before the ages began. Literally it says he gave us grace before times eternal. This means that God gave people grace before the universe was created, before time existed, before any humans were made, before my life existed, before I had done anything good or anything bad. It means grace was given to us before we choose anything or even existed to choose. Paul goes on to say that this was manifested in the first coming of Jesus to the earth, where he abolished death and brought life through his death and resurrection. This work continues today as God continues to save people through the sharing of good news, people believing and the church's continued mission.
Objection!!!
Human beings react strongly against the idea that God is the author and initiator in salvation. We do not like that God would save whom he wants, when he wants. We like ultimate self determination (ultimately free-free will) and work hard to put everything back on our plate. Some Christians say God chooses us based on "foreseen faith" - that in God's foreknowledge he saves us based upon our choice in hearing the gospel. There is one problem I run into with this. The Bible. For God does talk about foreknowing "our faith." It actually says he foreknows "those" who will be called and saved, not simply their faith. He knows them before time, he knows them before they choose in time. There are many ways to wrestle with this issue. I want to give you some words to google to see how Christians have historically wrestled with these issues. Ready, set, here you go: Molinist, Ariminian and Reformed views. Have fun-I am almost out of space.
Another Objection!
Another objection is less intellectual, but more existential in nature. If God knows all that will be saved, what about my kids? What can we do? I will only say that the knowledge of God as to who will be saved is not our knowledge. We do not have any knowledge as to which persons will or will not respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. To be honest, it is inappropriate to think as if it matters to our work as his people. We are called to share the gospel with all and allow God to save whom he will. One thing can be certain. God treats no one unfairly. All deserve his justice-what is unbelievable is that God saves the guilty. This is what Paul wrestles with in Romans 3-how can a just God, justify the guilty. A friend of mine with whom I debate these things uses an example with me often. He throws my daughters in the mix saying "What if God doesn't want to save them, then they are screwed and damned to hell." Of course using my daughters is a ploy towards my emotions-for I love them more than just about anything. Yet as I think about it, he is saying that their eternal destinies is in better hands if it lies in my own or their own power. Yet I am reminded that neither me, nor my daughters are all good, all wise or all loving. In fact, to put it lightly, we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. My response, both emotionally and biblically, is that God ‘s hands are the best place to entrust the salvation of people-particularly that of my little girls. I trust him to do right more than any human being. So it is my hope and prayer that God will save them in his time. Additionally, I am going to plant churches in places where people do not want Jesus-I go in hope because I believe God can and does save sinners...even the ones like me who were not out looking for God. God brings new birth to people in surprising places all over the world-from Afghanistan to New Jersey and here in Middle Tennessee. He has chosen that we be his ambassadors who bring his message-and he saves people through our efforts.
Conclusion
I am not a Christian because I believe in election and predestination. All Christians are saved because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, repentance and faith, and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit . Any Christian who follows Jesus based upon his atoning work on the cross is my sister or brother. I will say with full conviction that I worship much differently because I know that I have received grace upon grace from God the Father, mercy through the work of Jesus applied to me by the Spirit when I wanted nothing but self, sin and rebellion. It is interesting that the passages that deal most with the issues of election/predestination end in worship (doxology). In Ephesians 1 Paul reminds people that they have been chosen before the foundation of the world and that this was all to the praise of his glorious grace. In Romans 8 in that great passage describing God's work in the gospel we read this:
Those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Yet when he ends the entire section about God's purposes in salvation he ends with worship (See Romans 11:36 above). The teaching of Scripture about God's salvation is to provoke, awe, majesty and marvel at the grace of God in Christ. Where God himself takes our penalty for sin and gives us his righteousness in Christ. It is no small coincidence that Paul, in encouraging Timothy, reminds him of the gospel and all that God has done. For the sovereign, saving God will be Timothy's hope in all the changes and challenges to be faced ahead. I pray it would be so for each of us-Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved...so choose to believe. But do know that we are saved by him, called to him, by grace before time, set in play in your life so that you would live, suffer and WALK ON in mission for his glory and praise.
I am thankful today for the wonderful truth conveyed in one beautiful sentence in our sacred book. Yours in the name of the one who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
Reid S. Monaghan
CBS' news magazine 60 minutes has a bunch of video up on its story on Joel Osteen. Now I try not to be a hater, and look, each man stands before God to give an account of his ministry, but what I watched today was a bit crazy.
Go to this site and watch the clip at the bottom left entitled "No Mention of God?" The interviewer, in commenting on Osteen's most recent book said something like "to become a better you, there is no mention of God, no mention of Jesus Christ" and his answer was "thats just my message." Now I have a jaw injury because it smashed into the floor as I watched this. What a nice guy. Unfortunately I am teaching 2 Timothy 1 right now - and I think Paul would have flipped his gourd listening to this.
8Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, 9who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. 13Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.
Come on Joel - I am pulling for you to keep Jesus at the center of "your message." Please?
Shortly after I was really into the REM song "Loosing my Religion" Jesus saved me and changed my whole game life game plan. Yet many travel the opposite path down the river away from churches and the infamous, eeeevil things which get labeled with the term "organized religion."
There is an interesting article about perceptions about “religion” in the coming generation. The article is by Stephen Prothero Chair of the Department of Religion at Boston University. This being so, it is a fair assessment that his classes do not represent “a whole generation of young people” across America but I do think his editorial is indicative of the mood of the younger folk today.
The big mistake people make today is adjusting doctrines to the “tastes” of young folk as if we change the product to “sell to the young consumer.” Yet I do think understanding how people think helps us to communicate truth in a manner which connects with the next generation. Anyway, I thought this might interest others as well…
Here is the link – Is religion losing the millennial generation?
There are two passages in the first chapter of 2 Timothy which brought me to thinking about a theological issue which is of some debate in the church.
First, Paul states that he thanks and serves God “as his ancestors did.” Second, Paul describes the faith of Timothy’s mother and grandmother being the same faith which he genuinely possessed. Paul’s ancestor’s were Jewish as were those in the matriarchal line which came before Timothy. It is very possible that both Timothy’s mom and grandmother were Christian converts, but the passage seems to hint at continuity between Old Covenant faith and New Testament Christianity. Of course this is of much debate as discussions about the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church continue until this day. In this essay I will lay out ever so briefly four theological views that relate the relationship of Old and New Covenants, Israel to the church and surrounding theological issues. In conclusion I will then give a few reasons why I favor a stronger continuity between Old and New Testaments and thereby make all my old guard dispensationalist friends shriek with pain. Just kidding-but they would be a bit upset.
Dispensationalism (D) - This view holds that Israel refers to the ethnic/physical descendants of Jacob with the church beginning at Pentecost and the church is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament. Israel and the church have different roles/destinies in the end times and all promises made to ethnic Israel in the OT will be fulfilled to ethnic Israel in the end times. Salvation of some people under the Old Covenant is by obedience to the law-some have said this amounts to two different ways of salvation-one by the law, one by grace. This view sees a strong discontinuity between the OT and NT and sees two distinct “peoples of God.” It sees God working very differently during different time periods of history (dispensations) changing his way of dealing with humanity during seven different dispensations. The “Kingdom” in the New Testament refers to the literal, physical reign of Christ on the earth during a millennium at the end of time. It is a very Israel centric view and has the best end times charts and graphs. Proponents-The Old Scoffield Bible, 20th century Dallas Seminary, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Norman Geisler and Charles Ryrie. Recommended Book-Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie.
Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) - Similar to the old school dispensationalists, PD holds that Israel refers to the ethnic/physical people and that the church begins in the book of Acts. It maintains the church/Israel distinction but teaches that both OT and NT people are saved by grace through faith in God’s promise. It sees more continuity between Old and New Testaments but maintains that the promises to Israel in the OT are for the ethnic line to be fulfilled in the end. It leans more towards the covenantal view as it acknowledges the covenants as progressive moves forward towards God’s plan in Christ. It also breaks with the old D view in that it sees hints at the church in the Old Testament but it is unclear and as the church/Gentile inclusion was a mystery yet to be fully unveiled. Proponents-Darryl Bock, Craig Blaising, Robert Saucy, Contemporary Dallas Seminary. Recommended Book-Progressive Dispensationalism by Darryl Bock and Craig Blaising.
Covenant Theology (CT) - Covenant Theology is an understanding of God’s work in history that has much more continuity between Old and New Testaments. It sees Israel as both the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham and considers God unfolding a large covenant of grace throughout history. An original covenant of works was made with and broken by Adam in the garden and the plan of God to redeem a people for himself set forth in the covenant of grace. Some also teach there is a “covenant” of redemption that took place logically prior to creation within the Trinity. The distinction between the church/Israel is not made as it sees God always having a people with whom he relates by covenant. Israel is called and defined by its covenant relationship to God not simply ethnicity. God’s elect people are “one people” and the universal church has always existed in both Old and New Testament. It sees many direct prophecies related to the church in the Old Testament and views the church as God’s Plan A throughout history and the final culmination of the covenant of grace. It views the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 as the same as Luke 22:20, both are for spiritual Israel (the seed of Abraham by faith) according to Hebrews 8. It usually equates baptism and Old covenant circumcision as the sign of the covenant AND holds it should be applied at the same age. CT therefore practices infant baptism of the children of believers…sometimes on the 8th day. Proponents-John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Reformed Seminaries, Presbyterians, Walter Kaiser, Michael Horton, JI Packer, RC Sproul and Bruce Waltke. Recommended Book-God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton.
Modified (or New ) Covenant Theology (NCT) - Is similar to CT in that it sees strong continuity in the covenants of God and sees the church as spiritual Israel and heirs to the promises of God. It is somewhat of a halfway point sharing much in common with Progressive Dispensationalism as well as Covenant Theology. It is not as succinct a system of theology as the above, but is a way of seeing and reading Scripture in a promise/fulfillment hermeneutic. It rejects the baptism/circumcision symmetry of Covenant Theology and holds that baptism is for believers but sees the same united redemptive framework in the biblical covenants. Additionally, it finds the CT view that their is a “covenant of redemption” within the Trinity speaking beyond Scripture. The decree/purpose of Father/Son/Spirit to creation/redeem is there but it is not described as a covenant. As CT and many within PD it holds to a now/not yet view of the Kingdom of God known as inaugurated eschatology. Along with CT this view sees the Old Testament as containing typological references to the church in the OT that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In contrast NCT sees the OT law differently than CT. CT sees the OT laws divided into various categories-civil, laws pertaining to sacrifice/worship and moral laws…with the moral still binding. NCT sees the entire OT law as a tutor to bring us to Christ and completely done away with in the New Covenant superseded by the law of Christ. This is an area where CT and NCT knit picks tend to scrap and NCT has more in common with some dispensational thought. Proponents-Typically Reformed type who hold to believers baptism. Though DA Carson, Mark Dever, Tom Schreiner do not see themselves fitting neatly into any camp, they typically are mentioned along with this view. Though John Piper distinguishes himself with his own view, his is closer to this position than any other. See What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? Recommended Book - New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel.
This is but a very small flyover of some of the theological views on how the Old and New testaments “fit together” in theological unity. Personally I favor the approaches that see continuity between the covenants as one unfolding plan of God. Additionally, the book of Hebrews declares the Old Covenant as abolished and the covenant by which he relates to all people is that of the one made with the blood of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 8-10). Furthermore, Ephesians and Galatians teach that Jew/Gentile are one in the gospel. I believe that God has always related to his people by his grace and that his plan of redemption unfolded through the various covenants in biblical/redemptive history. See our article Introduction to the Old Testament for more on this. I find much to appreciate in all these systems but find the most affinity with the latter three. Old School Dispensationalism is a hard one for me to swallow but those who still hold to it are usually “all in.” Many in my circles appreciate the Progressive Dispensational and New Covenant views. For those who don’t want to buy books please check out these various systems at Theopedia. For those who are completely dizzy in all of that jazz please lose no sleep over it.
One of the unique biblical images God uses to teach us about life, walking with him and serving others are attached to the end of our arms. The hands are used for various purposes in both the Old and New Testament to reflect and teach us biblical truth. Paul's letters to Timothy have one of these purposes, the laying on of hands by pastoral leadership, on full display. In this essay we will look briefly on how God uses "hands" throughout Scripture concluding with a treatment on how Paul uses laying of hands in the epistles to Timothy.
Handy Metaphors in the Old and New Testaments
There are many references to hands in the Old Testament but there is an overarching theme for each of them. Hands represent action, the state of one's heart that finds itself into the world. Hands represent what we do, the actions we take and how our intentions are reflecting by character and works. We see this in hands being described as clean or unclean. For instance, clean hands represents a righteous life (see Job 17:9, Job 22:30, Psalm 18:20-24, Psalm 24:1-6, Psalm 73:13). Clean hands represent holiness of life and unclean hands represents a heart that is vile and wicked. The book of proverbs talks about hands that shed blood as being the hands of the guilty and wicked man. Furthermore the New Testament also talks about lifting up holy hands indicating the same thing. This is all a matter of the heart, though it is expressed with metaphors of the hands. Jesus made it clear that washing one's hands do not cleanse the inside of a man's heart; but the work of our hands is indicative of the condition of our hearts. Additionally, the nature of our work is seen in our hands in such prayers as Psalm 90:17 which reads: Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands! Here we find people asking God's favor upon the work of their lives. Jesus also uses a hand metaphor to talk about a manner of life in response to God's call on us. He tells us that no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). So it is a clear metaphor in scripture that the condition and action of hands represent the condition of the heart before God.
Finally, though he has no physical hands, God's own favor and work is expressed with the language of "his hands." The work of deliverance and redemption wrought by God in the Exodus is repeatedly described as being through "his mighty hand and outstretched arm." God's favor is expressed by his hand "being upon us." After Nehemiah goes before the King to ask for assistance in his work to rebuild Jerusalem we read this wonderful verse: And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me. When the hand of God is upon a people it is a sign of favor and his working on their behalf. This continues in the New Testament when Jesus is said to be raised from death and seated at the right hand of God. This is the place of power and authority beside a great King. To finish this essay we will further discuss how power and authority is symbolically and actively transferred to people through the laying on of hands.
Laying on Hands
Placing hands upon someone today to pray for them is becoming more and more common in evangelical churches. I find no problem whatsoever with the practice as it indicates belief, faith and standing with one another in prayer. However, the laying on of hands has specific meaning in Scripture of which I want us to be aware. In the brief space that remains we will examine how the laying on of human hands indicates conveyance of blessing, judgment, transferring of guilt for sin as well as for the ordination of people in the authority of God for gospel ministry.
In the Old Testament a father would convey the blessing and birthright to children and grandchildren through the laying on hands. It was a transaction that was symbolic of a fathers generosity and favor upon his descendents. Hands would also be placed by the priest onto an animal called the Scapegoat (Leviticus 16) which was being sent away from the people so as to take away their sins. Additionally, a person bringing their own peace offering would place his hands upon the animal symbolically putting his sins upon the sacrifice (Leviticus 3:1-5). Judgment upon a criminal was also demonstrated before the enactment of capital punishment by the placing of hands upon the offender. The manner in the Old Testament is clear. The authority to forgive sin, convey blessing, enact judgment was done in an official capacity in obedience to God's Word. The authority of God and the action of God is visibly seen through the laying on of human hands.
In the New Testament we see Jesus speak some powerful words to the disciples before he ascended back to the right hand of God. In articulating what has become known as the Great Commission, Jesus said the following in Matthew 28: And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. Here is the line of authority-the Father has placed ALL authority to Jesus. Jesus then commissions his church to go in that authority and live the mission of God. We see very clearly that authority is vested upon Jesus' followers through the laying on of hands. This happens in several ways.
First, hands are laid upon the sick to pray for healing by both Jesus and his followers (Mark 6:5, Luke 4:40, Acts 28:8, James 5:13-15, perhaps Mark 16:18). Remember, it is the power of God that heals the body not the person's hands. The hands are a way of expressing faith and dependence and petition to God for healing. One more point. Even when the body naturally heals it is operating according to God's design not independent of it. So God is the source of all healing and he chooses whom he will heal and for what reasons. We can pray in faith and trust him to work if he so chooses. Ultimately, the final healing will come at the resurrection of the dead where we will receive immortal, incorruptible bodies and disease and death will be vanquished. Second, the Holy Sprit and spiritual gifts were at times imparted to a person from the placing on of hands and prayer (Acts 8, 9, 19). Note again, it is not the hands which give gifts, but God who has the power and authority. Furthermore, though this was a means by which God gave gifts he also does so without any intermediary. If he wants to gift his people he can also do so directly. The Spirit is also given to people today at the point of spiritual conversion and no apostle is required to convey this as Holy Spirit is promised to all who believe (Ephesians 1). Finally, there is a clear laying on of hands to set people apart for church leadership. In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas are set apart for missionary service. In the pastoral epistles we see that hands are laid upon people, specifically our boy Timothy, to set him apart and confirm his calling to pastoral ministry. In doing so the authority of Jesus is recognized and the calling of God confirmed by those who are current ministers. Some see a pure line of hands back to the apostles themselves in ordaining to gospel ministry. This is why Paul exhorts so not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure...for the appointing pastor/elders prematurely can damage the credibility of ministry by the work of the hands of warped and immature men.
I posted a brief update on the Jacob's Well web site today on the progress God is bringing in our church planting efforts. You can read that here.
James Harleman, one of the pastors at Mars Hill Church in Seattle has an interesting post up on the Cinemagogue blog entitled Film in the Era of Daddy Issues. Here is the final paragraph and do go read the rest if you are into films and may have Daddy issues.
I hope these glorious, decades-old daddies of film heroism give us a lark in the cinema as they keep on punching out the opponents, and I hope they also spur us to consider why we are hungry for an everlasting dad that remains faithful and true to us, who shows up and decimates our opposition, who sets things right and even clarifies our direction and purpose. If we stop and consider, some might find that “…the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him…” - Ephesians 1
Daniel Henninger has an interesting article over at the Wall Street Journal regarding what he calls one of the most popular presidential accessory for a candidate in this election. What is it? Authenticity. I found the opinion piece fascinating in that it is all about how to be an "authentic" politician. The ironic thing touched upon is that authenticity, being real, being yourself is very hard for political folks trying to win elections and please many different interest groups. It is so easy to pander to left, right, etc.
The funny thing about Henniger's piece is that it chronicles the struggle of candidates trying to be or appear to be authentic. A few quotes:
One almost feels sorry for the 13 or 14 pols who've been running for the presidency this year. Keeping the authenticity balloon afloat is hard work. For starters, the press is obsessed with the phenomenon. The modern reporter is a human tuning fork, alert to the merest false note of inconsistency. It isn't widely known, but no journalist is allowed to moderate a presidential debate unless he vows to turn every question into an accusation of hypocrisy.
...
If we want a better understanding of the style of authenticity that people who vote are looking for, consider the real meaning of Barack Obama's controversial praise for Ronald Reagan. Sen. Obama was correct that Reagan caught the nation's need for a new direction, which is now the senator's claim. But Reagan's published letters and papers make clear that he believed in his political ideas for a long time. By 1980, they were deep and clear. They were authentic.
If that is the standard of true political authenticity, and I think it is, then the relationship in this campaign between the people and the pols will remain as it has been -- difficult.
That is fancy speak for - America does not seem not find it easy to trust the convictions of the folk running for office. One wonders if someone can actually be themselves and win broad elections - maybe politics is for people who like the game and the dance even as they complain about it and talk about "bringing change to Washington." In Reading Obama's book, it seems to attempt to show him as a centrist, an authentic person who is different than the others who are part of the political machine. But in his book I still hear pandering to different groups - perhaps politics can be done no other way? At least winning politics. But to be honest, I think we all should vote and participate in self-government. But I do understand why some in the younger generations get cynical about the whole song and dance - it seems, well, inauthentic. Thats as political as I want to get around here.
Phillip Jenkins, author of several books chronicling the historic shifts in Christian faith towards the global south, reviews a new book of Church history which gives a balanced attention to the faith's spread and movement in places other than Europe and America. As much as I love Western church history (particularly that of the Reformation) I have longed for a book from which I could read histories of African and Asian Christian movements. Jenkins reviews a volume by Martin Marty entitled The Christian World. This brief volume may just help me on that journey and I clicked my Amazon buttons today to speed its arrival. Here is an exerpt from Jenkins' review:
Even Marty's chapter titles, his "episodes," suggest the scale of the departure from more traditional surveys, which commonly hurry to get the faith to Europe, and then largely ignore the rest of the world until the arrival of those Europeans. Marty, however, pursues a symphonic approach, in which different regions serve as themes and motifs, heard at the beginning and perhaps falling away during later movements, but never forgotten, always ready to recur at significant points of the performance. For Marty, the church of course begins in a Jewish environment, followed by a First Asian Episode, a First African, and a First European. A second European Episode then follows (roughly covering the years since 1500), and then a North American; but then the earlier motifs surface once more, with a Second African Episode and a Second Asian. A thoughtful conclusion stresses the "irrepressible" quality of the Christian venture, and its ability to recoup in one region catastrophic losses suffered in another.
I mean no disrespect to Marty's work when I say that little of the material presented, few of the examples, will come as any great surprise to readers with any background in Christian history. Its value lies instead in its overall construction, and the relative importance allotted to different times and regions, and he has clearly exercised enormous restraint in limiting coverage of Western-centered topics that he knows and loves—the Reformation, the 18th century Awakenings—in order to give due credit to non-Euro-American issues. Many will find the results startling, and that is very much to the good. To take an example, his North American chapter uses a sparse 28 pages to span the whole experience of Christianity in that region since 1492. In comparison, modern Africa receives 19 pages, modern Asia 18, both quite rational allocations in terms of the numbers of believers in those regions today and of their likely importance in the development of the faith in coming years. The Christian World is a bold attempt to make people rethink their basic assumptions of the where and when of a history they may assume they know all too well. To use a rather ugly word, it is a classic exercise in defamiliarization. Marty incidentally, as is well known, never employs ugly words or jargon, and writes throughout in admirably clear, intelligent prose.
I am looking forward to this read and will queue this one up behind my current book of the bedside table...Consuming Jesus, Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church.
Brian McLaren, emergent guru, former pastor, author, conference circuit rider and book tour promoter has another detractor on his vision presented of the "new emerging views" of Jesus, the gospel and the church. This time the one who questions his vision is John Wilson, editor of Books and Culture magazine. So you know, Wilson is an intellectual and not a right of center fundamentalist or Willowback modernist who McLaren aims at so often. A few of Wilson's comments:
Speaking of McLaren's view of war Wilson writes:
I have to admit that—immersed as I am now in a pile of books about the conflict with Japan in World War II and another stack about the Spanish Civil War—this talk about war as an "addiction" seems sophomoric, indeed painfully naïve and patronizing. Perhaps I am just in denial. But dialogue between just-war folk and pacifists? Yes, I'm all for that—and if this dialogue can take us further, wonderful.
Such dialogue, of course, has proceeded fitfully for many centuries. Neither the just-war tradition nor the pacifist tradition has been static. And so—on this point and across the board—the claim of McLaren's title, Everything Must Change, is quite misleading.
His other main complaint is about his facile view of church history and the importance of the emergent's correction of the past.
McLaren is particularly misleading when he's suggesting, as he does quite emphatically at times, that somehow the church went off the rails early on, and that only now are (some) Christians beginning to understand what Jesus was really saying. While McLaren occasionally adds nuances and qualifiers, this ahistorical account runs through the book. In this respect, his message is oddly reminiscent of the ahistorical narrative of church history that dominated the evangelical/fundamentalist churches of my youth. Between an idealized first-century church and the present moment, when the preacher was calling on you to make a decision for Christ, there loomed a great wasteland—all those centuries in which the church failed to heed the plain words of Scripture.
Finally, he comments on McLaren's naivety in dealing with global economics with the following statement:
The reader of McLaren's book will discover that everything hasn't changed. Do we, as McLaren suggests, decide not to buy a cheaper shirt that has been made in a factory where the workers receive terribly low wages and instead pay more for a shirt that has been made in a factory where the workers are better compensated? Or—as a number of economist friends of mine would maintain—would McLaren's well-intended gesture, insofar as it had any effect beyond producing a sense of virtuous conduct, actually tend to undermine the fortunes of those poor workers?
Wilson's post is brief and yet another reminder that McLaren's voice is not one that I trust either biblically or intellectually. You can read Wilson's essay here.
I wanted to write a note today and encourage all of us to thank God for the civil rights movement in America which is celebrated on Martin Luther King Jr. day. It is hard to imagine that just a generation ago African Americans were under the harsh rule of Jim Crow here in the south. Though we may not rejoice in all of Dr. King's life, he was greatly used by God to speak and lead a nation towards greater justice and equality.
I pray each of us might pause and thank God today in light of the progress which has been labored for in America and to ask him for a continued work for greater equality and justice in our society today. I enjoyed John Piper's blog on MLK day - http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1026/
King's full I have a Dream Speech can be watched here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJkI did an hour long training and discussion today with some of our Inversion leaders on the nature of evangelism and the missional church. Though it was specifically created for our Inversion peeps, I thought it may be of some interest here on the POCblog.
Here is a pdf of the file...
So, now that Apple has puffed up its chest and strutted in arrogant superiority once again, I wanted to throw my two cents in about how the buzz about the newest MacBook amounts to some hot gaseous substance derived from the name said product (ie Hot air). I recently reviewed my new Dell XPS m1330 purchased right before the AIR Mac announcement. With the specs of my PC so much in my mind I watched the AIR announcement with some interest. I left with only one word - unimpressed. Of course their will be MacIdolaters claiming that this machine will make you float through airports and reach some sort of quasi Buddhist enlightenment, but I feel this is a product which many struggle. In this battle royal comparison review I will do two things. First, show that the MacBook AIR simply does not match up to other devices - I will use my XPS m1330 to illustrate. Second, I will speculate on why this Macbook needs work or it may just disappear into thin air. Finally, I will laugh at my Mac friends - because I love them and they evangelize me - maybe I won't laugh too much.
The Matchup - AIR vs. XPS
| Features |  |  | Commentary |
| Size | H: 0.16-0.76 in | H: 0.87 to 1.33 in W: 12.5 in D: 9.4 in W: 3.97 lbs | Both are small, but the AIR clearly wins the size competition. The Dell is less than 4lbs and hardly a burden, but AIR is tiny even though its 3lb weight is not the lightest in the world. Advantage - AIR |
| OS | OS X Leopard | Windows VISTA | Commenting on this one is a religious affair. I love VISTA, Mac folks love Leopard. Just so people will not whine - Advantage - AIR |
| Screen | 13.3 LED Backlit | 13.3 LED Backlit | Both have screens using the bright, power saving, thin LED backlit screens. Advantage - Draw |
| Processor | 1.6 GHZ Core 2 Duo | 2.2 GHZ Core 2 Duo | Advantage - XPS |
| Memory | 2 GB | 3 GB | Even with VISTAs memory hunger, 3 GB still is better than two. Advantage - XPS |
| Hard Drive | 80 GB, 4200RPM, 64 GB SSD option | 200 GB, 7200RPM, 64GB SSD option | This one is embarrassing. The XPS has the largest 7200RPM drive while the AIR uses the smallish, slow drive used in iPod Classics. This clearly hinders the air as a serious primary computer which might be used for say...editing video. Clear Advantage - XPS |
| Video Subsystem | 144MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory | Dedicated Nvidia GeForce graphics with 128MB dedicated memory | Again, no contest. The AIR has a shared video subsystem, the XPS a dedicated graphics card - Clear Advantage - XPS |
| Optical Drive | None, optional external SuperDrive | 8X DVD+/-RW Slot Load Drive | Now, I know Apple wants you to think that not having this is a feature because you can use another computers drive wirelessly. This however is ridiculous. What if a friend hands you a disk and says - check out my wedding DVD/photos? You are out of luck. Clear Advantage - XPS. |
| Input/Output | MicroDVI with adapters, one USB 2.0 port, one headphone jack | HDMI (high def video), VGA, 2 USB 2.0 ports, Firewire port (for dig video cams), Express Card Slot, Multi Card Reader (SD, MMC, Mem Stick), Fingerprint Biometics security, 2 audio headphone jacks for sharing, microphone input jack | No contest here. The AIR has crippled I/O greatly limiting what you can connect to the machine. Again showing this is not a good primary machine. Clear Advantage - XPS. |
| Networking | Wireless N, Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR | Wireless N, Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR, 10/100 Ethernet, optional wireless broadband from SPRINT, Verizon, AT&T | Yes, the world is wireless and both have the same wireless network features. The XPS adds a hard Ethernet port and an option for wireless broadband - Advantage - XPS |
| Keyboard | Nice backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor. | Great keyboard, no backlight | Advantage - AIR |
| Track-pad | Large trackpad, mulit touch gesture support | Small trackpad, pretty standard | Now I use the keyboard for so many things that the idea of learning touch chords on a track pad to rotate a photo sounds stupid. But the cool factor goes to the AIR though I don't see the point. Advantage - AIR |
| Cool Factors | Ultra thin, Nice looking, integrated web cam and microphone | Thin, Nice Looking, included Express Card IR remote for multimedia and presentations, heat sensitive touch buttons for media and volume control, integrated web cam and microphone...fingerprint logins. | Advantage - XPS |
| Battery | Non Removable, 5 hour | Removable battery with multiple options. I purchased the 6 cell (4 hour) and optional 9 cell (6 hours) | Again, a non removable battery is silly. No secondary possible on the AIR and you have to get Apple to get a new one. Batteries loose capability over time so this again is a clear advantage. Clear Advantage - XPS |
| Price | $1799 | $1734 | The price on the XPS includes the extra battery and a machine with far superior features. Clear Advantage - XPS |
Bottom Line - The Macbook AIR is at best a secondary machine. Its poor hard drive, no optical drive (though they say this is cool), no removable battery, crippled I/O options, underpower machine without dedicated video option. This is a very limited machine which puts it clearly in a "second or third machine" option. Yet with the price a very high $1799.00 for the baseline configuration it is priced in the high range for even a machine with some kick. Yes it can fit in an envelope - great. But I do not want to be able to mail my laptops...I want to be able to do serious computing tasks. The question I was left with in looking at the AIR was this: How many rich MacIdolators are out there who want a thin Apple toy to supplement their MacBook Pros or iMacs? For I think they might be the primary market for this device. For me, I would not trade my XPS m1330 for any MacBook - let alone one as anemic looking as the one called "AIR." OK, I decided to not laugh at my Mac friends.
If you still want something to be excited about in Jobs' recent announcements, you can now pay 4 dollars to rent a movie to watch on tiny screens. If you want to watch with friends in the living room, well you can pay another 229.00 bucks to do something as complicated as watch a movie on your TV...This is a "good deal?" Good grief at least with something Netflix you can get your movies and watch them with friends without giving Apple another substantial chunk of your bank account. I see why Wall street did not buzz after the recent worship service of the cult of Mac.
For more on MacBook Air you can see the following:
John Markoff of the New York Times recently caught up with Steve Jobs to discuss all things Apple and technological. Many of you know that Jobs just recently gave his MacWorld keynote and rolled out several new products. An overpriced, too little time, DRMed, movie rental store on iTunes with a good selection and a Thin notebook called the MacBook Air. All things buzz around Jobs and everyone who knows him says he likes it this way. So it Markoff's piece is interesting tech journalism but a quotation found therein was a bit ridiculous. In belittling the Amazon Kindle e-book strategy Jobs made the following comment:
“It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore,” he said. “Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”
This is a prime example of why marketers cannot influence the future through leadership and must only follow the dollar signs of the masses and what they think people want. Now, I do not want to sound arrogant, but sometimes this amounts to a capitulation rather than leadership. My kids "want" to eat bad food all day, but as a parent/leader, I lead them to finer dining because it is what they need. There are several problems with Jobs' quote.
First, it assumes that people were not reading when they read his quote. I know he is referring to "books" but people are still reading Steve - hello POCBlog reader. Second, it commits what philosophers call the IS/OUGHT fallacy. Simply because something IS a certain way, does not mean that it OUGHT to be that way. Of course this deals in ethics and views of the common good, not just "what sells." Jobs only concern appears to be the latter. We ought to be (sorry) concerned in helping literacy, not capitulating to literary decline in culture. Jobs seems to be saying that a gadget whose focus is reading book is flawed, because the kids don't read good any more.
So what should we do with challenges like "people not reading?" My conviction would be to help people love to read. Because reading...well, its fundamental. The same thing can be said in the church. People say that the Christian community don't read deep things, doesn't care about theology, only reads books full of lightweight kitsch...blah, blah, blah. The marketers therefore flood the bookstores with such stuff and do not help the problem a bit. Our response was to start a young adult ministry that had these things at the center rather than giving in and just entertaining the folks with a get a date club ministry. I write for Inversion, not for publishers. I commend thinking, feeling, aching, caring and theology - not shallowness because that is what the folks want. My goal is not to make it big, strike it big, but to establish people in the gospel and a sacrificial commitment to actually following Jesus. The result - our people's joy in God and Jesus' mission going forth. So when Steve Jobs says "nobody reads anymore" - just reply, "Well, I do!" and go spread your tribe. When people say that nobody cares about theological reflection anymore - I just reply "Well, we do!" and may the tribe increase.
These two images obviously are using the extreme to teach a point. They are using a form of visual hyperbole. Yet this is the problem when taken in a very wooden fashion. In other words, if we must examine what we mean by "love" or we can stoop into mere sentimentalism.
A few quick questions:
One of the artists who designed this poster wrote the following:
Before we turn off the outrage and anger in our consciences, let me encourage the designer. The swastika should not make us feel and think nice thoughts. It ought to make us angry for what it stood for. There is a righteous anger throughout the Old and New Testaments and exhibited in the very life of Jesus. To feel good about swastikas is a different kind of wickedness - that of a seared conscience. It may disguise itself in sentimentalism, but it is not love.
May God give us love for our enemies and righteous anger in the face of evil. The cross of Christ is actually the perfect union of fierce wrath and justice as well as mercy, grace and love. It is where righteousness and justice kiss - let us not forget to come to God in repentance and marvel at grace. But the evil in our own hearts and all around us should not be welcomed with a fuzzy embrace.