CS Lewis from God in the Dock

The ancient man approaches God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. he is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is quite ready to listen to it. The trial me even end in God’s acquittal. But the important things is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.

Posted in Quotations | Tagged | Comments Off on CS Lewis from God in the Dock

Yancey on Job

From The Bible Jesus Read p. 50

“By allowing us to glimpse behind the curtain in chapters 1 and 2, the author of Job forfeits all elements of narative tension but one: the mystery of how Job will respond. In short, only the question of faith remains unanswered.”

Posted in Quotations | Tagged | Comments Off on Yancey on Job

Twitter Updates for 2009-05-06

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Posted in Tweets | Comments Off on Twitter Updates for 2009-05-06

Pastor as Word-Gardener of People

Repost from Feb 2, 2009

This I wrote as a response to a general comment about the time people take posting and reading blogs, Facebook, etc.

I think here too is where a gospel of grace, rather than the covenant of works prevails. Does your life flow out of duty or joy?

I think words are a tremendous ministry. One author recently in working on the issue of Biblical inspiration considered that all language is God’s invention to communicate his glory and his grace.It’s not too hard to discover if you come at it the other way around by realizing that all of creation is for this, so words as a subset gets you there too.

Yesterday I did a my Sunday School class on Revelation 4. (If you’ve got an hour to waste you can listen to the class. ) . Often things come together in my mind during the class prompted by the Q/A and the back and forth of the class discussion. The issue was this throne room scene of God and whether we’ll just be spending all of eternity in a really good church service. The 4 living creatures there are, according to some, and I agree with them, symbolic of the created order or the animal kingdom and they are there in the throne room of God evoking the praise of the 24 elders. This is precisely what the natural order does to and for us. Pagans go to the most beautiful places in the world because they claim to feel God there. I don’t doubt that they are right. It is the created order doing its work in their lives. We twist it of course, but all sin is seeking of shalom along the lines of God’s creation embedded in our natures.

So anyway, will we be spending all of eternity falling on our faces with the elders? First it would not be boring to do so because they are prompted by the awesome nature of God and the vision of his beauty. But would God be please with just that?

It occurred me that the reason God creates and expresses his glory in the created order is to multiply his glory. I think this is part of the reason for the third commandment and why even in the scene in Revelation 4 there is no description of the one seated on the throne. There is one of the Son of Man in Revelation 1, but not the one on the throne. Why? Because we are made to love God not just in formal worship, but in all of the activities of life in the all the diversity of his good and then renewed created order. Geologists, farmers, song writers, landscapers, etc. etc. all take a part in this. Adam was a gardener, and that didn’t just describe what he did, it described who he was and what he was for, to cultivate, develop, tend, multiply and magnify God’s work and therefore God’s glory.

Back to the subject.

God is not so narrow as to imagine that having a Henry Ford approach to time is the only way to live the Christian life. In the context of the great salvation we have received in Christ we are given the freedom to play. The best play is the most productive play, and for people who are gardeners with words this will mean poetry, writing, etc. One of the chief areas we are called to garden, especially for pastors, is people. My friend Rod is a word-gardener of people and so in God’s great freedom given to Rod by virtue of having paid it all on the cross Rodney is a word-gardener of people and blogs, Voices, Facebook, and whatever else he uses is amplifying the glory of God through Rodney’s word-gardener of people activity.

Now we in the context of the age of decay, our broken, sinful natures, can make poor and sinful use of time. There are lots of ways to do that, but let’s not allow Henry Ford or modern notions of productivity to dictate what sin is and isn’t. Love is of course the indicator. Is your gospel-freedom-gardener-play magnifying and expressing love of God and love of neighbor? If so, you’re probably on the right track and moving in the right direction.

Now, having written this, I will copy it to my blog, and to Facebook, and get responses from lots of people that aren’t on Voices. I too like to think of myself as a word-gardener of people and I’m blessed that we can use this strange cyber medium to garden people at a distance and delayed.

Posted in Pastoral Identity | Tagged | Comments Off on Pastor as Word-Gardener of People

Is anger an article of faith for your desired social change?

I have often observed in groups that seek to motivate some sort of social action or change, the implicit assumption that anger is essential. Their actions are designed to elicit anger from those they wish to mobilize. They tell stories, they show pictures, they believe that outrage will dispel apathy and that this outrage will result in the changes they desire. Sometimes it does, but at what cost? What they have done is to fuel various forms of groupisms and factions and have now entrusted their preferred future to a path requiring conflict. Their adversaries will be labeled and despised, not respected and loved. This is the first thing I’ve read that directly confronts this unnamed doctrine of anger and shows it to be counter to the teachings of Jesus.

This isn’t to say Jesus didn’t get angry. Jesus left anger to be what it is, an emotion. He didn’t elevate it to become a doctrine. When it is turned into a doctrine what it becomes is hatred.

From Kenneth Bailey’s book Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes p. 127

Through forgiveness the bitterness, anger, hatred and desire for revenge are drained out of the struggle and the person contends with those for whom he or she may now be able to feel genuine compassion. This will influence enormously the style of the struggle…

The world despises this theology because it thinks anger is necessary to fuel the struggle for justice, and that forgiveness will dissipate that anger. The Christian disagrees and replies, “No. I will forgive and I will struggle for justice. I may still be angry, but my struggle for justice will be purified by forgiveness and thereby become more effective.”

Posted in Culture commentary, Quotations | Comments Off on Is anger an article of faith for your desired social change?

Leadership on Alchohol

Interesting piece in Leadership Journal on the new fight among evangelicals over alcohol.

What is more dangerous, the enticing substance you wish to control through quarantine or the enticing substance which is your faith in the power of quarantine?

A church planter in Atlanta who works the web diligently posted this piece on his blog about the drastic measures they take to avoid moral failure.

Some of the responses he got from this posting surprised me. (Real life is always more surprising than my imaginary life.)

I wrote this response to his posting. It seems to apply here as well.

Very interesting discussion. We are free in Christ and if you find these steps helpful then you should pursue them. Part of pursuing them is to explain to people why you take these steps which is also appropriate. From that you of course also take the commentary and perspectives of those who disagree or are upset by them, as was seen in this discussion. Moral failure of a sexual nature is a problem and good steps can help.

Thoughtful Christians have long noted, however, that sin is not so easily dealt with through external constraints, in fact sometimes the way those remedies are pursued in fact tempt us in other ways.
Does the heightened profile of safeguards in this one area create an implicit hierarchy of sin? You take elaborate steps to safeguard from sexual sin, but what about gossip or gluttony?

Some have noted that the contrast of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, was not between the irreligious (younger brothers of Luke 15) and the religious, but rather between the religious (older brothers of Luke 15) and Christ followers. The point of the lesson was not so much to drive followers into tithing salt and pepper, but into realizing the insufficiencies of their resources in beating this enemy and therefore driving them to rely on God’s grace. Recipients of God’s revelation have had a peculiar history with that revelation. Some thought that devotion to God should best be expressed by hedging that law in order to be extra sure they didn’t break it. Jesus didn’t follow them into the tradition of the elders (which in fact Jesus contrasted and critiqued in the Sermon on the Mount). Galatian believers undoubtedly imagined that if believing was good, then being very circumspect about the Old Covenant would be better. Paul disagreed.

I guess I don’t have a problem with the individual choices we make, and measures we choose as disciples to honor God and shun sin. That’s certainly all good. But how do we talk about it? Faith in measures and standards that develop into a contemporary evangelical “tradition of the elders” may find a way of becoming a kind of sin that threatens our relationship with Christ at a deeper level than even an adulterous affair.

Posted in Institutional Church | Comments Off on Leadership on Alchohol

Why we should love church done poorly

This is a response to a thread on CRC-Voices about sermon length. The discussion got into various aspects of sermon preaching and listening.

The conditioning of modern media often comes into the discussion here. Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” is a standard text. I remember John Stek remarking that past congregations had the capacity to listen carefully for extended periods of time, could follow audible detailed and nuanced argument, had critical listening skills and an amazing ability to retain. We also forget that past educational methods emphasized memorization (it was expected that huge amounts of material traditionally would be devoted to memory, not the least of which being Scripture).

Read a Jonathan Edwards sermon sometimes, like this one: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity.htm It’s not easy for us to read. CCEL.org has some Edwards sermons that are read by some nice West Michigan woman and you can get a sense for what “regular” congregations a few hundred years ago expected.

In our consumer culture the audience sits back with a demanding posture and says “It’s all up to you, communicator!” In some sense it is, especially if the listener adopts this posture, but the listener then basically defeats their own interests. If the listener enters the process and takes some responsibility for what they get out of the process, they will likely find something of value that occurs within the process, even perhaps from the most unworthy sermon. Papa of the older Berenstein Bears demonstrated that even negative examples can be instructive.

There is a real component of this in the gospel. Again, I’m doing Revelation with our Sunday School. God’s wrath gets poured out and even God’s children are subject to its general and widespread havoc. To those in rebellion against God it is all negative, but for the elect even the negative works to their purification and strengthening.

I find this all the time in life. I am most often a very selfish, self-centered person who’s greedy little id wants to dictate and evaluate every waking minute. Other people intrude. They bring requests, stories they want to tell me, agendas they want to foist upon me. My id resents it. I want to send them away, to mock them, to belittle them, to banish them from my precious eyeball time and consciousness so I can direct my life along the way I think it should be so that my little will fills my experience of this world, so that things that I like fill my life and I can avoid things I find annoying.

It’s not too hard to see that I am in my selfishness a prisoner of my own smarmy little will and that all of these annoying people are God’s gift to break me of my self-centeredness, which if left to its own progressive growth with result in hell itself.

Why would I say that? Because as my selfish little will expands in power it must block out the ultimate intruder, God himself. So God comes to me in children who have little, sometimes inane stories to tell me. He comes to me in the mentally ill who are going to ramble at me in twisted and irrational fears and notions. He’s going to annoy me with people presenting political or theological views that I disagree with. He’s going to place me in a world filled with sinful, broken people that do real damage and whose irresponsible ideas do real damage. He places me here and he says “love them as I have loved them because I love them”.

Why does God allow there to be lousy preachers and terrible church musicians and annoying and offensive congregations? They are all for our benefit, as opportunities to grow in his generosity and love.

You can sit in that church service letting that internal grumbler and critic find fault in innumerable things around you and you can leave angry and upset. You can walk out desperately wishing, like Hyacinth Bucket from “Keeping Up Appearances” or like the denizens on CS Lewis’ imaginary bus from hell in “The Great Divorce”, for a more suitable, more elevated, more appropriate context for your obviously refined and informed sensitivities, someplace where others properly measure up to your fine standards. Or you can accept the invitation into the relational polarity of the life of God, who listens to the selfish, rambling prayers of everyone, who pays attention to us who, to him look both insane and childish.

In Christ every lousy day filled with evil, annoying and obnoxious people and experiences is yet another opportunity to grow in love for the unlovely and the unloving. Why wouldn’t church fit into this picture? pvk

Posted in Culture commentary, Devotional Reflection | 4 Comments

Twitter Updates for 2009-05-05

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Posted in Tweets | Comments Off on Twitter Updates for 2009-05-05

Edwards and Keller on the Gospel and the Poor

Jonathan Edward’s sermon on this: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity.htm

Tim Keller following Edwards: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/33-3/the-gospel-and-the-poor

Posted in Links | Tagged | Comments Off on Edwards and Keller on the Gospel and the Poor

NT Wright on Galatians 2:17-19

I thought this section on Wright’s Justification was very helpful. Page 119

Galatians 2:17-18 raise and answer a question which must, like Galatians 2:16, be solidly anchored to the actual situation Paul is describing in 2:11-14.
“If, while seeking to be justified in the Messiah, we ourselves turn out to be ‘sinners,’ does that make the Messiah a servant of sin? Certainly not!” In other words (addressing Peter), “Yes, we are seeking to find our identity as God’s people `in the Messiah,’ trusting in his ‘faithfulness’; and yes, that means that in terms of the Torah as we know it we find ourselves standing alongside ‘Gentile sinners,’ as in 2:15. Technically, we are ‘sinners’ like them.” This, I think, is preferable to the obvious alternative, which is to understand this as a reference to something like Luther’s simul iustus et peccator: we are justified in Christ, but still sinners simply in the sense of committing actual sin.
But this does not mean—as some, perhaps those who had come from James, might have inferred—that the Messiah was simply stirring up “sinful” behavior, encouraging people to kick over the traces and live “outside the law” along with . . . those Gentile idolaters! Certainly not! Rather, “if I build up again the things which I tore down, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.” Paul has moved from “we” to “I” at this point, preparing for the intensely personal, and deliberately rhetorical, appeal of Galatians 2:19-21. What he is saying can be spelled out like this: “If, having pulled down the wall of partition between myself and the Gentiles, having discovered that it is abolished through the Messiah, I then build it up again by separating myself from the Gentiles, all I accomplish is to erect a sign (the Torah itself!) which says ‘you have transgressed.'” “Transgression,” we should note, is the actual breaking of the law, whereas “sin” is any missing-of-the-mark, any failure to live as a genuine human being, whether or not the law is there to point it out.

Posted in Quotations | Tagged | Comments Off on NT Wright on Galatians 2:17-19