Monthly Archives: May 2010

Enthroned, We Rule (Part 03)

Passage: Ephesians 1.1-2 (ESV Bible Online).

to the saints who are in Ephesus

Why “saints”?  What does that term mean?

The easiest thing to do is to say that a saint is a “holy one” and just assume we all know what holiness is and let it go at that.  To modern readers, that really explains nothing.  Yes, a saint is a Latin derivative that translates the Hebrew and Greek terms for “holy one.”  But what does that mean?

The first time we find the word holy used as a noun it is used in Exodus 3.5 when Moses meets God in the burning bush.  God tells him to remove his shoes because he is standing on holy ground.  Normally, according to the way the Bible explains our situation, the ground is cursed because of sin (see Genesis 3).  But when God draws near his presence makes the cursed ground holy so that it is an insult to wear shoes as if one needed protection from it.  God drew near to a particular place at a particular time and that meant that the ground that he touched down upon was holy and had to be treated accordingly.

Another story is the story of Passover with the resulting law set down for Israel in Exodus 13.3 that every first born animal was to be “sanctified”—made holy.  How does one sanctify a firstborn?  Well in the case of an animal that is acceptable on the altar, sanctifying the firstborn meant bringing it to the central sanctuary and offering it up into God’s presence from the sanctuary altar.

That leads us to another story, the story of when God came down on Mount Sinai, once again that piece of geography had to be treated as “holy”—as special due to God’s special presence there.  On that Mountain, God instructed the Israelites to build him a tent in which to live.  That tent had different sections: the outer section was called “the holy place” and the interior section where God’s footstool dwelt was called “the holy of holies.”  The whole structure is mentioned in Exodus 25.8 this way: “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.”  Sanctuary, like saint, is an English terms we have derived from our Latin roots.  Sanctus—“holy”—is the root of both saint and sanctuary, holy one and holy place. The sanctuary, remember, is where God is enthroned.  Beyond the holy place in the Holy of Holies was the Ark of the Covenant overshadowed by two golden Cherubim.  The Bible declares that God was enthroned above those Cherubim so that the Ark was his footstool (First Chronicles 28.2; Psalm 99.5; 132.7).  As the Psalmist declares in Psalm 98—a Psalm all about God’s ruler over the world from his throne—“Holiness befits your house, O LORD.”

In the events of Mount Sinai we first have a reference to people as “holy ones” or saints.  Moses gives a blessing that recounts what happened:

The Lord came from Sinai,
And dawned on them from Seir;
He shone forth from Mount Paran,
And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones; [angels]
At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them.
Indeed, He loves the people;
All Your holy ones are in Your hand,
And they followed in Your steps;
Everyone receives of Your words.
Moses charged us with a law,
A possession for the assembly of Jacob [33.2-4].

When God is enthroned at Sinai, it is appropriate to refer to his angels as “holy ones”; and when at the same time God is enthroned among his people, it is appropriate to refer to them as “holy ones,” saints, as well.  Since Ephesians repeatedly describes the enthronement of Jesus at God’s right hand, it is an especially appropriate term for those who belong to Jesus.

We typically think of holiness as a certain kind of moral quality.  Someone is holy if he is righteous or godly.  That’s true but it is a secondary development.

The primary meaning of holy is simply near to God’s special presence.  In the case of God Himself, when he is described as “holy, the term probably refers to His own independent integrity which also reminds us of his transcendence and separation from creation.  But for all other things or people, being holy refers to access to, or association with, God’s sanctuary.  Some things come near to God and they have no business being there so God expels them by destroying them or banishing them.  They are not holy and therefore may not get that close.  Other things belong near to God so that they can be called holy even if they are separated from God’s presence—they are meant to be brought to Him.  The idea there is that they shouldn’t be so separated.

This is the legal position of all Christians; they are holy.  All who profess their faith in Jesus are given authorized access to God’s throne room.  The amazing privilege this involves can be seen from another story from Second Chronicles 26: When King Azariah tried to force his way into the holy place, a skin disease broke out on his forehead so that he was expelled not only from the Tabernacle but also from his own throne in Jerusalem.  According to Leviticus, skin diseases that exposed the inner flesh banned a person from access to God’s palace and from populous areas.  But Paul, in calling us saints is ascribing to us free access to where kings were once barred.

Of course, the problem with saying all this is that all the concrete reference points are no longer visible.  There is no longer one central sanctuary on earth that is especially the place and home of God’s presence.  Therefore, there is no literal, geographical access to experience the way, for example, the people of Israel.

Nevertheless, this is not just an esoteric analogy.  Here are a few implications:

First, The fact that all believers are saints means that we are all equally welcome to God and must be welcome to one another. We have a right to God’s presence and we cannot deny the right of other believers to our fellowship. Any divisions between Christians based on race, sex, some kind of alleged holiness above and beyond one’s basic Christian identity is a repudiation of the fact that all believers are saints.

Second, the fact we are all saints means that we are under God’s close scrutiny.  He pays attention to us.  We should act as people who are in God’s company at all times.

Third, the fact that all Christians means we can now meet and worship as the church in any place on earth and, when we do so, we have the same or better access to God’s presence than the priests did who served in God’s temple in Israel before the coming of Christ. There is no longer only one geographical sanctuary on earth that is holy to God.  In Israel, before Jesus ascended into heaven, the only place where one was permitted to eat at sacramental feasts was the central sanctuary.  Now Christians all over the world can eat and drink a sacramental meal of fellowship with Jesus.  We are welcome at his table anywhere on earth.

A few marginal comments on a sanity check for publishers

Joel J. Miller: Author of The Revolutionary Paul Revere-Sanity Check for Publishers.

A few thoughts come to me, perhaps all of which are redundant with what Joel is saying. Consider this public print processing (and then say that three times fast).

  • The advice to provide content reminds me of the urge to increase interest in church by providing entertainment. The Church is never going to be more entertaining than my Nintendo Wii (except when it has bricked as it has this week, but you see my point).  You can try to get people intrigued or interested, but they have to want something that church actually provides as church.  Anything that gets in the way of the church doing what it does as church isn’t helping church survive or grow; it is morphing it into something else that people  (allegedly at least) want.
  • Books compete against many things.  They compete against movie tickets, dvds, coffee, and beer.  Proposing that publishers also distribute for microbreweries is not helpful advice for publishers.  Stock holders diversify.  People with a vocation do what they think they are called to do.  If they need to switch to another line of work because of market realities, then they need to admit that they can no longer work in the publishing industry.
  • Publishers cannot do much to control how much of the population is literate.  There is no point in agonizing.  Either there are enough readers to support a healthy publishing industry or there are not.  If people prefer gadgets to reading, so be it.  Don’t confuse a decision to get out of publishing and sell programs with gadgets with innovation in publishing.
  • People who bring a new product to market are sometimes amazing entrepreneurs.  We hear about those people.  We don’t hear about the many more whose innovation was a failure in the marketplace.  It may be true that someone is going to come up with an audio-visual content on a device that will attract readers from books in great numbers.  But that person is taking an immense risk.  Personally, I would stick with books.  Maybe I’m just not courageous enough.  Whatever the case, taking a fantastic risk in the marketplace should not be mistaken for the claim that there is a great wave of change sweeping through the industry that demands that everyone adapt to, or die.
  • I seem to remember a decade or two ago that cd-roms were going to be the most amazing thing ever in educational content.  Did it happen?  There are a few products that people buy, but it hardly transformed the world.  I can’t help but wonder if the recent things that Joel heard are simply another version of the cd-rom hype–this time applied to small computing devices, perhaps.
  • And to repeat a point I’ve made before, there is no comparison between music and books not only for the reason Joel mentions, but because music has always required a player. Unlike recorded music, books have been around before the twentieth century.  It is not as obvious that they will be surpassed.
  • Personally, I think book publishing took its big hits with the invention of the radio, motion picture, and television.  I don’t think the recent stuff is that big a deal.  We’re past the real hurdles already.

Curing a head ache by decapitation: the wrong way to defend substitutionary atonement.

In his Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Wayne Grudem defends imputation and substitutionary atonement.  He realizes that their are objections to this position (thought I agree with Grudem that it is the Biblical view).  However, in order to defeat the charge that the doctrine is unjust, Grudem resorts to othe following:

Moreover, God himself (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the ultimate standard of what is just and fair in the universe, and he decreed that the atonement would take place in this way, and that it did in fact satisfy the demands of his own righteousness and justice (p. 574).

If this means God knows better than us what is right, it is a point worth making.  But it seems to be saying more than that.  If our ultimate defense of substutionary atonement and imputation is that God can do what he wants, then why even require the atonement or the work of Christ for the forgiveness of sins in the first place.  Why does not God simply forgive sinners because he is God and the “final standard of what is just and fair in the universe”?

In fact, it is impossible to read Romans this way.  Paul’s point is that what God has done in Christ demonstrates that God is righteous–“both just and the justifier.”  How can we defend the grand demonstration of God’s righteousness in forgiving sinners by appealing to God’s status as “ultimate standard” who must not be questioned?

Enthroned, We Rule (Part 02)

Passage: Ephesians 1.1-2 (ESV Bible Online).

“by the will of God”

Obeying God is obviously important to Paul.  He will later exhort some of his readers, or those listening to his letter read out loud, that they do “the will of God from the heart” (Ephesians 6.6).  So it would be natural, in reading this phrase, to think that Paul is simply pointing out that his commission as King Jesus’ ambassador is backed by divine authority.

However, Paul seems to be saying something more here.  Consider what Paul says in the next few sentences,

he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.  In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory (1.5- 12; emphasis added).

So when Paul announces his Apostleship “through the will of God,” he is saying that God appointed him to the office in order to fulfill His plan to save the world.  Jesus’ accomplishments alone are not enough.  It was and is essential to God’s purpose that the message of Jesus be announced to all the world.  As we will see, Paul views Jesus himself to be traveling, working, and speaking through his servants (c.f. Ephesians 2.17).

“Life’s not fair” is too diffuse a lesson to learn from this

Listen to what the parents told their abused daughter to deal with it.  “Life’s not fair?”  No.  The state is not fair.  Professional bureaucrats are sociopaths. Politicians are insane and dangerous. Those are the lessons of this story.

But nooooo; this is all just a great exception.  Normally, the state and federal employees who we want to invade other countries, build our cars, control our economy, and play doctor with us are all brilliant, eternally beneficient angels, with only a few weird exceptions.

Did the parents even consider teaching their daughter another lesson by pulling her out of that prison? (I have no idea what their circumstances are which is why I’m only asking if they considered it)

Enthroned, We Rule (Part 01)

Passage: Ephesians 1.1-2 (ESV Bible Online).

“Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus”

Paul is an ambassador, a delegate, an agent, an appointed representative.  The title apostle means all those things in this case.  But Paul writes as the apostle of Christ Jesus which means that we must think of him as a royal ambassador for another kingdom.

Why “royal”?  Because Jesus is a real king sending his messengers to the nations.

The term “Christ” is the Greek word for anointed.  In Israel a priest or king was installed into office by being anointed with oil.  The ritual represented the action of God’s Spirit in appointing someone to and equipping and empowering him for office.  When God rescued Israel from Egypt and had them build a tent for him to dwell in their midst, Aaron, the first Priest to serve God there, was anointed with oil (Leviticus 8.12).  Samuel the prophet anointed David with oil to declare him king of Israel (First Samuel 16.13).  David was the beginning of a royal dynasty in Israel that remained in power (more or less) until Israel was invaded by the Babylonian Empire and deported.  Since that time, as Israel hoped for a return for the glory that they had when they were independent, they came to expect God to restore a new descendant of David to the throne.  Indeed, God promised by the prophets that he would do so.  In the Hebrew language, the expected King was called “the Messiah.”  In Greek, he was called “the Christ.”  Both mean, “the anointed one,” referring to God’s promise to appoint someone as a new king for a renewed kingdom.

This has a great deal of import as to how we are to read Paul’s letter.  In the late popular television series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, ancient texts were constantly studied in order to find obscure prophecies about the future or else give clues as to how to deal with supernatural forces.  Some people assume the Bible is meant to be regarded in this manner and either revere it in this fashion or dismiss it because they know there are no such forces.

Another popular genre today is self-help, books that are produced in both secular and spiritual styles.  Many see this as the role for Biblical literature.  Paul is writing practical advice for us to be better people, or to give us inspiration for living.

But Paul’s own interpretation of himself says that he is writing as the representative of the heir and ruler of the world.  Even though Paul (as we will see) regarded himself as commissioned to represent Jesus to the nations outside Israel, and even when he was reviled and persecuted by fellow Israelites for doing so, Paul never wavered from proclaiming a specifically Jewish message.  “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal,” he wrote years later to his understudy, Timothy (Second Timothy 2.8-9a). For Paul, the royal identity of Jesus as the promised descendant of David was always essential.

In fact, Paul believed that precisely because the heir of David had now ascended into heaven to rule the world, he could and must now proclaim him as the universal savior or deliverer of humanity.  As he wrote to the Romans: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord [Jesus] is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him” (Romans 10.12).

In other words, when originally written, and even now, Paul was writing political material.  He was writing to establish and strengthen communities in loyalty to a new king who was the lord and deliverer of not just the Israelites who sided with him, but of everyone who entrusted themselves to him.  As a preacher and teacher he was, in a real sense, the representative of an invading force establishing a beachhead on planet earth.  Rather than an alien invasion, Paul would have claimed that he was bringing back real humanity to the world.

In the eyes of the authorities in Paul’s own day, his message would have been regarded as subversive, if not outright treason.  Today we miss this.  In today’s society, Ephesians is a book that corresponds to private life, personal preference, interior “spirituality.”  But in Paul’s mind, this is a letter to the nations from their emperor.  From the standpoint of the Roman Emperor it is a letter from a pretender to a disloyal cell within the body politic.

I Am Legend

I have a ton to do today so this must be quick. But I have to take a moment to express what a joy it is to suddenly discover the horror author, Richard Matheson (he’s wider than that but I’m going to read all his horror first if a I can). His novel, I Am Legend was just amazing. It was the kind of thing where you realize most of the vampire fiction you read before was completely second-hand and this was the source that inspired all those wannabe imitators.

I read this novella because I had seen the movie I Am Legend and had been incredibly impressed with it.  One person told me that it wasn’t as good as the book, but I have to assume that is because he wanted the movie to be a copy of the book.  It isn’t.  It is very much indebted to the book but it is a different story.  In fact, one of the great experiences involved in reading the book second was realizing what brilliant decisions the writers had made to use different situations and actions and history to get some of the same emotional stress.

I don’t want to give either story away.  One difference is that the book is about vampires while the movie is about zombies, though the zombies have some vampire features that make more sense once you learn about the book as a source.

One of the things that the movie does, which blew my mind, is show there is more going on than what the protagonist sees, without ever bothering to explain to you what exactly is happening.  To avoid spoilers, when you see the movie and hear the protagonist say that the zombies have lost their last bit of humanity, ask yourself if what he is describing is not showing exactly the opposite.  As it turns out, this element came from the book, but it is simply used to add complexity rather than as a plot issue that must be resolved.  I think it was brilliant.

I have to admit, I didn’t like the end (as in the very last page) of the novella.  I wish Matheson had written part two (which would have been pretty easy to do, in my opinion) and made it into a complete novel.  Also the movie is very much a Christian story with a theodicy (when the camera focuses on graffiti at the beginning, pay attention) and a protagonist who had real faith (before he lost it).  The original novella is much more naturalistic and unbelieving.

They are both amazing though, and I highly recommend them both.

“Drive-Thru Frustrations” by my ten-year-old daughter.

Worker: Welcome to Burger Queen.  May I take your order?

Customer: Um… I’ll have a small drink, a triple cheeseburger, and Doc Flurry.

Worker: Sorry, we don’t have triple cheeseburgers or Doc Flurries.

Customer: Ok, I’ll have a Frapino and a Huge’n’Yummy— Ooh! And a bag of carrot dippers!

Worker: Ma’am, we don’t have any of that.

Customer: What?! Fine! I’ll have a Big Doc and a Doc Salad.

Worker: Ma’am, we don’t have any of that either.

Customer: You don’t have a very good selection!

Worker: Well, considering this is Burger Queen and not Doc Donald’s, we have a very good selection.  Now if you want to order something from our menu, it is to your left.

Customer: Fine, I’ll have a Freezie.

Worker: That’s not even on the Doc Donald’s menu! It’s on Whitney’s menu.

Customer: What happened to “The customer is always right”?

Worker: Ugh! You’re impossible!

Customer: Me? You are!

Worker: No, you!

Customer: You!

Worker: You.

Customer: Yo—

Worker: Do you want food or not?

Customer: Of course.

Worker: Good.  Then order something…

Customer: Fine. I’ll have a Doc Wrap.

Worker: …from the menu!

Customer: You know, I wanted fast food.  But this isn’t fast food.  Look how long your taking.

Worker: Why don’t you go to Doc Donald’s then?

Customer: That’s a good idea!  Could you direct me to the nearest Doc Donald’s?

Worker: Whatever.  Down the street and to your left.

THE END

It may be unlawful but it is not really theft

The title of this brief blog post may overreach since I’m not going to provide some kind of ethical analysis going back to the Bible.  (For a stab at that see John Frame’s essay and Vern Poythress’ thoughts.)

Rather, I just want to point out that, according to the U.S. Constitution law it is misleading to claim that using copyrighted material is “stealing.”

The period of history in North America that gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had a lot to say about “rights” and how they are not given by government and how no one should violate them.

So if it were widely believed that there is a natural right to gain exclusive profit from ideas or writing or songs or technological designs, one would not expect the following to be in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power… To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

But it is.

Do you see the point? This isn’t the protection of a natural right; it is a government-granted monopoly believed necessary in order to promote a public good.  And it is explicitly stated that this “exclusive Right” is to be temporary.

(I note in passing that the Constitution doesn’t empower congress to throw large wads of taxpayer cash at these authors and inventors.  Granting them a temporary exclusi.ve right is thought to be as much subsidy as is necessary.)

So while it is important to obey the law, it is also important to not get beaten down by false accusations that downloading a movie is the same as stealing a car.  This is one reason why such propaganda is wrong.

Wilderness rescue and the price system

CARPE DIEM: Yeah, What’s Wrong With Price Gouging? Nothing!.

Thanks go to Kirk Nelson for forwarding this to me.

I remember when I was road-tripping to my first pastorate and our van broke down in the middle of Nowhere, Oregon.  (Actually I think we were 20 miles past Baker City or something similar.)

We had four to transport and a car to tow.  That was too many to ride in the cab of the tow truck, especially since one was pretty much still a baby and another was a toddler.

So the people we called agreed to rent us a car for a day.  They brought it with the tow truck and then our van replace the vehicle we were renting.

It was a wreck.  It cost us $50 and we had it for less than an hour before we returned it and checked into our hotel room.

I was so thankful someone out in the middle of nowhere had the foresight and motivation to buy the equipment needed and keep it on hand for the occasional stranded person.

I guess I should have condemned him for price-gouging.  Whenever I’m in bad circumstances I should have the right to enslave other people’s property, time and labor.

Yes, that would be the Christian way.  Instead, like mindless bourgeois thralls, we thanked God for the profit motive.