If you have something somebody else wants badly enough, they are likely to get it. That's the nature of human inventiveness -- keep trying until you get it. What protects most of us is the thieves haven't noticed us, yet. Or rather, they haven't noticed our stuff as something they want to bother trying to take. Should they perceive a high enough pay-off, they'll be keeping an eye on the opportunities which we inevitably offer.
Governments are no different. Taking umbrage when government officials ignore the law, or your vision of good social order, is just silly pretension. If we assume "rights" are something given by God, for which governments are held accountable to uphold and defend, we should never be surprised when they don't. In this fallen world, governments and godliness are opposing forces.
High sounding words about an "expectation of privacy in our homes, papers and effects" are just noise, a façade. It's not a matter of "If you have nothing to hide, what does it matter?" You need not have done anything wrong these days to be crushed by law enforcement types eager to justify their existence. If you haven't seen enough examples of that by now, you are actively avoiding seeing them. Since there is no real advantage to being wide open, it's best to be carefully closed, to raise the price of poking around in your life.
Some years ago, there was news the FBI were using a new computer tool to catch their quarry. It was called "Magic Lantern." Basically, they took advantage of standard weaknesses in computer security and human behavior patterns to get folks to install this surveillance software on the target computer. That was some time ago, and the vulnerabilities have been patched, as have some elements of typical human behavior. Who hasn't heard they should hesitate to open email attachments?
So, the FBI have a new tool called CIPAV. I'm sure other branches of government have access to that or something similar. It seems to work well, in part because there are still a lot of human behavior flaws, and still a very large number of flaws in Windows.
Yeah, you knew that was coming. It only works in Windows, it seems -- the most popular, and the most vulnerable, of all computer operating systems. I could probably offer a lot of help to many folks in changing their behavior, but that's too time consuming for most people. However, offering a more secure operating system is pretty easy: Debian Linux. I use it on my primary system. You can download it for free -- completely legal -- and burn it to a CD yourself. Once properly installed and configured, it will be exceedingly hard for something like CIPAV to betray you, even if the FBI come up with a version for Linux. Yes, it really is that much more secure than Windows.
Hey, I'll even offer to send you copy for free, if you can't get it yourself. If you have an older system -- say, something built for Windows98 -- you can always try the free version of BeOS, called Haiku. It runs really well on older hardware, and no one yet has made a virus for it. It will do most of the things people need Windows to do. Yep, I'll even send you a copy of that on CD -- in part because they make it really hard to create an installer CD (but I managed it, just barely). Either way, I'll help you as much as possible getting things installed and set up properly, all for free. It's part of my ministry, my calling from God.
No, it won't be the end of all your computer-related problems, nor will it keep a truly determined federal agent out of your computer. All they need is access to the keyboard, by slipping into your house while you're out, and they'll own it. But that takes time and money. Unless you are a big target, it won't happen. Most of the time they are poking around other people's business because they can. And they are humans. It's altogether likely personal information will be used against you if you make it too easy to get, whether by government officers or other crooks. It's not about secrets, but about security.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Franky, I Know How You Feel
Gary DeMaar discusses Franky Schaeffer's latest book, Crazy for God. I won't be reading it, based on DeMaar's recommendation.
Like Franky, I was deeply alienated by the Christian Right worldview. While I don't have any really juicy family gossip to go with it, I have walked away from the Schaeffer legacy. Devouring his father's books back in my college-preacher-boy days, I came to a very precise understanding of the Western rationalist view of Christian faith. Then I watched it slowly come apart over the next three decades.
At various points along the path, I became totally disillusioned, then tried again. It always failed, though I'll certainly accept the blame for all the things I did wrong. But what I did wrong mostly served to demonstrate the vast gulf between what I was wrongly taught versus what my then undefined convictions told me was right. At some point, the light began breaking through.
First, I consciously embraced Calvinism. Then I rejected Dispensationalism. Eventually I began questioning all the silly political notions -- not just Christian Right activism, but the neo-con police-state agenda, along with mainstream Western church organization. I watched each piece of the puzzle violate the Word of God, and grew weary of ministry mentors who just refused to see it. Finally, I left.
Unlike Franky, I don't walk away dispirited and angry. I walk away joyful and free, ready to begin life afresh in the Kingdom. I won't be writing a book, but I will be writing and teaching the truth as best I can understand. Francis Schaeffer is the epitome of Western rationalism's brand of faith, and Franky points to the unavoidable failures.
Franky and anyone else is welcome to join me.
It's an angry book, and an immature memoir. By the time someone is a grandfather, memories of sex, drugs, rock and roll, and idiosyncratic parents should be a distant memory. I sure hope my sons are more kind if they ever decide to write a book about me. Frank seems to remember all the bad things about growing up with his famous parents as a major worldview shift was taking place in the evangelical-fundamentalist world.
Like Franky, I was deeply alienated by the Christian Right worldview. While I don't have any really juicy family gossip to go with it, I have walked away from the Schaeffer legacy. Devouring his father's books back in my college-preacher-boy days, I came to a very precise understanding of the Western rationalist view of Christian faith. Then I watched it slowly come apart over the next three decades.
At various points along the path, I became totally disillusioned, then tried again. It always failed, though I'll certainly accept the blame for all the things I did wrong. But what I did wrong mostly served to demonstrate the vast gulf between what I was wrongly taught versus what my then undefined convictions told me was right. At some point, the light began breaking through.
First, I consciously embraced Calvinism. Then I rejected Dispensationalism. Eventually I began questioning all the silly political notions -- not just Christian Right activism, but the neo-con police-state agenda, along with mainstream Western church organization. I watched each piece of the puzzle violate the Word of God, and grew weary of ministry mentors who just refused to see it. Finally, I left.
Unlike Franky, I don't walk away dispirited and angry. I walk away joyful and free, ready to begin life afresh in the Kingdom. I won't be writing a book, but I will be writing and teaching the truth as best I can understand. Francis Schaeffer is the epitome of Western rationalism's brand of faith, and Franky points to the unavoidable failures.
Franky and anyone else is welcome to join me.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Life of Christ: Matthew 2:19-3:12
Herod died horribly, suffering a very painful and disgusting malady over a period of time, possibly kidney disease. Five days before he expired, he had his son Antipater executed. This latter had put himself in line for the throne by having his two elder brothers killed. Thus, Herod's kingdom was divided between three surviving sons. Archelaus was as nasty as his father, and had control of Judea. So cruel was he Caesar Augustus later deposed and banished him. Meanwhile, his brother Antipas was given Galilee. Antipas was no friend of his brother, and generally wiser. Intent on building Tiberias and Julias into great cities, he offered tax exemptions and other accommodations to persuade folks to immigrate and build up the economy.
There is no reason to suppose Joseph did not prosper those couple of years in Egypt. When the angel came to call him and his family back home, he was headed to Bethlehem. Having established himself there after Jesus' birth, it was natural he would resume his business there. Knowing Archelaus would have delighted in sending troops to murder Jesus, Joseph worried how he would obey God's command. Being warned away from Judea by the angel, Joseph took the logical course of returning to Nazareth, where this had all began. Sensible indeed for a man in the building trades, for Antipas was also rebuilding Sepphoris, the great city his father had destroyed, just a few miles from Nazareth. Joseph would have more business than he could handle alone, and may well have been in a position to work as a building contractor, employing many others to do the work with him. This was the setting into which Jesus grew to manhood.
Matthew again presents a quandary to Western readers in verse 23. Saying it was prophesied Jesus would "be called a Nazarene" is not a direct quote. Indeed, the name of the town Nazareth isn't found anywhere in the Old Testament. Rather, this is a typical Hebraic play on words. Matthew is taking advantage of the ambiguity of Greek words translated from Hebrew, and applying all the meanings to His Lord. In this case, there is the Hebrew word netser, for "branch" (Isaiah 11:1), a specific reference to the Messiah. However, there is also a play on the word from which Nazarite comes, the term for one who has taken a special vow of purity (Numbers 6). The root word for "Nazarite" is naziyr: separate, as in holy. It is taken from nazar -- to hold (oneself) aloof, especially from sin. There is nothing indicating Jesus was under the Nazarite vow, for something like that was too important to ignore; it would have to be stated. We note John the Baptist, who gets far less play in the text, is described as a Nazarite (Luke 1:15), while Jesus was called a drunkard (Matthew 11:18-19). Thus, Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophecies in ways we don't expect.
Matthew makes no mention John and Jesus were cousins. Nothing is made of Jesus' youth here, simply because little of significance to the central message took place. Rather, "in those days" when Jesus began to operate as Messiah, we first see His cousin. John's message was repentance, for he was the prophesied forerunner, announcing the Kingdom of Heaven was right on top of them. Most listeners would have taken this for what it was: Messiah was about to manifest Himself. This was a very popular message, drawing large crowds to the rural settings where John preferred to preach. His choice of attire echoed that of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8), and had become a standard symbol of prophets preaching repentance (Zechariah 13:4). The description of his diet was a phrase commonly used to depict a complete reliance on whatever God provided, which in that region would have included a great deal of kosher insects. John exemplified symbolically the message he preached of turning back to simple and pure obedience to the Law, Israel's one last chance to get it right.
The requirements of John's teachings, however, were not so popular. Many seized by enthusiasm would have struggled to find ways to apply it, but very few really absorbed the message deeply. Repentance, turning from lack of concern to a state of high sensitivity to the Lord's concerns, was depicted by the ancient practice of conquering monarchs sending advance parties to prepare the people for their new ruler. Even the roads themselves were prepared by widening narrow mountain passes, carving cuts through hilltops, filling in ravines, and smoothing the surface (Isaiah 40:3). John called everyone to prepare for their new King. Should there be resistance to His requirements, you can be sure He would not take it lightly. John advised the people to set their minds on righteousness now, so the transition will be less shocking, less destructive. True repentance requires wholly accepting the justice in the ultimate penalty for sin, and relying on God's mercy to withhold what we deserve. The ritual of baptism symbolized this, and added to the image of newness, something fresh and exciting to the crowds.
For the peasants, there was little to hinder their repentance. They had long been told their poverty was a mark of God's disfavor, as wealth was the primary proof of His favor. The wealthy frequently called the peasants "accursed," so it was nothing new to be told they were under judgment. For the socially prominent Pharisees and Sadducees, repentance was a far bigger issue. Convinced their wealth and power made them God's proctors for righteousness, they hardly felt sinful. Many sought merely to make sure John wasn't suggesting anything illegal or dangerous to their position. As some became enamored with the possibilities of political gain from getting involved, John rebuffed them. Their patronizing attitude was obvious to all. The Pharisees were empty legalists ("conservatives"); the Sadducees were gnostic materialists, generally denying the spirit realm ("liberals"). The former had their tickets all punched, and this was another punch. The latter didn't believe any of it in the first place, but played along for the good of the rabble. Neither group by nature had any grasp of what John's message really meant. He called them children of snakes, a reference to Satan.
John asked them, "Who warned you to flee...?" The words mean specifically, "Who came to you privately and gave you a conscience?" It was a reference to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, whose divine presence had always brought a sense of sin (Isaiah 6). Theirs was no conviction from Jehovah, for they had never faced Him. Their intentions were purely a public sham; they made no room for the workings of God's Spirit. Citing imagery from Jeremiah (46:22f) and Ezekiel (31:3ff), John warns them their time is gone; the woodman was measuring the stroke for his ax. Having Hebrew DNA would mean nothing, since God could make better men from rocks. Genuine repentance would bring massive changes in life, not merely in a few habits. John would not let them use him to advance their social standing on his back. They would not be allowed to identify with him until they changed their identity, and showed true fruit of repentance.
John did not claim any strong identity. We so easily miss the profound symbol in Eastern societies of a person's footwear. To have charge of another's shoes and pedicure was the ultimate in degrading tasks, a mark of utter insignificance. The master calling for his shoes would not so much as acknowledge the presence of the shoe slave, only the shoes. John declared his place in the Kingdom was even lower, a profound statement of humility to the Jewish audience, considering he was the one stirring up so much interest in this Messianic Kingdom. If his readily apparent holiness was insufficient to merit the Messiah's notice, what would it say of the fakes unworthy for ritual washing at his hands?
John's baptism was merely a water symbol, an inconvenience to those who did not come prepared to participate. The Messiah's baptism would bring wholesale destruction of everything in a man's life, immersing the soul in the Holy Spirit of God, whom no human can see and live. His standard of separation between the righteous and the sinners would draw a stark contrast. Those who failed would find themselves in a far worse situation than the garbage smoldering in the Gehenna Valley below Jerusalem, while the rest would see a Heaven no man can describe.
There is no reason to suppose Joseph did not prosper those couple of years in Egypt. When the angel came to call him and his family back home, he was headed to Bethlehem. Having established himself there after Jesus' birth, it was natural he would resume his business there. Knowing Archelaus would have delighted in sending troops to murder Jesus, Joseph worried how he would obey God's command. Being warned away from Judea by the angel, Joseph took the logical course of returning to Nazareth, where this had all began. Sensible indeed for a man in the building trades, for Antipas was also rebuilding Sepphoris, the great city his father had destroyed, just a few miles from Nazareth. Joseph would have more business than he could handle alone, and may well have been in a position to work as a building contractor, employing many others to do the work with him. This was the setting into which Jesus grew to manhood.
Matthew again presents a quandary to Western readers in verse 23. Saying it was prophesied Jesus would "be called a Nazarene" is not a direct quote. Indeed, the name of the town Nazareth isn't found anywhere in the Old Testament. Rather, this is a typical Hebraic play on words. Matthew is taking advantage of the ambiguity of Greek words translated from Hebrew, and applying all the meanings to His Lord. In this case, there is the Hebrew word netser, for "branch" (Isaiah 11:1), a specific reference to the Messiah. However, there is also a play on the word from which Nazarite comes, the term for one who has taken a special vow of purity (Numbers 6). The root word for "Nazarite" is naziyr: separate, as in holy. It is taken from nazar -- to hold (oneself) aloof, especially from sin. There is nothing indicating Jesus was under the Nazarite vow, for something like that was too important to ignore; it would have to be stated. We note John the Baptist, who gets far less play in the text, is described as a Nazarite (Luke 1:15), while Jesus was called a drunkard (Matthew 11:18-19). Thus, Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophecies in ways we don't expect.
Matthew makes no mention John and Jesus were cousins. Nothing is made of Jesus' youth here, simply because little of significance to the central message took place. Rather, "in those days" when Jesus began to operate as Messiah, we first see His cousin. John's message was repentance, for he was the prophesied forerunner, announcing the Kingdom of Heaven was right on top of them. Most listeners would have taken this for what it was: Messiah was about to manifest Himself. This was a very popular message, drawing large crowds to the rural settings where John preferred to preach. His choice of attire echoed that of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8), and had become a standard symbol of prophets preaching repentance (Zechariah 13:4). The description of his diet was a phrase commonly used to depict a complete reliance on whatever God provided, which in that region would have included a great deal of kosher insects. John exemplified symbolically the message he preached of turning back to simple and pure obedience to the Law, Israel's one last chance to get it right.
The requirements of John's teachings, however, were not so popular. Many seized by enthusiasm would have struggled to find ways to apply it, but very few really absorbed the message deeply. Repentance, turning from lack of concern to a state of high sensitivity to the Lord's concerns, was depicted by the ancient practice of conquering monarchs sending advance parties to prepare the people for their new ruler. Even the roads themselves were prepared by widening narrow mountain passes, carving cuts through hilltops, filling in ravines, and smoothing the surface (Isaiah 40:3). John called everyone to prepare for their new King. Should there be resistance to His requirements, you can be sure He would not take it lightly. John advised the people to set their minds on righteousness now, so the transition will be less shocking, less destructive. True repentance requires wholly accepting the justice in the ultimate penalty for sin, and relying on God's mercy to withhold what we deserve. The ritual of baptism symbolized this, and added to the image of newness, something fresh and exciting to the crowds.
For the peasants, there was little to hinder their repentance. They had long been told their poverty was a mark of God's disfavor, as wealth was the primary proof of His favor. The wealthy frequently called the peasants "accursed," so it was nothing new to be told they were under judgment. For the socially prominent Pharisees and Sadducees, repentance was a far bigger issue. Convinced their wealth and power made them God's proctors for righteousness, they hardly felt sinful. Many sought merely to make sure John wasn't suggesting anything illegal or dangerous to their position. As some became enamored with the possibilities of political gain from getting involved, John rebuffed them. Their patronizing attitude was obvious to all. The Pharisees were empty legalists ("conservatives"); the Sadducees were gnostic materialists, generally denying the spirit realm ("liberals"). The former had their tickets all punched, and this was another punch. The latter didn't believe any of it in the first place, but played along for the good of the rabble. Neither group by nature had any grasp of what John's message really meant. He called them children of snakes, a reference to Satan.
John asked them, "Who warned you to flee...?" The words mean specifically, "Who came to you privately and gave you a conscience?" It was a reference to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, whose divine presence had always brought a sense of sin (Isaiah 6). Theirs was no conviction from Jehovah, for they had never faced Him. Their intentions were purely a public sham; they made no room for the workings of God's Spirit. Citing imagery from Jeremiah (46:22f) and Ezekiel (31:3ff), John warns them their time is gone; the woodman was measuring the stroke for his ax. Having Hebrew DNA would mean nothing, since God could make better men from rocks. Genuine repentance would bring massive changes in life, not merely in a few habits. John would not let them use him to advance their social standing on his back. They would not be allowed to identify with him until they changed their identity, and showed true fruit of repentance.
John did not claim any strong identity. We so easily miss the profound symbol in Eastern societies of a person's footwear. To have charge of another's shoes and pedicure was the ultimate in degrading tasks, a mark of utter insignificance. The master calling for his shoes would not so much as acknowledge the presence of the shoe slave, only the shoes. John declared his place in the Kingdom was even lower, a profound statement of humility to the Jewish audience, considering he was the one stirring up so much interest in this Messianic Kingdom. If his readily apparent holiness was insufficient to merit the Messiah's notice, what would it say of the fakes unworthy for ritual washing at his hands?
John's baptism was merely a water symbol, an inconvenience to those who did not come prepared to participate. The Messiah's baptism would bring wholesale destruction of everything in a man's life, immersing the soul in the Holy Spirit of God, whom no human can see and live. His standard of separation between the righteous and the sinners would draw a stark contrast. Those who failed would find themselves in a far worse situation than the garbage smoldering in the Gehenna Valley below Jerusalem, while the rest would see a Heaven no man can describe.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
House Church Stuff
When you worship at home, it's not so different from a small church setting in some ways. The same couple of people handle music and teaching, and just about all the other details.
On the other hand, it's much easier for folks to forget this is serious business. A casual worship style is no excuse for a casual heart. God says He takes His worship seriously. How can we not? Even if it's not the typical, mainstream setting, it's the real thing in His eyes.
One of the problems we run into is a lack of resources. For example, we don't have song books. Okay, we have several, each completely different, and very few songs appear in any three. To get even the cheapest songbooks from or local Christian bookstore is $10 each. We feel we need at least a dozen of whatever we get, so if you know any donors of used hymn books, let us know. We'll be glad to repair the bindings, or even replace them, if necessary. About the only thing we're picky over is the theological tone of the hymns -- we have no use for Mormon songs, for example.
The other thing we're looking for is folding chairs, for obvious reasons. We don't have a couch, and only a handful of chairs we can use. If this is going to grow at all, we'll need some cheap seating we can store out of the way easily.
Pray with us as we consider how to meet these needs.
On the other hand, it's much easier for folks to forget this is serious business. A casual worship style is no excuse for a casual heart. God says He takes His worship seriously. How can we not? Even if it's not the typical, mainstream setting, it's the real thing in His eyes.
One of the problems we run into is a lack of resources. For example, we don't have song books. Okay, we have several, each completely different, and very few songs appear in any three. To get even the cheapest songbooks from or local Christian bookstore is $10 each. We feel we need at least a dozen of whatever we get, so if you know any donors of used hymn books, let us know. We'll be glad to repair the bindings, or even replace them, if necessary. About the only thing we're picky over is the theological tone of the hymns -- we have no use for Mormon songs, for example.
The other thing we're looking for is folding chairs, for obvious reasons. We don't have a couch, and only a handful of chairs we can use. If this is going to grow at all, we'll need some cheap seating we can store out of the way easily.
Pray with us as we consider how to meet these needs.
Friday, July 27, 2007
A Tightrope Walk
The conversation continues from yesterday.
Yes, it does rather appear I'm walking a tightrope. The danger with Replacement Theology is in providing roots for anti-Semitism. You may know Luther was a Jew-hater, and I find I cannot fully embrace the Reformed Eschatology which includes Replacement. That's because I find, as you would expect from the Olive Tree business, Westminsterism is too rationalist. I don't teach TULIP, either. But my eschatology only looks like a tightrope if you don't have a clue about Hebrew thinking.
It seems I'm rather alone in pursuing this, academically. On the one hand, I cannot accept Dispensationalism. I am generally an Amillenialist:
While it is considered logically weak to argue from silence, I should think Dispenstaionalism is conspicuous by it's absence from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It would require an intellectually dishonest reading it back into their works to find it. It's sketchy, admittedly, but it seems they view John's Revelation as apocalyptic in the sense of showing the pattern of how God works, and how fallen man always fights Him. Using the current pagan Rome as his example, he showed how human government can never be righteous, will always turn to persecution of the saints regardless how such a government begins. It's not about future events, but about all human history, beginning to end. John used a tremendous amount of OT imagery, making it a very Hebrew book. Literalism would be foreign to John's mind, I contend.
We know where Dispensationalism came from -- as the Reformation began calling the Pope the Antichrist, the Jesuits sought to defend him. There were several attempts by subterfuge, but the one which eventually worked best was considered a failure. It was a book, on the heels of Luther's German Bible, by a Jesuit priest (Ribera) which proposed the idea John's Revelation be read as the first few chapters touching on Rome in John's day, and the rest applying to some far distant future date. He also brought up the idea of a Rapture separate from the Second Coming. It was backed up by a second book a short time later (Bellarmine).
This idea lay idle for a century or so during the Counter-reformation, then was resurrected again during the first flower of modern revival to hit the English-speaking world during the early 1700s. This time, a Chilean priest (Lacunza) published under a Rabbinic pseudonym (Ben Ezra) to continue pressing the idea the Pope couldn't be the Antichrist because that's coming much later. It was from this Irving, then Darby (and McDonald and Maitland) who brought to life the modern Dispensational movement rooted in their latter day prophets and apostles heresies.
Here in America, it came to full flower in the rich fertilizer of C.I. Scofield's notes, wherein the real genius was inserting his theology into the Bible via marginal notes, something not done in Protestant publishing before. For Baptists and such it burst to life at the end of WW2, with the prophecy conferences, and swept through the seminaries, etc.
The whole thing is totally foreign to Hebrew thinking; it requires a Westernized rationalist mind to accept it. The Olive Tree of Hebraic understanding remains my aspiration.
The Olive Tree of Hebraic/Spiritual Understanding insists the whole of John's Revelation is for the Church. If all we get is near-literal descriptions of events taking place after the Bride of Christ leaves, there's nothing there for Her, but for the OT Nation of Israel. John addressed his book to the churches, not to Israel in that sense. Rather, John wrote something which no one in his day took literally, so why are we doing it?
This is not about the Church replacing Israel, but Christ becoming Israel. He is the focus of Revelation, John calling it the Revelation of Jesus Christ. His former nation rejected Him; they now have no standing without Him, precisely the same as for the Gentiles.
I think there is considerable merit in your thoughts on this matter. However my concern is that your ideas could easily be 'high-jacked by replacement theologists. What do you think, bearing in mind your teaching on the olive tree?
Yes, it does rather appear I'm walking a tightrope. The danger with Replacement Theology is in providing roots for anti-Semitism. You may know Luther was a Jew-hater, and I find I cannot fully embrace the Reformed Eschatology which includes Replacement. That's because I find, as you would expect from the Olive Tree business, Westminsterism is too rationalist. I don't teach TULIP, either. But my eschatology only looks like a tightrope if you don't have a clue about Hebrew thinking.
It seems I'm rather alone in pursuing this, academically. On the one hand, I cannot accept Dispensationalism. I am generally an Amillenialist:
- Jesus is coming back in bodily form.
- We will rise to meet Him in the air.
- He will at that moment remake Heaven and Earth (merging them?), then we will be with Him forever.
While it is considered logically weak to argue from silence, I should think Dispenstaionalism is conspicuous by it's absence from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It would require an intellectually dishonest reading it back into their works to find it. It's sketchy, admittedly, but it seems they view John's Revelation as apocalyptic in the sense of showing the pattern of how God works, and how fallen man always fights Him. Using the current pagan Rome as his example, he showed how human government can never be righteous, will always turn to persecution of the saints regardless how such a government begins. It's not about future events, but about all human history, beginning to end. John used a tremendous amount of OT imagery, making it a very Hebrew book. Literalism would be foreign to John's mind, I contend.
We know where Dispensationalism came from -- as the Reformation began calling the Pope the Antichrist, the Jesuits sought to defend him. There were several attempts by subterfuge, but the one which eventually worked best was considered a failure. It was a book, on the heels of Luther's German Bible, by a Jesuit priest (Ribera) which proposed the idea John's Revelation be read as the first few chapters touching on Rome in John's day, and the rest applying to some far distant future date. He also brought up the idea of a Rapture separate from the Second Coming. It was backed up by a second book a short time later (Bellarmine).
This idea lay idle for a century or so during the Counter-reformation, then was resurrected again during the first flower of modern revival to hit the English-speaking world during the early 1700s. This time, a Chilean priest (Lacunza) published under a Rabbinic pseudonym (Ben Ezra) to continue pressing the idea the Pope couldn't be the Antichrist because that's coming much later. It was from this Irving, then Darby (and McDonald and Maitland) who brought to life the modern Dispensational movement rooted in their latter day prophets and apostles heresies.
Here in America, it came to full flower in the rich fertilizer of C.I. Scofield's notes, wherein the real genius was inserting his theology into the Bible via marginal notes, something not done in Protestant publishing before. For Baptists and such it burst to life at the end of WW2, with the prophecy conferences, and swept through the seminaries, etc.
The whole thing is totally foreign to Hebrew thinking; it requires a Westernized rationalist mind to accept it. The Olive Tree of Hebraic understanding remains my aspiration.
The Olive Tree of Hebraic/Spiritual Understanding insists the whole of John's Revelation is for the Church. If all we get is near-literal descriptions of events taking place after the Bride of Christ leaves, there's nothing there for Her, but for the OT Nation of Israel. John addressed his book to the churches, not to Israel in that sense. Rather, John wrote something which no one in his day took literally, so why are we doing it?
This is not about the Church replacing Israel, but Christ becoming Israel. He is the focus of Revelation, John calling it the Revelation of Jesus Christ. His former nation rejected Him; they now have no standing without Him, precisely the same as for the Gentiles.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Not Replacement, but Fulfillment
My correspondent wanted a little more on a statement from my exposition of Matthew 2:1-18:
There is a long history of Israel rejecting God's will for them. This did not frustrate God's eternal plan for revealing Himself, but it meant Israel was taking themselves out of the blessing. God's promises to bless in certain ways could not be completed until there was a faithful Israel. Jesus became that faithful Israel. He personally fulfilled the obligations, went back and did all the things Israel was supposed to do, so that God's promises did not remain unfulfilled potential. By right of obedience, all the promises attach to Him personally. If He is not your Savior, you cannot claim any part of those OT promises.
This is part of the mystical thinking I keep going on a about when discussing the Hebrew viewpoint of faith and Scripture. A single representative individual can obtain what the whole nation cannot, on their behalf. Whatever else we might perceive Israel was supposed to live for, it was to bring the light of revelation to all mankind, and to be the conduit of redemption from the Fall. They refused to do it. "He who knew no sin became sin for us..." He not only picked up the tab for the sins of Israel, but of all humanity. Since Israel chose to set aside the redemptive role God planned for her, it was up to Jesus to complete the plan personally.
In the New Testament, whatever plans God had for Israel now attach to Jesus Christ. The name "Israel" now applies to Jesus; it is His by right of obedience and redemption in blood. Thus, I say whatever God had planned for Israel is now in Christ alone. Being Jewish no longer has any biblical prophetic significance, because God's future revelation comes only through Christ. They are no longer to be called "Israel." That was their choice.
Those who've actually been reading this blog for awhile will recognize the same theme from New Testament Israel: There Is No Other.
There is one more part in this series tomorrow.
Could you please expand this a little for me: "He thus became Israel, and displaced her in His Person."
There is a long history of Israel rejecting God's will for them. This did not frustrate God's eternal plan for revealing Himself, but it meant Israel was taking themselves out of the blessing. God's promises to bless in certain ways could not be completed until there was a faithful Israel. Jesus became that faithful Israel. He personally fulfilled the obligations, went back and did all the things Israel was supposed to do, so that God's promises did not remain unfulfilled potential. By right of obedience, all the promises attach to Him personally. If He is not your Savior, you cannot claim any part of those OT promises.
This is part of the mystical thinking I keep going on a about when discussing the Hebrew viewpoint of faith and Scripture. A single representative individual can obtain what the whole nation cannot, on their behalf. Whatever else we might perceive Israel was supposed to live for, it was to bring the light of revelation to all mankind, and to be the conduit of redemption from the Fall. They refused to do it. "He who knew no sin became sin for us..." He not only picked up the tab for the sins of Israel, but of all humanity. Since Israel chose to set aside the redemptive role God planned for her, it was up to Jesus to complete the plan personally.
In the New Testament, whatever plans God had for Israel now attach to Jesus Christ. The name "Israel" now applies to Jesus; it is His by right of obedience and redemption in blood. Thus, I say whatever God had planned for Israel is now in Christ alone. Being Jewish no longer has any biblical prophetic significance, because God's future revelation comes only through Christ. They are no longer to be called "Israel." That was their choice.
Those who've actually been reading this blog for awhile will recognize the same theme from New Testament Israel: There Is No Other.
There is one more part in this series tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Olive Tree in Romans 11
For several years I've been corresponding with a Christian brother in Scotland. He has a marvelous talent for asking the right questions, questions which provoke my mind to examine things from another angle. While it naturally brings a few changes in positions I may take, it serves more often to sharpen and define my convictions. This is an irreplacable blessing.
We've been having a dialogue regarding the place of Jews in redemption. His question is quoted, and my answer appear below:
Would you believe it's the wrong question?
More properly, I should say there is no direct answer. The chapter begins with Paul countering the idea the whole Nation of Israel -- those who were under the Covenant of Moses -- have been wholly locked out of the Kingdom of the Son. Rather, they remain the first invited, and will bring to redemption something you and I lack: a historical background of dealing with God's revelation.
Verse 5, "...in this present time a remnant [of the Jews] according to the election of grace has come into being." In this, Jews are no different from every other nation of mankind -- a relatively small number will be salvaged by the mercy of the Creator. Jews are neither accursed (as some in Rome at that time alleged) nor any longer specially favored.
God no longer deals with nations, but with individuals. Thus, neither Hebrew DNA, nor conversion to Judism, has any meaning. That is, aside from some advantages after the light of truth gives their heritage its true meaning. We have a struggle coming to terms with a revelation of God -- Jesus as testified in Scripture -- which is foreign to us because we lack that Hebraic heritage.
Indeed, the very nature of Ultimate Truth defies human language. Jesus taught in parables because the Holy Spirit does the work, not the human intellect. Human intellect is but the doorway. The revelation of God is not perceived in human understanding, but transcends it. Thus, a great deal of Scripture is parabolic in nature. It is truth dressed in imagery we find difficult to understand. Jews have an advantage, because that imagery is their cultural background. (This does not address the question whether individual Jews have forgotten it.)
Thus, in this case it may be best to see the olive tree not as a bloodline, but as a manner of viewing life, an orientation. It's not that God is Hebrew, but that Hebrew language and culture is the closest we humans can come to bringing revelation within human grasp. We are grafted into this divine understanding of the world, which changes us from relative uselessness (wild olive trees) to rather fruitful branches.
Once we come to that place, then we can say it's closer to saying "descendants of Abraham," in that God's covenant with him was about individual faith and commitment to a promised salvation. The Covenant in Christ's Blood is in some ways a renewal of this, while the Covenant of Moses was a finite interval, completely under Abraham/Christ. That is, being actually saved never changed. Moses was about being a proper Jew, and was never about salvation in that sense.
I believe Paul meant the olive tree as a symbol of true faith, that which Old Testament religion was supposed to be, and too seldom was. The best way to grasp that faith is to grasp the cultural framework which gives it meaning. There in an obvious warning by Paul to his Roman audience not to despise Jews, if for no other reason than their preservation of the earliest oracles and revelations from God.
Tomorrow, the convesation continues.
We've been having a dialogue regarding the place of Jews in redemption. His question is quoted, and my answer appear below:
In Romans 11 where it talks about the olive tree, how do you read it: Is it Israel or the descandants of Abraham (through) faith?
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree with them, do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you. You will say then, "The branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either! Romans 11:17-21
Would you believe it's the wrong question?
More properly, I should say there is no direct answer. The chapter begins with Paul countering the idea the whole Nation of Israel -- those who were under the Covenant of Moses -- have been wholly locked out of the Kingdom of the Son. Rather, they remain the first invited, and will bring to redemption something you and I lack: a historical background of dealing with God's revelation.
Verse 5, "...in this present time a remnant [of the Jews] according to the election of grace has come into being." In this, Jews are no different from every other nation of mankind -- a relatively small number will be salvaged by the mercy of the Creator. Jews are neither accursed (as some in Rome at that time alleged) nor any longer specially favored.
God no longer deals with nations, but with individuals. Thus, neither Hebrew DNA, nor conversion to Judism, has any meaning. That is, aside from some advantages after the light of truth gives their heritage its true meaning. We have a struggle coming to terms with a revelation of God -- Jesus as testified in Scripture -- which is foreign to us because we lack that Hebraic heritage.
Indeed, the very nature of Ultimate Truth defies human language. Jesus taught in parables because the Holy Spirit does the work, not the human intellect. Human intellect is but the doorway. The revelation of God is not perceived in human understanding, but transcends it. Thus, a great deal of Scripture is parabolic in nature. It is truth dressed in imagery we find difficult to understand. Jews have an advantage, because that imagery is their cultural background. (This does not address the question whether individual Jews have forgotten it.)
Thus, in this case it may be best to see the olive tree not as a bloodline, but as a manner of viewing life, an orientation. It's not that God is Hebrew, but that Hebrew language and culture is the closest we humans can come to bringing revelation within human grasp. We are grafted into this divine understanding of the world, which changes us from relative uselessness (wild olive trees) to rather fruitful branches.
Once we come to that place, then we can say it's closer to saying "descendants of Abraham," in that God's covenant with him was about individual faith and commitment to a promised salvation. The Covenant in Christ's Blood is in some ways a renewal of this, while the Covenant of Moses was a finite interval, completely under Abraham/Christ. That is, being actually saved never changed. Moses was about being a proper Jew, and was never about salvation in that sense.
I believe Paul meant the olive tree as a symbol of true faith, that which Old Testament religion was supposed to be, and too seldom was. The best way to grasp that faith is to grasp the cultural framework which gives it meaning. There in an obvious warning by Paul to his Roman audience not to despise Jews, if for no other reason than their preservation of the earliest oracles and revelations from God.
Tomorrow, the convesation continues.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Reprise: Sword of the Kingdom
(It's not from laziness I repost something from my old blog, but it strikes me as a fine fit in the current stream of inspiration.)
I heard it only once, back in the late `70s. It came over an early Christian Contemporary radio channel while I was driving in a small town where I lived at the time. The station was weak, and faded in and out, so I caught neither the artist, nor even the name of the song. However, I did get the intent:
That's all I remember, but it has never left me. It was one of those teachable moments. Naturally, you'll probably recognize it echoes Ephesians 6, where Paul reminds us the struggles in this life do have a purpose. The solution makes sense if you know exactly what the struggle is over, and against whom we battle. If your difficulty comes from anything except opposing Satan and evil, then you are fighting the wrong battle. It's not about people, though they often provide the most difficulty. People are just a tool of Satan; they are not the enemy. We don't fight people.
Nor are people the battleground. We are ourselves the battleground. That is, the real war is against our own sin nature and we are reclaiming ourselves from Satan's power and use. It is not for you or I to "win" people to Christ; that's a miracle work of grace. Rather, we defeat or own sinful nature so God can use us to reveal Himself. In some way only He understands fully, that revelation of Him is used to change people's hearts. By defeating our fallen selves, these other things take care of themselves.
The weapon is love -- obviously the love of Christ on the Cross. We must first accept that sword into our own hearts; we must die to self. The only sword you can wield is the one you pull from your own breast. We win back our lives from Satan by slicing and dicing his works in us. We sacrifice, we let the old self go -- indeed, we aggressively kill it. This is something we hardly consider in modern times.
Who owns your life? Who gives the spouse you marry? Who grants the fertility for children to be born? Who decides then what is sufficient care for their needs? Does it really take a spacious home in the suburbs? Must you have the biggest SUV for driving them around? Does an Ivy League education really fit us for Kingdom service? Funny, there are millions the world over who have none of those things, and God truly lives in them. Stop letting the world tell you what constitutes success, what constitutes responsible living, what constitutes a decent income, or anything else of that matter. Whatever it is you do in this world, it is your Kingdom service. Does God like your job? Is He the one urging you take 70 hours in a work week? Is He the one demanding you take the kids to ballet, soccer, music lessons, etc.?
Sure, spend time with your kids. Maybe you can take them with you when you go and help that widow clean up her yard. Can't get them to do any work? Just who have you allowed to have influence in their lives? You can blame the school system, but you are the one who sent them there. Do you honestly expect human government to care a whit about your Kingdom commitments? If you are truly committed to serving Jesus, you had better expect the world to call you a traitor at the very least.
I heard it only once, back in the late `70s. It came over an early Christian Contemporary radio channel while I was driving in a small town where I lived at the time. The station was weak, and faded in and out, so I caught neither the artist, nor even the name of the song. However, I did get the intent:
Satan is the Enemy,
And love is our weapon.
That's all I remember, but it has never left me. It was one of those teachable moments. Naturally, you'll probably recognize it echoes Ephesians 6, where Paul reminds us the struggles in this life do have a purpose. The solution makes sense if you know exactly what the struggle is over, and against whom we battle. If your difficulty comes from anything except opposing Satan and evil, then you are fighting the wrong battle. It's not about people, though they often provide the most difficulty. People are just a tool of Satan; they are not the enemy. We don't fight people.
Nor are people the battleground. We are ourselves the battleground. That is, the real war is against our own sin nature and we are reclaiming ourselves from Satan's power and use. It is not for you or I to "win" people to Christ; that's a miracle work of grace. Rather, we defeat or own sinful nature so God can use us to reveal Himself. In some way only He understands fully, that revelation of Him is used to change people's hearts. By defeating our fallen selves, these other things take care of themselves.
The weapon is love -- obviously the love of Christ on the Cross. We must first accept that sword into our own hearts; we must die to self. The only sword you can wield is the one you pull from your own breast. We win back our lives from Satan by slicing and dicing his works in us. We sacrifice, we let the old self go -- indeed, we aggressively kill it. This is something we hardly consider in modern times.
Who owns your life? Who gives the spouse you marry? Who grants the fertility for children to be born? Who decides then what is sufficient care for their needs? Does it really take a spacious home in the suburbs? Must you have the biggest SUV for driving them around? Does an Ivy League education really fit us for Kingdom service? Funny, there are millions the world over who have none of those things, and God truly lives in them. Stop letting the world tell you what constitutes success, what constitutes responsible living, what constitutes a decent income, or anything else of that matter. Whatever it is you do in this world, it is your Kingdom service. Does God like your job? Is He the one urging you take 70 hours in a work week? Is He the one demanding you take the kids to ballet, soccer, music lessons, etc.?
Sure, spend time with your kids. Maybe you can take them with you when you go and help that widow clean up her yard. Can't get them to do any work? Just who have you allowed to have influence in their lives? You can blame the school system, but you are the one who sent them there. Do you honestly expect human government to care a whit about your Kingdom commitments? If you are truly committed to serving Jesus, you had better expect the world to call you a traitor at the very least.
For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. You have not yet resisted to the point of bloodshed, striving against sin. (Hebrews 12:3-4)
Monday, July 23, 2007
Un-objective Christ
I cannot tell you in clinical terms just how we are supposed to lay our burdens at the foot of the Cross. Any attempt would be little more than my personal experience. Even then, you would gain not a method you could grasp, but you would learn about me. If you tried to emulate me too much, you would no longer be the servant Christ called, but an imitation of another.
A principal understanding of the original biblical worldview is some things cannot be verbalized. They can be illustrated, but human language simply cannot bear up under the vast weight of eternal truths. The work of God's Holy Spirit in the human soul is not something any two of us experience in quite the same way. Yet, we know from principles which can be verbalized He is the same Spirit for all of us. Thus, we compare notes and attempt to extract the common elements of our individual experiences with Him. We find in Church History this still leads to sectarian divisions, because our limited human understanding seizes upon certain abstractions of ultimate truth as ultimate truth itself. We simply are not equipped to discern the difference. Spiritual and eternal reality remains elusive in that way.
We might say there is a subconscious, if not conscious, attempt to elevate our experience to the place of deity. All this seeks with a very human desire to hold, rather than simply to obey. The underlying assumption in the biblical spiritual viewpoint is we are responsible. Not so much for specific actions, but for a holy desire, seeing we in our fallen state cannot reliably control our actions. Adam (Adamic Nature) won't stay nailed to the cross, not so long as we live in a fallen world. A redeemed spirit remains chained to fallen flesh, dragging it about as a repulsive rotting corpse. We find our spirits altogether willing, and it is this our Father regards as holiness.
See? We have to draw a picture; we cannot describe it precisely in analytical terms. Analytical thought processes can only carry one just so far. They cannot cross the gulf which divides our fallen existence from Heaven. To then somehow assert we must have in every sermon or lesson a practical application smacks of materialist philosophy. We are aware in this world of those who assert the tangible reality is all there is. All of human behavior is reduced to stimulus and response, a mere mechanism. They say there is no soul, only an apparent one. That makes it easy to reject accountability before God, since they assert He is only a figment of imagination, too. We want nothing from those folks. Often times the message of the Bible is simply we should understand something, and let the doing take shape from there.
Every attempt so far to extract principles and precise descriptions of behavior from an analysis of the Bible has led to trouble. Did the simplified Law of Moses save Israel? We are told the Law of Moses was a shadow of the Law of God, a particular application for that people, that time, in that land. We are told the Tabernacle was a representative copy of the royal Courts of Heaven. We are also told each of us entering the Kingdom through Christ are tabernacles, individual copies of the divine residence of God Almighty. Yet, to go too far beyond the obvious implications of the written revelation of God risks abstracting to the point of failure. There are plenty of times where turning the other cheek literally would create more sin; we are expected to figure that out. It's not a prescribed behavior, but an outlook on this life.
In every generation, we see the church running from Christ crucified and risen. They run to a list of proscriptions and prescriptions. Because dancing in your town is chiefly a path to fornication and adultery, is all dancing then sin? No. Because the Apostles preached in the village plaza, must we stand on the chief corners of our modern cities and do the same? No. Because Mosaic Code forbade tithing on the profits of the sex trade (harlots and "dogs"), do we forbid tithing on the profits of our dog kennel? That's silly. Yet we know each of these things was a rule in one modern church or another. A list of rules is not a shortcut to God's holiness.
It's pretty plain the early Christians understood this. The fruit of their understanding was the spread of the gospel, and the growth of church bodies all over the world. It bore fruit in a willingness to suffer any sort of human misery which resulted from pursuing the underlying living power of truth. It manifested in a power so great, no effort of mankind could overturn it. It made a mark on their world because it was so very different. It's because the Early Church got it. They didn't set out to change the world, only themselves. First Century Christians set out to make continual adjustments, large and small, to make desire match the measure of Christ Himself, realizing always they were required to pursue an understanding of Him.
No human on earth can objectify Jesus. He is as personal as can be -- my Lord, your Lord, our Lord.
A principal understanding of the original biblical worldview is some things cannot be verbalized. They can be illustrated, but human language simply cannot bear up under the vast weight of eternal truths. The work of God's Holy Spirit in the human soul is not something any two of us experience in quite the same way. Yet, we know from principles which can be verbalized He is the same Spirit for all of us. Thus, we compare notes and attempt to extract the common elements of our individual experiences with Him. We find in Church History this still leads to sectarian divisions, because our limited human understanding seizes upon certain abstractions of ultimate truth as ultimate truth itself. We simply are not equipped to discern the difference. Spiritual and eternal reality remains elusive in that way.
We might say there is a subconscious, if not conscious, attempt to elevate our experience to the place of deity. All this seeks with a very human desire to hold, rather than simply to obey. The underlying assumption in the biblical spiritual viewpoint is we are responsible. Not so much for specific actions, but for a holy desire, seeing we in our fallen state cannot reliably control our actions. Adam (Adamic Nature) won't stay nailed to the cross, not so long as we live in a fallen world. A redeemed spirit remains chained to fallen flesh, dragging it about as a repulsive rotting corpse. We find our spirits altogether willing, and it is this our Father regards as holiness.
See? We have to draw a picture; we cannot describe it precisely in analytical terms. Analytical thought processes can only carry one just so far. They cannot cross the gulf which divides our fallen existence from Heaven. To then somehow assert we must have in every sermon or lesson a practical application smacks of materialist philosophy. We are aware in this world of those who assert the tangible reality is all there is. All of human behavior is reduced to stimulus and response, a mere mechanism. They say there is no soul, only an apparent one. That makes it easy to reject accountability before God, since they assert He is only a figment of imagination, too. We want nothing from those folks. Often times the message of the Bible is simply we should understand something, and let the doing take shape from there.
Every attempt so far to extract principles and precise descriptions of behavior from an analysis of the Bible has led to trouble. Did the simplified Law of Moses save Israel? We are told the Law of Moses was a shadow of the Law of God, a particular application for that people, that time, in that land. We are told the Tabernacle was a representative copy of the royal Courts of Heaven. We are also told each of us entering the Kingdom through Christ are tabernacles, individual copies of the divine residence of God Almighty. Yet, to go too far beyond the obvious implications of the written revelation of God risks abstracting to the point of failure. There are plenty of times where turning the other cheek literally would create more sin; we are expected to figure that out. It's not a prescribed behavior, but an outlook on this life.
In every generation, we see the church running from Christ crucified and risen. They run to a list of proscriptions and prescriptions. Because dancing in your town is chiefly a path to fornication and adultery, is all dancing then sin? No. Because the Apostles preached in the village plaza, must we stand on the chief corners of our modern cities and do the same? No. Because Mosaic Code forbade tithing on the profits of the sex trade (harlots and "dogs"), do we forbid tithing on the profits of our dog kennel? That's silly. Yet we know each of these things was a rule in one modern church or another. A list of rules is not a shortcut to God's holiness.
It's pretty plain the early Christians understood this. The fruit of their understanding was the spread of the gospel, and the growth of church bodies all over the world. It bore fruit in a willingness to suffer any sort of human misery which resulted from pursuing the underlying living power of truth. It manifested in a power so great, no effort of mankind could overturn it. It made a mark on their world because it was so very different. It's because the Early Church got it. They didn't set out to change the world, only themselves. First Century Christians set out to make continual adjustments, large and small, to make desire match the measure of Christ Himself, realizing always they were required to pursue an understanding of Him.
No human on earth can objectify Jesus. He is as personal as can be -- my Lord, your Lord, our Lord.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Life of Christ: Matthew 2:1-18
It is not enough to note Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies. Jesus corrected the legacy of mistakes His Nation had made throughout her history. In fulfilling those prophecies, He fulfilled the calling of what Israel was meant to be. He thus became Israel, and displaced her in His Person. All that was promised to and through Israel is now in His hand, to grant to and through His Bride.
Matthew does not relate how Joseph and Mary came to be in the small town of Bethlehem, nor mentions Mary had been living in Nazareth when all this began. As is common with Hebrew writers, he simply assumes the common knowledge about Jesus' life and mentions things in passing, staying with the central thread of the narrative. He isn't telling an unknown story, but giving the importance of a story generally known to his audience.
The Magi were part of an ancient class of priestly nobility, going back well before the Medo-Persian Empire. However, we know Persia would have protected their craft in the spirit of Zoroastrianism, their primary religion. Darius united the Medes and Persians under the chief God, Ahura Mazda, of which a primary teaching is all other gods were his allies and friends. We see the Persian solicitude regarding the gods of subordinate nations as a natural result of this, calling on these nations to petition their gods on behalf of the emperor. Succeeding conquerors had valued the grand and ancient legacy of Magi scholarship, and there's no reason to suppose the Mesopotamian religion scholars would have ever been harmed. They would surely have garnered a copy of the Old Testament books up through the writings of Daniel, who was one of their class. They would surely have known of the Messiah, and perhaps some of the false Messianic Expectations which arose during the Restoration Period.
Rome most certainly knew of the Messiah, particularly the parody popular with a corrupt Jewish religion of Jesus' day. The emphasis on a ruler in the mold of King David rising to drive out all Gentile conquerors, in light of Jewish racist contempt for foreigners, was exactly the sort of sensitive subject Roman bureaucrats would track. It was Rome who granted the Edomite Herod the Great a throne over Judea, and as an ostensible convert to Judaism, he too would know something about it. He was a perfect fit to stamp out messianic uprisings. Indeed, a saying from his time noted it was safer to be his hog than his son. Jews would not want to be anywhere near the slaughter of a pig, but Herod executed five of his sons, largely under suspicion they were considering usurping his throne. Such a petty and suspicious brute was a perfect choice in Roman eyes. He called the Magi for a secret conference to find out the date the Messiah's star had appeared, and slyly explained they should continue seeking Him, and report back so Herod could also worship Him.
The Magi entourage would have been huge, doing well to reach Jerusalem within a few months of leaving their academy. Announcing the Messiah had already been born, Herod and his court were quite disturbed. As a man barely tolerated by the Judean priests and nobles, a legitimate heir of David was the last thing he needed. Being such a poor Jewish practitioner, he had to ask the scholars where it was prophesied the Messiah would be born. Bethlehem (AKA Ephrathah) was not that large. While it was the home of David's family, the move to Jerusalem as his new capital kept the old family town small and quiet.
Given the great Galilean showplace city of Sepphoris near Nazareth had been destroyed by Herod, in response to an uprising about the time Jesus was born, the tiny hilltop village of Nazareth just a few miles away would have experienced a decline in the building trades. Once the trip to Bethlehem was made, there was little reason to go back home. It would be a major mistake to assume Jesus' birth in the stable was because of poverty. The city was simply vastly overbooked at the time Mary came due, and they were lucky to find any shelter at any price. Once that crowd left, there were plenty of relatives in Bethlehem to get them established there. Joseph was plying his trade there as a builder and could easily afford some kind of home, which is where the Magi found them. Whatever heavenly sign they had taken as marking the birth of the Messiah met them on the way south from Jerusalem, and indicated to them which house held Him.
They could have brought some of the most amazing array of things, but chose three symbolic gifts. It is well known gold is presented to kings, both by right of taxation and tribute authority, but also as presents to gain a ruler's favor. It was the standard royal gift. Frankincense is the resin of rare desert plants. Mixed with other ingredients, it would have been burned as incense in worship of deities. The gummy liquid myrrh was used almost exclusively for burial, as if to say they knew He was born to die, but would also signal many deaths for His sake.
Thus, when the Magi slipped out the back door of Herod's jurisdiction, it took awhile for the report to reach him. Based on his known behavior, it's safe to say choosing all males up to age two was overkill, just to make sure. It's best to picture Jesus hardly a year old at the time. Given the population of Bethlehem as a small "county seat," that would indicate 20-30 baby boys murdered. That Herod did such things so often helps to explain why the massacre never made the public records. Joseph had been warned during a dream the night the Magi left, and took it seriously enough to pack up and go before dawn that same day. With the recent gifts for their son, the couple could easily afford to set up shop in the large Jewish community anchored in Alexandria, Egypt. One could reasonably picture Joseph using his Jewish family connections and the Magi's gifts to start a business there, doing quite well until the angel called him back to Judea.
Matthew connects that calling to a quote from Hosea 11:1. By the way, the name "Hosea" is an alternate English spelling of Joshua, the Hebrew form of Jesus' name. The reference recalls the Lord's scolding Israel via Hosea's prophecy for spiritual adultery. Their very identity as a nation was rooted in the Exodus, where they weren't just led from Egypt, but miraculously delivered in ways which brought Pharaoh to his knees. With all this, they constantly strayed. Then they were given the whole land of Canaan with similar miracles, and still strayed. They utterly failed their purpose to be a nation of priests to bring the Lord's Word to the world. When Jesus came out of Egypt, He fulfilled everything Israel failed, by becoming that faithful Light of Truth to the nations.
In noting the massacre of Bethlehem's boys is connected to Jeremiah 31:15, we see a typically poetic Hebrew reference-in-depth. Rachel was the lovelier of two sisters married to Jacob, and his carnal favoritism was painfully obvious to all. As the whole family caravan was returning to Bethlehem whence Jacob had fled two decades before, Rachel came due, presumably in the vicinity of Ramah, a small village just a few miles north of Jerusalem, and a day's travel from Bethlehem. Her life had been quite sorrowful already, and she died in childbirth, naming the boy Ben-oni -- "Son of My Sorrow" (which Jacob changed to Ben-jamin -- "Son of My Right Hand;" Genesis 35:16-20). Thus, while it's uncertain, we could believe she was buried there in Ramah (Genesis 48:7). It was thus in sight of her tomb much later when Babylon marshalled her Judean captives at Ramah, on the way north to crossing of the Euphrates. Jeremiah portrayed Rachel as weeping to see the captives taken away from the land, her own sons. Note Ramah was in the portion given to Benjamin, the son born there. On the northern boundary of that was Ephraim, one of the two sons born to Joseph, her other son. The latter had already gone, and the younger was taken later. Jacob passed through great sorrow when Joseph disappeared, and dreaded the loss of Benjamin when his sons returned to Egypt for more food during the famine (Genesis 43). So we see Rachel weeping the loss of her sons again, where Herod had them killed in the village to which she never quite arrived as her new home.
Of course, in Jeremiah's prophecy, Rachel is comforted by the promise the Exiles would return. While Jesus' time had not yet come when the infants were slaughtered in Bethlehem, it would be even more senseless and brutal thirty years later. Yet, in His very death, all humanity finds comfort.
(For those seeking to be serious scholars of the Bible, I recommend you examine this review of today's passage.)
Matthew does not relate how Joseph and Mary came to be in the small town of Bethlehem, nor mentions Mary had been living in Nazareth when all this began. As is common with Hebrew writers, he simply assumes the common knowledge about Jesus' life and mentions things in passing, staying with the central thread of the narrative. He isn't telling an unknown story, but giving the importance of a story generally known to his audience.
The Magi were part of an ancient class of priestly nobility, going back well before the Medo-Persian Empire. However, we know Persia would have protected their craft in the spirit of Zoroastrianism, their primary religion. Darius united the Medes and Persians under the chief God, Ahura Mazda, of which a primary teaching is all other gods were his allies and friends. We see the Persian solicitude regarding the gods of subordinate nations as a natural result of this, calling on these nations to petition their gods on behalf of the emperor. Succeeding conquerors had valued the grand and ancient legacy of Magi scholarship, and there's no reason to suppose the Mesopotamian religion scholars would have ever been harmed. They would surely have garnered a copy of the Old Testament books up through the writings of Daniel, who was one of their class. They would surely have known of the Messiah, and perhaps some of the false Messianic Expectations which arose during the Restoration Period.
Rome most certainly knew of the Messiah, particularly the parody popular with a corrupt Jewish religion of Jesus' day. The emphasis on a ruler in the mold of King David rising to drive out all Gentile conquerors, in light of Jewish racist contempt for foreigners, was exactly the sort of sensitive subject Roman bureaucrats would track. It was Rome who granted the Edomite Herod the Great a throne over Judea, and as an ostensible convert to Judaism, he too would know something about it. He was a perfect fit to stamp out messianic uprisings. Indeed, a saying from his time noted it was safer to be his hog than his son. Jews would not want to be anywhere near the slaughter of a pig, but Herod executed five of his sons, largely under suspicion they were considering usurping his throne. Such a petty and suspicious brute was a perfect choice in Roman eyes. He called the Magi for a secret conference to find out the date the Messiah's star had appeared, and slyly explained they should continue seeking Him, and report back so Herod could also worship Him.
The Magi entourage would have been huge, doing well to reach Jerusalem within a few months of leaving their academy. Announcing the Messiah had already been born, Herod and his court were quite disturbed. As a man barely tolerated by the Judean priests and nobles, a legitimate heir of David was the last thing he needed. Being such a poor Jewish practitioner, he had to ask the scholars where it was prophesied the Messiah would be born. Bethlehem (AKA Ephrathah) was not that large. While it was the home of David's family, the move to Jerusalem as his new capital kept the old family town small and quiet.
Given the great Galilean showplace city of Sepphoris near Nazareth had been destroyed by Herod, in response to an uprising about the time Jesus was born, the tiny hilltop village of Nazareth just a few miles away would have experienced a decline in the building trades. Once the trip to Bethlehem was made, there was little reason to go back home. It would be a major mistake to assume Jesus' birth in the stable was because of poverty. The city was simply vastly overbooked at the time Mary came due, and they were lucky to find any shelter at any price. Once that crowd left, there were plenty of relatives in Bethlehem to get them established there. Joseph was plying his trade there as a builder and could easily afford some kind of home, which is where the Magi found them. Whatever heavenly sign they had taken as marking the birth of the Messiah met them on the way south from Jerusalem, and indicated to them which house held Him.
They could have brought some of the most amazing array of things, but chose three symbolic gifts. It is well known gold is presented to kings, both by right of taxation and tribute authority, but also as presents to gain a ruler's favor. It was the standard royal gift. Frankincense is the resin of rare desert plants. Mixed with other ingredients, it would have been burned as incense in worship of deities. The gummy liquid myrrh was used almost exclusively for burial, as if to say they knew He was born to die, but would also signal many deaths for His sake.
Thus, when the Magi slipped out the back door of Herod's jurisdiction, it took awhile for the report to reach him. Based on his known behavior, it's safe to say choosing all males up to age two was overkill, just to make sure. It's best to picture Jesus hardly a year old at the time. Given the population of Bethlehem as a small "county seat," that would indicate 20-30 baby boys murdered. That Herod did such things so often helps to explain why the massacre never made the public records. Joseph had been warned during a dream the night the Magi left, and took it seriously enough to pack up and go before dawn that same day. With the recent gifts for their son, the couple could easily afford to set up shop in the large Jewish community anchored in Alexandria, Egypt. One could reasonably picture Joseph using his Jewish family connections and the Magi's gifts to start a business there, doing quite well until the angel called him back to Judea.
Matthew connects that calling to a quote from Hosea 11:1. By the way, the name "Hosea" is an alternate English spelling of Joshua, the Hebrew form of Jesus' name. The reference recalls the Lord's scolding Israel via Hosea's prophecy for spiritual adultery. Their very identity as a nation was rooted in the Exodus, where they weren't just led from Egypt, but miraculously delivered in ways which brought Pharaoh to his knees. With all this, they constantly strayed. Then they were given the whole land of Canaan with similar miracles, and still strayed. They utterly failed their purpose to be a nation of priests to bring the Lord's Word to the world. When Jesus came out of Egypt, He fulfilled everything Israel failed, by becoming that faithful Light of Truth to the nations.
In noting the massacre of Bethlehem's boys is connected to Jeremiah 31:15, we see a typically poetic Hebrew reference-in-depth. Rachel was the lovelier of two sisters married to Jacob, and his carnal favoritism was painfully obvious to all. As the whole family caravan was returning to Bethlehem whence Jacob had fled two decades before, Rachel came due, presumably in the vicinity of Ramah, a small village just a few miles north of Jerusalem, and a day's travel from Bethlehem. Her life had been quite sorrowful already, and she died in childbirth, naming the boy Ben-oni -- "Son of My Sorrow" (which Jacob changed to Ben-jamin -- "Son of My Right Hand;" Genesis 35:16-20). Thus, while it's uncertain, we could believe she was buried there in Ramah (Genesis 48:7). It was thus in sight of her tomb much later when Babylon marshalled her Judean captives at Ramah, on the way north to crossing of the Euphrates. Jeremiah portrayed Rachel as weeping to see the captives taken away from the land, her own sons. Note Ramah was in the portion given to Benjamin, the son born there. On the northern boundary of that was Ephraim, one of the two sons born to Joseph, her other son. The latter had already gone, and the younger was taken later. Jacob passed through great sorrow when Joseph disappeared, and dreaded the loss of Benjamin when his sons returned to Egypt for more food during the famine (Genesis 43). So we see Rachel weeping the loss of her sons again, where Herod had them killed in the village to which she never quite arrived as her new home.
Of course, in Jeremiah's prophecy, Rachel is comforted by the promise the Exiles would return. While Jesus' time had not yet come when the infants were slaughtered in Bethlehem, it would be even more senseless and brutal thirty years later. Yet, in His very death, all humanity finds comfort.
(For those seeking to be serious scholars of the Bible, I recommend you examine this review of today's passage.)
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Cycling OKC: Urban Riding Spirit
Effective and safe urban cycling is hardly the same as sport, training or competition riding. While the other forms may include some urban passage, those who ride mostly for commuting purposes require a different skill set and different physical conditioning.
The ideal in normal cycling is to shift gears under changing conditions so you can maintain a steady cadence pedaling. It's rather like taking a long highway trip in your car, in some respects. Urban riding is like urban motoring, with lots of stop-and-go. The physical exercise is more like a series of sprints punctuated by coasting, rather than an extended steady pace. The best way to get any peace is to dodge the main routes and roll through neighborhoods and side streets. You'll notice most of the stop signs are inconveniently placed in hills, which wears your brakes out much more quickly.
In OKC, drivers are rather tolerant when you fit rather neatly into the traffic stream. Often I'll pull up behind cars waiting at a light, instead of drifting along the curb to the front of the queue. When the light changes, I sprint to stay with the traffic, especially when in a turn lane. As long as I make clear and timely signals, I've never had to face threats from motor vehicles. Thirty years of public notices about bicycles as legitimate vehicles has paid off. Indeed, I often see looks of amusement from motorists when I manage to operate like they do.
Aging I may be, and with bad knees and hips, but I'm still an athlete. My muscles remember doing this stuff, and rise to the occasion rather well. This may not be so for the average commuter who is forced by economics to start using a bicycle in the coming year. Thus, it becomes more important to learn negotiation with motorists.
As with any effort in human interaction, a simple psychology of respect and friendliness, backed by a bit of assertiveness, is the whole game. Dithering is the worst insult to other vehicle operators. The foundation is accepting the inherent risk of sharing the road, and operating by faith God will protect you by His grace. Somewhere between foolishly ignoring motor vehicles and overly cautious is a middle ground of dealing with your fellow humans, most of whom have no interest in hurting anyone. They would rather you seize reasonable opportunities and keep things going, because they have someplace to go, too. You simply cannot worry overmuch about the idiots. In all my years of cycling in cities, towns and rural areas, I've never been actively attacked by a single motorist.
However, I have faced drivers who aren't sure what to expect, because too many other cyclists are even worse idiots. Let's get this out of the way: Never ride against the traffic! It's been at least thirty years now since we've known that's more dangerous than riding with the flow. Cold, cruel statistics are the hard reality against whatever fuzzy logic compels people to do it wrong. How it is people born since then still don't get it is beyond me. The fear from the rear is a lie of Satan, the father of lies. Drivers who will run over you are extremely rare, and they make the news -- don't panic because of one story in a large urban population. Always give a visual signal of thanks to someone who is courteous.
The other cardinal rule is pretty simple: Bicycles are legitimate road and street traffic. If you assume this in your mind, and assert it by your riding behavior in traffic, motorists will adjust. While too many states compromise this by laws which use the phrase "riding as far to the right as practiceable," it's unlikely they'll do much to press the issue unless something really stupid happens. If the lane is narrow, ride in the right wheel track worn by traffic since the pavement was laid. A very rough or cluttered shoulder or gutter pan is the same as none. In places where you need to turn right and there's no designated turn lane, choose the left wheel track, and signal your intention by hand signs and assertive riding actions. Do pretty much what cars and trucks have to do in the same situation. It's not that hard to balance between asserting your right versus rudeness and cavalier abuse.
The biggest issue for most cyclists is negotiating with traffic to cross lanes for a right turn. There is no way to describe this in writing; it's one of those things you must observe done right, and experience repeatedly, until you're comfortable with it. Yes, kids can learn this, too; but that's another article. It's a matter of learning how to balance yourself and look back to your left, keeping your arm out in a clear signal you wish to move left. Make eye contact! Most often, you'll find at least one driver who will slow down, blocking traffic behind him so you can cross over. The rest is a matter of estimating and timing. Sometimes you simply have stop and wait. It's to your advantage if the light is red, as motorists will be slowing already. Each cyclist has to learn where the ideal distance from the corner is to begin negotiations.
The only other real danger is when you make that turn. You'll naturally want to cut to the right side of the turn path, but drivers doing the same thing from the other direction may misinterpret this. Thus, stay in the normal vehicular turn path, doing your very best to match the speed of motor traffic, until you are able to drift to the right of your new direction.
Other tricks require creativity, because it's a basic fact you aren't a real threat to motorists, and take up a lot less space. In general, we have always stressed staying off sidewalks. It's illegal in most places I've been, at least when you want to assert your right as legal traffic. Kids playing on bicycles are fast pedestrians; commuter cyclists are not. A cyclist who feels the need can dismount quickly and become a pedestrian. Otherwise, stay off the sidewalks for any distance more than a few feet. Operate under the same rules as cars, but knowing you are far smaller. Use center lanes and striped patches to your advantage, unless it's highly enforced. Don't suddenly dart out of blind spaces; wear garish combinations of bright colors, or even a reflective vest. I wear a reflective helmet, too. Give the motorists every reason to give you a chance without giving them offense.
One of the best things you can do is train motorists what to expect from good cyclists.
The ideal in normal cycling is to shift gears under changing conditions so you can maintain a steady cadence pedaling. It's rather like taking a long highway trip in your car, in some respects. Urban riding is like urban motoring, with lots of stop-and-go. The physical exercise is more like a series of sprints punctuated by coasting, rather than an extended steady pace. The best way to get any peace is to dodge the main routes and roll through neighborhoods and side streets. You'll notice most of the stop signs are inconveniently placed in hills, which wears your brakes out much more quickly.
In OKC, drivers are rather tolerant when you fit rather neatly into the traffic stream. Often I'll pull up behind cars waiting at a light, instead of drifting along the curb to the front of the queue. When the light changes, I sprint to stay with the traffic, especially when in a turn lane. As long as I make clear and timely signals, I've never had to face threats from motor vehicles. Thirty years of public notices about bicycles as legitimate vehicles has paid off. Indeed, I often see looks of amusement from motorists when I manage to operate like they do.
Aging I may be, and with bad knees and hips, but I'm still an athlete. My muscles remember doing this stuff, and rise to the occasion rather well. This may not be so for the average commuter who is forced by economics to start using a bicycle in the coming year. Thus, it becomes more important to learn negotiation with motorists.
As with any effort in human interaction, a simple psychology of respect and friendliness, backed by a bit of assertiveness, is the whole game. Dithering is the worst insult to other vehicle operators. The foundation is accepting the inherent risk of sharing the road, and operating by faith God will protect you by His grace. Somewhere between foolishly ignoring motor vehicles and overly cautious is a middle ground of dealing with your fellow humans, most of whom have no interest in hurting anyone. They would rather you seize reasonable opportunities and keep things going, because they have someplace to go, too. You simply cannot worry overmuch about the idiots. In all my years of cycling in cities, towns and rural areas, I've never been actively attacked by a single motorist.
However, I have faced drivers who aren't sure what to expect, because too many other cyclists are even worse idiots. Let's get this out of the way: Never ride against the traffic! It's been at least thirty years now since we've known that's more dangerous than riding with the flow. Cold, cruel statistics are the hard reality against whatever fuzzy logic compels people to do it wrong. How it is people born since then still don't get it is beyond me. The fear from the rear is a lie of Satan, the father of lies. Drivers who will run over you are extremely rare, and they make the news -- don't panic because of one story in a large urban population. Always give a visual signal of thanks to someone who is courteous.
The other cardinal rule is pretty simple: Bicycles are legitimate road and street traffic. If you assume this in your mind, and assert it by your riding behavior in traffic, motorists will adjust. While too many states compromise this by laws which use the phrase "riding as far to the right as practiceable," it's unlikely they'll do much to press the issue unless something really stupid happens. If the lane is narrow, ride in the right wheel track worn by traffic since the pavement was laid. A very rough or cluttered shoulder or gutter pan is the same as none. In places where you need to turn right and there's no designated turn lane, choose the left wheel track, and signal your intention by hand signs and assertive riding actions. Do pretty much what cars and trucks have to do in the same situation. It's not that hard to balance between asserting your right versus rudeness and cavalier abuse.
The biggest issue for most cyclists is negotiating with traffic to cross lanes for a right turn. There is no way to describe this in writing; it's one of those things you must observe done right, and experience repeatedly, until you're comfortable with it. Yes, kids can learn this, too; but that's another article. It's a matter of learning how to balance yourself and look back to your left, keeping your arm out in a clear signal you wish to move left. Make eye contact! Most often, you'll find at least one driver who will slow down, blocking traffic behind him so you can cross over. The rest is a matter of estimating and timing. Sometimes you simply have stop and wait. It's to your advantage if the light is red, as motorists will be slowing already. Each cyclist has to learn where the ideal distance from the corner is to begin negotiations.
The only other real danger is when you make that turn. You'll naturally want to cut to the right side of the turn path, but drivers doing the same thing from the other direction may misinterpret this. Thus, stay in the normal vehicular turn path, doing your very best to match the speed of motor traffic, until you are able to drift to the right of your new direction.
Other tricks require creativity, because it's a basic fact you aren't a real threat to motorists, and take up a lot less space. In general, we have always stressed staying off sidewalks. It's illegal in most places I've been, at least when you want to assert your right as legal traffic. Kids playing on bicycles are fast pedestrians; commuter cyclists are not. A cyclist who feels the need can dismount quickly and become a pedestrian. Otherwise, stay off the sidewalks for any distance more than a few feet. Operate under the same rules as cars, but knowing you are far smaller. Use center lanes and striped patches to your advantage, unless it's highly enforced. Don't suddenly dart out of blind spaces; wear garish combinations of bright colors, or even a reflective vest. I wear a reflective helmet, too. Give the motorists every reason to give you a chance without giving them offense.
One of the best things you can do is train motorists what to expect from good cyclists.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Survival Kit In Your Head
Yes, I still believe tribulation is bearing down upon us. No, I seriously doubt it will arrive as a singular event, but has already been sneaking up on us for quite some time. Maybe I'm insane, but maybe it's just a matter I woke up to it not so long ago. Either way, I'm preaching the message we should repent. We should cleanse our lives of the idols of compromise with the world.
More specifically, we should prepare our minds for living under difficult conditions. Who can say how bad it will be? As far as I know, God hasn't revealed it to anyone specifically, so I'm running off generalities. Besides, given the variations of economics, geography, climate and demographics, tribulation won't be the same everywhere. I can't give you a list of things to buy, because stuff you own may well be confiscated by a government agency or criminal gangs. During social and political upheaval, just escaping disaster with your skin is pretty dicey. You may know plenty of survivors from 9/11 are suffering really strange maladies, dying too young, etc.
The one thing no one can take from you is the gift of Jesus Christ. Almost as difficult to steal away is what's in your head. My personal background places a much higher value on experiences and education than on stuff. So if I were to suddenly hit the lottery (no, I don't actually play it) or something like that, I'd be more likely to spend the money on travel or books or even a training course, than on buying the house of my dreams, nice transportation, or lots of other toys. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures here on earth..." (Matthew 6:19)
The greatest assets you can gather now, before things get any worse, is a preparedness of heart. Christ alone can give you the power to face persecution and physical suffering. It may help some if you have some experience with athletic training, because you voluntarily buffet your flesh, as the writer of Hebrews said, because it may yet come to shedding our own blood in saying "no" to sin (Hebrews 12:1ff). Either way, in the day when the Lord shakes His Body, who will be left clinging to Him? Will it be you?
Surrendering to the panic mode when disaster strikes makes you a liability and a victim, instead of a rescuer. It's pretty hard to extend a helping hand when you're struggling to keep all your worldly possessions within your grasp. I would assert if you haven't prepared your mind and body to respond to disaster, you have failed your duty to Christ. Obviously there are limitations on what some of us can do -- I was stuck in a wheelchair for several months at one time. It's not the success you have with whipping your flesh, along with the rest of your life, into shape that matters. It's the desire you have to cling to Christ. When He is the center of your existence -- really the center -- you'll have plenty of strength to spare for the needs of others.
You have no excuse for panic and dithering when the judgment of God falls on this sinful world. You know it's coming; what have you done to prepare your heart and mind for a proper response? Look at Katrina in New Orleans and the utter failure of governments, compared to the blessings of individual initiatives. Do not rely on government, for it is inevitably run by the worst of humanity. Truly good and wise people don't want to govern. It is the grand evils of human government which bring the judging hand of God, and ours has provoked God far too much, too long. If you know these things, why do you delay?
Get used to thinking and operating in survival mode. Not the stuff you read about or is portrayed in popular entertainment, but the kind which comes from a heart trusting in God. You can trust Him to do the right thing, even if that means calling you home to be with Him. However, this is not some passive pie-in-the-sky, sit back and slide kind of "faith." This is a seize-the-initiative witnessing faith, which acts first, then tells why later. If the basic operations of your life depend more on God and His work in you than in the provision of outside support, you are ready.
What will you do if radio, TV and Internet go away? Worse, if they become wholly controlled by some agency which lies? Oh, wait -- that's already happening. Okay, what will you do if there's no fuel for your vehicles, no use of refrigeration because electricity is gone or unreliable, and the grocery stores are closed, and people are rioting in the streets, or there's a curfew with armed soldiers blocking the main routes... Don't think it won't happen. If not from some sort of general breakdown of social order, it could always be the result of some terrorist act or natural disaster.
All you really have is what's inside of you.
More specifically, we should prepare our minds for living under difficult conditions. Who can say how bad it will be? As far as I know, God hasn't revealed it to anyone specifically, so I'm running off generalities. Besides, given the variations of economics, geography, climate and demographics, tribulation won't be the same everywhere. I can't give you a list of things to buy, because stuff you own may well be confiscated by a government agency or criminal gangs. During social and political upheaval, just escaping disaster with your skin is pretty dicey. You may know plenty of survivors from 9/11 are suffering really strange maladies, dying too young, etc.
The one thing no one can take from you is the gift of Jesus Christ. Almost as difficult to steal away is what's in your head. My personal background places a much higher value on experiences and education than on stuff. So if I were to suddenly hit the lottery (no, I don't actually play it) or something like that, I'd be more likely to spend the money on travel or books or even a training course, than on buying the house of my dreams, nice transportation, or lots of other toys. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures here on earth..." (Matthew 6:19)
The greatest assets you can gather now, before things get any worse, is a preparedness of heart. Christ alone can give you the power to face persecution and physical suffering. It may help some if you have some experience with athletic training, because you voluntarily buffet your flesh, as the writer of Hebrews said, because it may yet come to shedding our own blood in saying "no" to sin (Hebrews 12:1ff). Either way, in the day when the Lord shakes His Body, who will be left clinging to Him? Will it be you?
Surrendering to the panic mode when disaster strikes makes you a liability and a victim, instead of a rescuer. It's pretty hard to extend a helping hand when you're struggling to keep all your worldly possessions within your grasp. I would assert if you haven't prepared your mind and body to respond to disaster, you have failed your duty to Christ. Obviously there are limitations on what some of us can do -- I was stuck in a wheelchair for several months at one time. It's not the success you have with whipping your flesh, along with the rest of your life, into shape that matters. It's the desire you have to cling to Christ. When He is the center of your existence -- really the center -- you'll have plenty of strength to spare for the needs of others.
You have no excuse for panic and dithering when the judgment of God falls on this sinful world. You know it's coming; what have you done to prepare your heart and mind for a proper response? Look at Katrina in New Orleans and the utter failure of governments, compared to the blessings of individual initiatives. Do not rely on government, for it is inevitably run by the worst of humanity. Truly good and wise people don't want to govern. It is the grand evils of human government which bring the judging hand of God, and ours has provoked God far too much, too long. If you know these things, why do you delay?
Get used to thinking and operating in survival mode. Not the stuff you read about or is portrayed in popular entertainment, but the kind which comes from a heart trusting in God. You can trust Him to do the right thing, even if that means calling you home to be with Him. However, this is not some passive pie-in-the-sky, sit back and slide kind of "faith." This is a seize-the-initiative witnessing faith, which acts first, then tells why later. If the basic operations of your life depend more on God and His work in you than in the provision of outside support, you are ready.
What will you do if radio, TV and Internet go away? Worse, if they become wholly controlled by some agency which lies? Oh, wait -- that's already happening. Okay, what will you do if there's no fuel for your vehicles, no use of refrigeration because electricity is gone or unreliable, and the grocery stores are closed, and people are rioting in the streets, or there's a curfew with armed soldiers blocking the main routes... Don't think it won't happen. If not from some sort of general breakdown of social order, it could always be the result of some terrorist act or natural disaster.
All you really have is what's inside of you.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
ESBI Still At It
My previous rant about ESBI and the fraudulent billing via phone bills for unrequested services has been renewed. After promising on the phone to cancel the service, they have billed us again.
AT&T, to their credit, is now actively helping us. They have assigned our account to a troubleshooter whose name we know. They will be coordinating with us to help stop this fraud. Apparently the FTC is overwhelmed, because they aren't going to be taking any action. It would seem the various governments and agencies are derelict in their duties, so this filthy outfit continues it's criminal theft by billing.
It remains for you and I to fight via our phone companies. Here again are the details, so you can check your phone bills, too:
The service called: Total Protection Plus
It's supposed to be: A 1-800 voicemail account
It's billed by: Enhances Services Billing, Inc. (ESBI)
Fees assessed: $12.95 via the phone bill
ESBI is the holding company. According to my research, they actually own all these little affiliates who bill through them. Their names are legion; I can't keep track of them, but each is an operation started or licensed by ESBI. They have no interest at all how the affiliates get a new customer. They simply bill for them. For now, it appears to come via a popup, which is somehow able to identify the DSL line you are using and bill that phone number. No matter how you respond to the popup, you will be billed -- "NO" is not an option.
However, not one of our computers allows popups, so this is happening some other way. I have yet to find out, because the billing outfit lies about it.
AT&T, to their credit, is now actively helping us. They have assigned our account to a troubleshooter whose name we know. They will be coordinating with us to help stop this fraud. Apparently the FTC is overwhelmed, because they aren't going to be taking any action. It would seem the various governments and agencies are derelict in their duties, so this filthy outfit continues it's criminal theft by billing.
It remains for you and I to fight via our phone companies. Here again are the details, so you can check your phone bills, too:
The service called: Total Protection Plus
It's supposed to be: A 1-800 voicemail account
It's billed by: Enhances Services Billing, Inc. (ESBI)
Fees assessed: $12.95 via the phone bill
ESBI is the holding company. According to my research, they actually own all these little affiliates who bill through them. Their names are legion; I can't keep track of them, but each is an operation started or licensed by ESBI. They have no interest at all how the affiliates get a new customer. They simply bill for them. For now, it appears to come via a popup, which is somehow able to identify the DSL line you are using and bill that phone number. No matter how you respond to the popup, you will be billed -- "NO" is not an option.
However, not one of our computers allows popups, so this is happening some other way. I have yet to find out, because the billing outfit lies about it.
I Don't Belong
On more than one professional evaluation I had, it was noted I worked well with others. That's because I truly love people. Still, it was also variously noted I'm not a joiner. The net result is I'll play on the team, but it will never own me. I'll admit I like the team better if I'm in charge, but I still won't let it own me. It's not about commitment, it's an instinctive understanding teams have a limited use to my calling. My calling is the ultimate commitment, and the team is not it. The costs of following such a path are high, but I'm not equipped to operate any other way.
This attitude is highly informed by my copious experience working in organizations of all kinds. I certainly don't mind being used; that's just the way things work. Compromising on the calling, though, makes me feel dirty, brings a consciousness of betraying God. Some of the stuff I read, and am asked to support, brings that dirty feeling.
I've established elsewhere I don't have a high opinion of Talmudic traditions. Jesus frequently accused the Pharisees of elevating the Talmud -- a collection of interpretive teachings -- over the Law of Moses they pretended to interpret (Matthew 15:3ff; Mark 7:8ff). They made the word of man more binding than the Word of God. Further, Jesus said they were intellectually dishonest in twisting the obvious meaning of the Mosaic Law, at times, to cater to human lusts. Jesus directly condemned the Talmud, though not using that term. As we examine the Life of Christ in the coming weeks, this will become more acutely clear.
Followers of Christ cannot view the Talmud as harmless, then. Those who cling to that corrupt teaching are not our friends. Jesus called them lots of bad names: generation of vipers, fools, blind, etc. At his trial, Stephen said the whole nation of Israel was on the wrong side of God too often:
Judaism rejects Jesus; what further need do we have of witnesses? There is plenty bad to say about those who cling to the religion of the Talmud without creating a long list of ugly accusations (scroll down almost half-way) which turn out to be twisting, out of context, or outright lies. As for questions of Ashkenazim versus Sephardim, we need not read long histories of Khazars, nor debates about DNA tracings between the two groups. It's enough to note the Ashkenazim run the Nation of Israel today, and are pretty hard on the Sephardim.
It's not even necessary we come to a consensus on what the word "Jew" means. I tend to avoid the term, except where I am pretty sure the context makes it clear. What matters most on this blog is:
Jesus is my Savior, the Son of God. The better I know Him, the better I serve Him. In seeking to understand His human character, I am required to understand as best I can the original Hebrew faith rejected long before by His people. I have found no other writer or teacher who sees a need for this, so I am quite alone.
I don't belong to any organized religion. No church can claim me as member. No part of the modern Holocaust Industry will acknowledge my existence, and I don't acknowledge the validity of their claims. I reject offering any support for Modern Israel. The Jew-haters can't have me, either. Still, I'm aware much of whatever reality is behind claims of a New World Order rising to take over the world includes a generous helping of Zionists. It's possible they actually run the whole thing, but it won't matter. All governments are fallen; bigger means more corrupt and harmful.
None of which is anything more than background noise, against which I strive to live out the calling God has on my life.
This attitude is highly informed by my copious experience working in organizations of all kinds. I certainly don't mind being used; that's just the way things work. Compromising on the calling, though, makes me feel dirty, brings a consciousness of betraying God. Some of the stuff I read, and am asked to support, brings that dirty feeling.
I've established elsewhere I don't have a high opinion of Talmudic traditions. Jesus frequently accused the Pharisees of elevating the Talmud -- a collection of interpretive teachings -- over the Law of Moses they pretended to interpret (Matthew 15:3ff; Mark 7:8ff). They made the word of man more binding than the Word of God. Further, Jesus said they were intellectually dishonest in twisting the obvious meaning of the Mosaic Law, at times, to cater to human lusts. Jesus directly condemned the Talmud, though not using that term. As we examine the Life of Christ in the coming weeks, this will become more acutely clear.
Followers of Christ cannot view the Talmud as harmless, then. Those who cling to that corrupt teaching are not our friends. Jesus called them lots of bad names: generation of vipers, fools, blind, etc. At his trial, Stephen said the whole nation of Israel was on the wrong side of God too often:
O stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did , so you do. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now been the betrayers and murderers; who received the Law through disposition of angels, and did not keep it. (Acts 8:51-53)
Judaism rejects Jesus; what further need do we have of witnesses? There is plenty bad to say about those who cling to the religion of the Talmud without creating a long list of ugly accusations (scroll down almost half-way) which turn out to be twisting, out of context, or outright lies. As for questions of Ashkenazim versus Sephardim, we need not read long histories of Khazars, nor debates about DNA tracings between the two groups. It's enough to note the Ashkenazim run the Nation of Israel today, and are pretty hard on the Sephardim.
It's not even necessary we come to a consensus on what the word "Jew" means. I tend to avoid the term, except where I am pretty sure the context makes it clear. What matters most on this blog is:
- Jesus lived as the fulfillment of the Old Testament faith.
- Jesus condemned the Talmud, and the religion based on it, as a corruption of the Old Testament faith.
- Even this faith is rejected by most modern Israelis.
- This thing called "Zionism" is a political religion so far removed from the Old Testament no one following Jesus has any business supporting it.
Jesus is my Savior, the Son of God. The better I know Him, the better I serve Him. In seeking to understand His human character, I am required to understand as best I can the original Hebrew faith rejected long before by His people. I have found no other writer or teacher who sees a need for this, so I am quite alone.
I don't belong to any organized religion. No church can claim me as member. No part of the modern Holocaust Industry will acknowledge my existence, and I don't acknowledge the validity of their claims. I reject offering any support for Modern Israel. The Jew-haters can't have me, either. Still, I'm aware much of whatever reality is behind claims of a New World Order rising to take over the world includes a generous helping of Zionists. It's possible they actually run the whole thing, but it won't matter. All governments are fallen; bigger means more corrupt and harmful.
None of which is anything more than background noise, against which I strive to live out the calling God has on my life.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Life of Christ: Matthew 1
We note in his genealogy of Jesus, Matthew follows Hebrew practice in skipping a few names of less significant persons. The Hebrew concept of "beget" is direct descent, but not necessarily father-and-son. Instead, we see a standard Jewish pedigree showing Jesus was of royal lineage. However, He gained it via a loophole in the Law and custom of His day, because it is noted His earthly father was not His genetic father. Since Joseph publicly assumed responsibility for the child, there was no legal grounds for questioning it, regardless of facts.
In passing, Matthew includes mention of women as significant to the pedigree. In a few cases, there was moral taint, in part to show the grace of God working through and against human failures. Matthew joined Jesus in rejecting the false Jewish notion women didn't count. However, Matthew stops short of offending his Jewish Christian audience, sticking with the point of the story: Jesus gained His pedigree by a means of a claim higher than mere DNA.
His conception was itself a miracle. Jewish social custom called for a betrothal for a man between 20 and 30, preferring the latter end unless wealthy. The bride would be a teenager, not long after menarche. The period between betrothal and actual cohabitation was typically a year, based on the old custom of getting a wife, then building a room or two on the extended family home, if not a separate home, to house her. It would be hard to explain what took place unless we assume Joseph was somewhere in the middle class, at least. We know from elsewhere he was a builder, which meant primarily a stone-mason, but included carpentry. He was important enough to worry about his reputation, but genuinely pious enough not to be strict like a Pharisee.
On hearing discretely his intended was pregnant, he intended to avoid an ugly public denunciation. This would call for the girl's execution, for it was legally the same as adultery. It was a particular kindness to arrange a private dissolution of the marriage covenant. People might gossip, but would have no proof of shame. Quite likely, Mary's family would have sent her to live with a distant relative. Before he could act on this plan, Joseph was visited by an angel during a dream state at night. It was not simply a child of adultery, but the conception of God Almighty, Himself. This was a high privilege for Joseph to raise the Son of God, though most would assume he simply failed to wait for a proper and honorable consummation of the marriage. This would change the nature of the gossip to something far more benign, largely forgotten by the time the boy could walk. Joseph was told this son would become the awaited Messiah, using prophetic terms any pious Jew would understand.
However, Matthew raises one of the greatest expository difficulties for Western Christians. We know the context of Isaiah 7:13 is specific to the time of King Ahaz, when Jerusalem was under threat from Israel and Syria. Those two countries to the north had formed an alliance against Assyria, and were going to force Judah to join it. The obvious meaning for Ahaz was to point out those two nations would soon be history. Starting from that moment, a young woman who was then a virgin could be married, conceive a child, and before he was old enough to understand good and evil, the Assyrians would come and destroy Samaria and Damascus. Second, we know Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hashbaz (Isaiah 8) pretty much fit that image, for that son was born of a young prophetess Isaiah had married at that time. Within three years of that birth, Samaria and Damascus had been taken.
In typical Hebrew mystical fashion, that event was foreshadowing something greater. It depicted a parallel of redemption on a much greater scale than the political situation of Judah around 700BC. This time a virgin would conceive directly, and the result would be the Redeemer of the World, the very presence of God Himself. Telescoping a single prophecy from a lesser contemporary event into a much greater future event is normative in mystical Hebrew theology. The first is an example of how God works, the last is the definitive culmination.
As soon as Joseph woke up, he carried out these instructions. We can envision a hastily arranged wedding feast, and the community's smug amusement. The point thus far is Jesus met several obvious tests of Messiahship.
In passing, Matthew includes mention of women as significant to the pedigree. In a few cases, there was moral taint, in part to show the grace of God working through and against human failures. Matthew joined Jesus in rejecting the false Jewish notion women didn't count. However, Matthew stops short of offending his Jewish Christian audience, sticking with the point of the story: Jesus gained His pedigree by a means of a claim higher than mere DNA.
His conception was itself a miracle. Jewish social custom called for a betrothal for a man between 20 and 30, preferring the latter end unless wealthy. The bride would be a teenager, not long after menarche. The period between betrothal and actual cohabitation was typically a year, based on the old custom of getting a wife, then building a room or two on the extended family home, if not a separate home, to house her. It would be hard to explain what took place unless we assume Joseph was somewhere in the middle class, at least. We know from elsewhere he was a builder, which meant primarily a stone-mason, but included carpentry. He was important enough to worry about his reputation, but genuinely pious enough not to be strict like a Pharisee.
On hearing discretely his intended was pregnant, he intended to avoid an ugly public denunciation. This would call for the girl's execution, for it was legally the same as adultery. It was a particular kindness to arrange a private dissolution of the marriage covenant. People might gossip, but would have no proof of shame. Quite likely, Mary's family would have sent her to live with a distant relative. Before he could act on this plan, Joseph was visited by an angel during a dream state at night. It was not simply a child of adultery, but the conception of God Almighty, Himself. This was a high privilege for Joseph to raise the Son of God, though most would assume he simply failed to wait for a proper and honorable consummation of the marriage. This would change the nature of the gossip to something far more benign, largely forgotten by the time the boy could walk. Joseph was told this son would become the awaited Messiah, using prophetic terms any pious Jew would understand.
However, Matthew raises one of the greatest expository difficulties for Western Christians. We know the context of Isaiah 7:13 is specific to the time of King Ahaz, when Jerusalem was under threat from Israel and Syria. Those two countries to the north had formed an alliance against Assyria, and were going to force Judah to join it. The obvious meaning for Ahaz was to point out those two nations would soon be history. Starting from that moment, a young woman who was then a virgin could be married, conceive a child, and before he was old enough to understand good and evil, the Assyrians would come and destroy Samaria and Damascus. Second, we know Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hashbaz (Isaiah 8) pretty much fit that image, for that son was born of a young prophetess Isaiah had married at that time. Within three years of that birth, Samaria and Damascus had been taken.
In typical Hebrew mystical fashion, that event was foreshadowing something greater. It depicted a parallel of redemption on a much greater scale than the political situation of Judah around 700BC. This time a virgin would conceive directly, and the result would be the Redeemer of the World, the very presence of God Himself. Telescoping a single prophecy from a lesser contemporary event into a much greater future event is normative in mystical Hebrew theology. The first is an example of how God works, the last is the definitive culmination.
As soon as Joseph woke up, he carried out these instructions. We can envision a hastily arranged wedding feast, and the community's smug amusement. The point thus far is Jesus met several obvious tests of Messiahship.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Life of Christ: Matthew - Introduction
Among other reasons, Jesus called Matthew to His discipleship to keep records of the many teachings. Thus, his Gospel is mostly a collection of teachings, grouped by theme. As with any preacher, Jesus reused some material, adapting it to the situation at hand. Sometimes it was simply an image or figure of speech, but often He would repeat a whole story. Part of the trouble with harmonizing the Gospels is the silly assumption a particular story should only appear once. Matthew's focus on the teaching is to show Jesus was the Messiah as prophesied, but not as expected by those who didn't understand the prophecy.
In Hebrew culture, it was understood ultimate Truth could scarcely be put into human language. Thus, truth was best illustrated through parables. While a less literary explanation may be included, this was generally reserved for young students who had not yet been exposed to the full wealth of Hebrew literature. Much of this literature was oral. Thus, when written, it tended to follow the oral format. Just writing it down was a form of translation. Matthew's Gospel reflects all this.
Matthew was known also by the name Levi. He and James the Less were brothers, sons of Alphaeus, also known as Cleopas. The families of Matthew and Jesus were apparently close, if not before, then certainly after Matthew's calling. A tradition asserts Alphaeus was Jesus' uncle, brother to His mother Mary. While not supported by any documentation, this would hardly be surprising. We are quite certain Zebedee was a relative, making John and James His cousins. Peter and Andrew may also have been distant relatives. We assume too much randomness in reading the Gospels, a bias we bring to Scripture. We so easily forget Jesus was a Hebrew man, who kept typical Hebrew habits of His day. His uniqueness as Son of God was more a matter of spiritual understanding.
It is this understanding Matthew attempts to bring to his readers. Those readers were obviously Jewish Christians. Early Church scholars tell us Matthew first compiled a record of Jesus' teachings in Aramaic. Carrying around writing materials in that day was not a simple matter of notebook and pencil, since those things did not exist yet. It's likely Matthew simply recorded what he recalled -- by divine assistance -- on a regular basis during Jesus' ministry. It is known a shorthand script was used at that time, and by his very profession as tax collector for King Herod, Matthew would have known about it. Record keeping would have been a principle habit of his mind. Aside from his native Aramaic, he would also have to speak and read Greek, and probably Latin. A Syrian variation of Aramaic is also quite likely, as well as Persian, given his working location in Capernaum, on the main route north and south through that part of the world. We might justly infer the equivalent of at least a bachelor's degree, if not a masters. Thus, it should present no difficulty this Gospel bears no marks of having been translated from Aramaic, but composed in Greek by a mind capable of thinking in it. This Gospel was a later work than his collection of teachings in Aramaic, but surely drew from them. Aside from rationalist nit-picking and speculation, there's no reason to suppose Matthew didn't write the Gospel named for him.
We know tax collectors -- publicans -- were despised by the mainstream rabbis and leaders of the Jewish community. They were seen as traitors, collecting taxes from their own on behalf of foreigners. Standard bureaucratic practices would have required publicans to remain more or less honest. Still, they were all treated as thieves who abused their office for personal gain, something a few apparently did (Zaccheus). Their collections were enforced by Roman conscripts, mostly Syrian in that area. However, the terms of office were generous enough even honest collectors were wealthy. Matthew's immediate family, and many of their associates, were relatively prosperous. Indeed, a surprising number of Jesus' supporters were apparently wealthy, with more than one spacious home in Galilee and Judea. Matthew notes Jesus broke all sorts of social rules because they were not based on a proper understanding of the Old Testament. He thus presents Jesus as a full realization of all the prophecies, and the establishment as having corrupted the legacy of Moses.
In Hebrew culture, it was understood ultimate Truth could scarcely be put into human language. Thus, truth was best illustrated through parables. While a less literary explanation may be included, this was generally reserved for young students who had not yet been exposed to the full wealth of Hebrew literature. Much of this literature was oral. Thus, when written, it tended to follow the oral format. Just writing it down was a form of translation. Matthew's Gospel reflects all this.
Matthew was known also by the name Levi. He and James the Less were brothers, sons of Alphaeus, also known as Cleopas. The families of Matthew and Jesus were apparently close, if not before, then certainly after Matthew's calling. A tradition asserts Alphaeus was Jesus' uncle, brother to His mother Mary. While not supported by any documentation, this would hardly be surprising. We are quite certain Zebedee was a relative, making John and James His cousins. Peter and Andrew may also have been distant relatives. We assume too much randomness in reading the Gospels, a bias we bring to Scripture. We so easily forget Jesus was a Hebrew man, who kept typical Hebrew habits of His day. His uniqueness as Son of God was more a matter of spiritual understanding.
It is this understanding Matthew attempts to bring to his readers. Those readers were obviously Jewish Christians. Early Church scholars tell us Matthew first compiled a record of Jesus' teachings in Aramaic. Carrying around writing materials in that day was not a simple matter of notebook and pencil, since those things did not exist yet. It's likely Matthew simply recorded what he recalled -- by divine assistance -- on a regular basis during Jesus' ministry. It is known a shorthand script was used at that time, and by his very profession as tax collector for King Herod, Matthew would have known about it. Record keeping would have been a principle habit of his mind. Aside from his native Aramaic, he would also have to speak and read Greek, and probably Latin. A Syrian variation of Aramaic is also quite likely, as well as Persian, given his working location in Capernaum, on the main route north and south through that part of the world. We might justly infer the equivalent of at least a bachelor's degree, if not a masters. Thus, it should present no difficulty this Gospel bears no marks of having been translated from Aramaic, but composed in Greek by a mind capable of thinking in it. This Gospel was a later work than his collection of teachings in Aramaic, but surely drew from them. Aside from rationalist nit-picking and speculation, there's no reason to suppose Matthew didn't write the Gospel named for him.
We know tax collectors -- publicans -- were despised by the mainstream rabbis and leaders of the Jewish community. They were seen as traitors, collecting taxes from their own on behalf of foreigners. Standard bureaucratic practices would have required publicans to remain more or less honest. Still, they were all treated as thieves who abused their office for personal gain, something a few apparently did (Zaccheus). Their collections were enforced by Roman conscripts, mostly Syrian in that area. However, the terms of office were generous enough even honest collectors were wealthy. Matthew's immediate family, and many of their associates, were relatively prosperous. Indeed, a surprising number of Jesus' supporters were apparently wealthy, with more than one spacious home in Galilee and Judea. Matthew notes Jesus broke all sorts of social rules because they were not based on a proper understanding of the Old Testament. He thus presents Jesus as a full realization of all the prophecies, and the establishment as having corrupted the legacy of Moses.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Silencing Real Gospel Preachers: How It Will Happen
For now, we have a few signal cases of overly ambitious lawyers prosecuting a case only because of a strong likelihood of political advancement. The name "Nifong" has become a household word, a verb describing the most corrupt form of lying prosecution one can imagine. As a resident of Oklahoma, I admit with shame we are among the leading states in corrupt courts, with store-bought lawyering on all sides. We have our own Nifong going on in the Kelsey Briggs case. Driving around Oklahoma, you'll see signs with Kelsey's pictures, hawking various organizations and their agenda. Trading on visceral anger makes all of them evil, regardless of their claims.
That's Oklahoma. Much as I love living here, I know it may one day cost me severely. First, I'm politically isolated, because I reject the two major parties as one team with two uniforms. The whole thing is rotten and dishonest to the core, especially in this state. Getting elected here to any office is proof positive of corruption and payoffs, for the most part. Oh, and we have one grand distinction among the 50 states: 1 in 12 adult Oklahomans is now, or has been under supervision of the Department of Corrections. That's a little bit more than the 1 in 42 of our very high national average. I won't explain how I know, but my personal experience is all I need to prove truth and innocence before the bar means nothing in Oklahoma. The political cry of "law and order" is Newspeak for "oppression."
There are three distinct groups in Oklahoma: (1) people in government, (2) the vast middle class of sheeple, and (3) oddballs, misfits, and other harmless folks who simply want to be left alone. Most of the real crooks are found in the first group. Be sure you understand, that is also a group which selects new members carefully, and maintains strict control on who becomes a candidate. This is not simply grousing; I know it from first hand experience.
Maybe you've seen it in your area, too. You see, I find myself by God's calling in that third group. I am one of several hundred thousand preachers in this state, but I no longer belong to any established church. I don't cooperate with the government in any way when it comes to living my faith, because it is none of the state's business. Jesus thought that way, too (John 2:13-22). You see, the Temple vendors belonged to the Bazaars of the Sons of Annas, a trade group controlled by the Jewish High Priest -- recognized by Rome as part of the local government. We know it wasn't about money itself, since Jesus raised the wealthy Lazarus from the dead, and borrowed an upper room in one of the most expensive houses in Jerusalem, and was buried by a man wealthy enough to own real estate in at least two cities. No, He criticized evil hearts in folks who used money to oppress.
Here in Oklahoma, you need not even get in the way of the elite. You just need to be a convenient target when they decide to shoot. It can be quite random, and wholly devastating. We have our own Nifongs here, and "justice" is just a word they use to describe their industrial grade ambitions. I'll be the first to holler there are too many clergymen playing similar games here and across America, but there are plenty more who are as godly as fallen men, saved by grace, can be. Unfortunately, too many belong in that second group above, the sheeple. They still believe in the system, and that can be hideously destructive.
If this happens to the sheeple, what of those like myself in that third group? Most have already been on the bad side of corrupt government, and many are in prison now, despite having never been a threat to social order and peace. Just being different from the mainstream was enough. The elite group keeps the sheeple stirred up with lurid tales of criminal behavior, who support the laws which make being an oddball illegal. As things stand now, Jesus Himself would be in prison soon after arriving in Oklahoma. His action in cleansing the Temple courts would be enough for a long stretch at Big Mac, or some of the other fine facilities which make up one of our major state industries.
When things turn ugly, when tribulation comes, it will begin below the surface. A primary symptom will be the large number of arrests for child sexual abuse. If you are able to check, you'll find most of the accused folks will be those considered a part of that third group in Oklahoma. This way it won't spook our gun-happy upstanding citizens, forestalling effective resistance until it's too late. You see, effective revolutions have always been led by folks from that third group of society.
Me? I'm making preparations to flee. That's according to my convictions; I don't relish the idea of violent resistance. Should things turn out differently, it'll have to be the hand of God.
That's Oklahoma. Much as I love living here, I know it may one day cost me severely. First, I'm politically isolated, because I reject the two major parties as one team with two uniforms. The whole thing is rotten and dishonest to the core, especially in this state. Getting elected here to any office is proof positive of corruption and payoffs, for the most part. Oh, and we have one grand distinction among the 50 states: 1 in 12 adult Oklahomans is now, or has been under supervision of the Department of Corrections. That's a little bit more than the 1 in 42 of our very high national average. I won't explain how I know, but my personal experience is all I need to prove truth and innocence before the bar means nothing in Oklahoma. The political cry of "law and order" is Newspeak for "oppression."
There are three distinct groups in Oklahoma: (1) people in government, (2) the vast middle class of sheeple, and (3) oddballs, misfits, and other harmless folks who simply want to be left alone. Most of the real crooks are found in the first group. Be sure you understand, that is also a group which selects new members carefully, and maintains strict control on who becomes a candidate. This is not simply grousing; I know it from first hand experience.
Maybe you've seen it in your area, too. You see, I find myself by God's calling in that third group. I am one of several hundred thousand preachers in this state, but I no longer belong to any established church. I don't cooperate with the government in any way when it comes to living my faith, because it is none of the state's business. Jesus thought that way, too (John 2:13-22). You see, the Temple vendors belonged to the Bazaars of the Sons of Annas, a trade group controlled by the Jewish High Priest -- recognized by Rome as part of the local government. We know it wasn't about money itself, since Jesus raised the wealthy Lazarus from the dead, and borrowed an upper room in one of the most expensive houses in Jerusalem, and was buried by a man wealthy enough to own real estate in at least two cities. No, He criticized evil hearts in folks who used money to oppress.
Here in Oklahoma, you need not even get in the way of the elite. You just need to be a convenient target when they decide to shoot. It can be quite random, and wholly devastating. We have our own Nifongs here, and "justice" is just a word they use to describe their industrial grade ambitions. I'll be the first to holler there are too many clergymen playing similar games here and across America, but there are plenty more who are as godly as fallen men, saved by grace, can be. Unfortunately, too many belong in that second group above, the sheeple. They still believe in the system, and that can be hideously destructive.
Our investigations into the false accusations and false imprisonment of Ryan Wonderly are extensive. Mr. Wonderly was denied due process of the law and in this Editor’s opinion, and the opinion of legal and medical council, Ryan Wonderly has experienced the Oklahoma version of the Wenatchee Witch Hunt.
If this happens to the sheeple, what of those like myself in that third group? Most have already been on the bad side of corrupt government, and many are in prison now, despite having never been a threat to social order and peace. Just being different from the mainstream was enough. The elite group keeps the sheeple stirred up with lurid tales of criminal behavior, who support the laws which make being an oddball illegal. As things stand now, Jesus Himself would be in prison soon after arriving in Oklahoma. His action in cleansing the Temple courts would be enough for a long stretch at Big Mac, or some of the other fine facilities which make up one of our major state industries.
When things turn ugly, when tribulation comes, it will begin below the surface. A primary symptom will be the large number of arrests for child sexual abuse. If you are able to check, you'll find most of the accused folks will be those considered a part of that third group in Oklahoma. This way it won't spook our gun-happy upstanding citizens, forestalling effective resistance until it's too late. You see, effective revolutions have always been led by folks from that third group of society.
Me? I'm making preparations to flee. That's according to my convictions; I don't relish the idea of violent resistance. Should things turn out differently, it'll have to be the hand of God.
New Series: Life of Christ
This will be collated and posted on my Bible Application Site.
Life of Christ
Jesus was a Jew, in the sense He was born in the Hebrew nation, and lived immersed in Hebrew culture. Seeing with His own eyes how poorly the society and culture of His day compared with the assumptions of His Father's Word, much of His teaching was aimed at correcting the mainstream understanding of God. At the same time, He was the completion of all which came before. In this sense, Jesus was the fullest possible revelation of Jehovah. The paradox of Ultimate Reality is it cannot be fully known by man, yet man is held accountable to it. Whatever man could know about God was revealed in the life and teaching of Jesus. However, that life and teaching came in a distinct context, a cultural background with assumptions quite different from those in Western Civilization today.
Thus, if we are to understand God, we must understand Christ in His own human setting, because that setting was chosen by God. As with a human understanding of divine revelation itself, we cannot presume to really succeed, as we understand success. Instead, knowing God is just, we can assume two things: (1) He will accept us as we are and use us, but (2) He most certainly expects us to grow into a better understanding of Him. We are redeemed for a purpose, and that purpose is not in us, but in Him -- that we should participate in His self-revelation. It just so happens that is the absolute very best existence available to any human, in every sense of the word "best" (i.e., ultimate good).
What follows is a sketch, one man's attempt to bring this Hebraic understanding of Christ to Western minds. By no means do I present my work as the final answer and authority on the inherent questions, but as a starting point. Having found no other writing along this path, it seems I am blazing a trail, and I do so with fear and trembling. I am no great scholar, and do not cite other scholars. No footnotes, like the Pharisees, but as with Jesus I will reference the Scriptures, plus mention a few items from the Early Church Fathers -- Christian scholars and writers up through 400AD. However, this is mostly a matter of presenting my own best understanding. There is nothing of a Western dissertation here, finding authority in the work of others. Such seems to be the methods of Jesus and the Apostles. This comes with the same conviction I find essential to the whole work of Revelation: If the Spirit of God does not move you to accept my witness, I would encourage you to cast it aside. While there is certainly an honest effort at scholarship, I am by no means an authority beyond what the Lord grants.
Because I assume my knowledge is sketchy, this writing will be terse. Furthermore, I will make no attempt to harmonize the various Gospel accounts in chronology. Rather, I will focus on harmonizing the narratives in depicting the character of Jesus the man, to make Him more real. This is typical of the Hebraic culture I pretend to explain here. Rather than answering all the possible questions, I aim to bring readers into the story to take from it what they are able. No two of His servants will have the same sins to forgive, the same needs for healing, the same burden and tasks -- only the same Lord. Don't seek to place your feet in my footprints, for there is nothing sacred about them. This study is not meant to lay a pavement through uncharted territory, but to point out areas for further exploration. Take from me only what you can use, and leave the rest in God's hands. Any other reading of this work will violate my own purpose in offering it.
Let's get to know Jesus.
Life of Christ
Jesus was a Jew, in the sense He was born in the Hebrew nation, and lived immersed in Hebrew culture. Seeing with His own eyes how poorly the society and culture of His day compared with the assumptions of His Father's Word, much of His teaching was aimed at correcting the mainstream understanding of God. At the same time, He was the completion of all which came before. In this sense, Jesus was the fullest possible revelation of Jehovah. The paradox of Ultimate Reality is it cannot be fully known by man, yet man is held accountable to it. Whatever man could know about God was revealed in the life and teaching of Jesus. However, that life and teaching came in a distinct context, a cultural background with assumptions quite different from those in Western Civilization today.
Thus, if we are to understand God, we must understand Christ in His own human setting, because that setting was chosen by God. As with a human understanding of divine revelation itself, we cannot presume to really succeed, as we understand success. Instead, knowing God is just, we can assume two things: (1) He will accept us as we are and use us, but (2) He most certainly expects us to grow into a better understanding of Him. We are redeemed for a purpose, and that purpose is not in us, but in Him -- that we should participate in His self-revelation. It just so happens that is the absolute very best existence available to any human, in every sense of the word "best" (i.e., ultimate good).
What follows is a sketch, one man's attempt to bring this Hebraic understanding of Christ to Western minds. By no means do I present my work as the final answer and authority on the inherent questions, but as a starting point. Having found no other writing along this path, it seems I am blazing a trail, and I do so with fear and trembling. I am no great scholar, and do not cite other scholars. No footnotes, like the Pharisees, but as with Jesus I will reference the Scriptures, plus mention a few items from the Early Church Fathers -- Christian scholars and writers up through 400AD. However, this is mostly a matter of presenting my own best understanding. There is nothing of a Western dissertation here, finding authority in the work of others. Such seems to be the methods of Jesus and the Apostles. This comes with the same conviction I find essential to the whole work of Revelation: If the Spirit of God does not move you to accept my witness, I would encourage you to cast it aside. While there is certainly an honest effort at scholarship, I am by no means an authority beyond what the Lord grants.
Because I assume my knowledge is sketchy, this writing will be terse. Furthermore, I will make no attempt to harmonize the various Gospel accounts in chronology. Rather, I will focus on harmonizing the narratives in depicting the character of Jesus the man, to make Him more real. This is typical of the Hebraic culture I pretend to explain here. Rather than answering all the possible questions, I aim to bring readers into the story to take from it what they are able. No two of His servants will have the same sins to forgive, the same needs for healing, the same burden and tasks -- only the same Lord. Don't seek to place your feet in my footprints, for there is nothing sacred about them. This study is not meant to lay a pavement through uncharted territory, but to point out areas for further exploration. Take from me only what you can use, and leave the rest in God's hands. Any other reading of this work will violate my own purpose in offering it.
Let's get to know Jesus.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
God's Will for Your Life
When someone wants to sell his book or study course, the marketing phrase I've heard most of my life is, "You can discover God's (perfect) plan for your life." Oddly, it's the catchphrase used in more than one evangelism program.
When you have a plan, it may include a lot of engineering, materials testing, output testing, then tweaking the system to provide the desired product. However, you and I are not a product in the Kingdom. The thing we must seek most is not God's perfect will for our lives, but to reveal Him. The idea of finding His perfect will as the means to participating in His revelation is still the same false sales pitch. This is founded on a worldly concept of how things work.
We invest far too much in the precise meanings of the terminology, which is a foreign concept in Scripture. People come to Christ because He breaks through to their dead spirits and reveals Himself. Too often we over-emphasize His promises without reference to His Lordship. It really is about God, not you, but it's not how that man means it. His definition of terms seldom matches the Word of God in its own context. We don't sell religion, we tell the whole truth:
With that kind of message, we don't fret spiritual still-borns in the Kingdom. It would take a miracle of God for someone to be drawn by such a message. Without that miracle of grace, any "decision" is merely a matter of human will, a matter of human religion. It may look and smell like saving faith, but it won't be.
God's will for your life is to reveal Him. Everything else is just method. Don't impute some stasis in thinking to God, as if His plans are written down somewhere as we conceive it; the Scriptural image of God is an Eastern potentate to Whose whim we are slaves. However, we ought not also impute to God a flexibility which leaves the Word behind. His every whim is fully consistent with His character as revealed in Scripture. Scripture did not appear by human will. You know His will not by whispers on the wind, but by a foundation of conviction planted in your spirit by His Spirit. It will never deviate from Scripture. Our biggest problem is seeing Scripture through worldly eyes.
We serve a Person with known habits, known expectations. Those things known are the whole point: That all Creation may be without excuse -- He has clearly revealed Himself. It is the paradox of ultimate Truth all humanity is accountable before His revelation, yet only those He touches can receive it. While this might be unjust if we did that, God transcends our human understanding of justice. He is the Source of justice and truth. Some things remain a mystery this side of Eternity. It is not for us to grasp some things; it is for us to grasp our accountability to God. That is His focus. Not accountable simply to His "office," but His Person; this is a covenant, not a contract. We act in faith, knowing understanding will grow, but never arrive. It won't be precisely the same for each believer, because it is a covenant of individuals, each standing before God. Yet we are all one in Him.
Yes, it's fuzzier than we like in this Western culture; it's more precise than we like in liberal feel-good religion. The tension will never go away. You can't lock it down in objective and precise categories, nor dismiss all that for an easy emotional religion without form. It's not a matter of blending them, though it does include them in limited doses. It's rooted somewhere else altogether, in the Person of God Almighty. You cannot get your head around it because only the spirit receives it. It remains a mystery on the human level, as it should be.
When you have a plan, it may include a lot of engineering, materials testing, output testing, then tweaking the system to provide the desired product. However, you and I are not a product in the Kingdom. The thing we must seek most is not God's perfect will for our lives, but to reveal Him. The idea of finding His perfect will as the means to participating in His revelation is still the same false sales pitch. This is founded on a worldly concept of how things work.
We invest far too much in the precise meanings of the terminology, which is a foreign concept in Scripture. People come to Christ because He breaks through to their dead spirits and reveals Himself. Too often we over-emphasize His promises without reference to His Lordship. It really is about God, not you, but it's not how that man means it. His definition of terms seldom matches the Word of God in its own context. We don't sell religion, we tell the whole truth:
- There is a Creator God who stands outside His Creation. Part of His nature is holiness, holding forth a standard of righteousness. He alone defines this righteousness.
- The entire human race stands in opposition to that righteousness because of their inherent natures. Their spirits are dead, and unable to so much as desire righteousness, nor even understand it. Thus, all humanity stands under the eternal judgment of this God, bound for Hell. Nothing they do can please Him.
- This God incarnated Himself as Jesus Christ, someone totally human, yet fully divine. He revealed as much about the nature of God as any human could grasp, then died a senseless and unjust death as a way to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity.
- He rose from death by His own divine authority and lives now to provide the one and only path to redemption, to making peace with God. A human starts on that path only when God initiates the process. Taking that path means the human self must die to all human desires and concerns, and take up His human life in their bodies. This change is a genuine miracle, totally outside the power of human will, and is marked by an irresistible desire to obey God.
- The balance of human life following that point remains one extended series of miracles. God Himself provides the enlightenment to understand, and the power to will, all the changes required in each life to begin a full realization of all the implications of living by divine concerns. This process is naturally painful, full of confusion and conflict, and will often make enemies of all unredeemed humans around us. Fellow travelers on this path are required to aid us, but will also be struggling themselves.
With that kind of message, we don't fret spiritual still-borns in the Kingdom. It would take a miracle of God for someone to be drawn by such a message. Without that miracle of grace, any "decision" is merely a matter of human will, a matter of human religion. It may look and smell like saving faith, but it won't be.
God's will for your life is to reveal Him. Everything else is just method. Don't impute some stasis in thinking to God, as if His plans are written down somewhere as we conceive it; the Scriptural image of God is an Eastern potentate to Whose whim we are slaves. However, we ought not also impute to God a flexibility which leaves the Word behind. His every whim is fully consistent with His character as revealed in Scripture. Scripture did not appear by human will. You know His will not by whispers on the wind, but by a foundation of conviction planted in your spirit by His Spirit. It will never deviate from Scripture. Our biggest problem is seeing Scripture through worldly eyes.
We serve a Person with known habits, known expectations. Those things known are the whole point: That all Creation may be without excuse -- He has clearly revealed Himself. It is the paradox of ultimate Truth all humanity is accountable before His revelation, yet only those He touches can receive it. While this might be unjust if we did that, God transcends our human understanding of justice. He is the Source of justice and truth. Some things remain a mystery this side of Eternity. It is not for us to grasp some things; it is for us to grasp our accountability to God. That is His focus. Not accountable simply to His "office," but His Person; this is a covenant, not a contract. We act in faith, knowing understanding will grow, but never arrive. It won't be precisely the same for each believer, because it is a covenant of individuals, each standing before God. Yet we are all one in Him.
Yes, it's fuzzier than we like in this Western culture; it's more precise than we like in liberal feel-good religion. The tension will never go away. You can't lock it down in objective and precise categories, nor dismiss all that for an easy emotional religion without form. It's not a matter of blending them, though it does include them in limited doses. It's rooted somewhere else altogether, in the Person of God Almighty. You cannot get your head around it because only the spirit receives it. It remains a mystery on the human level, as it should be.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Cycling OKC: MWC to Jones
While a tiny farm town out in northeast Oklahoma County, Jones is surrounded by land claimed by Oklahoma City. Getting there from the MWC municipal campus is pretty much a long country ride. Thus, it's more about athletic endurance than skill in navigating with traffic. I left around 9:30 AM with clear skies and warm weather. However, the 13-mile (one-way) ride passed through places where this summer's flooding rains left their mark.
I chose the NE Trail along Soldier Creek again, hitting the streets at NE 10th and Midwest Boulevard. Heading north for two miles, I turned east on NE 36th. Inside Spencer city limits is about the hilliest part of the trip. The pavement is poorly maintained, too, but no loose dogs. A half-mile brings me to Spencer Road. Turning north, I went past NE 50th into the former "downtown" of Spencer, where the road winds around and becomes Spencer-Jones Road. This runs at an angle northeasterly across the section line grid. One stop sign where it crosses Douglas Boulevard, and it's off on a long quiet stretch to Jones.
There was a detour in the last mile before the road turns east onto Britton Road. A small bridge was out due to recent flooding, and I took the detour just to see where it went. North on Westminster Road, I passed through the one area most likely to have loose dogs. I didn't see any, only heard them, but I had a few throwing rocks ready just in case. (Note to self: I need to get a dog stick.) At Britton Road, it was obvious where I should go. Sadly, the condition of the pavement was just appalling until I got back to Spencer-Jones. I ran into quite a few cyclists in Jones, but I never asked any of them what brought them there together. I'm guessing it was pretty casual, since a large group was parked at the Sonic Drive-In. I rode past all this to the eastern edge of town, where the city park sits. The pond was over it's banks, and most of the small pavilions were partly under water. I took a short rest, and headed back home.
This time I ignored the detour and found the bridge wasn't actually out, just slightly damaged on the surface at one edge. It was enough to close it off for motor vehicles, but hardly a risk for bikes. For the sake of variety, where Spencer-Jones Road crossed Douglas Boulevard, I turned south. At Reno, I turned back through Regional Park onto the East Trail, and then home. It was one hour each way, approximately 26 miles in all. Nice workout.
I chose the NE Trail along Soldier Creek again, hitting the streets at NE 10th and Midwest Boulevard. Heading north for two miles, I turned east on NE 36th. Inside Spencer city limits is about the hilliest part of the trip. The pavement is poorly maintained, too, but no loose dogs. A half-mile brings me to Spencer Road. Turning north, I went past NE 50th into the former "downtown" of Spencer, where the road winds around and becomes Spencer-Jones Road. This runs at an angle northeasterly across the section line grid. One stop sign where it crosses Douglas Boulevard, and it's off on a long quiet stretch to Jones.
There was a detour in the last mile before the road turns east onto Britton Road. A small bridge was out due to recent flooding, and I took the detour just to see where it went. North on Westminster Road, I passed through the one area most likely to have loose dogs. I didn't see any, only heard them, but I had a few throwing rocks ready just in case. (Note to self: I need to get a dog stick.) At Britton Road, it was obvious where I should go. Sadly, the condition of the pavement was just appalling until I got back to Spencer-Jones. I ran into quite a few cyclists in Jones, but I never asked any of them what brought them there together. I'm guessing it was pretty casual, since a large group was parked at the Sonic Drive-In. I rode past all this to the eastern edge of town, where the city park sits. The pond was over it's banks, and most of the small pavilions were partly under water. I took a short rest, and headed back home.
This time I ignored the detour and found the bridge wasn't actually out, just slightly damaged on the surface at one edge. It was enough to close it off for motor vehicles, but hardly a risk for bikes. For the sake of variety, where Spencer-Jones Road crossed Douglas Boulevard, I turned south. At Reno, I turned back through Regional Park onto the East Trail, and then home. It was one hour each way, approximately 26 miles in all. Nice workout.
Blinded by a Shadow
Take off those glasses. Okay, at least realize you are wearing them. We all tend to see everything through our experiences, and none of us escapes having a bias. The trick is to remember you have at least one bias, and do your best to understand where that bias can skew things. As fallen creatures, we Christians have one foot in grace and one in sin, until the Father sends His Son to complete redemption of all Creation. If you can't take off the glasses, try to understand what they do to your perceptions.
Trying to sound wise, many opine the early church suffered from either a failed bid at communism, or simply believed falsely Jesus was returning any day (Acts 4:32-37). On the latter count, such an assertion is simply immaterial. Notice the central statement: "And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all" (verse 33). This is not a people deceived about the Lord's calling on their lives. Jesus had conquered death. A natural result of embracing that is realizing this world and it's stuff didn't matter; the worst that could happen to you also didn't matter. Unlike us, in their culture it was a grand blessing to be free from the cares of this world.
Thus, calling it proto-communism is just inserting modern idiocy into that ancient culture. Communism is an economic policy, usually enforced by a human government. The only force here was that of God's Spirit. These people didn't simply decide some inherent law of nature about property demanded they surrender the control of material assets to the apostles. They rejected the state of nature, rejected the principles of a fallen world. They embraced grace and found it more valuable than their material possessions. Some of these people had quite a bit, too. Communism depends on a committee; this was divine feudalism. It was a recognition all their blood ties were replaced by spiritual ties, and they were family in Christ's blood. To translate the word koinos as "common" misses the point. That's the root word in koinonia, a term to describe the administration of a private estate. The root word assumes nothing of our social constructs and failed notions, but the historical proposition everything is owned by somebody, and in Christ we know that means Jehovah. Their property was not so much owned in common, but by God Almighty -- He directed the sharing.
We have let this slip in Western Christianity. Because fallen humans did feudalism wrong (the American Revolution), we have decided to reject it wholly, never mind the Kingdom of God being thoroughly feudal. We allow human wisdom to shape our faith, instead of the reverse. It has infected the very thought process behind how we do church. Let God have some of your time and take a look at Bob DeWaay's Faulty Premises of the Church Growth Movement:
If there was ever a dangerous heresy, the Church Growth Movement is one. It substitutes growing a religion for real faith, and calls it "following Christ." We have so moved from the First Century Church's understanding of Scripture, we are unable to see what the Word tells us. Do you honestly believe God cares about "success" as defined by mere marketing? The whole world can be wrong, and usually is. A tiny work of God in a small room of people can move spiritual mountains, can see the hand of God and know the full range of His power. The big, glitzy program at Monster Church has to manufacture a dim shadow of that.
So where is your treasure?
Trying to sound wise, many opine the early church suffered from either a failed bid at communism, or simply believed falsely Jesus was returning any day (Acts 4:32-37). On the latter count, such an assertion is simply immaterial. Notice the central statement: "And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all" (verse 33). This is not a people deceived about the Lord's calling on their lives. Jesus had conquered death. A natural result of embracing that is realizing this world and it's stuff didn't matter; the worst that could happen to you also didn't matter. Unlike us, in their culture it was a grand blessing to be free from the cares of this world.
Thus, calling it proto-communism is just inserting modern idiocy into that ancient culture. Communism is an economic policy, usually enforced by a human government. The only force here was that of God's Spirit. These people didn't simply decide some inherent law of nature about property demanded they surrender the control of material assets to the apostles. They rejected the state of nature, rejected the principles of a fallen world. They embraced grace and found it more valuable than their material possessions. Some of these people had quite a bit, too. Communism depends on a committee; this was divine feudalism. It was a recognition all their blood ties were replaced by spiritual ties, and they were family in Christ's blood. To translate the word koinos as "common" misses the point. That's the root word in koinonia, a term to describe the administration of a private estate. The root word assumes nothing of our social constructs and failed notions, but the historical proposition everything is owned by somebody, and in Christ we know that means Jehovah. Their property was not so much owned in common, but by God Almighty -- He directed the sharing.
We have let this slip in Western Christianity. Because fallen humans did feudalism wrong (the American Revolution), we have decided to reject it wholly, never mind the Kingdom of God being thoroughly feudal. We allow human wisdom to shape our faith, instead of the reverse. It has infected the very thought process behind how we do church. Let God have some of your time and take a look at Bob DeWaay's Faulty Premises of the Church Growth Movement:
Warren's claim that anybody can be won to Christ if we figure out some key is false. There is no Biblical warrant whatsoever to this claim; and there are many passages that refute it. The passage in Matthew 7 about the narrow gate refutes it. The concept of the saved remnant found in Romans 9 and elsewhere refutes it. The fact that even Jesus, who as God knows the heart, lost Judas the "son of perdition" disproves it. The Biblical doctrine of election taught in dozens of passages (such as Romans 8:28-33) disproves it....
The bad theology that underlies Church Growth thinking is man-centered. It does not take serious the depravity of the fallen human race. It apparently assumes that people have the power and inclination to become Christian without a prior supernatural work of grace. This being the case, its practices try to entice people with programs to meet needs, cajole them with human wisdom, or attract them with supernatural signs and wonders. What is offered must appeal to the natural man. But Paul rejects this type of reasoning all together ... (1 Corinthians 2:12-14)....
[O]ne simple answer that is readily apparent is that we have allowed the Church Growth technocrats to define both our mission, and the terms of success and failure. Having erroneously granted these, now we find ourselves having to buy their services in order to avoid failure. They have ingeniously created a "felt need" in evangelical pastors and now the growth experts are experiencing record sales of their products that promise to meet this felt need....
The lack of popularity of Christianity does not prove the need for some new reformation. It proves that Jesus was absolutely right when He said that His way was narrow and that few walked on it. The Church Growth Movement has shown a willingness to lay aside the clear teachings of Scripture in order to find success in this world. The "reformations" of this movement are all "deformations" and should be fully rejected.
If there was ever a dangerous heresy, the Church Growth Movement is one. It substitutes growing a religion for real faith, and calls it "following Christ." We have so moved from the First Century Church's understanding of Scripture, we are unable to see what the Word tells us. Do you honestly believe God cares about "success" as defined by mere marketing? The whole world can be wrong, and usually is. A tiny work of God in a small room of people can move spiritual mountains, can see the hand of God and know the full range of His power. The big, glitzy program at Monster Church has to manufacture a dim shadow of that.
So where is your treasure?
Friday, July 13, 2007
Eye of the Needle
Jesus is my Savior, my Lord, my God. His Word, recorded in the Bible, is binding on my life. What He taught is my purpose, and I cannot remain silent. To ignore that calling is to fight God, something only fools do.
Jesus fought the false and corrupt version of Old Testament faith of His day. The Levites, priests and nobles had all colluded to ingrain the idea wealth was the primary mark of God's favor, and poverty as a curse on the unfavored. When Jesus encountered the Rich Young Ruler, the exchange led to a discussion of how dangerous and deceptive is the comfort of material possessions:
Take the time to reread the whole context, Mark 10:17-31. An obvious point is we should not trust in things we can touch, but in the God who made all things. Servants of Jehovah naturally keep but a loose grip on the good things of this world as mere tools, not as gods.
Our problem today is we simply have no concept for doing without those goods. Even my relative poverty in childhood -- my family slept in a car for three weeks of my infancy because we had no money for rent -- would be wealth in some places. At least we had food, clothing and shelter. Best of all, there were no real threats to life.
We are pampered brats here.
Yes, we are so wrapped up in "the vigorous pursuit of creature comforts" we can't picture the suffering of others, especially the suffering we cause those others. Our spiritual eyes see through an aperture smaller than the eye of a needle, because we are unwilling to know. Our hearts have become hardened. We speak high-sounding words of "just cause" because we don't see what suffering we bring. A part of the Law of Moses says "eye for an eye." We have gone far beyond that, even for those who still believe 9/11 was an attack by foreign agents. Jesus said His followers can no longer operate even on that one-for-one retribution. The higher Law of God says we absorb losses, and trust in Him: "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."
It would be justice should such havoc as Iraqis live under be brought here. I contend at least a small taste of it is inevitable, because you can be sure God has noticed our casual disregard of His Law. Let's recall a few basic facts:
Do you follow Jesus, or some plastic version shaped for propaganda convenience?
Jesus fought the false and corrupt version of Old Testament faith of His day. The Levites, priests and nobles had all colluded to ingrain the idea wealth was the primary mark of God's favor, and poverty as a curse on the unfavored. When Jesus encountered the Rich Young Ruler, the exchange led to a discussion of how dangerous and deceptive is the comfort of material possessions:
How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the Kingdom of God!
Take the time to reread the whole context, Mark 10:17-31. An obvious point is we should not trust in things we can touch, but in the God who made all things. Servants of Jehovah naturally keep but a loose grip on the good things of this world as mere tools, not as gods.
Our problem today is we simply have no concept for doing without those goods. Even my relative poverty in childhood -- my family slept in a car for three weeks of my infancy because we had no money for rent -- would be wealth in some places. At least we had food, clothing and shelter. Best of all, there were no real threats to life.
We are pampered brats here.
Having spent a fair amount of time in occupied Iraq, I now find living in the United States nothing short of a schizophrenic experience. Life in Iraq was traumatizing. It was impossible to be there and not be affected by apocalyptic levels of violence and suffering, unimaginable in this country.
But here's the weird thing: One long, comfortable plane ride later and you're in Disneyland, or so it feels on returning to the United States. Sometimes it seems as if I'm in a bubble here that's only moments away from popping. I find myself perpetually amazed at the heights of consumerism and the vigorous pursuit of creature comforts that are the essence of everyday life in this country -- and once defined my own life as well.
Yes, we are so wrapped up in "the vigorous pursuit of creature comforts" we can't picture the suffering of others, especially the suffering we cause those others. Our spiritual eyes see through an aperture smaller than the eye of a needle, because we are unwilling to know. Our hearts have become hardened. We speak high-sounding words of "just cause" because we don't see what suffering we bring. A part of the Law of Moses says "eye for an eye." We have gone far beyond that, even for those who still believe 9/11 was an attack by foreign agents. Jesus said His followers can no longer operate even on that one-for-one retribution. The higher Law of God says we absorb losses, and trust in Him: "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."
It would be justice should such havoc as Iraqis live under be brought here. I contend at least a small taste of it is inevitable, because you can be sure God has noticed our casual disregard of His Law. Let's recall a few basic facts:
- Our President admitted Iraq was not about 9/11, that they were unconnected.
- Our government's decision to invade Iraq violates all the same Laws of Land Warfare and Genva Conventions we used to condemn Nazi Germany.
- Our President rejected Sadam's offer to step down as ruler of Iraq. Whatever it was our government was demanding had nothing to do with his ravages, because we have already killed far more Iraqis than he did.
- The sectarian violence in Iraq today is a direct result of our removing an admittedly repressive government. Do we so easily forget those folks aren't like us and don't respond the way we do? Saddam's rule was better than what we have given them.
- Utopia means "no place" because it can't happen. The world is fallen and life is nasty, and some things can't be fixed. We have absolutely no reason to stay in Iraq.
Do you follow Jesus, or some plastic version shaped for propaganda convenience?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Beware Fear Mongering
As a source of information, the Internet is uncontrolled. It allows the filthiest merchants to offer anything that sells, allows every brand of fevered religious imaginations, and every crackpot with a typing finger to allege the most outrageous accusations, and all anonymously. However, it also allows those who know the facts to reveal things great powers would rather keep secret.
Make up your own mind where I fit in that scheme. I am convinced there is a world of evil at work, mostly in the governments of the world today. Yes, there are sinners and friends of Satan in government, too. This is their day. I want to expose them so my fellow Christians do not unknowingly put their hand to evil. That's a burning desire which comes from God -- or a mind completely over the edge.
At any rate, it's not a word from God, merely my own logical deduction we will see the US attacking Iran in a few months. Although we cannot possibly do any good, it simply must be done, our rulers are convinced. The record clearly shows we were lied into war with Iraq; the reasons and purposes changed regularly. They had nothing to do with 9/11, nor any other legitimate reasons. The final justification, to "bring democracy" is also false, not to mention simply impossible to do. But the masses are steered by endless drivel coming out of Washington and her shills across the Net.
Most of the carnage at our hands has been in the civilian population. We have killed nearly a million Iraqis by now, who knows how many Afghanis, and now we are set to kill unnumbered Iranians -- most likely by nukes, since we lack any capacity to do it with conventional weapons and forces. Church, we must cease giving support to this evil, murderous government. This is not about Left versus Right. I am vehemently neither, because there is no real difference. The real issues are buried under tons of empty and pointless debates over visceral concerns about which nothing is ever really done. Here's why I believe an attack on Iran is coming soon.
First, let's keep in mind al-Qaeda is fake. That is, the people pretending to be terrorists are a mixture of CIA, Mossad and MI5/MI6 agents. Depending on how it is pronounced, the phrase "al-qaeda" means either "the database" or "the toilet" in the various Arabic dialects. Our own US government is on record showing a willingness to kill and destroy her own citizens as part of a propaganda ploy.
You may call it all a lie, but you would be closing your eyes to facts. Simply changing a few faces in elected positions is not changing the broader policy goals of enslaving us. Until that power to enslave actually comes, they have to pretend they care about us, and convince us to go along with their policies. To lay the groundwork for murder in Iran, we now see the following stories.
We will attack Iran on the pretext of responding to a fake terrorist incident, in which many Americans will die. They've done it before, and they'll do it again and again, herding us to support whatever they wish. Someday -- maybe soon -- it'll be past the point where it matters what we believe, because we'll be in no position to protest.
Finally, by none of this do I propose we rise up in arms against an illegitimate government. It's too late for that. More importantly, I believe Christians have no business giving any of God's resources -- hands, feet, money, time -- to secular political concerns. Pray, yes, pray for a revival of faith in the world, but know it will surely mean taking up the Cross of Christ, suffering for our commitment to truth and love. Set your hearts and minds on serving Him that way, because that is the Way of the Cross.
Make up your own mind where I fit in that scheme. I am convinced there is a world of evil at work, mostly in the governments of the world today. Yes, there are sinners and friends of Satan in government, too. This is their day. I want to expose them so my fellow Christians do not unknowingly put their hand to evil. That's a burning desire which comes from God -- or a mind completely over the edge.
At any rate, it's not a word from God, merely my own logical deduction we will see the US attacking Iran in a few months. Although we cannot possibly do any good, it simply must be done, our rulers are convinced. The record clearly shows we were lied into war with Iraq; the reasons and purposes changed regularly. They had nothing to do with 9/11, nor any other legitimate reasons. The final justification, to "bring democracy" is also false, not to mention simply impossible to do. But the masses are steered by endless drivel coming out of Washington and her shills across the Net.
Most of the carnage at our hands has been in the civilian population. We have killed nearly a million Iraqis by now, who knows how many Afghanis, and now we are set to kill unnumbered Iranians -- most likely by nukes, since we lack any capacity to do it with conventional weapons and forces. Church, we must cease giving support to this evil, murderous government. This is not about Left versus Right. I am vehemently neither, because there is no real difference. The real issues are buried under tons of empty and pointless debates over visceral concerns about which nothing is ever really done. Here's why I believe an attack on Iran is coming soon.
First, let's keep in mind al-Qaeda is fake. That is, the people pretending to be terrorists are a mixture of CIA, Mossad and MI5/MI6 agents. Depending on how it is pronounced, the phrase "al-qaeda" means either "the database" or "the toilet" in the various Arabic dialects. Our own US government is on record showing a willingness to kill and destroy her own citizens as part of a propaganda ploy.
You may call it all a lie, but you would be closing your eyes to facts. Simply changing a few faces in elected positions is not changing the broader policy goals of enslaving us. Until that power to enslave actually comes, they have to pretend they care about us, and convince us to go along with their policies. To lay the groundwork for murder in Iran, we now see the following stories.
In an alarming display of fearmongering, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum has suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.
On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune that he had a "gut feeling" about a new period of increased risk.
U.S. intelligence officials tell ABC News new intelligence suggests a small al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here.
We will attack Iran on the pretext of responding to a fake terrorist incident, in which many Americans will die. They've done it before, and they'll do it again and again, herding us to support whatever they wish. Someday -- maybe soon -- it'll be past the point where it matters what we believe, because we'll be in no position to protest.
Finally, by none of this do I propose we rise up in arms against an illegitimate government. It's too late for that. More importantly, I believe Christians have no business giving any of God's resources -- hands, feet, money, time -- to secular political concerns. Pray, yes, pray for a revival of faith in the world, but know it will surely mean taking up the Cross of Christ, suffering for our commitment to truth and love. Set your hearts and minds on serving Him that way, because that is the Way of the Cross.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
It's All I've Got
In the flesh, I'd be one seriously disspirited puppy. By God's grace, I'm kept from depression.
I'm not currently employed in the typical sense of the word, and I receive only a pittance for my ministry work. There is, to my knowledge, no established Christian organization for which I can share a mutual tolerance. My convictions place me well outside the mainstream. I'm comfortable with home worship -- indeed, it's quite refreshing to my spirit. However, it's been only my wife and I for quite some time. And so on.
Not that I'm whining, nor appealing for aid and advice. In my spirit, this situation is just dandy; it's just what God intended. Only my flesh is frustrated. I still have one thing I can do: write. I have no idea how many folks, or how few, read this blog. I have no idea how many stumble across my Bible Application articles. It's quite likely most of what I have to say is so far out there, no one knows how to respond. Again, that's okay.
I'm comfortable because I do have this one thing. It's all I've got, right now. I'm doing it with all my passion and intellect. On the outside chance I'm not a madman, I have to give folks at least the chance to hear the burden on my spirit. If the Lord does not turn a soul, it cannot turn, anyway. What I know I can and must do, I give my full attention. It's all the Lord has given me. It must be pretty important to Him.
I'm not currently employed in the typical sense of the word, and I receive only a pittance for my ministry work. There is, to my knowledge, no established Christian organization for which I can share a mutual tolerance. My convictions place me well outside the mainstream. I'm comfortable with home worship -- indeed, it's quite refreshing to my spirit. However, it's been only my wife and I for quite some time. And so on.
Not that I'm whining, nor appealing for aid and advice. In my spirit, this situation is just dandy; it's just what God intended. Only my flesh is frustrated. I still have one thing I can do: write. I have no idea how many folks, or how few, read this blog. I have no idea how many stumble across my Bible Application articles. It's quite likely most of what I have to say is so far out there, no one knows how to respond. Again, that's okay.
I'm comfortable because I do have this one thing. It's all I've got, right now. I'm doing it with all my passion and intellect. On the outside chance I'm not a madman, I have to give folks at least the chance to hear the burden on my spirit. If the Lord does not turn a soul, it cannot turn, anyway. What I know I can and must do, I give my full attention. It's all the Lord has given me. It must be pretty important to Him.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
God's Turf
Recall a basic tenet of Reformed faith: Man is irretrievably fallen, saved only by God's grace. Even those redeemed will admit they do not trust themselves; much more so we dare not trust any one unredeemed. We may be forced to rely on others, but we should never completely trust them. Our trust is reserved only for the Lord, and the net results of how He uses His servants. I don't have room to explore here the distinction between trusting a fallen servant of God, and trusting the net result of how God uses His servant. Don't trust me; trust the God who works in me.
We know from human history human flaws are magnified when fallen men unite in any way. Thus, it's no surprise Scripture expresses for us both full condemnation of the inherent sins of fallen human government, as well as sad resignation to the ravages of such government. Citing Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 from a partisan stand will ignore the context of realizing we really don't belong to such governments, only have to deal with them in holy cynicism. For example, how many miss the comment Peter makes in verse 16, "as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak of vice"? We are free in God's sight from obligations to human laws, yet not as an excuse for sin. Our Lord reserves for us some limit to our assent to human laws.
One of the things God reserves to Himself is His divine rule over the human heart. We know instinctively deception, for example, is inherently wrong. Part of the underlying prohibition against lying is we cannot presume to control the choices of another. Even as ruler, we cannot presume to rule the heart, only the body and property of a man. Within our recognition all men are fallen, and the unredeemed cannot choose to please God, there still remains a measure of contextual free will over one's own behavior under the Covenant of Noah. Any attempt to disable or interfere with that limited free will is a sin, plain and simple. No exemptions are permitted among men.
Therefore, no one should be surprised when even our own US government admits to the deep dark sins of trying to cross that line. The truly revolting part for us is realizing our fellow Americans don't seem to mind:
Have we as a nation been so completely conditioned we don't much bother to note our elected representatives and officials have shaken their fist in the face of our God? However, in even more mundane ways, the current ruling regime as sought to deny even that small portion of human free will granted under the Covenant of Noah. First, we have an Attorney General who lied to Congress. Let's put the best face of this -- maybe he didn't know. Why not? The reports were sent, and there is no excuse for his not wanting to know. Failure of due diligence: It was his duty to know. A real man would resign. Not only has he refused that, but our President defends him, knowing he lied to Congress.
This is merely a small sample of sin in government. Church, how dare you defend this evil? Every Christian today who reviles any critic of this government is putting their hands to sin, giving aid and support to those who shake their fist of defiance in the face of Jesus Christ. And just whom do you really serve? It is not Christ. It would be easy to go on about our Congress not bothering to take action. There are precious few true statesmen in our government, only filthy politicians serving their own lusts. This condition exists because the mass of our fellow citizens are no less evil.
It's time for broken hearts, but also to recognize standing for truth and virtue -- even mundane fallen human virtue -- today will get you in deep trouble every where you turn. Church, we stand condemned for having drained off our spiritual energy into mere politics. Revival? Are you ready to bleed for Christ? Do you not discern the signs of this time (Matthew 16:1-4)? Are we so desperate for compromise we embrace every spokesman who says nice things about faith? Without investigating the fruit of a candidate's life, we are begging to hear lies. The lesser of two evils is still evil. God is not honored by our political choices so far.
Repent. Take those US flags from your church houses, for it represents not a people but a government which places itself on the throne of God Almighty.
We know from human history human flaws are magnified when fallen men unite in any way. Thus, it's no surprise Scripture expresses for us both full condemnation of the inherent sins of fallen human government, as well as sad resignation to the ravages of such government. Citing Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 from a partisan stand will ignore the context of realizing we really don't belong to such governments, only have to deal with them in holy cynicism. For example, how many miss the comment Peter makes in verse 16, "as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak of vice"? We are free in God's sight from obligations to human laws, yet not as an excuse for sin. Our Lord reserves for us some limit to our assent to human laws.
One of the things God reserves to Himself is His divine rule over the human heart. We know instinctively deception, for example, is inherently wrong. Part of the underlying prohibition against lying is we cannot presume to control the choices of another. Even as ruler, we cannot presume to rule the heart, only the body and property of a man. Within our recognition all men are fallen, and the unredeemed cannot choose to please God, there still remains a measure of contextual free will over one's own behavior under the Covenant of Noah. Any attempt to disable or interfere with that limited free will is a sin, plain and simple. No exemptions are permitted among men.
Therefore, no one should be surprised when even our own US government admits to the deep dark sins of trying to cross that line. The truly revolting part for us is realizing our fellow Americans don't seem to mind:
While the public was repulsed to learn that one of Jeffrey Dahmer’s fantasies was to create zombie sex slaves, there is no such general gag reflex at the revelation that someone, somewhere in the bowels of our intelligence community, may have fantasized about creating government sex slaves, or government work slaves, or government war slaves. What is more disturbing is that this sick lust for total domination was not shouted down but funded and put into experimental testing.
Have we as a nation been so completely conditioned we don't much bother to note our elected representatives and officials have shaken their fist in the face of our God? However, in even more mundane ways, the current ruling regime as sought to deny even that small portion of human free will granted under the Covenant of Noah. First, we have an Attorney General who lied to Congress. Let's put the best face of this -- maybe he didn't know. Why not? The reports were sent, and there is no excuse for his not wanting to know. Failure of due diligence: It was his duty to know. A real man would resign. Not only has he refused that, but our President defends him, knowing he lied to Congress.
This is merely a small sample of sin in government. Church, how dare you defend this evil? Every Christian today who reviles any critic of this government is putting their hands to sin, giving aid and support to those who shake their fist of defiance in the face of Jesus Christ. And just whom do you really serve? It is not Christ. It would be easy to go on about our Congress not bothering to take action. There are precious few true statesmen in our government, only filthy politicians serving their own lusts. This condition exists because the mass of our fellow citizens are no less evil.
It's time for broken hearts, but also to recognize standing for truth and virtue -- even mundane fallen human virtue -- today will get you in deep trouble every where you turn. Church, we stand condemned for having drained off our spiritual energy into mere politics. Revival? Are you ready to bleed for Christ? Do you not discern the signs of this time (Matthew 16:1-4)? Are we so desperate for compromise we embrace every spokesman who says nice things about faith? Without investigating the fruit of a candidate's life, we are begging to hear lies. The lesser of two evils is still evil. God is not honored by our political choices so far.
Repent. Take those US flags from your church houses, for it represents not a people but a government which places itself on the throne of God Almighty.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Cycling OKC: MWC to Downtown OKC
Oklahoma is one of the few states laid out pretty much on a grid pattern. In settled areas, we see "section lines" -- roads running north-south or east-west, usually in one-mile increments. The OKC Metro is laid out that way, and most drivers know them by memory. They are the established arterial routes through the cities and across the entire county, and into several surrounding counties.
To travel between Midwest City (and the rest of Eastern OK County) to Downtown OKC requires choosing one of several east-west section lines. Part of the reason for a lack of through routes between them is the North Canadian River, which runs across the city around SW/SE 15th (EW section line), turns north around Eastern/ML King (NS section line), and runs northeasterly across the county. Only the section lines cross it, with a few exceptions. Even cyclists like myself, with a live-and-let-live attitude about cars and trucks, will have little choice.
I prefer minor through streets, and will gladly zig-zag through quiet neighborhoods with lots of stop signs to avoid adding to traffic congestion on the section lines. From my home near the municipal campus of MWC, that means eventually spending time on Reno or NE 10th at least part of the way. In my case, I chose the latter for outbound leg, using the fitness trail which runs north along Soldier Creek. It dumps out on the intersection of NE 10th and Midwest Blvd. By taking NE 10th toward OKC, I have only two hills before hitting Eastern/ML King -- the eastern boundary of OKC proper. Taking Reno means 6 significant hills. NE 10th is in slightly better condition, but suffers poorer maintenance. Contrary to "official cycling doctrine" I'm willing to ride in the gutter pan, provided it's not cratered or junky. NE 10th suffers stretches where the greenery grows thick and heavy, leaning out in the right-of-way, trimmed only by passing motor traffic.
During the rush hours, this will mean nerve wracking competition with the motor traffic. To our advantage, most Metro drivers are reasonable. Still, expect many to pass with little room to spare. Also, OKC seems to favor putting manhole covers along the gutter, none of which quite flush with the pavement. At ML King, the main route swerves around the south side of Hospital Ridge, merging two blocks south to NE 8th. This merely delays the climb over the ridge, but it's a little easier slope at that point. Once 8th crosses Interstate 235, it swerves again to the south, to NE 6th. A short dip under the railroad tracks also changes to the westerly side of addressing, so it's now NW 6th.
Laws are now more in line with federal guidelines since last year, so there are few secret gotchas. Riders need to be aware the central city is laid out in alternating one-way streets, and cyclists must obey them. A few places are narrow, but those are tough on everyone. Anytime you need to stop and look, dismount and move onto a sidewalk. There are map boards here and there. The other thing is too many stop lights are on-demand for traffic tripping the signal coil, but my aluminum bike never triggered it. It's rare there's no traffic to do it for you, but it does happen. My advice is to cross when it's clear and safe when you have to disobey such controls.
My purpose in cruising the skyscraper district was to survey bicycle parking. As with most urban areas, car parking is a cut-throat situation. For actual employees, most companies have some commercial arrangement. I'm guessing they could accommodate cyclist employees with little difficulty. For visitors, it's more challenging. The city ordinance simply says if a bike rack is there, use it. Out of 100+ buildings I surveyed, I saw two racks. That leaves you with the general rule you can't impede any normal foot or wheeled traffic. Most places I spotted posts or railings which fit that description. Employees of businesses can probably negotiate for bicycle accommodation. For major events, I have no idea how it will work, because I'd be reluctant to leave my bike where random mass traffic can touch it. Perhaps I'll contact some of the commercial parking outfits in the near future. How the city itself views things is as yet unknown.
It's pretty much the same story on Hospital Ridge, which is just northeast of downtown. Among others, one finds Presbyterian, the VA, Children's and Oklahoma Memorial hospitals there. I did not see a single bike rack, but the VA has a motorcycle area with a steel railing which should work. For other clinics and hospitals, one would need to call each one to see what they offer. I seem to recall some years ago one had an inside bike rack at one of the back entrances, but I can't remember which.
For the return leg, I tried one of the few alternatives to the section lines: NE 4th. This street runs pretty much all the way from downtown. It's 4-lane until it crosses Interstate 35. A nice wide shoulder exists, but tall thick weeds grow through the cracks across that path. Farther on, one passes a number of heavy industrial entrances, so the truck traffic is very heavy and the pavement narrow. It also crosses a half-dozen railroad tracks, most of them very rough. This route ends at Vickie Drive. For Del City, this isn't too bad, because you can turn south and make a short zig-zag across Reno into a quiet neighborhood. For everyone else, you have to go north to NE 10th, or south and stay on Reno.
All in all, a tough but tolerable commute. From Midwest Blvd. to downtown is about 40 minutes for a moderate rider, but rush hour traffic might slow that down to as much as an hour.
To travel between Midwest City (and the rest of Eastern OK County) to Downtown OKC requires choosing one of several east-west section lines. Part of the reason for a lack of through routes between them is the North Canadian River, which runs across the city around SW/SE 15th (EW section line), turns north around Eastern/ML King (NS section line), and runs northeasterly across the county. Only the section lines cross it, with a few exceptions. Even cyclists like myself, with a live-and-let-live attitude about cars and trucks, will have little choice.
I prefer minor through streets, and will gladly zig-zag through quiet neighborhoods with lots of stop signs to avoid adding to traffic congestion on the section lines. From my home near the municipal campus of MWC, that means eventually spending time on Reno or NE 10th at least part of the way. In my case, I chose the latter for outbound leg, using the fitness trail which runs north along Soldier Creek. It dumps out on the intersection of NE 10th and Midwest Blvd. By taking NE 10th toward OKC, I have only two hills before hitting Eastern/ML King -- the eastern boundary of OKC proper. Taking Reno means 6 significant hills. NE 10th is in slightly better condition, but suffers poorer maintenance. Contrary to "official cycling doctrine" I'm willing to ride in the gutter pan, provided it's not cratered or junky. NE 10th suffers stretches where the greenery grows thick and heavy, leaning out in the right-of-way, trimmed only by passing motor traffic.
During the rush hours, this will mean nerve wracking competition with the motor traffic. To our advantage, most Metro drivers are reasonable. Still, expect many to pass with little room to spare. Also, OKC seems to favor putting manhole covers along the gutter, none of which quite flush with the pavement. At ML King, the main route swerves around the south side of Hospital Ridge, merging two blocks south to NE 8th. This merely delays the climb over the ridge, but it's a little easier slope at that point. Once 8th crosses Interstate 235, it swerves again to the south, to NE 6th. A short dip under the railroad tracks also changes to the westerly side of addressing, so it's now NW 6th.
Laws are now more in line with federal guidelines since last year, so there are few secret gotchas. Riders need to be aware the central city is laid out in alternating one-way streets, and cyclists must obey them. A few places are narrow, but those are tough on everyone. Anytime you need to stop and look, dismount and move onto a sidewalk. There are map boards here and there. The other thing is too many stop lights are on-demand for traffic tripping the signal coil, but my aluminum bike never triggered it. It's rare there's no traffic to do it for you, but it does happen. My advice is to cross when it's clear and safe when you have to disobey such controls.
My purpose in cruising the skyscraper district was to survey bicycle parking. As with most urban areas, car parking is a cut-throat situation. For actual employees, most companies have some commercial arrangement. I'm guessing they could accommodate cyclist employees with little difficulty. For visitors, it's more challenging. The city ordinance simply says if a bike rack is there, use it. Out of 100+ buildings I surveyed, I saw two racks. That leaves you with the general rule you can't impede any normal foot or wheeled traffic. Most places I spotted posts or railings which fit that description. Employees of businesses can probably negotiate for bicycle accommodation. For major events, I have no idea how it will work, because I'd be reluctant to leave my bike where random mass traffic can touch it. Perhaps I'll contact some of the commercial parking outfits in the near future. How the city itself views things is as yet unknown.
It's pretty much the same story on Hospital Ridge, which is just northeast of downtown. Among others, one finds Presbyterian, the VA, Children's and Oklahoma Memorial hospitals there. I did not see a single bike rack, but the VA has a motorcycle area with a steel railing which should work. For other clinics and hospitals, one would need to call each one to see what they offer. I seem to recall some years ago one had an inside bike rack at one of the back entrances, but I can't remember which.
For the return leg, I tried one of the few alternatives to the section lines: NE 4th. This street runs pretty much all the way from downtown. It's 4-lane until it crosses Interstate 35. A nice wide shoulder exists, but tall thick weeds grow through the cracks across that path. Farther on, one passes a number of heavy industrial entrances, so the truck traffic is very heavy and the pavement narrow. It also crosses a half-dozen railroad tracks, most of them very rough. This route ends at Vickie Drive. For Del City, this isn't too bad, because you can turn south and make a short zig-zag across Reno into a quiet neighborhood. For everyone else, you have to go north to NE 10th, or south and stay on Reno.
All in all, a tough but tolerable commute. From Midwest Blvd. to downtown is about 40 minutes for a moderate rider, but rush hour traffic might slow that down to as much as an hour.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Moving On
Over the past few months, we've attended worship at Sooner Baptist Church. Our primary interest was the fellowship of good friends who joined us in departing some other church. I was also asked by their new pastor, another refugee of that other church, to be ready to teach a class. This despite him knowing my theological position on many things, positions different from his. We never joined the church officially, simply because we are no longer Baptists.
It's not working. Worship does not have to be thrilling and moving to be worship. It's not about our feelings, but about our commitment. Something in the worship there fails to draw out our commitment. Something in the fellowship left little time for actual spiritual communion one on one. Much in the preaching left us under-fed. Finally, I'm persuaded to believe his plan to use me as a teacher isn't going to happen.
For the second time in a row, I find myself in a church where I must keep silent about the things which matter most to me. For example, there are quite a few rabid Republican pro-war types. They are the lay leaders. Their speech, their pamphlets and their bumper stickers make it clear I must remain silent or face some very ugly confrontations. There is no room for my words there. Another example would be the relentless Dispensationalism, which I consider an outright heresy.
If I voice my differences, I'll just stir up anger and hatred. If I stay silent, I'm deceiving them, and allowing them to continue living a lie. I'm sorry, but I cannot remain. We'll be returning to our house church activities until such time as the Lord reveals the next step.
It's not working. Worship does not have to be thrilling and moving to be worship. It's not about our feelings, but about our commitment. Something in the worship there fails to draw out our commitment. Something in the fellowship left little time for actual spiritual communion one on one. Much in the preaching left us under-fed. Finally, I'm persuaded to believe his plan to use me as a teacher isn't going to happen.
For the second time in a row, I find myself in a church where I must keep silent about the things which matter most to me. For example, there are quite a few rabid Republican pro-war types. They are the lay leaders. Their speech, their pamphlets and their bumper stickers make it clear I must remain silent or face some very ugly confrontations. There is no room for my words there. Another example would be the relentless Dispensationalism, which I consider an outright heresy.
If I voice my differences, I'll just stir up anger and hatred. If I stay silent, I'm deceiving them, and allowing them to continue living a lie. I'm sorry, but I cannot remain. We'll be returning to our house church activities until such time as the Lord reveals the next step.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Bicycle Advocacy
There are several reasons I favor biking over driving:
You can probably think of your own reasons.
I'm not interested in bicycle racing, but I might watch a good one. Mostly it's a means of transportation. My bike is for commuting, though I like simple pleasure riding, too. Yesterday's review was with commuting in mind. My point was getting municipal governments and organized advocates to focus on transportation use is pretty hard. Cities naturally want to take the cheapest path to cutting down the political pressure. Thus, most bike routes are scenic, not actually useful. Adding a bike rack to the front of city buses is nice, but only for people who don't actually intend to ride much -- a short jaunt between bus stops and either end of a trip not on the bus lines.
I tend to view advocacy organizations with suspicion mainly because the primary results of their work tends to be touristy bike paths, and not much in the way of actual accommodation of bicycle use for anything besides an expensive toy. I'm fortunate the drivers in this area are usually reasonable, if sometimes grudging. Still, we see lots of tax dollars wasted on eye-wash. If that's what the voters want, there's not much point in grousing. However, there is a point to educating them and the cities, if possible. The problem is, I find myself too often alone on things like this.
Having already established I'm usually in a tiny minority, or alone, on many other issues I advocate, this is nothing new. For example, I've gotten almost no positive feedback on my insistence Christians aren't to participate in civil government. (Okay, I get little feedback of any kind.) So now there's two reasons I don't join most cycling organizations: They want something different than I do, and I'm not interested in politics. Thus, my viewpoint is a cyclist who takes what is, and tries to make the most of it. I'm willing to note in writing my displeasure, primarily as a tool to show Christians what I mean by staying out of government.
Thus, in the coming days and weeks I hope to make a few more pleasure trips to survey commuter routes and accommodations which can be found. It's not with the intent to advocate for pressing the municipalities to change their spending plans, but to note simply what is, and what can be done while maintaining biblical living.
Should you take an interest in cycling advocacy, I am closest to the philosophy of LAB Reform. In particular, you can read about better cycling in the Bicycle Blunders series.
- It's fun. That's reason enough most of the time.
- It's cheaper. I'm below the official poverty line, and it's okay. Part of what makes it tolerable is cycling to save money.
- It's better for others. Every motor vehicle adds to the traffic load and slows down every other vehicle. Bicycles are the smallest vehicles, so cycling reduces system load.
- It's cleaner. No, I'm not green, but it's no secret reducing oil consumption means less pollution.
- Convenience: It's easier to find a parking place, among other things. I've always found a good place to lock it with my cable.
- It's healthier. In my case, it's the one form of aerobic exercise accessible that does not aggravate my arthritic knees and hip.
You can probably think of your own reasons.
I'm not interested in bicycle racing, but I might watch a good one. Mostly it's a means of transportation. My bike is for commuting, though I like simple pleasure riding, too. Yesterday's review was with commuting in mind. My point was getting municipal governments and organized advocates to focus on transportation use is pretty hard. Cities naturally want to take the cheapest path to cutting down the political pressure. Thus, most bike routes are scenic, not actually useful. Adding a bike rack to the front of city buses is nice, but only for people who don't actually intend to ride much -- a short jaunt between bus stops and either end of a trip not on the bus lines.
I tend to view advocacy organizations with suspicion mainly because the primary results of their work tends to be touristy bike paths, and not much in the way of actual accommodation of bicycle use for anything besides an expensive toy. I'm fortunate the drivers in this area are usually reasonable, if sometimes grudging. Still, we see lots of tax dollars wasted on eye-wash. If that's what the voters want, there's not much point in grousing. However, there is a point to educating them and the cities, if possible. The problem is, I find myself too often alone on things like this.
Having already established I'm usually in a tiny minority, or alone, on many other issues I advocate, this is nothing new. For example, I've gotten almost no positive feedback on my insistence Christians aren't to participate in civil government. (Okay, I get little feedback of any kind.) So now there's two reasons I don't join most cycling organizations: They want something different than I do, and I'm not interested in politics. Thus, my viewpoint is a cyclist who takes what is, and tries to make the most of it. I'm willing to note in writing my displeasure, primarily as a tool to show Christians what I mean by staying out of government.
Thus, in the coming days and weeks I hope to make a few more pleasure trips to survey commuter routes and accommodations which can be found. It's not with the intent to advocate for pressing the municipalities to change their spending plans, but to note simply what is, and what can be done while maintaining biblical living.
Should you take an interest in cycling advocacy, I am closest to the philosophy of LAB Reform. In particular, you can read about better cycling in the Bicycle Blunders series.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Cycling OKC: South Grand-River Loop
Please don't make the mistake of thinking OKC, nor any of the other Metro municipalities, are bike-friendly in the long term. From time to time political pressure will yield a bone here and there, but precious little delivery on the promises. If it serves to draw a few tourist dollars, it'll be done quickly and properly. Otherwise, cyclists should expect negligence at best, particularly in the way of maintenance. Actually using a bicycle as daily transportation is apparently the last thing any municipal government wants to encourage. The real advantage in the OKC Metro is most drivers are reasonable.
That said, a hardy cyclist can still get in a good ride. Today I'm reviewing my experience on the South Grand Boulevard Trail and the connecting Oklahoma River Trail (south side). You really need to click the links and see the maps to follow this; the River Trail map is available only as a PDF. Because I started from my apartment just east of the Midwest City municipal campus, there was a good stretch at the start and finish on a four-lane thoroughfare. It was the hilliest part of the ride, of course. Total distance was approximately 25 miles.
Because it was a weekday, to avoid the heavy drive-time traffic, I waited until 9AM. The temperature was in the mid-70s and rose to about 87° F; clear skies and southeasterly breezes. The first leg was a 5-mile stretch west on Reno to Grand Boulevard, 35 minutes. Before I was born, as I understand it, Grand Boulevard was a closed loop encompassing the OKC city limits. It was laid out divided and quite wide, so the bike path runs down the center median. It's one big circle, with many curves, as it was dropping south from Reno. Just a few hundred yards brought me to the trailhead. The water fountain was turned off, as was true all along the South Grand Trail. The first section drops south through an un-scenic industrial section for 2 miles, then sweeps west through Trosper Park. Nice gentle hills and a few curves to make it interesting.
Once it crosses Interstate 35, it's a mixed neighborhood in the old South High industrial area. This gives way to Capital Hill, which is mostly Hispanic and every public fixture is covered with graffiti. For about a one mile stretch, the houses sit too close to the right-of-way, so the trail disappears. Riders will have to run the narrow street, because this portion of Grand came after the ancient houses were already built. Once I entered the Capitol Hill district proper, the graffiti got thicker, but I saw few people at that hour. In the boundary area where the trail crosses over into Grant High territory, a couple of drivers decided to stop in the street, blocking the trail ramp for no apparent reason, except perhaps the perverse fun of forcing me to slow down and wait for them. It's the only neighborhood where such things happened.
The long western leg drops into Woodson Park, which occupies both sides of Interstate 44. To cross, the city built a high arch bridge. If you aren't a strong rider, you'll have to dismount, because the approach is a long 25% slope. On the other side, it drops equally fast, and you'll surely miss the turn. While a trail spur goes straight on into the park, you'll need to take a hard right. This is completely unmarked. The trail proceeds north across SW 29th, becoming a wide sidewalk which zig-zags and passes through an open lot, right next to the highway ramp. From there it drops onto a street. Only after a quarter mile do you see in the right edge of the asphalt ancient markings calling it a bike lane. It's a long drop past one of the roughest public housing projects in the city, so don't slow down. The path crosses SW 15th, and suddenly becomes a really nice, well-marked trail. The South Grand Trail took me 40 minutes.
Another quarter mile and it connects to the south River Trail. You could turn left for a mile or so, but I needed to head back toward home. This trail is opulent, mostly because it's part of the big tourist draw for the competition rowing marina. There is a trail visible on the north side, but no convenient bridge across the river between them. It was quiet, pretty flat, and rather scenic. It gets mowed regularly, of course. If you stay on it, the silly thing dead ends -- really dead ends just before Interstate 35. There's no outlet. Unlike all the other miles of river bank in the Metro, which is set aside for recrational use and lots of off-road small vehicle riding, the next mile is closed to the public. I have heard there are plans to link it all, but pardon my skepticism over a city infamous for grand promises and poor delivery, if at all. In this case, the rowing area runs out a short way beyond, so there aren't any tourist dollars in it.
Instead, to actually get anywhere from the trail, you'll have to find an escape route to one of the numerous bridges crossing the river and the trails. I chose a grassy hundred yards just north of the tributary which feeds in at SW 15th. This was just short of the rail bridge and barely in sight of the marina on the north bank. Because my Trek 7100 is a hybrid, I managed the rough ground well enough, and got out in the turn lane where SW 15th intersects with South Central Avenue. From there, I crossed the river northbound and connected back to Reno. The long slog home was roughly 8 miles after leaving the trail. A three-hour, three-bottle ride, but I only had two bottles.
I note the old Wiley Post Park has changed dramatically from the days I lived near there in Capitol Hill, some 20 years ago. One needed a passport to cross the area back then, due to a heavy gang presence. Now it's all clean, and highly developed with a skate-BMX park and the works.
That said, a hardy cyclist can still get in a good ride. Today I'm reviewing my experience on the South Grand Boulevard Trail and the connecting Oklahoma River Trail (south side). You really need to click the links and see the maps to follow this; the River Trail map is available only as a PDF. Because I started from my apartment just east of the Midwest City municipal campus, there was a good stretch at the start and finish on a four-lane thoroughfare. It was the hilliest part of the ride, of course. Total distance was approximately 25 miles.
Because it was a weekday, to avoid the heavy drive-time traffic, I waited until 9AM. The temperature was in the mid-70s and rose to about 87° F; clear skies and southeasterly breezes. The first leg was a 5-mile stretch west on Reno to Grand Boulevard, 35 minutes. Before I was born, as I understand it, Grand Boulevard was a closed loop encompassing the OKC city limits. It was laid out divided and quite wide, so the bike path runs down the center median. It's one big circle, with many curves, as it was dropping south from Reno. Just a few hundred yards brought me to the trailhead. The water fountain was turned off, as was true all along the South Grand Trail. The first section drops south through an un-scenic industrial section for 2 miles, then sweeps west through Trosper Park. Nice gentle hills and a few curves to make it interesting.
Once it crosses Interstate 35, it's a mixed neighborhood in the old South High industrial area. This gives way to Capital Hill, which is mostly Hispanic and every public fixture is covered with graffiti. For about a one mile stretch, the houses sit too close to the right-of-way, so the trail disappears. Riders will have to run the narrow street, because this portion of Grand came after the ancient houses were already built. Once I entered the Capitol Hill district proper, the graffiti got thicker, but I saw few people at that hour. In the boundary area where the trail crosses over into Grant High territory, a couple of drivers decided to stop in the street, blocking the trail ramp for no apparent reason, except perhaps the perverse fun of forcing me to slow down and wait for them. It's the only neighborhood where such things happened.
The long western leg drops into Woodson Park, which occupies both sides of Interstate 44. To cross, the city built a high arch bridge. If you aren't a strong rider, you'll have to dismount, because the approach is a long 25% slope. On the other side, it drops equally fast, and you'll surely miss the turn. While a trail spur goes straight on into the park, you'll need to take a hard right. This is completely unmarked. The trail proceeds north across SW 29th, becoming a wide sidewalk which zig-zags and passes through an open lot, right next to the highway ramp. From there it drops onto a street. Only after a quarter mile do you see in the right edge of the asphalt ancient markings calling it a bike lane. It's a long drop past one of the roughest public housing projects in the city, so don't slow down. The path crosses SW 15th, and suddenly becomes a really nice, well-marked trail. The South Grand Trail took me 40 minutes.
Another quarter mile and it connects to the south River Trail. You could turn left for a mile or so, but I needed to head back toward home. This trail is opulent, mostly because it's part of the big tourist draw for the competition rowing marina. There is a trail visible on the north side, but no convenient bridge across the river between them. It was quiet, pretty flat, and rather scenic. It gets mowed regularly, of course. If you stay on it, the silly thing dead ends -- really dead ends just before Interstate 35. There's no outlet. Unlike all the other miles of river bank in the Metro, which is set aside for recrational use and lots of off-road small vehicle riding, the next mile is closed to the public. I have heard there are plans to link it all, but pardon my skepticism over a city infamous for grand promises and poor delivery, if at all. In this case, the rowing area runs out a short way beyond, so there aren't any tourist dollars in it.
Instead, to actually get anywhere from the trail, you'll have to find an escape route to one of the numerous bridges crossing the river and the trails. I chose a grassy hundred yards just north of the tributary which feeds in at SW 15th. This was just short of the rail bridge and barely in sight of the marina on the north bank. Because my Trek 7100 is a hybrid, I managed the rough ground well enough, and got out in the turn lane where SW 15th intersects with South Central Avenue. From there, I crossed the river northbound and connected back to Reno. The long slog home was roughly 8 miles after leaving the trail. A three-hour, three-bottle ride, but I only had two bottles.
I note the old Wiley Post Park has changed dramatically from the days I lived near there in Capitol Hill, some 20 years ago. One needed a passport to cross the area back then, due to a heavy gang presence. Now it's all clean, and highly developed with a skate-BMX park and the works.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Demonology
In my past, there was a significant period where I walked with a strong neo-Charismatic congregation. There was much good accomplished there, and my faith and service were empowered in ways I doubt I would have seen in other types of ministries. Still, there was much very wrong there.
An example of what they did -- and many still do -- wrong is in Demonology. It's too easy to show Satan is a fallen angel of tremendous power. However, the Bible also says he is completely under Jesus' authority (Matthew 28:18). Too many people give Satan too much credit for discretion and authority he lacks. Careful reading of Scripture forces us to conclude, though our Enemy he is, he serves the purpose of God Almighty. There are distinct restrictions on him, and he has an assigned role. You only face his nastiness when you stray into his territory by placing yourself under his authority.
At the same time, many people assume too much about their authority to oppose Satan. We are pointedly told not to get ugly with him (Jude 8-11). Yet they speak in terms of "coming against" him. It's rather pointless, since everything we might wish to claim from his possession has already been won at the Cross. The proper Scriptural image is simply going to God for His supply, and keeping the gates to our lives closed against the Thief.
An example of what they did -- and many still do -- wrong is in Demonology. It's too easy to show Satan is a fallen angel of tremendous power. However, the Bible also says he is completely under Jesus' authority (Matthew 28:18). Too many people give Satan too much credit for discretion and authority he lacks. Careful reading of Scripture forces us to conclude, though our Enemy he is, he serves the purpose of God Almighty. There are distinct restrictions on him, and he has an assigned role. You only face his nastiness when you stray into his territory by placing yourself under his authority.
At the same time, many people assume too much about their authority to oppose Satan. We are pointedly told not to get ugly with him (Jude 8-11). Yet they speak in terms of "coming against" him. It's rather pointless, since everything we might wish to claim from his possession has already been won at the Cross. The proper Scriptural image is simply going to God for His supply, and keeping the gates to our lives closed against the Thief.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Performing Weddings
Tomorrow, at our annual July 4th family reunion out west of Tecumseh, OK, I will officiate at a wedding for my elder sister and her beau. As my friends know, I hardly consider it necessary to add the state's stamp of approval to a marriage covenant. Indeed, I consider it none of the state's business. Still, they wish to obtain certain advantages which the state will not deliver without a properly executed marriage license. For this reason, I maintain my credentials on file with one of the 77 counties in Oklahoma -- which is the minimum requirement for the state to recognize the ceremony.
I've only done a handful of weddings, mostly for close friends and family members. I'm cheap -- I ask nothing for the service. God has made it plain to me I will never be allowed to ask anything for my gospel service, whether it be traditional ministerial acts or mowing a yard. As always, I accept any gift I can use from anybody for just about any reason.
I'm adding the ceremony outline to my archive at A Bible Application Site.
I've only done a handful of weddings, mostly for close friends and family members. I'm cheap -- I ask nothing for the service. God has made it plain to me I will never be allowed to ask anything for my gospel service, whether it be traditional ministerial acts or mowing a yard. As always, I accept any gift I can use from anybody for just about any reason.
I'm adding the ceremony outline to my archive at A Bible Application Site.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Last Days?
Yep, we are in the Last Days. However, according to a clear and simple reading of Scripture, "these last days" began when Christ ascended to Heaven.
It's also referred to repeatedly by Jesus and Paul as "this current age" as opposed to "the age to come." There are certain distinct differences between the two ages. In this age:
These things will all change when Christ returns. The coming age:
It's been the "Last Days" for the past 2000 years. If you are going to use biblical terms, make sure you have those terms properly defined. It gets altogether tiring to have every new bad guy -- Stalin, Gorbachev, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, etc. -- assigned the title of Antichrist and fresh cries of "we are in the Last Days!" Of course we are, but it has nothing to do with current events. The newspaper does not interpret Scripture. People who write up news stories are seldom Bible believers.
(Special thanks to Dr. Kim Riddlebarger whose Amillenial Lecture was a primary source for this post.)
Standing up with the eleven, Peter raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea, and all who dwell in Jerusalem, try to understand this, and listen to what I say. For these are not drunks, as you seem to think -- it's only 9AM! What you see here was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And it shall come to pass in the Last Days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh...'" (Acts 1:14-17)
God spoke in from time to time in past, in various ways, to our forefathers by the prophets. In these Last Days, He has spoken to us by His Son... (Hebrews 1:1-2)
It's also referred to repeatedly by Jesus and Paul as "this current age" as opposed to "the age to come." There are certain distinct differences between the two ages. In this age:
- "homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, fields and persecutions" (Mark 10:30)
- "the people of this age marry and are given in marriage" (Luke 20:34)
- secular and religious rulers dominate without comprehending the will of God (1 Corinthians 2:6-8)
- ungodliness and worldly lusts are typical (Titus 2:12)
These things will all change when Christ returns. The coming age:
- persecution will end, and all normal human relations will be completely changed (Mark 10:30)
- "no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" will be forgiven (Mt. 12:32)
- lives will be eternal in the fullest sense (Mark 10:30; 1 Timothy 6:19))
- no marriages, no childbirth (Luke 20:34-36)
It's been the "Last Days" for the past 2000 years. If you are going to use biblical terms, make sure you have those terms properly defined. It gets altogether tiring to have every new bad guy -- Stalin, Gorbachev, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, etc. -- assigned the title of Antichrist and fresh cries of "we are in the Last Days!" Of course we are, but it has nothing to do with current events. The newspaper does not interpret Scripture. People who write up news stories are seldom Bible believers.
(Special thanks to Dr. Kim Riddlebarger whose Amillenial Lecture was a primary source for this post.)
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Quiet Truth
I'm a Fundamentalist by definition. That is, my convictions include the Five Fundamentals. However, I am by no means a part of the so-called Christian Right. Indeed, there is a fixed chasm between them and me.
At several points in the history of Israel in the Old Testament, the leadership would ask a prophet to get a word from God regarding some threat. They usually asked two questions:
I'm asking the same question about my dealings with Baptists. I know if I continue hanging out with them, I won't be able to avoid airing my differences with them. It will most certainly result in some sort of conflict. My questions before God are: Should I take to these people the burden You've given me? And should I expect it will do them any good? At the very least, I would hope they simply humor me on the things they can't accept.
Some of it really touches a nerve. For example, I pretty much endorse this report on the current administration and bad religion. I say "bad religion" quite seriously. Most of the members where I worship would be upset by the linked article. Some would reject it simply because TruthOut is a "left-wing" operation, as if that were an excuse to leave unexamined the issues raised. Such people do not love truth; they love the feeling of believing they have the truth. Don't disturb their fantasy with facts! They would also assume I'm left-wing, though that's laughable. Some would literally vote to have me ostracized.
So much of what they cling to is where I was at one point. I used to pore over Scripture, searching for details about the Battle of Armageddon. Only one problem, which I have since learned: The name "Har Meggido" is not the name of that valley just east of Mount Carmel. That's the Valley of Meggido, and adding that har changes the meaning to "mountain." Not mound, but mountain. The "meggido" part can be translated into several different English words, depending on the context. It's root meaning is "meeting." In the case of the valley near Carmel, it means "rendezvous" -- a place where armies assemble to mass their power, usually against an enemy. The term "Har Meggido" means the Mountain of Assembly -- Mount Zion, where Israel once assembled before the Lord.
In typical Hebrew fashion, the images of battle at "Har Meggido" has more than one meaning. In some ways, it refers to prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction at the hands of Rome, 67-70AD. However, that mundane meaning is symbolic of the battle at the Cross, the battle over sin and death. On the Cross, Jesus broke sin's power forever. He was given the final and ultimate authority over all the earthly and heavenly authorities (Matthew 28:18). In that sense, the armies of the world are broken. The people who serve Jesus Christ have a very tentative subjection to any earthly government. By living the Law of Love, they have satisfied God's requirements for living a quiet and peaceful life in this world. That's because the last bit of earthly legitimacy of the Nation of Israel was broken in the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Now the only Jerusalem that matters is the New Jerusalem.
We followers of Jesus are citizens of that Heavenly Jerusalem. There will come a time when it will descend to this earth, though I'm sure we cannot possibly envision quite what the means. At any rate, the Battle of Har Meggido has already taken place. There is no future battle of all the world's armies against God -- at least, not in any literal sense. John's Revelation is more about "this is how things go under these circumstances," and less about some singular future event. His mention of Har Meggido is a reference to spiritual realities. So that valley just east of Mount Carmel, through which the River Kishon runs, will not on some future day run bridle deep on human gore. That's a dramatic image expressing a spiritual truth impossible to put in ordinary human language. How easy it is for Western Christians to forget Scripture is a product of Eastern hands and language. Hebrew was seldom descriptive, and more depict-ive. It was about evoking feelings, not precise understanding, because the speaker wanted you to experience the event personally.
All this rah-rah about war and "killing ragheads and terrorists" has no support in the Bible. The only real terrorists are those in Washington, DC, and their friends and allies. Seeing folks parade the US flag through church and celebrate war-making, and talking about how we simply must keep the troops in Iraq, must attack Iran, makes me weep. I want to fall on my face right there and call on God to stop the insanity. I haven't said that to any of those with whom I worship. There may come a time when I'll have to reveal my differing convictions, and I have to wonder if God has called me to stay that long, in faith He'll make it work out. Or should I start seeking another place to worship, a place where my convictions aren't a problem? I'm not aware of one within driving distance, so I'm wondering if I have to start my own.
I don't have a word from God on that, yet, so I'm keeping quiet for now.
At several points in the history of Israel in the Old Testament, the leadership would ask a prophet to get a word from God regarding some threat. They usually asked two questions:
- Shall we go to battle?
- Will we win?
I'm asking the same question about my dealings with Baptists. I know if I continue hanging out with them, I won't be able to avoid airing my differences with them. It will most certainly result in some sort of conflict. My questions before God are: Should I take to these people the burden You've given me? And should I expect it will do them any good? At the very least, I would hope they simply humor me on the things they can't accept.
Some of it really touches a nerve. For example, I pretty much endorse this report on the current administration and bad religion. I say "bad religion" quite seriously. Most of the members where I worship would be upset by the linked article. Some would reject it simply because TruthOut is a "left-wing" operation, as if that were an excuse to leave unexamined the issues raised. Such people do not love truth; they love the feeling of believing they have the truth. Don't disturb their fantasy with facts! They would also assume I'm left-wing, though that's laughable. Some would literally vote to have me ostracized.
So much of what they cling to is where I was at one point. I used to pore over Scripture, searching for details about the Battle of Armageddon. Only one problem, which I have since learned: The name "Har Meggido" is not the name of that valley just east of Mount Carmel. That's the Valley of Meggido, and adding that har changes the meaning to "mountain." Not mound, but mountain. The "meggido" part can be translated into several different English words, depending on the context. It's root meaning is "meeting." In the case of the valley near Carmel, it means "rendezvous" -- a place where armies assemble to mass their power, usually against an enemy. The term "Har Meggido" means the Mountain of Assembly -- Mount Zion, where Israel once assembled before the Lord.
In typical Hebrew fashion, the images of battle at "Har Meggido" has more than one meaning. In some ways, it refers to prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction at the hands of Rome, 67-70AD. However, that mundane meaning is symbolic of the battle at the Cross, the battle over sin and death. On the Cross, Jesus broke sin's power forever. He was given the final and ultimate authority over all the earthly and heavenly authorities (Matthew 28:18). In that sense, the armies of the world are broken. The people who serve Jesus Christ have a very tentative subjection to any earthly government. By living the Law of Love, they have satisfied God's requirements for living a quiet and peaceful life in this world. That's because the last bit of earthly legitimacy of the Nation of Israel was broken in the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Now the only Jerusalem that matters is the New Jerusalem.
We followers of Jesus are citizens of that Heavenly Jerusalem. There will come a time when it will descend to this earth, though I'm sure we cannot possibly envision quite what the means. At any rate, the Battle of Har Meggido has already taken place. There is no future battle of all the world's armies against God -- at least, not in any literal sense. John's Revelation is more about "this is how things go under these circumstances," and less about some singular future event. His mention of Har Meggido is a reference to spiritual realities. So that valley just east of Mount Carmel, through which the River Kishon runs, will not on some future day run bridle deep on human gore. That's a dramatic image expressing a spiritual truth impossible to put in ordinary human language. How easy it is for Western Christians to forget Scripture is a product of Eastern hands and language. Hebrew was seldom descriptive, and more depict-ive. It was about evoking feelings, not precise understanding, because the speaker wanted you to experience the event personally.
All this rah-rah about war and "killing ragheads and terrorists" has no support in the Bible. The only real terrorists are those in Washington, DC, and their friends and allies. Seeing folks parade the US flag through church and celebrate war-making, and talking about how we simply must keep the troops in Iraq, must attack Iran, makes me weep. I want to fall on my face right there and call on God to stop the insanity. I haven't said that to any of those with whom I worship. There may come a time when I'll have to reveal my differing convictions, and I have to wonder if God has called me to stay that long, in faith He'll make it work out. Or should I start seeking another place to worship, a place where my convictions aren't a problem? I'm not aware of one within driving distance, so I'm wondering if I have to start my own.
I don't have a word from God on that, yet, so I'm keeping quiet for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)