Joy Recovered

Jim Schembri writes in today's Age about the loss of joy as we grow up. His descriptions of a child's joy are compelling:

TO SEE a child laugh is to witness joy unalloyed... And they don't need much. The simplest things can set them off. A corny hand puppet. A goofy face. A soap bubble. The way a ball bounces. The popping of a toaster. The noise a handful of crushed banana makes when they slap it into your nose while you are trying to feed them. They love it.

He further charts our attempts to reclaim that joy in hyperrealities (ala Mark Sayers):

...what would we give to recapture even a small measure of that joy? The answer is anything and everything. We devote a great part of our lives and a good portion of our money to reach that state of bliss we hear in a child's laugh. We indulge in those things that promise pleasure. Cars, carnality, big houses, pools, trophy wives, exotic foods, chemicals, herbs. We ingest them through every available sense and membrane, often to excess, all in pursuit of that elusive, exquisite feeling that will finally tell us: "This is what it is to be happy." ... Yet with each artificially induced high comes the inevitable flare-out. We realise in the hollow afterglow that something essential is missing. We don't know what, but we know it must be out there, somewhere.

He ends nowhere really, advising that we should just enjoy children being joyful. But I think there is more that can be done...

It occurs to me that there maybe a reason why as Christians we are told to be like Children (Mt 18:3-4) and also that there is such a heavy emphasis on joy in both the OT & NT.

I think that when we come into the kingdom as children, and lay down all our 'adult importance' and all our heavy burdens of life and just ACCEPT grace and love from the hand of God, the simplicity of that, the gratitude that we feel results in a childlike joy. Once again there is no complications, no chasing acceptance, nothing but finding pure joy and rest in the stopping of striving, stopping of stressing, stopping believing that we carry the world on our shoulders.

Hoping that you are experiencing the joy of your salvation today :-)

God bless,
Bec

Guglielmucci, Bentley & Success

It's disappointing to hear that Mike G's cancer story is a hoax. It's hard when something that looks so strong in the church is shown to be weak and sin-tainted. Similar thing happened this week with the revelations about Todd Bentley (although I have to admit no surprise on that one at all). As Christians I think we really love it when things look successful. Healer is a great song that has touched many people. Bentley's ministry looked flashy and successful. But both are now questionable.

First thing to say would be that God is entirely capable (and there is biblical evidence) for God using the ungodly for his purposes. To varying extents we are all sinful and yet God still uses us. So just because these men have been shown to be in sin does not mean that God is not at work through their ministries. I think it is illustrative that while Saul was in sin, God's anointing still rested on him as king of Israel.

Secondly, I would say that there is a problem as Christians when we love things that "look good". I think we want God to break in and establish His kingdom (and vindicate our witness) through big, flashy, undeniable displays of His power and sovereignty. I think the reason we love songs like Healer is that they do provoke deep feeling, and we think that's a sign that God is at work in a big way, and that somehow vindicates our witness. It's like evidence that supports what we've been saying. Same thing with big flashy healings. It vindicates us, brings us a bit back off the ledge, removes some of the risk of faith and witness. But I don't think that big and flashy is the way God necessarily chooses to work all the time. I think Jesus is a great example of this. He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant", he didn't arrive as the big flashy political messiah that Israel was expecting. Instead He came and He washed His disciple's feet.

I think we should be more pleased when we see Christian leaders and the church displaying the CHARACTER of God, rather than necessarily the power of God. The power of God should be exercised in ways that are consistent with His character. I think this links in with the problems with the Church growth movement. It measures church success through numbers and tends to use marketing techniques to get people to church. I have been reflecting recently that much of what the church says to bring people to Christ sounds a lot like secular advertising. Secular advertising sets up false models of salvation. This product is going to make your life better by xyz. You are going to be bigger, better, faster, more beautiful by using product abc. This is very similar to the gospel that we sometimes preach - come to Jesus, find the purpose for your life, be happier, more at peace, God will heal all of your health issues in this life etc etc. But I don't think this is the true gospel. The true gospel is about dying, dying to self, taking up our cross and following Jesus. This is completely counter cultural, and does not look at all like the messages that we get flooded with by the world. I think the church should be functioning in ways that show this dying to self and mortifying the flesh.

The thing is that I think this is goes entirely against our ideas of success. I think our flesh loves it when we can count up church attendance and let that be a measure of what we are doing. When there are lots of people there, or lots of people buying our CD / crying during our song we see that as success, and our flesh loves it. The central point of the bible is the death of Christ--this absolutely looks like failure. The church needs to concentrate more on knowing and following Christ in His death. In the end this is all about God's glory, not the glory (success) of humans. We need to remember that His strength is made perfect in our weakness not our strength (success).

God bless,
Bec

What should we do with Christ's descent & preaching to the dead?

The following is my Christology essay for this semester on the idea of Christ's descent and preaching to the dead:

Introduction
In 1 Peter 3:19-20, 4:6 Peter makes a statement, that is pretty amazing, that Christ went to the dead and preached to the imprisoned spirits. These statements have formed the basis of much speculation in the absence of more exhaustive scriptural evidence. Over the centuries since Peter wrote these words, many theories have developed to account for these verses. The image of the dead Christ descending to hell and leading forth a triumphal procession of saved souls formed the basis of much non-canonical Christian writings and art over the centuries.

This essay will investigate how this tradition developed; with reference to the theological questions that are raised and/or answered by the descensus theory (being the idea that Christ literally descended to hell, and preached the gospel to the spirits of the dead, giving them a post-mortem opportunity for salvation). Further discussion will be had around some of the current theories. The paper will conclude by discussing the Christological and soteriological implications of the descent.

Development of the Descensus View
The story of Christ’s descent to the dead was very common in the early Church. The early church fathers preached the idea continuously from the writing of First Peter for the first few centuries (Connell, 2001:264). Although the only explicit statement of the descent was to be found in 1 Peter, the tradition came to find allusions in many passages in the bible, (Connell, 2001:263).
Oakes cites other scripture in support of the descent; Ps 68:16 “he led captives in his train”; Eph 4:7-9 “in order to fill the whole universe”; Phil 2:9-11 “every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth”; Rom 14:8-9 “that he might be the Lord both of the dead and of the living” (2007:188-9). However, the key scriptural support for the descensus view comes from 1 Pet 3:19 “…he went and preached to the spirits in prison” and 1 Pet 4:6 “…the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead…”

In the first three centuries the term used to describe Christ’s descent was “descensus ad inferos”, which meant "descent to lower places" (Connell, 2001:264). A change in terminology arose out of Rufinus’ work, he adopted the term “descensus ad inferna” which meant “descent to hell”. This lead to a shift both in terminology, but also more importantly in theology[1]. The earlier use of the word inferos showed the extent of God’s grace, that it went beyond human limitations, even the limit of death. “...Rufinus's word inferna, ‘hell,’ would start to change the result of the descent from one of God's presence with the dead to a belief in Christ's reconciliation of sinners” (Connell, 2001:266-7).

Augustine found this view problematic. If God’s grace extends that far, then who would not be saved? Writing to Evodius he sought to dispel the idea that it would open up the possibility of an “empty hell”. He could not conceive that “…the grace of God could be so… prorsus indebitum, ‘completely undeserved’ and universal.” (Connell, 2001:270-1).

In seeking to understand how people before Christ could be saved (Jobes, 2005:241), Origen saw this doctrine as showing that Christ’s victory over death was so powerful and embracing that “nothing was excluded, that Hades itself was transformed into a paradise and that even the demons were saved” (Ryan, 1997:18). Due to the soteriological issues that the idea of God’s grace being so expansive brought up, and how happily universalists took up the descensus, the view began to decline in the Western church in the fourth century (Connell, 2001:270-1).
After this time theologians were careful in their discussion of the descent, but at the same time a number of apocryphal sources latched onto the idea and spoke of it without restraint (McNamara, 1994:n.p.). The Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as the Acts of Pilate) contains a long and involved section describing the experiences of two of the souls that Christ purportedly delivered from Hell. Of particular interest is Acts of Pilate V(XXI):3:

…And as David spake thus unto Hell, the Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succour of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins. (James, 1924:17)

The apocryphal accounts were engaging and stimulating. It is not hard to see how people became enamoured of the literal interpretation of the descent, as the imagery alone is extremely powerful in elaborating the immensity of what Christ has done for humanity. The story of the descent until the fourth century was “…simply part of the narrative of Christ's saving work for humanity and of God's generosity in rescuing the lost” (Connell, 2001:264).

The view began to decline, and whilst it still remained a part of the catechesis, it was no longer unanimously supported. Eventually it virtually disappeared from the Western tradition (Connell, 2001:265). Within the Eastern church however, the idea kept currency. As late as 787 at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, a statement was made that Christ “‘spoiled Hell and delivered the captives who were kept there from all ages’” (Cross, Arendarcikas, Cooke & Leach, 2006:n.p.)

In the writings of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, there is somewhat of a return to the descensus view. He wrote that as the sacraments mediate God’s grace to the living, so the descent mediated God’s grace to the dead. He saw that “Both sacraments and the descent are expressions of God's generosity and love in the present aspects and conditions of human life in community.” (Connell, 2001:273)

Real difficulty for the descensus view arose out of the Reformation. The Reformers challenged theologians to base their theology on the canonical scriptures. Out of this change in emphasis from the authority of tradition to the authority of scripture, the descensus view largely died, for its paucity of scriptural support (Connell, 2001:274). So while the return to Scripture strengthened many other parts of the Christian tradition, the descent was largely lost since there is no evidence for it in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Contemporary Views
The Descensus View in the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church is the primary part of the church that still embraces the descent of Christ. It forms a central part of their Easter liturgy. Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily from the fourth century is still used for Easter services, “He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive!” (Chrysostom, n.d., n.p.) Much orthodox artwork and iconography also reflects on the descent to Hades as its theme.

The Orthodox Church sees the descent played out not only in history but in our lives today. Their emphasis on the descent is a theological one, about what it means for our lives (Ryan, 1997:18). For the Orthodox Church the descent to hell “…is the image of our present age. The Resurrection of Christ is the sign and guarantee of the final victory” (Ryan, 1997:18).

Exegetical Issues in 1 Peter 3:19-20, 4:6
The early church interpreted 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 as teaching a doctrine of Christ’s literal descent to the dead. In contemporary theology these verses are more commonly understood to be symbolic, communicating the extent of the redemption. This however, “involves a more spiritualised hermeneutic that usually practiced by evangelicals” (Erickson, 2000:74).

Putting aside the issue of a spiritualised hermeneutic, there are valid exegetical issues in the text that need resolution if this text is to form the basis of a theology that is nowhere else explicitly stated in scripture!

In Koine Greek there are two verbs that are translated as ‘preach’. In 1 Pet 3:19 the verb used is kēryssō which can also be translated as ‘proclaim’. The term that is more broadly used to speak of preaching the good news is euangelizomai (Jobes, 2005:250). So this means that the preaching/proclamation may not have been for the purpose of bringing the spirits in 1 Pet 3:19 to repentance. Some see the verb here to be a proclamation of victory, where Jesus went and just told the spirits what he had accomplished on the cross, thus pronouncing their condemnation. However, there are instances of kēryssō being used in the context of gospel proclamation, so this is not entirely conclusive.

Another view that is taken on the preaching, is that the spirit of Christ preached to the unrepentant people of Noah’s generation through Noah’s lips (Grudem, 1988:158-9). This view is somewhat problematic, because it does not account for the ‘prison’ reference, and as we will also shortly see, is problematic due to the understanding of the word ‘spirit’.

Just as there are issues with the verb, ‘preach’ there are similar difficulties with those to whom Jesus preached, the ‘spirits’ (1 Pet 3:19). In the Greek, the term used in this verse is pneuma. Usually this word is not used in an unqualified way to refer to the spirits of people, psyche is the usual word for speaking of the spirits of the dead (Jobes, 2005:250-1). It is also worth noting that no where in scripture is the place of the dead (Sheol, Hades, Tartarus) described as ‘prison’ (Jobes, 2005:243).

Another interpretation that has been offered are that these pneumata are fallen angels, or the offspring of the angels who slept with human women before the flood (Jobes, 2005:251). In this context, ‘prison’ is understood to represent “in spatial terms God’s restraining power over [the spirits]” (Jobes, 2005:244).

A further problem exists; many people who support the descensus view connect 1 Pet 3:19 with 1 Pet 4:6. In the English translation the verb “preach” appears, and in both there is a reference to “spirits” or to “the dead” which to English speaking ears sounds connected. As discussed earlier, there are two verbs in Greek for preach, kēryssō and euangelizomai. In 1 Pet 3:19, the verb kēryssō is used, and in 4:6 euangelizomai is used. Thus the link is not as strong as it appears in the English (Jobes, 2005:271-2). To compound this, the words “spirits” (pneumata) 3:19 and “the dead” (nekrois) are not synonymous in Greek (Jobes, 2005:272).

The 1 Enoch Parallel
This leaves us with the question of what to do with these verses! Jobes suggests that a more appropriate interpretation can be made by referring to the tradition of Enoch preaching to the imprisoned spirits from the time of Noah (2005:244). The book of 1 Enoch describes a scenario where after Enoch went to be with God, he was talking to the fallen angels who requested that he intercede with God for them, and the children they had had with human women. Enoch does this, and descends to them again with a response from God, “You will have no peace”.
Jobes argues that Peter uses this story, which is well known amongst his readers from Asia Minor[2], to encourage them of

…the sweeping scope of the efficacy of Christ’s victory in his resurrection and ascension, …that Christ’s resurrection and ascension have dealt with even the primordial evil of fallen angels in uncountable prior centuries of human history, then Christ is victorious over all evil-even the most depraved-for all time (Jobes, 2005:258).

Despite all of this, the major themes of 1 Pet 3:19 and 4:6 remain that of the efficacy of Jesus’ victory. In 1 Pet 3:19 this is over the fallen angels, in 4:6 this is over death itself. It should be understood as “the expression of the universal significance of Jesus’ vicarious death under the curse” (Pannenberg, 2002:306).


Christological Implications
Christological Heresy
Leaving aside the exegetical problems with the 1 Peter passages in sustaining this view of the descensus view, there are some Christological issues that come out. As was identified in the fourth century, it presents an interesting question on the separation of the divine/human in the process of the descent. The question arises, where was Jesus’ soul/spirit during this period? If his body was dead in the tomb, where was “the rest” of him? Added to this the difficulty of “God dying”, it contributed to the view that Jesus’ soul/spirit was divine, and so that it was just his body (the “human part”) that died (Connell, 2001:268).

As Aquinas points out though, “although when Christ died, his soul was separated from his body, neither soul nor body was separated from the person of the Son of God” (quoted in Connell, 2001:273). So this does not present too much of a problem. Just as we maintain that in life Jesus was at once human and divine, so in his death he would remain both human and divine, and the “parts” of his nature would be as any other human’s would in death. “Christ had to remain, with his soul, in Hades for as long as his body lay in the tomb” (von Balthasar, 1990:164).

Soteriological Implications
One of the most captivating implications of the descensus view is the picture it paints of the expansiveness of Christ’s saving work. From our human perspective it can be hard to understand what God does with people who lived before Christ, or have not heard the gospel before they died. After all God says that it is his will that none should perish (2 Pet 3:9). But he also says that if people do not hear the gospel, they cannot believe, and cannot be saved (Rom 10:14). If we take the descensus as giving people a post-mortem opportunity to hear the gospel, it tells us that people can be saved even if they did not live after Christ, and have an opportunity to hear the gospel.

The scripture is clear that no one was declared righteous before God by obeying the Law (Rom 3:20), and that salvation comes through the gospel (Rom 1:16). Yet there were people who lived before Christ that we see in Revelation are with God. The historical problem answered by the descensus was while the Law and the prophets testify to Jesus, did they provide enough of the gospel for salvation? The descensus tells us that yes, Christ did all that was necessary for everyone, in all times and places to be saved.

While we may dismiss the descensus interpretation of 1 Pet 3:19; 4:6 as mythological, as with all myths it teaches us something important. That Christ’s death and resurrection affects “…the whole created world and our stewardship for the earth. …the Easter transformation includes the whole world.” (O’Collins, 2004:12) The Eastern Orthodox icons that depict Adam and Eve being delivered from the dead by Christ shows vividly “…that the resurrection is not only an individual victory for Christ but also the saving event for all the world.” (O’Collins, 2004:12)

Von Balthasar puts it eloquently, “Whereas the Western images of Easter always show the risen Christ alone, the East makes us see the soteriological and social aspect of the redemptive work.” (1990:180) Christ’s descent to the dead places an emphasis on the effects of Easter, it is not limited by time or space, “For through Jesus, life enters into the kingdom of death and overcomes its terrible darkness” (Ryan, 1997: 18).

Incarnational Implications
We speak of the importance of Christ’s incarnation, of the Son of God coming to be one of us. To live as we live, and to redeem us almost by having solidarity with us. It seems though that in a spiritualised understanding of the descent, we lose something of Christ’s solidarity with us, that his shared experience with us, was not only in life but also in death.

It is a scary thing for us to contemplate death. Even in Christian circles, we do not seem to know quite what to do with death. Death is closed to us, and we do not know what awaits us. It is comforting to know that we will go to be with the Lord, but still that leaves the actual process of dying.

However, we need not fear, as in Christ’s descent to the dead he “fill[ed] that realm too with the light of his resurrection into eternal life. With that, the night of death becomes the stillness heralding the dawn of the resurrection” (Moltmann, 2005:154). God is present with the dead in Christ, God is present with us through death. This is the ultimate reassurance. Without the descent, we know that He awaits us “on the other side”, but that leaves us with the journey in between (Connell, 2001:262-3). The descent gives voice to the love of God for the dead, in an expressive metaphor (Connell, 2001:267).

Community Implications
One perhaps odd implication is that the dead are no longer “dead” in the way they were before. If they have been led forth from death in the way described in the descent narrative, then we have community with them as much as with our living Christian brothers and sisters. “In effect, the distance separating the two realms is being shortened and a powerful bond being solidified between the living and the dead” (Stotnicki, 2006:94).

Perhaps this is what the writer of Hebrews was referring to when he spoke of the “cloud of witnesses” (12:1) after speaking at length of the Old Testament saints in Hebrews 11. It might also make some preliminary sense of Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 15:29-30 about being “baptised for the dead”. Although it is an exceedingly uncomfortable idea for many Protestants, maybe this gives some credence to the Catholic practise of asking Saints to pray for us.

Perhaps this is what von Balthasar is getting at when he says, “…that a heavenly shimmer of light, of faith, love, hope, has ever illuminated the ‘abyss’- …[Christ] took, by substitution, that whole experience upon himself” (von Balthasar, 1990:168). If that is so, life and indeed death will never be the same again.

Conclusion
It is difficult to divorce from the descensus view its beautiful theological implications. Due to this, despite the scarcity of direct scriptural support, it is desperately difficult, heartbreaking even, to tear oneself away from its stunning imagery of the “universal offer and scope of salvation” (Jobes, 2005:250). Even if it is a myth, behind it is a truth of breathtaking beauty, that of all the powers of evil being vanquished and yielding to Christ (von Balthasar, 1990:151). Yet these are themes that also come out in the Enoch parallel interpretation. What the descent teaches us, without perhaps giving us a purely historical account, is the truth of the magnitude of Christ’s victory.

Bibliography
Barth, K. (1936). Credo. Aberdeen: Hodder & Stoughton.

Chrysostom, J. (n.d.). ‘Paschal Homily’ in The Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Available Internet: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Homily) (8th May 2008)

Connell, M. F. (2001). Descensus Christi ad Inferos: Christ's descent to the dead. Theological Studies 62:262-282

Cross, L., Arendarcikas, B., Cooke, B. and Leach, J. (2006). 'Anastasis' icon, text, and Theological vision. In Australian EJournal of Theology 7. (http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_7/cross.htm) (8th May 2008)

Erickson, M. J. (2000). Did Jesus Really Descend to Hell? Christianity Today 74

Grudem, W. (1988). 1 Peter: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

James, M.R. (Trans). (1924). The Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate. Available Internet: (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnicodemus.html) (8th May 2008)

McNamara, R. F. (1994). Hell is harrowed, alleluia! America 170(16):16-17

Moltmann, J. (2005). The blessing of hope: The theology of hope and the full gospel of life. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13(2):147-161.

Oakes, E. T. (2007). The Internal Logic of Holy Saturday in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. International Journal of Systematic Theology 9(2):184-199.

O’Collins, G. (2004). The Second Adam: The new Adam brings the blessings of grace and eternal life. America 10-12.

Pannenberg, W. (2002). Jesus – God and Man. London: SCM Press.

Ryan, J. (1997). The Descent into Hell: Abandonment or a victory over death? Commonweal 124(7):17-18.

Stotnicki, A. (2006). God’s prisoners: Penal confinement and the creation of purgatory. Modern Theology 22(1):85-110.

Von Balthasar, H. U. (1990). Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter. Worchester, UK: T&T Clark Ltd.

FOOT NOTES:
[1] It should be noted that there is a distinct difference between the Hebraic view of “Sheol” which is where everyone went after death. There was no understanding of a separate destiny after death for the righteous as opposed to the wicked. This view of Sheol was altered in Christian thinking by later Persian and Hellenistic views on the afterlife (von Balthasar, 1990:161). However it is important to understand that Hebrew thinking on Sheol was more concerned with the condition of the dead rather than their location (von Balthasar, 1990:162-3). This is important as many theologians see Hell as the state of being ‘forsaken by God’ or ‘separated from God’ (Barth, 1936:93-4).
[2] There is archaeological evidence from the Asia Minor area that shows that Peter’s readers would have been aware of the content of the stories about Noah and Enoch. There are coins showing the flood, and there are four extant versions of the flood story indigenous to the Asia Minor area (Jobes, 2005:251).

God of the Second-hand

I have recently been looking into how to sell some stuff of mine that I don't need anymore. This isn't really something I've done before, as I think I've really absorbed the 'throw it away, buy a new one' ethic of our society, which is just materialism gone nuts, and is most certainly a product of the advertising industry. After all, it is more profitable for the various companies if you buy things new, than if you buy second hand.

I've decided this is really rather sad, because the items that I am wanting to sell are not without value. There is an iMate which has hardly been used, and some jewellery, which to replace would cost $1800. However, when I got a quote from a jeweller they advised me that they only pay 10% of market value.

Anyways, this has all lead me to think about how God is really the God of the second-hand. As Christians we come to Him second-hand. The world's owned us for a while, banged us up good and proper, we're worse for wear, and in severe need of a clean up. And yet God looks at us, and instead of saying, "meh, I think I'll just toss it and buy a new one" He has paid the ultimate price for us, through Christ. Not only has He made that investment in us, He is not content to just own us in the state that we come to Him, but He fixes us up and makes us all pretty (by which of course I mean He conforms us to Christ's image).

Another example of getting outside this throw away culture in my life, was that I recently had some repairs done on a blue topaz ring I own. I bought it after reading Liza Bevere's book "Fight Like a Girl". In there she uses blue topaz as an illustration for the refining process that we go through in adversity. Apparently when topaz is dug up out of the ground it is a murky brown colour, its only when it is thrown in the fire that it turns blue and pretty. When I read that it was about a month before my divorce went through and I really really needed to know that God was using that situation in my life to bring about something good. I think I would have died of the pain otherwise. I've worn it ever since as a reminder and a testimony of God's faithfulness.

About six weeks ago one of the claws on it broke off. Now in the past that probably would have been the end of it. It would have gone in the drawer, never to be seen again. But this time, because someone I knew had previously recommended a jeweller who was good at repairs and alterations I thought why not have a crack at this restoration bizo.

I got the ring back yesterday. The repair was about $12. And as well as fixing the broken claw, the jeweller had polished the ring up so much that it looks better than when I first bought it. Life has been / is quite tough at the moment. Lots of good things happening, but unemployment is causing a certain level of stress. Given that historically this ring has symbolised for me God refining me, having it broken and then fixed, and coming out looking better than it started, I found a reassuring reminder of God's faithfulness.

This has been a bit rambling. I guess I really have two points. We have a throw away culture, we even throw away people. God isn't like that. He buys second-hand, and then He is in the continual business of restoration. Not just once, but He maintains His investment and continues to restore us as we get a little bit broken again.

God bless,

Bec

The Glory of God

Next week I have to present a five minute topical sermon in my Public Communications class at college. So I thought I’d practise my content on you first! I will be speaking about “The Glory of God”, and yes I know what you are thinking, that’s a big topic to chew off in five minutes. But ya know, never let it be said that I’m shy of a challenge!!

We use the term “glory of God” a lot in Christian circles. It’s a bit of a holy catch-all that we throw around when we need to feel spiritual. We talk about doing things “for the Glory of God” and if we are of the Pentecostal persuasion then we may talk about “the gllllorrry in the saaanncctuaaary”! Even in the bible the term sometimes seems to be used a bit lightly. For example when Jude is signing off his letter, he includes the following comment, “…to the only God our Saviour be GLORY, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord… Amen” (1:25) which in context just seems to be a holy way of saying “Bye, catch ya later”.

So yes, it’s a bit of an abstract and esoteric term. And we do tend to use it quite lightly. Interestingly, however, in Hebrew the word for glory (kabowd) actually means “HEAVINESS of honour, splendour, dignity” so this is perhaps something we should not take lightly!! I want to take a quick Trinitarian look at the glory of God and then look at how it is relevant to the way we live our lives.

#1 – The Glory of the Father
One of the first revelations of God’s glory recorded in the bible was to Moses in Exodus 33:18-20; 34:5-7:

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
…
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

It is interesting that when Moses requests that God would show him His glory, that what Moses gets in response is primarily a revelation of God’s character. God reveals Himself as merciful, kind, slow to anger, loving, faithful, forgiving and just.

This pattern of a display of God's glory being coupled with a revelation of His character is repeated throughout the bible. For example, in 2 Chron 7 at the dedication of the Temple, the glory manifested, and there was a statement of God's character in the praises of the people, that He is "good and his love endures forever". Similarly, when Isaiah sees the Lord in Isaiah 6, the statement of God's character is in the praises of the angels, who sang, "Holy, holy, holy".

So I think we can say that, the Glory of God is the Revelation of His character.

#2 - Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God's glory
Jesus is of course the ultimate revelation of God's glory. In Jn 1:14 it says, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” And in this verse we see again the coupling of the glory of God with His character -- in this case being full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 1:3 further expands this idea when it says that Christ is, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being”. In this we see that Christ is the pinnacle of God's glory, and that that is by exactly representing God's being, His person, His character. And so in Jesus we see a life that is truly glorifying to God, through being a REVELATION OF GOD'S BEING (CHARACTER).

#3 – Our partnership with the Spirit for God’s Glory
As I promised, this is a bit of a trinitarian look at God's glory, and so having discussed the glory of God in light of the Father and the Son, let's look at the Holy Spirit. In 2 Cor 3 there is an extended section on the glory of the ministry of the Spirit, over that of the Law (verses 7-9; 18):

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
...
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

And so we see that the ministry of the Spirit is glorious because He is transforming us into His image, that is so that God's character (in this case His righteousness) is REVEALED IN US. So that is to say that we are a revelation of God's glory to the degree that we reveal God's character -- and this is done in partnership with and dependence on the Spirit.

So the question is how are we transformed so that we reveal God's character, and bring Him glory? This is picked up in 2 Cor 3:18, it is by contemplating (or in some translations beholding) the glory of the Lord -- through this we are transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory.

So that's pretty cool huh? So now when we talk about doing things "for the Glory of God" we have a firm frame of reference for what we are talking about. What we mean is that we are doing that thing in a way that reveals God's character. I personally think that's pretty exciting. First of all because it's so simple! But also because it seems so worthwhile, what could be more meaningful than glorifying God by being a means by which He reveals His character? How much more pleasant a way to be transformed so that we can do this, than by beholding His glory, His character? And then how gracious is He that He not only calls us to glorify Him, but through His Spirit actually enables us to do it??

So I want to leave you with a few questions:

• What have you learnt about God's character by beholding His glory?
• How can you bring God glory by reflecting those characteristics of His?
• What are some situations where you specifically want to bring glory to God?
• Who are some people to whom you want to show the glory of God?
• What are some areas in your life that do not display the glory of God?
• How can you, by working with the Holy Spirit, display God's character in these situations, to those people, in those areas of your life?

God bless,
Bec

Child Sacrifice

I was reading Psalm 106 this morning. It's a record of God's faithfulness to Israel inspite of their unfaithfulness to Him. There are a couple of verses (37-38) that caught my attention in the middle:

They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.

Child sacrifice is really a low-light of the Old Testament. The nations surrounding Israel and Judah practised it (see for example 2 Kings 3:27 where the King of Moab sacrificed his son), and many of the corrupt Kings of Israel and Judah also practised child sacrifice to various idols (see for example Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21).

I think it is really easy for us to shake our heads and wonder how could they do this to their own children. I think it is really easy for us to think that we are better than they were, that we are a more civilised people and that we would never ever do anything like this.

But I think we have to stop and look at some of our modern practises and look at whether we too practise child sacrifice. The gods we sacrifice to may not have interesting Canaanite names like Baal or Asherah, but I think we do still have gods that we sacrifice our children to. They are called "convenience" or "a woman's right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" etc etc.

Abortion is the most obvious modern day example of child sacrifice within particularly the western world. We have made up excuses for why it's ok, but an unborn child is still just that-- an unborn child. In the first 10-12 weeks after conception, while they still weigh between 4 and 14 grams:

• The child's eyes have developed their colour
• Nearly all their organs have formed and are functioning
• Their fingers and toes have developed
• Their hair and nails have started to grow
• Their genitals are distinctively male/female
• The muscles in their intestinal walls have started to practise the contractions that will allow them to digest food
• Their vocal chords have begun to form
• Their liver starts to function
• The pancreas starts to produce insulin

There is some non-disturbing photos here and some rather disturbing ones here of murdered (aborted) children. Both show how early you can see that they really are human, they are not just "fetuses" or "lumps of tissue".

Abortion is modern day western child sacrifice. But I don't think it stops there. Forms of contraception that are potentially abortive also amount to child sacrifice. Barrier methods that prevent conception are ok, but those that act also in the event of conception to stop the child from implanting in the uterine wall amount to the same as abortion. This means the pill. The normal everyday pill as well as the so-called morning after pill. The normal pill works in two stages, it firstly tries to prevent conception by preventing ovulation. If this fails it uses a secondary method to prevent pregnancy -- and this is where the issue is. The secondary method is to thicken the mucus of the uterine wall so that the child cannot implant. This means that if a child is conceived they die. The morning after pill uses only the second method to prevent pregnancy.

In all of this, I do not mean to point fingers. I have in the past used the pill not knowing, or perhaps not wanting to know, the truth about it. My purpose in discussing this is just to draw attention to behaviours where we might hold one view when it's someone else doing it (i.e. condemning those in the bible who practised child sacrifice) and yet permit the same behaviour under another name, with some more modern reasons (excuses) behind it. I also want to draw attention to the fact that there are also parallels in the motivation. Whenever we do something outside of the will of God, that we think will make our lives better in some way, we are committing idolatry. We are saying that whatever it is that we are doing, will better serve our needs than God. We are placing (in this case) convenience, so-called women's "right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" in the place of Jesus, and sacrificing our children to those gods. When the Israelites practised child sacrifice it was to placate Baal or Asherah, we still sacrifice our children to idols-- the idols just have different names.

Let's return to Psalm 106. In all of this, despite our rebellion and sinfulness, God is still faithful. God still loves us, and there is forgiveness for those who repent. Jesus' death on the cross even deals with this sin of child sacrifice. There is real and total forgiveness, the bible says in Psalm 103:12, "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." This is not about condemnation, this is about renewing our minds, and seeing this from God's perspective. It's only when we do that that we have a chance to change our behaviour and our choices. Truth can be hard, and frankly I had a bit of an argument with God about writing this post because it is heavy and rather uncomfortable. But in Jesus truth comes hand-in-hand with GRACE.

God bless,
Bec

What gives us stability in unstable times?

I'm being prompted at the moment to think about the source of stability in my life. I'm looking down the barrel of unemployment as of Monday, and well it's giving me the willies. Not that I haven't been unemployed before. I have been through the redundancy mill twice. But there is something about the not knowing whether I will be unemployed for a week or for months that is very difficult to get my head around. There are so many implications if I don't find work quickly. And part of the difficulty is that I am only looking for part-time contract work in IT, which isn't common. I have been very blessed to have had that kind of role for the last two years, which has enabled me to study part-time at Bible College.

But in amongst my angst I've been thinking about what can be relied on when life is uncertain. I read a verse the other day that has stuck in my head since. "...we know and rely on the love God has for us..." 1 Jn 4:16. The context of the verse is in dealing with our eternal salvation and that our salvation is reliant on the love God has for us, but it is giving me some peace in amongst my angst. Whatever happens I know and can rely on the love God has for me. Not to mention Romans 8:28 :-).

God bless,
Bec

Thoughts from Bloesch - Hope

“A truly just society is dependent not on experiments in social engineering, not on the cultivation of a global consciousness, not on an amalgamation of the world religions, but on a universal acknowledgement of the reality of the holy and living God of the Scriptures and acceptance of the message that he has acted decisively and irrevocably for the salvation of the human race through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The hope of humanity rests on the kingdom of God, which is now at work in our midst, and on its consummation through the coming of Jesus Christ in power and glory when his universal lordship will be revealed for all to see and the fruits of his redemption will be assured to all who repent and believe.”
Bloesch, p249.

On praying outloud

I found an interesting post on another blog about praying outloud and about prayer being a verbal thingy. It is a good read!

I've been trying out contemplative prayer a bit recently, and frankly it feels weird, so this post was really interesting. I've also been reflecting recently on my Christology. I've realised that I find it easier to "connect with God" (by which I mean have some nice spiritual feelings whilst praying / singing etc) when I have my eyes closed, because I have a sense of concentrating on Jesus more when I do that. But in considering the truly man, truly God nature of Christ recently I think I have been concentrating on Him in His divine, "spirit" form, and forgetting that Jesus is still a man, albeit a resurrected man.

I've been feeling challenged in worship particularly to keep my eyes open and to recognise that God is as much present when I have my eyes open as when they are closed. That might sound weird, but I think I've been seperating the spiritual and the material a bit much, because closing my eyes to block out sensory material information whilst worshipping is to say that the material world is not spiritual! Dang that Greek/gnostic philosophy/heresy creeping into my thinking!! It's almost by closing my eyes I'm creating a 'more spiritual world' under my eyelids where I can retreat from the 'real world' to.

This idea of praying outloud that is suggested in the other post I'm finding interesting as another layer on my spiritual/material question. If I pray silently, it seems more 'spiritual' whereas to pray outloud perhaps more material. But what I'm thinking is if I pray outloud it is acknowledging that the material is spiritual, and it is also a recognition of Christ's humanity. If He was ONLY human I would talk to Him outloud, so why because He is also divine do I retreat into silent prayer unless I'm in a public setting?

God bless,
Bec

Staying Together after Adultery

There's a good article on staying together after adultery in The Age today:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationships/infidelity-forgive-and-forget/2008/03/26/1206207199531.html

It's great to see this in a secular forum! So often the secular response is something along the lines of "kick 'em to the curb".

Biblically the following is relevant:

• Jesus said divorce in the case of adultery is acceptable, but does not say it is mandatory (Mt 5:31-32, 19:8-9; Mk 10:5-9).
• Jesus said divorce was instituted because of the "hardness of people's hearts" (Mk 10:5) but this was never God's intention.
• God hates divorce (Mal 2:16)
• We have all sinned. As Christians God has forgiven us our unpayable debt, we should not be "unmerciful servants" who after being forgiven our unpayable debt, do not forgive others their smaller debt to us (Mt 18:21-35)
• We should forgive as the Lord forgave us (Col 3:13)
• If a non-believer wants to divorce a believer, the believer is not under any obligation (1 Cor 7:12-16)

I think a good rule of thumb is this, a marriage isn't over until God says so. There are clear scriptural guide lines that should cover the majority of cases (1 Cor 7 is good on this topic). Beyond that I think a good application of "...what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mk 10:9) is to say that UNTIL God says to let go, hang on. If God joins together, only He has the right and the ability to seperate.

My understanding is that there may come a time when God says to let go. Only He knows the full outcome before it happens. Only He knows whether your spouse will repent or not. Only He knows the good that you may do in the meantime by hanging on and fighting (e.g. 1 Cor 7:16). But until such a time as He says to let go (and says so a few times, and this sits comfortably with a few wise counsellors) we should proceed from the conviction that God's ideal is the restoration of the marriage and we should work towards that end.

We do not lose anything by "putting all your eggs in God's basket" and trusting Him for marital reconciliation in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, even when it is excruiatingly painful. He is faithful and works "all things together for good for those who love Him" (Rm 8:28), whether that means persevering in loving and honouring our spouse in a broken marriage or whether it means being divorced. God is more than capable of healing whatever pain is sustained under either circumstance. We can absolutely trust Him to care for us and carry us through such times of trial when we are being obedient to His will.

God bless,
Bec

And can it be...

I love Charles Wesley's hymn "And can it be" from 1825, something that as a mid-20s chick I may be fairly alone in, but nevertheless it moves me!

What follows is my attempt to restate the lyrics in a way that young people might more readily identify with. Musically I don't think they'd work though!!!

Is it really true that I should be richer
Because of the blood of Jesus?
He died FOR ME, even though I've caused Him so much pain
FOR ME, even though all my sins dragged Him to the grave
Whoa! Such AMAZING love! How can it be true??
That you, the one and only God, died for me????

Whoa! Such AMAZING love! How can it be true??
That you, the one and only God, died for me????
Whoa! Such AMAZING love! How can it be true??
That you, the one and only God, died for me????

He left His throne in heaven
He left freely because His grace is so huge!
He let go of everything except love,
And poured out His blood for our helpless race
It's all out of mercy, so gigantic, so free
And that mercy, that AMAZING, AMAZING mercy found me!

I lived a long time with my spirit in chains
Bound up in sin and darkness
Light from your eyes brought me back to life
I woke up, my prison cell was flooded with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
So I left my prison and I followed you

I don't fear condemnation anymore
Jesus and all His followers are my family
I live a new life in Jesus, He's my head
I'm clothed in His divine righteousness
I approach God's throne with boldness
And claim the victor's crown because of Christ

I really love this hymn, it's so pertinent too, at this time of Easter.

God bless,
Bec

In the world but not of the world...

As Christians we are called to live out our lives in the midst of a culture that is predominantly antagonistic towards our beliefs. Often this antagonism is hidden and implicit rather than in your face, but however it manifests itself, the worldly culture is not the culture of the Kingdom of God. The most difficult part of this is that although we know that we are not supposed to live as the world lives, there is so much in the worldly culture that appeals to our sinful nature. So we are at war, not only against the outward influence of the world, but our own flesh's desire to be part of that world and partake of a myriad of sinful behaviours.

There is good sense in restricting ourselves from partaking in those external things that most appeal to our sinful nature to lead us into sin. For instance, if we have an abusive relationship with alcohol, then it is wise to not go to bars and lovingly hold glasses of scotch in our hands. Proverbs 5 talks about this in the context of adultery, "Keep to a path far from [the adulteress], do not go near the door of her house" (v8). Verses 3-4 are also instructive, "For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword." The things that are most dangerous to us are those that have the appearance of being good. Within this context it would further be an appropriate application to say that Christian people should avoid getting too close to non-Christian members of the opposite sex EVEN IF (and perhaps especially if) they think it is an opportunity to share the gospel. So many people's lives are shipwrecked on that doozy of a lie. They draw close to someone, emotionally invest, thinking they are just "loving as a brother/sister for Jesus' sake", and then end up in sin and walking away from God.

But we can take seperation from the world too far... There is a fascinating story in today's Age about a reclusive Jewish community in Melbourne, they go far far beyond the requirements of the Torah. In their zeal to maintain holiness they go so far as to segregate boys and girls from the age of 8. They do not use their wife's first name in public, only around their own children. They do not use the first name of other women to whom they are not married, to do so they see as the beginning of an illicit relationship. When the children are 16 they are sent overseas to seminary until they marry, at which point they are informed about sex and are then allowed to pursue secular university education and work. Men look at the ground as they walk, for fear of looking at a woman. Women dress conservatively, cover their hair (or shave it off once they are married, and wear wigs/scarves). They believe that, "if we want our children to uphold our religion the way we believe it, to the dot of the law, dress code etc, the only way is to isolate children from all outside influences".

This is so sadly mistaken, because the other side of this story is that the reason this group made the paper today, is that one of the female teachers in their segregated school has been accused of sexually abusing some of the girls. Now I know the atheist jihadists will see this as a vindication of their view that "fundamentalist" religion is the cause of all suffering. However, the truth is simply this, unfortunately, when we try to remove ourselves from influences that we think will corrupt us, we forget that sin comes with us into our segregated communities, because we have sinful natures! In the world or out of it, as long as people are there, before Christ returns, there will ALWAYS be sin issues.

OK, so having said that I still think there is a good argument for Christian schools, and other methods of living "not of the world". Particularly with children, it is scary how impressionable they are, and I think it doesn't matter which school you send them to all children will be indoctrinated. Every school will have a prevailing philosophy and agenda which it is trying to push. Recent comments from the federal Education Minister's advisor suggested that they saw Christian schools as subversive to the cohesion of society because Christian schools would not promote the secular "doctrines" of abortion, free sex and evolution that were necessary for the smooth operation of society. I think if I have the choice between my children being indoctrinated with the doctrines of abortion, free sex and evolution compared to grace, love, forgiveness, service, love, love, (did I mention love?) I'd choose the later everytime. I do not want my children growing up believing that sexual immorality is normal and appropriate. It isn't. It's enslaving (and I say that out of painful experience not just 'high ideals') and sinful, whether or not our society realises it.

For this same reason I am careful about what television I watch, because I am conscious of how much of an impact secular media has made on the way I think. Many of the strongholds and deceptive philosophies that I have fought against, and still fight against were formed in me through watching popular media. Based on the Romans 12:1-2 principle, "You are what you eat" (The Bec Paraphrase), I choose to abstain from junk food (worldly media) and eat healthy (bible, christian books/blogs, bible, bible, bible etc). I particularly don't watch things that promote/depict violence or sexual immorality. (For this reason, I am in NO hurry to watch Underbelly! ;-)) I also don't listen to secular music if I can avoid it, since so much of the content falls into the following categories, (a) idolatry of love; (b) idolatry of sex; (c) disrespect of women, authority etc. I am quite capable of coming up with enough sinful and rebellious thoughts on my own, I don't need any help with that!

In all honesty, I can see a point where this might make evangelism difficult. In not engaging the culture I live in, perhaps this makes relating to non-Christians more difficult. However, this hasn't been my experience to date. The times I clash most with non-Christians ideologically is over issues of trusting God versus doing things in my human strength, my relationship with money particularly has come up a number of times in this context. After all why does one need to worry and grasp after riches when we have a Father who graciously provides all that we need? I can't remember the last time I lost a conversation over whether or not I had seen such and such on telly, or whether or not I liked a certain song. In all honesty I've probably always been a bit different from "everyone else" anyway, I guess being different and seperate because of my Christianity mightn't feel that weird because I've always been an outsider. So if I'm going to be a weirdo, why not be a weirdo for Christ?

God bless,
Bec

Christ preached to the dead

This semester I'm doing two subjects - Christology and Public Communications. Happily most of the assessment is presentations and reading summaries, I only have to write one essay and that's not due for another forteen weeks! SOOOO I have decided to take full advantage of the opportunity by picking the trickiest essay topic off the list, something that I'll actually have to think about, something I can get my teeth into!!

Consequently, I've picked the topic about Christ's descent to the dead. I've started reading and MAN is a literal interpretation of this AWESOME. There's this odd bit in 1 Peter 3, verses 18-21:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Preaching to the dead??? Weird! So far what I have read suggests the following:

• That Christ's descent to the dead is comforting, because this is part of the human experience, and so there is nothing and no where where Christ hasn't been "one of us" - so upholds incarnational theology as He did the whole lot, conception, birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and death; so He shared in the common experience of life. Of course after all this came the resurrection, which we will all share in when His kingdom comes.

• That Christ's entering into death is life entering into death. Death is utterly conquerered because the Lifegiver has entered into it.

• That God's grace is bigger than we can imagine. We think that He can't save those who were dead, but even death cannot stop God's grace.

• It upholds Christ as the ONLY way to salvation, by giving those born before Christ the same opportunity to believe/not believe, rather than allowing that some could be saved by following the law. Eschatologically I don't think this presents many problems, presumably as long as the souls in question made their response to Christ before being resurrected and judged at the end then it would "still count"? I also do not think that this means that all the souls preached to WERE saved. If you like Arminian thinking then not all of them would necessarily have believed what they heard, why would deception necessarily end at death? It says these souls were "in prison" not that they were in the presence of God. If you like Calvinist thinking then there is no guarantee that God had predestined all of them. Further if you are a Calvinist then it shouldn't bother you so much that they were dead when they were saved -- how and when God saves is up to Him.

I got really really excited when I was reading about this the other day. It is so disappointing that this idea of Christ's descent and preaching to the dead has not been understood literally. Generally I really believe that there is NO way that we can add anything to the idea of God's grace (other than by going universalist - but then universalism isn't grace it's unjust permissiveness) the human inclination would always be to try and limit grace or make it dependent on works to make it fit the way we see life. So although I haven't finished reading or forming my thoughts on this, I would say that it probably be better to err on the side of believing that God is a loving and compassionate God who loves everyone! Those who have died as much as those who are living (and given His position sitting outside of time in eternity, wouldn't we all appear to be alive at the same time, and dead at the same time?) and wants just as much to save them as He does us?

I am also wondering whether there is a relationship between the above passage from 1 Pt 3 and the following from Mt 27:51-53:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Another weird passage. Although the timing implied in the verse is a bit weird... Did those who were raised, raise when the curtain in the temple was torn in two? And then hang around at the cemetery (or first century equivalent) until the Sunday morning, when they then went into Jerusalem? Or did they raise when Jesus rose? If so were they the souls of the dead that Jesus preached to when he descended to the dead?

This is a bit of a mess, clearly I have lots left to investigate!! But already I'm loving this new angle I'm seeing on God's grace. I find it SO easy to underestimate His grace - it's just seems too amazingly good to be true! The more I come to know Him, the MORE gracious, MORE loving I see that He is.

Jesus is amazing! :-)

God bless,
Bec

What is beauty for you?

Nivea is doing a thing on their website where they ask people to upload photos and make a comment about what they think beauty is.

This seemed like a good opportunity to talk about Jesus in a secular forum. Frankly I'm not overly optimistic that they'll actually use it, but this is what I submitted (with the pic to the right):


Beauty is a signpost
Beauty is a homing beacon that calls us home to where all the beauty came from -- the person of Jesus Christ. We are each made in the image of God, as such the beauty of each person reflects the beauty of God.

LATE BREAKING UPDATE (10 Mar): They did use it -> http://www.nivea.com.au/beauty_is/show/14599

God bless,
Bec

Reading the Bible in Context

This is very amusing, and makes its point very well! It's a wonder to me that he could keep a straight face! :-)

God bless,
Bec

The Christological Question

This week marks my return to classes, and it has already prompted some thinking! Most particularly last night when I waded my way through a most difficult bit of reading by a guy called Ogden, who really really needs to learn how to write in a way that doesn't make his reader feel like their head is being encased in fast-drying concrete... Anyways! Concrete notwithstanding he made some interesting claims.

The Christological question is normally expressed as "Who is Jesus?". Ogden showed that because Jesus is the revelation of God that the primary question is really "Who is God?". But he went on to say that this is important because it answers the existential question, "Why am I here?" (etc). So the question of who Jesus/God is, is really one of "What does God mean for
me?"

In one section he claimed that the "I am" statements in John should actually be translated "it is I". And that as such those statements are answering a different question to "Who is Jesus?". Rather the question is "Who is the bread of life?", the answer being "It is Jesus". His argument was that "who/what is the bread of life?", "who/what is the light of the world?" etc are the existential questions of life, it is how we confront "the meaning of life". As such he argued that the Christological question is not only "Who is Jesus?" and "Who is God?", but also "Who am I?".

I think this presents some opportunities and some problems. Firstly, the opportunities... Non-christians typically aren't asking the question "Who is Jesus?" they are typically asking "Why is there so much suffering?", "what will make me happy?", "why am I never satisfied?" etc. So if you take the "I am / It is I" statements in John they could be very useful evangelistically. If we convert the "I ams" into questions of "Who is the bread of life?" answer being "Jesus", then it might provide a handy list of typical questions (although metaphorical) that people are asking, for which we will readily recognise the answer as JESUS!

Where this worries me is that it removes focus from Christ and puts it on us, and makes who He is only worthy of contemplation because of how it will work out in my life. Now realistically none of us are entirely altruistic, none of us are completely disinterested in our pursuit of God, honestly none of us can give Him anything that wasn't already His by rights anyway, however! However, this seems to me to have come out of a post-Descartes way of thinking. Prior to Descartes life was reasoned from the perspective of the unchanging and permanentness of God. Descartes shifted thinking so that his starting point was himself, he reasoned that he existed because he thought, his famous line, cogito ergo sum "I think, therefore I am".

He then went on to reason that because a finite mind could not conceive on its own of the infinite that the fact we have the idea of an infinite God means that such a being must exist and have planted the idea in our minds. However, in Exodus 3:14 when Moses asks who he should say sent him, God's answer is "I am who I am". Descartian thinking flies directly in the face of this statement, only God's existence can be extrapolated from for He is the only one who is completely sufficient, and self-existant, whereas we are here today, gone tomorrow.

The danger in extrapolating from us up to God is that we end up making God in our own image. We see this happen all the time. God is revealed as 'Father' but because some people's experience of their natural fathers is negative they have difficulty in relating to God as Father. We project onto God the limitations and hurts and disappointments of our life and let that form our view of Him. This leads us to believe lies about God as our view of Him is formed out of lies we believe about ourselves.

Whereas if we start with how God has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, and through the scriptures, we can then more accurately extrapolate from who He is BACK to who we are. In which case, the Johannine "I am" statements are more useful in the "I am" form than the "It is I" form. Given that we were never meant to live without Christ, we should never have had to ask the existential question "What is the way, the truth, the life?". The "I am" statements are the truth that always was, we just did not see it as our minds were clouded, I think Jesus was just reminding us.

Another example of this is in the case of suffering. We are prone to ask, "Why is God letting me suffer? What have I done?" And we assume that He must be angry or not love us, and therefore feel less prone to draw close to Him. However, if we start from the revelation of who He is in scripture, and are secure in His love as revealed through the person of Christ, it casts a completely different shadow on the issue of suffering. Who He is, is more definitive than what we experience. Because we know He loves us with an everlasting love we can rest peacefully, amid the suffering, that He will "work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose" (Ro 8:28), even when we do not understand how.

I think who God is, is the primary question, because its answer will cause the rearrangement of all else. It is who God is that drives everything, not the existential questions. Focussing on the existential questions is getting the cart before the horse. You can't answer them without knowing the answer to the question, "Who is Jesus?". I think "Who is Jesus?" IS the existential question of life.

Maybe I'm saying the same thing as Ogden... I just think the emphasis needs to be on God and His revelation as the starting point, not our existential questions. I fear that if we start with the existential questions we end up with the answer "42". I think in finding out who Jesus is we inevitably find out who we truly are, but I think it is a happy consequence not the point, because He deserves to be known and glorified even if benefits us nothing :-)

God bless,
Bec

My Theological Worldview

I love those quiz thingys you can take on the net... Such a wonderful diversion from productivity ;) Found this one mentioned on another blog, and the results are interesting!!

What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 82% Reformed Evangelical 75% Neo orthodox 68% Emergent/Postmodern 64% Fundamentalist 57% Classical Liberal 39% Roman Catholic 32% Charismatic/Pentecostal 32% Modern Liberal 25%

God bless,
Bec

Holy Music

A lot is said of different styles of music in church and a lot of judgements are made about what is more appropriate "worship" based on the style of music. In more contemporary churches "good worship" is defined as music that stirs us and where we had a jolly good bounce and felt good. In more traditional churches "good worship" is defined more in terms of the sung liturgy, or beautiful hymns that have been sung "by the saints" for hundreds of years.

I recently read How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt. He discussed at one point the impact Christianity had made on music, and applauded the Christian music that conformed to the classic forms, whilst making an argument that since Jazz and Rock and Roll there has been a decline in the "holiness" of music, due to its discordant and rebellious themes. (I don't have the book around anymore so if I'm doing an injustice to his point, my apologies).

I personally wonder how we can make an objective assessment of whether a certain piece of music is "holy" or not. This needs to go beyond our subjective experience of it, to what musically and lyrically is pleasing / unpleasing to God. Does God have a sense of aesthetics? Does He enjoy one form of music more than another based on its "beauty"? If you divorce the lyrics from music, are there styles of music that are more honouring to God than others?

I think this is all rather difficult to answer. God hasn't revealed through His word a preference for a certain style of music. I haven't found anywhere it says, "Thus saith the Lord, I hateth Rock n' Roll, giveth me only thy praise by way of the pipe organ", and neither has He said, "Thus saith the Lord, I am bored of choral music, please someone plays drums in mine sanctuary". And if we stuck to what is literally said in the bible then musicians would be "dressed in fine linen and play cymbals, harps and lyres" (2 Chron 5:12)

I would definitely say that God has a sense of aesthetics, or else where did we get a sense of aesthetics from?? Where does our appreciation of beauty come from otherwise? C. S. Lewis wrote "The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing...to find the place where all the beauty came from". There is something about beauty that inherently draws us towards God, as it reveals God.

There is amazing diversity in creation, and all of it He said was "good". That would include a stormy winters day as much as a beautiful spring afternoon. (And yet that winter's day is dark, broody and chaotic, as is a lot of modern music.) I think God would appreciate a peach as much as He does a pear, and likewise from a musical perspective I think there isn't that much difference in essence between madrigals and the latest hillsong jumpy song. Given that God is a creative God and that we are made in His image, isn't creating music, of any genre in some way honouring Him, particularly when the music is written or played for the glory of God? This goes to the "spirit and truth" question, what is the motivation for the music?

One difficulty in determining the "holiness" of a piece of music is really that without the lyrics, a piece of music does not communicate clearly its subject matter. It communicates and ellicts feelings, and in time you can come to associate certain strains in the music with certain subjects, but it isn't clear without lyrics who or what is being played about. This is of concern in the respect that a piece of music maybe joyful, but is it communicating and elliciting joy about God or about something else? Charles Spurgeon wrote, "When I have heard of large congregations gathered together by the music of a fine choir, I have remembered that the same thing is done at the opera house and the music-hall, and I have felt no joy. When we have heard of crowds enchanted by the sublime music of the pealing organ, I have seen in the fact rather a glorification of St. Cecilia than of Jesus Christ. Our Lord trusted in no measure or degree to the charms of music for the establishing his throne. He has not given to his disciples the slightest intimation that they are to employ the attractions of the concert room to promote the kingdom of heaven." So Spurgeon wouldn't be a big fan of Planetshakers. Are the people there worshipping God or are they simply enjoying the music? Or both?

I think a good line would be to try an ensure that any music is not distracting. I often find with the louder styles of music that my attention is distracted away from God, whereas the softer music (or silence!!) is less distracting. In which case this isn't just a question of aesthetics as such, one can enjoy many styles of music, and yet find one style more distracting than another, when the aim is not the enjoyment of music but glorification of God.

I think lyrics are the clearest way I think we can assess a piece of music as to whether it is glorifying to God. Obviously if the words are blasphemous, irreverent or promoting a non-biblical world view then there's a problem. I also think there is an issue when too much is made of "me" in the words, rather than focussing on Christ. And this is probably where a lot of modern Christian music is problematic, "I love you Lord", "I give my life", "I come to you", "I called, you answered". I, I, I, me, me, me. Rather, He first loved us, he gave His life for us, He came to us, He called us, etc. And how about, "You are everything to me". Well, is that before or after we swear at our neighbour for cutting us off in traffic? Before or after we prioritise sleep over spending time with Him in prayer? How honestly can any of us ever say that He is EVERYTHING to us? Our faithfulness to God is quite pitiful, rather it is His faithfulness to us that is worthy of song.

God bless,
Bec

Science has discovered forgiveness

There is an interesting article today in the Sydney Morning Herald entitle More than divine: science discovers that there is power in forgiveness. It is interesting on a number of counts...

Let's start with the title "More than divine: science discovers..." This portrays the writer's conviction that somehow science is more real/reliable than theology. It is as if they were saying, "well you may have irrationally thought that forgiveness was a good thing, but now we KNOW rationally because science has proved it". Because apparently all theologically based ideas come from an irrational leap of faith, and so are spurious, whereas science is the only way to find truth in a world that doesn't believe in absolute truth. How many more theological ideas does science have to prove before the bright sparks figure out that theology is just as rational a way of understanding life, the universe and everything as science? (Francis Shaeffer's book Escape from Reason on this topic is a fantastic read btw).

OK, having said that, it is interesting that the study has shown that forgiveness is actually more beneficial for the 'victim' rather than the 'perpetrator'. I think the key section in this article is where it says, "Now, forgive the offender. Don't just shed the bitterness and drop the recrimination, but empathise with his plight, wish him well and move on - whether he is sorry or not." This directly mirrors the New Testament instructions that we should "pray for those who persecute you" (Mt 5:44), "love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back..." (Lk 6:35), "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." (Rm 12:14).

Now who would have guessed that if God asks us to do something that it would actually work out for OUR good?? LOL.

So there are two ways of dealing with hurt. The world's way (before science discovered forgiveness and saved us all from ourselves LOL) was to hold on to it, use it as an excuse to act out in anger towards others, and build a wall around the heart so "no one can ever hurt me like that again". The result is that we shrivel. We become less able to have meaningful relationships, because we function on this "safe" level where no one can hurt us because no one can get close enough. We become less willing to engage with life and ride out it's good and bad days, instead withdrawing within a safe emotional shell. We also tend to lash out at others if they behave in a way that reminds us of the last time we were hurt. "This is just like that time when..." and so we hold on to a serious of things that happened in our lives, and often draw out of them a lesson about who we are and what our value is, "if you were worth anything this wouldn't keep happening", "nobody loves you", "you are worthless".

My own experience in this is that over my lifetime I have developed a bit of an abandonment/rejection complex. When I was little some people I really loved moved overseas / interstate, and I couldn't understand why they would do that if they loved me. Then when my little sister was born I felt rejected, now that my parents had her, they wouldn't need/love me. Also had bad experiences at school with being rejected/betrayed by people. Then a couple of years ago I went through a nasty divorce. I don't want to get into details, I was at fault as much as my ex-husband was, so I don't want to labour the example as if he was 'the bad guy' and I the 'innocent party'. Neither of us lived up to our vows. Sadly, the marriage for both of us I think provided more of a sense of rejection than of love. It was very lonely, and deeply, deeply hurtful. I am deeply sorry for what happened, for the ways I failed to honour him and the hurt that I inflicted on him.

When the divorce finally went through I thought I would die because of the pain. I could not conceive of the possibility that the immense ocean of pain and grief would ever, ever end. I hated him as much as I loved him. What I found was this, that whole "bless those who persecute you" thing works. As I began to pray that God would bless him, more and more the pain went away, more and more I felt safe and that I didn't need to barricade myself inside an emotional shell. More and more I became grateful that if all of that had to have had happened that at least I had come to know God in the process, and I had learnt from walking with Him through suffering just how much His heart breaks for us, and also that my faith was not based on what God could do for me, but that knowing Him was consolation enough. I still regularly pray for God to bless him. It's funny but I see it now as an honour to be able to do that, given that it does me no good at all! It gives me a great sense of peace and joy.

I think an important thing to realise with forgiveness is that it requires first that you acknowledge that something wrong has been done to you. You can't forgive something that you rationalise away, and when you start building the walls you internalise the experience and make it part of who you are, and so it doesn't seem wrong, because "people just don't like me" so it was natural for that thing to have happened. To forgive I think you have to look at yourself squarely in the mirror and realise that you have worth and value and that what was done was wrong. It's only at that point that you can forgive it. If you don't think it was wrong, no matter how hurt you feel, you won't think you need to forgive it. This is particularly difficult when you weren't entirely innocent yourself, because there's a sense that "I deserved that". This comes out of spurious thinking that says "two wrongs make a right". What you did was wrong, but that doesn't make what they did less wrong. In this case, you probably need to forgive yourself as well as them.

God bless,
Bec