As we get ever-closer to the birth of my son Wesley, I've been doing a lot of thinking about what I remember from my own childhood, and how I can give the same things to Wesley as he grows up. Because I owe so much to my parents...there's just so much I remember from my life growing up, so many things I treasure...
My mom's chocolate cake and puppy chow, and how she would make both of those when I had my friends over for Halo and Smash Bros...
My dad's love of gardening and working with his hands, and how he instilled that in me...
Even the chores that I did...much as I hated them at the time, I fully recognize how important they were in giving me a good attitude towards work.
And of course, they both instilled an incredible love of reading in me. And most importantly, they taught me to talk to God, to think through things and make my faith my own, to ask questions and seek answers.
I remember sitting in my mom's office, reading bits of books that I thought were hilarious (although I'm sure they were less hilarious to her). I remember my dad's slushes, and playing roller-blade ball tag at the local school. I remember hearing them cheer for me when I wrestled and played football, and how everyone on the team knew who they were because they were so involved.
I remember family trips, and epic sandcastles, and big birthdays and even bigger family-wide Christmas and Easter celebrations. And I remember "scenic routes" that turned a 2-hour drive into a 4-hour drive, and even an ill-fated hike taking us halfway around Shaver Lake (I didn't say they were all good ideas).
I owe so much to my parents, and there are so many things that I treasure from my time growing up with them. And honestly, it's pretty intimidating.
How can I possibly offer that much to my son (and the other children sure to follow)? Is it really conceivable that I can be that present for all the things going on in my son's life, that I can create that many memories with him?
Thankfully, by the grace of God, i think the answer is "yes". Of course, that doesn't fix the worry, the nervousness. But it gives me hope, and it makes me wonder...what will Wesley treasure as he grows up?
I don't know, but I'm excited to find out.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Does God Have Two Wills?
"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" - Ezekiel 18:23
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9
"[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 1 Timothy 2:4
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" - Matthew 23:37-38
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live." Deuteronomy 30:19
Does God have "two wills" concerning humanity? Well, yes and no.
Yes, God can be said to have "two wills" in a very limited, easy-to-understand sense: His "antecedent" and "consequent" wills. The easiest way of understanding that is this:
A parent desires never to hurt their child. In a perfect world, their child would never be injured. However, because sickness is a thing, it is sometimes necessary for a parent to cause pain to their children in the form of a shot.
Right there, in that one example, we have antecedent and consequent wills. They may conflict with each other at times, but it is as a result of something outside the one willing. Another more extreme example would be the case of someone whose arm is broken and needs to be re-set: The doctor desires to to heal the person and take away the pain, but in this case, a further injury must be done, and the bone must be re-broken in order to fully heal.
And in the case of God, that thing influencing the world from outside God is sin. Sin was NOT decreed or caused by God, and while God remains in control over it, it is something against God's will in every sense of the word. And as a consequence of sin, God's antecedent will does not always come to pass. God desires all men to be saved, but because of sin and their free will decisions, not all men are saved. Jesus desires to protect Jerusalem and his chosen people, but they were not willing. God desires for people to choose life, but they often choose death instead. He desires our salvation and love, but more than that, he desires for us to be a willing participant in that (much in the same way that when I ask my little brothers for a hug, I'm asking for a willing expression of love: If I were to force them to hug me, it would be literally meaningless).
Now, let's tweak the example a bit. In the previous example of a doctor and a broken bone, the doctor had nothing to do with the arm being broken in the first place. That is why the distinction between antecedent and consequent wills works. But let's change that: let's say that he did ultimately cause the arm being broken in the first place. Let's say that through a series of manipulations and behind-the-scenes machinations, the doctor was the mastermind behind the person breaking his arm originally.
In that case, does the distinction still hold? Of course not. The doctor cannot claim to desire the health and comfort of his patients in re-setting the bone, because he was the one who caused the need for that re-setting in the first place!
And that's where we enter the "No" part of whether God has two wills. Because while the occasional Calvinist (either through carelessness or intentional deception) will talk about antecedent vs consequent will, most of the time they talk about it differently: They talk about God's "moral and decretive" wills, or more tellingly, his "revealed and hidden" wills.
So what's the difference? Well, God's "moral" or "revealed" will is what we read in the Bible. God desires all men to be saved. God desires us not to sin. God desires for us to choose life instead of death, blessing instead of curse. And it's called the "revealed" will because...well, because it's revealed in the Bible. God reveals this will to us, and reveals the way in which he wishes us to live.
Strangely, though, this "revealed" will isn't really much of a will at all, because it is completely and utterly trumped by God's "secret" or "decretive" will. It's called God's "decretive" will because rather than what God says he wants us to do, this is what he actually decrees that we do. Remember that classic Calvinism - the Calvinism espoused by big names from John Calvin to John Piper - teaches meticulous providence, meaning that everything that happens has been decreed by God. And it's called his "secret" will because it's secret...it's not revealed anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, God tells us that he desires all men to be saved through his revealed will, but secretly causes the vast majority to be damned via his decretive/secret will.
Essentially, this means that God urges the reprobate towards life with his left hand, while actively pushing them away from life with his right.
That's why the Calvinist cannot claim the antecedent and consequent distinction: Because in the face of meticulous providence, that distinction does not exist. God cannot claim "sin" as something impacting his desire to save everyone, because God desired and caused sin to come about in the first place.
So...two wills. In one sense - the sense that EVERYONE has two wills - God does have "two wills": The "perfect world" will and the "because of sin" will. But in the more important sense - that of God contradicting his declared, revealed will at practically every turn - it is sheer lunacy to believe that God has two wills. It is nothing less than to sacrifice the whole of God's revealed will, making it practically meaningless and utterly powerless, for the sake of a "hidden will" of which we know little.
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9
"[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 1 Timothy 2:4
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" - Matthew 23:37-38
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live." Deuteronomy 30:19
Does God have "two wills" concerning humanity? Well, yes and no.
Yes, God can be said to have "two wills" in a very limited, easy-to-understand sense: His "antecedent" and "consequent" wills. The easiest way of understanding that is this:
A parent desires never to hurt their child. In a perfect world, their child would never be injured. However, because sickness is a thing, it is sometimes necessary for a parent to cause pain to their children in the form of a shot.
Right there, in that one example, we have antecedent and consequent wills. They may conflict with each other at times, but it is as a result of something outside the one willing. Another more extreme example would be the case of someone whose arm is broken and needs to be re-set: The doctor desires to to heal the person and take away the pain, but in this case, a further injury must be done, and the bone must be re-broken in order to fully heal.
And in the case of God, that thing influencing the world from outside God is sin. Sin was NOT decreed or caused by God, and while God remains in control over it, it is something against God's will in every sense of the word. And as a consequence of sin, God's antecedent will does not always come to pass. God desires all men to be saved, but because of sin and their free will decisions, not all men are saved. Jesus desires to protect Jerusalem and his chosen people, but they were not willing. God desires for people to choose life, but they often choose death instead. He desires our salvation and love, but more than that, he desires for us to be a willing participant in that (much in the same way that when I ask my little brothers for a hug, I'm asking for a willing expression of love: If I were to force them to hug me, it would be literally meaningless).
Now, let's tweak the example a bit. In the previous example of a doctor and a broken bone, the doctor had nothing to do with the arm being broken in the first place. That is why the distinction between antecedent and consequent wills works. But let's change that: let's say that he did ultimately cause the arm being broken in the first place. Let's say that through a series of manipulations and behind-the-scenes machinations, the doctor was the mastermind behind the person breaking his arm originally.
In that case, does the distinction still hold? Of course not. The doctor cannot claim to desire the health and comfort of his patients in re-setting the bone, because he was the one who caused the need for that re-setting in the first place!
And that's where we enter the "No" part of whether God has two wills. Because while the occasional Calvinist (either through carelessness or intentional deception) will talk about antecedent vs consequent will, most of the time they talk about it differently: They talk about God's "moral and decretive" wills, or more tellingly, his "revealed and hidden" wills.
So what's the difference? Well, God's "moral" or "revealed" will is what we read in the Bible. God desires all men to be saved. God desires us not to sin. God desires for us to choose life instead of death, blessing instead of curse. And it's called the "revealed" will because...well, because it's revealed in the Bible. God reveals this will to us, and reveals the way in which he wishes us to live.
Strangely, though, this "revealed" will isn't really much of a will at all, because it is completely and utterly trumped by God's "secret" or "decretive" will. It's called God's "decretive" will because rather than what God says he wants us to do, this is what he actually decrees that we do. Remember that classic Calvinism - the Calvinism espoused by big names from John Calvin to John Piper - teaches meticulous providence, meaning that everything that happens has been decreed by God. And it's called his "secret" will because it's secret...it's not revealed anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, God tells us that he desires all men to be saved through his revealed will, but secretly causes the vast majority to be damned via his decretive/secret will.
Essentially, this means that God urges the reprobate towards life with his left hand, while actively pushing them away from life with his right.
That's why the Calvinist cannot claim the antecedent and consequent distinction: Because in the face of meticulous providence, that distinction does not exist. God cannot claim "sin" as something impacting his desire to save everyone, because God desired and caused sin to come about in the first place.
So...two wills. In one sense - the sense that EVERYONE has two wills - God does have "two wills": The "perfect world" will and the "because of sin" will. But in the more important sense - that of God contradicting his declared, revealed will at practically every turn - it is sheer lunacy to believe that God has two wills. It is nothing less than to sacrifice the whole of God's revealed will, making it practically meaningless and utterly powerless, for the sake of a "hidden will" of which we know little.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Is All Well?
"And a bell, sir?"
"A bell?"
"For ringing and shouting 'All's well!' with, Sarge."
"No bell for me, Snouty," said Vimes. "Do you think things are well?"
Snouty swallowed. "Could go either way, Sarge," he managed.
-"Night Watch", by Terry Pratchett
I was thinking about Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" universe today, and the cavalier approach to policing that his early watchmen take: After all, ringing a bell and shouting "All's well!", even when things aren't well, is a heck of a let easier (and safer) than fixing them!
And it reminded me of something that's always upset me about Calvinism: That when you get right down to it, there is only one acceptable answer to the question Vimes asks: Yes, things are well.
By that, I mean all things, everywhere, at all times, are well according to the Calvinist system. I don't mean the "big picture"...I don't mean how things will "turn out in the end"...I mean that every single event in the history of the world is going well...in fact, it's going exactly according to plan, ordained by God himself.
Of course, many Calvinists would be reluctant to admit this. After all, getting a Calvinist to admit that God ordains evil and renders it certain from before all creation is sometimes difficult. Nevertheless, even Calvin himself, though waffling at times, states that "as all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts, nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will" (Institutes, 1.17.1). Note that God does not merely "permit" these evils to occur...it requires an active interposition (or interference) on God's part to cause those things to happen.
This is because, to Calvin and Calvinists, God rules the world through "meticulous Providence": God governing every aspect of the universe, down to the movement of individual atoms and molecules. In fact, RC Sproul has stated that "There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” No molecule in the universe moves except in the course that God himself ordained for it.
This is a pretty enough picture of providence and sovereignty on its face, I'll grant you. And after all, surely there could be no greater compliment to God's great power and might than to say that he directs every single atom in its planned trajectory! Of course, there is one small issue: When you actually apply this to life, it becomes absolutely horrifying.
It means that everything that has ever happened, (including, say, the Holocaust) was divinely ordained, planned and executed by God from the foundation of the universe. It means that when a small child is kidnapped, raped, and murdered, that God himself was there, actively planning it and making it happen (admittedly through secondary, tertiary, and however many other causes that he himself ultimately caused). It means that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were planned by God from the beginning of creation, and that his divine hand ensured the death of every person who died.
But it's easy enough to find the horror in our own history. It is, perhaps, more satisfying and more meaningful to go to the Bible. Let's look at a few key passages...I'll highlight the necessary Calvinist commentary in red:
Genesis 3:17
Surely you can see the mockery this makes of the text, and how the doctrine of meticulous providence renders God's actions and words nonsensical?
Let's skip ahead a bit, to the days of Noah:
Genesis 6:5-7
Here's my point: There are many, many points in the Bible where God himself seems to say that all is not well. The Bible is FULL of instances of God lamenting the state of mankind, all the way to Jesus himself lamenting over Jerusalem: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"
God himself says that all is not well. God himself says that things are not as they should be. And we who are not Calvinists do God the honor of taking him at his word. It is, rather, the Calvinists who dishonor God by attributing to him the things that he abhors. God says, "I am grieved by what mankind is doing," and Calvinists wink at him and say "We get that you have to say that, big guy, but you can be honest with us. We know what you mean. *wink*." God says in Jeremiah 7, "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind", and the Calvinists smile and say, "Look, God, you don't have to play that game with us. We get it. You caused it to happen. You thought it up and planned it all out. Great job!"
All is not well. The Fall was a real evil. Evil really is evil, and not good in disguise (as is necessitated by the Calvinist system). The sin of man "has not escaped the knowledge and control of God. But it is not a work of His creation and not a disposition of His providence." (Karl Barth) God is in control, and he will set all wrongs right...but in the meantime, they are real wrongs, not merely the illusions of wrongs.
"A bell?"
"For ringing and shouting 'All's well!' with, Sarge."
"No bell for me, Snouty," said Vimes. "Do you think things are well?"
Snouty swallowed. "Could go either way, Sarge," he managed.
-"Night Watch", by Terry Pratchett
I was thinking about Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" universe today, and the cavalier approach to policing that his early watchmen take: After all, ringing a bell and shouting "All's well!", even when things aren't well, is a heck of a let easier (and safer) than fixing them!
And it reminded me of something that's always upset me about Calvinism: That when you get right down to it, there is only one acceptable answer to the question Vimes asks: Yes, things are well.
By that, I mean all things, everywhere, at all times, are well according to the Calvinist system. I don't mean the "big picture"...I don't mean how things will "turn out in the end"...I mean that every single event in the history of the world is going well...in fact, it's going exactly according to plan, ordained by God himself.
Of course, many Calvinists would be reluctant to admit this. After all, getting a Calvinist to admit that God ordains evil and renders it certain from before all creation is sometimes difficult. Nevertheless, even Calvin himself, though waffling at times, states that "as all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts, nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will" (Institutes, 1.17.1). Note that God does not merely "permit" these evils to occur...it requires an active interposition (or interference) on God's part to cause those things to happen.
This is because, to Calvin and Calvinists, God rules the world through "meticulous Providence": God governing every aspect of the universe, down to the movement of individual atoms and molecules. In fact, RC Sproul has stated that "There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” No molecule in the universe moves except in the course that God himself ordained for it.
This is a pretty enough picture of providence and sovereignty on its face, I'll grant you. And after all, surely there could be no greater compliment to God's great power and might than to say that he directs every single atom in its planned trajectory! Of course, there is one small issue: When you actually apply this to life, it becomes absolutely horrifying.
It means that everything that has ever happened, (including, say, the Holocaust) was divinely ordained, planned and executed by God from the foundation of the universe. It means that when a small child is kidnapped, raped, and murdered, that God himself was there, actively planning it and making it happen (admittedly through secondary, tertiary, and however many other causes that he himself ultimately caused). It means that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were planned by God from the beginning of creation, and that his divine hand ensured the death of every person who died.
But it's easy enough to find the horror in our own history. It is, perhaps, more satisfying and more meaningful to go to the Bible. Let's look at a few key passages...I'll highlight the necessary Calvinist commentary in red:
Genesis 3:17
And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife (Which I planned and caused to happen) and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,’ (Which, again, I caused by creating you flawed and then withholding the grace you needed to persevere)cursed is the ground because of you; (Well, technically because of me...) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life"
Surely you can see the mockery this makes of the text, and how the doctrine of meticulous providence renders God's actions and words nonsensical?
Let's skip ahead a bit, to the days of Noah:
Genesis 6:5-7
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Of course, this was because God had eternally determined that this would be so and caused it to happen). And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth (Not really, though, because he was the one who had caused it), and it grieved him to his heart. (Which was weird, because it was something he himself had eternally planned and deliberately caused to happen). So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (But he wasn't really sorry, because he had intended all along for this to happen, and had in fact created the universe in such a way as to make it impossible for it to have happened any other way).Do you see it? Do you see how meticulous providence actually makes this verse literally meaningless? Calvinists can talk of "anthropomorphisms" and metaphors all they like: The fact remains that if meticulous providence is true, then this verse doesn't just mean something different then what it appears to mean...this verse means the literal opposite of what it says. It means, in fact, that this verse tells us something false about God, and that this verse gives us a picture of God that couldn't be further from the truth. This verse tells us that God was saddened by man's actions, whereas Calvinism tells us that God actively caused those things to happen.
Here's my point: There are many, many points in the Bible where God himself seems to say that all is not well. The Bible is FULL of instances of God lamenting the state of mankind, all the way to Jesus himself lamenting over Jerusalem: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"
God himself says that all is not well. God himself says that things are not as they should be. And we who are not Calvinists do God the honor of taking him at his word. It is, rather, the Calvinists who dishonor God by attributing to him the things that he abhors. God says, "I am grieved by what mankind is doing," and Calvinists wink at him and say "We get that you have to say that, big guy, but you can be honest with us. We know what you mean. *wink*." God says in Jeremiah 7, "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind", and the Calvinists smile and say, "Look, God, you don't have to play that game with us. We get it. You caused it to happen. You thought it up and planned it all out. Great job!"
All is not well. The Fall was a real evil. Evil really is evil, and not good in disguise (as is necessitated by the Calvinist system). The sin of man "has not escaped the knowledge and control of God. But it is not a work of His creation and not a disposition of His providence." (Karl Barth) God is in control, and he will set all wrongs right...but in the meantime, they are real wrongs, not merely the illusions of wrongs.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Eating with the Sinners
Last Sunday, I had the honor of speaking to the Jr High and High School group at the Bridge. I spoke on Luke 15 and the triple-parable that Jesus busts out in response to the Pharisees' grumbling. There were two big things that stood out to me as I was writing the talk.
First off, I GIVE YOU RCH LENSKI THE COMMENTATOR OF COMMENTATORS EVERYBODY GIVE IT UP FOR LEEEEEENSKIIIII:
“But the climax of the parable is reached in the joy over the finding of the lost. How natural and self-evident that would be! Jesus places this joy ‘in the heaven’ and ‘before the angels of God’ over against the murmuring of the Pharisees and the scribes. They look sour; in heaven the very angels sing with delight! In so masterly a way is this done that the very parable becomes a seeking and reaching out by the Shepherd Jesus after these Pharisaic lost sheep so that their joy at being found may produce still more joy in heaven among the angles. Thus through the entire parable there run in duplicate: 1) being lost, 2) the great search, 3) the happy finding, 4) the abounding joy.”
Lenski is awesome. No surprise there. Jesus gets around the hardened sourness of the Pharisees with an object lesson referencing the normal, human reaction to a normal, every-day event: And at the end, he demonstrates just how crappy their attitude really is, by contrasting their sourness with the joy in heaven. And the whole thing is wrapped up neatly, Inception style: In telling the parable, Jesus is doing what the parable represents.
Second: The Pharisees are totally the older brother guys!!!!
Yeah. OBVIOUSLY. Right? But it never really clicked until I was writing the sermon. This section begins with the Pharisees grumbling about Jesus eating with sinners and tax collectors: "Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
And it ends with prodigal son drawing near his father, and the older brother grumbling about how the father received the son and ate with him.
Last thing that occurred to me on my way home from church:
Luke is freaking FULL of Jesus eating with people. I mean, Jesus is eating ALL THE TIME. He eats with tax collectors in Luke 5 and 19. He eats with the pharisees in Luke 7, and again in Luke 11, and again in Luke 14. He eats with his disciples and friends in Luke 10, 22, and 24. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking," indeed! He's like Robert Downey Jr!
But that's not the point. Here's the point: When Jesus eats with the tax collectors, the Pharisees absolutely lose it. They see it as not only a waste of time, but actually dangerous: There is the sense that Jesus is tainting himself by interacting with them. But when he eats with the Pharisees themselves, they take it pretty well in stride. Jesus being a prominent rabbi, the Pharisees ask him over for a meal, so that they may sit and talk over food. I'd imagine that from their perspective, it's a chance for Jesus to finally relax, to get away from the rabble, to get away from the greedy tax collectors and common sinners...a chance for Jesus to be with other righteous people like themselves.
When the truth, of course, is that there was no such distinction...or if there is, it's the other way around. Whether Jesus was eating with the self-proclaimed "righteous" or with those who recognized themselves as sinners, the meal served one over-arching purpose: To seek and save the lost. The only difference was that sometimes, he ate with people who actually knew they were lost, and desired to be found. And I'd imagine those were the meals where he actually could relax a little...at least, more so then eating with a brood of vipers!
First off, I GIVE YOU RCH LENSKI THE COMMENTATOR OF COMMENTATORS EVERYBODY GIVE IT UP FOR LEEEEEENSKIIIII:
“But the climax of the parable is reached in the joy over the finding of the lost. How natural and self-evident that would be! Jesus places this joy ‘in the heaven’ and ‘before the angels of God’ over against the murmuring of the Pharisees and the scribes. They look sour; in heaven the very angels sing with delight! In so masterly a way is this done that the very parable becomes a seeking and reaching out by the Shepherd Jesus after these Pharisaic lost sheep so that their joy at being found may produce still more joy in heaven among the angles. Thus through the entire parable there run in duplicate: 1) being lost, 2) the great search, 3) the happy finding, 4) the abounding joy.”
Lenski is awesome. No surprise there. Jesus gets around the hardened sourness of the Pharisees with an object lesson referencing the normal, human reaction to a normal, every-day event: And at the end, he demonstrates just how crappy their attitude really is, by contrasting their sourness with the joy in heaven. And the whole thing is wrapped up neatly, Inception style: In telling the parable, Jesus is doing what the parable represents.
Second: The Pharisees are totally the older brother guys!!!!
Yeah. OBVIOUSLY. Right? But it never really clicked until I was writing the sermon. This section begins with the Pharisees grumbling about Jesus eating with sinners and tax collectors: "Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
And it ends with prodigal son drawing near his father, and the older brother grumbling about how the father received the son and ate with him.
Last thing that occurred to me on my way home from church:
Luke is freaking FULL of Jesus eating with people. I mean, Jesus is eating ALL THE TIME. He eats with tax collectors in Luke 5 and 19. He eats with the pharisees in Luke 7, and again in Luke 11, and again in Luke 14. He eats with his disciples and friends in Luke 10, 22, and 24. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking," indeed! He's like Robert Downey Jr!
But that's not the point. Here's the point: When Jesus eats with the tax collectors, the Pharisees absolutely lose it. They see it as not only a waste of time, but actually dangerous: There is the sense that Jesus is tainting himself by interacting with them. But when he eats with the Pharisees themselves, they take it pretty well in stride. Jesus being a prominent rabbi, the Pharisees ask him over for a meal, so that they may sit and talk over food. I'd imagine that from their perspective, it's a chance for Jesus to finally relax, to get away from the rabble, to get away from the greedy tax collectors and common sinners...a chance for Jesus to be with other righteous people like themselves.
When the truth, of course, is that there was no such distinction...or if there is, it's the other way around. Whether Jesus was eating with the self-proclaimed "righteous" or with those who recognized themselves as sinners, the meal served one over-arching purpose: To seek and save the lost. The only difference was that sometimes, he ate with people who actually knew they were lost, and desired to be found. And I'd imagine those were the meals where he actually could relax a little...at least, more so then eating with a brood of vipers!
Friday, October 16, 2015
The Jesus Storybook Bible: Initial Thoughts
We recently had our baby shower, where we received many wonderful things in preparation for the birth of our son Wesley Alexander Mulligan (November 3rd is coming so fast!). One of those gifts (well, three, actually) was the Jesus Storybook Bible. I decided it would be good to do an "initial thoughts" post, then come back to it after I've actually read it all the way through (probably with/to Wesley).
First thing: I LOVE this Bible.
Second thing: It's not perfect. There are things that I think could have done better, and a few things that I think are actually wrong/bad about the way events were portrayed. (David described as "the weakling of the family, he's only teeny-" being one of the most annoying errors, since he killed lions and bears with his bare hands!).
Third thing: But it's still amazing.
I think what I love most about it really is the subtitle: "Every Story Whispers His Name." Jesus is THE image of the invisible God, and in a very real sense every verse in the Bible points to Him. This Bible makes that explicit, over and over again. I'll just include one example: The first of them, and the most amazing. This is how this Bible ends the story of Adam and Eve:
"But before they left the garden, God made clothes for his children, to cover them. He gently clothed them and then he sent them away on a long, long journey--out of the garden, out of their home.
Well, in another story, it would all be over and that would have been...
The Genesis section makes it fairly clear: In order to rescue his people, God MUST do battle with the devil. While human beings are definitely active sinners, they are primarily prisoners to be freed, not enemies to be vanquished (which, by the way, has many Calvinists on Amazon absolutely livid). *
Another thing I love? The Artwork. It's amazing. And the most amazing thing it does is to bring out the humor often overlooked in passages: For instance, the section labeled "How to Pray" (covering Jesus critiquing the prayers of the hypocrites in Matthew 6) features three people praying very passionately: Two of them are emoting vividly, heads dramatically tilted upwards, while the third actually has one eye open to see if anybody is watching him pray!
Again: This Bible is not perfect. Since it's designed for children (who, being children, are incapable of many of the finer points of Biblical interpretation and analysis), there's a LOT of built-in interpretation, connecting dots that are sometimes "gimmes", sometimes much more contested. (For instance, during the last supper, Jesus says "My body is like this bread," which Catholics on Amazon are not down with). Unless you happen to be the author of this particular book, there WILL be something in here that you disagree with....but then again, that's literally unavoidable when paraphrasing and commentating. c'est la vie.
Will I read EVERY line to Wesley, exactly as written here? No. When speaking of David, I'll talk about how he was the youngest, and how that made him seem very unimportant to most people...but I'll also talk about his strength and bravery. But I'll read MOST of it exactly as written, because i think it does an incredible job at communicating the love of God and his desire for humanity to be saved, woven throughout the Bible. (and HOLY CRAP I just realized that I will be mostly responsible for the theological formation of a tiny person who will take my words as absolute truth oh my gosh WHAT AM I GOING TO DO)
Ahem. Anyway...yeah. I'll be writing a lot more about this...about whether the simplification going on here is a valid move, when it's appropriate to simplify and when it's NOT appropriate, and a couple others. But for now, I just wanted to get this out there.
First thing: I LOVE this Bible.
Second thing: It's not perfect. There are things that I think could have done better, and a few things that I think are actually wrong/bad about the way events were portrayed. (David described as "the weakling of the family, he's only teeny-" being one of the most annoying errors, since he killed lions and bears with his bare hands!).
Third thing: But it's still amazing.
I think what I love most about it really is the subtitle: "Every Story Whispers His Name." Jesus is THE image of the invisible God, and in a very real sense every verse in the Bible points to Him. This Bible makes that explicit, over and over again. I'll just include one example: The first of them, and the most amazing. This is how this Bible ends the story of Adam and Eve:
"But before they left the garden, God made clothes for his children, to cover them. He gently clothed them and then he sent them away on a long, long journey--out of the garden, out of their home.
Well, in another story, it would all be over and that would have been...
The End.
But not in this Story.
God loved his children too much to let the story end there. Even though he knew he would suffer, God had a plan - a magnificent dream. One day, he would get his children back. One day, he would make the world their perfect home again. And one day, he would wipe away every tear from their eyes.
You see, no matter what, in spite of everything, God would love his children - with a Never Stopping, Never Giving Up, Unbreaking, Always and Forever Love.
And though they would forget him, and run from him, deep in their hearts, God's children would miss him always, and long for him - lost children yearning for their home.
Before they left the garden, God whispered a promise to Adam and Even: "It will not always be so! I will come to rescue you! And when I do, I'm going to do battle against the snake. I'll get rid of the sin and the dark and the sadness you let in here. I'm coming back for you!"
And he would. One day, God himself would come."
That is my absolute favorite part about this Bible: It opens with a STRONG emphasis on Christus Victor. And all throughout the Old Testament portion of this Bible, nearly every story contains a reference to "The Great Rescue," God's secret plan to save the world. And who is the rescue from?
The Genesis section makes it fairly clear: In order to rescue his people, God MUST do battle with the devil. While human beings are definitely active sinners, they are primarily prisoners to be freed, not enemies to be vanquished (which, by the way, has many Calvinists on Amazon absolutely livid). *
Another thing I love? The Artwork. It's amazing. And the most amazing thing it does is to bring out the humor often overlooked in passages: For instance, the section labeled "How to Pray" (covering Jesus critiquing the prayers of the hypocrites in Matthew 6) features three people praying very passionately: Two of them are emoting vividly, heads dramatically tilted upwards, while the third actually has one eye open to see if anybody is watching him pray!
Again: This Bible is not perfect. Since it's designed for children (who, being children, are incapable of many of the finer points of Biblical interpretation and analysis), there's a LOT of built-in interpretation, connecting dots that are sometimes "gimmes", sometimes much more contested. (For instance, during the last supper, Jesus says "My body is like this bread," which Catholics on Amazon are not down with). Unless you happen to be the author of this particular book, there WILL be something in here that you disagree with....but then again, that's literally unavoidable when paraphrasing and commentating. c'est la vie.
Will I read EVERY line to Wesley, exactly as written here? No. When speaking of David, I'll talk about how he was the youngest, and how that made him seem very unimportant to most people...but I'll also talk about his strength and bravery. But I'll read MOST of it exactly as written, because i think it does an incredible job at communicating the love of God and his desire for humanity to be saved, woven throughout the Bible. (and HOLY CRAP I just realized that I will be mostly responsible for the theological formation of a tiny person who will take my words as absolute truth oh my gosh WHAT AM I GOING TO DO)
Ahem. Anyway...yeah. I'll be writing a lot more about this...about whether the simplification going on here is a valid move, when it's appropriate to simplify and when it's NOT appropriate, and a couple others. But for now, I just wanted to get this out there.
Monday, September 21, 2015
A Hamburger and Fries
You ever have a moment where you feel as though you know exactly what God wants you to do, and yet you don't want to do it? And it's not even a good reason why you don't want to do it, just something stupid and inconsequential?
I was on my way to Life Group tonight, and I was already going to be late. Shaw (our main street) is crazy that time of night, and even getting on it was slow going. And there, at the corner, was Dee. I had forgotten her name, but she was often there at the corner, holding a sign, asking for help. I was blasting music, as is my wont, but I turned it down as I approached the corner. I pulled out my wallet, but a quick glance confirmed what I had already suspected: It was empty.
So, as is my usual practice in that situation, I simply said a short prayer for her and went on my way, turning the music back up. Except...the joy I had been feeling mere seconds earlier was gone, replaced by something else. A nagging feeling, as though something had been missed. And it wouldn't go away.
You're just going to let it go, just like that?
Well, I mean, yeah. It's late, the traffic is crazy, I don't have money, what am I-
You could get her some food. It's nearly 7, and she had nothing with her.
Well, yeah, I could do that, but it's going to take forever to get the food and -
Seriously? There's a Carl's Jr right there.
And so there was. So almost without thinking, I pulled into the parking lot (although, due to a miscalculation, it was actually the next parking lot over that I pulled into). And then it began again.
Wait, what are you doing? Buying food? She probably doesn't even want food. She's probably going to look at you like you're a weirdo, and then you're just going to have food sitting in your car, food you don't want, and it's going to be awkward and -
And then I got out of the car and went into the Carl's Jr. I got a burger and fries, and a drink, and then started back down the way I'd come. She was still there at the corner, so I went past, U-turned, and pulled into a nearby parking lot. I got out of the car, grabbed the bag of food and the drink, and started walking towards her.
She saw me coming, and she set down the sign and came to meet me. I'd been working out my "speech", what I was goign to say to her, but it left me, so I mumbled something about how I didn't have any money and I thought she might want food and -
"Food is great!" she said. "Thank you!"
I asked what her name was, and told her I'd be praying for her. She did the same, and said a short prayer right there. As I walked back to the car, I saw her checking out the bag and grabbing some fries.
But then, as I pulled out of the parking lot and began to turn the corner again, I saw that she had placed the bag back on the ground. She wasn't holding her sign. She wasn't looking at the cars passing her by. Instead, she had her hands slightly raised, her eyes closed, and her face towards heaven. And she remained that way until I could no longer see her.
It was...an interesting experience, and it made me 25 minutes late to Life Group. It's very rare that I have that moment, that point in time where I feel as though I know exactly what I'm supposed to do. I'm just glad that God refused to allow me to pass it by, despite my fighting it every step of the way.
I was on my way to Life Group tonight, and I was already going to be late. Shaw (our main street) is crazy that time of night, and even getting on it was slow going. And there, at the corner, was Dee. I had forgotten her name, but she was often there at the corner, holding a sign, asking for help. I was blasting music, as is my wont, but I turned it down as I approached the corner. I pulled out my wallet, but a quick glance confirmed what I had already suspected: It was empty.
So, as is my usual practice in that situation, I simply said a short prayer for her and went on my way, turning the music back up. Except...the joy I had been feeling mere seconds earlier was gone, replaced by something else. A nagging feeling, as though something had been missed. And it wouldn't go away.
You're just going to let it go, just like that?
Well, I mean, yeah. It's late, the traffic is crazy, I don't have money, what am I-
You could get her some food. It's nearly 7, and she had nothing with her.
Well, yeah, I could do that, but it's going to take forever to get the food and -
Seriously? There's a Carl's Jr right there.
And so there was. So almost without thinking, I pulled into the parking lot (although, due to a miscalculation, it was actually the next parking lot over that I pulled into). And then it began again.
Wait, what are you doing? Buying food? She probably doesn't even want food. She's probably going to look at you like you're a weirdo, and then you're just going to have food sitting in your car, food you don't want, and it's going to be awkward and -
And then I got out of the car and went into the Carl's Jr. I got a burger and fries, and a drink, and then started back down the way I'd come. She was still there at the corner, so I went past, U-turned, and pulled into a nearby parking lot. I got out of the car, grabbed the bag of food and the drink, and started walking towards her.
She saw me coming, and she set down the sign and came to meet me. I'd been working out my "speech", what I was goign to say to her, but it left me, so I mumbled something about how I didn't have any money and I thought she might want food and -
"Food is great!" she said. "Thank you!"
I asked what her name was, and told her I'd be praying for her. She did the same, and said a short prayer right there. As I walked back to the car, I saw her checking out the bag and grabbing some fries.
But then, as I pulled out of the parking lot and began to turn the corner again, I saw that she had placed the bag back on the ground. She wasn't holding her sign. She wasn't looking at the cars passing her by. Instead, she had her hands slightly raised, her eyes closed, and her face towards heaven. And she remained that way until I could no longer see her.
It was...an interesting experience, and it made me 25 minutes late to Life Group. It's very rare that I have that moment, that point in time where I feel as though I know exactly what I'm supposed to do. I'm just glad that God refused to allow me to pass it by, despite my fighting it every step of the way.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Duct Tape and People
The youth group at my church just finished up three weeks on sex and dating, covering the usual gamut of God's intended purpose for sex, common temptations and obstacles, and forgiveness and recovery. We worked through this during our mid-week Small Group time as well, and last week, that unfortunately included a popular addition to such talks: The Duct Tape Example.
One of my fellow leaders brought out a roll of duct tape in the middle of the talk, and asked for volunteers who were "really strong." Finding one such volunteer, he tore off a suitable length of tape and plastered it to the volunteers arm, observing that the tape was stuck fast and was now "one flesh" with the high schooler. Then he ripped it off, pointing out the pain experienced by the volunteer, as well as the hair and debris that remained stuck to the duct tape.
He repeated this a couple more times, noting each time how much less sticky the tape had grown, and how much weaker the attachment was between tape and high schooler. And each time, he brought it back to sex, telling the guys that each time they had sex with someone else, they would become less capable of experiencing a meaningful connection with the next person they had sex with, even someone they intended to marry. And at the end, he was sure to bring up the power of God in Christ, to forgive us and make us new, and heal our wounds.
He said all the right things. He didn't say anything that was untrue, and he said a lot that was true and helpful! But the problem is, the illustration itself is incredibly flawed.
As the last volunteer shook the tack-less tape from his arm, one of the guys said something that (unintentionally) drove the point home for me. He said, "So we should call all the hoes at our schools 'duct tape'?"
He was joking, of course, but the comment betrayed the crucial flaw in the illustration. While it was accompanied by a lot of spoken truth about connection, intimacy, and the very real dangers of pre-marital sex, the illustration itself said something different:
Girls who have sex with multiple people are inherently worthless.
That's what the illustration says when performed with a group of guys. It can't say anything else. The tape is an obvious (and explicit) stand-in for a woman, and it is quite literally worthless for its intended purpose after one or two people have "had their way" with it. The illustration is very effective...at least, if your goal is to get guys to associate worth with virginity.
A lot of the guys laughed when he made the "hoe" comment (they are high schoolers, after all), but I immediately raised my voice, to say, "And that's the danger of illustrations like this: They reduce people to one thing, and make that the only worthwhile thing about them." I think he understood my point, because he immediately nodded and was quiet for a bit.
But the problem remains: We use these illustrations, and to the people in charge, they mean one thing...but to the people witnessing it, they mean something completely different, about people, sex, and worth as human beings. And I think we need to stop with the analogies, because ultimately, I think they do more harm than good. Or, if you simply MUST use analogies, they need to be accompanied by a LOT more explanation and restriction: What do they mean, and more importantly, what do they NOT mean? This is what our analogies lack, and this is the reason why they so often reduce people to something less then people...and that is unacceptable.
NOTE: I owe a great deal of my thinking on this matter to my good friend Alishia, who has written about this topic here and here.
One of my fellow leaders brought out a roll of duct tape in the middle of the talk, and asked for volunteers who were "really strong." Finding one such volunteer, he tore off a suitable length of tape and plastered it to the volunteers arm, observing that the tape was stuck fast and was now "one flesh" with the high schooler. Then he ripped it off, pointing out the pain experienced by the volunteer, as well as the hair and debris that remained stuck to the duct tape.
He repeated this a couple more times, noting each time how much less sticky the tape had grown, and how much weaker the attachment was between tape and high schooler. And each time, he brought it back to sex, telling the guys that each time they had sex with someone else, they would become less capable of experiencing a meaningful connection with the next person they had sex with, even someone they intended to marry. And at the end, he was sure to bring up the power of God in Christ, to forgive us and make us new, and heal our wounds.
He said all the right things. He didn't say anything that was untrue, and he said a lot that was true and helpful! But the problem is, the illustration itself is incredibly flawed.
As the last volunteer shook the tack-less tape from his arm, one of the guys said something that (unintentionally) drove the point home for me. He said, "So we should call all the hoes at our schools 'duct tape'?"
He was joking, of course, but the comment betrayed the crucial flaw in the illustration. While it was accompanied by a lot of spoken truth about connection, intimacy, and the very real dangers of pre-marital sex, the illustration itself said something different:
Girls who have sex with multiple people are inherently worthless.
That's what the illustration says when performed with a group of guys. It can't say anything else. The tape is an obvious (and explicit) stand-in for a woman, and it is quite literally worthless for its intended purpose after one or two people have "had their way" with it. The illustration is very effective...at least, if your goal is to get guys to associate worth with virginity.
A lot of the guys laughed when he made the "hoe" comment (they are high schoolers, after all), but I immediately raised my voice, to say, "And that's the danger of illustrations like this: They reduce people to one thing, and make that the only worthwhile thing about them." I think he understood my point, because he immediately nodded and was quiet for a bit.
But the problem remains: We use these illustrations, and to the people in charge, they mean one thing...but to the people witnessing it, they mean something completely different, about people, sex, and worth as human beings. And I think we need to stop with the analogies, because ultimately, I think they do more harm than good. Or, if you simply MUST use analogies, they need to be accompanied by a LOT more explanation and restriction: What do they mean, and more importantly, what do they NOT mean? This is what our analogies lack, and this is the reason why they so often reduce people to something less then people...and that is unacceptable.
NOTE: I owe a great deal of my thinking on this matter to my good friend Alishia, who has written about this topic here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)