Colson’s The Faith, #1 - the positives

I’m going to bring up a number of points of criticism for Chuck Colson’s The Faith from Zondervan, but I want to start off with a number of good things about the book.

Like other Colson books, The Faith is very readable. If I use this with or recommend it for folks in my church, I feel confident that it would engage members of different degrees of education and background. Like his other writings, he uses engaging stories to get the reader interested in the topic, and then explains how it illustrates or lives out the point of doctrine.

Second, Colson doesn’t just offer the lightweight surface fare common to evangelicalism. He remains in the line of traditional orthodoxy, as The Faith pursues the core beliefs of Christian tradition. His book also shows the significance of these teachings for us both as humans and as Christian believers. He also points out their strengths on today’s world scene.

For a primer on the faith, this is an overall good introduction.

Comparing Two Kingdoms - Ken

I’ve received an advance copy of Chuck Colson’s The Faith from Zondervan to review. I’ll give a more thorough review later, but right now want to mention one interesting contrast.

In crediting his influences, Colson identifies himself as an evangelical and Calvinist with Dutch Reformed influences. That’s where I stand as well. However, my biggest criticism for the book is that, after explaining the faith handed down once and for all, he appears to want to use it as a means to preserve and renew Western culture. His underlying concern, then, appears to be the preservation of Western society against militant Islam, intellectual Atheism made popular through recent books, and the loss of truth from postmodern relativism. While I agree with our need and duty to engage in apologetics, I argue that our reason for doing so is not to preserve our society or expand the boundaries of our culture. Rather, it’s to engage the world, in both the local and global scene, with the Gospel and Apostolic tradition.

So, while I am more aligned theologically with Colson, I find myself agreeing with Gregory Boyd on The Myth of a Christian Nation. The church is part of the eternal kingdom of God, rather than a temporal, earthly kingdom. A recent program on Michael Horton’s “The White Horse Inn”, Political Temptation, dated 1/27/08, (available as a podcaset on iTunes) promotes an understanding of the church as a separate entity from the state - whose job it is to proclaim the Gospel and administer the sacraments - that would be, surprisingly, more akin to Boyd (an Open Theist) than to Colson, a fellow Calvinist.

Rambo the Messiah - Ken

We’re moved into our new location, so I’m now back on Codexegesis.

When I saw the trailer for Rambo (IV) about a month ago, I wondered if Sly Stallone would try to use the church marketing he had for Rocky Balboa. In case you didn’t know, Sly wanted churches to employ some of the marketing tactics that worked so well with The Passion of the Christ. Pastors could show clips from the movie as sermon illustrations! I wondered if that would happen here with Rambo as well. First, it would continue the trajectory: Passion: the hero is beaten, tortured and killed for our sins; Rocky Balboa: the hero now beats another man in the name of that first hero, for whom he has reverence; Rambo: the hero now kills in the name of and to rescue the servants of the Passion hero (Rambo rescues Christian missionaries). I’m glad that the church marketing hasn’t been used for this film.

But the trailer does portray Rambo as the reluctant Messiah. One of the first shots shows a cross held in his fingers. This Crusader then enters the war zone of Burma to rescue captured missionaries. That country gets portrayed not just as the land of oppression under the military Junta, but also as the dominion of the snake, as the trailer shows the seedy night life having a snake market with cobras dancing or fighting (but reviews of the movie say that Rambo catches snakes for a market in Malaysia - here I’m following the narrative flow of the trailer). So a Rambo pumped up on steroids (the kind that Stallone found out are illegal in Australia) - so that 60 year old Sly now looks like Ang Lee’s hulk - enters the realm of the snake to bring back the servants of the Lord. (Very archetypal.)

I mention the movie and its trailer here because I’m blogging a bit about Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation. Rambo offers an example of the cross being joined with the sword, which here takes the form of a hunting knife, fists, bow and arrow, and lots of guns. This is a movie, then, that can appeal to both our spiritual sense with a picture of Jesus, the Christus Victor who entered to the realm of the serpent to defeat that dragon and rescue humanity, while at the same time appealing to our baser desire for blood, guts, and revenge.

Notice, too, that Rambo’s enemies are not politically volatile ones, i.e. Islamic Terrorists. Burma is a place that’s been in the news (somewhat) for its recent crackdowns. So Americans of all stripes, minus pacifists, should be able to enjoy this movie.

Dave, since you haven’t written in response to my posts about Gregory Boyd, I will assume that you view his book and this movie the same way I do.

The Myth of a Christian Nation - Ken

This blog is supposed to have two bloggers, myself and Dave. But Dave’s too busy wrestling deer down to the dusty ground of the Texas hill country. So like a deft hunter, I need to draw him out. And what better bait to use than a book that rejects and harangues against the Christian support of American militarism.

One of the books I received for a holiday gift (and purchased it with my employee discount while I still have it!) is Gregory Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation. Boyd lays out two types of kingdoms: the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of the world. Because the kingdom of the world never looks like Jesus, as it uses the power of the sword - the ‘power over’ people to inflict either justice or harm - it can never be equated or coupled with the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven, on the other hand, follows the teachings and employs the ethics of Jesus, which teach us to love enemies, forgive, and turn the other cheek. Such a kingdom spreads its territory and influence through this self-sacrificing ‘power under’, the power of the cross.

Boyd charges that, since the age of Constantine, rulers have employed the support of the church to justify destroying their enemies and using the power of the sword over others. The same has happened in our time with Bush and the religious rightthat movement’s eager endorsement of the invasion of Iraq. Boyd argues that identifying the kingdom of heaven with an earthly kingdom harms the church in its mission and its reception around the world.

An initial strength of Boyd’s thesis is his use of Scripture: the church on earth follows Jesus’ teachings, and his teachings promote forgiveness and non-violence (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount). Boyd agrees that God can and does use governments to maintain order and justice, but such structures will always be kingdoms of the world and not of the cross.

Even though Boyd - who was raised Roman Catholic - appears Anabaptist in his theology and congregational/independent in his ecclesiology (as far as I can tell), his separating the church, its mission, and its function from the culture raises up the body of the church in this world. Such elevation pushes evangelicals of both denominational and independent persuasion to better understand and protect the holiness of the church and its eternal character, as opposed to identifying with the temporal kingdoms of this world.

So, Dave, is Boyd correct? When Christians support the invasion of Iraq and the continuing conflict there, are we mistaken? Are we harming the message of Christ? How do we deal with the teachings of Jesus, the central figure of all Scripture and God incarnate, before jumping to Augustine’s just war theory? Help me, Dave.

My favorite open theist - Ken

Although I stand in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, there is one open theist whom I enjoy listening to and whose thought I enjoy interacting with. Even though I come to different conclusions in interpreting Scripture, he provides an example of preaching with both intellect and relevance. Gregory Boyd pastors Woodland Hills church in St. Paul, MN, and you can listen to his sermons here. I mention him here because I’m going to write about one of his books here.

Although I believe them mistaken, I find that the discussion with open theists produces a few healthy benefits for Calvinists and evangelicals. First, their reading of Scripture informs their understanding of God and his foreknowledge. Such methodology can remind us that theology is rooted in the revelation of Scripture, and over-systemization can be the result when we lose the narrative flow of the Bible and progressive revelation. Their claims serve as a call and warning sign to make sure that our doctrine arises from, rather than imposes upon, Scripture.

A second benefit of the discussion between open theists and Augustinian-Calvinists results in each side’s paradigms, premises, and sources/influences examined. While they accuse us of having Greek philosophy as the fountain head of our understanding of God (or at least synthesizing revelation with such philosophy), they in turn, as Stephen Roy points out in How Much Does God Foreknow?, often rely on or find their starting points in Alfred North Whitehead and John Cobb (I don’t have the book available to give the reference here).

Such a dialog can reinvigorate the classical theist view, as Calvinism’s understanding of the covenantal character of the biblical narrative treks the ridge of redemptive history and progressive revelation.

Zechariah’s incense - Ken

Zechariah goes in to burn incense, just as Aaron had been instructed to do (Exodus 30:7).

Aaron and later high priests would use incense on the day of atonement: Leviticus 16.11 “Aaron shall present the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall kill the bull as a sin offering for himself. 12 And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from the altar before the Lord, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and he shall bring it inside the veil 13 and put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is over the testimony, so that he does not die. 14 And he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.”

Zechariah here doesn’t carry out the blood offering on the day of atonement, but is only making the daily offering of burning incense. From Christian tradition, we think of incense as being symbolic of our prayers rising up to God, as well as marking off sacred space that gives us a sense of stepping out of the mundane. For the high priest, incense also had the protective function mentioned above as well. The smoke from the aroma that makes us aware of the presence of God protects the priest from that awe-ful presence at the mercy seat. It brings us close, and yet serves as a veil of protection.

Calvin writes that such is the function of the cherubim - whose outstretched wings comprised the mercy seat - on the ark: For what, pray, did these figures mean, if not that images are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since they were so formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings, thereby concealing the view of God, not only from the eye, but from every human sense, and curbing presumption? To this we may add, that the prophets depict the Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision, as having their faces veiled; thus intimating, that the refulgence of the divine glory is so great, that even the angels cannot gaze upon it directly, while the minute beams which sparkle in the face of angels are shrouded from our view. (Institutes 1.11.3)

Such is our experience with the holy God. Moses encounters Yahweh at the burning bush. He comes closer, but must remove his shoes. He learns God’s name, the disclosure of which promotes intimacy, but the meaning of which conveys deep mystery and otherness - ultimate being. Moses sees the ‘back’ of God, and then must veil his own face for the people’s sake.

At a Christmas party for my work the other night, I had a discussion with one of my Hebrew professors from seminary. Out of three OT profs, he was against speaking the name ‘Yahweh’. I asked him about this, remarking that I and many other young pastors (though not all!) use the name Yahweh in preaching more as a means of getting back to the Hebrew roots and employing biblical theology, all the while getting away from the connotations of overused language in Christian circles. The holy God who revealed himself as Yahweh is the God of us today who calls us to both know and fear him.

My prof gave two reasons why we ought not to do so: first, the Masoretic text doesn’t have it, so we’re putting a word in that’s not there; second, uttering the name treats God solely as dad and friend, but not the holy God whom we fear.

I do use the name in preaching and teaching instead of the LORD, saying it out of respect and accuracy, but also because of the torn veil. I have found that when we introduce our hearers to the God Yahweh, they meet the individual who is both the tribal God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the people of Israel, while at the same time is the God beyond all creation and comprehension.

I believe we can have that balance of intimacy/relationship and reverence in employing use of the name.

God acts - Ken

In reflecting on this passage, it strikes me in verse 18 how Zechariah isn’t expecting the Lord to give him and Elizabeth a baby. 18 “And Zechariah said to the angel, ‘How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.’” They weren’t waiting on God to do this; they hadn’t named and claimed a child from heaven. They had given up and accepted the reality of nature and age. God acts here for the sake of this couple (giving them a son to remove their shame), for the sake of Israel (giving them the prophet who makes way for the Messiah), for the sake of the world (by working out his promises for the seed of Abraham who will bless the nations).

I’ve had in my own life different periods where I’ve resigned myself to disappointment, accepting that God would not give what looked good for me in the immediate picture and good in the larger picture of his larger work. And then God acts after I’ve given up. Other times, God intervenes when I’m not looking for it. All this to say that the sovereign God acts when he acts - whether that’s in answer to our prayer, or despite a lack of prayer. Please don’t insert any bumper sticker slogans here - God acts when he acts. And when he does, it benefits the small and large, the individual, the church, and the world.

Scene One’s OT Narrative Feel - Ken

Luke 1.5-25 has the feel of Hebrew narrative. First, of course, you have a priest descended from Aaron’s line entering the temple to burn incense. We also see the people of Israel represented outside. And then the episode has the conflict or crisis and resolution of that conflict. Zechariah’s seeing Gabriel next to the altar of incense serves as the conflict/crisis here. Zechariah soon learns that the angel has good news, but the people outside are kept waiting, not knowing what’s happened to the priest. (Their presence in this scene has just a smidgen, just a tiny bit of a feel of the Greek chorus, but with a different function. However, their part does give us a view from outside the temple, upping tension.)

Although Gabriel changes the mood from fear to joy with his greeting and announcement. But then the new conflict emerges with Zechariah’s doubt. Gabriel responds by having Zechariah lose his ability to speak until the baby is born.

Even though Luke is the only known gentile author of Scripture, his Gospel bears the feel, structure, and elements of Hebrew narrative.

“Do not be afraid” - Ken

Pope John Paul II used in a book and in many of his addresses the statement of Gabriel to Zechariah in 1.13, “Do not be afraid.” (Gabriel says this again to Mary in 1.30.) JP2 points out how God greets us with grace, “Do not fear.”

At this beginning of Luke’s narrative, the voice of God has been absent from Israel for 400 years. Ezekiel saw the Spirit of God leave the temple and head off to Babylon. Now Zechariah witnesses the return of God to Israel and to the temple in Zechariah, who “stand(s) in the presence of God” (1.19).

In this age between Christ’s ascension and his return in glory when he will judge the living and the dead, God meets and greets us with kindness. “Do not be afraid.” Even when Paul speaks truth and talks about the impending judgment of God in Acts 17, he still has greeted the Athenians positively.

Application? First, even though we are sinners before God, and need to confess sin privately and corporately, God greets us in grace and calls himself our Father. Zechariah was there to burn incense and pray for Israel, and on the day of atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the mercy seat to attempt to atone for Israel’s sins. The issue of sin and its penalty are still there, and yet, God meets Zechariah, Israel, us, and others yet to know him in kindness. The manner in which we address others can have this stance of kind grace.

Second app:  Our understanding of our standing before God. He has reached out to us because he loves us. Instead of greeting us with a sledgehammer, he addresses us in the archangel, in Christ, in the apostolic witness - ‘do not be afraid.’ An invitation to enter a kingdom and have rest. An offer to return to a relationship with the Creator, and to know that Creator more fully without end.

Barrenness, 1.6-7 - Ken

Zechariah and Elizabeth have no children because Elizabeth is barren. For Hebrews, that meant shame, as well as no progeny to carry on one’s line. Job’s friends (and we) would try to figure out what they did, why they suffered this shame, why God had not given them children. But Luke makes it clear that this couple is righteous, obeying God’s law.

When Israel was barren, it was because of its sin and rebellion against the Lord. But here, there is no rebellion. Israel is barren of godly leadership, under the oppressive hand of the Romans. God will begin to remedy this barrenness by giving Z&E a son who will be the reconciling prophet who prepares the people for the Messiah.

Zechariah’s name means “the Lord remembers”. Even though Elizabeth’s clock for having a baby is up, the Lord remembers this couple, as well as Israel’s need.

I like preaching on this passage about the appearance of Gabriel to Zechariah in the temple. God remembers us, even when it looks like it’s past due.  I feel like I can say this with the authority of personal experience - going through times of apparent abandonment by God, yet seeing God provide and work through events in ways that aren’t according to my timetable.