Several days ago my granddaughter,
Melissa or grandson-in-law, Spencer (not sure which one) wrote on his timeline:
“Such a strange Christmas
season, our church in Sac had their nativity scene out front vandalized with
swastikas and other obscenities, and the baby Jesus doll was burned to a crisp.
Kind of surreal. Hey crazy people of Midtown. Jesus loves you, come to church
again, on Christmas morning and learn about the guy whose plastic baby effigy
you roasted. As our pastor said “He’s risen. That was just a doll.”
That was Trinity Lutheran
Church, (Missouri Synod) in Sacramento. My husband and I have attended there
often, over many years, it is a blessed fellowship.
The outrage reminded me of an
advent story I wrote about in one of my first Advent postings. Only in that
case it was about someone whose focus was only on seeing the plastic Jesus. I
wrote:
Another Christmas Eve I remember we attended a Catholic
midnight mass. A group of young people from our church, [Warehouse Ministries],
who had been nominal Catholics but had recently come to Christ, asked us to go
with them to Christmas Eve mass. I only remember a few things about that night.
The church, the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, now restored, was huge and
dark. We all set together filling a whole pew. When we were to ‘pass the peace’
it was with exuberant hugs. I remember the quiet Delta tule fog after service
and the man under the streetlight asking for a little change.
But what I remember most clearly was the woman sitting behind me who whispered
to the person next to her, “My dear, I only came to see the baby Jesus.”
Her statement and attitude projected not amazement that the Christ child was
very God and very human, but that Christianity and Christmas were only about a
good child and a fuzzy warmth. I wrote a small poem about this later, the next
week. (And it is important to know that this was the years that a doll named ‘baby
alive’ was marketed.)
“My Dear, I only came to see the baby Jesus!"
Release the babe!
The imaged doll,
Congregator of chained smiling humanity.
Oh Holy child, break out into the Man.
We worship before the gilded crib.
A pink and pampered god,
Baby Alive;
Never dead and never resurrected
Obeisance made a dreamy, diapered child;
A blood soaked God rejected in his cries and tears.
Preferable to hold our god
then a Lord to hold us, enfolding our fears
Yes he is risen, and he came and he is coming. Merry &
holy Christmas even to the crazy people in Midtown Sacramento. May they find
Him as Lord.as
burned to a crisp. Kind of surreal. Hey crazy people of midtown, Jesus loves
you, come to church again, on Christmas morning, and learn about the guy whose
plastic baby effigy you roasted. As our pastor said, "He's risen. That was
just a doll."as burned to a crisp. Kind of surreal. Hey crazy people of
midtown, Jesus loves you, come to church again, on Christmas morning, and learn
about the guy whose plastic baby effigy you roasted. As our pastor said,
"He's risen. That was just a doll."
If any of my readers know of a good Bible study for women
please list it in the comment section.
UP-DATE: On the Gospel Coalition site Melissa Kruger under the title A Few of My Favorite Things from 2016 lists not only books and videos but also three Bible studies. They all three sound good; one From Garden to Glory; another on 1 Peter and the last on the book of Romans. Kruger has links to all three. Simply scroll to the end of her posting.
In the early 20th century it was not unusual in both the
United States and Western Europe for a naïve nationalism to mix with progressive
views about abortion and population control. The ultimate mix layered all of this
with anti-immigration views and, yes, racism. The layering continues into the
21st century. Today on ChurchandWorld, Hans Cornelder linked to an
article at Polizette, “Southern
Poverty Law Center Turns Leftist Bully: Once-important civil rights
organization has become liberal propaganda machine, according to new lawsuit.”
The article is about a lawsuit the Federation of American Immigration Reform is
filing against a hate-watch group The Southern Poverty Law Center. The article
caught my attention because in the past, starting more than twenty years ago,
when writing about racism I traded information with the SPLC.
Although I disagree with SPLC’s
stances on homosexuality, I applaud their articles on racism and anti-Semitism.
They, in fact, posted several articles on the vile anti-Semitic Veterans Today
after I alerted them to its content. So I
decided to explore the Federation of American Immigration Reform. I was surprised
to say the least, although perhaps I should not have been. The organization was
birthed not from some fundamentalist sect but rather from those who have
embraced population control and abortion. And, of course, environmentalism
figures in the mix. In their early
beginnings they had and in some cases still do, close ties to Planned Parenthood.
John H. Tanton was the
founder and chair of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). In a
footnote to an appendix written by Tanton, he points to his involvement
with Planned Parenthood and other organizations concerned with population
control:
“In pursuit of his demographic and immigration policy
interests, Tanton has served as organizer and president of Northern Michigan
Planned Parenthood (1965-71); as chair of the National Sierra Club Population Committee
(9171-74); as a member of the National Zero Population Growth Board (1973-75);
as chair of its Immigration Study Committee (1973-75); as its national
president (1975-79); as organizer (1979) of the Federation of American Immigration
Reform (FAIR) and its chair (1979-87); and as a board member of Population/Environment
Balance (190-80).[1]
Tanton’s wife, Mary Lou, who was involved with his various
organizations was an advocate for abortion. Her essay on the subject was
printed in the Charlevoix Courier in 1969.[2]
Dan Stein, now the president of FAIR, complains, according the
Polizette article that “"The
SPLC is deeply invested in promoting mass immigration, bullying political
opponents into silence, and is nothing more than a daily smear machine
uninterested in the free exchange of ideas. It uses the same ad hominem tactics
year in and year out to try to manage political speech in the interests of its
own agenda." But what about FAIR’s immigration ideas. On their site they
are offering a comprehensive immigration reform plan they hope President elect Donald
Trump and congress will buy into, “Fair
Immigration Priorities for the 2017 Presidential Transition: A Special Report
from the Federation for American Immigration Reform.”
The report is long and needs
a great deal of analysis. However, it should be noted that the plan calls for
no amnesty at all. No medical attention or schooling for illegal alien
children. In fact, it calls for greater limitations on legal immigration. It is definitely an anti-immigration document.
It has two core concerns. One that illegal aliens are causing horrific problems
in the United States:
“Illegal immigration and
unchecked legal immigration are detrimental to the quality of life in the
United States. The American family is increasingly bearing the costs of urban
sprawl, environmental degradation, traffic congestion, increased crime,
overburdened health care, overwhelmed public schools and debt-ridden state and
municipal governments—all results of uncontrolled immigration. The fiscal costs
of immigration, legal and illegal, have always been substantial, but with the recent
economic downturn, these costs have become even more burdensome. The social,
cultural and political costs are being felt more acutely as we receive immigrants
in numbers too large to be successfully incorporated into our way of life and assimilated
into our communities.”
And secondly that America’s immigration
policies should be absolutely focused on the needs and desires of United States’
citizens and therefore only those offering exceptional skills should be
admitted. On
the introduction page of this paper FAIR states:
“The U.S. immigration system
must be reformed to reflect broad national interest, not the narrow special
interests that seek cheap labor and increased political influence. This means
ending illegal immigration, reducing overall levels of immigration and only
admitting immigrants who have the education and skills to succeed in 21st
Century America.”
While true conservatives
complain about the brutality of the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, FAIR complains
about what is called the Mariel Boatlift when 125, 000 Cubans escaped from
Cuba. They write in their policy plan, “Stretching
back to the Mariel boatlift and beyond, the United States has periodically been
faced with mass migration events. The recent Unaccompanied Alien Minor crisis
on the southern border clearly demonstrates that a comprehensive border control
strategy requires a robust and sustainable capacity to confront and manage
these migrant surges.”
While it is true that Castro
released some criminals and convicts to make that journey, nonetheless many
Cubans found freedom in the United States and were welcomed here by their
families.
The Southern Poverty Law
Center would of course not complain about FAIR’s connection to abortion
advocacy but they do have important information including FAIR’s connections to
racist ideals. Their article “Federation
for American Immigration Reform” is important and factual.
In
the Federation for American Immigration Reform one sees, as I have stated, a
merging of progressive views of population control including abortion, and
nationalism tinged with racism, supposedly for the sake of environmentalism. There
are several groups connected to this organization all concerned with
immigration and population control. Californians
for Population Stabilization (CAPS) is one. Another is The Social Contract Press.
Psalm one tells the faithful that we
are blessed when we do not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the
path of sinners or sit in the seat of scoffers. Wickedness is growing ramped,
may we be wise and discerning. And have mercy on the foreigner and the refugee.
[2] Appendix
C Ibid. (A 1969 essay in the Charlevoix Courier by Mary Lou Tanton advocating for abortion. An appendix to Mary Lon, John Tanton a Journey into American Conservatism by John F. Rohe. )
As a new Christian, a young teenager, I was allowed to lead
the opening services for my church’s vacation Bible school. In this little
store front Southern Baptist church, that position meant telling stories about
different Christians and their lives and witness. One, for example was about John
Newton, his life, and his song, Amazing Grace. One story that particularly
impressed me was the story of a woman who had raised her family leaning heavily
on Psalm 91. The one that begins, “He who dwells in the
shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.”
When my husband and I were married we had a picture taken of our
hands together over that Psalms.It is
the first picture in our wedding album.
Recently, at Fremont Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, which
we have once again been attending, the choir sang an anthem that uses that
Psalm as its focus. The music and words were so beautiful. And as I sat listening
to the refrain I felt myself lifted into the presence of the Almighty, I felt
myself in that place which is, as the song states, “the shadow of our mighty King” the “dwelling place where
angels cry.”
Who dwells within His most secret place Is never far from His blessed grace 'Neath His great shadow all will be well No better place now for us to dwell
Refrain
The secret place of God Most High The shadow of our mighty King The dwelling place where angels cry Is where our praise will forever ring
Fear not the terror that comes at night Nor flaming arrows by morning light His truth is always our sword and shield Against His power, all foes must yield
Refrain
A thousand fall now at ev'ry side Ten thousand more may have yet to die Yet plague and sword can Ne'er kill the soul His angels guard us now safe and whole
Refrain
Refuge and fortress for all who trust No safer pasture for men of dust 'Neath wings and feathers of Holy Lord No greater comfort can He afford
Refrain
I write this to try and
explain a little about why I do not write as often as I used to write. It is
hard. I wrote earlier, more than a year ago that my husband has what is called
mild cognitive impairment. It is getting worse, he is slowly losing word usage
and deep abstract thinking. There is so much I could say but I simply can’t. I
would recommend, for those who are interested a book, Second Forgetting: Remembering the Power of the Gospel During Alzheimer’s
Disease by Dr. Benjamin Mast.
To add to my sadness, I am
experiencing absolute rejection from two people that I love dearly. And I cannot write about that either, but I
want to recommend another book, Ann Voskamp’s The Broken Way: A daring Path into the Abundant Life. It is about
drawing close to Jesus and reaching out to others through our own brokenness. I just finished it last week and it is so
helpful.
But, needless to say, both
the sadness and the interruptions of my days are keeping me away from writing.
But it is that secret place that place under His shadow, that place where angels
cry holy, holy that holds me in grief in peace and His comfort.
On a Facebook page that I belong to, Happy to be a Presbyterian, it is mostly progressive and PC (U.S.A), a fellow Presbyterian put up a video by a Muslim, I believe his name is Joshua Evans, who is offering
ten reasons of why Jesus is not God. The person who placed the video there
wrote, “he makes a lot of great
points and arguments I would say; especially reasons 9, 7-4, and 2. Reason 3 is
troublesome and seems contradictory to me because Jesus Himself was quoted to
have said to His disciples before departing to "go and make disciples of
ALL nations....and unto the ends of the earth"; not just to the Jews. But
the majority of the rest of it seems to be quite accurate. Are there other
things in this video that are wrong? If so, please leave in the comments below
what they are, and why. Thank you.” I decided to write about this for several
reasons.
The Muslim man is concerned about
others salvation. That is good, so am I. But more importantly it is a false
view of the incarnation, in fact a misunderstanding of Jesus. I am placing the
video on this page and then answering the reasons below, starting with number
10 as he has:
*
10. The 10th reason this person gives for not
believing Jesus is God is because God cannot be born. This is a problem he has
throughout his presentation. He does not believe in the Incarnation, nor does
he have any understanding of what that means. God took on flesh, took on
humanity. Jesus is both human and divine. Jesus Christ is eternal since he is
divine, but in his humanity he was born. And it should be noted that Jesus
tells the Jewish leaders who did not believe him, “before Abraham was born, I
am.”(John 8:58) (Only the Holy Spirit can cause the human mind and heart to
understand. Pray for Mr. Evans.)
9. The 9th reason Jesus is not God, according to
the speaker, is that God’s nature is one. Israel is to worship only the one
God. He believes that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or the text state
that Jesus is God. But this is not true. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus does the
very acts of God. He stills the storm with his command, he rises the dead and
heals. John the Baptist is said to be
making way for the Lord as he prepares the people for Jesus. John’s Gospel explicitly
tells us that Jesus (the Word) was with God and is God. Jesus in this Gospel
refers to himself many times with the “I Am” of Exodus. “ “God said to Moses, ‘I
AM Who I Am.’” He is God. (Of course this is why we use the term Trinity)
8. The 8th reason that Jesus is not God according
to the speaker is because no one has seen God and lived. However it should be
noted that Moses saw his “backside” others saw him in Theophanies for instance Samson’s
father and mother and Abraham before God told him he was going to destroy
Sodom.
The speaker attempts to say that when Jesus says he and the
Father are one, he is speaking of them being one in purpose not one in essence.
On John 10:30, where Jesus states, “I and the Father are one,” biblical scholar
William Hendriksen states:
“However, inasmuch as in other passages it is clearly taught
that the oneness is a matter not only of outward operation but also (and
basically) of inner essence (see especially 5:18 but also 1:14; 3:16) it is
clear that also here nothing less than this can have been meant. Certainly if
Son and Father are one essentially,
then when Jesus states, “I and the Father, we are one,” he cannot merely mean, “We
are one in providing protective care for the sheep.” The economic trinity rests
forever upon the essential trinity. …”
In saying this Hendriksen means that the actions of the persons
of the Trinity rests upon the oneness of the Trinity. Hendriksen goes on to write, (and here I am
sorry I do not have the computer capability to put the Greek text in the quote:
“Note how carefully both the diversity of the persons and the
unity of the essence is expressed here. Jesus says, “I and the Father.” Hence,
he clearly speaks about two persons.
And this plurality is shown also by the verb (one word in Greek) “we are” …
These two persons never become one person.
Jesus does not say, “We are one
person” …, but he says, “We are one substance
….’ Though two persons, the two are
one substance or essence. … Thus in this passage Jesus affirms his complete equality
with the Father.”[1]
The beauty of the good news here is that God now allows us to
look on his image in the Son and we see him clearly in Scripture.
7. This seventh point is filled with misunderstandings and
falsehood. He believes that because the early Christians worshiped in the synagogue
they didn’t believe that Jesus was God. Added to that is his idea that it was
only Paul and the Council of Nicaea that taught that Jesus was God. (He needs
to reread the Gospels.) Early Christian worship in the Temple and the Synagogue
was clearly connected to who they believed Jesus was, the promised Jewish messiah;
the One who was meant to be king of the Jews, the savior who would save his
people. And not only did they meet in Jewish places of worship, they met in
homes.
Paul’s New Testament letters are the earliest writings, and
the speaker fails to consider that Jesus was resurrected and Paul had a deep
relationship with him. In the midst of controversy about the deity of Jesus, the
Council of Nicaea simply confirmed the truths that the early churches already
held.
I am not sure why the speaker keeps referring to the Qumran
community; it really has nothing to do with the early Christians. But instead
it has to do with the Essene community who had preserved their own writings and
a great deal of the Old Testament.
6. The 6th point is once again simply a denial of
the Incarnation. Why did Jesus need to eat, to sleep, to pray? Jesus took on
humanity and suffered all that entails for our sake. He prayed because the Son
had always communed with the Father.
5. The speaker refers to those texts where Jesus states that
only the Father knows the time of his coming. And to another text, John 14:28,
where Jesus states that the Father is greater than him. This again has to do
with the Incarnation and the Muslim’s misunderstanding. Jesus, according to
early church fathers, is speaking of himself in his humanity. He was submissive
to the Father as he waited to fulfill his purpose. Calvin, adding to this verse
Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 15:24, 28, sees both Jesus and Paul referring to
Jesus’ work as mediator between God and humanity. His conclusion is beautiful:
“Christ is not here comparing the Father’s divinity with his
own, nor his own human nature with the Father’s divine essence, but rather his
present state with the heavenly glory to which he was soon to be received. It
is like saying, “You want to keep me in the world, but it is better for me to
ascend to heaven.” Let us therefore learn to see Christ humbled in the flesh,
so that he may lead us to the source of blessed immortality for he was not
appointed to be our guide merely to raise us to the sphere of the moon or the
sun, but to make us one with God the Father.”[2]
4. The complaint in number 4 is that Jesus in John 17:3 states
that the way to God is to believe in the one true God and Jesus Christ who he
sent. He believes Jesus is in this statement denies his own divinity. He also
refers to Jesus’ words to Mary Magdalene that he is ascending to my God and
your God. On this point the speaker slips a little extra into the text.
He states “and Jesus Christ as a
messenger.” “As a messenger” turns the text into a Muslim text and changes
the work that Jesus came to do which was to die on the cross for our salvation.
God here in this context is the Christian term for addressing the Father rather
than the Son. But Jesus is telling his listeners that knowing both the Father
and the Son is having everlasting life. And that knowing is an intimate knowledge,
it entails knowing Jesus in his life, death and resurrection. It is so much
more then hearing the words of a messenger. And in knowing Jesus we know the
Father.
3. His third point has to do with Jesus’ title as Son of God.
He insist that many in the Bible are called sons of God. And they are. He
speaks of a pastor who says that Jesus was unique, he was the begotten Son of
God which the pastor supposedly defined as given because Jesus was conceived without
a father. Islam teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin as Christians also
believe. But this is not the meaning of begotten Son of God.
Answering the question about the meaning of begotten Son of
God in his commentary, Hendriksen states, “We conclude that the reference must
be to Christ’s Trinitarian sonship, i.e.,
to the fact that he is the Son of God from all eternity. This is favored by the
context (1:1, 18) and by such passages as 3:16, 18, which prove that the Son
was already, the only begotten before
his incarnation.”
Indeed the New American Standard translation of John 1:1
states, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the
bosom of the Father, he has explained him.” And this is from the oldest manuscripts
found.
2. For number 2.see 1 and 6. But it should be added that God’s
nature is clearly seen in the Incarnation since in God’s compassion and mercy
he took on human flesh and suffered for humanity.
1.This last point has to do with the worship of God. The
speaker becomes totally confused. He states that in Matthew 15 & 18 Jesus
tells them it is vain to worship him. But the quote in 15, it is not in 18, is
Jesus quoting from the Hebrew Bible and it is God telling Israel it is vain to
worship him since they hearts are far away from him and they are teaching
traditions rather than God’s word.
The speaker then has to turn to the Koran to make his point
about Jesus. He also says that Jesus never allowed anyone to worship him. But
this is simply not true. There are several places in the Gospel where people do
worship Jesus and he graciously receives their worship. The beautiful story of
Thomas is perhaps the best. Thomas has doubted the resurrection, but when he touches
the nail prints in Jesus ‘hands and the wound in his side Thomas states “My
Lord and my God.” In the Greek it is the Lord of me and the God of me.
There is so much more that could be added but this is already
too long.
[1]
William Hendriksen, The Gospel of John,
New Testament Commentary, eighth printing, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
1979).
Someone, a friend, placed this video on Facebook. It was just posted by President Donald Trump HQ . It immediately reminded me of some of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda speeches. Here is the video:
It isn't that Trump is blaming the Jews, but he is blaming mysterious global special interest groups as did the Nazis. And it isn't that the Clintons haven't been dishonest and they do have some awful views about morality, (I am not voting for her or him), but Trump has elevated our problems to the level of a global conspiracy just as Hitler did. And he is making himself a savior figure which we as Christians should reject with every ounce of our faith.
Here is part of a speech by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Much of it, in my opinion sounds like Trump except of course, it is about Germany, and the Jews are the main bad guys:
"We are just good enough that international capital allows us to fill its money sacks with interest payments. That and only that is the result of a centuries-long history of heroism. Have we deserved it? No, and no again!
Therefore we demand that a struggle against this condition of shame and misery begin, and that the men in whose hands we put our fate must use every means to break the chains of slavery.
Three million people lack work and sustenance. The officials, it is true, work to conceal the misery. They speak of measures and silver linings. Things are getting steadily better for them, and steadily worse for us. The illusion of freedom, peace and prosperity that we were promised when we wanted to take our fate in our own hands is vanishing. Only complete collapse of our people can follow from these irresponsible policies.
Thus we demand the right of work and a decent living for every working German.
While the front soldier was fighting in the trenches to defend his fatherland, some Eastern Jewish profiteer robbed him of hearth and home. The Jew lives in the palaces and the proletarian, the front soldier, lives in holes that do not deserve to be called “homes.” That is neither necessary nor unavoidable, but rather an injustice that cries out to the heavens. A government that stands by and does nothing is useless and must vanish, the sooner the better.
Therefore we demand homes for German soldiers and workers. If there is not enough money to build them, drive the foreigners out so that Germans can live on German soil. Our people is growing, others diminishing. It will mean the end of our history if a cowardly and lazy policy takes from us the posterity that will one day be called to fulfill our historical mission.
Therefore we demand land on which to grow the grain that will feed our children.
While we dreamed and chased strange and unreachable fantasies, others stole our property. Today some say this was an act of God. Not so. Money was transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich. That is cheating, shameless, vile cheating!
A government presides over this misery that in the interests of peace and order one cannot really discuss. We leave it to others to judge whether it represents Germany's interests or those of our capitalist tormenters.
We however demand a government of national labor, statesmen who are men and whose aim is the creation of a German state.
These days anyone has the right to speak in Germany — the Jew, the Frenchman, the Englishman, the League of Nations, the conscience of the world, and the Devil knows who else. Everyone but the German worker. He has to shut up and work. Every four years he elects a new set of torturers, and everything stays the same. That is unjust and treasonous. We need tolerate it no longer. We have the right to demand that only Germans who build this state may speak, those whose fate is bound to the fate of their fatherland.
Therefore we demand the destruction of the system of exploitation! Up with the German worker state! Germany for the Germans!"1.
It is of course horrific that we must endure either candidate; God is undoubtedly searching our hearts as his people. This is that very clear time when we must not put our faith in man or woman but in our Lord.
There is a great deal to applaud in the sixth lesson of the
Presbyterian Women’s Bible study Who is
Jesus? What a Difference a Lens Makes.
The author Judy Yates Siker, in this lesson,
“According to Hebrews,” at the end, answers the question about Jesus’s identity
in this manner:
“The writer of Hebrews goes to great lengths to demonstrate
the majesty, the grandeur, and the perfection of Jesus. Yet, this Jesus is one
who can relate to us in our earthly circumstances. Truly, there is in every
generation the need to carry the message of the good news forward, in spite of
trials and frustrations of the day. The writer of Hebrews tells readers then
and now to be strong, to give thanks for the unshakeable kingdom in which
Christ reigns. Through the lens of this first-century writer, we are called to
be strong in the faith, and through this lens, we are able to see the person
and work of Jesus, the one who makes that faith possible.”
Siker understands that Jesus is both priest and sacrifice, and
that he is both human and divine. She comforts her readers with the biblical
truth that Jesus “can sympathize and empathize with people.”
And yet, still, there is the continued push to de-emphasize
the wholeness and completeness of the biblical witness to Jesus Christ as fully
God and fully human, as both Lord and the ransom for sin. Furthermore, there is
the continued apology and concern about the witness to Jesus of the early
church and how that affected their relationship to the Jewish people as a
whole.
A High
Christology:
First, in writing about the Christology of Hebrews, Siker, in
note 2, reminds the reader that, as she has put it, the synoptic Gospels have a
lower Christology, John a higher Christology, but Hebrews has both. But as I
have pointed out in my introduction
to this whole study:
“A high Christology is a Christology that is superior in that
it not only emphasizes the divinity of Jesus but also affirms the humanity of
Jesus. It is a balanced account of the person of Jesus, fully God and fully
human. Think of the creed of Chalcedon. A fence is placed around the person of
Jesus Christ and there are some things that cannot be said. A low Christology
does fail to uphold Jesus’ divinity.
While the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul give a more
direct and straight forward picture of Jesus’ divinity they also are very clear
about the humanity of Jesus.Matthew,
Mark and Luke give very practical understandings of Jesus’ humanity, but in
terms of his miracles, wisdom and even his actions they clearly picture Jesus
as God. Who can still the raging waves but God? (Matthew 8) Who can forgive sin
but God? (Mark 2) Who can raise the dead but God? (Luke 7)”
And I added the words of biblical scholar Larry W. Hurtado,
author of Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to
Jesus in Earliest Christianity. In a comment on his blog he wrote:
“But certainly Mark reflects and presumes a very “high”
view of Jesus. E.g., the opening lines effectively make Jesus the “Lord” whose
paths are prepared for by the Baptist. And at various points Jesus is pictured
as heralded by demons who (unlike the humans in the story) perceive his
transcendent significance. And Jesus acts in ways that allude to YHWH in the OT
(e.g., walking on the waves and calming them).”
The same sorts of
explanations can be given for Matthew and Luke. The question, "Who is
Jesus?” cannot be rightly answered using the type of divisive exegesis Siker
uses. Even the Old Testament looks forward to the answer: Jesus Christ, fully
God, fully human.
Jesus the High Priest and Sacrifice:
While Siker correctly writes
that Hebrews is the only New Testament book that speaks of Jesus as high
priest, she begins this section with a rather strange explanation of why a high
priest and a sacrifice.
Rather than simply referring
to the Old Testament’s God given instructions to the people of Israel, Siker
refers to the sacrificial offerings of all of the nations. She writes:
“Unlike our world today,
almost all societies in the ancient world practiced animal sacrifice. The
Greeks and Romans built countless temples to their gods and offered them daily
sacrifices. Similarly, the temple in Jerusalem was the place where sacrifices were
offered every day.”
And then speaking of Jesus as
the perfect sacrifice and what that means, Siker writes, “So Jesus was viewed
as a perfect sacrifice—that is, a sinless sacrifice. Only in this way could he
be an appropriate sacrifice to atone for human sinfulness.” But Siker ruins all
of her words with her conclusion, “This is how the sacrificial mindset of the
earliest Christians, including that of Hebrews, worked.”
The similarities are little. The sacrifices in the temple were
meant to fulfill God’s commandments for the people of Israel. The order was to
be rightly fulfilled, but the heart, full of repentance and thankfulness, was
important too. The rituals were not the same as the rituals of other nations
offered to false gods. Most importantly, the sacrifices were symbols and types
of the coming Messiah. [1]
Siker does refer to Jesus as the Passover lamb, but she does
not acknowledge that he is truly the fulfillment of God’s promise seen within
the offering. She only acknowledges that the early Christians including the
author of Hebrews saw him that way.
The question comes to mind, does Siker believe that God
commanded the sacrifices that the Israelite priesthood performed?
Melchizedek:
Siker also writes about Hebrews’ references to the high priest
Melchizedek, a mysterious person to whom Abraham pays tithes. (Genesis 14:18)
She refers to Jesus as a descendent of Melchizedek because Melchizedek was,
according to speculation, taken up into heaven.And likewise, Jesus was resurrected. But the author of Hebrews is using
Melchizedek as a symbol of Jesus. The scripture does not give Melchizedek’s
parentage nor speak of his death, therefore it can be said that he is, “Without
father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”
(Hebrews 7:3) Jesus is of “the order” of Melchizedek’s priesthood.[2]
But Siker, in note 4, evidently does not believe that
Melchizedek is a real person. In the note she writes, “Scholars continue to
debate the image of Melchizedek and its creation
(whether by the author of Genesis or earlier in Jewish tradition.” It is
important to see Melchizedek as a real person, but without the speculation. (Emphasizes
mine)
Speaking philosophically, if Melchizedek is not a real person
but the Jewish priests are real people, the author of Hebrews loses his
argument that Jesus’ priesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood. Real
existence takes priority over non-existence.
But, having written all of the above, still, Siker’s
explanation of Jesus as the high priest is very good and helpful for the
reader. She explains how the Jewish high priest was the only one who was
allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, and how Jesus who had no sin is the one
who enters the heavenly Holy of Holies. He could offer the sacrifice, himself,
without needing to sacrifice for himself.
Supersessionism:
Supersessionism, the idea that Christianity replaces God’s
covenant with Israel is considered a problem in the book of Hebrews. Siker sees
it simply as sibling rivalry. She believes this was an argument between
different Jewish sects who would later become Rabbinic Judaism and
Christianity. But the problems and the
answers are deeper than that.
The early Christians did meet in the synagogues as well as
homes but nonetheless they also believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the
promises of God in the Hebrew Bible. They also believed that only in Jesus
could anyone be saved including their fellow Jewish relatives. However, the
apostle Paul gives what was meant to be the correct understanding of the
position of the Jewish people who did not follow Jesus:
“From the standpoint of
the gospel they (the Jews who rejected Jesus) are enemies for your sake, but
from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the
fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans
11:28-29)
God still keeps covenant with the Jewish people but he only
offers salvation through Jesus Christ. How could it not be so; from Genesis
3:15 to the end of Malachi, God’s promises to his people look forward to Jesus.
He is the seed of Eve who bruises Satan’s head and he is the ideal priest and
messenger of the covenant in Malachi. He is the one who purifies the sons of
Levi. (Malachi 3) Jesus is every biblical promise fulfilled.
[1]
For deeper reading on the priesthood of Jesus and his sacrifice I recommend puritan
writer John Flavel and his book, The
Fountain of Life: Presenting Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory. Flavel
has four chapters that deal with Jesus’ priesthood, including his sacrifice and
his intercession. It is very rich.
[2]
F.F. Bruce, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament, The Epistle to the Hebrews, F.F. Bruce,
General Editor, reprint (Grand
Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981)
“Of Melchizedek ‘it is witnessed that he liveth’ in that sense that we never
read of him otherwise than as a living man; of Christ it can be said He lives
in the sense that, having died once for all and risen from the dead, He is
alive for evermore.” 142.
In the Presbyterian Women’s Bible study, Who is Jesus? What a difference a Lens Makes, in lesson five, “According
to Paul,” the focus is on Paul’s theme of a crucified and risen Jesus. Yes, the
cross and the resurrection are two of Paul’s important themes. As author Judy
Yates Sikerstates “Paul’s lens,
first and foremost, is the cross, and that resulting portrait is not focused on
the life and teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels but rather is focused on the
risen Christ.”
Toward the end of the lesson Siker writes:
“From Paul’s perspective the cross is at the heart of the
Gospel message, for it reveals a God who embraces humanity in all of its
sinfulness and redeems humanity through the power of Jesus’ death and
resurrection. The cross reveals a God who so identifies with human suffering
and the pain of humanity’s own inhumanity that, in Jesus, this God takes on the
power of sin and the power of death, and transforms it all into life abundant
(Rom.5-6)”
Siker goes on to quote Romans 5:6-8, a beautiful picture of
God’s redeeming love. I applaud her words in this section on page 55 of the
lesson.
However, even in this lesson Siker continues to split apart
the New Testament’s views of who Jesus is. She tends to place too much emphasis
on scholarly debates about the text which tends to muddy her good words about
the good news which women need to hear. In this lesson there are two debates about
the text that Siker uses
The first is her decision to exclude several books which traditional
views, until the nineteenth century, have attributed to Paul. The books are 2
Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians and Ephesians. Ephesians is
an interesting case. I believe most conservative/evangelical scholars would
certainly include Ephesians as one of Paul’s letters. In the Dictionary of Paul and His letters, all
of the above books are attributed to Paul.
In the book’s piece on Ephesians, the author, Talbot School of
Theology professor Clinton E. Arnold, affirms Paul’s authorship noting that
Professor Ralph P. Martin, one of the book’s editors does not agree. It could
also be noted that Marcus Barth in his Ephesians commentaries also attributes
Ephesians to Paul.
If Siker had accepted the book of Colossians as a Pauline letter
she could have also underscored Paul’s magnificent Christology. As Peter T. O’Brian
writes, “Colossians has much to say about the importance of the gospel, the person
and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially as Lord in creation and author of
reconciliation (Col 1:15-20.).” [1]
The other scholarly debate that Siker uses in this study is
the idea that Paul seems to have nothing to say about the life and teachings of
Jesus. As she put it if we only had Paul to read we would only know, “born of a
woman (Gal. 4:4) of the lineage of David (Rom. 1:3) born under the law (Gal
4:4), had a group of followers (1 Cor. 15:5), died on a cross (Phil 2:8).”
Siker does give some good reasons for Paul’s seeming silence
about the life and teachings of Jesus, that is, he was after all writing
letters to address the problems of the various churches. But she also adds that
“some scholars argue that Paul did not know very much about the historical
Jesus.” (She leaves the door open to the reader to choose their preference.)
This divides the risen Lord from his incarnation when there
really is no division. If Paul knows the risen Lord, he knows the Jesus who
lived and ministered on earth. His letters develop the theology that is formed
out of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul’s ethics, as he
guides the churches and individual Christians, grow out of the teachings of
Jesus.[2]
If liberal scholarship did not so easily pull the various
books of the New Testament apart but read the text as a whole the problems
would not be so great. One could believe Paul and see him and his letters in
the contexts of Luke’s writings in the book of Acts. Paul’s letters should undergird
Acts and Acts affirm Paul’s letters. One could simply accept the biblical fact
that Paul knew the apostles and other Christian leaders who knew Jesus during
his ministry on earth.
I have not written much about the suggestions for leaders at
the end of each lesson. They are written by Dr. Lynn Miller. Both Miller and
Siker at the end once again bring up the idea of a different Jesus because of
different author’s perspectives. Speaking of Paul’s words about redemption and
the cross, Siker, at the end, writes, “No, this is not the same portrait of
Jesus we saw in the Gospels, for Paul’s lens is a lens of the cross.” And Miller
in suggestions for leaders writes:
Paul’s letters to specific communities ‘bear witness to the
challenges of applying the gospel message to new and changing circumstances.”
What are todays changing circumstances and who is the Jesus that can speak to
those circumstances?”
That is a question with the aroma of apostasy.
Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
[1]Peter
T. O’Brian, “Letter to the Colossians,” Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters, A compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, Gerald
F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, editors, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993).
[2]
For a compelling argument against Paul having little knowledge of the earthly
Christ and his teaching see, J.M.G. Barclay, “Jesus and Paul,” Dictionary of Paul.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) co-moderator, T. Denise Anderson, in her article, “Confession
time: How white supremacy hurts white people,” on the Presbyterian Outlook web-site,
calls on individual white people to personally confess their individual racism.
Anderson insists that all white
people in the United States are involved in racism and white supremacy because
the founders of America were colonialist and involved in slavery. Referencing
Kelly Brown Douglas, Anderson writes, that the puritans contributed to white
supremacy believing themselves to be “the pure remnant of the freedom-loving
and exceptionally moral Anglo-Saxons.”
Anderson continues, “The idea of
American exceptionalism is intrinsically linked to not only faith, but Germanic
(and Norse) heritage. That exceptionalism necessarily excludes those not of
that heritage.” She also writes:
“Let me be very clear: One does not have to be malicious or
hateful to be racist. One needn’t even be intentional about it. White supremacy
is so pervasive, insidious and thoroughly woven into the fabric of our society
that it is quite easy to be racist. In fact, it’s difficult to not be
racist.”
I was troubled by Anderson’s essay for at least three reasons.
The first is historical. The nineteenth century saw a rise in some ideologies
that produced racism. And they were based on religious viewpoints and
historical views about Germanic and Norse exceptionalism, but they had nothing
to do with the puritan’s beliefs about their place and purpose in God’s
kingdom.
I was troubled by the use of the term “white supremacy.”
Having studied and written
a great deal on many of the racist groups in the United States I believe it is
a misuse of language to attach the term white supremacy to all white Americans.
White supremacy groups are known for their vileness, their hate and their ignorance.
It does not help to write that “White supremacy is so pervasive, insidious and
thoroughly woven into the fabric of our society that it is quite easy to be
racist.”
No it is not easy, among moral people, to be racist. To say
that and to say that all whites are racists is to partially eliminate the evil
of racism. This is harmful to all ethnic groups. Surely Anderson would not say
that because some Arab groups are terrorist all Arabs are terrorist! Or because
some husbands have abused their wives all husbands are wife beaters!
But my greatest concern is the idea of personal confession. I
have read one of those confessions and I was dismayed. It consisted of private
matters that should have been confessed, not on social media, but privately to
those hurt and most of all confessed to God. And this is where some in the
church may misunderstand what it means for members of the church to confess the
ills of society. It may be one person confessing but it must be for the whole
church.It is after all the Church which
makes confession. In a sense those who ask for individual public confession are
themselves tyrants.
Daniel’s beautiful prayer of confession is the biblical
example. He confessed to God the sins of Israel including himself in the prayer.
He did not say I did this or I did that, but the people of God, including
Daniel, are the sinners confessing before God their sin.
“Alas, O Lord, the great
and awesome God who keeps his covenant and lovingkindness for those who love
him, and keep his commandments, we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted
wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from your commandments and
ordinances. Moreover we have not listened to your servants the prophets, who
spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, our fathers and all the people of
the land.” (9: 4-6)
There is much more; read the whole ninth chapter.
Bonhoeffer, in his book, Ethics,
lays out a confession for the church. And before he begins he explains that the
prayer is not meant to be a time of pointing fingers at any particular group
such as the “blacks” or the “whites” but rather it is the church speaking of
their failures and sin. It is individual in that individual sin hurts the
church. But it is corporate, as the church, because only in Jesus Christ can
humanity recognize their guilt and find grace. [1]
Yes, there is racism, still, in the United States and the
Church has a calling to eliminate that sin from their own institutions,
displaying the beauty and goodness of Jesus Christ in their midst. But we will
not display His beauty by accusing brothers and sisters of the vileness of the
world.
[1]In 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention passed a
resolution concerning racial reconciliation entitled, “The Resolution on Racial
Reconciliation on the 150th anniversary of the Southern Baptist
Convention.” It was a time of confession. And the Presbyterian Church in
America passed an overture on racial reconciliation in 2002. Both statements
can be found in On Being Black and
Reformed by Anthony J. Carter. I highly recommend Carter’s book.
Judy Yates Siker, in the fourth lesson, “According to John,”
of the Presbyterian Women’s Bible study, Who is Jesus?
What a difference a Lens Makes,
seemingly gives the reader a truthful picture of Jesus. After all,
she writes, “In this forth Gospel we will see a very different Jesus. It is
here, in fact, that we begin to see that Jesus and God are one.” And she goes
on to write about Jesus as ‘pre-existent, creator, lamb of God, I Am and Son of
Man.
But still, there is that phrase in her sentence, ‘a very
different Jesus.’ Different than what? Different than the Jesus of the synoptic
gospels. Siker has already, in her other lessons, pictured Jesus as Prophet of
God, (Luke), the Jewish Messiah who is teacher, (Matthew), and God’s Son who
suffers (Mark). And as I pointed out in my review of the other lessons, he is
all of that. But even in the other Gospels Jesus is God, a truth that Siker fails
to include in her earlier lessons.
Added to this concern is Siker’s attempt to see the Gospel of
John as careening too far away from a balanced view of the person of Jesus. She
writes, “In this lesson, we will see how John reaches for as many titles and
metaphors as he can gather, to portray Jesus as more of a divine figure than a
human one.”
So, for the moment, putting aside the main sections of Siker’s
lesson four, I intend to answer a question that has been troubling me and
perhaps troubling my readers. Why is Siker presenting her material in this
manner, and how is it that she acknowledges the truthfulness of Jesus as God in
the Gospel of John but does not acknowledge it in the other Gospels? What is the
foundational teaching that under girds such a view of the Gospels? And where does
the view that there are different variations of Jesus in the different Gospels lead?
In three places within the fourth lesson a book is recommended
to the reader. First, Siker writes, “It is evident from the start that John’s
[Gospel] is a different sort of story. John’s Gospel has been called—and
rightly so—a “maverick” Gospel, for here is a portrait of Jesus unlike any of
his three predecessors.” In a side note about the difference between John and
the synoptic gospels there is this suggestion, “I suggest reading Robert
Kysar’s book, John, the Maverick Gospel.”
In another note about the separation of the early Christians from the Jews
there is, once again, a reference to Kysar’s book. And finally in both the
endnotes and the bibliography John, the
Maverick Gospel is listed.[1]
This isn’t the place to write a whole review of the book but
it certainly clarifies where the author of Who
is Jesus? What a difference a Lens
Makes obtained some of her central ideas.
Kysar, in his book, gives an explanation about the Christology
of the New Testament as well as how the material of the Gospels was formed. And
his view of the Christology of John is confusing to say the least.
Kysar believes there are three types of Christology in the New
Testament. There is “Adoptionistic
Christology which as Kysar puts it “suggests that Jesus was a man who,
because of his obedience to God, was adopted as God’s Messiah.” He believes
this is the earliest view of Jesus but is only “faintly” found in the New
Testament. He offers Acts 2:36; 3:13; and Romans 1:3-4.
The second type Kysar sees as Agency Christology and believes it is more common. Jesus was sent
as a representative “to perform a revelatory and saving function.” He finds
this even in John. The third type is Incarnational
Christology which is “to claim the divine nature of Christ and at the same
time to claim that this divine Christ has taken a human form.” So Kysar, like
Siker, believes that each Gospel holds differing views of the person of Jesus.
But Kysar’s view of the incarnational Christ is certainly
problematic, although he, like Siker, takes the time to consider all of Jesus’
identities in the Gospel of John. His
final view of John’s Christology is a long quote but it is important even
though confusing. I place it here:
“The evangelist recognizes that the founder is the Father’s
Son. All the statements that assert the divinity of Christ are qualified by the
fact that he is the Father’s Son, not the Father’s own self. This author is no
systematic theologian but she or he is
theologically sophisticated enough to make clear that Christ is not to be
confused with God. Christ is divine and participates in the very being of
God, but is distinct and subordinate
to the Father. He is the expressive dimension of God’s being, or the Son who is
fully obedient to and sent by the Father. Our author recognizes that whatever
the incarnation of the Logos means, it
cannot mean that a human being is in every way fully the being of God. …”
(Italics mine) (68)
Kysar goes on to state that in John’s Gospel Christ is the functional equivalent of God.
Kysar commits two miserable actions with his words. He demotes
Jesus, yet designates him God in word and action for the ‘community.’ Jesus,
although called divine, he makes less than God and the community no longer encounters
the living and personal God in a real way. Instead of being the Church hidden
in Christ and therefore embraced by the Father, it is a community who
encounters a lesser divine being who is related to and sent by God. Because
Jesus is fully human Kysar does not reckon him to be fully God.[2]
And how do the various Gospels shape their stories about Jesus?
Kysar, writing of the Gospel of John and believing that an oral tradition about
Jesus had already been formed, states:
“This is to suggest that the creation of the literary gospel
form was not so much the genius of the author of the written material (the
Gospels of Mark and John) but the gradual and less-than-deliberate effort of
the early Christian community to preserve the materials that it had at its disposal.
The oral tradition, then based on historical recollection of Jesus of Nazareth,
shaped itself into gospel. By filling out the historical material with legend,
myth, and new teachings from what they believed to be the living Christ, the
early Christians gradually shaped the gospel form in the preliterary tradition.
(30)
So it is the various early Christian communities who supposedly
had differing views of Jesus. According to Kysar the Johannine community’s
faith experience of Christ and their search for identity informed their
Christology. Kysar writes, “In a faithful and creative way, the author of this
document rethought the answers to fundamental questions regarding the nature
and function of the Christian movement. In this way, the Fourth Evangelist did
what each constructive religious thinker must do in every new period of history
and what we are called to do today.” (69)
Here then is the outcome of a view of the New Testament’s
understanding of Jesus that includes multiple variations on his identity rather
than affirming the unity of the scriptural portrait of Jesus. Believing that it
is the community and its experience and needs that shaped the Gospels the door is
open for reshaping the good news in different times and cultures. And this is
seemingly one of Siker’s understandings as the reader will find when they reach
the last lesson, “According to contemporary Cultural Interpretations.”
[1]
Robert Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel, third edition, (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press 2007).
[2] It
should be noted here that Kysar is attempting to split the two natures of
Jesus, fully human, fully divine. I explained this problem in my first review. Jesus
Christ is both fully human and fully God. Those two things cannot be separated when
speaking of Jesus.
