A president or a nation can do what they want, I suppose,
until God’s judgment falls. But remember God’s judgment, the Scriptures state,
begins with the church. I have been listening to Sandra McCracken’s All Ye Refugees and I am reminded that
we are all refugees, exiled from God and without hope in the world without
Jesus Christ. That in itself is a biblical reason to care for the refugees of
this world.
One doesn’t have to quote God’s word to Israel to care for the
refugee because we were once as lost and needy as they. In fact, we still are so very needy. Having been brought home to God by the
death and life of Jesus is sufficient reason to care for the refugee. While we
were still ungodly Christ died for us.
I have a beautiful granddaughter (beautiful in face and
spirit) who put aside, for a while, a huge scholarship, to work with refugees
in Europe. I wonder how she and the team she is working with, which includes my
son and his wife as well as two grandchildren, are feeling now about our
situation as they experience those who so desperately need help and sanctuary.
I pray the church in the United States will turn her eyes toward
Jesus and away from fear.
I am the One, the earth is my handmade work
The skies I laid them wide, beauty unfurled
Horizon to horizon
Creation to creation, sings you home
Chorus
Welcome home, gather round
all ye refugees, come in.
Oh refugee, I did not cast you out
In death and broken ground, Salvation springs
My body and my blood, the healing that you need
Come and receive (Chorus)
Watch and wait and see, what is yet to be
Watch and wait and see, for the morning
Go out in joy and join the great procession
The mountains and the heav’ns all will rejoice
horizon to horizon, creation to creation
horizon to horizon, creation to creation
With one voice (Chorus)
I thought of who we are in Christ as I read an article lauded
by a Presbyterian pastor I follow on Twitter. A pastor, who, also follows me. The article, Pussy
Don’t Fail Me Now: The Place of Vaginas in Black Feminist Theory &
Organizing, was written by Dr. Brittney Cooper who writes under the name
crunktastic on Crunk
Feminist Collection. What was the Presbyterian pastor thinking? How did it “blow
her mind” and send her “reeling?” Couldn’t she see the awfulness of floundering
in a darkness that will forever hide the beauty of Jesus?
I couldn’t help thinking of a song that became popular during
the Jesus Movement, Turn your eyes upon
Jesus lo0k full in his wonderful face. There was another about looking into
each other’s eyes and seeing Jesus, (I don’t remember the title.) It is about
the identity of the Christian. We belong to Jesus and there our identity is
lodged.
The article was Cooper’s dialogue with herself about whether
black feminists should still identify with an emphasis on their vaginas or put that
aside for the sake of transgender people who do not have vaginas. It was her
reaction to some transgender people’s views about the recent women’ march in
Washington D.C. Please forgive the quote, it summarizes Cooper’s posting:
“After this weekend’s historic and inspiring Women’s Marches
all over the country, I happened to see a few trans folks naming and calling
out the pussy-centered culture of the marches, and reminding those of us who
are cis, that vaginas aren’t a prerequisite for womanhood. The march was filled
with white (cisgender) women reveling in the opportunity to wear their very
pink pussy hats and shirts, and talk freely about their vaginas in public.
I was not able to attend a march, but the nostalgia for both the movements of
the 1970s and the Riot Grrl Days was palpable, even in the pictures. Many
transwomen, however, pointed out the ways in which a focus on vaginas can
marginalize womenfolk that don’t have those parts.”
I am sorry for the vulgar images and painful jarring thoughts
these words produce. But all I could think, as I read, was how we, the Church,
must feel sorrow for those who are so hurting that they demean themselves in
this way. Cooper in another place states that she is religious and reads the
Bible from her perspective—but, for those who belong to Jesus, there is a union
with Jesus that negates our bitter selves and moves our identity into his.It is his goodness, his righteousness, his
holiness that marks us and gives us identity.
Those who have their identity in Jesus Christ have beauty; the
beauty of Christ. They do not quibble, with vulgar emphasis, over which body
parts should identify them and help them face a broken and too often ugly
world. They have Christ.
The church walks in the goodness of her Lord and bears his
beauty. May the women who marched and the women of the Crunk Feminist Collection
find their identity and beauty in Jesus.
“And
although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil
deeds, yet he has now reconciled you in his fleshly bodythrough death, in order to present you
before him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the
faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the
gospel that you have heard …” (Col. 1:21-23b)
As a writer who loves metaphor, symbol and analogy, I love the
Hebrew Bible, (the Old Testament.) It provides beautiful images of Jesus. But
more than that it offers the reality of God’s promises concerning the Messiah. And
here and there one sees glimpses of the eternal Son in person. Read the story
of the “angel of the Lord” who appears to Samson’s parents in Judges 13. He
calls himself Wonderful.
And I must quickly say
it is also the truthful narrative of God’s promises to and covenant with the
Jewish people. The Hebrew Bible is, in reality, two stories that
intertwine.It is the history of Israel
and God’s dealings and care for them. It is also, from beginning to end, the
story of God’s redemptive purposes and promises. And the Messiah of God, Jesus,
the begotten God in the bosom of the Father, looms large in the text.
Why am I writing this? Because a Presbyterian on a
Presbyterian site I belong to, posted an advertisement for a Bible entitled The Jesus Bible. The ad states, “There is No B.C.: Sixty Six Books, One
Story, All about One Name, Jesus.”That
is placed within the midst of the names of all of the books of the Bible. I don’t
think the commenters, who mostly didn’t like the ad, realized that this
particular Bible, published by Zondervan, is meant for young people. It is
meant as a study Bible. But many felt that because the ad was saying that Jesus
was also in the Old Testament that it sounded anti-Semitic.
I want to emphasize that the Hebrew Bible cannot be read out
of context. A great deal of it is definitely the history of the Jewish people. The
rest is their wonderful Writings and Prophets. But within the text is the
glorious promises of the coming King and Messiah, a suffering King and a
Suffering Messiah. Remember the very first Christians had only the Hebrew
Scriptures as their Bible.
In the book of Acts, the history of the early church, we read
the story of the Ethiopian official who on his journey home is reading Isaiah 53.
He asks the disciple Philip who the author is speaking of, himself or of someone
else.
“He was led as a sheep
to the slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he does not
open his mouth. In humiliation his judgement was taken away; who will relate
his generation? For his life is removed from the earth.”
Philip explains that the Old Testament text is about Jesus. “Then
Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to
Him.” (Acts 8: 35)
If we fail to open the texts of the Hebrew Bible and teach
others of our Lord Jesus Christ we fail to be his disciples.
One of the commenters in the thread I was reading reminded us
all that Jesus in fact turned to the Hebrew Bible to explain who he was and how
it was that he should be, and suffer crucifixion, and rise again. The apostle
Luke writes of Jesus’ words and actions:
“Oh foolish men and slow
of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter
into his glory?
Then
beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things
concerning himself in the Scriptures.”
Beginning in Genesis with the promise to Eve (and one might
say to Satan also because it is God’s foretelling and curse to him) “… I shall
put enmity between you and the woman. And between your seed and her seed; he
shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel,” there are
promises of the Messiah throughout the Old Testament.
I think one of my favorites was given by a man who wanted to
curse Israel but was only allowed to bless her:
“I see him but not now;
I behold him but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel … (Numbers 24:17a)
We have come to those last three lessons in the Presbyterian
Women’ Bible study, “Who is Jesus?: What a Difference a Lens Makes,” where the author bypasses the
biblical text. Using non-canonical texts, the perspectives of Islam and Judaism
and lastly contemporary culture, Judy Yates Siker looks at non-scriptural
answers to the question “who is Jesus?” With this review I will focus on the
questions that Siker fails to address. Why were the fanciful, too often gnostic
and docetic, texts used by Siker rejected by the early church? And why must we,
as Christians, also reject the non-canonical texts?
Yes, Siker does explain some of the differences between the
non-canonical texts and the biblical texts but she fails to warn her readers
that the non-canonical ones are damaging to the faith of the church. Most of
them were written after the biblical texts were written and were rejected by
the early church and the church universal through all ages.They were rejected because they redefine the
person of Jesus, the redemption of the saints and the God of the Hebrew Bible.
Siker’s reasons for turning to texts outside of the Bible are
twofold. In her view concerning the three final lessons, she insists that the
question, who is Jesus, for this study, is not “Who is Jesus according to our
New Testament.” Siker writes:
“I believe the question
is broader than this, and I think we owe it to ourselves, as world citizens, to
have a broader understanding of how this significant figure, Jesus, is seen and
understood beyond the bounds of the New Testament.”
Concerning the ancient non-canonical texts featured in lesson
seven, Siker writes:
“These writings are significant because they show us something
of the diversity of early Christianity. As Christians today, we have a variety
of views of Jesus and we certainly do not all agree on how we would answer the
question “Who is Jesus?” It is important to realize that the earliest
generations of Christians were dealing with similar questions, and were trying
to determine just who Jesus had been and what was the most appropriate way to
talk and teach about him. As we continue our efforts to understand and answer
the question for ourselves, it can be interesting, enlightening, and valuable
to know that even those among his earliest followers found the work of God in
Christ to be expressed in various ways. It remains our task today to explore
these ways and to engage the Gospel message of and about Jesus anew.”
So first, in answer to Siker’s statements, we are not only
citizens of this world, we are citizens of heaven and we owe nothing to
ourselves and everything to our Lord. If we study the texts she covers it must
be to better answer those who have fallen into deceptive teaching.
Secondly, this is the PW’s Bible Study. To teach a biblical
study exploring the person of Jesus and asking who he is one must understand
that the New Testament is the Christian’s authoritative source in answering the
question.Also as a Christian one should
connect the Word of the New Testament with the Word of the Old Testament. (And
yes, I am speaking here of the eternal Son or as the NASB puts it in John 1:18,
“The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father.”)
Thirdly, studying the non-canonical texts can be beneficial, not
because they are diverse forms of Christianity, but because they are heretical
forms of Christianity that continually reappear and are a threat to the
holiness and goodness of Christ’s church.
Looking at the Infancy Gospels Siker references, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James. Within both the
reader finds a fanciful child and a fanciful Mary. And the Infancy Gospel of Thomas entails more mythology then Siker tells.
Biblical scholar Richard J. Bauckham writes:
“… Jesus makes sparrows out of clay and brings them to life …
He heals the injured, raises the dead, curses
his enemies so that they die, proves superior in knowledge to all his
schoolteachers. …” (Italics mine)[1]
The distraction is away from the fact that the eternal Son
took on human flesh and became like humanity but without sin. Jesus’ miracles
in his adulthood were laced with the humility of the compassionate Savior who
did not and does not curse the repentant sinner. “A bruised reed he will not
break and a dimly burning wick he will not extinguish …” (Isaiah 42: 3a)
Siker also features the
Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of
Thomas.
The Gospel
of Peter which now only consists of small fragments is considered docetic
by Siker and by other scholars. It carries within the text the possible idea
that bodies are evil and that Jesus was not really human.One scholar, Richard Bauckham, suggest that
it may not have been docetic but rather had some misleading texts that were
used by some heretical teachers. Using the early church historian Eusebius
Bauckham writes:
“At the end of the second century
Bishop Serapion of Antioch heard of a dispute over its use in the church of
Rhossus. When he discovered it was being used to support docetic heresy and
that a few passages in it were suspect from this point of view, he disallowed
its use.”[2]
The
Gospel of Thomas, which simply consists of supposed sayings of Jesus, has
some sayings which align with biblical phrases and some which are clearly
gnostic. While Elaine Pagels in her book, The
Gnostic Gospels, seems to regard it as totally gnostic and uses those
sayings which are gnostic, biblical scholar F.F. Bruce in his book, The Books and the Parchments, in an appendix
writes:
“Some of these [sayings] could conceivably
be genuine; at least they are sufficiently in keeping with the Lord’s character
and teaching to deserve serious consideration. But the company they keep makes
them suspect, for some of the sayings ascribed to him in this work are
self-evidently spurious, and reflect the Gnostic outlook of the community to
whose library this particular copy [the Coptic translation] of the work
belonged.”
The important point here is that either
“gospel” carries within it the seeds of heresy that can destroy the witness of
true biblical faith. There is a failure to acknowledge the goodness of creation
as well as the fall. Salvation in the Gospel
of Thomas, turns out to be self-knowledge. And both gospels are aligned
with other false gospels that totally obliterate the good news of God’s gift of
salvation through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Siker, in the beginning of this lesson,
attempts, in laying ground for the use of the non-canonical texts, to relativize
the canonicity of the New Testament. She gives a slight history of that canonization
using the Muratorian Canon, Athanasius’ list in an Easter letter in 367 AD, and
the Council of Trent’s affirmation of the 27 books of the New Testament in
1546. Contradicting Siker’s historical
view of the canonization of the New Testament and her understanding of what
canonization of the New Testament meant, F.F. Bruce writes:
“What is particularly important to
notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary degree
of any Church Council. When at last a church council—the Synod of Hippo in A.D.
393—listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon
them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded
their previously established canonicity. As Dr. Foakes-Jackson puts it: ‘The Church
assuredly did not make the New Testament; the two grew up together.”[3]
It is in the holy Scriptures that we
find the answer to the question “Who is Jesus.”
[1]
Richard J. Bauckham, “Gospels (Apocryphal),” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A compendium of Contemporary
Biblical Scholarship, Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I Howard Marshall,
Editors, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press 1992).
[3][3]
F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments:
How We Got Our English Bible, revise and updated, (Old Tappan, New Jersey:
Fleming H. Revell 1984) 103-104.
A president or a nation can do what they want, I suppose,
until God’s judgment falls. But remember God’s judgment, the Scriptures state,
begins with the church. I have been listening to Sandra McCracken’s All Ye Refugees and I am reminded that
we are all refugees, exiled from God and without hope in the world without
Jesus Christ. That in itself is a biblical reason to care for the refugees of
this world. 
