Third Sunday in Advent: Jesus who is Wonderful
“For a child shall be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The Zeal of the Lord of host will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:6-7)
One of the funny yet beautiful passages in the Bible that I have written about is the way in which God gave instructions to the mother of Samson about his birth and how she was to take care of him. You can read about the funniness of it in this posting. But the important part is that it is the “angel of the Lord” that brings instructions to Samson’s mother. In those final scenes as the couple make a sacrifice to the angel of the Lord who has refused to give them his name, he says, “Why do you ask my name seeing it is wonderful?” (Judges 13:18)
The next thing that happens is that the angel of the Lord goes up in the flame from the sacrifice, and Manoah, Samson’s father, and his mother realize they have been instructed by God. The Tyndale Commentary on Ruth and Judges notes that “The angel of the Lord is regularly used in the Old Testament to denote the manifestation of the Lord Himself in a theophany.”
The Lord whose name is wonderful is given to us in the Incarnation. Samson was to deliver God’s people from the Philistines; Jesus delivers us from our sins and gives us everlasting life. In his gift of life to us he forever unites us to himself. His kingdom is the true utopia.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
C.S. Lewis moving from theism to Christianity
This is a wonderful discussion and portrayal Of C.S. Lewis moving from atheism to theism to Christianity. Enjoy ....
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Shlomo Sand's book "The Invention of the Jews" from a Christian perspective
I have not finished reading Shlomo Sand’s book The Invention of the Jewish People. But I have made a good beginning and have some thoughts that could be placed beside the videos of an interview of Sand’s that is on the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
My first impression has to do with the theologian Paul Tillich. His idea of symbols and whether they can be broken were helpful in looking at Nazi and other totalitarian ideologies and their symbols. Tillich felt that what he saw as the great symbol of Christianity, the cross, was important because the cross as a symbol could be so easily broken. Here I believe he ran up against both a reality and an absolute. The cross is more than a symbol and the whole world is changed if it can be broken.
Sand’s ideas about nations and history are also meant to deal with Nazi ideology and totalitarian nations. With empathy I see him attempting to make sense out of his past. That is, as a Jewish man who is the child of those who suffered under Nazi rule he must be looking through the lens of the question which shape all survivors, “why.”
He is also a historian who knows that it was an idea of essentialism which invaded the thought processes of nations and created the climate for Nazism to rise. And he sees the word ethnos operating in the same manner. As Sand puts it:
”The murderous first half of the twentieth century having caused the concept of race to be categorically rejected, various historians and other scholars enlisted the more respectable concept of ethnos in order to preserve the intimate contact with the distant past. Ethnos, meaning ‘people’ in ancient Greek, had served even before the Second World War as a useful alternative to, or a verbal intermediary between ‘race’ and ‘people.’ But its common ‘scientific’ use began only in the 1950s, after which it spread widely. Its main attraction lies in its blending of cultural background and blood ties, of a linguistic past and biological origin in other words, its combining of a historical product with a fact that demands respect as a natural phenomenon.” (28)
So how does a Christian use Sand’s book? Hopefully, to understand that it was essentialism on the whole that helped to create a totalitarian nation; that it is perhaps ethnos that might lead to the same problems anywhere. A people who see themselves as superior to others because of their past, their culture or their particular strengths tend to look down on others. But still there is a problem with Sand’s book. And this is where Tillich enters the picture for me.
Sand like Tillich believes that by eliminating an absolute, the nation as essential, the nation which arises out of an eternal people and their culture; there can be a prevention of totalitarianism. But he has run into an absolute that cannot be broken on his rock.
The Jewish people are God’s people, his beloved. They are a people with roots in antiquity and this is Sand’s particular anti-theme. Sand sees Israel as he sees other nations. There is no Israel but what belongs to myth and modern history. In other words Israel is an invented nation with myth for its history. For Sand there is no Israelite tribes, no Abraham, no Moses, no Kingdom of David, no exiles.
Sand looks at the Jewish historians based in the Zionist outlook and attempts to show that they were intent on providing a mythological foundation for Israel. He quotes Yitzhak Baer, after writing about his criticism of another Jewish historian who failed to write Jewish history from an ‘organic’ beginning. As Sand puts it the historian had “detached Jewish monotheism from its homeland in the first stage of its appearance, and then erroneously depicted an idealized and fairly comfortable exile. There was no description in his work of the longing for a natural existence in the homeland or the aspiration for sovereignty that had accompanied and defined Jews throughout their wanderings in history.” (101)
But one must disregard the Hebrew Bible as well as such Jewish historians in order to follow Sand. And for the Christian there is no faith without the truthfulness of the Hebrew Bible. When Jesus walked the road to Emmaus with two disciples after his resurrection he taught them about himself by reference to the whole Hebrew Bible. “Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, he explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24: 27)
Also: “Now he said to them. ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24: 44)
Added to Sand’s rejection of the ancient history of the Jews is his rejection of the Jews of Europe and the Middle East as those who are descended from any ancient Hebrew peoples. While this kind of thought has been used by various anti-Semitics, Sand does not intend it that way. But those Christians who use it will eventually fall into such categories if they pick up and use other exaggerated views about the Jewish people.
With empathy and care for the author, still one must not accept the main idea in Sand’s book about the history of the Jews. To use his book or his ideas and interviews as a means of discounting a Jewish State is from a Christian point of view an unfaithful exercise. The idea that Sand’s ideas are helpful can only mean an endorsement of secularism and in many cases anti-Semitism.
My first impression has to do with the theologian Paul Tillich. His idea of symbols and whether they can be broken were helpful in looking at Nazi and other totalitarian ideologies and their symbols. Tillich felt that what he saw as the great symbol of Christianity, the cross, was important because the cross as a symbol could be so easily broken. Here I believe he ran up against both a reality and an absolute. The cross is more than a symbol and the whole world is changed if it can be broken.
Sand’s ideas about nations and history are also meant to deal with Nazi ideology and totalitarian nations. With empathy I see him attempting to make sense out of his past. That is, as a Jewish man who is the child of those who suffered under Nazi rule he must be looking through the lens of the question which shape all survivors, “why.”
He is also a historian who knows that it was an idea of essentialism which invaded the thought processes of nations and created the climate for Nazism to rise. And he sees the word ethnos operating in the same manner. As Sand puts it:
”The murderous first half of the twentieth century having caused the concept of race to be categorically rejected, various historians and other scholars enlisted the more respectable concept of ethnos in order to preserve the intimate contact with the distant past. Ethnos, meaning ‘people’ in ancient Greek, had served even before the Second World War as a useful alternative to, or a verbal intermediary between ‘race’ and ‘people.’ But its common ‘scientific’ use began only in the 1950s, after which it spread widely. Its main attraction lies in its blending of cultural background and blood ties, of a linguistic past and biological origin in other words, its combining of a historical product with a fact that demands respect as a natural phenomenon.” (28)
So how does a Christian use Sand’s book? Hopefully, to understand that it was essentialism on the whole that helped to create a totalitarian nation; that it is perhaps ethnos that might lead to the same problems anywhere. A people who see themselves as superior to others because of their past, their culture or their particular strengths tend to look down on others. But still there is a problem with Sand’s book. And this is where Tillich enters the picture for me.
Sand like Tillich believes that by eliminating an absolute, the nation as essential, the nation which arises out of an eternal people and their culture; there can be a prevention of totalitarianism. But he has run into an absolute that cannot be broken on his rock.
The Jewish people are God’s people, his beloved. They are a people with roots in antiquity and this is Sand’s particular anti-theme. Sand sees Israel as he sees other nations. There is no Israel but what belongs to myth and modern history. In other words Israel is an invented nation with myth for its history. For Sand there is no Israelite tribes, no Abraham, no Moses, no Kingdom of David, no exiles.
Sand looks at the Jewish historians based in the Zionist outlook and attempts to show that they were intent on providing a mythological foundation for Israel. He quotes Yitzhak Baer, after writing about his criticism of another Jewish historian who failed to write Jewish history from an ‘organic’ beginning. As Sand puts it the historian had “detached Jewish monotheism from its homeland in the first stage of its appearance, and then erroneously depicted an idealized and fairly comfortable exile. There was no description in his work of the longing for a natural existence in the homeland or the aspiration for sovereignty that had accompanied and defined Jews throughout their wanderings in history.” (101)
But one must disregard the Hebrew Bible as well as such Jewish historians in order to follow Sand. And for the Christian there is no faith without the truthfulness of the Hebrew Bible. When Jesus walked the road to Emmaus with two disciples after his resurrection he taught them about himself by reference to the whole Hebrew Bible. “Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, he explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24: 27)
Also: “Now he said to them. ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24: 44)
Added to Sand’s rejection of the ancient history of the Jews is his rejection of the Jews of Europe and the Middle East as those who are descended from any ancient Hebrew peoples. While this kind of thought has been used by various anti-Semitics, Sand does not intend it that way. But those Christians who use it will eventually fall into such categories if they pick up and use other exaggerated views about the Jewish people.
With empathy and care for the author, still one must not accept the main idea in Sand’s book about the history of the Jews. To use his book or his ideas and interviews as a means of discounting a Jewish State is from a Christian point of view an unfaithful exercise. The idea that Sand’s ideas are helpful can only mean an endorsement of secularism and in many cases anti-Semitism.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Jesus, the coming King
If we listen and agree we shall be deceived, and if we follow we shall fall into hell. As we sat around the tables at our Presbytery meeting talking about what might be a center that the whole Presbytery could agree to, I could only think of our great divide. And in words placed on the Witherspoon Society’s site by their web master I know that the chasm is a spiritual one as wide as eternal death is from everlasting life. It can only be healed if God reaches out in redemption. Picture by Penny Juncker
The words I saw were written by John Shuck a Presbyterian (U.S.A.) pastor in Tennessee. The words are a part of an advent meditation that Doug King saw as “thoughtful” and so posted them on the Witherspoon site. The words:
“What might it mean for Jesus to return? The return of Jesus is a powerful symbol of finding rest, peace, justice, and balance in our personal lives and in our interconnectedness with earth. To sing, ‘come thou long expected Jesus’ is to sing with the expectation of fulfillment for balance and peace.”
The writer of those words, Shuck, goes on to suggest that the kind of return he is writing about will happen if we are willing to give birth, if we we are open to the creativity of “the universe.” Furthermore the kind of anticipation we are to have is “an anticipation” of “an expansion of our consciousness or awareness.”
I am writing about this because I do not understand the outlook of those who search for a central focus which ignores the very heart of the gospel, that is, that Jesus died for sinners. Why are some holding on to an expectation that our center as a denomination or a Presbytery will hold around the building of clothes closests or homeless shelters, while they fail to hold dear the Lord Jesus Christ and the hope of his personal coming.
It seems that for some, such new age theology, equates with the same theology that insists on the ordination of unrepentant homosexuals. And such an impersonal understanding of Jesus just might very well be the only proper way of connecting him to those who wish to allow sin free reign. With such meaning we can throw away the transforming power of Jesus. We can forget to look for him. Forget advent.
As Yeats wrote, the center does not hold. And surely “some rough beast” moves among our shadowed churches wishing to be born in place of the King of Kings.
The truth is the Lord Jesus Christ is returning. He was King, he is King and he will be King forever. We celebrate now the Incarnation, the birth of the eternal Son into our world. That is the Christmas story. But it is so much more. He is the God who lived with us and died for us. He is the God who rose to give us new life.
But it is still more. He is the eternal Son forever fully God and fully human. We are united to him in his resurrection. We are fed and nourished by the Lord of heaven. Nothing can ever separate us from him. He is the coming King who has set up his everlasting Kingdom.
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. “ (John 1:14)
The words I saw were written by John Shuck a Presbyterian (U.S.A.) pastor in Tennessee. The words are a part of an advent meditation that Doug King saw as “thoughtful” and so posted them on the Witherspoon site. The words:
“What might it mean for Jesus to return? The return of Jesus is a powerful symbol of finding rest, peace, justice, and balance in our personal lives and in our interconnectedness with earth. To sing, ‘come thou long expected Jesus’ is to sing with the expectation of fulfillment for balance and peace.”
The writer of those words, Shuck, goes on to suggest that the kind of return he is writing about will happen if we are willing to give birth, if we we are open to the creativity of “the universe.” Furthermore the kind of anticipation we are to have is “an anticipation” of “an expansion of our consciousness or awareness.”
I am writing about this because I do not understand the outlook of those who search for a central focus which ignores the very heart of the gospel, that is, that Jesus died for sinners. Why are some holding on to an expectation that our center as a denomination or a Presbytery will hold around the building of clothes closests or homeless shelters, while they fail to hold dear the Lord Jesus Christ and the hope of his personal coming.
It seems that for some, such new age theology, equates with the same theology that insists on the ordination of unrepentant homosexuals. And such an impersonal understanding of Jesus just might very well be the only proper way of connecting him to those who wish to allow sin free reign. With such meaning we can throw away the transforming power of Jesus. We can forget to look for him. Forget advent.
As Yeats wrote, the center does not hold. And surely “some rough beast” moves among our shadowed churches wishing to be born in place of the King of Kings.
The truth is the Lord Jesus Christ is returning. He was King, he is King and he will be King forever. We celebrate now the Incarnation, the birth of the eternal Son into our world. That is the Christmas story. But it is so much more. He is the God who lived with us and died for us. He is the God who rose to give us new life.
But it is still more. He is the eternal Son forever fully God and fully human. We are united to him in his resurrection. We are fed and nourished by the Lord of heaven. Nothing can ever separate us from him. He is the coming King who has set up his everlasting Kingdom.
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. “ (John 1:14)
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sacramento Presbytery passes overture on Belhar Confession
Yesterday,December 5th, the Sacramento Presbytery passed an “Overture on Belhar” to be sent to the 219th General Assembly. The overture motion was brought by Fremont Presbyterian Church, my church. I am very grateful it passed; its words are just right for dealing with the issues revolving around the attempt at adopting Belhar. Originally adopted by the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in South Africa to deal with their horrific racism there are those in several North American reformed denominations attempting to misuse the confession. There are advocates wanting to use Belhar to promote gay ordination, for rebuke of Israel and even pluralism.
You can read about those problems here and here and here.
The Overture begins with commendation of all anti-discrimination policies in the Presbyterian Book of Order. It also offers sections from the “Brief Statement of Faith,” and the “Confession of 1967” which clearly and practically speak about and against racial discrimination. Then it asks the General Assembly to discontinue attempting to adopt the Belhar Confession as another confession in the PCUA Book of Confessions.
But it does this with a comment about its link with the Barmen Declaration and a section from Barmen which allows understanding about the boundary that is missing in Belhar which is a proper confession of Christ:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6), “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.... I am the door; of anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.)
Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and death.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation. (8.10–8.12)"
The rationale for this overture speaks to how confusing Belhar is and offers a quote about what a confession should be written by Dr. Arthur C. Cochrane who spent time with the early Confessing Church in Germany and was a Barth specialist. That quote is:
"A Confession is therefore not the publication of the opinions, convictions, ideals, and value judgments of men. It does not set forth a program or system of theology or ethics. It is not a set of principles or constitution for a fraternal order, social service club, or a religious society. It is not a political or ethical, religious platform. It does not bear witness to certain events, powers, figures, and truths in nature and history that may be championed by certain groups in society.
It confesses Jesus Christ as the one Lord, the one justification and sanctification of men, the one revelation, and the one Word of God which we have to hear, trust and obey in life and in death. "
Until it is placed on the 219th GA site, it can be read on the Presbyterian Coalition site under Draft Overture. Look both here and here. I am guiding you to these pages because you may be interested in using some of the other resources found there.
You can read about those problems here and here and here.
The Overture begins with commendation of all anti-discrimination policies in the Presbyterian Book of Order. It also offers sections from the “Brief Statement of Faith,” and the “Confession of 1967” which clearly and practically speak about and against racial discrimination. Then it asks the General Assembly to discontinue attempting to adopt the Belhar Confession as another confession in the PCUA Book of Confessions.
But it does this with a comment about its link with the Barmen Declaration and a section from Barmen which allows understanding about the boundary that is missing in Belhar which is a proper confession of Christ:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6), “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.... I am the door; of anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.)
Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and death.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation. (8.10–8.12)"
The rationale for this overture speaks to how confusing Belhar is and offers a quote about what a confession should be written by Dr. Arthur C. Cochrane who spent time with the early Confessing Church in Germany and was a Barth specialist. That quote is:
"A Confession is therefore not the publication of the opinions, convictions, ideals, and value judgments of men. It does not set forth a program or system of theology or ethics. It is not a set of principles or constitution for a fraternal order, social service club, or a religious society. It is not a political or ethical, religious platform. It does not bear witness to certain events, powers, figures, and truths in nature and history that may be championed by certain groups in society.
It confesses Jesus Christ as the one Lord, the one justification and sanctification of men, the one revelation, and the one Word of God which we have to hear, trust and obey in life and in death. "
Until it is placed on the 219th GA site, it can be read on the Presbyterian Coalition site under Draft Overture. Look both here and here. I am guiding you to these pages because you may be interested in using some of the other resources found there.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Second Sunday in Advent-Coming to Him in obedience
Second Sunday in Advent.
The savior of our souls, Jesus , was born in a small town in the Middle East. He is the King past, the King who came, lived and died for his people and he is the coming King whose appearance we wait for with anticipation and great joy.
“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and to him shall be the obedience of the people.” (Genesis 40:10)
The Tyndale Commentary on Genesis points out that some scholars connect this verse to Ezekiel 21:26f. "In words addressed to the last king of Judah: 'Remove the mitre, and take off the crown ... until he comes whose right it is: and I will give it to him.' Here is the best support for the Messianic content which Jewish and Christian exegesis has found in the saying from earliest times."
The savior of our souls, Jesus , was born in a small town in the Middle East. He is the King past, the King who came, lived and died for his people and he is the coming King whose appearance we wait for with anticipation and great joy.
“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and to him shall be the obedience of the people.” (Genesis 40:10)
The Tyndale Commentary on Genesis points out that some scholars connect this verse to Ezekiel 21:26f. "In words addressed to the last king of Judah: 'Remove the mitre, and take off the crown ... until he comes whose right it is: and I will give it to him.' Here is the best support for the Messianic content which Jewish and Christian exegesis has found in the saying from earliest times."
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Praying for faithful Commissioners -up-date
Praying for faithful Commissioners
"...I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for the condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1: 3b-4)
Sacramento Presbytery needs a lot of prayer. Of course we all do but this is for a particular reason. We will be voting for commissioners to General Assembly this Saturday and we have a problem. So far we only have two Elder Commissioner candidates. But that’s not the problem. I am sure others will be nominated from the floor.
But to backtrack, as many people know the former pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church resigned after an Administrative Commission was placed over his Church by our Presbytery. In fact he eventually renounced Jurisdiction of the PCUSA. There have been a lot of rumors and half truths in the papers over the last six months. It always amazes me how wrong news reporters can be on some issues nonetheless something in one of the papers I just read really surprised me.
I had heard, right after PUP was passed by the General Assembly, that the past pastor of Westminster, David Thompson, had ordained two practicing homosexuals. Now I have read an article in the Bay Area Reporter, a gay online paper in the bay area, that he ordained three practicing homosexuals. I think that number is not true but the important part is that one of those ordained is one of the person’s running for commissioner.
As the paper quotes Daniel Roth, "One of his [Thompson] first acts was to speak out for Muslims in our community, and since the war began he's called upon the congregation to pray for the occupied people of Iraq," said Daniel Roth, one of the gay men ordained as a church elder by Thompson. "He's a very popular and beloved pastor."
That ordination should have been challenged when it first happened, now we just need prayer and steadfastness.
In the book of Revelation Jesus gives John instructions to seven churches in Asia Minor. In reading these we see that God knows all about the churches and what is happening in them.To most of the churches he says, I know your deeds. To one church he says I know your tribulation. To another I know where you dwell. These last two are where Christian faithfulness-taking a stand for the Lordship of Christ has brought death. Christians in leadership must stand for the truth of God's word. (Revelation chapter 2 & 3)
Up-date
Since I asked for prayer I should write about the day. The commissioner was voted in because there was no one else-he loves the Presbyterian Church because we can believe in our own version of God he said- But still he is going. He is a very young man and needs a lot of prayer. That is our next job, praying for him that he might find the true God who can transform and redeem. There was one particular good thing that happened today. I will write about it after Sunday's posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)