Whyfour?

Why do you suppose we have four gospels? More specifically, why do we have three “synoptic” gospels?  But this question really applies to all four.

Believing that God inspired the Scriptures what was his purpose in four canonical gospels?  Why not just give us the one definitive one?  Why not add the stories of Jesus’ birth and Mary’s Magnificat from Luke, the prodigal son, the boy with a demon in Mark 9, etc. to Matthew’s gospel and just have one?  Why give us varying accounts of the same events?  Why not give us one “God’s eye” view of the whole of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry?  Why give us accounts that need to be “reconciled?”

These questions are why I cannot subscribe to some sort of “dictation” theory of the Bible’s inspiration.  It makes God look a little schizophrenic.  Or at least like he might have MPD.  It is much easier to account for the differences when we maintain the human nature of the documents alongside their Divine inspiration.  Men wrote with particular (and different) perspectives and agendas.

But why should God inspire four of them?  Why not inspire one of them and make it the “definitive” one? Read more

Heaven, I’m In Heaven

Very interesting discussion in our Bible study yesterday about “the eternal state.”

Thanks to Steve Walker for the N. T. Wright links. Another good resource I used was Wright’s Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. The last two chapters are especially good regarding this subject, chapter 11, Heaven and Power and chapter 12, New Life - New World.

Here are some of the topics we discussed:

• Is heaven our final destination? (If it is, then what does Hebrews 11:39-40 mean when it says that “apart from us they (OT saints) should not be made perfect?”) [emphasis mine] What is it about us that they were waiting on (notice that it doesn’t say that apart from Christ they should not be made perfect). What is it that we will experience together and when will that take place?
• In 1 Corinthians 15 why is the apostle Paul so obsessed not only with Jesus’ resurrection, but with ours as well? If we go to heaven when we die, and we live there in a disembodied state, what does it matter if we are resurrected or not? Do we need these resurrected bodies to enjoy God more? What’s the purpose of having them back?
• What does it mean in 2 Timothy 2:12 when the apostle Paul says that “we will reign with him?” What does it mean in Revelation 5:10 when the apostle John says the same thing, but adds that “they shall reign on the earth?”
• When the apostle John describes the new heaven and new earth in Revelation 21, why does he describe it not as our going up to be with God, but God’s coming down to be with us? What does that say about eternity? The world?

The reason we were asking those questions is this: in Hebrews 11 the writer lists these great people of faith who were commended by God and concludes that none of them “received what was promised.” He describes a hopeful faith, but what is it they were hoping for? Whatever it was must have been powerful because many of them endured horrible suffering and none of them lived to see the fulfillment of God’s promises to them. It seems that whatever it was had something to do with that phrase in v. 40 - that “apart from us they should not be made perfect.” What was that? Whatever it was, it would certainly do us well to see what gave them such hope so that in sharing that hope we might also share in their faith/faithfulness.

But often modern visions of heaven are not inspiring. Read more

God Still Speaks

There’s been this tension in the faith I’ve grown up with and I’m not sure how to resolve it, or even if it needs to be resolved. Sometimes I think we expect cut-and-dried answers from God only to find him responding like he did to Job asking, “Where were you…?” or to Paul saying, “My grace is sufficient.”

The tension is between what we call the “closed canon of the Scriptures,” and God’s guidance in the everyday activities of life.

This weekend I was flipping through the channels on TV and I stopped for a minute on a Perry Stone program that was on local cable. It appeared that he was at the old temple wall in Jerusalem being a tour guide and he made a statement, calling it a “prophetic word.” He was teaching from Jesus’ parable in Matthew 20 about the laborers in the vineyard. He went on to proof text some other passages from the New Testament giving what he believed was some sort of “deep” or “hidden” meaning of what the “third hour,” the “sixth hour,” the “ninth hour” and the “eleventh hour” meant. His conclusion is that the various “hours” mentioned represent various epochs or ages in history and that the eleventh hour is the hour we now live in. It is an hour in which all of the blessings of every other age will be brought together and poured out in the world. Strange view for a Dispensationalist who takes the Bible “literally.” Read more

Who Sinned, This Man, Or His Parents?

In John 9 we find a story about a man who sat in the temple courts of Jerusalem day-by-day, likely begging for a living, because he was blind.  First Century Jewish culture didn’t have much of a place for people with infirmities.  Begging in a heavily trafficked place in hopes of finding some kind-hearted person of faith who might have mercy on you and spare some change was often the best they could hope for.

Society generally looked upon those people as sinners.  It was in their DNA one way or another.  They were what they were because of something either they had done or something their parents had done.  It was hard, if not impossible, for anyone to think of them otherwise.  That’s why those disciples only had two viable options in their question to Jesus - "Who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"  They simply couldn’t imagine a third category.  We both know innately and through Old Testament Scriptures that our sin has a price, a consequence.

But the Old Testament Scriptures also taught that the sins of fathers are visited on their children to the third and fourth generation.  So which was it?

I was thinking about this passage this week as I was talking to a friend going through some difficulties.  Bad news from the doctor.  Not life-threatening, but pretty devastating nonetheless.  News that has ramifications for the rest of life and the disappointment that the kind of life hoped for will never be a possibility.

As a pastor I’ve dealt with these sort of situations before.  "Preacher, I’ve asked God over and over why this is happening to me?  What have I done?  Is there some unconfessed sin in my life?"

My answer this week was the same as it normally is: "It was nothing you’ve done.  Quit beating yourself up."

How can I be so sure?  Do I have some special window into the hearts of others?  Or am I more Catholic than Baptist and think that I have some sort of authority to pronounce a person sinless?

The Bible speaks of God as our heavenly Father.  As a parent I hope to take my own responsibilities as a father seriously.  On occasion I have to discipline my kids.  I try to measure the punishment according to the offense.  If anything I may occasionally be too easy rather than too hard.  Sometimes I want to be harder than I know is appropriate.  But there is one thing I always try to do.  This is true both for your children and for your pets.  Don’t wait until weeks, months or years after the offense to mete out the punishment.

I would never think to save up some punishment for years, even decades, so that I might come back and punish my kids for what was done decades earlier.  It just wouldn’t make sense.  To them or to me.  When I took our dog Nikki to obedience school and they talked to us about potty training they told us that if your pet has an accident never wait until the next day to correct the problem.  If you do they won’t be able to connect the dots.  They’ll wonder why they are being punished.  And they won’t learn what you are trying to teach them.

So I approach these questions, "Why is this happening to me," in a similar way.  I do believe that our actions have consequences and that sinful actions have damaging consequences.  But most of those consequences are very obvious.  I’ve never met a lifelong smoker who got cancer who also asked, "Why did I get lung cancer?"  They know why.  I’ve never known someone who’s child was killed while driving 100 mph wonder, "Why did God take my baby?"  They know that their child was driving 100.  The cause and effect, or in Biblical terms the sowing and reaping relationship, is obvious.

But when we are unable to connect the dots I don’t believe that the God the Bible describes to us is the sort of God who decides to put off our punishment just long enough for us to forget what it was that we did.  It’s a very poor view of God that sees him sitting in heaven thinking, "Ok….now that she’s forgotten all about this particular sin I can now punish her for it, and oh, the joy of watching her wonder what’s going on!"  No.  That is a sadist, not a Father.

So if a person cannot see their current suffering as a direct consequence of something they’ve done I am more than happy to help relieve them of their burden.  And in the case of John 9 Jesus’ answer was, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."  So my next step is to work with the person to try to discover what "works of God" can be displayed in their circumstances.  The ways really are almost endless.  But I have found that this opens up new possibilities of hope in the midst of tragedy.  Instead of getting lost in hopelessness and despair they begin to get a renewed sense of purpose.

What do you think?  Does all of that sound too trite?

Providence and God’s Presence

Most days I’m oblivious to the fact that there is such a thing as 5:30 AM.  I’m not a morning person.  Never have been.  Never hope to be.  But a ringing phone will awaken even me at such an hour.

It was the police department.

One of our church members had died.

At 5:30 AM I have enough trouble finding my pants, much less finding God’s presence.  If I can’t find it, though, how will I hope to take it with me as I visit with the family?

I learned a long time ago in Clinical Pastoral Education that those of us in ministry tend to put too much pressure on ourselves to say and do the right thing in a time like this.  Reality is that there is no "right thing" to say or do.  What’s done cannot be undone and the grief and loss will not go away with a well-crafted sentence or two.  Often the simple fact of being there is more than enough.  We do not want to be alone in our grief.  That would heap pain on top of pain.

So I go.  At 5:30 AM I don’t think about taking my Bible with me.  I’m hoping I remembered to brush my teeth.  I’m hoping I can find the apartment in the dark.  My old eyes aren’t what they used to be and they are about half of what they presently are when it’s 5:30 AM and dark.

But now that it’s later in the day I’m reminded of a couple of things I’ve read recently that will help me today.  One came from reading Walter Brueggemann’s Finally Comes The Poet.  In it he mentions that as we look at the history of Israel in the Bible we often notice that, in the midst of their pain and despair, God comes to them nearly always after they have given words to their pain.  They have cried out for help.  In her slavery in Egypt Israel cries out and God says that he has heard the cry of his people, and before long Moses appears on the scene as God’s messenger to bring deliverance.  In smaller ways this scene is repeated time and again as God’s people cry out for help, give voice to their pain, and God hears.

And so this morning we sat around and gave voice to the pain.  There will be many more words and sentences and paragraphs spoken and unspoken that will give voice to the pain in the days and weeks ahead.  Barbara was loved by the children in our church.  She had worked with them in Sunday School and VBS for years upon years.  Many of the children she taught are not children any longer.  Some of them had grown up to work alongside her with succeeding generations.  We will tell our own children today after they get out of school and we expect that they will struggle with what it means and how to voice their own pain.

The second thing I read is the reading from the Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer that is given for this coming Sunday: Psalm 139.

As we struggle with Barbara’s absence and in the midst of it try to find God’s presence it seems Providential that Psalm 139 begs us to read it this week.  And to speak it as our own.  Even today.  Especially today.

Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,"
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

Even so, Lord, be present with us today.
Amen.

Authority - Finally, The End

Let me wrap up this discussion of authority and try to pull it all together. The ultimate, absolute, inerrant authority for the church is Jesus Christ. The Spirit and the Scriptures and the church all testify of him, point to him, bring him to us in living color. God has spoken to us in various times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us in his Son. Those who persistently want to add a “but” to that sort of statement have their argument with the writer of Hebrews and the Spirit who inspired that book, not with me. If it needed a “but” I am confident it would have received one.

Everything else points to Christ. The Spirit points to Christ (though I need to be careful to affirm that the Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son and is on a level far above the other witnesses to Christ). See, for example, John 16:7-15 and 1 John 5:6. The Scriptures point to Christ. The witness of the church points to Christ.

I also believe that the Scriptures are authoritative for the church. But the question is, how do we understand the Scriptures? I have mentioned that the apostle John believed he had some measure of authority over the church to which he was writing in his third letter (3 John). The apostle Paul also appears to have believed the same thing about his relationship to the various churches to which he wrote. In Acts 14 we read that he, along with Barnabas, appointed elders in the churches in Lystra. He wrote to various churches believing that what he wrote carried some measure of authority. Twice in 1 Corinthians he mentions what is true “in all the churches.” In one of those instances he goes so far as to say “This is my rule in all the churches.”  And yet, not only was the apostle Paul not the pastor of any of those churches, he was not even a member of any of
them.

I’ve said that I don’t believe in apostolic succession, but I do believe in apostolic witness and I believe that witness is carried out in and through the church throughout time and space. Historically. In other words, I believe the church helps us to interpret the Scriptures. I don’t mean by that that only bishops or preachers or professionals are capable of giving authoritative interpretations of Scripture. I still believe in a “flat” church – one where each is a priest. But I believe that we are priests together, not simply individually. How the church as a whole receives and understands Scripture is important.

I believe that in gospel matters the church is bound together, and must be bound together. I believe this is true regardless of the label on our church signs. Baptist. Presbyterian. Assembly of God. Episcopal. The gospel and those things that are essential to it give us an organic connection that we should honor and even consider authoritative. If someone says they believe the gospel, but it is a gospel which does not believe in Christ in the ways the church has believed in Christ for 2000 years, then that is not just some other gospel, but that is no church. What I mean is that if Jesus was not fully God and fully man, if God is not Father, Son and Spirit, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as witnessed to in Scripture and affirmed by the church. What you have may be religious, but it is not a gospel church. The local church is not “autonomous” in that regard. She cannot deny who Christ is and still be “the church.”

There are, however, secondary matters that are not central to the Christian faith. In those things it is still important that we weigh the witness of how the church has understood Scripture in those things. Tradition
is a guide to interpretation. Nevertheless, we may disagree about those things and still be the church.

Yet the church needs accountability. If it is organically connected then each local expression should seek a greater connectedness, not a lesser one. This is one of the reasons I do not believe truly “independent” churches are a good idea. I’m not saying they are not churches. I am saying they practice church in ways that seem contrary to the spirit and intent of Scripture and the sort of kingdom community/assembly that the Scriptures envision. It is likely that the “church” to which the apostle Paul wrote in Rome consisted of many “house” churches. Yet he wrote to them as if they were one. It is likely (and in my mind certain) that they understood that they were not “autonomous” from one another, but that they were vitally connected.

This connection does not require formal “denominational” ties. It is a connection more in spirit than in official organization. However, it should result in some sort of practical outward expression, most specifically in ways that the church works together for the cause of the gospel in the world. It also means that if a local expression of the church begins to believe or do something aberrant (in terms of the historic Christian faith) that local church should sense an obligation to hear from the larger body of Christ. They shouldn’t simply take an approach that, “we’re an autonomous church and we can do whatever we want and rain on you.” That sort of independence seems more at home in the rugged western frontier of yesteryear than it does in the historic church of Jesus Christ.

This is not a renewed call to enliven the ecumenical movements as seen in the NCC and WCC. Those organizations appear to seek unity regardless of the gospel. Rather, this is a gospel unity among all churches who hold fast to the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Authority - Part 3

It seems to me that it is impractical, unwise and also unbiblical for the local church to be its own authority – just as I also believe it is impractical, unwise and unbiblical for an individual to claim to be his/her own authority. I realize that those two statements at least somewhat cut into the cherished Baptist and free-church principles of the autonomy of the local church and the priesthood of the believer. So be it.

As I stated earlier, a church that gives away its organic (as well as historic) connection to the rest of the body becomes a religious Thing. Perhaps it can still perform some basic functions for the family, but in the end it is a grotesque and frightening disembodied member.

To separate the local church from its historic roots implies (if not outright states) that God’s work in the world is a-historical. God’s work in the world is most often carried out through his people, the church and is always carried out in time and space - history. For free-churchers to despise the vast majority of church history, then, is to deny God’s activity in those days. One formerly popular Baptist way around this problem was to argue for “Baptist” succession. Though almost entirely abandoned these days, it really seems to be the only viable alternative to an a-historical approach. The only problem is “Baptist” succession cannot be historically supported.

At this point I need to back up and correct myself on a statement made in Part 2 (see, I’m still thinking through a lot of this). I said that I assume the priority of Scripture. Actually, I assume the priority of Christ. It is at this point the debate tends to get hot and heavy. “How can we know anything of Christ apart from the Scriptures?” Well, actually we both can and do know something of Christ not only from Scripture, but apart from it as well.

Most commentators agree that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 the apostle Paul is giving a formulaic summary of the gospel. If that is true then he not only testifies that Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, but also that his vindication in his resurrection was attested to by Peter, the twelve, five hundred others and last of all to Paul himself. Thus, there are realities about Christ that were known and confirmed through the witness of believers. On top of all of that we now have two-thousand years of the witness of the church and we simply cannot dismiss that as irrelevant.

In addition, we know about Christ through the witness of the Holy Spirit. Now, even good heirs of the Protestant Reformation would agree with St. Augustine that what we know of God we know because he has revealed it to us – not only in the words of the Book of Scripture, but through the enlightening of our minds that only comes from the Spirit. Apart from the Spirit of God the Bible is just a dead book of words. If a person reads the Bible and the Spirit does not enlighten her heart and mind then the reading of the Bible is fruitless. And if we have confidence that the Spirit can really show us the one true God through the pages of Scripture then can we not have the same confidence that the Spirit can really show us the one true God in other ways without automatically charging those ways as being “too subjective?”  Has the Spirit been at work in the church for the last 2000 years? Does the Spirit confirm the witness of the church? Has the Spirit been at work in the lives of individuals as well? Can he not confirm that witness to us?

I know that there is a lot of downright goofy and even destructive things that are said, believed and done in the name of the Spirit. There are also a lot of downright goofy and even destructive things said, believed and done in the name of the Father and the Son as well. And when those goofy and destructive things come about the church, through the Spirit, stands against them. When some flake who thinks he’s a prophet announces that an airliner is going to crash because the Spirit revealed it to him it’s not only the Bible that stands against him but the larger church calls that a bunch of nonsense as well. This is the work of the Spirit.

So do you want to know who Christ is? Well, you will certainly find out plenty from the Scriptures. You will also find out plenty from the enduring witness of the church through time.

My Way Or The Highway

"People are not primarily looking to cooperate with our plan for their lives."

Joe Myers
in Organic Community

On Wednesday nights in our church we’ve been looking at John’s epistles/letters.  Last night we finished 3 John, a letter in which the apostle John calls out a man named Diotrephes not only for his own rigid practice of refusing Christian hospitality to traveling evangelists and missionaries, but for also demanding that others follow his course.  Those who would not were being put out of the church by Diotrephes’ own personal pronouncements.

Can you imagine how that sort of thing would go over today?  Just ask Chan Chandler or Frank Harber.  But there seems to be a growing trend in evangelicalism as a whole, and among Southern Baptists in particular, to lead with a heavy hand.  As an example, Pastor Dwight McKissic of the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas recently appeared on TBN with several former Southern Baptists-turned charismatic/Pentecostals.  As a result pastors from all over the SBC now feel the liberty to tell Pastor McKissic what he should do to remedy the situation and how he must distance himself from these others.

Now, I’m no fan of TBN.  Just ask the people at our church.  Generally speaking I think a person’s soul would be more edified by watching static.  But I don’t know that Charles Stanley is less of a Baptist because he puts money into Paul Crouch’s pockets every time he buys airtime from TBN.  God knows Jan needs the money for pink hair dye and botox injections.  It’s not a venue I would choose, but I don’t suspect Charles Stanley, or Dwight McKissic, or Jack Graham are looking to cooperate with my plan for their lives.

Instead of cooperation we need more collaboration.  Joe Myers writes that "the spirit of cooperation is a rigid spirit, one that stifles creativity and discovery."  He’s writing from the context of the local church.  Of course  his ideas apply to larger organizational structures as well.  But in the local church people aren’t necessarily looking for ways to join in our program for their lives.  The structures we’ve established tend to serve the organization, not the people of the organization.  They perpetuate what we already have going, or what we want to get going.  Instead, people generally want to have some say in their own contribution to the group.  What’s amazing is that Baptists, of all people, are lost on that notion.  Of all church structures Baptists is theoretically one of the flattest - meaning there isn’t a top-down structure in Baptist church life.  There is no one (again, theoretically) sitting at the top telling others what to do and how to do it.

There are challenges with this structure, and perhaps even problems, but those are issues for another day.  But we are living in a strange day indeed when the Baptist police seem to be patrolling nearly every corner these days, blowing their whistles and making citizen’s arrests.  My way or the highway will not work for Baptists and will not work for evangelicals as a whole.  I know that there are many who are fearful of collaboration.  They are fearful of people in other denominations.  They are fearful of people who speak in tongues.  They are fearful of people who baptize infants.  They truly feel that collaboration rather than cooperation will lead to a broad ecumenical capitulation of certain distinctives and probably the good news about Jesus as well.  They see slippery slopes everywhere they turn, and the only way they believe we can maintain solid footing is to make sure everyone is doing things as they deem fit.

And it will end up killing us.  It already is.

Free At Last, Free At Last

Slavery is an interesting topic to me for several reasons.  One is that it seems so…remote.  It doesn’t apply to our day and age.  It is a topic that might have been red hot a hundred and fifty years ago, but not today.  Not in America.  In fact, not in most places in the world.

It’s also interesting from a Biblical perspective because slavery was a common fixture of nearly every Biblical society - and extra-biblical one as well.  Slavery has been a common part of world cultures for thousands of years.  The notion that slavery is either "wrong" or particularly unbibilcal is new.  My Southern Baptist forefathers argues in favor of slavery from the Bible.

Slavery was a part of Old Testament culture.  The law did not abolish slavery, but rather regulated it.  Jesus never spoke for or against the cultural institution of slavery.  On the other hand, the Apostle Paul seems to be a rather mixed bag.  In both Galatians and Colossians he says that in Christ there is neither slave nor free.  In 1 Timothy he lists "enslavers" in the same category with the disobedient, ungodly, murderers and liars, yet later in that same book calls upon slaves to regard their masters as worthy of honor.  In Colossians and Titus he commands slaves to obey their masters in everything.  Yet he tells Philemon to receive his slave Onesimus back as a brother and no longer as a slave.

If we pay attention to Paul’s words we cannot escape the fact that he was undermining the institution of slavery in his own day.

Take, for example, the passage in Titus 2.  Paul says that slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything.  But don’t miss what follows.  Verse 11 begins with the word "For," indicating that this is the reasons slaves are to do what he has commanded.  But 11-14 are generally read as a wonderful passage about the salvation God brings through Christ, not about slavery at all.  Yet Paul speaks of this salvation in terms of the slave trade.  God has redeemed us in order to make us a people for his own possession.  He has bought us back.  Paid the price to set the slaves free and now if we belong to anyone, it is no mere man, it is to be God’s own possession.

Then take Colossians as another example.  Once again slaves are told to obey their masters in everything.  Yet their work is not to be done to please some earthly master because, as he instructs the masters in 4:1, all who are in Christ have the same master, and it isn’t an earthly one.  In addition, Paul tells slaves that through their obedience they will receive an inheritance.  That’s just nonsense.  Slaves did not receive inheritances.  Slaves were a part of the inheritance.  They were passed along as property.  They didn’t receive property.  Only children receive an inheritance.  Thus, Paul is suggesting that they are no longer to be viewed as slaves, but children.  Once again, our service is not to men, but to Christ.

In both of these cases (Titus and Colossians) Paul is using the underlying story of Exodus as a backdrop for his instructions.  The God of Scripture is a God who sets people free.  The great story of the Old Testament is the story of God setting his people free from their bondage in Egypt.  The promise of the prophets was that a day would come when God would set captives free.  When Jesus arrived on the scene he indicated to people that this sort of liberation was the very thing taking place in their very presence.  God is not a God advocating human slavery, but a God who is at work setting people free.  Our new slavery is to God.  But that sort of slavery is the greatest form of freedom because we serve a loving, compassionate master who is looking out for us and who does not stop at calling us his servants, but now calls us his children.  Heirs.  Co-heirs with Jesus Christ.  Heirs of "all things."  If that’s slavery, then sign me up.

It should also be noted that Paul was familiar with the Old Testament commands which would have required that slaves be freed every seventh year as a reminder that God is a God who sets captives free.

If that’s what Paul meant, though, why didn’t he just say so?  As Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat suggest in Colossians Remixed, it was likely for the same reasons John wrote the book of Revelation in apocalyptic style and the same reason Jesus often spoke in parables.  Those were ways to communicate difficult truths without upsetting those who might not understand the style.  John was writing many things that, had he said them straightforwardly the Roman empire might have destroyed the letter, even more stringently persecuted the churches that bought that message and done away with John himself.  Jesus spoke in parables because it wasn’t yet his time to go to the cross.  Had he challenged the leaders of his day more directly they would have almost certainly have pushed for his death much sooner.  Instead he spoke in parables so that those who had ears to hear could hear while those who did not would simply go away confused.  So Paul could undermine the institution of slavery by sounding like he supported the position of the Romans, all the while using the Old Testament language of redemption and inheritance which the Romans would have remained oblivious to.  His audience would have gotten the point and the enemies of the church would have remained in the dark.

Doesn’t all of that sound like a wonderful argument that should have been made 150 years ago?  What in the world does that have to do with life today?

Tomorrow I want to explore some of the implications this has for our world in our day.

The Myth of Objectivity

Posting has been a little sparse because I’ve been preoccupied - several funerals in the past two weeks, kids in soccer, cross country and basketball and, of course, the priority of taking in a few OU football games.

Thinking out loud: I believe there is such a thing as "objective" reality - or that there are things as they really are, not just as they are perceived.  I’ve even had friends tell me that they believe I’m one of the most objective people they know (don’t laugh!).  But the moment I say "I know…" doesn’t my knowing become subjective?  After all, I am a subject, not an object.  Thus, my knowing is the knowing of a subject - and thus subjective (by definition, it would seem).  I always have a context and my context will forever be shaped by certain contextual realities - my place of birth, my ethnic origin, my social/economic status, the particular family into which I was born, my educational background and a whole lot more.  My understanding of the world, how it works, who I am, what life is meant to be, are all heavily influenced by that context.

It should seem obvious that a white, middle-class, college educated, 21st Century American, son of a Baptist deacon and loving parents would think differently about the world and how it works than a poor, black, uneducated African, son of an abusive shaman father.  I think it is safe to say that even if the parents were Christian - say a middle-class Chinese laborer who’s mother works in a sweat shop making toys for Mattel.  Would we view the teachings of Scripture differently because of our context?  What makes the American context superior to all others when it comes to understanding something like Scripture?  Or am I wrong that we view it that way?  Because it sure seems to me, especially for Baptists in the south (and I’m broadly including Oklahoma here because of the strong Southern Baptist presence) that we view it that way.

These thoughts generated by a post from David Phillips.

Next Page »