Dancing…to the Lord’s Day!

The Day of the Lord is a prevalent Old and New Testament theme. It finds its origin in the prophets, but is also common in Paul’s letters. The Book of the Twelve, known as the Minor Prophets, ends with a warning and a promise. “And behold I am sending Elais (Elijah) the Thesbite before the great and notable day of the Lord comes, who will restore the heart of the father to the son and the heart of a person to his neighbour so that I will not come and utterly strike the land. Remember Moses my slave, as I commanded him at Choreb with ordinances and statutes for all Israel (Mal 3 22-24 LXX). The Gospels’ make it explicit that John the Baptist is this new Elijah. (Note specifically the prophetic song of Zechariah, Luke 1:67-79.) Paul makes many references to the day, with his wonderful Christological alterations. 1 Cor 1:8, 3:13, and 5:5 are just a few of the many examples of these types of comments.

What is glaring in both the Old and New Testament is that the Day is both exiting and terrifying. To those who are known by Christ, it is a day of vindication and salvation. A day when everything is put to rights, when all the wrongs, all the hurts, all the results of Sin are corrected. On the other hand, to those alien to Christ it is a day of terror. The sixth seal in The Revelation (6:12-17) paints a vivid portray of the terror of the Lord’s Day for them.

“When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

In an apocalyptic event the entire earth is shaken, the enemies of the Lord try to run and hide under rocks and mountains. However there is no place to hide, where they can stand in front of the Lord’s might.

In yesterday’s sermon, the Pastor told us to close our eyes and envision Christ welcoming us of that day. At first I could do it. However, His face slowly faded to the face of another, someone who is in the second group. Will they know comfort? Or will they seek, pointlessly, to hide under rocks? As it stands now, I am not convinced they will talk to me any more. More importantly, I am unsure if I will have any more opportunity to show them God’s love again. This is my own fault and I am truly sorry for that, but it was necessary. A Plankeye song called “Who Loves you more?” is constantly going through my head. I am not sure its context, but in it asks “If I hold on to you will I let go I Christ? Will I end up denying him in an abundance of thrice? ...I end up wrestling with God, over you.”

The de-humanization of misogyny!

Sociologist Rodney Stark says of the early church, “Finally, what Christianity gave to its converts was nothing less than their humanity. In this sense virtue was its own reward.” Stark is suggesting the early Church focused on re-humanization people who had been de-humanized.

A basic tenet of Christian theology is that humans are created in the image of God. My belief is that being human means to be an image-bearer, but through the fall our image has been marred by sin. This means we need to be washed truly to be human once more. The early church faced many struggles, but their goal was to restore humanity to everyone. This meant running back into plague infested cities while everyone else was leaving. This meant recognizing woman as humans and worthy of respect, in a society that was resistant to that. Anything that devalues humanity is de-humanizing. Minimizing the humanness of women is de-humanizing. Throughout the history of the church there has been tension as the church attempted to recognize the humanness of women. Sometimes it failed and sometimes it has succeeded. Through these failures we have learned a great deal. Unfortunately there are still lesson to be learned. There are many stereotypes that have not been overcome. One such stereotype is that a woman is only valid because of her service to a man. What this suggests is that she belongs in the kitchen looking after her man’s every need. This treated women as second-class citizen and did not celebrate women as women. What this does is actually de-humanizes both the woman and the man. The master has as fractured of a relationship as the servant. Treating women as an object de-humanizes you and her. Furthermore, making jokes and comments that perpetuate that stereotype, even if you do not practise it, continues the cycle of de-humanization. There are many women still in these types of oppressive situations. To make light of the stereotype is to make light of these women’s reality. As Christians, we are called to come alongside the oppressed. We are required to seek justice for them and bring about restoration. We are called to re-humanize them and their oppressors. Both men and women are valuable in their identity as image bearers. To suggest that “women do not think right” because they do not think like men is to de-humanize both. To follow that comment up with vulgar and disgusting jokes that make women no more than a domestic slaves, minimize their concerns with body image, and turn men into obnoxious pigs is to insult both women and men and de-humanizes them. This is no laughing matter. What makes this worse is when they are done in a church under the banner of a sermon. This is appalling. It is commonly suggested that one’s jokes have a layer of truth underneath the surface. We must be careful about what we joke. Paul makes this clear in Eph. 5:1-4 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. ² And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. ³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.”

Therefore de-humanizing misogyny has no place in the church, even if it is under the guise of joking. Instead we must seek to restore the many fractured relationships by celebrating women and men for their unique identity as image-bearers.

Lewis and god.

I started reading C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity today and I am very impressed. The book stems from a series of radio discussions in post-war England. As a result of this, his style is very simple and easy to understand. What amazes me is how relevant and on point his is, despite writing almost 70 years ago. Book one focus is on laying a philosophical foundation for his discussion of Christianity. He starts by arguing for some sort of higher power. Only after establishing this does he move to discuss the Christian faith (hence a lower-case g in the title). His primary reason is that you cannot offer people salvation until they know they need it. For Lewis, the majority do not realize they are in need of saving. Thoughts similar to this have been floating through my mind recently. I have started to have some very interesting, challenging and thoughtful discussion with people whose worldview is very different from my own. They are good (in so far as humans can be good) people and I care about them. It is difficult because I am more convinced than ever that they need salvation, but find it so hard to have any impact. Lewis has allowed me to make some sense of things. Namely, until they realize they need saving, I can do nothing. Moreover, I really believe that my ability to reason with them will have little impact, unless their hearts are moved. Gordon Fee often talks about apologetics and how it is practically impossible to reason someone into faith. It can and must be a decision of the heart. So I pray and beg for wisdom and the God moves them. Life is not a game and our relationship with God matters above all. To think some of these people will be separate sucks. I can only now fathom Paul’s bold claim in Romans 9: 1-3 “I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Paul cared so much for his people- who failed to grasp God’s plan- , Israel, he wishes he could swap places with them. In Your mercy, hear my prayer.

Church Dogmatics

This is the Karl Barth-Platz tram stop from Basel, Switzerland. There is not much at Karl Barth-Platz, but a little park and this shelter. However, since Barth was born, taught and died in Basel it was interesting to visit there. I have not read much of his work, nor have I been really influenced by him, although many of my professor talked glowingly of his contribution to Christian theology. My knowledge is going to increase starting now, as I purchased his 14 volume Church Dogmatics (13 + an index and readings).  I am going to methodically work my way through CD and, from time to time, will post reflections.

Doctrine

(This is post from the House of James booktalk blog)
I was asked to read Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears,[1] and provide my reflections on its content. I have read some of Driscoll’s previous works, and was impressed with them. However, this was not the case with Doctrine. Both the publisher and the authors make bold claims about the book’s credentials. First, they claim scholarly pedigree. [2] The suggestion is that this book is worthy of serious, even academic, study; rather than for merely devotional purposes. This is a goal worthy of commendation, since it is a necessary and important one. Second, it claims to be an accurate representation of what genuine and normative Christian beliefs must look like.[3] I believe both these claims are false, and from reading it, I am convinced that this book lacks the credibility to make them. This becomes evident when the methodology supporting Driscoll and Breshear’s biblical argumentation is examined. This encompasses composition, formation, and appropriate study of the biblical text. Any book on Christian doctrine must be rooted in the Bible. If your hermeneutic is wrong, it is likely your book is as well. If you are unable to show proper argumentation, then why should I trust you? In regards to Doctrine, this means that if Doctrine’s hermeneutic and argumentation is wrong, naive, or narrow, I should not trust it. Furthermore, it will be unable to make the claim, as its subtitle does, What Christians should believe. I am going to argue that this is exactly the case, and the book is not really ‘meaty’ nor can it claim to speak for widespread Christianity.

Context

The authors make a strong claim for the necessity of context-based reading. They say, “Because the Bible was not intended to be read in bits and pieces, reading verses out of context can lead to serious misunderstandings. Thus, rightly interpreting particular sections of Scripture requires paying attention both to the immediate context and the overall context of all Scripture. ”(43) This is a great statement, completely true, and necessary for a good hermeneutic. If only the authors followed their own advise and presented context in their biblical references. Most of their references are one or two verses, with little or no argumentation offered as support. Galatians 1:15 and Jeremiah 1:5 are present as support for God’s providential preparation of His human authors for their writing. It is beyond dispute that both Jeremiah and Paul were agents of God, working out of His providential care. However, the context of both these verses suggests that God’s providential act in their lives was to do with their prophetic careers, and not with their writings.[4] The claim that because God was behind their prophetic careers they must be speaking authoritative might still be an accurate one, but this requires a few steps of exegetical work, not just an assertion.[5] It might be what we want the text to mean, but it is not what it says.

Authorship and “Scholars”

Doctrine also discusses human authors in regards to the Old Testament. The point it is trying to make is that Jesus claims certain authors wrote certain books, and I am not going to dispute that claim. What I do take issue with is that instead of arguing for this, they suggest ‘many “scholars” boldly claim that Moses did not pen any of the first five books of the Bible, or that two or three authors penned Isaiah, none of them was actually Isaiah.’(62) Who are these nameless “scholars,” and where did they claim this? Does putting something in quotation marks guarantee they are wrong? This is not argument. Many of the scholars, who were left nameless, are strong evangelical and/or world class thinkers have argued that Moses did not write all of the Pentateuch or that there is a considerable shift in focus between Isaiah 39-40.[6] It is a serious allegation to call someone’s scholarly standing into question, at least name them and reference where they do it.

A second methodological concern is a naive (mis)understanding of the role and origin of Septuagint (or LXX). There is minimal reference to the LXX. The two prominent ones are on p. 53. Doctrine notes that “(c. 250 BC) Greek-speaking Jews living in Alexandria translated the Old Testament into Greek, calling it the Septuagint. For some unknown reason, they changed the content of several books, added many books, and rearranged the order of the books. ” (53) They continue “Early Christians followed Jesus and used the same books as found in the Hebrew Bible today. But as the center of Christianity moved away from Jerusalem and Christians read and worshiped more in Greek than Hebrew, there was more openness to the books of the Septuagint... ” The trouble with this is that the Bible of the early church was the LXX. Paul quotes from it, at times when it differs from the Hebrew Bible. It is a mis-representation of the facts to say what they said. If you question the legitimacy of the LXX you lose Paul. This seemingly negative representation of the LXX is dangerous and untenable. Gordon Fee says: “There are just enough idiosyncratic moments where Paul and the Septuagint agree against a more precise rendering of the Hebrew text to give us considerable confidence here... [Paul’s] wording, including some unusual renderings, are too often that of the Septuagint to allow one to think that he did not regularly use a form of translation that has come down to us as the Septuagint”[7] The LXX is essential, as it stands, for ancient and modern Christianity; It must not be minimized.

Translation

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. This means our English Bibles are translations, faithful ones, but translations nonetheless. Doctrine makes significant mistakes in this area. A lengthy quote, followed by analysis will demonstrate this.

Scripture also has a single word to designate how Jesus diverts the active wrath of our rightfully angry God from us so that we are loved and not hated. The word is propitiation, which summarizes more than six hundred related words and events that explain it. The American Heritage Dictionary defines propitiation as something that appeases or conciliates an offended power, especially a sacrificial offering to a god. Propitiate is the only English word that carries the idea of pacifying wrath by taking care of the penalty for the offense that caused the wrath.

Many Christians are not familiar with this word, though, because various Bible translations use different words in an effort to capture its meaning. For example, the [NIV] and [NRSV] use “sacrifice of atonement,” and the [NLT] uses “sacrifice for sin” in such places as Romans 3:23-25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 where the original word was “propitiate.”

Worse still are the [RSV] and [NEB], which use “expiation” instead of “propitiation.” These latter two translations change the entire meaning of the verse, because propitiation deals with the penalty for sin whereas expiation deals with the cleansing from sin. The [ESV] has thankfully retained the original word “propitiation” from the Greek text of the New Testament. (259-260)

There are issues with this quotation. The original word cannot be an English one, but must be Greek. Therefore, the ESV cannot have retained the original word “propitiation,” but the original translation propitiation. Although this appears to be only a small technical mistake, it is much more than this. The authors supply no Greek word, nor a reason why propitiation is preferred. The primary question that must be asked is: “Since this specific Greek word was chosen, how must it be reflected in English?” This is not done. Instead, the authors assert their interpretation as the only possible one! This is done without consulting a lexicon. I cannot speak to their motive, but what I can say is that the Lexicon would undermine their generalization that propitiation is only option for the Greek words ἱλαστήριον, ἱλασμός, and ἱλάσκομαι. Instead BDAG,[8] the standard bearer for Greek-English Lexicons offers both as meanings, although appearing to prefer expiation.[9] Not providing any support, rejecting out of hand any other possible meaning, while criticising other translation, and not even alluding to the Greek text is counter-intuitive. This is not the only time where ancient words are left unsubstantiated. When they discuss the creation account, the authors neglect to provide support for translating the Hebrew originals as they do, but instead require the reader to trust their claims. Based on their actions in regard to ἱλαστήριον, ἱλασμός, and ἱλάσκομαι, is this wise?

Conclusion

These points have made it clear that there is a fundamental issue in the approach to the biblical text and its use in Doctrine. As mentioned Doctrine makes claim of how the text should be used, yet does not follow this itself. It minimizes scholars because they have a different view on various issues, without naming them or presenting argumentation. It misrepresents translation theory, and naively minimizes the role and function of the Septuagint. Christian doctrine, it must be remembered, rests entirely on the God’s revelation. The Bible is the surest record of this. If one misuses it, everything collapses. Since Doctrine misuses the Bible, why should I trust anything they say? Even though Doctrine makes many good points, is filled with great truth, and portrays many elements Christians should believe, I cannot be certain these claims hold water because they are built on a faulty foundation. This book is not meaty, but Tofu; not universally Christian, but Driscollian Christian.

Doctrine, and the sermon series from which it evolved, is a prerequisite for membership at Mars Hill Church. This will be the impact of the book. If you are not a fan of Driscoll, it is doubtful Doctrine will change your mind. If you are a fan, and agree theologically with him, Doctrine will go far to cement your worldview. For those who are indifferent to Driscoll, I see nothing in this book that lives up to its claims, or any reason to read this in order to understand doctrine. If you read to challenge your mind, Doctrine will fail you. If you read to probe your heart, it will fail you as well. In a nut shell there are better books than this one, to present Christian doctrine.

---

[1] Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Crossway Books, 2010)

[2] Driscoll claims, “We have in every way beefed up the content (from the 13 week sermon series at Mars Hill) significantly. It is a packed theological text following the storyline of the Bible.” http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/31245672. And Driscoll’s promotional video. “A Seminary-type lecture” http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/doctrine/trinity-god-is

[3] Notice this claim from the publishers write up. “Doctrine is the word Christians use to define the truth-claims revealed in Holy Scripture. Of course there is a multitude of churches, church networks, and denominations, each with their own doctrinal statement with many points of disagreement. But while Christians disagree on a number of doctrines, there are key elements that cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus. In Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, Driscoll and Breshears teach thirteen of these key elements. This meaty yet readable overview of basic doctrine will help Christians clarify and articulate their beliefs in accordance with the Bible.” http://www.crossway.org/product/9781433506253 Granted this is a publisher’s claim which cannot always be added to the authors. However, the claims here echo elements of what Driscoll says in the promotional video.

[4] Paul is contrasting his current life of work for the gospel with his previous life in Judaism, where he was working against God. He is not talking about his authorship, but his call to preach the gospel among the Gentiles. The same can be said of Jeremiah, whom Paul is intentionally echoing here, where the second half of the quote is “I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” One wonders if Paul’s primary point in his allusion to Jeremiah is that God is sending him to the Nations?

[5] Although God appointing someone to be a prophet does not mean they are meant to write, since some were only oracular ones and not written ones. (Elijah, Elisha, Nathan)

[6] Fuller Professor John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-theological Commentary (T and T Clark 2005), believes that Isaiah 40-55 are from the 6^th century rather than the 8^th as are 1-39. G.J. Wenham Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentaries 1987) allows for pre- and post-Mosiac elements in the Pentateuch. See Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Zondervan 1993) pages 38-48; 268-276, for an excellent summary of the possibilities and views.

[7] Gordon Fee Pauline Christology (Hendrickson 2007) 201

[8] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) (BDAG).

[9] See BDAG p.473-474 as well as TDNT for more information on the Greek words and there possible meanings. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin.; ed. Gerhard Kittel et al.;, electronic ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976) 3.320-22, Liddel-Scott seem to lean more toward propitiation, but expiation and other meanings are not dismissed out of hand. H.G. Liddell, A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA, 1996) 379.

The Atlantic Ocean

Being in Germany means that I am not able to wander around the Christian bookstores or even the religion section at Chapters. This results in me being a little behind the times of what is going on in the 'Christian' book scene. I just saw that Brian McLaren is making noise with his new book A New Kind of Christianity (HarperCollins, 2010). Before I call it what I really want to call it (I will post sometime later), I will have to read it... From what I have gleaned from the web it is another one of those create your own reading projects where ones says a lot but argues nothing. Time will tell.

Quote 2 - C.S. Lewis (and reflection)

I have been reading through a C.S. Lewis Anthology (The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. New York: HarperCollins, 2002). The ordering of the book has The Problem of Pain immediately followed by A Grief Observed. This 'canonical' ordering strikes me as profound because one reads Lewis' philosophical reflection on pain and then is confronted with his reflection on his, as well as his wife's, actual suffering and pain. It is easy to discuss topics from a distance, but when you are in the middle of them the outlook is quite different. His honesty in Grief is remarkable and challenging.

One quote that specifically stood out to me was,
"Talk to me about the truth of religion and I'll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I'll listen submissively. But don't come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don't understand." (Ch.2; p.666)

Too often it is easy to give spiritual answers which fail to deal with the rawness of the tradegy and pain in question. This doesn't negate the future hope in Christ, but calls for an honesty as it is expressed.

Genesis

Discuss!

Quote 1 - C.S. Lewis

"Lightly men talk of saying what they mean. Often when he was teaching me to write Greek the Fox would say, 'Child, to say the very thing you really mean, the whole of it, nothing more or less or other than what you really mean; that's the whole art and joy of words.'"

From C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. (London: Geoffrey Blues, 1956), p. 305.

Following the Trend

I (Christopher) will also be posting here on a regular basis. I will be starting a series titled, "The Hermeneutics and Philosophy of Father Brown." Father Brown being the character of the remarkable short stories written by G.K. Chesterton. While the stories are mysteries, they, at the same time, provide philosophical arguments which strike at the very core of our presuppositions. This idea was sparked by reading an article on The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics by Iain Provan ("How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?" (Acts 8:30-31): Evangelicals and Biblical Hermeneutics." Bulletin of Biblical Research 17.1 (2008): 1-36; esp. 23-24.) I hope that you find this interesting and challenging.

I will also be posting items relating to Biblical Translation and Interpretation.