Psalm 14
1. This is one of two, twin psalms that speak of the fool who does not believe in God. The other is Psalm 54.
It seems anachronistic to imagine actual atheists of the sort we have today. That would have been virtually unheard of at that time. More likely are individuals who do not fear any reprisal from God. These fools are corrupt.
2. Romans 3:12 draws on Psalm 14:3 (53:3). "All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one."
This is the verdict of the LORD as he looks down from heaven (14:2). The psalm itself seems to be speaking parabolically, for the psalmist does not seem to include himself among those who are corrupt. Rather, fools devour God's people and never call on the LORD (14:4). The psalmist thus seems to be indicting evildoers rather than every last individual. Indeed, he goes on to mention the righteous (14:5) and the poor who are oppressed (14:6).
3. The final verse, which urges for salvation to come out of Zion, is a plea for the restoration of Israel, for God's people to be restored. This fact suggests it was written after the divided monarchy, perhaps even after the exile.
4. While Psalm 14 primarily refers to God as YHWH, Psalm 54 refers to him as Elohim, corresponding to two strands that also appear in Genesis.
Proverbs 3:32-35
These verses indicate God's opposition to the perverse, the wicked, and scoffers. By contrast, God's favor is on the upright, the house of the righteous, and the humble oppressed. The wise get honor, the foolish shame.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 12 and Proverbs 3:19-26
Psalm 13 and Proverbs 3:27-31
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015
A Pitch for Gen Eds
1. One of the courses I taught this semester was a "First Year Experience" (FYE) course. This is a brilliant idea of having all new students take a general education course with a high touch that connects them to each other and a professor from the very start.
So we met as a class before the semester even began. We did orientation together. We did a service project together. We had pizza parties and did coffee together. I think we all feel really close to each other. It's just an all around great experience.
2. One of the goals of the orientation was to convince the students that a liberal arts education is valuable. Elaine Bernius gave a great pitch during orientation, but I'm not sure she persuaded them.
I would contend that the phrase, "liberal arts," is part of the problem. We academics know the phrase. It has a very, very long history. It has nothing to do with being liberal (unless truth in itself is liberal).
But it communicates nothing to the uninitiated. You'll notice I titled this post as a pitch for "gen eds," for "general education" courses in a college curriculum. Not as grand, but an easier sell, I think. Academia has a penchant for putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of achieving its goals.
Since fostering an appreciation for the liberal arts was one goal of this FYE course, I gave it the old college try for this essay on the final--"What is the benefit of studying the 'liberal arts' at a place like Indiana Wesleyan University?" I gave a 10 minute pitch for the role of gen eds in a college curriculum at a place like IWU.
3. I moved from what I thought would be the easier sell to the harder one. Since a Christian education in a Christian environment is probably the main reason to come to a place like IWU, I figured the Christian component was a no brainer.
Students on the residential campus take OT Survey, NT Survey, Theology, and Philosophy as part of their gen ed program. OT and NT give you biblical foundations. Theology organizes those foundations into a systematic form. Philosophy then gives you a Christian worldview. You might argue that the goal could be accomplished in three courses, but it seems to me that these courses are the core of a Christian education.
4. My next slide had history, psychology, and sociology on it. These courses help us see ourselves. The human default is to assume that the way our tribe does things is the only way. We don't see the long view. We don't see that we are doing something dangerous that was done before. We don't realize what's going on with our inner psychology. We don't realize the social dynamics that are taking place.
In other words, these courses are key to the success of civilization. They help us see ourselves. They disabuse us of the strong impression that anyone with a brain will see things like we do. Without a sense of history, society, and ourselves, we are little different than herd animals in a woodland.
5. My next slide was on writing and communication. These are very, very important skills for the workplace. I remember hearing a study that said some tech businesses would rather hire an English major with communication skills than an MBA who doesn't have them. The ability to communicate is essential in the marketplace. This, again, I think is a no brainer.
6. The last slide was the hardest sell, I thought. What is the value of having to take courses in art, literature, and science?
For art and literature, I put that these courses help us not to be communists. In the Soviet Union, everything took on a utilitarian value. What value does x have for the nation? The USSR engaged in art and sport to be the best, in competition with other nations. No doubt the individual artists did it for love the art, but one gets the feeling that they were pawns in a bigger machine.
The arts and literature are about being human. The view that everything has to do something, has to give a life skill, in and of itself is wrong. The psalms are not in the Bible to teach us things. They are in Scripture as expressions of worship, thanksgiving, sadness, and anger. They validate art and literature as part of God's plan for the world. Without them we are not yet fully human.
Finally, science and math teach us that God has rules we can't break. The most extreme relativist doesn't jump off buildings. S/he knows that the science doesn't work. These disciplines should teach us that our opinions of global warming don't matter a lick. What do experts on the subject think?
7. We perhaps have not taught these courses in ways that bring out their value. Those who teach them love them (which is valuable), but when a professor like me is allowed to teach what he or she likes (rather than in accordance with why that course is in the curriculum), students often don't see the value.
For this reason, unless the students are given a smorgasbord of options, these general education courses have to be carefully designed. They are not the property of the division or professor who teaches them. They are the property of the "liberal arts" goal as a whole.
Well, I don't know if I convinced anyone, but I gave it a shot.
So we met as a class before the semester even began. We did orientation together. We did a service project together. We had pizza parties and did coffee together. I think we all feel really close to each other. It's just an all around great experience.
2. One of the goals of the orientation was to convince the students that a liberal arts education is valuable. Elaine Bernius gave a great pitch during orientation, but I'm not sure she persuaded them.
I would contend that the phrase, "liberal arts," is part of the problem. We academics know the phrase. It has a very, very long history. It has nothing to do with being liberal (unless truth in itself is liberal).
But it communicates nothing to the uninitiated. You'll notice I titled this post as a pitch for "gen eds," for "general education" courses in a college curriculum. Not as grand, but an easier sell, I think. Academia has a penchant for putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of achieving its goals.
Since fostering an appreciation for the liberal arts was one goal of this FYE course, I gave it the old college try for this essay on the final--"What is the benefit of studying the 'liberal arts' at a place like Indiana Wesleyan University?" I gave a 10 minute pitch for the role of gen eds in a college curriculum at a place like IWU.
3. I moved from what I thought would be the easier sell to the harder one. Since a Christian education in a Christian environment is probably the main reason to come to a place like IWU, I figured the Christian component was a no brainer.
Students on the residential campus take OT Survey, NT Survey, Theology, and Philosophy as part of their gen ed program. OT and NT give you biblical foundations. Theology organizes those foundations into a systematic form. Philosophy then gives you a Christian worldview. You might argue that the goal could be accomplished in three courses, but it seems to me that these courses are the core of a Christian education.
4. My next slide had history, psychology, and sociology on it. These courses help us see ourselves. The human default is to assume that the way our tribe does things is the only way. We don't see the long view. We don't see that we are doing something dangerous that was done before. We don't realize what's going on with our inner psychology. We don't realize the social dynamics that are taking place.
In other words, these courses are key to the success of civilization. They help us see ourselves. They disabuse us of the strong impression that anyone with a brain will see things like we do. Without a sense of history, society, and ourselves, we are little different than herd animals in a woodland.
5. My next slide was on writing and communication. These are very, very important skills for the workplace. I remember hearing a study that said some tech businesses would rather hire an English major with communication skills than an MBA who doesn't have them. The ability to communicate is essential in the marketplace. This, again, I think is a no brainer.
6. The last slide was the hardest sell, I thought. What is the value of having to take courses in art, literature, and science?
For art and literature, I put that these courses help us not to be communists. In the Soviet Union, everything took on a utilitarian value. What value does x have for the nation? The USSR engaged in art and sport to be the best, in competition with other nations. No doubt the individual artists did it for love the art, but one gets the feeling that they were pawns in a bigger machine.
The arts and literature are about being human. The view that everything has to do something, has to give a life skill, in and of itself is wrong. The psalms are not in the Bible to teach us things. They are in Scripture as expressions of worship, thanksgiving, sadness, and anger. They validate art and literature as part of God's plan for the world. Without them we are not yet fully human.
Finally, science and math teach us that God has rules we can't break. The most extreme relativist doesn't jump off buildings. S/he knows that the science doesn't work. These disciplines should teach us that our opinions of global warming don't matter a lick. What do experts on the subject think?
7. We perhaps have not taught these courses in ways that bring out their value. Those who teach them love them (which is valuable), but when a professor like me is allowed to teach what he or she likes (rather than in accordance with why that course is in the curriculum), students often don't see the value.
For this reason, unless the students are given a smorgasbord of options, these general education courses have to be carefully designed. They are not the property of the division or professor who teaches them. They are the property of the "liberal arts" goal as a whole.
Well, I don't know if I convinced anyone, but I gave it a shot.
Psalm 13 and Proverbs 3:27-31
Psalm 13
Psalm 13 is a psalm of complaint. The psalmist asks the LORD how long he is going to wait to bring justice on his enemy. Surely the LORD doesn't want him to sleep the sleep of death. Then his enemies would rejoice.
As usual, the psalm ends on a high note. The psalmist rejoices in God and in his faithfulness. He is trusting in the LORD's hesed, his faithfulness. The word "salvation" is in parallel (yeshua), showing that God shows is faithfulness by bringing salvation (see Romans 1:16-17).
Proverbs 3:27-31
These five verses are a series of prohibitions like, "Don't withhold good when you are able to give it" (3:27). It reminds me of James 4:17--if you know to do good and you don't do it, that's sin. Proverbs 3:28 says the same with the timing. Give today if you can; don't postpone.
Several of these verses have to do with plotting or doing harm to your neighbor. Your neighbor trusts you. Don't plot against him or her. Don't start a fight for no reason. Don't envy the violent.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 12 and Proverbs 3:19-26
Psalm 13 is a psalm of complaint. The psalmist asks the LORD how long he is going to wait to bring justice on his enemy. Surely the LORD doesn't want him to sleep the sleep of death. Then his enemies would rejoice.
As usual, the psalm ends on a high note. The psalmist rejoices in God and in his faithfulness. He is trusting in the LORD's hesed, his faithfulness. The word "salvation" is in parallel (yeshua), showing that God shows is faithfulness by bringing salvation (see Romans 1:16-17).
Proverbs 3:27-31
These five verses are a series of prohibitions like, "Don't withhold good when you are able to give it" (3:27). It reminds me of James 4:17--if you know to do good and you don't do it, that's sin. Proverbs 3:28 says the same with the timing. Give today if you can; don't postpone.
Several of these verses have to do with plotting or doing harm to your neighbor. Your neighbor trusts you. Don't plot against him or her. Don't start a fight for no reason. Don't envy the violent.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 12 and Proverbs 3:19-26
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Seminary 2: Domains of Ministry
__________________
1. You can survey the curricula of seminaries everywhere. You can do a massive survey of a wide variety of people in various roles in a denomination. After you have collected all that data and grouped it, you will find that the domains of a minister in relation to ministry reduce to these basic areas:
- the person of the pastor
- the context of ministry
- central Christian traditions (Bible, theology, church history)
- worship
- mission
- proclamation
- discipleship and spiritual formation
- relationships
- leadership
2. The first section of this series will deal with the first two, the person and context of the pastor. The person of the pastor includes matters like the pastor's call to ministry (including who can be called), the personality and spiritual gifts of the pastor, and the pastor's priorities (including matters of family, margin, sabbath, retreat, personal spiritual formation).
The context of ministry includes the question of culture and contextualization. How does context affect both the incarnation and communication of truth? There are social contexts, ethnic and racial contexts, economic contexts, generational contexts, national contexts.
There are also historical contexts relating to the most immediate Christian traditions in which we find ourselves. We are in denominations. We are part of contemporary church history. These "traditional" contexts shape our story, our symbols, our practices, our answers to basic questions. [1] Because I am writing primarily for North Americans, I'll spend some time on Christian traditions in America.
3. The second section of this series will overview what I am calling "central Christian traditions." These are the Bible, theology, and church history. We will start with the church history of the first five centuries, giving a developmental sense both of the New Testament and basic Christian theology. Then we will go into more depth on basic theology from a biblical perspective, drawing on the Old and New Testaments. Finally, this section will finish with a tour through the last 1500 years.
4. The last six sections will deal with the key domains of ministerial practice. Worship is first because God is the center of all things. Mission comes second because it deals with the charge God has given to his ministerial ambassadors. Proclamation is key to the mission, for God has chosen through the foolishness of preaching to bring the alienated into the people of God.
Within the church, the people of God must be discipled, which is really the heart of the Great Commission. The spiritual formation of both individual and corporate church falls into this category. Next, we will look at relationships within the church and in general. What are healthy relationships? How can we counsel to form healthy individuals in the church?
The final section is then leadership. How does the minister coordinate and manage all of the functions mentioned above? How can a minister facilitate vision? What about the financial and organizational dimensions of ministry?
This is our quest. Eight sections, eight books of a sort.
[1] Here drawing from the key elements of worldview as N. T. Wright has set them out in The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
Friday, December 11, 2015
Pastor as Ninja
I have a spiritual formation group at Wesley Seminary on Thursday mornings. It's sheer delight to hear pastors share the thrills and challenges of their ministries every week. Yesterday morning, I sat there thinking about how the skilled pastor is a little like a skilled warrior.
But I wasn't thinking of it in the sense of many a bully pastor, the unskilled guy that gets up behind a pulpit and tells everyone what's wrong with them. That's not a ninja pastor. That's a lumbering elephant. I'm convinced that some people are attracted to ministry because they want to be able to tell everyone off.
No, the ninja pastor truly wants to be an agent for good in the world, an agent for change. "You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." Being skilled means you know when to back off, when to be silent, when to move forward. You know how to let the weight of the assailant cause them to fall of their own weight without even having to fight them.
You know how to take a punch. The effective warrior is interested in the outcome of the war more than winning every battle or fighting every attacker in between. You are strong enough to keep moving forward without having to stop at everyone trying to kill you. Sometimes to reach checkmate, you sacrifice a bishop.
Yes, I thought to myself, a skilled pastor is a ninja warrior.
But I wasn't thinking of it in the sense of many a bully pastor, the unskilled guy that gets up behind a pulpit and tells everyone what's wrong with them. That's not a ninja pastor. That's a lumbering elephant. I'm convinced that some people are attracted to ministry because they want to be able to tell everyone off.
No, the ninja pastor truly wants to be an agent for good in the world, an agent for change. "You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." Being skilled means you know when to back off, when to be silent, when to move forward. You know how to let the weight of the assailant cause them to fall of their own weight without even having to fight them.
You know how to take a punch. The effective warrior is interested in the outcome of the war more than winning every battle or fighting every attacker in between. You are strong enough to keep moving forward without having to stop at everyone trying to kill you. Sometimes to reach checkmate, you sacrifice a bishop.
Yes, I thought to myself, a skilled pastor is a ninja warrior.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Psalm 12 and Proverbs 3:19-26
Psalm 12
Psalm 12 is a psalm of complaint or lament. The first half (12:1-4) laments that no one seems to be godly anywhere (12:1). They lie, they flatter (12:2). Where are the faithful? May the LORD cut them off!
The LORD responds. He will rise up. He's angry that people take advantage of the needy and the poor (12:5). The promises of the LORD are pure (12:6). He will protect (12;7), even though the wicked are on the prowl (12:8).
Proverbs 3:19-26
Verses 19-20 continue the theme of wisdom. The LORD created the world using his wisdom and understanding. This is the beginning of an important theme that would have a major impact on Jewish thinking and, perhaps, was key to the development of early thinking about Jesus. Wisdom was the instrument God used in creation.
21-26 then continue the theme that if a person lives according to wisdom, s/he will have a secure life. Sleep will be sweet (3:24). The LORD will keep us confident and keep our feet from stumbling.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 12 is a psalm of complaint or lament. The first half (12:1-4) laments that no one seems to be godly anywhere (12:1). They lie, they flatter (12:2). Where are the faithful? May the LORD cut them off!
The LORD responds. He will rise up. He's angry that people take advantage of the needy and the poor (12:5). The promises of the LORD are pure (12:6). He will protect (12;7), even though the wicked are on the prowl (12:8).
Proverbs 3:19-26
Verses 19-20 continue the theme of wisdom. The LORD created the world using his wisdom and understanding. This is the beginning of an important theme that would have a major impact on Jewish thinking and, perhaps, was key to the development of early thinking about Jesus. Wisdom was the instrument God used in creation.
21-26 then continue the theme that if a person lives according to wisdom, s/he will have a secure life. Sleep will be sweet (3:24). The LORD will keep us confident and keep our feet from stumbling.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 11
1. The psalm has two parts. In the first part, 11:1-3, the psalmist's advisers tell him to flee. His enemies are after him. They tell him to fly away like a bird, for the arrows of his enemies are aimed at him. If the foundations are destroyed, if the pillars are shaken, there's nothing for the righteous to do but flee, his advisers say.
2. The psalmist rejects this line of thinking. God is still in his holy palace, which is in heaven. His foundations are not shaken. He sees what's going on. He judges the wicked. He loves the righteous. They will see his vindication.
3. There is possibly an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah in 11:6 (Alter).
4. I've often heard 11:3 quoted, "If the foundations are destroyed, what will the righteous do?" It's interesting that they are actually on the lips of an adviser that the psalmist rejects. His point is that the foundations are never destroyed, because God is always in his holy palace (sometimes rendered "temple"). There is always protection at hand!
Proverbs 3:13-18
With verse 13, Proverbs begins a section in praise of wisdom. Wisdom is personified in this section as a woman, but of course this is not literal. Wisdom is rather God's wisdom.
The pay off of wisdom is greater than silver or gold. No possession a person might desire can compare. A life lived in accordance with wisdom will tend to be a long life. Her path is the path of peace. Those who hold to her are blessed.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
1. The psalm has two parts. In the first part, 11:1-3, the psalmist's advisers tell him to flee. His enemies are after him. They tell him to fly away like a bird, for the arrows of his enemies are aimed at him. If the foundations are destroyed, if the pillars are shaken, there's nothing for the righteous to do but flee, his advisers say.
2. The psalmist rejects this line of thinking. God is still in his holy palace, which is in heaven. His foundations are not shaken. He sees what's going on. He judges the wicked. He loves the righteous. They will see his vindication.
3. There is possibly an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah in 11:6 (Alter).
4. I've often heard 11:3 quoted, "If the foundations are destroyed, what will the righteous do?" It's interesting that they are actually on the lips of an adviser that the psalmist rejects. His point is that the foundations are never destroyed, because God is always in his holy palace (sometimes rendered "temple"). There is always protection at hand!
Proverbs 3:13-18
With verse 13, Proverbs begins a section in praise of wisdom. Wisdom is personified in this section as a woman, but of course this is not literal. Wisdom is rather God's wisdom.
The pay off of wisdom is greater than silver or gold. No possession a person might desire can compare. A life lived in accordance with wisdom will tend to be a long life. Her path is the path of peace. Those who hold to her are blessed.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Dongell on Love, Purity, and Power
1. I had the chance to have lunch with Joe Dongell a couple weeks ago in Atlanta. He's a Wesleyan professor at Asbury Seminary and one of the smartest people I know. We have a lot in common, including similar backgrounds and similar educational pathways. I always know I'm going to be laughing when I'm having a meal with Joe, his brother Pete, and other friends from the Asbury era of my life.
Recently, Joe read through all of Wesley's works multiple times. I believe he will put out a book with his reflections, but he has spoken several times on his conclusions in various circles. I wanted to explore and expand on one train of thought emerged from that study.
2. It is well known by now that Wesley did not talk about entire sanctification in terms of the book of Acts. His preferred phrase was "perfect love" and he much preferred the books of John and the Sermon on the Mount in his preaching. It was John Fletcher who equated this experience with Acts, which gave the experience a much clearer experiential template.
There is some evidence that Wesley didn't have a problem with this approach, but you practically have to be a Wesley scholar to argue for it. It just wasn't a primary way he thought about entire sanctification.
3. One train of thought Joe has explored is that the shift from preaching on being perfected in love to preaching on Acts entailed some shifts in the way the American holiness movement thought about entire sanctification. In particular, Joe believes it shifted the focus from love to a focus on purity and power. I'll let the church historians hash out the details, but I want to dance a little with Joe's thoughts here.
One thing I think is clear is that the shift to Acts eventually shifted the American holiness movement away (not completely, but in focus) from the substance of the doctrine (love) to the experience of the doctrine. For example, Joe would argue that Wesley did not really specify any timetable for having this experience. In the late 1800s, the holiness movement would shift toward having a second experience ASAP after conversion.
Joe is suggesting that when Fletcher preached sanctification by way of Acts, he presupposed the substance of Wesley's teaching on love. But once the focus was on Acts, Joe argues, it became possible to preach sanctification without the substance of Wesley's teaching.
This shift inevitably made a lot of room for a certain shallowness to the experience, what Keith Drury once called, "two-tripism." At the beginning of the twentieth century, people were asking questions like, "Did you jump when you were sanctified?" "Did you shout?" In a slightly different context, "Did you speak in tongues?"
4. At some point, another shift happened. Sanctification shifted from a positive dynamic--love toward others--to a negative move. Holiness somewhere shifted to being against things. This was a twisting of the heart of the doctrine. Holiness was now about what you didn't do, about stopping certain behaviors, and holiness preaching was often dominated by preaching against relatively external things like what you wear or where you go. The holiness movement became heavily infected with legalism and Pharisaism.
(Soon forgotten was the social activism of the mid 1800s, when Wesleyans were activists against slavery and for women's right's.)
Not everyone, to be sure, not every sermon. There was still preaching about being saved from anger or self-destructive behaviors. I especially prize the preaching I heard on selflessness and self-denial, of doing everything for the glory of God. It was only the content toward which that teaching was directed that I question.
Could it be that the prevailing sense of holiness in the mid-twentieth century became a negative movement, and often about relatively superficial things? Holiness preachers were conceived along the lines of the prophets of the OT, but they missed a key dynamic. The OT prophets preached more for people than against sin. The prophets railed for social justice and against idolatry. They didn't primarily preach against breaking the Law.
5. It's no wonder that the Boomers of the Wesleyan Church largely rejected holiness in the late twentieth century. They saw neither purity nor power in the movement. They shifted their focus to the church growth movement.
Even moreso, those groups that continued to focus on this shell of a doctrine understandably confused a certain kind of cultural conservatism with holiness. A place like Bob Jones or Liberty University felt more holiness to them than a place like IWU, which actually promotes Wesley's actual values and the values of the nineteenth century church. Holiness became cultural and political conservatism, not perfect love.
Indeed, it was fascinating recently to hear the question of when Wesleyans shifted from a holiness emphasis to an emphasis on love, as if holiness was ever for Wesley anything but perfect love!
In short, we lost our way.
Recently, Joe read through all of Wesley's works multiple times. I believe he will put out a book with his reflections, but he has spoken several times on his conclusions in various circles. I wanted to explore and expand on one train of thought emerged from that study.
2. It is well known by now that Wesley did not talk about entire sanctification in terms of the book of Acts. His preferred phrase was "perfect love" and he much preferred the books of John and the Sermon on the Mount in his preaching. It was John Fletcher who equated this experience with Acts, which gave the experience a much clearer experiential template.
There is some evidence that Wesley didn't have a problem with this approach, but you practically have to be a Wesley scholar to argue for it. It just wasn't a primary way he thought about entire sanctification.
3. One train of thought Joe has explored is that the shift from preaching on being perfected in love to preaching on Acts entailed some shifts in the way the American holiness movement thought about entire sanctification. In particular, Joe believes it shifted the focus from love to a focus on purity and power. I'll let the church historians hash out the details, but I want to dance a little with Joe's thoughts here.
One thing I think is clear is that the shift to Acts eventually shifted the American holiness movement away (not completely, but in focus) from the substance of the doctrine (love) to the experience of the doctrine. For example, Joe would argue that Wesley did not really specify any timetable for having this experience. In the late 1800s, the holiness movement would shift toward having a second experience ASAP after conversion.
Joe is suggesting that when Fletcher preached sanctification by way of Acts, he presupposed the substance of Wesley's teaching on love. But once the focus was on Acts, Joe argues, it became possible to preach sanctification without the substance of Wesley's teaching.
This shift inevitably made a lot of room for a certain shallowness to the experience, what Keith Drury once called, "two-tripism." At the beginning of the twentieth century, people were asking questions like, "Did you jump when you were sanctified?" "Did you shout?" In a slightly different context, "Did you speak in tongues?"
4. At some point, another shift happened. Sanctification shifted from a positive dynamic--love toward others--to a negative move. Holiness somewhere shifted to being against things. This was a twisting of the heart of the doctrine. Holiness was now about what you didn't do, about stopping certain behaviors, and holiness preaching was often dominated by preaching against relatively external things like what you wear or where you go. The holiness movement became heavily infected with legalism and Pharisaism.
(Soon forgotten was the social activism of the mid 1800s, when Wesleyans were activists against slavery and for women's right's.)
Not everyone, to be sure, not every sermon. There was still preaching about being saved from anger or self-destructive behaviors. I especially prize the preaching I heard on selflessness and self-denial, of doing everything for the glory of God. It was only the content toward which that teaching was directed that I question.
Could it be that the prevailing sense of holiness in the mid-twentieth century became a negative movement, and often about relatively superficial things? Holiness preachers were conceived along the lines of the prophets of the OT, but they missed a key dynamic. The OT prophets preached more for people than against sin. The prophets railed for social justice and against idolatry. They didn't primarily preach against breaking the Law.
5. It's no wonder that the Boomers of the Wesleyan Church largely rejected holiness in the late twentieth century. They saw neither purity nor power in the movement. They shifted their focus to the church growth movement.
Even moreso, those groups that continued to focus on this shell of a doctrine understandably confused a certain kind of cultural conservatism with holiness. A place like Bob Jones or Liberty University felt more holiness to them than a place like IWU, which actually promotes Wesley's actual values and the values of the nineteenth century church. Holiness became cultural and political conservatism, not perfect love.
Indeed, it was fascinating recently to hear the question of when Wesleyans shifted from a holiness emphasis to an emphasis on love, as if holiness was ever for Wesley anything but perfect love!
In short, we lost our way.
Monday, December 07, 2015
Laansma - Hebrews in Scholarship
2. Jon Laansma writes the opening chapter: "Hebrews: Yesterday, Today, and Future." That chapter is the notice of reading I'm giving today. I would say that Jon wrestles with two key concerns in this chapter. The one is the fact that Hebrews does not play on the same field of biblical theology as Jesus and Paul. It's more in something like a kiddy league. He wrestles with why this situation might be the case. The second issue he wrestles with is the appropriateness of historical method in interpretation. Is an Enlightenment approach to interpretation part of the problem in some way?
First, Laansma's awareness of Hebrews scholarship I did not know puts me to shame. (Of course it can't hurt to have Wheaton's library close at hand. If I could walk across campus and scan the shelves of a research library, I'd be in better shape. I'm not complaining about my library. We do a very good job of what we do and have a good library for what we do, which is train ministers, not research experts in theology.)
3. I might register my sense of theological interpretation, which I have done before in the forest that is this blog. For me, it is important to keep contextual exegesis and theological interpretation distinct from each other, although I consider both legitimate enterprises. On the one hand, there are theological dimensions to contextual exegesis, especially if you believe that God does indeed reveal himself and interact with the world. Believing exegesis should not be "functionally deistic" in a reductionistic sense (19).
Nevertheless, the myth of objectivity is essential in exegesis. Yes, we inevitably infect the text with ourselves. Yes, we cannot neatly separate ourselves as subjects from the object of our knowing. But it becomes a slop of free for all if we don't try. I would go so far as to say that it is helpful to do a "deistic read" of a text first before rereading with the eyes of theism. This is to keep us honest, to try our best to disentangle ourselves from the reading. We will fail, but not to try opens the gate wide for no agreed meaning at all, only agreements among tribes of readers.
The historical reading can then engage in theological appropriation, while not confusing categorically the appropriation with the interpretation.
4. On the other hand, the church fathers engaged in what I consider theological interpretation. They fully let their theology affect their interpretations. They "fiddled" with the text. Theological interpretation of this sort, in my opinion, is simply a form of reader-response criticism. I consider it legitimate, but it should be strongly distinguished from the original meaning in history.
5. Should Hebrews be a major player in biblical theology? In my reading, it should be because it provides the definitive lens through which we appropriate the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Without Hebrews, we have no definitive word in Scripture to stop the animal sacrifices of the old covenant. We assume Paul agrees but I am finishing up some work that questions whether this is in fact the case.
On the other hand, I am not so worried about the anathema of setting up a canon within the canon. I think that it is not only appropriate but inevitable. Also, the contours of that canon within the canon may change from time to time in Christian history. In that sense, I am not bothered to try to put Hebrews on the main stage. That is not a need I have theologically, even though I think Hebrews does belong there for the reason I mention above.
6. Of course I have to like the chapter because Jon mentions me a couple times. :-) For my next victim chapter, I see that John Barclay's Paul and the Gift is on top next.
Sunday, December 06, 2015
ET6. God calls us to respect our parents and spouses.
This is the sixth post on Christian ethics in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.
We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. The third set was on sacraments. This final section is on Christian ethics.
_______________________________
God calls us to respect our parents and spouses.
1. There is a good reason why, not only the Bible, but the vast majority of cultures in history have had obedience to parents and the respect of elders as a core value. When the world more or less stays the same from century to century, it is the older people who have the most knowledge and experience of the world. Similarly, the stability of life in such a world rests on keeping the traditions and norms of your people. [1]
So the commandment says, "Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" (Exod. 20:12).
Places where the young do not respect the elder are often chaotic places. When the inherited values of a culture are rejected, it is a free for all. People simply do "what is right in their own eyes" (Judg. 17:6; 21:5). They live for themselves, their own selfish pleasures and desires, which causes a society to disintegrate.
2. So biblical instructions to obey parents (Eph. 6:1; Prov. 1:8) and to treat elders as fathers and mothers (1 Tim. 5:1-2) were not just a nice tradition. They had a purpose--the stability and survival of peoples. In the church, it also has the function of defending against false teaching, since the elders of the church are usually not only wiser but they have a tendency to preserve doctrine.
The leaders of the early congregations of the church were called "elders" and they probably were in fact older (e.g., Acts 14:33; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5). [2] In such a world, the older have to be reminded that young people can have insight as well (1 Tim. 5:12).
We thus might see biblical instructions to respect and submit to one's elders in a similar vein to instruction elsewhere to respect and submit to those in authority. Authority preserves order and hopefully embodies the wisdom of a group. People often rise to leadership because they have recognized gifts and are invested with power by the group. So elders usually embody the wisdom of a group.
3. In the ideal world, parents serve a similar function within the family. Of course families in biblical times were bigger than just husband and wife. The oldest male in an extended family was usually the highest authority for that clan or group.
But parents function both to protect and train their children within the smaller unit. "Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray" (Prov. 22:6). This is not an absolute guarantee--there are exceptions--but it captures well the basic principle. Parents train their children to become virtuous and responsible adults.
Parents are not always right, of course. In the case of adults, an adult can sometimes maneuver around a wicked or incompetent authority. Children face a much dangerous situation. They are most vulnerable to a wicked or incompetent parent. The church and society hopefully can help in such situations.
So there is purpose to the biblical instructions to submit to authority, to respect elders, and to obey parents. It is not just a rule that exists for its own sake. Children not only do not have knowledge of the world. Their brains are not fully developed in childhood, and they are prone to self-destructive thinking in their teens. The instruction for children to obey parents is, in most cases, for their own protection and so that they can thrive in life.
4. In most cultures in history, the man has been the dominant figure in relation to the wife. Genesis 3:16 captures the majority situation of history well: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
In Genesis, Eve is given this consequence as a punishment for her sin. But 1 Timothy 2 suggests that the cultures of the ancient world thought of the subordination of wives to husbands as a protective move as well: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived" (2:14). So the wife was not thought to be as wise or informed as the husband, making the husband the better leader of the family unit.
To the extent to which the Bible speaks to this question, it assumes the culture norms of its world. "Submit to each other out of respect for Christ. For example, wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the savior of the body... As for husbands, love your wives just like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her" (Eph. 5:21-23, 25, CEB). This default historical approach sees the husband as the protector of the wife and family, with wife and children submitting for their own benefit.
So the purpose of this construction was not to oppress the wife but to protect her. [3] Like the instruction to respect one's elders, there is little that it is uniquely Christian about this structure. Aristotle, writing in the 300s BC, wrote, "A husband and father rules over wife and children… Although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is fitter for command than the female." [4]
5. However, there is another strand in the Bible, especially in the New Testament. First, there were always exceptions. Deborah in Judges is married, but she was still the supreme spiritual and political authority in Israel (Judg. 4:4-6). The high priest, who holds the highest spiritual office in Judah, still goes to the prophetess Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14 to validate the Law. That makes her the one who truly has the highest spiritual authority in the land.
The age of the Spirit signaled the end of the world as we know it, including the eventual end of male domination. In the kingdom, women are not given to men as wives (e.g., Mark 12:25). In the age of the Spirit, women prophesy just like men (Acts 2:17). They pray and prophesy in public worship, no less (1 Cor. 11:5). Christ has died for the sins of Eve as well as Adam, so the punishment of subordination is ultimately doomed.
We are not surprised to see women in ministry and leadership roles in the early church. Junia may have been an apostle (Rom. 16:7). Phoebe was a deacon (Rom. 16:1). Lydia probably hosted the church of Philippi in her home (Acts 16:15). Euodia and Syntyche worked alongside male co-workers in the church of Philippi too (Phil. 4:2-3).
One of the most striking women in the New Testament church was Priscilla. In four of the six times she is mentioned, she is mentioned before her husband. One of those instances is when she teaches Apollos the way of Christ more accurately (Acts 18:26). A woman teaches a man about Christ, and a very educated man at that.
6. Churches in the Wesleyan tradition, along with most of those in the Pentecostal tradition, have seen women in ministry as a key element of the age of the Spirit. In Christ there is not male and female (Gal. 3:28). Along with Jesus, especially in the Gospel of Luke, we have seen the empowerment and full inclusion of women as a key implication of the gospel.
In places and times where the culture continued to make this possibility more the exception than the rule, it is no surprise that the church has largely accommodated the situation. Even the New Testament accommodated its culture to some extent on this issue, especially as the initial, very charismatic phase of the church began to close and there was a shift toward institutionalization.
But in the kingdom of God there will be no subordination of women to men. There is no spiritual difference in the age of the Spirit. We know there is no intellectual difference. The educational situation is much different than it used to be. Women today are every bit as informed and educated as men.
In an age where the culture is already more like the kingdom (with women empowered) than in most of history, it is perverse and ironic in the extreme for the church to be one of the lone voices pushing for the earthly model, alongside the worst women-haters of the broader culture. It diminishes our witness and shows that we do not know how to read the Bible for its purposes and spirit, only for its letter (2 Cor. 3:6).
A much more Christian model for today is that of mutual submission: "Submit to each other out of respect for Christ" (Eph. 5:21). Both husband and wife should submit to the other. "Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor" (Rom. 12:10). "Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:4).
7. God calls us to respect those in authority. It gives honor to those who are older and to parents. That does not mean that our elders are always right or that parents are always right. It does not mean they are always the wisest or most informed voices. But we are called to respect them.
In the ever-changing and strikingly different world of today, sometimes a younger person is invested with greater authority by a group. In our world, wives are often more competent to lead and minister than their husbands. In such cases, we remember that we are all equal in God's eyes.
No group has been invested with power simply because they are in that group. Those structures are meant to play out God's love for us and the fact that he wants the best for us. When that best follows a different order than it has at other times and places, we carefully carry out God's purpose rather than the mere form of tradition.
Next Sunday: ET7. Thou shalt not murder.
[1] The modern, Western world has presented significant challenges to this norm because of how quickly technology and industry change. Adaptability becomes a key skill, and area in which elders usually do not excel.
[2] Again, when churches were stationary entities that stayed the same for centuries or in America when they were largely small, unchanging entities, this model stayed the same. Today, in a quickly changing and mobile world, the church has followed the culture and come more to value spry, innovative, younger pastors.
[3] 1 Peter, written for a time of persecution, acknowledges that there will be unbelieving husbands (1 Peter 3:1). The letter in general is a defensive strategy, not written for a time when we are to fight for the right but when we are to willingly submit to oppressive powers. See Scot McKnight, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
[4] Politics 1.12.
We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. The third set was on sacraments. This final section is on Christian ethics.
_______________________________
God calls us to respect our parents and spouses.
1. There is a good reason why, not only the Bible, but the vast majority of cultures in history have had obedience to parents and the respect of elders as a core value. When the world more or less stays the same from century to century, it is the older people who have the most knowledge and experience of the world. Similarly, the stability of life in such a world rests on keeping the traditions and norms of your people. [1]
So the commandment says, "Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" (Exod. 20:12).
Places where the young do not respect the elder are often chaotic places. When the inherited values of a culture are rejected, it is a free for all. People simply do "what is right in their own eyes" (Judg. 17:6; 21:5). They live for themselves, their own selfish pleasures and desires, which causes a society to disintegrate.
2. So biblical instructions to obey parents (Eph. 6:1; Prov. 1:8) and to treat elders as fathers and mothers (1 Tim. 5:1-2) were not just a nice tradition. They had a purpose--the stability and survival of peoples. In the church, it also has the function of defending against false teaching, since the elders of the church are usually not only wiser but they have a tendency to preserve doctrine.
The leaders of the early congregations of the church were called "elders" and they probably were in fact older (e.g., Acts 14:33; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5). [2] In such a world, the older have to be reminded that young people can have insight as well (1 Tim. 5:12).
We thus might see biblical instructions to respect and submit to one's elders in a similar vein to instruction elsewhere to respect and submit to those in authority. Authority preserves order and hopefully embodies the wisdom of a group. People often rise to leadership because they have recognized gifts and are invested with power by the group. So elders usually embody the wisdom of a group.
3. In the ideal world, parents serve a similar function within the family. Of course families in biblical times were bigger than just husband and wife. The oldest male in an extended family was usually the highest authority for that clan or group.
But parents function both to protect and train their children within the smaller unit. "Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray" (Prov. 22:6). This is not an absolute guarantee--there are exceptions--but it captures well the basic principle. Parents train their children to become virtuous and responsible adults.
Parents are not always right, of course. In the case of adults, an adult can sometimes maneuver around a wicked or incompetent authority. Children face a much dangerous situation. They are most vulnerable to a wicked or incompetent parent. The church and society hopefully can help in such situations.
So there is purpose to the biblical instructions to submit to authority, to respect elders, and to obey parents. It is not just a rule that exists for its own sake. Children not only do not have knowledge of the world. Their brains are not fully developed in childhood, and they are prone to self-destructive thinking in their teens. The instruction for children to obey parents is, in most cases, for their own protection and so that they can thrive in life.
4. In most cultures in history, the man has been the dominant figure in relation to the wife. Genesis 3:16 captures the majority situation of history well: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
In Genesis, Eve is given this consequence as a punishment for her sin. But 1 Timothy 2 suggests that the cultures of the ancient world thought of the subordination of wives to husbands as a protective move as well: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived" (2:14). So the wife was not thought to be as wise or informed as the husband, making the husband the better leader of the family unit.
To the extent to which the Bible speaks to this question, it assumes the culture norms of its world. "Submit to each other out of respect for Christ. For example, wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the savior of the body... As for husbands, love your wives just like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her" (Eph. 5:21-23, 25, CEB). This default historical approach sees the husband as the protector of the wife and family, with wife and children submitting for their own benefit.
So the purpose of this construction was not to oppress the wife but to protect her. [3] Like the instruction to respect one's elders, there is little that it is uniquely Christian about this structure. Aristotle, writing in the 300s BC, wrote, "A husband and father rules over wife and children… Although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is fitter for command than the female." [4]
5. However, there is another strand in the Bible, especially in the New Testament. First, there were always exceptions. Deborah in Judges is married, but she was still the supreme spiritual and political authority in Israel (Judg. 4:4-6). The high priest, who holds the highest spiritual office in Judah, still goes to the prophetess Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14 to validate the Law. That makes her the one who truly has the highest spiritual authority in the land.
The age of the Spirit signaled the end of the world as we know it, including the eventual end of male domination. In the kingdom, women are not given to men as wives (e.g., Mark 12:25). In the age of the Spirit, women prophesy just like men (Acts 2:17). They pray and prophesy in public worship, no less (1 Cor. 11:5). Christ has died for the sins of Eve as well as Adam, so the punishment of subordination is ultimately doomed.
We are not surprised to see women in ministry and leadership roles in the early church. Junia may have been an apostle (Rom. 16:7). Phoebe was a deacon (Rom. 16:1). Lydia probably hosted the church of Philippi in her home (Acts 16:15). Euodia and Syntyche worked alongside male co-workers in the church of Philippi too (Phil. 4:2-3).
One of the most striking women in the New Testament church was Priscilla. In four of the six times she is mentioned, she is mentioned before her husband. One of those instances is when she teaches Apollos the way of Christ more accurately (Acts 18:26). A woman teaches a man about Christ, and a very educated man at that.
6. Churches in the Wesleyan tradition, along with most of those in the Pentecostal tradition, have seen women in ministry as a key element of the age of the Spirit. In Christ there is not male and female (Gal. 3:28). Along with Jesus, especially in the Gospel of Luke, we have seen the empowerment and full inclusion of women as a key implication of the gospel.
In places and times where the culture continued to make this possibility more the exception than the rule, it is no surprise that the church has largely accommodated the situation. Even the New Testament accommodated its culture to some extent on this issue, especially as the initial, very charismatic phase of the church began to close and there was a shift toward institutionalization.
But in the kingdom of God there will be no subordination of women to men. There is no spiritual difference in the age of the Spirit. We know there is no intellectual difference. The educational situation is much different than it used to be. Women today are every bit as informed and educated as men.
In an age where the culture is already more like the kingdom (with women empowered) than in most of history, it is perverse and ironic in the extreme for the church to be one of the lone voices pushing for the earthly model, alongside the worst women-haters of the broader culture. It diminishes our witness and shows that we do not know how to read the Bible for its purposes and spirit, only for its letter (2 Cor. 3:6).
A much more Christian model for today is that of mutual submission: "Submit to each other out of respect for Christ" (Eph. 5:21). Both husband and wife should submit to the other. "Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor" (Rom. 12:10). "Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:4).
7. God calls us to respect those in authority. It gives honor to those who are older and to parents. That does not mean that our elders are always right or that parents are always right. It does not mean they are always the wisest or most informed voices. But we are called to respect them.
In the ever-changing and strikingly different world of today, sometimes a younger person is invested with greater authority by a group. In our world, wives are often more competent to lead and minister than their husbands. In such cases, we remember that we are all equal in God's eyes.
No group has been invested with power simply because they are in that group. Those structures are meant to play out God's love for us and the fact that he wants the best for us. When that best follows a different order than it has at other times and places, we carefully carry out God's purpose rather than the mere form of tradition.
Next Sunday: ET7. Thou shalt not murder.
[1] The modern, Western world has presented significant challenges to this norm because of how quickly technology and industry change. Adaptability becomes a key skill, and area in which elders usually do not excel.
[2] Again, when churches were stationary entities that stayed the same for centuries or in America when they were largely small, unchanging entities, this model stayed the same. Today, in a quickly changing and mobile world, the church has followed the culture and come more to value spry, innovative, younger pastors.
[3] 1 Peter, written for a time of persecution, acknowledges that there will be unbelieving husbands (1 Peter 3:1). The letter in general is a defensive strategy, not written for a time when we are to fight for the right but when we are to willingly submit to oppressive powers. See Scot McKnight, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
[4] Politics 1.12.
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Your Children Know Psalm 23?
A friend in class, Payton, was talking about a child in his church who didn't know the 23rd psalm. If you have children, how about teaching them it today?
The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
he leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil;
My cup runs over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell[a] in the house of the Lord Forever.
The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
he leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil;
My cup runs over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell[a] in the house of the Lord Forever.
Seminary in a Nutshell 1
1. A few years ago, I came across David Horton's, The Portable Seminary. What a brilliant idea, I thought then, condensing the rudiments of a seminary education into a 784 page book. My friend Brannon Hancock recently pointed out that Zondervan was selling a package called, Seminary in a Box. It's three books in a bundle.
I don't think anyone actually thinks that either of these resources is really a substitute for a seminary education. But I also get frustrated at the "all or nothing" attitude that so many academics have. It's as if they would rather people have no education if they can't have three full years of residential theological education somewhere.
That sort of thinking drives me crazy, people choosing nothing if they can't get their ideal. In the current climate, they should prepare to get a whole lot of nothing and then lose their jobs when their seminary closes.
2. Of course neither of these projects come close to what I have come to think a seminary education should include. The second is entirely Bible and theology, and the first one is heavily Bible, theology, and church history. These are obviously crucial elements of a seminary education, but there are two key problems with the way they are usually approached:
4. Even when the seminary began, I pictured faculty and friends creating innovative textbooks in leadership, mission, etc, that put this integrated approach down on paper. It didn't happen, in part because of how overworked we all were in the start up phase. And the more people you have in the room, the harder it is to get everyone to agree.
So I think I'm going to take up the idea again myself as a blog project. For the next couple years, I think I'm going to blog steadily through a seminary curriculum as I conceive it, relying on what I think are the best insights of my nearly decade long involvement with the founding of a seminary. Here's some of what I see being in the first part of the project:
Pastor and Context
I don't think anyone actually thinks that either of these resources is really a substitute for a seminary education. But I also get frustrated at the "all or nothing" attitude that so many academics have. It's as if they would rather people have no education if they can't have three full years of residential theological education somewhere.
That sort of thinking drives me crazy, people choosing nothing if they can't get their ideal. In the current climate, they should prepare to get a whole lot of nothing and then lose their jobs when their seminary closes.
2. Of course neither of these projects come close to what I have come to think a seminary education should include. The second is entirely Bible and theology, and the first one is heavily Bible, theology, and church history. These are obviously crucial elements of a seminary education, but there are two key problems with the way they are usually approached:
- There is no straight line from the Bible, theology, and church history to life, let alone to ministry. The application of these disciplines is always spiritual, selective, communal, and contextual.
- In that sense, these really aren't "foundational" in the sense of being necessary before beginning to address subjects like leadership, mission, or worship. I think I would rather call them the "nuclear" or the central disciplines. All the other disciplines must surely engage them, but their relationship is not exactly derivative. Bible-theology-and church history are integral to the practice of ministry, but they are not exactly the building blocks. You don't have to master the Bible before you can master leadership, but hopefully the Bible informs your leadership in some way.
- Bible, theology, and church history were focally integrated with the practice of ministry. They weren't isolated out on their own.
- Spiritual formation was integrated with the practice of ministry.
- A somewhat problem-based approach was taken to learning about the practice of ministry, so that even the practical disciplines were driven by practice (as opposed to most seminaries where practical disciplines are driven by the theory behind practice).
4. Even when the seminary began, I pictured faculty and friends creating innovative textbooks in leadership, mission, etc, that put this integrated approach down on paper. It didn't happen, in part because of how overworked we all were in the start up phase. And the more people you have in the room, the harder it is to get everyone to agree.
So I think I'm going to take up the idea again myself as a blog project. For the next couple years, I think I'm going to blog steadily through a seminary curriculum as I conceive it, relying on what I think are the best insights of my nearly decade long involvement with the founding of a seminary. Here's some of what I see being in the first part of the project:
Pastor and Context
- The domains of ministerial education (the pastor, the context, the traditions, worship, mission, proclamation, discipleship and spiritual formation, relationships, and leadership)
- Call to Ministry/types of ministry
- Personal strengths and spiritual gifts
- Pastor priorities (God, family, ministry)
- Cultural Contexts
- Traditional Contexts
Friday, December 04, 2015
Social Media: Influence or Polarization?
A. When I look at the team at 12Stone Church®, the leadership giftedness of Kevin Myers is obvious, but there's an amazing team there with him that is off the charts. It's been a pleasure to get to know Dan Reiland, Chris Huff, Robin Ritchie and others there these last few years.
Dan Reiland in particular is the "executive pastor" to end all executive pastors. He wrote a piece the other day called, "Influence or Interference," that really got me thinking. Many know that I have a quasi-addiction to social media. Part of it is the fact that I like to make people laugh. Part is the same reason I enjoy teaching--I love to share ideas, especially if I think they are neat or if I think they are important.
B. In a polarized America and a polarized church, social media hasn't been much fun lately, especially when you are aiming for some sort of middle. Social media is fine if the only people you're engaging agree with you. But in the melting pot of Facebook, east meets west. People you keep separate in real life intermingle.
I've repeatedly experienced an initial comment on Facebook that sparks an extended battle between east and west on whatever topic. I may be long gone from the discussion, but the battle goes on and on. I wish there were a Facebook function where you could end discussion, just freeze it where it is. Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually enjoy starting fights.
But when you have 2000 people in the same room, the expression of any position is almost bound to start a fight. A few times lately, the polarization has been particularly painful.
C. Something about Dan Reiland's recent post sparked something in me. This sentence especially caught my eye: "As a leader, I always have an opinion, but I shouldn't always share it." He has a list of questions he asks himself before he interferes with his team.
His questions made me think, "What would a good list be for me on social media?" When I have a thought, when should I post it and when shouldn't I?
Here's some for starters:
1. Am I going to hurt or offend someone with this comment?
Hurting is different from offending. Is there anyone I'm going to tear down when I should be building them up? Jokes can hurt, so funny should especially be screened for hurtfulness.
There may be a time to offend, but I should carefully think it through and be prepared for the consequences. Maybe this is also the place to put, "Am I going to tick off one of my superiors?"
2. Will my bold statement actually change anything, or will it just make me feel good for a second?
Probably the biggest problem with social media is when we use it to vent. We feel good for a second, but the fight keeps going and the alienation deepens. Am I improving the church or just making myself feel good for telling someone off?
3. What will others do with my words?
It's not just a matter of what I mean. Who am I feeding? Who is going to take my words and push them over the edge, take them to the next level? Am I going to start a war? How am I going to feel when my friends start tearing each other apart?
4. Do my words pull together or push apart?
I'm on some big teams. There's my School of Theology team. There's the IWU team. There's the Wesleyan Church team. There's the kingdom team. I don't want to polarize these teams. I want to pull them further together.
5. Am I increasing or diminishing my influence?
Every public statement or decision I make either increases, decreases, or has no impact on my influence. There is a time to take a hit for the greater good, but you want your net influence to be growing rather than diminishing. Will my comment put money in the bank or make a withdrawal?
6. What is my gut saying?
When I get an uneasy feeling about emailing something or posting something, it's usually my subconscious warning me that I'm giving into a carnal or selfish impulse or that I'm running the risk of ticking someone off. If I get this, I should think/pray about it some more, maybe get a coffee, maybe ask someone, maybe sleep on it. My bias should probably be against posting.
There is a time to unfriend someone who always poisons your well. I've never done it yet. You can also make it so that some people don't see certain posts. These moves go against my natural impulses, but these are times of great polarization indeed. Remember the proverb that says, "Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself" (26:4).
So those are some questions I've decided to start asking myself before I tweet, blog, or post on Facebook. What would you add to the list?
Dan Reiland in particular is the "executive pastor" to end all executive pastors. He wrote a piece the other day called, "Influence or Interference," that really got me thinking. Many know that I have a quasi-addiction to social media. Part of it is the fact that I like to make people laugh. Part is the same reason I enjoy teaching--I love to share ideas, especially if I think they are neat or if I think they are important.
B. In a polarized America and a polarized church, social media hasn't been much fun lately, especially when you are aiming for some sort of middle. Social media is fine if the only people you're engaging agree with you. But in the melting pot of Facebook, east meets west. People you keep separate in real life intermingle.
I've repeatedly experienced an initial comment on Facebook that sparks an extended battle between east and west on whatever topic. I may be long gone from the discussion, but the battle goes on and on. I wish there were a Facebook function where you could end discussion, just freeze it where it is. Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually enjoy starting fights.
But when you have 2000 people in the same room, the expression of any position is almost bound to start a fight. A few times lately, the polarization has been particularly painful.
C. Something about Dan Reiland's recent post sparked something in me. This sentence especially caught my eye: "As a leader, I always have an opinion, but I shouldn't always share it." He has a list of questions he asks himself before he interferes with his team.
His questions made me think, "What would a good list be for me on social media?" When I have a thought, when should I post it and when shouldn't I?
Here's some for starters:
1. Am I going to hurt or offend someone with this comment?
Hurting is different from offending. Is there anyone I'm going to tear down when I should be building them up? Jokes can hurt, so funny should especially be screened for hurtfulness.
There may be a time to offend, but I should carefully think it through and be prepared for the consequences. Maybe this is also the place to put, "Am I going to tick off one of my superiors?"
2. Will my bold statement actually change anything, or will it just make me feel good for a second?
Probably the biggest problem with social media is when we use it to vent. We feel good for a second, but the fight keeps going and the alienation deepens. Am I improving the church or just making myself feel good for telling someone off?
3. What will others do with my words?
It's not just a matter of what I mean. Who am I feeding? Who is going to take my words and push them over the edge, take them to the next level? Am I going to start a war? How am I going to feel when my friends start tearing each other apart?
4. Do my words pull together or push apart?
I'm on some big teams. There's my School of Theology team. There's the IWU team. There's the Wesleyan Church team. There's the kingdom team. I don't want to polarize these teams. I want to pull them further together.
5. Am I increasing or diminishing my influence?
Every public statement or decision I make either increases, decreases, or has no impact on my influence. There is a time to take a hit for the greater good, but you want your net influence to be growing rather than diminishing. Will my comment put money in the bank or make a withdrawal?
6. What is my gut saying?
When I get an uneasy feeling about emailing something or posting something, it's usually my subconscious warning me that I'm giving into a carnal or selfish impulse or that I'm running the risk of ticking someone off. If I get this, I should think/pray about it some more, maybe get a coffee, maybe ask someone, maybe sleep on it. My bias should probably be against posting.
There is a time to unfriend someone who always poisons your well. I've never done it yet. You can also make it so that some people don't see certain posts. These moves go against my natural impulses, but these are times of great polarization indeed. Remember the proverb that says, "Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself" (26:4).
So those are some questions I've decided to start asking myself before I tweet, blog, or post on Facebook. What would you add to the list?
Thursday, December 03, 2015
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 10
1. The Hebrew of this psalm is difficult, and English translations have done their best to render a good sense. It mostly has the character of a corporate complaint or imprecatory psalm. Why has the LORD not avenged his people?
Verse 12 calls on the LORD to rise up (10:12), to break the arm of the wicked (10:15). LORD, do justice (meaning social justice).
2. The main complaints are that the wicked abuse the poor (10:2, 9) and the oppressed (10:12). God cares for the orphan and the oppressed (10:14, 18). They murder the innocent in the village (10:8).
3. Meanwhile, the wicked deny that there is a God (10:4) or they deny that he is watching (10:11). He won't do anything (10:6).
4. Psalm 10:7 is quoted in Romans 3:14 as one of a string of descriptions of human wickedness. We are reminded, though, that Paul has strung together verses that were originally not about all humanity, but about the wicked. Psalm 10:7 is not describing all human beings, but the godless. As is often the case, he interprets the Old Testament in a "fuller sense."
5. In the early Greek translation of the Psalms, Psalm 9 and 10 are one psalm. Psalm 9 is roughly half an acrostic psalm (the verses approximately move through over half the Hebrew alphabet). The problem is that Psalm 10:2-11 interrupt the alphabet, leaving some to wonder if this psalm has gone through some stages in its history. Robert Alter (2009) suggests that an early psalm may have been damaged in some way, then with about 10 new verses substituted in. Some of the verses that remain are difficult to interpret.
Robert Alter. (2009). The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007).
Proverbs 3:5-12
Proverbs 3:5-6 are some of the most quoted verses in Proverbs: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." Our tendency is to be wise in our own eyes, but we know nothing next to God.
3:9-10 admonish us to honor God with our substance, giving him the first fruits, with a probable outcome of prosperity.
3:11-12 then tell us not to despise the discipline of the LORD, indicating that God's discipline is an expression of God's love. Hebrews 12:5-6 quote these verses and apply them to the difficult situation that its audience was undergoing.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
1. The Hebrew of this psalm is difficult, and English translations have done their best to render a good sense. It mostly has the character of a corporate complaint or imprecatory psalm. Why has the LORD not avenged his people?
Verse 12 calls on the LORD to rise up (10:12), to break the arm of the wicked (10:15). LORD, do justice (meaning social justice).
2. The main complaints are that the wicked abuse the poor (10:2, 9) and the oppressed (10:12). God cares for the orphan and the oppressed (10:14, 18). They murder the innocent in the village (10:8).
3. Meanwhile, the wicked deny that there is a God (10:4) or they deny that he is watching (10:11). He won't do anything (10:6).
4. Psalm 10:7 is quoted in Romans 3:14 as one of a string of descriptions of human wickedness. We are reminded, though, that Paul has strung together verses that were originally not about all humanity, but about the wicked. Psalm 10:7 is not describing all human beings, but the godless. As is often the case, he interprets the Old Testament in a "fuller sense."
5. In the early Greek translation of the Psalms, Psalm 9 and 10 are one psalm. Psalm 9 is roughly half an acrostic psalm (the verses approximately move through over half the Hebrew alphabet). The problem is that Psalm 10:2-11 interrupt the alphabet, leaving some to wonder if this psalm has gone through some stages in its history. Robert Alter (2009) suggests that an early psalm may have been damaged in some way, then with about 10 new verses substituted in. Some of the verses that remain are difficult to interpret.
Robert Alter. (2009). The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007).
Proverbs 3:5-12
Proverbs 3:5-6 are some of the most quoted verses in Proverbs: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." Our tendency is to be wise in our own eyes, but we know nothing next to God.
3:9-10 admonish us to honor God with our substance, giving him the first fruits, with a probable outcome of prosperity.
3:11-12 then tell us not to despise the discipline of the LORD, indicating that God's discipline is an expression of God's love. Hebrews 12:5-6 quote these verses and apply them to the difficult situation that its audience was undergoing.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 9
1. Psalm 9 is a psalm of thanksgiving. Much of the praise is for God's deliverance. Someone important is talking, maybe a king. The title styles it a "psalm of David," and we can read the psalm that way, although David really didn't face "the nations" (9:5). The psalmist speaks of God blotting out the names of his enemies (9:3).
The LORD is praised for the way he looks out for the oppressed (9:9). He avenges blood (9:12). God saves the psalmist from the gates of death, which are contrasted with the gates of Zion (9:13-14). Those who forget the poor and needy will be judged (9:18). In language that reminds us of Psalm 82, the nations will be judged; they will be reminded that they are human (9:19-20).
If the author is not David or Solomon, the mention of Zion suggests that this is a psalm of the southern kingdom.
2. There is some reason to believe that Psalm 9 and 10 were at some point one psalm, and the Greek translation of the psalms has them together as one psalm.
3. There is interesting language of God in the psalm. Most of the psalm refers to the LORD, YHWH. But there is also the expression el elyon, "God Most High" (9:2). This is a reference to YHWH as the king of the gods, as it were, the highest God. Twice he is said to be on his throne (9:4, 7). He is the judge of the world (9:7).
4. Death is referred to as "Sheol," the realm of all the mindless dead. We have already mentioned the image of the "gates of death" (cf. Matt. 16:18).
5. This is the first psalm where we encounter the term "selah." We just aren't sure what it meant. It could have meant a pause. It could have been a musical cue. We just don't know. The same goes for the term higgaion
Proverbs 3:1-4
A new set of instruction begins. The child is encouraged to listen to the preacher's teaching with the hope of a long life in result. The child should "wear" the teaching around his or her neck. It will lead to a good reputation.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
1. Psalm 9 is a psalm of thanksgiving. Much of the praise is for God's deliverance. Someone important is talking, maybe a king. The title styles it a "psalm of David," and we can read the psalm that way, although David really didn't face "the nations" (9:5). The psalmist speaks of God blotting out the names of his enemies (9:3).
The LORD is praised for the way he looks out for the oppressed (9:9). He avenges blood (9:12). God saves the psalmist from the gates of death, which are contrasted with the gates of Zion (9:13-14). Those who forget the poor and needy will be judged (9:18). In language that reminds us of Psalm 82, the nations will be judged; they will be reminded that they are human (9:19-20).
If the author is not David or Solomon, the mention of Zion suggests that this is a psalm of the southern kingdom.
2. There is some reason to believe that Psalm 9 and 10 were at some point one psalm, and the Greek translation of the psalms has them together as one psalm.
3. There is interesting language of God in the psalm. Most of the psalm refers to the LORD, YHWH. But there is also the expression el elyon, "God Most High" (9:2). This is a reference to YHWH as the king of the gods, as it were, the highest God. Twice he is said to be on his throne (9:4, 7). He is the judge of the world (9:7).
4. Death is referred to as "Sheol," the realm of all the mindless dead. We have already mentioned the image of the "gates of death" (cf. Matt. 16:18).
5. This is the first psalm where we encounter the term "selah." We just aren't sure what it meant. It could have meant a pause. It could have been a musical cue. We just don't know. The same goes for the term higgaion
Proverbs 3:1-4
A new set of instruction begins. The child is encouraged to listen to the preacher's teaching with the hope of a long life in result. The child should "wear" the teaching around his or her neck. It will lead to a good reputation.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
What is a Gospel Church?
The word gospel means good news, but different passages have different aspects of the good news in mind from place to place.
1. There is the good news that "Jesus is Lord."
It is the gospel concerning God's Son, of the seed of King David (Rom. 1:3).
2. There is the good news of his coming kingdom.
Jesus preached that the kingdom was near, to repent and believe in this good news. (Mark 1:14-15)
3. There is the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. (1 Cor. 15:1-8)
On the basis of this good news, we can be saved.
4. There is Jesus' good news to the poor, to captives, to the blind and oppressed. (Luke 4:18-19)
So there you have it. A gospel church is one that preaches that Jesus is Lord, that he died for our sins and rose victoriously from the grave. A gospel church preaches good news to the poor and marginalized now, and looks forward to the restoration of all things in the coming kingdom. A gospel church looks forward to the salvation that will take place when his kingdom fully comes.
1. There is the good news that "Jesus is Lord."
It is the gospel concerning God's Son, of the seed of King David (Rom. 1:3).
2. There is the good news of his coming kingdom.
Jesus preached that the kingdom was near, to repent and believe in this good news. (Mark 1:14-15)
3. There is the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. (1 Cor. 15:1-8)
On the basis of this good news, we can be saved.
4. There is Jesus' good news to the poor, to captives, to the blind and oppressed. (Luke 4:18-19)
So there you have it. A gospel church is one that preaches that Jesus is Lord, that he died for our sins and rose victoriously from the grave. A gospel church preaches good news to the poor and marginalized now, and looks forward to the restoration of all things in the coming kingdom. A gospel church looks forward to the salvation that will take place when his kingdom fully comes.
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 8
1. Psalm 8 might be categorized as a psalm of thanksgiving or perhaps a psalm of praise. It marvels at what a privileged place God has assigned to humanity in relation to the creation. It was a key psalm for the New Testament as well.
2. The psalm begins by praising God for his majesty, for his glory above the heavens. This praise comes even from the mouths of babes (8:2). What a magnificent work he has done in creation! All we need do is look at the heavens.
3. Over and against God's greatness, there is the marvel that he would care so much for insignificant humanity. What is it about us that God would put us in authority over the other creatures of his creation? God has put everything under humanity's feet--sheep, oxen, the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea.
The psalm ends as it began (an "inclusio"): "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth (8:9). Two words are used here. LORD in all capital letters is the name of God, YHWH. Then "Lord" is Adonai, a master.
4. "You made him a little less than God" (8:5). The word here is 'elohim, a word normally translated "God." The Greek OT translated it as "angels," and this is the form in which the NT translates it. But "God" is the default translation in the OT. It is possible of course that it is a genuine plural--you have made humanity a little lower than gods (cf. Ps. 82). The ESV, perhaps wearing its theology on its sleave, translates it as "heavenly beings."
5. Psalm 8 was a key text for the earliest Christians. They joined it with Psalm 110:1 and read it in relation to Christ, the one in regard to whom "God put all things under his feet" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:27). Hebrews 2 perhaps gives us the full expression of what the earliest Christians were thinking. God created humanity to have a position of glory and honor in the creation (Ps. 8:5).
But "all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). This is the human situation: "We do not yet see everything in subjection to them" (Heb. 2:8).
Now Jesus enters into the equation. He enters into the human condition. "We do see Jesus who for a little while was made lower than the angels" (2:9). He has been crowned with glory and honor through his suffering of death. Now he can lead many sons and daughters to glory (2:10), to the glory God originally intended humanity to have.
Psalm 8 was thus the story of salvation in a nutshell for the author of Hebrews, who quite possibly is showing us the fuller theology of Paul lurking behind his allusive references to the psalm here and there in his writings.
Proverbs 2:16-22
2:16-19 warn against a married woman who might seduce a man. Of course this is a two way street. It seems likely that for most if not all of history, it is the married man who has seduced far more than the married woman. We should take these verses as a warning against the temptation to adultery in general.
2:20-22 expresses the way it should always work. The upright should inherit the land and the unrighteous should be rooted out of it. The whole of the canon makes it clear that such justice will not always take place while we are in this age or in this life. The NT has made it clear, though, that it will happen eternally.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
1. Psalm 8 might be categorized as a psalm of thanksgiving or perhaps a psalm of praise. It marvels at what a privileged place God has assigned to humanity in relation to the creation. It was a key psalm for the New Testament as well.
2. The psalm begins by praising God for his majesty, for his glory above the heavens. This praise comes even from the mouths of babes (8:2). What a magnificent work he has done in creation! All we need do is look at the heavens.
3. Over and against God's greatness, there is the marvel that he would care so much for insignificant humanity. What is it about us that God would put us in authority over the other creatures of his creation? God has put everything under humanity's feet--sheep, oxen, the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea.
The psalm ends as it began (an "inclusio"): "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth (8:9). Two words are used here. LORD in all capital letters is the name of God, YHWH. Then "Lord" is Adonai, a master.
4. "You made him a little less than God" (8:5). The word here is 'elohim, a word normally translated "God." The Greek OT translated it as "angels," and this is the form in which the NT translates it. But "God" is the default translation in the OT. It is possible of course that it is a genuine plural--you have made humanity a little lower than gods (cf. Ps. 82). The ESV, perhaps wearing its theology on its sleave, translates it as "heavenly beings."
5. Psalm 8 was a key text for the earliest Christians. They joined it with Psalm 110:1 and read it in relation to Christ, the one in regard to whom "God put all things under his feet" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:27). Hebrews 2 perhaps gives us the full expression of what the earliest Christians were thinking. God created humanity to have a position of glory and honor in the creation (Ps. 8:5).
But "all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). This is the human situation: "We do not yet see everything in subjection to them" (Heb. 2:8).
Now Jesus enters into the equation. He enters into the human condition. "We do see Jesus who for a little while was made lower than the angels" (2:9). He has been crowned with glory and honor through his suffering of death. Now he can lead many sons and daughters to glory (2:10), to the glory God originally intended humanity to have.
Psalm 8 was thus the story of salvation in a nutshell for the author of Hebrews, who quite possibly is showing us the fuller theology of Paul lurking behind his allusive references to the psalm here and there in his writings.
Proverbs 2:16-22
2:16-19 warn against a married woman who might seduce a man. Of course this is a two way street. It seems likely that for most if not all of history, it is the married man who has seduced far more than the married woman. We should take these verses as a warning against the temptation to adultery in general.
2:20-22 expresses the way it should always work. The upright should inherit the land and the unrighteous should be rooted out of it. The whole of the canon makes it clear that such justice will not always take place while we are in this age or in this life. The NT has made it clear, though, that it will happen eternally.
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Monday, November 30, 2015
Giving Tuesday is almost here!
What better way to show our thanks to God for all the blessings he has given us but to give to his ministries? You can give to emergency relief, church planting, global leadership development, urban ministry, or the one I've highlighted, ministry scholarships.
Here's the site: Giving Tuesday.
Monday Book: Nijay Gupta's Worship that Makes Sense to Paul
If you don't know Gupta, he is a force to be reckoned with, teaching at George Fox. His conclusion on the temple fit with my thesis. Both Paul and Acts were "works in progress," and we would not expect them yet to have a wholesale replacement theology of the physical temple by the body of Christ at this point in history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
