BACK HOME AGAIN

According to Google Memories, we have been back in our house in Columbus for four years now. 

What a mix of emotions. 

On the one hand, what a blessing it was to have a familiar place to "come home to" after leaving Haiti so unexpectedly, especially as Covid was turning everything upside down. (We had been renting the house out the entire time we were in Haiti. Our last tenant moved out for his own reasons just three days before we arrived back in town.)

But on the other hand, I never anticipated living here again. I don't want to sound ungrateful, but it's not a house I want to grow old in.

I miss Haiti. I miss the school. I miss working alongside my wife. I miss our Haitian friends and the community of missionaries. 

Strangely, I even miss the daily struggle of life in an impoverished country. 

LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE

Genesis 1:26 -

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

As I am focused on Genesis 1:26-31 this week in preparation for Sunday morning, I am reminded of my freshman year at Wabash College and getting shot down by a professor in front of my classmates.

The class was called "Cultures and Traditions" and we were looking at the "creation myth" in the Old Testament. The professor could hardly wait to discuss verse 26 and the plural in "Let us make man in our image". 

"Considering Judaism is a famously monotheistic religion," she asked, "why would God speak in the plural here?"

Nobody responded, so I tentatively put my hand up and answered, "Maybe this is an early reference to the Trinity."

Dr. Butler scoffed. No, the concept of one God in three persons is completely foreign to the Old Testament, she explained.

(I didn't have the guts to point out the Spirit of God makes His first appearance hovering over the deep in the second verse of the book!)

What was her explanation? The plural was a remnant of the fact that Judaism had evolved - according to her - from polytheistic roots. 

Even as a timid college freshman, I knew that was a pretty dumb idea. So someone just forgot to go back and clean up a couple of random plural pronouns leftover from earlier polytheistic drafts? Really?

I have been looking over the matter this week and I find that scholars are not at all united on any particular theory about that plural. A few agree with my freshman self that it is an early sign of a trinitarian conception of God. 

But others have suggested  - and I find this theory interesting - that God is speaking to the earth itself. God forms a creature which is a combination of spirit and dirt, resulting in Adam being "in the image" of both. 

Some scholars also posit that the plural is simply a "royal 'we'" or that it is simply meant to illustrate great deliberation over this part of His creation. (I guess He's sort of talking to Himself in order to focus?)

One of the other leading candidates is that God employs the plural because He is holding council with the angels. 

Certainly, the passage does not specify that angels were present, but the existence of "the heavenly host" is acknowledged in Scripture elsewhere. And there's no reason to question their existence as having begun prior to the creation of man. 

Since this final theory has the advantage of lining up with the traditional Jewish interpretation of this crucial moment on the sixth day of creation, it carries a little more weight in my mind. After all, "Scripture was written for us but not to us", and so it does matter how the original audience would have understood this moment. 

FOSTERING FRIENDSHIPS

If there is one thing Covid brought home to me it is that I - even as an avowed introvert - NEED friendly physical human interaction. 

And even though "social distancing" is starting to pass into memory, when you stack our ongoing and ever-growing reliance on technology on top of the estrangement lingering from the days of pandemic and it feels like even the extroverts are starting to lose genuine connections to other people. 

(And half the population has a third strike against them: being males. We are just too often resigned to a daily life lacking in close friendships.)

Fortunately, I can report that I myself have been making gains in the friendship department this past year. I have made intentional effort to stay in weekly contact with a few of my closest friends who now live at a distance. Plus, my work with Mission Resource in Columbus and my role as pastor in Sardinia have both been forcing me out into the local community. 

And it's all good. 

I even found a surprising source of new friendships - a local chapter of Business Network International. 

BNI is a global organization designed to give business people an environment in which to foster trust and, subsequently, generate business referrals. 

I have represented Mission Resource at one of three BNI chapters here in Columbus for almost a year now and even though the meetings are at 7:00 Tuesday mornings, I can honestly say that I look forward to those gatherings every week.

Among other things, BNI encourages members to schedule one-to-one meetings with other chapter members on a weekly basis. We meet in each others' offices or go out for lunch or coffee, and we talk.

We talk about life and business and kids and the state of the world and - sometimes - even faith. 

And, slowly, new friendships are forming for me. 

It has reminded me that it is up to each of us to prioritize reaching out in search of friendly connections. This culture desperately needs us to make the effort.

Here's a great little article from Joshua Becker at the Becoming Minimalist website that points us in the right direction if we want to foster more friendships. 

RITUAL, THEN DISCIPLINE

I recently came across Dr. Michael Heiser for the first time. I am just starting to explore his material but what I have seen so far has been top-notch.

One of his emphases is on moving beyond personal "Bible reading" to "Bible study". Heiser rightly points out they are not the same thing.

In his compact book Brief Insights on Mastering Bible Study, the author entitles his 4th chapter "Bible Study is a Discipline, Not a Ritual Event".

He writes:

I am of the opinion that most people are not likely to move directly from zero to full-speed ahead when it comes to Bible study. Establishing a routine can only help. 

My dissertation is going to be designed to help individuals create and sustain a simple Bible habit. A ritual. 

But the end goal is to get people hooked on the Bible. A discipline.

Regular delving into Scripture --> Hearing from God --> Craving more --> Ever deeper study.

TAKING A NAME

How often do we mistake cultural assumptions for biblical truths? And how is it that professed "people of the Book" can go years - sometimes even their entire lives - without questioning any of those assumptions?

I think the poster child for this sort of profound oversight might be the second commandment:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. (Exodus 20:7)

Why do we think that what is meant here is that God is deeply offended whenever someone smashes their thumb with a hammer and angrily screams out "Jesus Christ!"?

I mean that is bad and shouldn't be done, but do we ever ask why such a sin made it on God's Top Ten? And at the number two spot, no less!

I first really started to question this when I moved to Haiti years ago. I noticed that Haitians simply don't have a habit of using Jesus' name as a curse word. It's an American thing. Maybe some additional cultures do the same, but it's not even a temptation in others.

And I couldn't imagine that any ancient Israelite was tempted to shout "Yahweh!" upon stubbing a toe.

Why do we assume that "taking" the Lord's name has something to do with speech? Where else do we use "take" as a synonym for "say"? 

(Maybe there are some instances, but I can't think of any off hand. Let me know if you can think of one.)

We do, however, speak of a woman "taking" her husband's name in a marriage ceremony. It has nothing to do with her saying her husband's name. 

It has everything to do with claiming a relationship to him, identifying with him, and being bound and committed to him. 

To take God's name upon yourself in this sense and then to bring shame upon it or to act in a manner unworthy of it - now that seems to merit being on the Top Ten.

Right after "Thou shall have no other God before me". 

"FOR" US, NOT "TO" US

I have heard several theologians express a concept which I have concluded is pretty darn important:

"The Bible was written FOR us, but not TO us."

This is meant to be a reminder that when reading the Bible we must be conscious of how far removed the original audience is from us in time, culture, and worldview. 

This should humble us and drive us into probability thinking when interpreting and applying Scripture, especially those passages which are more obscure. 

This is where I think Ken Hamm and most "young earth creationists" miss the boat (so to speak!) when it comes to interpreting Genesis 1. I think it is safe to say a scientific explanation detailing the order of earth's creation with a timeline of each step was nowhere in mind for Moses or whoever might have written the opening words of the Old Testament.

It's a better guess that the Hebrew people were much more concerned with God's power to transform chaos, His ability to defeat various local gods depicted in the account, and His authority over His creation as well as how distinct He is from it. 

The Bible was written for us, but not to us.

IN THE BEGINNING

Do you have a pet peeve? Some odd little thing that gets under your skin? Something which rolls right off the back of most people, but drives you into temporary insanity?

Someone popping bubble gum? The misuse of a particular word? (Like saying “I could care less” when you really mean “I couldn’t care less”.) Cracking of knuckles? Chewing with the mouth open?

For me, it is being late to a movie. I want to be early. I want to see every single trailer for coming attractions. If I miss even the first two minutes of a movie, I would rather turn around and go home.

I remember walking in late to the first Lord of the Rings movie. The theater was dark, there was a battle raging on screen, and a narrator already well into a lengthy explanation of the background story.

And we had missed it! I did not even know how much I had missed – just that I had missed some key information. I was here to hear a story about delivering some sort of ring somewhere – a story that would stretch out over 3 movies totaling 9 hours - and I had missed the significance of the ring itself! 

When the DVD came out, I couldn’t wait to see what I had missed.

Why do I bring this up?

It’s because I see the Bible – Old Testament and New together – as being a single, coherent, epic story. 

Now it’s not quite the same as my experience with Lord of the Rings in that EVERYONE has seen the opening of the Bible: “In the beginning the Lord created the heavens and the earth.” And then the 6 days of creation are explained.

But we’ve been misdirected, somehow. Almost like instead of missing the opening of the Bible's story entirely, we have accidentally watched the opening to some other movie. 

In the case of Genesis, the substituted opening so many modern Christians experience is more fitting for a "science" documentary filmed by the likes of Ken Hamm.: “The earth is only 6,000 years old because the 6 days of creation must be read as literal days. Genesis 1 and following genealogies explain the timeline for the age of the earth.”

And it should have raised our suspicions early on because it is not at all the way you would expect an epic to begin.