ALI SPOKE TRUTH

"The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." ― Muhammad Ali

I would venture to say the same thing is true of a person who views faith the same at 50. 

I have no doubt many believers would disagree. I think most implicitly take utter consistency over the long haul as the height of holiness and piety.

I suppose it could be - assuming you lucked out and grew up in the perfect church with the perfect doctrine and pitch-perfect balance in all things. And not a single false view of God or Scripture ever took root in your imagination.

But if that wasn't your experience, then holding to the same faith at 50 as you did at 20 isn't admirable. 

It means you've stagnated. A long time ago.

 

MOUNTAINS OF IGNORANCE

Have you heard the one about the scientist climbing the mountain?

The image comes from Robert Jastrow - astronomer and planetary physicist - who was on the founding team at NASA.

Over the course of his career in science, he also established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, pioneered the use of satellite technology, and had a hand in planning the Voyager & Galileo space probes.

When he died in 2008, the New York Times hailed him as the man “Who Made Space Understandable” for others.

In a world where many people imagine science and faith to be pitted against each other, Robert Jastrow never saw a conflict between his personal faith and his scientific pursuits.

In fact, he saw a profoundly different relationship between the two: one where science ultimately CATCHES UP to theology.

Here’s how Jastrow envisions the scientist climbing the “mountains of ignorance”:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”  

Be encouraged!

FOOLING OURSELVES

“It takes inordinate courage to introspect, to confront oneself, to accept one’s limitations—scientists are seeing more and more evidence that we are specifically designed by mother nature to fool ourselves.”  -Nassim Taleb

What some blame on mother nature or evolution, seems reasonably explained as the result of fallen human nature as well. 

Nearly indetectable from the inside, the human ability to fool oneself is nearly unlimited in its scope. 

This makes for another prime argument in favor of cultivating a true humility in the face of holy Scripture. A "beginner's mindset" that has no problem with admitting, "I may well be wrong."

I suppose one of the reasons Calvinism fascinates me is that its adherents firmly hold the belief that the unregenerate are incapable of understanding any spiritual truth from Scripture but they - the elect - see all with perfect clarity. 

They regularly give the impression of believing themselves to be inerrant in their interpretation of God's word.

And, like the Pharisees before them, they perpetually miss the big picture and inadvertently paint God as a complete monster.

It is a profound tragicomedy. 

MAKING THINGS WORSE!

I was listening to a YouTube debate about Calvinism the other day and the guy arguing against Reformed ideology, a gentleman named Jed Smock, said something like the following:

"Under Calvinism, the punishment for sin is more sin."

That hits the nail on the head!

He was referencing the concept of "original sin".  

All of Adam and Eve's descendants have been born carrying the guilt of Adam's sin. 

This is the so-called "sin nature". As a result of the fall, the thinking goes, God cursed humanity with an inability to do anything but sin.

Plus, now all humans would be born hating God and considering Him an enemy. 

And not only that, but a spiritual deadness which make them 100% unresponsive to any and all Truth as well.

I would never criticize the One True God, but I have to say that the Calvinist god's reaction to Adam and Eve's screw up was a bit over the top.

He managed to make matters much, much worse for everybody concerned, including himself. 

HUMILITY AND LEARNING

Wise observations from psychiatrist Thomas Szasz on the connection between humility and learning:

"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all."

Is this part of what Jesus means when he says we must become as little children? 

Because education is so important for the believer, a humble "beginner's mindset" is a powerful tool for growth. 

But what a bear - first to establish and then to maintain. 

IF THAT ISN'T NICE, WHAT IS?

An excerpt from a commencement speech given by Kurt Vonnegut gave at Rice University in 1998:

One thing which my Uncle Alex found objectionable about human beings was that they seldom took time out to notice when they were happy.

He himself did his best to acknowledge it when times were sweet. We could be drinking lemonade in the shade of an apple tree in the summertime, and he would interrupt the conversation to say, "If this isn't nice, what is?"

So, I hope that you Adams and Eves in front of me will do the same for the rest of your lives. When things are going sweetly and peacefully, please pause a moment, and then say out loud:

"If this isn't nice, what is?" 

(Hat tip, Sahil Bloom)

I was thinking about Vonnegut's words yesterday. It was one of those "nice" days all around. 

Sarah's show choir was competing in Franklin, Indiana, just 30 minutes away. My younger brother and his wife were at the same competition to see their teenage daughter compete for Shelbyville High School. And Kiersten, my older brother's daughter, who resides in Franklin these days, came over to see both of her cousins perform. 

This was the next to the last competition for Sarah. Next Saturday will be it for her high school show choir career. Melissa and I are bracing for getting walloped by the reality of our youngest graduating from high school SOON. 

So all of that context made it that much more enjoyable seeing Sarah demonstrate such energy and grace and charisma on the stage.

My favorite number is her group's performance of You're My Kaleidoscope by A Great Big World - partly because the song is catchy and has great lyrics, but mainly because Sarah gets to be one-fourth of a quartet and even gets a 3-word solo. 😉

Gets me every time. 

What a thrill to watch your daughter do what she loves, and do it with such excellence, and do it confidently on a stage for all to see. 

And if that isn't nice, what is?

(Sarah is far left in the pink dress.)

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS

When God accepts a sinner, He is, in fact, only accepting Christ. He looks into the sinner's eyes, and He sees His own dear Son's image there, and He takes him in. - Charles Spurgeon

Who am I to argue with the late, great Charles Spurgeon, but I think this whole "imputed righteousness" idea is likely bull hockey.

It's another one of those ideas you hear floated in so many sermons - "When God looks at you, He doesn't see your sins, He sees His Son's righteousness" - but I have never really examined it in Scripture.

I plan to investigate it, but at the moment I am guessing it's just one of those things that sounds good, so pastors repeat it. 

It's got at least 3 things going for it:

1. It's visual - Jesus standing between you and God.
2. It's easy to understand - which is helpful when it comes to theological concepts.
3. And it seems to glorify Christ.

Still, I'm going to need to see the receipts from the Bible on this one. 

Because here's the problem: it seems to imply that this is all there is to salvation. Jesus did all the sacrificing and suffering and now He just covers you with His own righteousness.

But if we get to enjoy all the benefits of righteousness imputed to us - without actually developing our own righteousness - that's demotivating. 

Sanctification isn't just some legal fiction. It's supposed to be our lived experience. 

In Colossians 1:22, Paul says that Christ "has now reconciled you in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before God". 

Is Paul talking of some sort of imaginary righteousness that is won by Christ's death? 

Or did Christ die to make us truly righteous through and through?

IMPOSSIBLE

It's a good thing that God is the initiator and the central actor in our atonement, restoring our relationship with Him.

Because, when you think about it, our sins always negatively impact somebody - God, other people, ourselves. And making things right in the aftermath - assuming we even desire to do so - is simply impossible. 

This reality is easiest to see in the extreme cases: How does one make reparations for murder? for rape? for slavery?

Make an apology? Promise to never do it again? Offer an agreeable amount of money in payment?

Nothing could ever come close to making reparation for these vile offenses. Nothing will bring back the dead, nothing will restore sexual innocence, nothing can compensate for the loss of even a single day of freedom. 

Reparations for wicked acts are humanly impossible.

But here's the thing. The far lesser sins have the same issue.

Telling a lie, shoplifting, slandering another person's reputation - none of the damage can ultimately be undone. 

There are still serious consequences of even relatively minor sins. We tend to underestimate their gravity- unless WE are the victim!

The situation is hopeless for the sinner. No matter how much regret you might end up feeling, the wrong can never be fully righted. 

Thank God for the blood of the Lamb which blots out sin, big and small, and offers a second chance. 

It was impossible for us to do it ourselves.

ATONEMENT

I have often heard preachers say that the word "atonement" means "at-one-ment". That it described how humans can become "at one" with God again after that relationship has been broken.

I assumed it was a bit of clever word play that got passed from preacher to preacher.

But, it turns out, the "at-one-ment" explanation is literal. The word was made up by English translators unable to find an adequate existing English word with which to translate the Hebrew word "kippur". 

(You are probably familiar with the Jewish celebration called "Yom Kippur" - the "Day of Atonement".)

From Miriam-Webster online:

Atone has its roots in the idea of reconciliation and harmony. It grew out of the Middle English phrase at one meaning “in harmony,” a phrase echoed in current expressions like “feeling at one with nature.” When atone joined modern English in the 16th century, it meant “to reconcile,” and suggested the restoration of a peaceful and harmonious state between people or groups. Today, atone specifically implies addressing the damage—or disharmony—caused by one’s own behavior.

What's fascinating to me is that the meaning of this key word, like the meaning of "love" and "believe", has been corrupted in English over time. 

It has taken on a meaning very different from the start, morphing almost into its own opposite.  

Miriam-Webster offers 4 main definitions of "atonement", Number 1 being the most common usage:

1 reparation for an offense or injury : satisfaction

In other words, these days, one "atones" for one's own sin. You have to do something to make up for your sin. 

While Number 4 - the more straightforward "reconciliation" - is listed as an "obsolete" usage. In the Bible, reconciliation, of course, is all God's initiative and always at His expense and at the expense of innocent blood. 

Seems like a rather patient and particularly devious trick of Satan to take a word describing how GOD blots out our sins and switch the focus to what WE need to do about our sins. 

EVANESCENT "GRACE"

One of the lesser-known teachings of Calvinism is termed Evanescent Grace (or sometimes "Temporal Grace"). This is grace that appears for a time and then fades away. 

(And there's good reason to keep this doctrine hidden.)

It's the Calvinist's answer to the question of how some individuals profess faith in Christ, seem fruitful for a time, but then fall away.

Now every Christian is faced with this reality and needs an explanation. If one holds to "Once Saved, Always Saved", the answer is simple:

That person was never really saved in the first place. 

Undoubtedly, Calvinists would like to keep it that simple, but their situation is complicated by their doctrine of Total Depravity - that people are spiritually dead and cannot receive the things of God.

But what happens when that doctrine runs up against Matthew 7:21-23?

21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’

23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’

Do you see the conflict?

Jesus does not dispute their claims to have prophesied, driven out demons, and even performed miracles - He just didn't "know" them.

So how do dead, depraved men - bound for hell from before the foundation of the world - do these spiritual things? 

Well, obviously God sends them a bit of grace, deceives them into thinking themselves saved, and then withdraws it.

And that deception on God's part is called Evanescent Grace. 

Definitely NOT to be confused with Irresistible Grace!

It's all part of God's meticulous plan ... and for His glory.

This doctrine, taught by Calvin himself, is yet another in Calvinism's arsenal which makes logical sense on paper as part of the systematic, but utterly slanders God's character in its entailments! 

WHY THE WARNINGS?

The concept of "Once Saved, Always Saved" is another one of those beliefs that many Christians hold onto strongly while incapable of building a case for it from Scripture.

And I understand the appeal of the idea. I knew a mother who lost her 20-something son late one night when this young man, drunk and on foot after his girlfriend kicked him out of her car, wandered into interstate traffic. At his funeral, she told of her hope that his trip to the altar when he was 9 years old meant that God had welcomed her boy into paradise. 

Now I certainly believe that God will prove to be more gracious than many of us expect. And I believe that it's possible that a heart might be turned - or re-turned - in the final moments of life with no living witnesses but the Lord. And I understand why a grieving parent would put inordinate weight on a childhood trip to the altar.

BUT there's got to be a good reason why Scripture repeatedly warns against ...

• Falling away (Hebrews 6:4-6)
• Departing from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1) 
• Turning away from the faith (Matthew 24:9-13 and Hebrews 3:12-14)
• Being cut off (Romans 11:20-22)
• Shipwrecking our faith (1 Timothy 1:18-20)
• Failing to remain in Jesus, the Vine (John 15:1-6)
• Falling from grace (Galatians 5:4)
• Wandering from the truth (James 5:19-20)
• Being salt that loses its flavor (Matthew 5:13)
• Or being so lukewarm that Jesus spews you out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16)

Colossians 1:21-23a reads as follows:

21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 IF indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard.

That "IF" makes the statement a conditional.

When it comes to salvation, the security we have is that God will never chase us away, not that we will never succumb to the temptation to wander away ourselves.

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. They shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” John 10:27

EVANGELICAL GNOSTICISM

In Becoming Whole, Brian Fikkert and Kelly Kapic relate this horrendous story of Christian charity gone bad:

"A large Christian organization gives away tons of used clothing to poor communities around the world. The organization pins tracts about Jesus' love to the front of each piece of clothing. In addition to potentially damaging the dignity and capacity of the clothing recipients, dumping used clothing into a village can depress clothing prices, drive local tailors out of business, and undermine the village's economy, thereby reducing the availability of jobs. In other words, this organization is using a strategy that undermines work.... When I asked the head of this organization for his feelings about this, he replied:

"Yes, but who cares? We don't really care about the local economy. It's all going to burn up anyway. We just want people to know that Jesus loves them, no matter what the cost, so that they can trust in Him for salvation. The eternal destiny of their souls is at stake. That's all that matters." (p.100)

Can you imagine being so callous about destroying the economy of an entire community? One which is suffering so much already?

This mindset is an example of what Darrow Miller calls "Evangelical Gnosticism" - seeing God's sphere of influence as being exclusively in the spiritual domain while material/physical existence is dismissed as ultimately unimportant.

It demonstrates a wholesale neglect of the Kingdom of God's central position within the gospel. 

"Evangelical Gnosticism" is rampant across the American church.

It's a solid label, but there's got to be a better one. This terrible line of thought needs to be identified if it's going to be dismantled and "Evangelical Gnosticism" as an identifier is never going to catch on with believers at large.  

GOSPEL APPEARANCES

The word euangelion/gospel (literally, good news) appears 76 times in the New Testament. 

I think it's always interesting to examine the first appearances of key concepts in Scripture.

Here's the context of the first appearances of "gospel" in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John:

Matthew

4:23 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

Mark

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 

1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Luke

The noun form of gospel doesn't occur, but the verb form does:

The first to Zechariah. 1:19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.

The second to the shepherds in the fields. Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

John

None of the forms of the word "gospel" appear in John!

Interesting!

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the word "gospel" is most often attached to language about the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Heaven". And it seems there are some historical connections between "good news" and human kings of the day. Worth exploring!

But all this raises the question in my mind: Why does modern talk of "gospel" sharing so often leave out any mention of the Kingdom?

BODY AND FLESH

I am currently wrestling with the way Paul uses the Greek word "soma" (usually translated as "body") and the word "sarx" (usually translated "flesh"). And I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the use of the two words in Colossians - to say nothing of their appearances in other books. 

It would be nice if there was a clearcut difference, but they often seem interchangeable. For instance, Paul says in Col 2:5, "Though I am absent in body (but sarx!), yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ."

And although "body" seems to have a generally positive connotation, "flesh" seems neutral OR negative.

Or maybe it's accurate to say that "flesh" is neutral but has the capacity for truly negative influence on a person.

Here's a neutral use: Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

In 2:1, Paul speaks of those in Colossae who have not seen him "face to flesh"!

Some Bible versions like to translate sarx/flesh as "sinful nature". But in Colossians, Jesus has a sarx!

Col 1:22 [Jesus] has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.

So it can't be the flesh in and of itself that is the problem.

In Colossians 2:11-13, the problem seems to be having a flesh which is uncircumcised. 

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.

One website puts it this way:

"To walk by the flesh (sarx), is to walk by what we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. It is living by our senses rather than trusting the Spirit within us. It is basing our attitudes and actions on old earthy habits rather than basing them upon what God says is true." (Larry Eiss)

If that is accurate, then walking by the "flesh" is more or less equivalent to what Adam and Eve unleashed by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - in essence deciding for themselves which is which. 

So when Scripture says it is impossible for those who walk according to the flesh to please God, it is simply stating a logical implication contained within the center of the overall narrative flow of Image--> Broken Image --> Restored Image. 

MY 2025 PUSHUP HABIT

Since I have a great interest in habit formation, I thought it would be good to record a little progress report on a New Year's resolution - 

One of my morning commitments for 2025 has been to do at least 100 pushups. It's important to note that this was not starting from zero. For several years I have been getting a bit of exercise at home nearly every day. But I didn't tend to get much beyond about 30 pushups. 

It's early February and, 40 days in, I have missed only 2 mornings and they were not back-to-back. (In habit formation, it is key to prevent a single missed day from turning into two consecutive days.)

Each morning on my calendar I have written down the progression of my pushups - what number I reached on my first round, second round, etc. This is a motivation trick for habit formation - tracking a habit provides a visual record of progress - which becomes a small mental reward. It feels good when I record my pushups on paper.

And since the calendar sits on my desk, it helps ensure that I never simply forget to do the pushups. 

During the first two weeks, it took me four reps to get to 100 total pushups. Six weeks in, I am regularly doing around 130 in just three reps:

Week 1:  36/56/80/100

Week 2: 38/67/91/100

Week 3:  40/71/102

Week 4:  46/88/130

Week 5:  49/92/128

Week 6:  51/89/131

In six weeks, I have done 4,615 pushups. I don't know that this has produced any noticeable physical difference in my upper body, but that's somewhere close to 2,000 calories burned - the equivalent of one full day's worth of food. And I am obviously a bit stronger if I can do 50 pushups at a time rather than just 36. 

My goal now is to hit 100 in just two reps. After that, I will likely increase my overall daily goal to 150.

There is a natural push to go bigger once you have proven consistency with a smaller goal. This is why it works to start a new habit with the smallest version of that habit - something that takes 2 minutes or less. A small habit eliminates the excuse that you have "no time" to add something to your routine and gives you the chance to establish automaticity before your natural urge to push yourself to higher goals kicks in.  

And the most important part of this entire habit is my overall commitment to staying healthy and fit for my age. I want to minimize future doctor visits and I want to be in shape to roughhouse with any future grandchildren. ;-) 

Someday. 

2 MYSTERIES

I could be wrong - I am no expert on the latest scientific pursuits - but as I understand it, there are at least two big everyday phenomena that science as yet has no explanation for:

Gravity and consciousness.

Is that not amazing?

Both can be observed and measured, but the underlying mechanism has not been discovered in either case. 

They remain a complete mystery. 

Couple those two with the mystery of how life started and our Western confidence in science should be appropriately humbled.

Christians are sometimes mocked for holding to a "God of the gaps" approach to science, but if a big God fits perfectly in a big gap, maybe it's worth considering the existence of that God.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.  - Colossians 1:15-17

SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO

Lately Melissa and I have been planning a special anniversary trip. Our 25th falls this summer and we are using it as an excuse to do something we have been talking about since we met:

A trip to Scotland.

Once upon a time, for my entire junior year, I left Wabash College and Crawfordsville, Indiana behind and made my way to the University of Aberdeen on the north coast of Scotland. It was the 1988/89 school year. 

The other day I came across some letters home I wrote during that year. I guess I was pretty homesick at times and I still kind of marvel at how adventurous I was for a shy kid from Indiana.

I made the most of the year and in retrospect, I suppose it was quite transformational, being so far from home. And Scotland captured my heart.

I've wanted to go back ever since I left. It is a deeply magical place. 

I can hardly contain myself over the thought of returning and - this time - showing Melissa around.

God willing, we will start in Edinburgh and then take a train to Aberdeen before renting a car and spending a couple of nights around Loch Ness. From there it will be west to Skye and then south to Oban and a chance to tour a couple of the western isles before heading to the port of Cairnryan to take a ferry to Belfast, Northern Ireland. 

Just outside of Belfast is where our friends from Haiti days live - the Edlers - and we will have a couple of days with them before returning to the U.S.

It is the trip of a lifetime and Melissa and I are dreaming and mapping and googling on a daily basis already. 

BIGGER THAN A PAYCHECK

One of the few good things about February is this: it's a great month to stay inside and read!

After recently picking up Becoming Whole by Fikkert and Kapic, my boss at Mission Resource instantly became a spokesman for the book. (The subtitle is Why the Opposite of Poverty Isn’t the American Dream.)

Dave recommended it to me and now I see what he saw: a striking confirmation of Mission Resource’s out-of-the-ordinary approach to poverty alleviation. 

The authors write, “The goal [of ministry among the poor] isn’t to turn Zimbabwe into the United States or to turn decaying neighborhoods into wealthy suburbs. Rather, the goal is to turn all these places into the New Jerusalem [as found in Revelation 21].”

Fikkert and Kapic explain that material poverty is merely one symptom of an even more pressing relational poverty affecting all of humanity. It is only within the Kingdom of God that we - and those we minister to through Mission Resource loans – find wholeness, purpose, and true wealth. 

One unique feature of our approach that doesn't get a lot of attention is the fact that we are working through local churches in Ghana - not usurping them. 

As important as putting food on a table is, the goal of Mission Resource on behalf of the individuals, families, and churches that we serve has always been much greater than a paycheck. 

BECOMING WHOLE

Recently, my boss at Mission Resource, Dave, got all excited about a book on the topic of effective ministry among the poor: Becoming Whole by Brian Fikkert and Kelly Kapic. 

The subtitle is Why the Opposite of Poverty Isn't the American Dream.

Fikkert is best known as the co-author with Steve Corbett of When Helping Hurts, a book that I found frustrating.

At least in the first edition. 

I felt that When Helping Hurts made beneficial ministry among the poor seem so complicated, and well-intentioned-yet-harmful actions so unpredictable, that many readers would give up trying to help at all. 

So I wasn't overly enthusiastic about Dave's recommendation of the newer book.

But it turned out to be an incredibly pleasant surprise.

Becoming Whole doesn't just shine light on basic pitfalls in charitable work. It traces those failings back to a weak foundation within American Evangelicalism itself. 

And I think Fikkert and Kapic nail it. 

Of course, it could just be a case of confirmation bias on my part - they conclude the Church struggles with poverty ministry based on her own impoverished understanding of the gospel: a give-your-heart-to-Jesus-then-wait-to-go-to-heaven message instead of a full-bodied exploration of redeemed humans operating here and now as restored Image Bearers in the growing Kingdom of God. 

Exactly. 

Not only will the book help us clarify best practices within Mission Resource, it has also given me fuel for my dissertation work. 

That's a real win-win. 

RESCUE THEN PROSECUTE?

In looking closely at Paul's letter to the Colossians, I am struck by the imagery used to describe what Jesus has accomplished in the lives of sinners:

[The Father] has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:13-14)

It's an incredible metaphor: Jesus came to earth on a rescue mission - scooping up the weary, the battered, and yes the wrong-doers trapped in Satan's dark territory and delivering them safely into the Kingdom of Light.

Other images of God "rescuing" (undeserving) individuals from danger and darkness are prominent on the pages of the Old and New Testament. 

The most obvious in the Old Testament, of course, is the Exodus of Israel from Egypt.

And off the top of my head, I can think of two from Jesus Himself:

Jesus compares Himself to a shepherd who would leave the 99 sheep to go after the one who wanders away. 

And Jesus tells the story of a father who receives his battered son back from a distant land, welcoming him into the safety and  comfort of his home and even throwing a party. 

So, here's the question that strikes me tonight as I think of the rescue motif:

How does "rescue" fit with the image of God desiring nothing so much as to pour out His righteous wrath on sinners?

Is it God's intent to rescue us and then prosecute us for their sins? Save, then smash?

But we are saved a second time only when - thank goodness - He is willing to pour out His wrath on His own Son instead? The Son who rescued us? 

So in the end, God sends His Son to rescue us and then smashes Him in our place? 

I just don't understand how people rationalize a belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. 

GOOD, NOT PERFECT

A new friend gave me a book which he thought would complement my dissertation studies: Trent Hunter and Stephen Wellum's Christ from Beginning to End: How the Full Story of Scripture Reveals the Full Glory of Christ.

It's a wonderful book and I will certainly quote it in my work.

At a third of the way in, I have a single quibble - minor, yet important. 

In discussing the creation of Eve, the authors write, "A perfect Adam, in a perfect place, and in relationship with a perfect God, yet he still needs someone to complement him". (p.77)

The point is valid. My quibble is with one of the uses of the word "perfect".

It might have been Dr. Tim Mackie who pointed out that Scripture calls the Garden of Eden "good", but never "perfect".

After all, if the place were perfect, what sort of work would the Garden receive at the hands of Adam and Eve?

To me, a large part of the beauty and wonder of a garden is the skill and effort required to keep weeds and decay at bay. 

I think this is central to what the role of Image of God involves - cultivating beauty and pushing back the chaos and darkness that grows like a wild and destructive jungle. 

(It just would have been easier work if the humans had resisted the forbidden fruit. After their banishment, they still had to work, but now they were outside and there were thorns aplenty.) 

The Garden of Eden was good from the start, but Adam and Eve were given the privilege of serving with God to perfect it and push the boundaries outward, bringing the wilderness into submission to God's will. 

PURITAN HERO?

Today let's look at a couple of vivid quotes from Puritan Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

How does this one align with your personal theology and anthropology:

“The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.”

Or this classic:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”

I have heard many Calvinist preachers and teachers sing the praises of Jonathan Edwards as a great man of faith. 

But what a message: "God abhors you!" 

Did anyone even question his biblical basis for making such outlandish claims about the Lord?

This particular sermon featured prominently in the Great Awakening. Many people "came to faith" under Edwards' preaching, but you have to wonder how many actually found eternal life. 

By the way, this is about the only sermon you can find included in anthologies of American literature used in secular schools to this day. 

Makes me wonder if it is one of Satan's favorites.