I just finished Mark Owen's No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden. It's a pretty quick read. The first half of the book is a condensed autobiographical sketch of Owen's (not his real name) Seal training and missions. He doesn't reveal much detail, just very general outlines. Enough to drive you crazy. This is one of the major disappointments I have with books about Special Ops units and missions. They don't give you the really interesting stuff. I want to know about their training, especially with firearms. I want to know just how accurate and fast they are with the weapons they use. I want to know times and statistics and all the stuff that remains classified. Arrggghhh!
The same can be said about the account of the mission that killed OBL. It's great to have a first-hand account that clears up so much of the speculation that was splashed all over the cable news networks last year. But I want more pictures and video! You know they've got it. Someday maybe we'll see it. Maybe.
Thankfully, President Obama is not glorified in the account. He's not denigrated, but there's a lot of honesty about D.C.'s incompetence. One of the most political pages in the book has to do with the way Washington changed the way the war was being fought. Here's an example:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Human Temple
One of the lectionary readings for the second Sunday of Advent was Malachi 3:1-4. The prophet prophesies that the Lord will "suddenly come to his temple" and that he will be "like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap." A couple of interesting things to note here:
First, the tabernacle and temple always stood for the people Israel gathered, organized around God’s special presence. When Peter talks about us being "living stones" he's not introducing something new. After all, did anyone expect Jesus to be scrubbing the stones on the physical temple with a soapy brush? Or blasting away at the gold and silver with a blow torch to purify the precious metals? Of course not. Jesus' cleansing the temple was all about reforming the people. The gold, silver, and stones of the temple represented various kinds of people. When Nebuchadnezzar raided the temple and took the gold and silver, at the same time he also snatched the best and brightest of Israel and brought them back to Babylon. And when he came again to destroy the temple, he destroyed and captured the rest of the people, thereby deconstructing the entire nation of Israel.
Second, the promise of the Lord coming to his temple also has a surprising fulfillment. The Son of God did not merely appear in the midst of his people as an angel or a theophany to deliver messages from heaven. And he did not simply cause his Glory to fill the old temple as in the past. The time for stone temples was past. Was a stone temple ever really a fitting dwelling place for God? Would God the Son come to his people to reside permanently in a stone house? No. Stephen makes this clear in his speech to the rulers of Israel. "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands" (Acts 7:48-49; quoting Isaiah 66).
First, the tabernacle and temple always stood for the people Israel gathered, organized around God’s special presence. When Peter talks about us being "living stones" he's not introducing something new. After all, did anyone expect Jesus to be scrubbing the stones on the physical temple with a soapy brush? Or blasting away at the gold and silver with a blow torch to purify the precious metals? Of course not. Jesus' cleansing the temple was all about reforming the people. The gold, silver, and stones of the temple represented various kinds of people. When Nebuchadnezzar raided the temple and took the gold and silver, at the same time he also snatched the best and brightest of Israel and brought them back to Babylon. And when he came again to destroy the temple, he destroyed and captured the rest of the people, thereby deconstructing the entire nation of Israel.
Second, the promise of the Lord coming to his temple also has a surprising fulfillment. The Son of God did not merely appear in the midst of his people as an angel or a theophany to deliver messages from heaven. And he did not simply cause his Glory to fill the old temple as in the past. The time for stone temples was past. Was a stone temple ever really a fitting dwelling place for God? Would God the Son come to his people to reside permanently in a stone house? No. Stephen makes this clear in his speech to the rulers of Israel. "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands" (Acts 7:48-49; quoting Isaiah 66).
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Jesus Reveals God's True Character
Let me briefly address a mistake that continues to be perpetuated and it sounds so right because it is popularly repeated over and over again in apologetics and evangelism books, tracts, and sermons.
The mistake is to think that the miracles that Jesus did proves that he was divine. That the clearest, most compelling evidence of the divinity of Jesus was when he did miraculous works of power. No. Read the Bible carefully. In the Scriptures it is human prophets who do these kinds of things. Moses was not God, but he performed great signs and wonders. He was a mighty prophet. And Moses discovered, too, that the magicians of Egypt could imitate these acts. Jesus himself knew and the author of Acts relates that other people were able to perform exorcisms and what not. Similar miracles were done by Elijah and Elisha, but they were not God. God did "extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul" (Acts 19:11). But Paul was not God.
Haven’t you every thought it odd that the epistles of Paul and Peter and John make no mention of the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his divinity? Rather, Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him" (Acts 2:22).
As it turns out, whenever the apostles speak of Jesus as God they connect it with his incarnation and self-sacrificial death? Jesus' divine nature and character are unveiled in his humble service to us in his birth, life, suffering, and death. The point is that what makes, what proves, if you will, that Jesus is God, is not his works of power and might, but his humble self-sacrifice. His self-effacing love and service for humanity. This is who God is. Jesus is the true revelation of God. And God turns out to be the Chief Servant of all, rather than the big, power-hungry God that pushes people around to show off his greatness.
The mistake is to think that the miracles that Jesus did proves that he was divine. That the clearest, most compelling evidence of the divinity of Jesus was when he did miraculous works of power. No. Read the Bible carefully. In the Scriptures it is human prophets who do these kinds of things. Moses was not God, but he performed great signs and wonders. He was a mighty prophet. And Moses discovered, too, that the magicians of Egypt could imitate these acts. Jesus himself knew and the author of Acts relates that other people were able to perform exorcisms and what not. Similar miracles were done by Elijah and Elisha, but they were not God. God did "extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul" (Acts 19:11). But Paul was not God.
Haven’t you every thought it odd that the epistles of Paul and Peter and John make no mention of the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his divinity? Rather, Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him" (Acts 2:22).
As it turns out, whenever the apostles speak of Jesus as God they connect it with his incarnation and self-sacrificial death? Jesus' divine nature and character are unveiled in his humble service to us in his birth, life, suffering, and death. The point is that what makes, what proves, if you will, that Jesus is God, is not his works of power and might, but his humble self-sacrifice. His self-effacing love and service for humanity. This is who God is. Jesus is the true revelation of God. And God turns out to be the Chief Servant of all, rather than the big, power-hungry God that pushes people around to show off his greatness.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
On Leaven, Yeast, and the Lord's Supper
I offer some biblical and theological thoughts on the question of what kind of bread to use in the Lord's Supper. This is not a polished essay. I'm just "casting my bread upon the waters," as Solomon advises (Eccl. 11:1).
1. The main thing to think about is that the unleavened bread is bread made without the old sour "starter" dough that contains the yeast. In normal situations the yeast comes from that starter "leaven." "Leaven" refers to the old, sour reserved dough that contains the yeast. Leaven contains yeast. Leaven is not the same as yeast. The NIV and other translations screw this up entirely.
2. When bread is being made, there are two sources for yeast. First, you can get yeast from the old leaven that you have "reserved." In fact, the yeast must be imported into the "leaven" at the start of the process. When the process begins yeast is cultivated from the lees of wine. Then the yeast is put into the dough. A portion of the dough is used to cook the first batch, but a larger portion is "reserved" in order have the yeast readily available for use in later loaves. This "starter" dough that is kept is what is called the "leaven." It's the old, sour dough used as a delivery mechanism for the yeast.
3. The second way to get yeast is to get it "fresh" when it's cultivated from wine. In the ancient world people knew how to rise bread without the sourdough lump (leaven). Technically, a fresh loaf of bread made with this newly cultivated yeast is not "leavened." What this means is that the first batch of yeasted, rising bread that is made with the new yeast is not leavened bread. It is yeasted, but not from the sour dough leaven. So you could say that a loaf made with yeast not from the reserved, sour leaven is still unleavened bread. It's new. It doesn't use the old, sour stuff. The bread we use for the Lord's Supper in our church is not sour dough bread. It is not leavened bread. It contains fresh yeast. It is yeasted, but not leavened. This is theologically and symbolically significant.
1. The main thing to think about is that the unleavened bread is bread made without the old sour "starter" dough that contains the yeast. In normal situations the yeast comes from that starter "leaven." "Leaven" refers to the old, sour reserved dough that contains the yeast. Leaven contains yeast. Leaven is not the same as yeast. The NIV and other translations screw this up entirely.
2. When bread is being made, there are two sources for yeast. First, you can get yeast from the old leaven that you have "reserved." In fact, the yeast must be imported into the "leaven" at the start of the process. When the process begins yeast is cultivated from the lees of wine. Then the yeast is put into the dough. A portion of the dough is used to cook the first batch, but a larger portion is "reserved" in order have the yeast readily available for use in later loaves. This "starter" dough that is kept is what is called the "leaven." It's the old, sour dough used as a delivery mechanism for the yeast.
3. The second way to get yeast is to get it "fresh" when it's cultivated from wine. In the ancient world people knew how to rise bread without the sourdough lump (leaven). Technically, a fresh loaf of bread made with this newly cultivated yeast is not "leavened." What this means is that the first batch of yeasted, rising bread that is made with the new yeast is not leavened bread. It is yeasted, but not from the sour dough leaven. So you could say that a loaf made with yeast not from the reserved, sour leaven is still unleavened bread. It's new. It doesn't use the old, sour stuff. The bread we use for the Lord's Supper in our church is not sour dough bread. It is not leavened bread. It contains fresh yeast. It is yeasted, but not leavened. This is theologically and symbolically significant.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Private Masses
Calvin: "I call it a private mass whenever there is no communion among believers in the Lord's Supper, even if a large crowd of people are otherwise present" (Institutes 4.8.7).
Calvin is talking about a priest doing the Eucharist with the gathered people not communing. It's "private" even if there's a lot of people in the room while it's being performed by the priest because no one but the priest is partaking of the bread and wine.
Of course, private masses are still performed for various reasons by Roman priests. But the Roman church has reintroduced communion in both kinds as well as regular congregational participation at the weekly Supper. The Reformation was pretty successful in dealing with the late medieval problem of the withdrawal of the laity from the Table.
But there's another problem with the way modern Christians celebrate the Lord's Supper that might be labeled as "private mass" or maybe just "private communion." The word "communion" refers not only to our communion with the resurrected Jesus through the bread and wine at the Supper. There's also a horizontal dimension to the Table that flows from union with Jesus. We are united with one another. We commune with Jesus and with one another. "Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17).
Calvin is talking about a priest doing the Eucharist with the gathered people not communing. It's "private" even if there's a lot of people in the room while it's being performed by the priest because no one but the priest is partaking of the bread and wine.
Of course, private masses are still performed for various reasons by Roman priests. But the Roman church has reintroduced communion in both kinds as well as regular congregational participation at the weekly Supper. The Reformation was pretty successful in dealing with the late medieval problem of the withdrawal of the laity from the Table.
But there's another problem with the way modern Christians celebrate the Lord's Supper that might be labeled as "private mass" or maybe just "private communion." The word "communion" refers not only to our communion with the resurrected Jesus through the bread and wine at the Supper. There's also a horizontal dimension to the Table that flows from union with Jesus. We are united with one another. We commune with Jesus and with one another. "Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17).
Friday, November 30, 2012
Some thoughts on the Freedom of the Trinity
Without an ontologically independent Trinity, one cannot properly conceive of God’s relation to creation. The differentiated Triunity of God makes possible both an ontological and personal transcendence as well as an immanent presence through his Son and Spirit. In this way God is covenant Lord over his creation. We say that God is Lord “in this way” in order to avoid all non-biblical concepts of lordship.
A similar temptation arises with concepts like transcendence and immanence, indeed with every ascription we make about God. If we are not careful to invest these common terms with biblical content, they are likely to tyrannize our doctrine of God and compel it to conform to whatever cultural, political, or philosophical meaning these terms posses in our modern world. This, of course, does not constrain the theologian to use only biblical terms, since even biblical terms can become subject to unbiblical, alien connotations depending upon how are used by any particular culture. Rather, we must carefully determine what the Bible says about God, and in this case about God as Lord, in order to faithfully communicate his proper relations with creation.
The Word of God, however, supplies every thing we need here. If theologians would but pay careful attention to the richness of the ways in which God has revealed himself in the Bible, especially the diverse ways in which God in his freedom interacts with and makes himself immanent in the world as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they would not have to shipwreck their theology either on the Scylla of “monotheistic” tyranny or on the Charybdis of “tritheistic” egalitarianism. It is precisely the trinitarian lordship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that richly transcends all such human dichotomies, as Pannenberg explains:
A similar temptation arises with concepts like transcendence and immanence, indeed with every ascription we make about God. If we are not careful to invest these common terms with biblical content, they are likely to tyrannize our doctrine of God and compel it to conform to whatever cultural, political, or philosophical meaning these terms posses in our modern world. This, of course, does not constrain the theologian to use only biblical terms, since even biblical terms can become subject to unbiblical, alien connotations depending upon how are used by any particular culture. Rather, we must carefully determine what the Bible says about God, and in this case about God as Lord, in order to faithfully communicate his proper relations with creation.
The Word of God, however, supplies every thing we need here. If theologians would but pay careful attention to the richness of the ways in which God has revealed himself in the Bible, especially the diverse ways in which God in his freedom interacts with and makes himself immanent in the world as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they would not have to shipwreck their theology either on the Scylla of “monotheistic” tyranny or on the Charybdis of “tritheistic” egalitarianism. It is precisely the trinitarian lordship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that richly transcends all such human dichotomies, as Pannenberg explains:
Thursday, November 29, 2012
God's Special Presence
That we do in truth enter into God’s special presence in the midst of his gathered congregation must never be slighted or forgotten. The reality of God’s special presence with his people on the Lord’s Day has come under considerable attack in recent years. All of life is worship, we are told. God is present everywhere all through the week; therefore, what we do on Sunday is not really any different than what we do on other days. God cannot be more present on one day or in one place over against another. So let's drop all this talk about "coming into God's presence" when we gather for worship at church.
What are we to think about this kind of reasoning? Well, for one thing, it is certainly true that God is present everywhere. But his omnipresence is not what I am referring to when I talk about God's special presence with his people on the Lord's Day. God has promised to be present with his people in a special manner when they gather on Sunday. The one who skips church for the golf course or shopping mall or State park may not argue from God’s omnipresence to justify his not being in church. Sure, God is present on the golf course, just as he is present in hell. But this general presence of God doesn’t do the people in hell much good. Think about it. God is present in heaven and hell, but he is not present in the same way in each of these locations. There is a huge difference.
Even if we cannot define it precisely, God is nonetheless present in a heightened, special sense when his people gather as the church on the Lord’s Day. For one thing, he is present there pro nobis (“for us”). This is the place and time where he gathers his people to hear and receive his gifts through the Word and Sacraments. He has promised to be there for us when his people gather.
It is not so much that God was not present in, say, China, when the pillar and fire led the people of Israel out of Egypt or when his presence filled the Tabernacle upon its completion (Ex. 40). Rather, the Lord was at these appointed places in a special, life-giving way. The people of Israel were given singular signs of God’s special presence as they gathered around Mt. Sinai and the Tabernacle.
Similarly, it is not that God is absent from the food court in the mall on Sunday; rather, he has promised to be present in a special way, the way of salvation and blessing, at the Communion Table in church. The bread and wine are singular signs designed to assure us of his special, gracious presence with us. He has not promised to be in the mall on Sunday for you. Actually, if you refuse to heed the Lord’s summons to gather with his church, he may be present there against you so that you could very well experience his judgment and curse, rather than his promise of blessing, life, and salvation.
Moreover, when we are in God’s special presence with his people every week, receiving from him his promise through his Word and Sacrament, we can leave the gathered congregation into the world with the full assurance that God will be with us and for us wherever we may be during the week. Without being in the Lord’s special presence we have no assurance that his general presence will be of benefit to us. When delight in his special presence then we can be sure of his omnipresent help in every situation and location (see Gen. 3:8; 4:16; Exod. 33:14-15; Deut. 4:37; Deut. 12:7, 18; 14:23, 26; 15:20; Judges 18:6; 2 Kings 13:23; 17:18-23; Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4; 11:18ff.; etc.).
What are we to think about this kind of reasoning? Well, for one thing, it is certainly true that God is present everywhere. But his omnipresence is not what I am referring to when I talk about God's special presence with his people on the Lord's Day. God has promised to be present with his people in a special manner when they gather on Sunday. The one who skips church for the golf course or shopping mall or State park may not argue from God’s omnipresence to justify his not being in church. Sure, God is present on the golf course, just as he is present in hell. But this general presence of God doesn’t do the people in hell much good. Think about it. God is present in heaven and hell, but he is not present in the same way in each of these locations. There is a huge difference.
Even if we cannot define it precisely, God is nonetheless present in a heightened, special sense when his people gather as the church on the Lord’s Day. For one thing, he is present there pro nobis (“for us”). This is the place and time where he gathers his people to hear and receive his gifts through the Word and Sacraments. He has promised to be there for us when his people gather.
It is not so much that God was not present in, say, China, when the pillar and fire led the people of Israel out of Egypt or when his presence filled the Tabernacle upon its completion (Ex. 40). Rather, the Lord was at these appointed places in a special, life-giving way. The people of Israel were given singular signs of God’s special presence as they gathered around Mt. Sinai and the Tabernacle.
Similarly, it is not that God is absent from the food court in the mall on Sunday; rather, he has promised to be present in a special way, the way of salvation and blessing, at the Communion Table in church. The bread and wine are singular signs designed to assure us of his special, gracious presence with us. He has not promised to be in the mall on Sunday for you. Actually, if you refuse to heed the Lord’s summons to gather with his church, he may be present there against you so that you could very well experience his judgment and curse, rather than his promise of blessing, life, and salvation.
Moreover, when we are in God’s special presence with his people every week, receiving from him his promise through his Word and Sacrament, we can leave the gathered congregation into the world with the full assurance that God will be with us and for us wherever we may be during the week. Without being in the Lord’s special presence we have no assurance that his general presence will be of benefit to us. When delight in his special presence then we can be sure of his omnipresent help in every situation and location (see Gen. 3:8; 4:16; Exod. 33:14-15; Deut. 4:37; Deut. 12:7, 18; 14:23, 26; 15:20; Judges 18:6; 2 Kings 13:23; 17:18-23; Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4; 11:18ff.; etc.).
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
This Little Babe
Here's my short homily from Christmas Eve 2009. During Advent and Christmas I typically spend some time reading Martin Luther's Advent and Christmas sermons. Anyone familiar with Luther's thoughts about the baby Jesus will recognize my dependence on him. Very few theologians have grasped the full significance of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God as Luther did. The true humility of God is unveiled in the story of Jesus' birth. God the Son united himself to our human flesh forever.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Is Christmas Christian? Redux
Every year I repost these essays because every year I keep hearing the same old tired anti-Christmas rhetoric from a vocal minority of well-meaning Christians. I really don't want to return to this issue each year and rework everything. So here it is again. I hope it helps.Christmas Time is Here Again - An introduction to the issues.
The Reformation and The Celebration of Christmas - Have Protestant churches regularly observed Advent and Christmas?
What did John Calvin Think about Christmas?
Isn't Christmas Really A Roman Catholic Holiday? - Why should Protestants observe it?
Isn't Christmas really just a Roman Catholic Mass? - More on the supposed Roman Catholic origins of Christmas
But Christmas is a Roman Catholic HOLY DAY. - Even more on the supposed Roman Catholic character of Christmas.
Isn't Christmas rooted in a pagan holiday?- A critique of the idea that Christmas was pagan holiday incorporated into the church year.
What about all of the pagan symbolism and ceremony associated with Christmas?
Surely you have to admit that the Christmas tree was originally a pagan symbol.
Doesn't Christmas violate the regulative principle of worship? - The Bible doesn't talk about Christmas!
What about the whole "Church Year" thing? - How can we follow a calendar that's not biblical?
But when the Church celebrates Christmas it's an imposition on my conscience. - Why should I be forced to observe Christmas?
Wait! Observing "days and years" is all Old Testament Religion! - We've been freed from all those festivals and observances, right?
Is there any warrant from the Bible for commemorative annual festivals?
But what difference does it really make? - Does the church need to have a church year calendar of annual feasts?
I can't shake the feeling that all of this is too pagan – Isn't all of this symbolic stuff (trees, seasons, etc.) just nature worship?
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Heresy with the Really Cool Name
The Good News is not that God made some external determination to forgive man, superficially exercised his divine will, waved a disinterested wand and sprinkled some salvation dust across the human race. What he did was penetrate the very depths of humanity’s being and life, to restore the distorted and corrupt condition of man’s actual human existence. In his innermost being as the Son he genuinely united himself to human, finite, creaturely existence. We call that the incarnation.
God himself bore our infirmities and sins and the whole inheritance of judgment that lay against us—God himself, not merely in some extrinsic, detached way. He personally bore all of this.
Incidentally, it is important to not evade this point by denying that Jesus assumed our fallen, mortal human nature. The Greek culture where the Gospel was preached held to the apathy or passionlessness of the divine nature. In order to avoid the revolutionary doctrine of God presented in the Scriptures, the heresy of aphthartodocetism was invented. The error here is to say that Jesus took to himself a flawless human nature, one that was not affected by the curse. God himself didn't really suffer, he only appeared to do so. Jesus' mind and body were not subject to sickness, weakness, and the liabilities of our mortal existence. That, of course, frees God from any contact with the yuckiness of mortal human existence as we experience it.
But this is not what we read in the Scriptures. Jesus, as true God, was also a man like us subject to our frailties though without sin. This is not only essential to his being our Savior; it is precisely the way the Son has revealed the true character of God to us. If the weakness, suffering, and death of Jesus was simply that of a good man from Nazareth, then God is inevitably bound to become a cold, silent, unknown heavenly power. And even if God had united himself with a pre-fall Adamic human nature, somehow remaining aloof and detached from the weakness as suffering associated with humanity's present condition, then that would be the end of the Christian faith. What Jesus’ birth—and then, of course, his life as a mortal man—manifests to us is the willing suffering of the passionate God.
God himself bore our infirmities and sins and the whole inheritance of judgment that lay against us—God himself, not merely in some extrinsic, detached way. He personally bore all of this.
Incidentally, it is important to not evade this point by denying that Jesus assumed our fallen, mortal human nature. The Greek culture where the Gospel was preached held to the apathy or passionlessness of the divine nature. In order to avoid the revolutionary doctrine of God presented in the Scriptures, the heresy of aphthartodocetism was invented. The error here is to say that Jesus took to himself a flawless human nature, one that was not affected by the curse. God himself didn't really suffer, he only appeared to do so. Jesus' mind and body were not subject to sickness, weakness, and the liabilities of our mortal existence. That, of course, frees God from any contact with the yuckiness of mortal human existence as we experience it.
But this is not what we read in the Scriptures. Jesus, as true God, was also a man like us subject to our frailties though without sin. This is not only essential to his being our Savior; it is precisely the way the Son has revealed the true character of God to us. If the weakness, suffering, and death of Jesus was simply that of a good man from Nazareth, then God is inevitably bound to become a cold, silent, unknown heavenly power. And even if God had united himself with a pre-fall Adamic human nature, somehow remaining aloof and detached from the weakness as suffering associated with humanity's present condition, then that would be the end of the Christian faith. What Jesus’ birth—and then, of course, his life as a mortal man—manifests to us is the willing suffering of the passionate God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)