Moving Past Narnia

Flannery O’Connor, in her essay “The Church and the Fiction Writer” begins by referring to Graham Greene being too often the reference point of the Catholic novelist.[1] I would like to say something similar, that is: regarding the question of the ‘Christian writer’ we cannot always point to the C.S. Lewis among us. The Narnia books hold a dear place in my heart—especially The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe—they served as an early on ramp by which I merged into the lanes leading to that vast city where literature and faith intersect. But it is my fear that Lewis and Tolkien have become an off ramp leading to a cul-de-sac, rather than an on-ramp leading to a city[2]. The intent then in this paper is corrective. I will argue that the fiction of Lewis and Tolkien is at times both literarily and theologically suspect.[3] If this sounds at all iconoclastic it might be fitting due to the hagiography which has ensued recently[4]. I will end by offering other possible options for the Christian interested in the contemporary literary landscape.

Even as young child I remember understanding that Narnia’s Aslan wasn’t just Aslan. When looking back or rereading The Chronicles of Narnia it is hard to miss the myriad biblical allusions and hidden homiletic points. For all this it would seem that Narnia, theologically speaking, is beyond reproach. However this is not entirely[5] the case. Fundamental to the fantasy of Tolkien and Lewis is a notion of ‘escape’ and it is this motif which, I contend, is literarily and theologically suspect. For instance, Christianity naturally has an outward impulse clearly articulated by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit […].”[6] While this outward impulse must be tempered with renewal and rest, to escape is not only to flee an enemy but also the great commission. This escape impulse was defended by Tolkien in his work “On Fairy Stories” he writes, “Escape is, evidently, as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic,”[7] In my mind Tolkien’s position rings more of a Stoic’s suicide than a Christian renewing in rest. The notion of escape also comes across in a few senses in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Not only do the children escape London during the blitzkrieg but they also escape the boredom of earth for the glories of Narnia. Greg Wolfe articulates this method of escape as rooted in the Inklings project of encouraging a renewed “sacramental vision”[8] for their larger culture. So we might say the impetus of this escape into fantasy is quixotically outward. However, the Christian writer, in my estimate, is most in sync with her outward impulse when she writes to this world with a narrative that stays on earth. Simply put, positing other worlds in times of trouble is not Christian it’s Stoicism. For instance, compare Graham Greene’s The Ministry of Fear with Lewis’ The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe while the children escape to the country and then to Narnia, Greene’s protagonist Arthur Rowe is left to piece together his life amongst amnesia, murderous pursuers and the very same blitzkrieg that propels Peter, Susan, Edmond and Lucy to safety[9]. While The Ministry of Fear isn’t one of Greene’s Catholic novels the plot still carries with it many theological themes, more importantly for my present purposes is, rather than hiding from the terrors of war it confesses the horrors of them. For example, the following quote confesses to the falleness of this world without deserting it, “They were quite accustomed to sleeping underground: it had become as much part of life as the Saturday night film or the Sunday service had ever been. This is the world they knew[10].” Though one could discuss the state of Greene’s faith at the end of his life, or dispute his theology, I would argue, he sets a biblical trajectory by remaining on earth and confronting its realities, all the while critiquing what he saw as lacking in contemporary fiction[11].

Regarding the literary merit of the Inklings we might learn something from T.S. Eliot who in writing on the various types of “religious literature” quickly passes over Chesterton, because his “literary works […] are sincerely desirous of forwarding the cause of religion: that which may come under the heading of Propaganda[12].” One cannot help but think he was also alluding to his contemporaries: the Inklings. Eliot favors those whose writing illustrates the “relation between Religion and all Literature,” not merely “religious literature”[13]. That aside, we can clearly say that the Inklings were intelligent and able writers but it is bad logic to then move to accrediting the Inklings with endless literary merit. Surely Tolkien and Lewis were able writers but as Christina Brooke-Rose has argued “the techniques of realism […] invading the marvelous […] push the genre into allegory,”[14] a genre that is not only worn thin but denies personhood in favor of ideas. I can already hear the voices resounding like gongs, “But who cares what some lit critic says anyway, shouldn’t we take our cues from Christian authors?” Perhaps; so in a similar vein Flannery O’Connor writes:

The world has been flooded with bad fiction for which the religious impulse has been responsible. The sorry religious novel comes about when the writer supposes that because of his belief, he is somehow dispensed from the obligation to penetrate concrete reality. He will think that the eyes of the Church or of the Bible or of his particular theology have already done the seeing for him, and that his business is to rearrange this essential vision into satisfying patterns, getting himself as little dirty in the process […].[15]

Also Greg Wolfe, a man who currently has the best handle on the nexus of faith and literature, has written a landmark essay titled “The Christian Writer in a Fragmented Culture”[16] without mentioning a single Inkling. Blasphemous? I’d say no, Wolfe has a crystalline vision of writers working prophetically in a growing secular culture. His genealogy goes: Nathaniel Hawthorne, T.S. Eliot, Flannery O’Connor, Walker Percy.

The question remains: What would a contemporary Christian project look like? In partial answer to this question I submit the genre of magical realism (MR). This genre, including such prominent and diverse names as: Thomas Pynchon, Salmon Rushdie and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, blends supernatural elements within an otherwise realist narrative. Rather than creating another world and importing realist strategy there (e.g. Middle Earth and Narnia) these writers are including the miraculous within the ordinary. Rushdie offers us a fine summation when he says, “You must use language in a manner which permits God to exist—the divine to be as real as the divan I am sitting on.”[17] With a statement such as this, one wonders whatever happened to the tight secular knots naturalism had once tied us in. John A. McClure, in his essay titled “Postmodern/Post-Secular: Contemporary Fiction and Spirituality”[18] describes the contemporary literary landscape as favorable to spirituality. He even considers MR in terms of a “post-secular project of resacralization”.[19] He is correct in asserting the ‘project’ nature of MR. Many have noted that MR as a genre confronts cultural imperialism and western secularism. Wendy Faris, perhaps the most important scholar of MR, writes, “irreducible elements of magic question post-Enlightenment science’s empirical definition of the world.”[20] Furthermore, it seems that people have been longing for this reintegration of the miraculous and the mundane, Faris quotes John Updike as referring to MR as “a now widely available elixir.”[21] And the Christian cannot help but agree, with its subversion of western dualisms and its “resacralization” project.[22] So while MR is not a ‘Christian’ genre it does give a voice to the marginalized while sharing in fundamental Christian projects (e.g. a distrust of western secularism). Because of this, MR--I’d like to believe-- could be understood as one venue through which literary Christians (and would-be literary Christians) can engage with the current literary landscape. Here there is no escapism; the Christian engaging with MR can freely assert the reality of God in a post-secular climate. This project would not be a superficial; Christians have authentic voices to add to the genre, voices that offer an honest narrative and a forceful worldview which, like the rest of MR, confronts western secularism. While to some having such a strong philosophical under-girding might make us ripe for the same critique Eliot offered Chesterton, that of being propagandist. However, I’d argue that all the great writers—those who are certainly not propagandist--have been conscious of their philosophical/theological assumptions, certainly Eliot was among them[23].

In the beginning of this essay I lamented that the Inklings were becoming an off-ramp by which Christians exit into a comfortable cul-de-sac; my intent is that this same phenomenon will not happen with MR. The Christian’s responsibility is to stand firm in Christ, not in a literary genre; things change with time so just as we should not exit off to the Inklings we shouldn’t fall into the same trap with MR. This city where literature and faith meet is too diverse for a ghetto. For instance there are many other writers not engaged in MR but wildly committed to the nexus of faith and literature. MR is therefore an opening, a way past the escapism of fantasy and the secularity of naturalism; it presents promise for the writer who is both committed to Christ’s kingdom and the contemporary literary landscape.

---

[1] Flannery O’Connor, “The Church and the Fiction Writer” O’Connor. (Literary Classics: New York, United States, 1988).

[2] Miriam Hendrix describes this situation by saying the following: “In recent years we have seen people who are more familiar with the geography of Tolkien’s Middle Earth than with that of their own country or state; we have known adults who would rather reflect on Christian truth in Lewis’s Narnia books than read his or anyone else’s theological works.” (Miriam Hendrix The Christian Imagination “Why Fantasy Appeals” ed. Leland Ryken 358 Shaw Books 2002 Colorado Springs, CO).

[3] In no way will I, nor do I intend to even allude to the possibility of, questioning either Lewis’ or Tolkien’s faith.

[4] I think the C.S. Lewis and Tolkien book industry is evidence of at least some hagiography.

[5] Entirely is an important word here.

[6] Matthew 28:19 NRSV Renovare Study Bible 1989

[7] J.R.R. Tolkien. “On Fairy Stories”. The Tolkien Reader 1966.

[8] Greg Wolfe. “Why the Inklings Aren’t Enough” 2006 Image Seattle SPU

[9] In no way do I intend to advocate the Narnia children should be sent to London to endure the bombings, my argument is more of under-girding philosophies.

[10] Graham Greene. The Ministry of Fear. 56 Penguin Classics New York, NY: 1943.

[11] Thomas Wendorf. “Greene, Tolkien, and the Mysterious Relations of Realism and Fantasy. 2002. Renascence. 79-100. Fall 2002.

[12] T.S. Eliot. Ed. Leland Ryken. “Religion and Literature”. Shaw Books Colorado Springs, CO. 2002.

[13] Ibid 201.

[14] Quoted in Wendy Ferris pg. 95-96

[15] Flannery O’Connor. Ed. Leland Ryken. “The Novelist as Believer”. The Christian Imagination. Shaw Books Colorado Springs, Co. 2002

[16] Greg Wolfe, ed. Greg Wolfe. “The Christian Writer in a Fragmented Culture” The New Religious Humanists 1997 Free Press New York, NY.

[17] quoted in Wendy Farris 98 Ordinary Enchantments: Magical Realism and the Remystification of Narrative.

[18] John A. McClure “Postmodern/Post-secular: Contemporary Fiction and Spirituality. 141-163

[19] Ibid pg. 144

[20] Wendy Faris pg. 23. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville TN. 2004.

[21] Quoted in Ibid pg. 29.

[22] While looking somewhat similar to the Inklings project magical realism is fundamentally simply because while the inklings export the supernatural to a sub-creation magical realists reintegrate the supernatural in the world.

[23] Greg Wolfe, ed. Greg Wolfe. “The Christian Writer in a Fragmented Culture” The New Religious Humanists 1997 Free Press New York, NY. pg. 206

Individuality and Alienation in Fear and Trembling:

Throughout my undergraduate degree, and into the present, Soren Kierkegaard has played a prominent role in my intellectual and spiritual formation. That said, my thoughts of Kierkegaard would not qualify as hagiographic. There remains an aspect of Kierkegaard’s thought that I continue to wrestle with, namely: his placement of alienation as an ideal for the devout Christian. So, a major thrust of this essay will be an attempt to understand Kierkegaard in light of what I am presupposing is Kierkegaard’s false dichotomy: personal communion with God over against fellowship with a community. In this essay I will first articulate where this false dichotomy is in Kierkegaard’s writing, why it is an error, then I will provide a sympathetic explanation of how Kierkegaard could have regarding alienation as necessary for the knight of faith. In order to show this I will be primarily concentrating on his work Fear and Trembling (with particular interest on sections of “Problema II: Is there an Absolute Duty to God”), I will also supplement my argument with selections from his journals.

Towards the latter half of Fear and Trembling’s “Problema II” we see Kierkegaard’s over-emphasis of the individual most clearly. Kierkegaard has been developing the contrast between the tragic hero and the knight of faith; it is here where Kierkegaard (almost as an aside) discusses the “sectarian”: “The tragic hero expresses the ethical and sacrifices himself for it. The sectarian Master Jackel has instead his private theatre” (106). Now, there are of course many of these “sectarians,” who fit Kierkegaard’s caricature, Jim Jones and David Koresh are, perhaps, two examples. But as is often the case with caricature, it is over stated. Kierkegaard makes no room for a community of faith that understands both communal and personal duty to God. In essence, part of the Kierkegaardian knight of faith’s duty to God is suffering alienation from all forms of community, be them filial, social, religious, or all three. Kierkegaard goes on,
The knight of faith, on the other hand, is the paradox, absolutely nothing but the individual, without connections and complications. This is the terror that the puny sectarian cannot endure. Instead of learning from this that he is incapable of greatness and plainly admitting it, something I cannot but approve since it is what I myself do, the poor wretch thinks he will achieve it by joining company with other poor wretches. But it won’t at all work, no cheating is tolerated in the world of the spirit (106-107).

Here Kierkegaard is an unabashed polemicist. For in the section “Problema II: Is there an Absolute Duty to God” Kierkegaard offers no rational argument as to why the “sectarian” is excluded from being a knight of faith. Instead, he refers to a group who might surround a “sectarian” as “connections and complications”, hardly complimentary. Furthermore, he excludes Paul who, while imprisoned wrote to the church in Philippi with thanksgiving due in no small part to their solidarity with him and concern for him (4:10-15). Though the latter case from Philippians may not share the subtleties of the story of Abraham, Paul fits neither under the label “knight of infinite resignation” nor under the banner of “tragic hero”, Kierkegaard’s two other types. Paul is unquestionably—in Kierkegaard’s own description—a knight of faith. This is because: (1) Paul’s suffering does not find repose in the ethical (therefore he is not the tragic hero) (2) and Paul believes that God’s promises do not end in the act of resignation but return again after the act of resignation is made (therefore he is not a knight of infinite resignation). Why does Paul, though clearly a knight of faith, not suffer alienation from community? To answer that question we must look at the term “ethical”. A ethical is a comprehensive system of ethics that provides a type of infrastructure for civilization. Kierkegaard, working against the Hegelian “ethical” (Kierkegaardian “ethical”), writes about a specifically Hegelian universal, but if a ethical is defined as it is above it would not be contradictory to have two competing ethical systems. It is because of this that I feel at liberty to speak of two ethical system, one belongs to “the world”—this is the “the ethical” that Kierkegaard writes against; the second is that of “the new creation” and belongs to God. Or to use Augustinian language, there are two cities: Babylon and the New Jerusalem. Now, behind the Pauline story mentioned above there are these two ethical systems at work: (1) there is the empire-ethical (epitomized by Rome) which sent him to prison because he did not work within the ethical framework of it but instead worked at subverting it (2) and the “counter-ethical” that is represented by the church in Philippi. It is the second that Paul finds solidarity with in Philippi, and it is the second that Kierkegaard neglects to mention, creating instead a false dichotomy between personal communion with God and fellowship with community.

The Kierkegaardian apologist, a voice I often feel swelling up in me, might respond, “Well he never put his name on Fear and Trembling, it was the pseudonym Johannes De Silentio”. Of course that is an important objection. The purpose then for Kierkegaard’s over-emphasis on individuality, particularly in so far as it relates to the alienation of the individual, could be seen as a tool to awaken the spiritually lethargic. In this light Fear and Trembling is an ultimatum to Christendom, they must choose: is Abraham a monster or truly the father of the faith. Here there is nothing but the either/or—there is no lukewarm or indifference in deciding. Kierkegaard gives us the black and white. But, while I am sure Kierkegaard’s framing of “the individual” in Fear and Trembling has rhetorical aims, it is a reduction to think the voice is only the pseudonym’s. In Kierkegaard’s own journal he writes, “A man’s measure is how long and how far he can endure being alone without the understanding of others. Someone who, even in the decisions of eternity, could endure being alone a whole lifetime is the furthest from the infant, and from the socializer who represents the animal side of humanity” (606). And also,
Bernard of Clairvaux preaches crusade; under the open heavens […], thousands upon thousands are forgathered; before he can even finish there comes thundering from the throng: The Cross, the Cross!—that, you see, is to work in the direction of the animal category, working people together—into a mass.
O Socrates, noble sage! In the midst of the crowd, surrounded by these thousands upon thousands, you work—to split the ‘mass’ up and seek ‘the individual’ –that is the spirit category of human being.
And Bernard is a Christian, and it takes place in Christendom. And Socrates is a pagan—yet there is more Christianity in the Socratic way than in Bernard the Saint’s.

While there is little doubt to whether Kierkegaard had rhetorical purposes in mind while writing Fear and Trembling, there is also little doubt that the alienation of the individual from a given community was a prerequisite for the knight of faith.

So, presupposing Kierkegaard’s deep Christian faith, how can we understand the importance he puts upon the knight of faith’s alienation? Surely, with Abraham the alienation was a prerequisite, this being the case because Abraham was neither amoral nor immoral and therefore would have understood the gravity of the Mt. Moriah incident. But this paper has argued that Kierkegaard saw alienation not specific to Abraham but part of every Knight of faith’s journey. Further this paper has argued that it is not always the case that the knight of faith must bear the weight of alienation. There is often a “counter-ethical” because of the “counter-ethical” community’s like-mindedness the knight of faith, at least, has the potential to find sanctuary in the arms of community.

Taking Kierkegaard’s devout faith into account, then, what explanation is there for his view of individual alienation? Here it seems correct to say, in view of his journal entries and published corpus, that his opinions on alienation stems more from his personal experience as a fervent disciple in the midst of a decadent and spiritually lethargic age. Christendom’s sense that it had stopped “becoming” and was now “being”—that it had reached a cultural peak in which it could find repose not only infuriated Kierkegaard; more importantly though it provided little or no “counter-ethical” community by which he could fellowship with other like-minded people, because of this Kierkegaard, out of a forward yearning naturally arrived at his grave conclusion: alienation is necessary for the knight of faith.










Works Cited & Referenced

Kierkegaard, Soren. The Essential Kierkegaard. Trans. Howard & Edna Hong. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling. Trans. Alastair Hannay. New York: Penguin, 1985.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Papers and Journals. Trans. Alastair Hannay. New York: Penguin, 1996

Good Stuff: Leslie Newbigin

In a reading for a class I'm taking at Regent College I came across an essay by Leslie Newbigin. I'd read him before but, for some reason, many of his thoughts had some deep resonations with me now. Here's the quote:

The Christian gospel has sometimes been made the tool of an imperialism, and of that we have to repent. But at its heart it is the denial of all imperialisms, for at its center there is the cross where all imperialisms are humbled and we are invited to find the center of human unity in the One who was made nothing so that all might be one. The very heart of the biblical vision for unity of humankind is that its center is not an imperial power but the slain lamb.

Newbigin gives us tells the reader this after critiquing modern secular projects at unity (which often involve too much compromise), and then critiquing imperialistic projects at unity (which involve violence and triumphalism). I think he's arrived at a true unity project. You?

The Shortest Post Ever

I just needed to blog a little.

J.I. Packer, Regent College, and the Basics

While in Christian History this morning at Regent College I heard that J.I. Packer would be speaking at Chapel. I was pretty stoked. After reading Knowing God last year I began to develop a strong appreciation for Packer. So, of course, I was expecting something revelatory from Dr. Packer. Well, it was the case, just not how I was thinking.

Dr. Packer's message was fairly simple. He didn't delve into an arcane avenue of Puritan theology; nor did he provide some unexepected exegesis on a passage in Romans, instead he talked about what it means to "finish well" in our walk with Christ. He offered a fine maxim regarding this spiritual sojourn, "Let Christ fill your horizon". It may sound like spiritual immaturity but I was initally bummed because of the message's accessibility and obviousness.

After thinking about it I realized that this message came from someone who had taught at a number of seminaries, who was trained at Oxford, and is one of the most respected theologians in the world today. In that context the message opened uncharted vistas. J.I. Packer had, so to speak, seen it all and he was still championing the same message, "Let Christ fill your horizon". Unexpectedly, this afternoon I learned volumes: in our walk with Christ there will be nuanced 'trinket' theology that often steals our attention from Jesus Christ, Dr. Packer reminded me of the "one thing that I need" that is, to "Let Christ fill my horizon".

St. Irenaeus: The government is on His Shoulders

I am taking a class called Christian Thought and Culture at Regent College. The class is composed of lectures that, as the class name suggests, reflect on the intersection of Christian thought and culture. This week our reading is from Irenaeus. Irenaeus was one of the earliest church fathers and most well known for his thoughtful, incarnation-drenched, anti-gnostic, theology. Here's a quote I liked:

'A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is on his shoulders' (Is. 9:6)... The words 'the government us upon His shoulder' figuratively signify the Cross, to which His arms were nailed. The Cross was and is ignominy for Him--and for us, for His sake. And yet it is the Cross which He calls His government, the sign of His kingship.'

St. Irenaues, The Scandal of the Incarnation

Here We Are

The Summer, though not officially over with, is done. And since that last sentence was so riddled with irony I'll post something straight forward.

Here's a list of things that has kept me busy and entertained this summer.

Books:

Fear and Trembling, Soren Kierkegaard
Finally Comes the Poet, Walter Brueggemann
Crossing to Safety, Wallace Stegner
Angle of Repose, Wallace Stegner
Marking the Sparrows Fall, Wallace Stegner
Standing By Words, Wendall Berry
The Heart of Matter, Graham Greene

Shows:

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT! (dirty but delightful)
Tsotsi (South African film, WATCH IT)

Music:

Anything by Sufjan Stevens
Derek Webb's, Mockingbird

So... keep checking out Quest. There'll be more in the upcoming weeks.

The Blog is Closed for the Summer

So, for those of you who are Quest groupies you might have noticed that the posts lately have been slimmer than newt. There's a reason for that. Currently my wife and I are visiting friends in Honduras, prior to our trip to Central America we were traveled across the country (Massachusetts to Washington). And, after leaving Honduras tomorrow we will be moving to Vancouver, BC (where my wife will make the dough in photography and I will study at Regent College).

That said, the other member of Quest will--hopefully--make some posts. This will give Matt (the other blogger) some time to work on his Blogging skills. Also, we are accepting applications to Quest. If you want to become a blogger submit some info to our contact info (I am thinking of you Andrew Drain).

Anyways, thanks for being a Quest groupie.

Deuteronomy 18:9-14- Why Christians are Afraid of Harry Potter

I get tired of the fear that many Christians show when confronted with culture. It seems that in practice, many of us believe Christ to be quite powerless in this world. So we wonder if J.K. Rowling, the author of the hugely popular Harry Potter series, is out to vanquish Christianity with her pen. [for a better approach see here] We protest the movie Brokeback Mountain, because it is obvious that the homosexuals are more powerful than Christ as well. I am heartened by the response that many Christians have had toward the DaVinci Code, using it as a way to talk about Christ instead of running from it. This is the way we should approach this world, like Christ did- not running from it because of its filth, but running to the filth, confident of Christ's rule over this world.
Deuteronomy 18:9-14 are a big reason why Christians are scared of things like Harry Potter, witches, and astrology. These verses are a clear forbidding of any practice that might be a shortcut to succeeding in life through using the supernatural for your own ends. God does not allow this, for when you try to use the supernatural (even God) for your own ends, you end up in idolatry, and it ends up destroying you. This is a passage that does not lose its meaning when we read it in our day. These practices are still outlawed for the Christian. The powers of darkness are still around, and this world is still under their influence, despite Christ's decisive victory.
What should a Christian do, stuck between being a bearer of the true light, and having a new heart that is incompatible with the world's darkness (but fully able to experience it and participate in it). I think that a major problem that Christians have with culture today is that they have forgotten who they are. They are connected with Christ, they have new hearts, they are light bearers to a dark world, reflecting the True Light, and yearning for the day when he makes all things new. If Christians would just be who they are, then nothing that world throws at Christ can ultimately hurt them. Christ will set all to rights, to borrow a favorite phrase from N.T. Wright. The Christian's connection to Christ by the Holy Spirit is the amazing proof that the world cannot defeat Christ. He took you, filthy as you were, and now lives in you to fufill his plans for this world. Trust that he will (and is able to) do it; anything less is fear and unbelief.
Israel was told to not participate in the detestable practices of the Canaanites, and told to be blameless, "for these nations which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune tellers and to diviners."(vs. 14) This is the reason God is clearing the land of these nations. They don't listen to Him. I think that is the crux of the issue. You either listen to God or you listen to the world. If you listen to God, you know his promises are sure and his purposes firm to the glorious end that he desires. If you listen to the world, you are left without an identity and without hope in the world, except what you can manipulate to your own ends, as far as your power allows. Israel's identity is the people of God, which is why they were forbidden to mix with the culture; Israel's hope is in God, which is why they did not have to strive for power- their king was God.
As Christians, our identity is in Christ, and his plans are indestructible (he proved that at the cross) and full of love for a broken world (he proved that at the cross) and our hope for this world is in him.
Listening to God through the prophets is the subject of the next post on Deuteronomy 18:15-22.

Eating the Offering- Deuteronomy 18:1-8

*Bryan has some family visiting, so I will attempt to post about Deuteronomy in his absence.

Deuteronomy 18 is divided into three sections, dealing with three different areas of Israel's life. The first section talks about the provision for the Levites, the second about some abominable practices they were to avoid, and the third about prophets that will come after Moses. I will divide it into 2 or 3 posts.

The priests, or Levites, had "no portion of inheritance with Israel." (vs. 1) All the tribes recieved land that was their own, an inheritance that would sustain them for as long as they lived in the land that God gave them. The Levites did not have a secure inheritance, that is, they depended on their brothers to give them what God required (vs. 3-4) Thus the Levites are an Old Testament example of living the life of faith. Their dependence on the faithful offerings of their brothers was not one-sided, however. The Levites offered their lives to God in serve and "minister in the name of the Lord."(vs. 5) They would offer what they recieved from their brothers to God, ministering on the behalf of their brothers, keeping everyone faithful to the covenant. If the brothers got lazy and didn't bring their best, or didn't bring anything, then the Levites would suffer, and Israel's relationship with God would suffer in turn.
Revelation 1:6 declares that Jesus has "made us... priests to his God and Father." As priests of the new covenant, we minister in a new way. We offer Christ's life- his body and blood to the world. They are united to Christ and made priests as well. Christ's body and blood, the offerings of the Great High Priest, are recieved by us in holy communion and we as the new Levites, recieve and eat this offering, symbolizing the life of Christ in us. As the Levites were dependent upon the community for their life, we are dependant upon this holy communion. For what is symbolized by taking in the bread and wine has actually happened to us by our union with Christ.

How to Change this World

I listened to a session from the “Reform and Resurge” conference for pastors put on last month by Mars Hill Church in Seattle. The title of the session was “Beyond Brokeness: How Jacked Up Punks Will Change the World” He talked about how messed up we all are, and the amazing fact that God is using us to change this world, to bring healing, to restore it. He talked about how the gospel is more than personal piety and getting people in church, it is about the kingdom of God. This kingdom is being established through ‘jacked-up punks.’ The speaker, Anthony Bradley, gives this compelling vision of the kingdom based on Isaiah 61:1-4. Christ binds up the brokenhearted, he brings liberty to the captives, he gives oil of gladness instead of mourning- we are now oaks of righteousness- our new identity is for His glory.(vs. 1-3) Then verse 4-

“The shall build up the ancient ruins; they shall raise up the former devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations.”

The work of Christ does not stop at the cross and with our personal salvation- his mission and now our mission is to redeem the entire creation and rule it in all his justice, love, and beauty.

It was an inspiring message for me, as my faith lately has been more of a head thing than a heart thing. I have been living out of my former identity, instead of my real one- I’m an oak of righteousness, the planting of the Lord. If you want to listen to it, get it here.

Listen to this message, and some others on the same topic. Check out Bryan’s message from a previous post, as well as Mark Driscoll’s sermon from last week titled “Missional Ministry.”

posted by matt

Deuteronomy Chapter Seventeen: Stay the Course

In Deuteronomy 17 we see the theme of staying the course rising again to the forefront. It manifests first off with a reiteration of the forbidding of idolatry (see also the posts on ch.12 and 14). The importance of being free from pagan practices is most clear in the next chapter (ch.18 v.10) where Moses reports that some forms of idolatry have sunk so low that they make their children pass through fire. So, while we may feel unsettled about the legal imperative to kill those caught in idolatry (v.5), we can at least trust that if weren't for this firm justice a thick evil would take root. Also, and here I am repeating what I have already written about, this death sentence is not enacted on whimsy (v.6-7).

The theme of staying the course takes a different shape in verses 8-13. Here Moses allows for complicated legal matters to be decided by the Judge/Priest (v.8-9). And, Israel is called to not "turn [...] to the right or the left" from the judgment that the Judge/Priest declares. This again displays the importance of following God and listening to those wiser in times of transition.

In the last section the theme hones in on a potential king that will rule Israel in the distant future. 1st Sam. ch 8 clearly shows that Israel's desire for another king, besides God, is a grievance to God but, and in spite of 1st Sam. Ch.8 we have guidelines on how a King should live. This illustrates God's holy accommodation, though it grieves him he allows it under strict guidelines. The future king is to live in a spirit of modesty. We learn in v.16 that the king is strictly forbidden from returning Israel to Egypt so that he may prosper. The heart of that command being: don't put your people in bondage for your own benefit, don't make them a 'means' to your 'end'. Here God, via Moses, honors human dignity and commands the future king of Israel to do the same. But not only can the king not use his people for his benefit, he must deny decadence in all areas of life, even if it doesn't compromise the immediate health of his people (transportation and military v.16, sexuality v.17, monetary worth v.17). Further, the king must submit to the law of God: "It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes [...]" (v.19). And then we read that he must not exalt himself above anyone else in the community of Israel (v. 20). Here we see a true portrait of biblical leadership: the Servant-King. The final verses solidify this they read: "[he must not] turn aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom Israel" (v.20). Here, and this is telling, we have an edict which is given to the king, further it is exactly the same syntax as the one given earlier in the chapter to Israelites seeking help in legal matters (v.11). So, while all of Israel must submit to the rule of the Judge/Priest, the king must submit to the rule of God's law; so in the end we come to understand not only that king and the common-folk alike are held accountable to God, but that the king is himself common-folk.

In Jesus Christ we have a King who is also simultaneously Judge and Priest, that mentioned, he is still our great Servant-King.

A Sermon Link

Hello out there, Sorry the Deuteronomy post is late in coming. I have been spending a good chunk of the week working on a sermon, which I gave today. I gave the sermon at Maple Ridge Church in Amherst, Massachusetts. Here's a link to listen to it, if you so desire. It should be there later on tonight (Sunday evening).

By the way, the picture isn't me...just in case you were wondering. Although... nah.

Now, that's a blogging fact.

Guest Column: The Spirit of Prophecy

I asked my bud Teague to write a post for Quest. Here's the post, thanks Teague. This is good stuff. Hope everyone in the blogosphere likes it as well.

“He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’” (Luke 24:44-46).

“For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10).

Prophecy…

As the word hangs there in the ether, what comes to mind? A hairy man in burlap, pointing his finger and shouting? A one world government? The end of the world? For many of us, the only thing we definitely associate with prophecy is a big question mark. Yet, as the preceding scriptures show, the New Testament contains some clear statements about prophecy. Jesus taught that all scripture, prophecy included, found its fulfillment in Himself. While every prophecy has an historical fulfillment relating to the circumstances in which it is given, its full meaning is only realized in the person and work of Christ. This holds true even of prophecies whose fulfillment we still await.

The “end times” seem to be a continual sources of curiosity, intrigue, and confusion among Christians. Mountains of books—fiction and non-fiction—have been written on the subject. Movies have been made and remade. Every teacher worth his salt has weighed in. Theologians and fanatics alike have fastidiously woven scripture and world events into timelines. What has been lost in all of this is Jesus. Many have searched the prophets more diligently for the antichrist than for Christ, though the prophets themselves did not do this (1 Peter 1:10, 11). Wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, and persecution are clues in a cosmic “who dunnit” instead of being seen for what they are: signs of His coming (Matt. 24:3-14). When Christ ceases to be the center and interpretation of the end-times, it is little wonder that there is so much confusion about them among believers.

To put this in theological terms, the chief value of prophecy lies in its Christology, not its eschatology. Jesus said the law and the prophets all hang on two commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37-40). “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16). Prophecy has no purpose other than to draw us into Christ and to make us living sacrifices in His image (Rom. 12:1, 2). If our treatment of prophecy does not compel us to live for Jesus instead of ourselves, we may fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but, not having love, will be nothing in the sight of God (2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Cor. 13:2).

G.K. Chesteron Quote

Here's a qoute from the quotable G.K. Chesterton. This particular one is from his classic apologetic Orthodoxy. The book is simultaneously hilarious and insightful. I mention it here because it has particular resonations with the end of the previous post (the Lewis quote).

The Criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. [in Christianity] there was room for wrath and love to run wild. And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild (102 Orthodoxy)."

If you haven't read Orthodoxy go buy it now. Read it and report back.

Deuteronomy Chapter Sixteen: Celebration

Well, we are nearly half way through the book of Deuteronomy; it has certainly turned out to be a fruitful journey in amateur exegesis, though often arduous. Also, I have to apologize for the lack of posts lately. The next few weeks I'm hoping to pump out around three posts a week, so check back often.

By the way, the picture is unleavened bread :)

Remembrance is a major theme in the Old Testament, and Deuteronomy is no exception (for a look at this in detail click here), God continually brings His people to remember the exodus from Egypt; this is so that Israel's devotion will have a reference point. This remembrance comes to a head in the celebration of Passover, "Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover of the Lord your God, because in the month of Abib he brought you out of Egypt by night" (ch.16 v.1). Though the exodus from Egypt should be at the forefront of Israel's thoughts here Passover is instituted as an official celebration of remembrance.

Even their eating habits in the celebration of Passover have roots in their exodus from slavery, "Do not eat it with bread made with yeast but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste--so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt" (v.3). As a Christian the similarities between this text and that of 1st Corinthians 11:25-26, "and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.'" While Israel is called to remember their liberation from physical slavery with the "bread of affliction" Christians are called to remember their liberation from "the bondage of sin and death" when they partake of the bread and wine.

The Passover doesn't happen on Israel's terms; that's what we learn in verses 5 and 6, "You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the LORD your God gives you except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name." These verses remind us that while God will liberate his people from bondage not only does the liberation happen on His terms but the worship does too. And really that is a good thing, left to our own devices we dig our own graves (Psalm 9:15); (for a longer meditation on this click here). Concluding the celebration of Passover there is to be a time of rest and assembly (v.8). This conclusion of Sabbath and congregation serves as a wonderful end to the week of focused remembrance.

The other two celebrations in chapter 16 are: The Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and The Festival of Booths. Two marks of both these celebrations are: joy (v.11, 14) and inclusivity (v.11, 14). During the Feast of Weeks, a one day celebration marking the end of the wheat harvest, God commands Israel to "rejoice before the Lord your God;" not only does this show that God desires a joyous people but also the command nature of this verse implies that joy has more potential to burst out when we are "before the Lord" when our celebrating Him, in this case for providing a harvest. The same could be said for The Festival of Booths, where the Israelites slept in booths in remembrance of the transience of their desert journey, Israel is commanded to "be joyful at your feast". The second similarity these two celebrations share is one of inclusivity; but it is not inclusivity for it's own sake, no, it is the joy which God desires to spread, "And rejoice before the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, the Levites in your towns, and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows living among you" (v.11) and in verse 14 we read, "Be joyful at your Feast—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites, the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns." God desires that not only the well off enjoy the celebration, in fact He goes out of his way to include the marginalized and the foreigner. This theme saturates the Bible and is most visible in the Kingdom of God that Jesus Christ announces as bursting from his ministry, that all tribes and tongues enjoy the Lord forever.

* * *

There is another section in chapter 16 of great importance. It's a meditation on Justice. In v. 18 we read that there should be judges appointed in the land. Immediately following v.18 we have the meditation, "Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD your God is giving you" (19-20). The message here is that bribery sends you down a slippery slope, the ultimate end being the decay of justice. Because of this justice must always prevail, it is for the betterment of the community. That noted, mercy too should be held up, alongside justice, as it's companion, C.S. Lewis says it well, "Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. That is the important paradox. As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice" (God in the Dock).

That's it for this week folks. Keep those emails and comments coming. Halfway through Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy Chapter Fifteen: Big Change, Economic Equality

Deuteronomy chapter fifteen centers on what might be called the economics of God, the sabbatical year where all Israelite debts are cancelled. Before we dive in to this section it might be good to define "sabbatical"--a basic definition would be: Of or relating to the Sabbath as the day of rest. In this context the sabbatical year--where Israelite debts are cancelled--has a congruence with the Sabbath, day of rest, where Israel was called to lay down its heavy loads (even economic loads). Part of this sabbatical year can be seen, not only as an opportunity to relieve personal economic loads, but also societal economic loads, so we read, "Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed." (Deut ch.15 v.2). So, part of v.2 can be seen as an opportunity to maintain a level of holistic equality among all Israelites, thus keeping God as the only sovereign.

As we go on we read, "However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless youif only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today." (v.4-5). What we see here is that while Israel has the resource capacity to have no poor among them (much like we do today) the manifestation of this hinges on "if only you fully obey the LORD your God." The sad reality of what will always happen in Israel is expressed in verse 11, "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Even though they have the resources, they lack the moral resources, thus verses four and eleven belong together to remind us of our inherent selfishness and our overwhelming need for Christ's atoning sacrifice and the spirit's renewal of our hearts.

It is my thought--as alluded to in the above paragraph--that God, knowing the sad truth that his people will in fact not "fully obey [him]", instituted the sabbatical year as a point of renewal. Verse five is hopefull in one sense, and dim with hope in another. If God's chosen follow him, then-- among other things--there will be no poor among us. History tells us that Israel will fail, still there is the contingent "if" of verse five: "what if". Though, and in spite of the fact that we are plagued with Israel's failure throughout history, in Christ we have one who is truly faithful, in Christ the "if" becomes more than simply an "if" rather a promise (Romans 8:19-21, and let's not forget the Lord's prayer that it be "on earth as it is in Heaven"). So, on one hand we stand observing man's failure throughout history, on the other we wait in anticipation knowing the kingdom of God (with it's holistic reorchestration of society and individuals) to be a promise of new creation.

We hear this "if" in a lot of political discourse. "If" we do such and such, follow some ideal then things will go perfect. This is not a flimsy political ideal as is Marxism. No, Marxism will never work because it lacks the power to create new men; it tries to force the old man into an ideal, in which forgetting God is prerequisite and guilt is the motivation--in this light its eventual disaster is obvious. Again, in Christ the "if" of verse five is a promise--it is not contingent on our action but on our Lord's sovereign action. The Kingdom of God is a not a flimsy ideal, it is thick reality.

Along similar lines verse six reads, " For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you." The idea here is not one of superiority or depotism but rather one of stewardship. In Isaiah ch. Two we have a similar picture, it reads:

Many peoples will come and say,
Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

In this light we see that rather than God giving Israel a promise of imperialism He entrusts them with choseness, and out of that sprouts the person of Jesus Christ and through him the kingdom of God; God's chosen our the ambassadors of true change.

The remainder of Deuteronomy Chapter fifteen is of great importance it gives imperatives to give liberally to the poor and sets down great rules for dealing with hired hands. Also it enters into more description of the requirements for sacrifice. I will stop the exegesis here though; partly because I'll be surprised if you even make it this far, but also because I am a bit tired and have a lot more to do today.

Love to hear any feedback.

The Da Vinci Code, Not Yet

A few posts ago I mentioned a "personalized outreach opportunity" regarding the Da Vinci Code and some drinks afterwards (hopefully including a good discussion). Well, to those who are wanting a post on the subject it hasn't happened yet. All the folks I was planning on going with are still interested in all that but... It just hasn't worked out yet.

I'll keep you updated...

In Review: The Secret Message of Jesus

Last week I finished Brian Mclaren's new book The Secret Message of Jesus. My conclusions about the book itself are mixed, though the only negative thoughts are primarily personal (and in view of it's intent the positive outweighs my negative sentiments). I certainly have gained a deep respect for Brian as a missiologist. He not only knows the culture that he his hoping to reach, by the work of the spirit, but also he has written a book that is biblical, in a holistic sense.

As I mentioned in an earlier post his influences are clear. N.T. Wright and Walter Brueggemann I'd say seem to have had a very formative influence, as well as Dallas Willard. So TSMJ, to some extent, can be viewed as a popular synthesis of their works in a missiological framework. This aspect of the book is truly hospitable. Also, and I think this is of vast importance, he shares a subversive Gospel (thanks, no doubt, to N.T. Wright) that challenges empire, of every variety.

To a Christian that is both politically conflicted (think Sojourners) and also acquainted with Mclaren's influences, the primary sources if you will, TSMJ feels a little...well lite. But, while I find a it little 'lite' for my tastes, I think, in that we can see part of Mclaren's intent. Remember spiritual infants need spiritual milk. So, while it didn't conform to my desires I can say that for its intent TSMJ is a success.

Deuteronomy Chapter Fourteen: Don't Eat That and Giving to God

The first section of the Deuteronomy ch. 14 describes clean and unclean food. About this biblical scholar Tremper Longman III writes, "Perhaps certain animals were thought to conform to the norms of creation, while others were thought to blur the boundaries. For instance, fish that have "fins and scales" are true fish, while other animals in the deep that do not have them (lobsters) somehow do not seem to fit this category (Renovare Study Bible 269)." That said, what is of the most importance is that dietary laws helped distinguish Jew from gentile. The New Testament, however, declares that in Christ all outward distinctions are superficial (Galatians 3:28). What is of higher importance is that we remain in Christ, relying on the Holy Spirit--this, quite naturally, distinguishes God's chosen as a counter-culture to the world's ways. Now, if we were to rely on dietary restrictions for entrance into the Kingdom of God we would be forgetting Matthew ch. 11 v.11 where Jesus tells the group surrounding him, "What Goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean'". Also, in Acts ch. 10 the Lord gives Peter a vision of unclean animals and concludes the vision with the charge, "kill and eat." Thus solidifying the Jesus' message in Matthew.

* * *

The section of Deut. 14 is about tithing. It is here, among other places in the Old Testament, where we receive the distinction of 10% (ch.15 v.22) of our income should be poured back out to God's work. While this frustrates our thoroughly western sense of ownership and property it serves as a high reminder that God has allowed us to receive what we have--so in a real sense--it is already his. In view of this tithing only 10% is more God accommodating us, more than us accommodating God. Also, it is a fundamentally healthy because it prevents us from hoarding and falling into the temptation of decandence.

Moses charges Israel to give the tithe "in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always" (14:23). What we come to understand from this is that our offerings are on God's terms, not only does he provide the means for us and sets the amount that we should give back to him, but also he decides where it all happens. Moses tells us that this all happens so that, we "may learn to revere the Lord". We learn to worship when we let God decide.

But God isn't a cold slavemaster, or a distant despot, the following verse tells us that if a family is far away from the place God chooses then they shouldn't be burdened by having to carry an animal all the way with them. Find an animal when you get there, but don't steal it, buy it (v. 24). God cares about us, he doesn't want us burdened--the journey there to worship is the greatest importance.

Lastly, there is a social justice component to tithing. Though this might be obvious, since the call is to give to God's kingdom. It, of course, is important to point out. First, we read that the Levites (the priestly tribe), whose inheritance is the Lord himself (Num ch.18 v.20, ch.26 v.22 Deut. ch.10 v.9). After stating the provisions for the Levites the text opens up to embrace "the aliens, fatherless and the widows" (v.29). Israel is called to give to them out of their supply (v.28) so that they "may come and eat and be satisfied" (v.29). It is important to note that this isn't just forced service project, this wide-armed, welcoming care that is extended to the marginalized ("least of these") and it is worship to the core.

Question: Does this have implications for the current immigration issue?