Deuteronomy Chapter Four: Complacency is to Idolatry as Remembrance is to Thankfulness

"But take care and watch yourselves closely, so as neither to forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your mind, make them known to your children and your children's children" (4:9).

Idolatry happens when our hearts become complacent "After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time —if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol..." (4:25). It is after they settle in the land that Israel risks idolatry, is what we hear from this verse. Andrew Walls, former Missionary to Nigeria and now professor at the University of Edinburgh, says, "Hunters and Gatherers are the most likely to be aware of the High God," meaning that once a tribe settles it is able to cultivate and prepare its own food and therefore risks degenerating spiritually into local-agricultural Deity worship. Whereas the hunter and gatherers were immediately aware of their need for provision bringing them to worship an omniscient-sovereign God, the agriculturalists, or settlers, become in a sense complacent. They forget the God who provided for them while they were at their greatest need.

This statement rings true for Israel, that is why Moses tells Israel in Deuteronomy 4:9, "To [not] forget these things your eyes have seen nor let them slip from your mind." Israel has seen great displays of provision from an omniscient-sovereign God: freedom from slavery to a world power, water pouring out from rocks, bread from heaven, and the list goes on. If the Israelites let these great events of provision and freedom "slip from their mind" they will then regress into complacency, thus giving the perfect soil for idolatry and pride.

So, once Israel settles in the land of promise in one sense the sojourn will end in another it begins on a more significant level. The new journey that will begin is one of the heart; the Israelites must hold up what God has done for them above all other things. The true test for Israel is remaining faithful while living comfortably. Anyone will agree, it is only after having something that you risk taking it for granted, again, it is for this reason that Moses tells Israel, not to forget what God has done for them but to hold it up to the eyes of their heart.

As Christians we rest in another promised land, a new salvation has been given to us. Like Israel we risk idolatry and self-exaltation if we do not continually hold up what God has done on our behalf before the eyes of our heart. Complacency is the first step to sin, but remembrance of what God has done is the beginning of true peace and honest worship.

Deuteronomy Chapter Three: One Big No.

God gives Israel appetizers of the Promised Land in Deuteronomy ch.3, "for I have handed him over to you," (Deut. 3:2), the him being the King of Bashan (this came with all of his land). God then gives Israel the land of all the Amorites (Deut. 3:8), and to Joshua God says, "Your own eyes have seen everything that the Lord your God has done to these two kings; so the Lord will do to all the kingdoms into which you are about to cross. Do not fear them, for it is the Lord your God who fights for you" (Deut. 3:21-22).

Amongst all of this, the beginning of promise, Moses makes a plea to God, "O Lord God, you have only begun to show your servant your greatness and your might; what god in heaven or on earth can perform deeds and mighty acts like yours! Let me cross over to see the good land beyond the Jordan, that good hill country and Lebanon," (Deut. 3:23-24). YHWH says no (Deut. 3:26). To understand why God might reply so harshly in a time of so much blessing we have to return to Deuteronomy ch. 1 where God first tells Moses that he is not to enter the Promised Land (v.37-38). Here we again witness the reality of sin. Sin destroys community, and creation but the worst effect is the offense it is to God. Think of it like this: when you offend someone do you always understand what, particularly, offended them? My response is often: "Are you serious, that little thing offended them?" What this tells us is that we are, at some level, detached from other people; we don't understand each other's hearts well enough to live in perfect community. It is this way with our relationship with God too. Sin is the ultimate offense to God. Oftentimes, we read the Old Testament or the Passion narrative in the Gospels and are left asking, "is sin really that big of a deal?" I believe that the answer is a hearty yes, the image we have signifying this reality is the cross of Christ; other than the crucifixion we have no frame of reference for establishing the level of offense sin is to God.

So when Moses asks God if he has changed his mind about allowing him entrance into the Promised Land God replies with a harsh "No". Here God isn't being a bully, no, rather Moses is failing to understand the gravity of sin, and his failure at keeping Israel out of sin (see chapter one). With that in view, we can see that God's grace lasts much longer than his anger (Deut 5:8-10) and his promise of the Promised Land remains a promise for Israel through the Hebrew Bible and on into the intertestamental period until Jesus initiates a new promised land in himself.

Thoughts While Walking Down Stairs

Background Thought: Carry out your theology to its logical ends... be consistent.


I was walking down the stairs from my classroom yesterday (I'm a fifth grade teacher), and my mind sort of switched on to a make believe argument with a Christian who is stuck on the issue of evolution vs. creationism. My mind sometimes does this. I hear an argument again in my head and I almost verbally respond to it as if it is really taking place, but it's all in my head. Anyways enough commentary on my thoughts. It seems to me that there are two main reasons why Christians think evolution is evil, a grand scheme of the devil to eradicate the Christian religion (you know, something like Harry Potter). I want to address these two reasons and ask some questions at the end.

The first reason is that it eliminates God from the picture and is an alternate explanation of how things came into being. So a Christian would want to argue in such a way as to prove that God exists and that everything came from him, instead of natural processes. That is not a hill that any of us can climb, and who are we to be God's advocate? The evidence of creation is clear enough to me- God can defend himself, and I'll hide behind him. Arguments from this reason are not very convincing because they take a changed heart to believe.

The second reason is one that I have heard often. Evolution places people on the same level as every other organism. By saying that we are just another species of mammal, we are denying God's special plan and design for humans. I think that Christians would like to preserve the dignity of humans so they can be saved - Christ came to save people, so we better make sure we aren't just a higher species of ape, we're people, and so we can be saved. The other day a person told me that a reason why suicide rates among young people are increasing all the time is because they are saturated with the ideas of evolution and so their lives are considered as meaningless. If they are just an animal, then what is there to live for? I agree with the diagnosis that their lives are purposeless, so they turn to suicide, but not because of evolutionary thought. Another friend said that it might be more dangerous to watch the Discovery Channel or read National Geopgraphic than watch MTV. I have never thought that humans have very much trouble placing themselves on "top." The human propensity to being godlike is incredible. Do we think that a century of evolutionary thought can change the human so much? I think that this is where evolutionists and Christians agree. Evolution places humans on the top of creation, and so does Christian thought- Christ came to save us, so we are the "top" reason he came. It is here that the Christian argument against evolution actually works against them. The gospel only penetrates the heart when it is softened and turned outwards to God, away from itself. Humans are by nature hard-hearted and self-exalting. Suicide can even be called the highest act of selfism or defiance there is- you took your own live, you are alone in the universe, you take orders from no one but yourself, God is not in charge of life and death, I am. My point is this: humans have no problem placing themselves on a pedestal. Lots of Christian thought also places them on a pedestal- the centerpiece of creation. What I'm saying is that the Christian arguments put people just as far from God as evolutionary arguments do.
Let's think where our arguments might lead before we begin them. For example, why are many Christians afraid that homosexuality will be proven to be genetic? Do they think that our genetic codes are free from the bondage and decay of the fall? No, let's not be surprised if sin is proven to be genetic, lets rejoice that God's word is true- we are sinners by nature. The truth is much deeper than we think. Let's be careful as we handle the truth, let it shape us, and not us wielding and shaping us.

What do you think? Do the common Christian arguments against evolution keep people in their prideful state and far away from Christ? If you agree, do Christians do this with other issues as well?

Deuteronomy Chapter Two: To Take and Give

We start to see some spiritual maturation in Israel in Deuteronomy Chapter two. Wherein the previous chapter we saw the sin of Israel exposed for what was when Moses tells us, "The Amorites who lived in that hill country then came out against you and chased you as bees do. They beat you down in Seir as far as Hormah. When you returned and wept before the Lord, the Lord would neither heed your voice nor pay you any attention" (1:45), this is where are left, a stark picture but an honest one if sin is the portrait.

Chapter two begins with God ending a period of literal repentance, "we journeyed back in the direction of the Red Sea, as the Lord had told me and skirted Mount Seir for many days. Then the Lord said to me: "You have been skirting this hill country long enough. Head north, and charge the people as follows [...]" (2:1). God then directs Moses to turn back towards the promised land. We might empathize at this point, for how often are we turned away from a promise in repentance, only for God to turn us back--when He see's fit.

Moses is then directed to head north through the territory of Esau where they are not to engage in battle for God "will not give you even so much as a foot's length of their land, since I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession" (2:5). Then Moses is called to lead Israel through the land of the Moabites. Again, God warns Israel through Moses not to attack the Moabites, "for [he] will not give any of its land as a possession, since I have given Ar as a possession of the descendants of Lot" (2:9). Simply put, Israel's spiritual maturity is seen in them listening to their Lord. Where the previous chapter we saw the sin of Israel, and it's fatal end, here we see obedience and its blessing, "I have handed over to you King Sihon the Amorite of Heshbon, and his land" (2:24).

In this chapter we also might take note of the difference between "given" and "taken". Here, God gives a land to Israel, but he is also specific about which land. He does not give Israel the land of the Moabites, nor does he give them the land he promised to the descendants of Lot. The point is, that land is not for them, God has already given it to a different people. If, like the previous chapter, Israel decided to take a land that was not theirs (e.g. the Moabites land) the end would be, again, fatal. To take what is not first given is sin, and self-focused, but to receive of what God has given to you can be, in a sense, can be humbling because to receive is to simultaneously say, "I did not provide for this by myself" and "I am in need of this". The gladness of the receiver's heart acknowledges the grace of the giver.

Also, there is a natural ease that comes with receiving, and a natural dis-ease that comes with taking. The ease in receiving exists because God, who is eternal, creates a conclusion to an event before it has been actualized, this is clear when God says to the Israelites, "The Lord your God, who goes before you, is the one who will fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt before your very eyes, and in the wilderness, where you saw how the Lord your God carried you, just as one carries a child [...]" (Deut. 1:30-31). However, the one who takes and does not receive wages war against an already resolved conclusion, thus the fatal end we witnessed at the end of Deuteronomy chapter one. The second problem that the "taker" creates is a frustration with God's desires, or to put it simply: they mess with the people humbly waiting on God. This is part of the fallen world, where "toil" happens because people in high and low positions are struggling against a God's desires.

Along with the Israelites we too are called to "receive of" not "take from". Salvation, at the core of Christian belief, depends alone on God. He not only gave himself as a ransom for many by dying on the cross, but he also reveals himself to us; are part in the relationship is to receive.

We must daily ask ourselves, what in us is making war against God's heart and his purposes. When we feel we have an answer, repentance is the solution. The first question, however, should be: "What is God's heart, for me and my community and all the nations."

Deuteronomy Chapter One: A Need To Turn Away

I've been reading through Deuteronomy and have been seeing some things open up to me. I'll try to share one a week. Here is one on Deutronomy chapter one.

Bryan

In Deut. 1:27 it says, "You grumbled in your tents and said, 'the Lord hates us, so he brought us out of Egypt to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us." Moses rebukes them, telling them, "Do not be terrified, do not be afraid of them. The Lord your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did in Egypt, before your very eyes" (1:29-30). Still they are afraid. Rather than hesitate, or stutter step, towards their land, they all together reject it. And then...enter God: "Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your forefathers...And the little ones that you thought would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad--they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it. But as for you turn around and set towards the desert along the route to the Red Sea" (1:35, 39-40). Then, upon hearing this they try to atone, or put things right, for their sin. Instead of following God's new command and literally repenting (going back to the Red Sea), they say in effect, "Well, O.K. I guess I'll do it," this is akin to the child who tell his father that the task assigned him is to big:

"But Dad, the garage is huge, I really don't want to clean it; even if you will give it to me as my own hang-out space."
"Well then son, I'll discipline you."
"No, No, No--O.K I'll clean it."

In this analogy we see God's fierce desire to provide. Though God appears, at a first read, to be tyrannical a closer look shows us that the real picture is the tension that is naturally created between a holy and loving God and an obstinate and hard-headed people. God desires to bless his people with land and Israel, like spoiled children, tell him "No, it's just to much effort," even though Moses makes it clear that it will be God that will be providing everything they need to succeed in battle (1:29-30). God, instead, confers the promised land to a generation that do not yet know "right from wrong" (1:39b), perhaps implying that He will raise them up to know his ways, so that they will be fit for the promised land*.

Of course, they go anyway in so doing they reject the path of repentance of sin that God has laid out for them (1:40) and they fall deeper into sin by trying to make things "right" on their own terms, by attempting to atone for themselves. So, the end of the chapter is grim, "And you came back and wept before the Lord, but he paid no attention to your weeping and turned a deaf ear to you" (1:45).

*on this note the Bible is not explicit

Entering Rest

This is what the LORD said to me: "Go and stand at the gate of the people, through which the kings of Judah go in and out; stand also at all the other gates of Jerusalem. Say to them, 'Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and all people of Judah and everyone living in Jerusalem who come through these gates. This is what the LORD says: Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers.

Jeremiah 17:11-22

The text above first sounds intruding; our initial reaction might be "What if I have business to do on the Sabbath. Should I just not do it then? And why the specifications on 'heavy loads'?" After listening to the text, many times over, I remembered Jesus saying, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-29). In this light God's command for his people to rest is less fire and brimstone then it is a compassionate plea that his people not be burdened; "be careful not to carry a heavy load on the Sabbath day." When we carry heavy loads, when we burden our minds or hearts with pounds of stress we reject the light load of Jesus. Rather than heed Jesus' plea to lay down our burdens we turn inward, telling ourselves that we must accomplish "X" or we will be failures. This whole way of thinking is founded on human effort, human accomplishment, human progress.

In God's command for Israel to observe the Sabbath we hear him tell us to turn away from the grotesque spirit that drives us forward like clockwork. Again his command to Jerusalem is no different from Jesus' "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." The truth of the matter is that it is only his load that is light and his yoke that is easy.

The author of the book of Hebrews writes, " anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience" (Hebrews 4:10). The rest that Hebrews talks about is the very rest that we hear about in Jeremiah and Matthew, that of Sabbath rest. In Christ we have the ability to partake of that rest continually, rather than bracketing it off to a day, by realizing that only the Lord is sovereign and that the method of worldly accomplishment is counter to the cry of Christ, "all who are weary, and burdened and I will give you rest."

True Belief

About the Holy Spirit Jesus said that “when he comes he will prove the world wrong about sin and […]: about sin because people do not believe in me” (John 16:8-10). It seems odd that Holy Spirit doesn’t convict the world of sin because, perhaps, the world lacks a moral compass. No. The Holy Spirit “proves the world wrong about sin […] because people do not believe in [him].” Though initially peculiar a deeper look at this passage, I feel, can reveal a theological vista. It is through belief that humans actually become moral beings; that is what the verse tells us.

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are two words we don’t hear very often. Orthodoxy we might associate with a strict group of far-right moralists, but literally it simply means: right belief. Someone can have orthodox beliefs about a chair, for instance: it is for sitting in. Orthopraxy is the even lesser known word, it means: right action. The two words are intrinsically related. For instance it is only after a person has an orthodox view of a chair that the person can use the chair in accord with orthopraxy. Right belief and right action are related in this way, in a twirling dance, belief leading action.

*

As I watch the news I am stunned and saddened by some current events. We don’t have to focus on events like 9/11 or the multitude of natural disasters; events at home: a divorce in the family, or an infant death, speaks loudly enough. But there is also plenty of good too; with every natural disaster there seems to be a well-spring of human aid and money raised. But, more simply, we can witness everyday kindness in a car stopping for someone to cross the street, rather plainly just some going out of their way.

It seems to me as I meet new people and continue to develop other relationships that there are people who seem to either focus on the negativity or the good stuff. Some watch the news and see things like global warming, natural disasters, war, and famine. For them the world is a gloomy place lacking hope, deficient in future possibility. On the other hand there are people who believe the world is ‘just great’. They focus on things like: human progress, countries forgiving third-world debt, or the recent successes of a family member. Both types of people don’t have a right view of the world.

Right belief of the world, or an orthodox view of the world—in general terms—is acknowledging both the good and the bad, the sin and the saving power. Christian theology tells us that we are in tension between the “already” and the “not yet”. A Christian way of understanding the world sees the impending judgment of sin and the future of a new creation where there is no famine—where peace reigns and everyone rejoices in the love of their creator. Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, it starts out small but grows to the largest of plants. While Jesus has placed the seed of hope in the ground by dying and being raised again (the “already” mentioned above) the seed of his kingdom is still growing (the “not yet”).

*

It may sound odd but before belief was something you thought it was something you did. In the Middle Ages the word belief was actually two words: by + life; this way people knew what you believed by your life, belief was lived out belief, not lip-service belief.

So, if we live in a world with both sin and God’s saving power we must share Christ, through word and deed, because it is only after the humans acknowledge Jesus as the Lord that the seed of hope grows a new shoot reaching out. Admitting the struggle and sin is the only way to peace; having an orthodox view of the world is the first step to right action in it.

Memoir: Love & Understanding

A few weeks ago I picked up a crossword puzzle. First, before I go on, it should be known that I hate crossword puzzles. This particular one was vicious it was like the great white shark of crosswords. I looked at each clue for three seconds or so then I went onto the next one—they were impossible clues. When I got done looking through all the clues I only had 5 spaces filled in.

What makes it even worse is that I have an inflated self esteem when it comes to puzzles. It’s a weird paradox I have this deep seeded feeling like I should be really good at them for some reason but my failure is unstoppable—and then there is the headache. It sets in unswervingly. The only metaphor worthy of describing it is vice grips, on your head just squeezing. I know what you are thinking he’s exaggerating but it is the truth. I wouldn’t use hyperbole about getting a one-two punch from worthless puzzle.

My friend Teague and I talk about how Jesus is puzzling sometimes. We will sit down for a cup of coffee and look through the Gospels and observe Jesus challenging common sense--saying things like “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God,” Or, “If any of you wants to gain his life he must lose it for my sake.” Those are puzzles, but not the puzzles that give me a headache. And after thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that the Bible is filled with all sorts of puzzles. And I am not talking about apocalyptic puzzles where if you read a verse in Deutronomy backwards you will know the hour that Jesus comes back. Honestly I think that those are kind of hokey and self gratifying—I mean I think people that are in to that doomsday decoding stuff really hate this world and just assume Jesus feels the same way. When I say that the Bible is full of puzzles I mean a different kind of puzzle—a life puzzle. Job’s life is a bit of a puzzle. God never gives him an answer to all his suffering but in it there is no question to God’s existence, or Job’s faith. Judas is another example Why did he betray Jesus?--especially after seeing all the good things Jesus did.

In fact I am convinced that life puzzles are all around us everyday. It may be the neighbor who is a bit out of touch with reality, or the little boy down the street who won’t climb a tree or play with a toy gun. They can be similar to the Judas riddle of betrayal—though perhaps not to the same degree. Or ones about love—how can she love him? In fact I am a kind of puzzle to myself sometimes, “Crap, why did I do that.” My grandfather was a puzzle to my grandmother for a long time. You see he is kind of like a lesser version of “A Beautiful Mind.” He taught medical school at the University of Washington, and he was a brain surgeon—or some type of surgeon. But with all his smarts he can’t manage socially. I’ve been told by some of my family that he has a chemical imbalance. My mom has told me some stories about him while she was growing up too and they aren’t pretty.

He is unnatural in conversation, sometimes he says the most random things, he often comments on my brother’s physical fitness, “My, Patrick you have some nice biceps there,” and that is his menu of conversation. It blew me away a couple weeks ago though; I was talking to my grandmother and she referred to my grandfather as her beloved. Now people don’t just call a person ‘beloved.’ I feel like that is a word reserved for people who are weird or in some type of hyper love. I thought about if for a while and I realized that my grandmother really loved this guy, my grandfather that is. This was the same man that everyone else would talk trash about at Christmas parties and other family get togethers but she loved him, enough to call him her beloved. Through the harder times when my grandfather was less than kind—and perhaps even threatening she loved him. She loved him when he was embarrassing her in public, when he acted out in rage towards his children even. She still loved him.

“Love never fails,” scripture tells us, and that is a hard thing for me to see often with half of marriages ending in divorce and so much superficiality in media, politics, and relationships. If I did not take my faith in Jesus seriously this deep truth about love not failing would be like the worst puzzle of them all. I would want to believe it but the evidence would to seem prove otherwise.

My grandmother—though she is always busy, and on the run with different social work (homeless shelter here, soup kitchen there)—has a mellowness to her, which I think is part of the reason for her success with her husband--my odd old grandfather. I was thinking about it the other day and I’m sure of it, her mellowness helps her understand.

My grandparents have spent time with each other and with time comes understanding, and with understanding love. Love and understanding are bound together, I think it is a deep and holy truth. If you understand someone you are bound to love ‘em. My grandmother with time has come to understand why my grandfather cannot operate socially, and even why he can be down right manipulative and after she came to that understanding of her ‘beloved’ it would seem that she has no option but to love him because she understands him. You see when you understand someone deeply you know their motivations—good or bad—and you see why they have such a motivation, sometimes you can even trace it back to the root like an event in the past or something. Finally, when you see from this perspective it is hard not to love the person because you understand them—in weakness and blessing.

Jesus one time had an interaction with a rich young ruler. He said, ‘you are missing something from your life. Give up what you have, all your riches and come to me.” The rich young ruler couldn’t come—he was too attached to his possessions—and the scripture says, “And Jesus looked on him with love.”

I don’t get it sometimes—‘How can Jesus look on some rich guy with love when the guy is more concerned about saving his money then Jesus saving his soul.’ I was writing in my journal the other day about this theological riddle and I think—strange as it is—my grandparent’s situation helped me to understand this scripture. How can you love someone in their weakness—that is the love that fountains forth from the wellspring of understanding. I believe that is how Jesus loved that rich young guy who was hung up on his money. Think about it, Jesus probably looked at the rich guy and knew that his Father had taught him things like: ‘put yourself number one,’ ‘do anything for a buck.’ Jesus understood the dilemma in the rich guy’s heart and because of that Jesus could “look on him with love.” In fact I believe that is how God loves us all. We all have things we are having a hard time giving to God—just like this young rich guy. And since our lives aren’t puzzles to God, but he knows why we struggle with those things he can start walking us towards healing. I feel that it is how God wants us to love each other too. We are called to love our neighbors with the love that God has for us—the great understanding love of Jesus. Then the life puzzles will be unraveled and put together and the most beautiful picture of person healed by God will be clear as day.

What's the Difference: An Authentic Look at World Faiths

The Jewish Philosopher Abraham Heschel writes, "Plurality is incompatible with the sense of the ineffable [God]. You cannot ask in regard to the divine: Which one? There is only one synonym for God: One."I agree, to some extent, with Heschel; I live in an area of the United States where the truth of religious difference isn't popular. Many of my friends have this idea that 'many rivers lead to one ocean' applies to religious difference (a belief that actually comes ironically enough from one specific religion, Hinduism). I've also read this numerous times in popular magazines; it surrounds us. I feel like it isn't very thoughful though, and even slightly arrogant. Most of my friends that have this pluralistic attitude towards religion don't even claim a specific faith, and that is where the arrogance lies. They are projecting their thoughts on a whole bunch of different faiths, none of which they are a part of. It's similar to a Republican setting limits to what a Democrat can believe to be a good government, it just seems wrong (not to mention silly).

I received my B.A. in Religious Studies from a small university in Washington state. While studying there I found, in contrast to popular opinion, that there are striking differences between religions. Sure there are congruities in the categories of ethics and wisdom but when it comes to the area of the unseen (afterlife, salvation/liberation, God) there are many incongruities. I would say that Christianity is the biggest divergent among all the faith traditions because of how it understands the issue of the Human-Divine Gap.

The Human-Divine Gap

Every faith tradition has to address the Human-Divine Gap. It, as some scholars think, is the reason for religion, because as far back as human experience has been recorded there has been the elements in human wonder at the infinite and the beyond and the human emotion of detachment from that infinite and beyond. That is the Human-Divine Gap, and that, again as some scholars say, is the foundation for all religion.

Hinduism, perhaps the oldest faith, tells us that through life each person goes through stages of purgation to get rid of desire and produce good karma. The last stage is to become a Yogi. These people are the 'spiritual-select' bunch. And, it is usually believed, that Yogis are the only people that achieve liberation from Samsara (the wheel of reincarnation) and unification with Brahman (the Universal Spirit). Since bad karma is easy to acquire it usually takes life times and life times to bridge the Human-Divine Gap.

Buddhism is what is called a Heterodox Indian Philosophy. That is, it is a teaching that came out of India but contains many differences from Hinduism. Noting that it should be mentioned that to most people not familiar with Indian philsophy Buddhism and Hinduism look rather similar. Traditional Buddhism (Theravada) tells us that only Monks (lamas) can attain liberation from Samsara (as a note for both traditional Hinduism and Buddhism maintain that if you are a woman you must be reincarnated as a man to achieve liberation). Again bad Karma is easily acquired so this takes many reincarnations to finally bridge the gap Human-Divine Gap. It should be noted though that in some forms of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana) there spiritual beings called Bodhisatvas that assist humans in there path towards liberation from Samsara.

Judaism's manner of bridging the gap is different. Instead of a system of judgement independent from a personal will (Karma) there is a sovereign God (YHWH or I am that I am) who reveals himself to the elect (the Jews). It is God who revealed Torah (a set of 613 laws governing public and private life) to Moses and Israel. Though many contemporary expressions of Judaism (conservative, reform, reconstructionist) do not believe in, or care little for, an afterlife with God, maintaining that the present life is the only concern, traditionally Torah has been the bridged the Human-Divine gap, and consequently been the portal to eternal life. Israel is living in holiness when she submits to Torah as God's commandments--then becoming one and bridging the Human-Divine gap, likewise, when Israel does not submit she is characterized as a wayward wife (the book of Hosea).

The salient difference of Christianity is that not only is revelation dependent upon God but the act of bridging the human-divine gap is also. Salvation/Liberation isn't dependent upon one resolving one's own karma, nor is it in found in adhering to a legal code. Salvation/Liberation is found in Jesus Christ. Jesus is recorded as saying (Matthew 5:17), "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Christianity maintains that while the law is good man will always fall short of adhering to the law in full, it is as if the human-divine gap is a canyon that no person can jump, thus man needs God to bridge the gap on mankind's behalf. Because of this Jesus the Christ (according to Christian thought: Israel's awaited Messiah) came to take the weight of Israel's and world's sin. That took place on the cross and his death and was fully realized in his resurrection from death. This makes Christianity fundamentally different from the world faiths.

Post your thoughts. Is this a fair representation of world faiths?

Thoughts on James

A pregnancy is a time filled with the anticipation of joy. Our cultural image of the future father pacing in the waiting room paints that anticipation and anxiousness well. Kandice and I witnessed this recently when some friends of ours went through the stages of pregnancy; for our friends it seemed like each day ushered in a new level of anticipation and expectancy until the day of birth. Somewhat ironically James uses the language of birth to describe sin in our lives, "But each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death" (James 1:14-16). In the above passage James gives us a picture of the lineage of sin--how it can lead to our ruin. More than that though I think James wants to use the language traditionally used to express "joy", "expectation", and "eagerness"--the diction of new birth--to unveil the motives of our hearts when we commit sin.

Tim Keller mentioned one time in a sermon of his that when the Bible says "evil desires" the literal translation means: "over desires". That is, it isn't that I am desiring something 'evil', in and of itself, but that the ratio of desire is off: our desire for sex, money, power, intelligence (to name the big ones) outweighs our desire for God. They our overly desired.

We have such an expectancy with our sin, or over desires. We hope that they will give birth to joy. Instead they are far worse than being merely still born--they attack us. They are not just empty but they begin to tear us down. "Then after desire has conceived it gives birth to sin, and sin when it is full grown gives birth to death" (James 1:15). All our expectancy and anticipation in the face of sin is bankrupt. It's as if I invested everything I owned into a company that collapsed days after. The anticipation leads to destruction. We try time and time again to manufacture joy by following our over desires--our "fashioned idols". But there is only sin--then death.

Fortunately James gives us words of refuge. "Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above coming down from the father of lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:16-17). We should not confuse truth with lies, while our over desires fill us with anticipation and hopes of joy only to destroy us, "the Father of lights" gives us "perfect gift[s]" that grow us into the person of Christ.

Something to be thankful for.

Is there anything else?

Is there anything to add to this picture? What are some other worldviews? Are they as all-inclusive as this?

The Bible sees the history of the world in four stages—1) Creation by God, 2) Fall into sin, 3) Redemption through Christ, and 4) Final Restoration--the new heaven and new earth.

But creation-fall-redemption-restoration are not just discrete stages in time, they are also different aspects of present reality. Put another way, when we look at any object in this world, we know three things about it:

• First, it is part of God’s good creation.

• Second, it is fallen and affected by sin—distorted somehow, broken, falling short of its original purpose.

• Third, it is being, and can be, redeemed. The purpose of God is to wipe all creation clean of all the effects of sin until it is all restored to wholeness, beauty, and glory.This is the basis of the Christian worldview.

If you miss any these three perspectives, you have a distorted view of reality. For example, consider anger. Anger is inherently good. In God, who gets angry, we see anger’s original, creational purpose—as assertiveness to protect that which is good. Anger is an aspect of love. The opposite of love is not anger, but indifference. Yet sin has distorted anger and in human beings it is usually a source of great evil and is always dangerous. But the gospel of grace can redeem our anger so it becomes a source of energy for good. If, when considering anger, we leave out any of these aspects of a biblical world-view, our attitude toward anger will be out of touch with reality. We will either have too negative a view of anger (repressing and denying it) or too positive a view of anger (encouraging it as tool against ‘oppression,’ or blackmailing and exploiting others with it.)

Tim Keller

T.S. Eliot's The Journey of the Magi

T.S. Eliot's vision of the magi approaching Bethelehem, and consequently the new born Christ child is a beautiful picture of the season of Advent. It describes expectation and fear, life and death--the fullness of mystery. Let's approach this Advent season which such wonder in the face of the Christ born in a manger.

The Journey of the Magi

'A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For the journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.'
And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wine-skins,
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death,
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

   -- T. S. Eliot

The Deposition by B.H. Fairchild

And one without a name
Lay clean and naked there, and gave commandments.

—Rilke, “Washing the Corpse” (trans. Jarrell)

Dust storm, we thought, a brown swarm
plugging the lungs, or a locust-cloud,
but this was a collapse, a slow sinking
to deeper brown, and deeper still, like the sky
seen from inside a well as we are lowered down,
and the air twisting and tearing at itself.
But it was done. And the body hung there
like a butchered thing, naked and alone
in a sudden hush among the ravaged air.
The ankles first—slender, blood-caked,
pale in the sullen dark, legs broken
below the knees, blue bruises smoldering
to black. And the spikes. We tugged iron
from human flesh that dangled like limbs
not fully hacked from trees, nudged
the cross beam from side to side until
the sign that mocked him broke loose.
It took all three of us. We shouldered the body
to the ground, yanked nails from wrists
more delicate, it seemed, than a young girl’s
but now swollen, gnarled, black as burnt twigs.
The body, so heavy for such a small man,
was a knot of muscle, a batch of cuts
and scratches from the scourging, and down
the right side a clotted line of blood,
the sour posca clogging his ragged beard,
the eyes exploded to a stare that shot
through all of us and still speaks in my dreams:
I know who you are.

So, we began to wash
the body, wrenching the arms, now stiff
and twisted, to his sides, unbending
the ruined legs and sponging off the dirt
of the city, sweat, urine, shit—all the body
gives—from the body, laying it out straight
on a sheet of linen rank with perfumes
so that we could cradle it, haul it
to the tomb. The wind shouted.
The foul air thickened. I reached over
to close the eyes. I know who you are.

What do you think of the graphic representation here?
Who is it about?
What can be made of the twin lines "I know who you are." (at the end of each stanzas).
Do any lines stick out to you?

What, When, Where, How?

I learned in elementary school that the essential journalistic questions were: what, when, where, how. Each covered it's own category of understanding necessary to grasping any event. If there was an earthquake that happened what would tell us exactly that, an earthquake took place, while when would indicate the exact, or approximate, timing (3:00 PM). Where tells us the location, with an earthquake it would tell us the location (epi-center) it hit hardest. How is a different sort of question. How asks something which is pre-event; while: what, when, and where deal with the event itself how asks something more profound: a reason. That too can, most times, be dealt with rather easily: two tectonic plates collide (more or less) and cause the earthquake. The distant cousin to all these questions is "why". Why is the dangerous one; it's the questions that evokes the most emotion and it's the hardest to truly pin down.

"Why" is a similar question to "how" when talking about things. It is a question of cause, tectonic plates crash together. With humans though it is much different. The question of "why" is nebulous. The question "Why did Don rob the store" can be answered only with an understanding of his personal context. If Don was poor we might answer, "He needed some money." If Don was rich we might say, "He wanted a thrill." But even among those two simple answers there are unending variations and variables leading to even more variations of the simple question, "why." This makes the question of "why" fundamentally different from the question "how".

I feel for that very reason we hold the question: "why" closest to our hearts. We silently ask questions like: "Why am I here?"; "Why is the world the way it is?"; etc. The reasons to our silently asked questions are there, and they are many. The person who believes in God says in response to "Why is the world the way it is?": "Because the earth is a hard place filled with hurt and pain, but there are seeds of love and joy and eventually those seeds will overgrow the desert of pain"--and they list many reasons for their belief. The skeptic says in response to the same question: "I don't know, this world is a soupy murk with no clear answers to "why". And the Nihilist replies, "The world is the way it is because it is doomed, and any seeds of love and joy will be trampled by the march of impending death"--and they too can list many reasons for their beliefs. All three responses acknowledge the hurt of the world while maintaining different answers to "why". What is your answer to the fundamental "Why" questions?

"Why am I here?"
"Why do rich people prosper and the poor remain poor?"
"Why do nations go to war when everyone knows war is a bad thing?"
The list goes on.

Post any thoughts.

A Kernel of Wheat

"Listen carefully: Unless a grain of wheat is buried in the ground, dead to the world, it is never any more than a grain of wheat. But if it is buried, it sprouts and reproduces itself many times over."

^-Jesus

Christianity and Literature

"The religious doesn't not abolish the aesthetic but dethrones it."
--Soren Kierkegaard

"I have heard it said that belief in Christian dogma is a hindrance to the writer, but I myself have found nothing further from the truth. Actually, it frees the story-teller to observe."
--Flannery O'Connor

These two quotes, it might seem, are alike only in so far as they have to do with religion and art; a closer look though can tie them together in a tight weave. One might say the aesthetic has to be "dethroned"--using S.K.'s language-- to the free the author to "observe"--to use Flannery's. According to Flannery O'Connor it is the Christian belief that is the enabler of good story telling and not a throned aesthetic. A throned aesthetic limits the writer to being creative, at the least, for the sake of being creative, and at the most, for the sake of preaching humanism. A dethroned aesthetic and a throned Lord lead to a broadness of viewpoint, almost as if one were atop a hill charting the distances.

Bryan Halferty

Is this accurate? Do you disagree? Write your thoughts.