A pattern worth recognizing

One of the great things about the Old Testament, in fact, the actual main point, is that it leads us and instructs us in our understanding of who Jesus Christ is and how he has fulfilled the salvation of the world.
This instruction is done via story and typology.  We are given, story after story, a pattern of how God interacts with his people.  Learning to recognize this pattern is absolutely invaluable in helping us to understand what God had done through Jesus Christ, to save the world.
In these next few posts, I hope to explore and map out this pattern.  I hope that this will lead us to a better understanding of the New Testament and the plan of salvation.

Location and non-corporeality

My wife and I recently had a conversation instigated by a book she is currently reading about angels.  The question came to mind about angels/spirits being "somewhere".  My responsive thought process went something like this:  it seems like we cannot speak of an angel or demon actually being anywhere because they do not possess a physical body.  Yet they truly exist.  The closest thing to which I can compare it, is to a concept.  We can point to a chair, but not the concept of a chair.  A concept is a non corporeal thing, yet still real.  The difference of course, is that an angel is a rational being. 
I would suggest that this non-location-based existence explains how a spiritual entity can seemingly be an influence everywhere at once.
This also might help explain how we can pray to the saints and understand that they can hear our petitions and pray for us.

Considering responsibilities in interpretation

The subject of the book of Revelation has again come to the fore, so I thought I would bring up my thoughts on responsibility in interpretation. 
It seems that the wide variety of thoughts on how to understand the book of Revelation bring out the worst in people.  It really is unfortunate that people can't just have simple dialog and discussion on this aspect of Scripture.  It is especially odd because of this books place in history.  For quite some time, the church did not include the book in the canon.  Obviously, they eventually did, but even now, there are no liturgical reading from the book.  These facts in themselves should provide us with slight apprehension and caution in approaching this book dogmatically or passionately.
I would like to suggest a couple of things as we approach this book.  First, we must recognize its Old Testament/covenant nature.  One honestly could view the book as Daniel part two.  The book of Revelation is opening up and revealing what Daniel had concealed.  The imagery used to communicate its message is clearly old covenant.  The people of the first century would understand the symbols and typology used by God through the apostle John, whereas we, many centuries later, miss very much. 
Second, we have to take the clear messages for what they are saying.  It simply is not honest to twist words so as to fit our preconceived theological framework.  For example, the book begins with and ends with the message, "These things will shortly take place." (1:1, 22:10, 22:12, 22:20).
And third, it must be acknowledged that the term "the antichrist" is never used in the book.  And even more pointed, the term "THE" antichrist is never used, period, anywhere.  The book of First John uses the term "antichrist" without the definite article.  As a side note, First John identifies "his current time" as the last hour, with many antichrists (2:18).
I may cover more on all of this later.

Considering Job, 3

So when one decides to dive in and read the book of Job, one begins and finds the first two chapters a very readable narrative.  So far, so good.  But then they reach chapter three, where the extended monologues and dialogs begin.  It is at this point that so many other things begin to appear more appealing. Any one who plows through and reads the entire book with understanding, ought to be commended.
That being said, chapters three through forty one consist of the thoughts and ideas of Job and his friends on why Job is suffering such tragedies.  These also contain God's words that silence the speculative ruminations of Job and his friends. The final chapter is a closing narrative, showing God's old covenant blessing upon Job, for his faithfulness. 
I really would like to merely offer a summary explanation of this large, central, monologic portion.  In essence, each person, Job included, offers his or her take on why Job is suffering.  What it simply comes down to is that men are sinful, men are weak and men are lacking in understanding.  Regardless of how hard we work, how good we try to be our how often we succeed or fail, God is covenantally faithful, but also extremely gracious.  God is a God of love.  As small minded and extremely limited in our vision and understanding, we cannot even begin to guess as to the final end result of the occurrences of history.  What God is doing, why he is doing it and how we fit into the picture, is typically and uncomfortably beyond our grasp.  Our fallen, sinful natures cannot and usually don't want to understand what God is going.
But the summary of it all is this: God loves and is working out all things for our good.  We may not understand it but we don't have to. Our responsibility is to faithfully trust God, do what he had commanded us to do, and use the tools he has given us to mold our wills to seek after and love only him.
Humility, obedience and trust that God will be faithful, even when we can't see it.  The things that he has promised, he will do.  God has put us in a relationship with him.  It is our responsibility to respond in faith.

The blood of the divine in the veins of mortals

We need to really do our best to understand what is happening when we partake of the Eucharist.  A faithful approach to understanding any doctrine of the church includes an articulate and honest assessment of the relationship between God and his people, throughout old covenant history.
When we begin to seek an understanding of what is actually occurring during the celebration of the Eucharist, we need to see the Eucharist as part of the covenant relationship between God and his people. 
Going back to the Abrahamic covenant, we can see that the sign of circumcision was not simply a nice memorial to remind the Jews of who they were.  The sign of circumcision literally made the receiver of the covenant sign a part of the people of God.  Literally, actually, truly, genuinely a part of God's people.
When we look at the sacrificial system given by God to his people during the Mosaic covenant, the blood that was spilled in the context of the sacrifice for the covering of sins was not simply a nice picture to remind the Jews how God had forgiven them.  That spilled blood literally covered their sins.  Literally, actually, truly, genuinely covered their sins.
So when we come to the celebration of the Eucharist, now, in the New Covenant, we are partaking of the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Literally, actually, truly, genuinely the body and blood of Christ, not a nice little picture to remind us of Jesus' sacrifice.
The mistake we do not want to make comes in one of two categories.  One, that the partaking of the Eucharist is simply a memorial, a non-sacramental reminder of Jesus' death (baptistic theology) or two, that the Eucharist is understood as a scientifically verifiable physical change in material, the bread and wine physically transform into flesh and blood (Roman Catholic theology).
The historic and Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic recognizes the literal change of the elements into the sacramental flesh and blood.  This is a literal change in a sacramental manner.
It's not a pretend reminder but it is also not a scientific ontological change.  It is something far greater that we can label and understand as sacro-covenantal.

Why would we kill?

I recently watched a movie, a Hollywood telling of the story of the lost boys of Sudan.  It was sad, but at the same time, moving.  The people of that nation has long been in a civil war, with almost unimaginable killing.  One scene showed small children in hiding, while soldiers went through their village killing anyone they could find, men, women and children.  To me, this is incomprehensible.  On what reasonable grounds could there be justification for shooting anyone.
While the reality of man's fallen, sinful nature is ever before us, that reality is not justification for sin.  It explains it, but does not justify it.
The civil war in Sudan is, apparently, based on religious and tribal differences.  That is about all I know of those details.  There is also the reality of racism.  If someone is raised to believe that one of another race is subhuman, killing them is of no consequence.  If someone is raised to believe that one of another race is basically on the same level as vermin, then killing them is a service to mankind.  If someone has something that we want, such as land or resources, then killing them provides the means for taking it.
I hope it is obvious that all of these reasons are based on faulty worldviews.  All men are made in the image of God.  No one should be killed, executed or otherwise killed unless they are guilty of murder.
The answer is really very simple.  God calls us to love one another and treat others as we would be treated.  Everything else is secondary.

Considering Job, 2

In my first post, I emphasized the importance of comprehending the time in which Job lived.  His life, during the time of Abraham, communicated to us that he was not living contemporaneous with an identified people of God.  In other words, Job's life was lived in pre-Abraham covenant. This means that God had not yet identified and set apart a people special to him.  All men were knowledgeable of and responsible to obey, God. 
The description we receive of Job, with his large family and large estate, shows us that he was living under God's blessing, for obedience.  We see in the book that Job is identified as a righteous man. So what happened?
It's important to note that we see the free wills acting in this historical sequence.  We see God's freewill, we see Jobs, and we see the devils.  It's also important to note that the devil needed to get permission from God to attack Job.  This in itself shows us that Job was living under God's blessing for obedience.
As a means of testing Jobs character, God allows the devil to harm Job's possessions, his family and his health, but he is not allowed to kill him.  The attack on possessions shows us that Job had been faithful to God and was enjoying God's covenantal blessing.  But it also shows us that God's blessing upon men was limited to things physical.  The devil attacks Job in these ways but does not take his life.  In all of this, thus far, Job responds rightly.
The book then moves into the monologue section, where Job's wife and friends all give their opinion as to why these bad things are happening to Job.  They all get it wrong.
In my next post, we'll consider why.

Resolutions

As we approach the end of the year 2015, people will be moved, driven or motivated to make a new years resolution.  Losing weight, eating less dessert, exercising more, spending less time online, etc, etc.  I recently heard a song with a line that said, "I won't waste another day." 
The question that comes to mind in situations such as these is that of the underlying belief.  If we are motivated to make a resolution, why?  The most reasonable answer would be that one believes the thing being resolved is important.  But I would strongly suggest that the thing being labeled as important needs to be analyzed and questioned.  Is it actually important and does it fit with the worldview you claim to embrace?  In other words, is the way that you are living or want to live, consistent with what you say you believe?
To be even more pointed, do your works and actions agree with your religious beliefs?  This is not a question that is easy to answer.  We tend to be blind to much in our own lives.  This is probably a question you should ask a close confidant or your father confessor.
But be ready to act on the answer you receive.  It may be difficult.

The meaning in the words

I recently came across the phrase, "she is the world to me."  And this struck me as having two distinct but opposite meanings.  First, this could mean that this particular female is very important to the point of taking on the value of the entire world, in a word, invaluable.
Or second, this could mean that this particular female is "the world" meaning "all that is contrary to godliness".  In other words, she is the thing that draws one away from all that is good and right. 
I'm not sure what to do with this observation, other than to point out the realization that words can take on various meanings and those meanings are typically defined by the one using them.
We need to be careful in this.

Early church fathers

Over the centuries, many documents, letters and sermons have been written and preserved from which we can gain insight into the beliefs and understanding of early Christians.  I am beginning a study of volume one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  From this reading I hope to gain one of two things.  Either some further text that will help me understand scripture better, or show me how errors were present, even in the first/second century church, thus validating the exclusion of these texts from the Bible.
Let's see how this goes....

The forest and the trees

We have all heard the phrase, "you can't see the forest for the trees". And whether or not the one speaking the phrase understands it or not, the question is that of perspective.  When we look at a particular situation in our lives or even just our lives in general, what is it that, one, draws our immediate attention and two, what forms or controls the worldview that directs our thinking?
We must learn to recognize our presuppositions in order to recognize, understand and root out our faulty thinking.  From thinking comes actions. One can critique others for too much thinking or for placing too much emphasis on verbal articulation. But these things come from a desire to think, speak and do what is pleasing to God.
Learning to see the big picture without sacrificing the ability to see and understand the details is very valuable.
All of this is tied together in this: words and actions have meaning and that meaning is found in the immediate and wide context of the situation. Learning to see the details and interpret them in the broader picture will provide the greatest understanding. And understanding is what it is all about.  If we do not understand someone, we cannot respond to them in any helpful manner.  If we do not understand someone that we claim to love, I would argue that we don't really love them.  How can you love what you don't know?
One could offer a multitude of examples about the value of understanding.  Imagine driving in a foreign country, stopping for directions and receiving instructions in a language you do not know.  Imagine having your doctor give a medical explanation of your physical malady using only post doctoral terminology.
I've heard many times about the value of listening, but this of course presupposes understanding.  It is only when we have understanding that we can truly listen and when we truly listen can we truly respond.  And is only when we truly love that we can respond rightly.

The impression

We have all heard the saying about making a good first impression.  I would have to say that at this point in history, and many other times as well, Islam is not making a good first, second or third impression.  Right now, accurate or not, when people hear "Islam", they think "terrorism". 
Much closer to home, we should be asking the question about ourselves.  If we have taken the name of Christ upon ourselves, what impression do people have of us and of Christ, through us?
It seems to me that both Scripture and church tradition teach that our one goal should be love.  Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful if people, when they heard our name, thought "For all his faults, I know that guy really cares."

From a position of strength

It may seem odd but the logic works.  It may not always be in our best interest to be healthy and/or wealthy.  My thought process goes like this.  First, when we are comfortable, we tend to become distracted and temporally focused.  We all have things that we like and like to do.  When everything is going our way, it seems that we tend to default to enjoying ourselves.  If we have extra money, we often think to buy something that we have been wanting.  If we have extra time, we often blow it on some form of entertainment.  If we are sleeping well, have abundant strength and health, we often focus on the things that make us even more so.
But when you look back over this list, we can see that love of God and love for neighbor aren't in the mix. 
On the other hand, when we are sick, we are forced to consider just how frail and weak we actually are.  We are forced to consider eternity and our position before God.
When we are poor, we are forced to trust in the mercy of God.  We are forced to depend upon his hand for our daily bread and not our own debit card.
When we are young, strong and seemingly invincible, we forget just how short life actually is.  When we are old, tired and spent, we can look back over our lives and pray that God will have mercy on our foolishness, short sightedness and self centeredness.
My point is not to endorse poverty and sickness, but to simply remind us that true reality is a life lived to the glory of God, not a life of distraction in a vain and empty world.

That's entertainment

One of the things I have been ruminating upon, as of late, is that of distraction.  It seems that distraction is the American way.  Find something that you like, that lets you escape, at least for a little while, so you do not think about/worry about, all of life's concerns.
Of course, this is not a Christian action.  While we should never worry about anything, we should never try to leave reality, as a response to the troubles that are common to all men.
So what about entertainment?  I have found that any entertainment, whether music, movies, art, poetry, etc., if perceived correctly, can be used to draw is closer to God and closer to valuable thought.  This is true even for the ugly things in film or reality.  As an example, I have enjoyed the Insidious movies.  While they are of the horror genre, they are valuable because they can (and should) move us to consider: death, eternity, responsibility for sin, the things that evil is actually capable of and what is true about life after death.
The movie had much that was wrong, but it also had some that was right and thought provoking.
The same can be said of music.  What is being said?  What worldview is held by the composer/performer that would move him to create such a piece?  Are they responding to something?  Is that response good and right?
In short, we need to use all the time we have in some sort of valuable way.  We should never let our minds/hearts be drawn away by the empty or evil.

"Do you want fries with that?"

A silly illustration, I know, but my point is a simple one.   Why do we think that we have a smorgasbord of options in regards to our religious practice?  Do we seriously think that worship is rightly done when it is something that moves US?  Do we choose what doctrines we believe to be true because they seem right to us?
If we go back to the first century church, i.e., the church under the apostles' direction, do we seriously think that each was doing what they thought right?  Of course not.  Each church was started by an apostle and moved in a certain direction with certain doctrines.  Any questions were passed to the apostles for clarification.
And later on, when questions or controversies arose, an ecumenical council was formed to answer the question.  The answer was another question that is, "what has the church always/believed?"
This is the question we should ask now.

"Hey, how are you?"

This question really bothers me.  We hear this, from a wide variety of people, multiple times a day.  But in nine times out of ten, they don't really mean it.  I'm not suggesting that the ones asking the question don't really care (though that may be the case), the question has become a social norm devoid of normal meaning.
I've actually read that only a "bore" would answer this question literally.  If this is actually the case or not, it is pretty sad that a question of genuine concern has been gutted of meaning. 
In my opinion, let your yes be yes and your no be no.  Let your words mean what the words actually mean, and follow up on them.  If you want to ask that question, let it be known that you want an honest answer and that you actually care about the person giving the answer.
Maybe we could use this as a way to communicate love to someone else.

Considering Job, 1

A friend recently began to muse on Job, the man in the Old Testament that lived through so much suffering.  I thought it might be helpful to give some considerations as to what was going on with Job in his particular situation.

The really get a good understanding of Job it is important to understand his context.  Job lived around the same time or just before the time of Abraham.  This is important because prior to Abraham, there were no "children of God" in the "Abrahamic Covenant" sense. At this point in history, God has not yet revealed himself to a specific people.  At creation, God revealed himself to Adam, in what we call the Adamic Covenant.  This was a very simple relationship.  Basically, "I am your God, you are my people, here is what is expected of you."  God then laid out the one requirement (don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet).  God then communicated that if they did so, death would immediately follow.  

You all know the rest of the story.  From that point onward, mankind began a rapid decline into depravity, ending with global destruction.  God spared the righteous Noah, his sons/daughter-in-laws and the animals.  After Noah got back onto land, God then established the Noahic Covenant.  This was really the same covenant as the Adamic, but with some more details.

Mankind spread and multiplied and also continued to sin.  The story continues up to the time of Abraham, when God called him out of Ur to a promised land.  Most theologians believe that Job lived just prior to Abraham's appearance.

The other thing to consider is that as Job was not in "covenant" with God in a Jewish/Abrahamic manner, Job could not appeal to any special covenantal privileges.  But at the same time, obviously Job has some knowledge of God and some sort of relationship/understanding of God.  We see this in his words and responses to his situation.  

All that being said, the main point is this: we cannot think of Job in modern day, post resurrectional reality.  The world and God's interaction with it, at Job's time, was radically different than it is today.

Fleeing

I wish I could have been there.  During the third century, when Christianity was legalized, large numbers of people started coming into the church.  As this began, the unwritten requirements of the faith, i.e., that what the average Christian was expected to be, began to ease, considerably.
In response to this, a substantial number of holy men and women began to flee to the desert.  In summary their thought was this: Christianity is becoming watered down.  Christianity is being popular and easy.  It is not supposed to be.  Our life should be a hard struggle against temptation and sin. 
I wish I could have been there to see and understand what exactly they were seeing and saying.  What exactly was their argument?
I have to wonder if we are in the same place, here in America, but we are to lazy and sinful to see it and respond?