Interpreting History

There is an underlying idea that connects the thoughts behind defining ethics, interpreting history, and defining right doctrine and worship, which is ones knowledge of history. The wider ones view is of history and the knowledge and understanding one has of the events and motivations throughout history, the greater chance one has of getting these foundational ideas right.

One area in which we see this is that of eschatology. By far, the predominant eschatological view in America is dispensational premillenialism. This view has taken such a hold that most Christians don't even realize there are other views. This is really unfortunate because dispensational premillenialism is only about 100 years old.

This is my point, someone with a well informed knowledge of church history would realize that dispensational premillenialism is a recent innovation. Prior to approximately 1900, the church knew nothing of dispensational premillenialism. It had not been fabricated yet.  Of course, its proponents would not admit this.  Its proponents would argue the antiquity of dispensational premillenialism.

Granted, some people don’t see this as an issue. In fact, many Christians see corporate sanctification as a given. But there are inherent problems with the church developing new doctrines over time. What does this necessarily say about the church prior to the new doctrinal development?

One thing that is seriously exacerbating this problem is the now current American culture has developed in such a way that science and math are emphasized and history is all but ignored. The very short-term benefits of science are going to be far overshadowed by the damage of historical ignorance.  Two of these could be the repeating of mistakes and long-term cultural misdirection.

Freedom

I heard the phrase, "You’ve got your freedom, now who are you going serve?" and it stimulated a few thoughts. First, this is a standing question for everyone who exists. You see this dilemma in almost all situations and cultures. The more freedom one has, the more of a problem this question becomes. This is why we should keep tight reins on our children. Kids do not have the maturity to make decisions about life. There are too many temptations and too many dangers you give total freedom to a child. This would be why there is so much brokenness and grief in Hollywood. Here are a lot of people with large amounts of money, expansive freedom and very little accountability.

A child, and people in general, need to understand that regardless of ones station in life there is always some level of authority under which we live. But, as is the point of this post, the level of freedom we enjoy will reveal our true passions and true devotion.  And where our passion and heart lay, reveals whom we actually serve.  Hopefully that servitude is not centered on ourselves.

The Purpose of Clothing

On the sixth day of creation, God placed Adam and Eve in the garden to tend and keep it. In this sinless and unfallen state, they were naked. One very important point to realize in this is that they were not uncovered though. Man in his unfallen state was covered by the glory of God. When Eve and then Adam sinned, they lost that covering and were truly naked. It was at this point that God mercifully introduced clothing and even more importantly God introduced the sacrificial system. God sacrificed animals as a covering for man because of his sin.   Man was not meant to be uncovered. In his unfallen state, man thought right about the physical and had no sin. But with the introduction of sin, man lost the glory of God and needing to be covered, was given animal sacrifice as a temporary covering. Ultimately, the animal covering pointed to the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, who covered our sins.

So how do we answer the initial question?  The purpose of clothing is coverage. The coverage that God provided was because of man's sinful state and tendencies. Though Jesus has accomplished his work of atonement, we still sin, we still need to be covered. The clothing that covers us points to and reminds us of our need for Jesus' work. I believe this is one reason for the constant drive in society for nakedness. Fallen man does not want God and rejects Jesus' work. As Christians, what do we want to communicate in this regard to those around us and to God?

Usefulness

I recently started to read aloud to my children "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis. I highly recommend it, as it is one of my favorite pieces of fiction. A short dialogue between two of the characters stimulated a few thoughts. One of the ghost people commented to one of the solid people that he would consider going to heaven if he could be useful there. The solid person said that he would be of no use, but he was more than welcome to stay. The ghost person decided that he would be of more use in hell, so he returned there.

We should avoid being shocked by the response, but instead consider what would motivate such a response. Some people are driven by the desire to be fruitful, productive and busy. Others are not so much, or even not at all. I believe the key factor in this is context. Consider being invited to a birthday party for someone you love but you'll only go if you can wash dishes and clean up afterwards. This would be a weird response. Or consider taking a job at a factory, but instead of working, you spend your time witnessing to your coworkers. Doing so would probably get you fired. So the answer?  The ghost person did not understand his context.

Our responsibility then is to understand every situation that we are in and then live appropriately. We can only say that it is good to be useful and productive if the situation calls for it. And then, by all means, be productive.

This is about priorities, about understanding, and about maturity. The person who can't sit down and enjoy ones company, is not thinking clearly.

Being useful is ultimately only as valuable as it is defined by the one with the authority.

Defining Heaven

There has been a fair share of "return from death" stories where heaven is described in glowing terms. They all seem to have the same imagery. That is unless you are a Muslim or Hindu. Their "after death stories" carry the imagery of their faiths.

So as we form ideas of heaven in our own imaginations, we need to be very careful that we are doing so based on historical faith and not pop culture speculation. Even more so we need to be careful not to form our thoughts based on our passions. I had one person tell me that their mothers' perfect heaven would be a swimming pool full of beer. Aside from the nastiness of drinking something that you have been swimming in, the imagery is completely fleshly. Heaven is not about the fulfillment of our base desires. This is the kind of thing we see in Islam and Viking lore. For devout Muslim males, heaven is eternity in the company of seventy two maidens. For the Viking killed in battle, Valhalla (heaven) is an eternity of drinking and feasting in comforting warmth. Both of these images are centered on self and fleshly gratification. For the follower of Christ, heaven is being in perfect communion with God and his church, free from the battles against sin.

It is interesting to note that Scripture gives us very little description of eternal life, both the time immediately after death and the time following when we pass through the final judgment with new physical bodies, the faithful moving onto eternal life, the unfaithful to spend eternity away from the presence and blessing of God.

This, like so many others things in the Christian faith, shows us that we need to live by faith and not by sight.

Born This Way?

One of my kids printed out the lyrics for Weird Al's song "Perform this way", a spoof of "Born this Way" by Lady Gaga. Having never heard the original, I googled the lyrics and was struck by a few thoughts.

First, I would argue the initial point, that someone is born an exhibitionist. Someone may be born with a natural inclination towards acting/performing, but to appeal to "birth" as an excuse for crude exhibition is erroneous.

Second, even if someone was born with a tendency for such behavior, it still is not is valid excuse. This reminds me of Flip Wilson, back in the 70's with, "The devil made me do it." A lame excuse to avoid responsibility. I have heard of some races with a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Fair enough, but this does not excuse drunkenness. With the knowledge of an alcoholic tendency, one would need to be that much more careful, that much more guarded towards alcohol. We live in community for that very reason (among other things as well).  Would we excuse someone from homicidal tendencies simply because they claim to be born that way? Of course not. Claiming genetic predisposition is an easy, unverifiable excuse.

We need to learn to look to the church for our definitions and take responsibility for our actions.