Erasmus & the Seeds of Reformation

ERASMUS DESIDERIUS OF ROTTERDAM (c. 1466-1536)
“the crowning glory of the Christian humanists” (Latourette 1953)

Erasmus was the most important humanist writer of the Renaissance who laid the intellectual foundations of the Reformation . He was born out of wedlock in Rotterdam, Netherlands. His father was a priest; and his mother took care of him. He was educated as a boy at St. Lebuin’s, where he was taught humanities.

After losing his parents to the plague, he was then sent to a school run by a monastic order called Brethren of the Common Life. Their founder was Gerhard Groote who attacked abuses of the Church and called people to be holy, not as monastics, but within their current vocations—the common life. Their life was based on what was called the “modern devotion”—contemplating and imitating the life of Christ. Their schools “stressed both scholarship and devotion, and became centers for the renewal of the church, for most of their alumni were possessed of a critical and reforming spirit” (Gonzalez 1984). There, Erasmus gleaned the importance of a relationship with God but eschewed the harsh rules and methods of the monks, who broke students’ spirits to teach humility (Galli and Olsen 2000).

He resisted monastic life, but joined the Augustinians out of necessity, since he and his brother were poor. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1492.


“When I get a little money I buy books. If any is left . . . I buy food and clothes.” – Erasmus of Rotterdam


Soon afterwards, he was sent to study theology at the University of Paris and, eventually, throughout Europe, “driven by a desire to seek out the best theologians of his day” (Galli and Olsen 2000). He was not a great scholar, but had a skill for Latin. Once, while in England, in 1499, John Colet exhorted him to be a “primitive theologian” like the church Fathers rather than adopt the argumentative habits of the modern scholastics. Turning his efforts to studying Greek, he wrote to Colet saying, “I cannot tell you, dear Colet, how I hurry on, with all sails set, to holy literature. How I dislike everything that keeps me back, or retards me.” Actually, he came to dislike not only monasticism and scholasticism, but also theology and sacraments. What he desired was a purging of superstition and return to the ethical teachings of Christ. Still, he shied away from any talk of breaking from the Church or doing away with dogmas or traditions. “He appeared to cherish the conviction that through the appeal to man’s reason both Church and society could be vastly improved” (Latourette 1953).

The evils of the ecclesial and monastic hierarchy were themes of his social satire in The Praise of Folly (ca. 1511) and Familiar Colloquies (1518). “. . . Widely read by the cultivated class of Northern Europe[,] such reading created a spirit of discontent with the papal system and a desire to have reform in religion” (Cairns 1996).

In 1515, Handbook of the Christian Soldier became a cult classic. With it Erasmus targeted educated lay people and began to alter their self-perceptions. He painted the clergy as educators who should teach the laity everything they know. He emphasized personal disciplines rather than institutional sacraments. He called for a reformation which he characterized as a collective return to the Fathers and Scripture. He said reading scripture is vital because it is transformational, motivating toward love. Much like the Brethren of the Common Life, he wrote that the NT is the law of Christ we are called to obey and Christ is the example we are called to imitate

In 1516, Erasmus produced the first Greek New Testament. Among those who praised his work were Pope Leo X and the soon-to-be reformer, Martin Luther. Once it was printed, theologians could finally compare the original language with the Vulgate. Several points of translation were shown to be bogus. Concerning marriage, what was once translated as “sacrament” was now understood to mean “mystery.” “Do penance” was revised to “repent.” And where “full of grace” once described Mary, it was more accurately “favored one.” This pulled the rug out from under the scholastics and conservative Catholics, while delighting reformers. Zwingli “found congenial [Erasmus’] passion for reform and the Greek New Testament of that master so enthralled him that he memorized much of its text” (Latourette 1953). In fact, he copied Paul’s letter from a borrowed copy and memorized them all in Greek (Cairns 1996).

The theme and tone of Erasmus’ books compelled Luther to write asking for his support against the Church. Though Erasmus also saw the need for reform, he did not see the need for disunity, and wrote, “I detest dissension. . . . I doubt that either side in the dispute can be suppressed without grave loss. It is clear that many of the reforms for which Luther calls are urgently needed” (Galli and Olsen 2000). He also made it clear that he was not about to take on the Church, saying, “I am not so made as to fly in the face of the Vicar of Christ.” “Both sides reproach me and seek to coerce me,” he said. “Some claim that since I do not attack Luther I agree with him, while the Lutherans declare that I am a coward who has forsaken the gospel.”

In 1524, Erasmus published The Freedom of the Will, which focused on reforming abuses instead of attacking doctrine and upheld free will rather than “Luther’s view that man’s will was so bound that the initiative in salvation must come from God” (Cairns 1996). That same year Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will. By the 1530’s, 10-20% of all book sales were by Erasmus. (Galli and Olsen 2000)


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Galli, Mark, and Olsen, Ted. 131 Christians Everyone Should Know. Nashville: Holman Reference, 2000.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Volume I:The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1984.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953.

McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998.

When God Shakes the Heavens: The Message of Haggai

Background

In 586 B.C., Solomon’s Temple was destroyed and the last of God’s people taken captive by Babylon. In 539 B.C., Cyrus the Great took power over the then Persian Empire. About a year later, he allowed displaced peoples to return to their land. This included the Hebrews, many of whom left for Jerusalem around 538 under the leadership of Sheshbazzar. “They had started well, building an altar and offering sacrifices, then laying the foundation for the Lord’s house the following year. Construction had ceased, however, as enemies mocked the builders’ efforts.”[1] Meanwhile, around 522 B.C., a second group of Hebrews returned to the Land under the leadership of Governor Zerubabbel (rightful heir to the kingdom) and High Priest Joshua. “Since Judah was still under Persian control, . . . rule in the community was now divided between the governor and the high priest, giving the priest a more prominent role.”[2] But among the Jewish people “there was a significant amount of expectation surrounding [Zerubabbel] that had a messianic flavor to it. Undoubtedly some expected him to set up the promised kingdom and bring freedom from their slavery (to the Persians).”[3] Nevertheless, he had his work cut out for him. The economy was in shambles and the temple was yet unfinished. This was no small matter. “The temple symbolized God’s presence among his people and served as a tangible reminder of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. Its physical existence in the midst of the Hebrew community was designed to prompt obedience to covenant stipulations and inspire true worship of the Lord.”[4] Left to themselves the people neglected the building of the temple and occupied themselves with their own personal affairs. So God sent His prophets. “The ministry of Haggai and Zechariah caused people to rally and complete the task within five years. The rebuilt temple was dedicated in 515 B.C.”[5] Haggai’s ministry was short-lived—about four months—but had a major impact on the hearts of the Remnant of Israel. We have a record of four messages he delivered in the year 520 B.C.

August 29 – September 21: “Consider your ways.” (1:1-15)

How can we expect God to honor us, if we are failing to honor Him? The first words, God says through Haggai summarize the problem with the Hebrew remnant: they think rebuilding God’s house can wait. Yahweh, their Delieverer, Who brought them out of captivity (yet again) and into the land of promise, sets them straight. How could they be living in “paneled houses,” which implies that they’ve already made the “finishing touches,”[6] while God’s house remains in ruin? He exhorts them to consider their ways. They have worked hard and have little to show for it. Why? God is withholding His blessing because the people have lost sight of the Source. They are preoccupied with their personal lives and have given no thought to what God wants them to do. God is not about to let His people think that everything is okay, so he makes it so that nothing they do is fruitful. “The remnant must reorder its priorities and complete the temple before it can expect the blessing of God upon its efforts.”[7]

In our lives today, we need to consider our ways. When we work so hard yet have nothing to show for it, there are times when we should consider the possibility of sin in our lives. Now, there may be many different factors that can explain a disappointing season of life; maybe only God knows the reasons for an apparent run of bad luck. But He also knows our hearts and sometimes uses pain or hardship to get our attention and to help us grow up and out of sin. The writer of Hebrews instructs us, “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? . . . Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.”[8] God’s aim is never to give us pain, but to train us in righteousness. So when we find ourselves being disciplined by the Lord, we should resolve repentance where necessary and receive any correction or healing the process may bring.

The Apostle James writes, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”[9] The picture painted is one of losing the way and asking for directions. Strangely, the Hebrews lost their way when they got distracted from the worship of God by the blessings of God. As American Christians, this is a very real danger for us as well. So many otherwise good, helpful, and enjoyable things (and, yes, some detrimental things) distract us from what God wants us to do. There is a time to enjoy life and the things God has given us, but not at the expense of putting God first in our hearts and living for Him, submitting our own pleasure and pursuits to His will. Jesus taught us to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”[10] And this is the message of Haggai. We need to consider our ways and get our priorities straight. What are we using our time, energy and resources to pursue? When we seek God, we get His blessings too, not earned but “added.” But when we selfishly seek our own gain, we risk ending up with “drought.”

When Haggai speaks to the Hebrews for the first time, it is to a people who have lost their way, and he is calling them to change course and get back on track with God’s ways. Instead of tending to their own houses, they are to gather materials and build God’s house so that He “may take pleasure in it and . . . that [He] may be glorified.” At receiving this instruction their response is to obey and fear the Lord. After all, their eyes have just been opened to the reality of their fruitlessness: God is disciplining their negligence by withholding His blessing from them and no amount of hard work will be able to counteract God’s displeasure. However, by obeying God’s voice and building the temple, they are making the glory of God their priority and changing their ways.

God responds in an awesome way. Through His messenger He reveals a profound and reassuring truth. He simply says, “I am with you.” This revelation stirs the people to work on God’s house. Literally, it opens their eyes to the fact that “the God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man.”[11] He does not need the temple in order to be worshiped. He does not need an earthly throne on which to sit. He is already among them. His presence is not predicated on any particular place. He is not having them build a temple out of necessity, but as a symbol of His desire to dwell among them. And with those four short words—I am with you—He communicates the loving message that He is pleased with the hearts of His people as they offer themselves in worship through the building of the temple.

This is not unlike the Great Commission. As Jesus Christ commanded us to make disciples wherever we go, baptizing and teaching them, He also gave this promise: “behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”[12] And so we see the character of God in that, when He asks something of us, He will not abandon us to our duty; He will be right there with us until the end.

October 17: “I will give peace.” (2:1-9)

It has been about a month now. The people have been working on the temple. There is no question as to where their priorities lie. The question is now whether they have what it takes to build a temple worthy of the Lord. There are those who have seen the splendor of the former temple that Solomon built. And it is hard for them to stay positive and not to make comparisons to the “good ol’ days.” It is as if Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral was shattered to pieces by an earthquake and he was now forced to build a new basic, wooden structure with a mere $1 million budget. It is discouraging. So God addresses this with an encouraging word through Haggai. First, He acknowledges and validates their feelings and even agrees—the new temple is not much to look at. Second, He reminds them to take courage and be strong because He is with them. It is not the glory of the temple that matters, but the God who dwells there and His covenant relationship with His people. So, to those remembering the past, He takes them even further back to the deliverance from Egypt and His covenant with them at the beginning. He reminds them that He has not changed and He will continue to keep His promises! Third, since His Spirit is with them, He tells them not to fear. “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.”[13] Power, because it is not in our own strength; love, because it is not for our own gain; and self-control, because it is so easy to get sidetracked and lose our way. They have all they need, by the power of the Spirit, to press on and fulfill God’s commission to build the temple. Finally, God gives the people a reminder of His sovereignty. The people may not have the money or the expertise to build a temple like Solomon did. They wish they could give God more. But He will soon shake the heavens, the earth, the dry land, the sea, and all the nations and will Himself fill His house with glory. All the treasures of all creation belong to Him and He can array His earthly dwelling with untold riches. He Himself will make the glory of the new temple outshine the old.

Of course, we know that God has done what He said He would do. Herod took the temple that the people built under Zerubabbel and expanded and beautified it beyond what any of them could have imagined. Furthermore, as Jack Hayford points out, “It was into this building Jesus himself entered centuries later! Though it was an expanded structure, embellished by Herod’s enterprise, God’s glory incarnate, ‘full of grace and truth’ arrived in fullest splendor as prophesied.”[14] Also, it may be worth noting that the peace God promises to give there may have been at least partly realized when Christ died on the cross and the temple curtain tore in two, signifying the peace that Christ achieved between God and man.

Indeed, the message of Haggai on this day is an encouragement to us who know we have nothing to offer God that He did not first give to us. We do not have to be discouraged when we do not measure up because by His Spirit our sovereign “God will supply every need of [ours] according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.”[15]

December 18: “I will bless you.”(2:10-19)

By way of reasoning, God is now trying to help the Hebrew remnant understand their present situation. They have turned to the Lord and devoted themselves to His work. They have been faithful in carrying out His command, even working through some natural discouragement with the supernatural help of the Spirit. Even so, their plight has not changed much. Why not? The answer to this question is obvious says Hayford: they cannot “expect the work of three months to undo the neglect of sixteen years.”[16] It takes time for crops to grow. And it takes time for seeds of blessing to manifest. The message is that, despite appearances, God will bless them from now on.

This is a good reminder for us today. We may have repented and been forgiven of various sins, yet they still haunt us. A past as a con artist on the streets may make it difficult to maintain honest relationships with people. A past in pornography may carry with it images that are hard to forget. A past of betrayal may leave deep wounds of bitterness. A lifetime of materialism may make it hard to budget money or tithe. A past of promiscuity may mean a woman raises a child alone. For many of us, the sins of our past become the struggles of our everyday lives. We are forgiven and pursuing righteousness while still having to deal with the consequences of our past. That is why we are exhorted to “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and . . . run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith.”[17] “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”[18] Indeed, when we take the time to understand and do what God wants us to do, we will be “fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work."[19]

December 18: “I have chosen you.” (2:20-23)

The final message of Haggai is not addressed to the priest or the people, but to Zerubabbel alone. Again he speaks of God shaking the heavens and the earth. Verses 6 and 21, taken together with Hebrews 12:26-28, allude to a future kingdom that God will establish that will do away with all other kingdoms. Zerubabbel is significant in this prophecy in that he is a descendant of David, through whom the lineage of the Messiah will be traced.[20] God does not call him “governor” here, but “my servant,” and He speaks of him as “chosen.” These terms “have direct association with the Messiah concept presented elsewhere in the Old Testament. More important the signet [is] a symbol of royal authority, much like a scepter or crown.”[21] Here God is reaffirming His covenant with David to establish his throne forever. The prophecy does not so much concern Zerubabbel as it anticipates the coming of Messiah. This is good news for the Hebrew remnant, which is still under the rule of Persia and subject to surrounding enemies. A coming Messiah could give them hope that soon God would vindicate His people and make things right. He will save them from injustice and oppression once and for all.

What this means for us today is that there will be a final shaking of the present age that gives way to the next when the people of God will receive “a kingdom that cannot be shaken.”[22] Like Zerubabbel, who is chosen by virtue of his lineage, we too are chosen in Christ and “in him we have obtained an inheritance” (italics mine),[23] for “if we endure, we will also reign with him.”[24] But this is not simply a future reality. We are even now the Body of Messiah, a royal priesthood invested with the authority and power to act on behalf of His kingdom to bring about His purposes in the world.

Conclusion

The message of Haggai is as relevant for us today as it was to Israel in 520 B.C. Before, God called the His people to leave their paneled houses and build His temple. Now, He calls us to put Him first above all other things. Before, He promised His temple would be a place of peace. Now, He has since made a way of peace between us whereby we can be the temple of the Holy Spirit. Before, He blessed His people though they were still unclean from their past. Now, He now declares us righteous so that He can make us holy and blameless. Before, He shook the heavens and Christ came to earth as Redeemer. Soon, He will once more shake the heavens when Christ comes again as King.



--

[1] Jack W. Hayford, Hayford’s Bible Handbook (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 264.
[2] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 797.
[3] John H. Walton, et. al., The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 796.
[4] Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 531.
[5] Jack W. Hayford, Hayford’s Bible Handbook (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 264.
[6] John H. Walton, et. al., The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 797.
[7] Jack W. Hayford, Hayford’s Bible Handbook (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 261.
[8] Hebrews 12:7, 12-13, English Standard Version.
[9] James 1:5, English Standard Version.
[10] Matthew 6:33, English Standard Version.
[11] Acts 17:24, English Standard Version.
[12] Matthew 28:16-20, English Standard Version.
[13] 2 Timothy 1:7, English Standard Version.
[14] Jack W. Hayford, Hayford’s Bible Handbook (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 261.
[15] Philippians 4:19, English Standard Version.
[16] Jack W. Hayford, Hayford’s Bible Handbook (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 264.
[17] Hebrews 12:1-2, English Standard Version.
[18] Galatians 6:9, English Standard Version.
[19] Colossians 1:10, English Standard Version.
[20] See Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27.
[21] Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 529.
[22] Hebrews 12:28, English Standard Version.
[23] Ephesians 1:11, English Standard Version.
[24] 2 Timothy 2:12, English Standard Version.

Revelation: Who We Worship

WE BECOME LIKE THAT WHICH WE WORSHIP

Jack Hayford opens his book, Worship His Majesty, with these words: “In a tropical forest a tribal chieftain bows before a crude figure fashioned from sticks and stones bound together by jungle vines. Somewhere in Asia in a fantastically ornate temple a young man burns incense before a lavishly decorated Buddha. In the heartland of America, a small group of locals meet in an unobtrusive building in a small Nebraska town to sing and pray together. A man in the suburbs of Detroit spends the entire morning meticulously washing and waxing his foreign-made sports sedan, while his teenage daughter spends hours in a poster-plastered room listening to CDs by her favorite rock superstar. All of these people are worshiping. . . . whether or not we recognize the form it takes, every one of us worships something or someone. And you should understand that whom or what you worship exerts tremendous influence over what you are—and what you will become.”[i]

“Not to us, LORD, not to us but to your name be the glory, because of your love and faithfulness. Why do the nations say, "Where is their God?" Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. 4 But their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands. They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell. They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk, nor can they utter a sound with their throats. Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.” (Psalm 115:1-8, TNIV)

“Whatever you value most highly or place the greatest worth upon, that is what you worship” and you become like that which you worship.[ii] Why? Because “the act of worship means you are developing a set of values; you are determining what you desire most. Worship means you are choosing priorities; you are establishing what comes first in your life. Worship means you are determining what you are to become; you are choosing in whose image you want to be made.”[iii]

WORSHIP MUST BEGIN WITH GOD.

Worship means ascribing worth to something. “Whatever you value most highly or place the greatest worth upon, that is what you worship.”[iv] So shouldn’t we worship the God who is worthy of all our praise, Who is truly higher and more valuable than anything? After all, He is our Creator, Sustainer, Savior, Healer, Life, and Sovereign King over all! One of the medieval masters of theology, St. Anselm, says it would be a sin not to! “If man or angel always [gave] to God his due, he would never sin. . . . Therefore to sin is nothing else than not to render to God his due. . . . he demands from you all that you are and have and can become?”[v]

So how do we worship God? Whether we are praising God for His holiness, relying on His strength in serving Him, or repenting of sin because of His conviction, worship is always a response to Him. Author Patrick Kavanaugh writes in Worship: a Way of Life, that “Worshipping God . . . is what happens when we become God-conscious (whether this is initiated by God or by ourselves) and we make a right response.”[vi] The first necessary component of worship is God-consciousness, whether that God-consciousness is initiated in some way by the Spirit or by us when we make a willful effort to focus our thoughts on God. God-consciousness can come about in many ways, such as when we suddenly notice the beauty of God’s creation all around us, when, out of the blue, certain Scripture verses come to mind, when we sing a praise song, or in the midst of using our gifts to serve others. The bottom line is we need something to respond to—some sort of Revelation of Who God is and What He has done, what He is doing, and what has promised to do.

WHO IS GOD?

A.W. Tozer wrote that, “Worship rises and falls with our concept of God.”[vii] It is vitally important to be clear and balanced in our understanding of Who God is. God is not a God of love only. Exodus 34:7 says, He is “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” The Apostle Paul boils this down to one statement in Romans 11:22: “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God.”

It is so important to have a clear revelation of God because it is God to whom we respond. But even though He reveals Himself to us through Scripture and by His Spirit, we could never fully understand Him. That’s why it is helpful to use symbols in worship—to express things about God, Who is beyond all comprehension, in ways we can understand. We use metaphors like Father, King, or All-Consuming Fire, all which say something about His nature and relationship to us. Of course, symbols like the cross and communion also speak volumes of God’s justice and mercy. Just remember, “a symbol is not an end in itself. It [represents something beyond itself]. A symbol in Christian worship signifies supernatural reality.”[viii] In fact the ultimate symbol in worship is God Himself who took on a human nature and became a living symbol of Who God is—Jesus Christ is the exact representation of the Father. One of the early Church fathers, St. Athanasius, says it this way: “The Savior of us all, the Word of God, in His great love took to Himself a body and moved as Man among men, meeting their senses, so to speak, half way. He became Himself an object for the senses, so that those who were seeking God in sensible things might [grasp] the Father through the works which He, the Word of God, did in the body.”[ix]

WHAT HAS GOD DONE?

We could say so much about what God has done throughout history. Many of us could share what He’s doing in our lives today. But since it is the Easter season, I want to get specific and focus on what God has done through the incarnation of Christ.

Remember that St. Anselm’s defines sin as “nothing else than not to render to God his due . . . He demands from you all that you are and have and can become?”[x] The Bible says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Anselm asks, “How then do [I] pay God for [my] transgression? If in justice I owe God myself and all my powers, even when I do not sin, I have nothing left to render to him for my sin. What will become of [me] then? How will [I] be saved?”[xi] If we owe God everything, and yet fail to give it to Him, how can we ever make it up? Even if we stop sinning and start giving everything to Him again, how can we ever give more than all we have? Or using the illustration of the traffic light, if you run through a red light and get a ticket, you cannot make up for it by promising to stop at every green light from now on because that is already required of you. When the requirement is perfection you can never make up for falling short. The problem is that the penalty for falling short is death—spiritual and physical. Only someone who has never fallen short of perfection could save us.

So the Logos became Immanuel.

He laid aside His rights as God and lived by the limitations of His human nature. Through the Spirit, Jesus lived a perfectly righteous, sinless life. Because He didn’t have to pay His own sin debt He could cover ours. And because He is the infinite God He traded His life not just for one man but for whosoever believes in Him. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 3:25, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.” God forgave our debt by taking it on Himself and paying it with His own blood.

Not only did He die for us; he also lived for us. When we put our faith in Him, He both cleanses us of our sin and clothes us with His righteousness. As Paul says in Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

Not only did Christ redeem our souls but also our bodies. Romans 6:5 says, “if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.” Athanasius explains that, “the supreme object of His coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body. This was to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that He had Himself conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt; and it was in token of that and as a pledge of the future resurrection that He kept His body incorrupt.”[xii]

Coming back to the idea of using symbols to understand God and what He has done, the 16th Century reformer, Martin Luther, has some amazing things to say about Christ as our husband. “Faith unites the soul to Christ, as the wife to the husband . . . if a true marriage . . . is accomplished between them . . . then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in common, as well good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ possesses, that the believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own, and whatever belongs to the [human] soul, that Christ claims as His. If we compare these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain. Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin, death, and condemnation. Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell will belong to Christ, and grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if He is a Husband, He must needs take to Himself that which is His wife's, and at the same time, impart to His wife that which is His.”[xiii]

“Thus the believing soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from all sin, fearless of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of its Husband Christ. Thus He presents to Himself a glorious bride, without spot or wrinkle, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word; that is, by faith in the word of life, righteousness, and salvation.”[xiv]

Luther also points to a couple of implications given the fact that Christ is both King and Priest. As King, “all things, even those of earth and hell, are subject to Him—for otherwise how could He defend and save us from them?”[xv] As Priest, “He intercedes for us with God in heaven . . . He also teaches us inwardly in the spirit.”[xvi] “As Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband's is also the wife's. Hence all we who believe on Christ are kings and priests in Christ”[xvii]

“First, as regards kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, in spiritual power, he is completely lord of all things, so that nothing whatever can do him any hurt . . . [Nevertheless], in the experience of life we see that we are subjected to all things, and suffer many things, even death. . . . [so we need to remember that] this is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of enemies, and is powerful in the midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation . . . This is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and almighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe [in Christ].”[xviii]

“Nor are we only kings . . . but also priests forever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we believe in Him: that just as we are His brethren and co-heirs and fellow-kings with Him, so we should be also fellow-priests with Him, and venture with confidence, through the spirit of faith, to come into the presence of God, and cry, "Abba, Father!"[xix]

That’s the bottom line: through Christ we can come into the presence of God and have fellowship with our Father because the He has cleansed us of the sin that keeps us from Him. There is only one proper response to so great a holiness and love: and that is to give ourselves back to Him in worship. And as we do we will become like Him Who we worship. Amen!

_____

[i] Jack Hayford, Worship His Majesty, 5-6.
[ii] Jack Hayford, Worship His Majesty, 6.
[iii] Jack Hayford, Worship His Majesty, 7-8.
[iv] Jack Hayford, Worship His Majesty, 6.
[v] St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?
[vi] Patrick Kavanaugh, Worship: A Way of Life, 2001.
[vii] as cited in Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism, 1999.
[viii] Robert Webber.
[ix] Athanasius, On the Incarnation.
[x] St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?
[xi] St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo?
[xii] Athanasius, On the Incarnation.
[xiii] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.
[xiv] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.
[xv] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.
[xvi] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.
[xvii] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.
[xviii] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.
[xix] Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty.

Bow Down to the Science Gods

I don't really have time to write. But it needs to be said, so I'll make it brief.

Did you catch this week's episode of House, M.D.? There was a pregnant woman having deadly complications that would have easily been solved by aborting the pregnancy. House referred to the "fetus" as a parasite getting in the way of his real patient--the mother, who was a real person. Cuddy, a woman, referred to the "baby" as a patient too that should be saved by any means if at all possible. She took charge of the case and, thus, went about trying to save the lives of both the mother and child. House, at every step, recommended removing the fetus. They end up opening up the womb to do surgery on the 21-month-old baby, which will in turn heal the mother. It turns out this procedure was successful and both lives were saved.

I thought the episode was good, thought-provoking and entertaining. What I was curious about after were viewer reactions. So I went to the website. I found a poll asking "Who did you think was eventually going to be right about saving Emma (the mother)?" As of right now, sixty-two percent said House. On the message boards the first night, people were talking about how touched they were and how, even though everything turned out okay, Cuddy should not have let her emotions get in the way of her objective judgment as a doctor.

I'm beside myself here! WHY IS TRYING TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A MOTHER AND CHILD LABELED AS EMOTIONAL, OUTSIDE THE CATEGORY OF RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE? It is because many people see this as a choice between science/medicine and emotion/opinion. I see it as a question of ethics/morality. Without going into details now, Morality is as objective as Beauty, Logic and bare facts. For example, the human body is a beautiful work of art; 2+2=4; I just ate a banana. All of these statements are objectively true.

The statement that "a fetus is a person" is in the realm of objective ontology (either he is or it isn't; just because scientific inquiry cannot shed light on the matter does not mean we cannot know). If the fetus is a full human person, and if a doctor's duty is to save people's lives, then the fetus should be treated equally; this is an objective question of morality and ethics. I'm not ignoring the fact that people differ in their assessment of the nature of a human fetus. Nevertheless, it is an ontological and ethical question for which a reasonable case can be made on either side of the argument. Whether Cuddy treated the baby is not a question of emotion but of ethics. Her actions simple must follow from her understanding of the facts: that the baby is a person. If the baby is a person, it is only right to treat him and morally detestable not to. (Emotion may accompany reason, but is not the bassis of the course of action; compassion, btw, is also ethical and reasonable).

Now, House was also acting on his understanding of the facts: that the fetus is not a person until it is born. Was he being emotional? Maybe, but I think not. What this shows is a disagreement about a factual question.

What is implied in the viewers' responses is really a preference for "science" as a source of knowledge over other ways of knowing. They assume all scientists and doctors agree that we are not people until our birthday. Of course, this is not the expertise of science, but of philosophy and religion. Science can only descriptively tell you about the physical development of a human being, not about its personhood (note: fetus is a term denoting a stage of physical development, like embryo, toddler, or teenager). Calling Cuddy emotional is unwittingly admitting to a simplistic and unheathly disrespect (or, charitably, ignorance) for philosophy, morality and religion and a dangerous worship of science.

My next, related question is, "WHY IS IT OKAY FOR THE HISTORY CHANNEL TO AIR SHOWS BASED PURELY ON SPECULATION AS LONG AS THE TOPIC IS CHRISTIANITY OR RELIGION?" I don't watch the history channel a lot. But earlier there was a show about Rome filled with reliable facts and reasonable explanations of certain episodes in history. You can tell the writers of the show knew their stuff and tried to be as accurate as possible, while maintaining a certain entertainment value. But all night they have been airing fanciful tale after fanciful tale about the suppression of information in Christianity. They say things like, "after much heated debate many documents did not make the final cut of the New Testament" (which is patently false). They interview "experts" who are only really experts in being creative with historical facts. They blatantly compete to be the first, best, most inventive re-teller of religious history. They look for a twist. Why is rampant speculation allowed on the History Channel? What if all they ever aired was their best attempt at presenting the facts? I think such a show would look so much like the truth and power of the gospel that they would fear they've produced "religious," even evangelistic, programming, or at least a show that portrays Christianity in a positive light. I don't know if anyone is ready to do such a thing. I mean, can you imagine if history showed Christianity were actually true?

Again, the "sciences" of historiograhy, archeology, anthropology and the like are seen as authorities, and anything outside of science fanciful. So when religion turns out to be cold hard fact, people with such a bias are forced to either seriously consider the implications or recast reality as mythically and fancifully as possible. Since, in their minds science and religion are somehow analogous to fact and fiction, they stunt their imagination by never allowing the two to meet, even by testimony of the facts. Talk about "in the box" thinking!

Who is Jesus... Really?

If this is a question you're interested, here is a series of questions I have posed based on Old Testament and New Testament Scripture. Hyperlinks are included (English Standard Version) for quick reference. Enjoy the exercise and let me know what you think.

--

WAS THE LOGOS ETERNALLY PREEXISTENT?
From where in time has Christ come? Micah 5:2

In what way is Christ a father, and how is He eternally so? Isaiah 9:6

What beginning is implied here? Did the Word exist before or after the beginning? Who is the Maker? Was the Word made? John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17; John 17:5

Why did John use this verb tense? John 8:58


DOES SCRIPTURE IDENTIFY CHRIST AS GOD?
What does Immanuel mean? Isaiah 7:14 (see footnote)

If the OT affirms that God is One, what does that make Jesus? Isaiah 9:6, 10:21

In Greek, if there is an article (a, an, the) before the first noun in a series but not before the second, then the second is considered to be the same as the first. What does this mean if the Greek in Titus 2:13-14 literally reads “. . . of the great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ . . .”? See also 2 Peter 1:1.

Does Jesus claim to be the same person as the Father? John 10:30

Whose Church is Paul encouraging the Ephesians to watch over? Acts 20:28

What was Thomas’ response to seeing Jesus? John 20:27-29

How does Hebrews make the connection between Christ and OT Scripture? Hebrews 1:8


WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT JESUS IS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA?
What is the title for Almighty God? Revelation 1:8

What other name is given for the Alpha and Omega? 21:5-7

What is the full title given to God here? And what will He be doing soon? 22:12-13

Who is revealed to be speaking? 22:16

To whom does the author of Revelation respond as the soon coming one? 22:20

What does it mean to call Jesus the First and the Last? 1:17-18; Isaiah 44:6, 48:12-16

"I Am With You"

Go up to the mountain
Gather all you need
Come rebuild my temple
So that all can see

I am with you. I will cause you to succeed
Always with you, I will show you my glory

Leave you paneled houses
Touch no unclean thing
I will shake the heavens
Destroy your enemies

I am with you. I will take you as my own
Always with you, and my house will be your home

Why, in the land of milk and honey,
Do we work so hard for nothing?
We are people of the promise,
Yet a drought is upon us.
Woe, we’ve been toiling in our name,
In our own strength, and to our shame,
We have left God’s house in ruin
We have failed to worship Him

I am with you. I have chosen you today
Always with you, so take courage in my strength

©2007

inspired by the Old Testament book of Haggai

The Pre-Something Church (Part 3) - "Summary"

What has been expounded thus far is simply scratching the surface of how we can make disciples who make disciples and make a difference in the postmodern world. First we need to realize that there is a postmodern exigency. Some aspects of the new cultural mood are simply different; others are dangerous. The best way the Church can respond is to take the eternal truth of scripture and make it relevant to the emerging culture. At the very least, what that means is that relevant truth must be three-dimensional, experienced as relational, propositional and incarnational. Much more can and has been said about precisely what this might look like in practical terms. A great place to start is The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball. But we must keep in mind that emerging ministry is still highly experimental. And there is no one-size-fits-all model. What we must guard against is associating ourselves so closely with postmodernism that we are left behind again when the next shift comes. Instead, part of the conversation we are having should be focused on how the Church can take the lead into the post-Postmodern Era, or rather be the Pre-Something Church.

The Pre-Something Church (Part 2) - "Where do we go from here?"

In a recent article, Mark Driscoll, [1] founder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, explains three categories of emerging leaders that are responding to postmodernism (proposed by missiologist Ed Stetzer). First, “relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures.”[2] These people see postmodernism as a reality of the current culture that needs to be addressed with the truth in new ways that appeal to postmoderns. This approach is epitomized by ideas like Dan Kimball’s “vintage faith” or Rob Bell’s Nooma video series. Second, “reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). . . . They propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches.”[3] These people are usually reacting to modern churches more than to postmodern culture. In fact, this may be the primary motivation behind many emerging ministries. Their main concern is to adopt new ways of doing church that are more effective at changing lives. Third, “revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world.”[4] For these people, it is more a question of “re-imagining” Christianity than simply re-contextualizing it. They are more likely to adopt a postmodern epistemology to interpret Scripture, calling into question even the most orthodox of beliefs. In effect, they have so internalized postmodern thinking that they now see Christianity in terms of their Postmodernism rather than seeing Postmodernism from a Christian perspective.

From these three categories, Driscoll has suggested some possible responses to postmodernism.[5] “If doctrine and practice are constant, the result is dead orthodoxy.” This is a danger for Modern Evangelical churches who do not adapt as moderns age out of them. “If both doctrine and practice are constantly changing, the result is living heresy.” This is the unfortunate trajectory of some prominent leaders in emergent circles who are revisionists. If practice is constant and doctrine is changing, as in many liberal Mainline churches, I would suggest the result is dying heresy. Their adherents would remain loyal out of a sense of tradition rather than any commitment to biblical Christianity. “But, if doctrine is constant and practice is always changing, the result is living orthodoxy.” This is the heart of the relevants seeking to communicate the enduring gospel to a new world. After all, as Driscoll reminds us, “the truths of Christianity are constant, unchanging, and meant for all people, times and places. But, the methods by which truth is articulated and practiced must be culturally appropriated and therefore, constantly translated.”[6]

The living orthodoxy of the relevant church is what our postmodern world needs. But even this is playing catch-up. It is a race to respond to an already established post-Christian culture, one born out of Christian marginalization. The Church is to be the light of the world. But having fallen behind, the world is racing ahead in postmodern darkness. We must catch up and run alongside those lost ones in need of truth. But we can, and must, do even more. We can light a new path ahead, reclaiming the lead in the shaping of culture. As the salt of the earth, how can we do any less?

It is much like raising a child. Good parents would be aware of and tend to her needs. They would not cater to her every fancy. Instead, they would teach her what is right. As she matured they would give her more and more freedom along with appropriate boundaries. When she reached adulthood they would trust that she will live up to the values instilled in her and pass them on to her children. Not only that, she would make a productive contribution to society. Postmoderns are like that child. A good church will meet their unique needs, but not entertain, or allow them to retain, their relativistic notions. Instead, it will teach sound doctrine and not be legalistic or hold people to unrealistic standards. Then, when the moderns are with us no longer, the postmoderns will be able to faithfully pass on the Teaching and Tradition of the Church to future generations. And they will embody that truth in a redeeming way.


[1] Read Mark Driscoll’s blog at http://theresurgence.com/blog/2.
[2] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 89.
[3] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90.
[4] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90.
[5] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90-91.
[6] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90.

The Pre-Something Church (Part 1) - "The Postmodern Mood: You are Here"

We now live in the Postmodern Era, that period of time that comes after the Modern Era. The culture has been progressing toward it in various ways throughout the 20th century. Now, in the 21st century, postmodernism is the predominant worldview in the West. Those who reflect its values are called postmoderns. In general, Generation X (roughly those born in the 60’s and 70’s) was a transitional generation. They were raised by moderns in a postmodern world. Those born since the 1980’s, sometimes called Millennials, have been immersed in postmodernism since childhood. They are the first bonafide postmodern generation. Even so, postmodernism does not discriminate. Some people from previous generations resonate with it just as much as emerging generations. And some younger people do not resonate with it at all.

The postmodern mood is characterized by new ways of relating, thinking and living. Tony Jones, National Coordinator of Emergent Village,[1] points out a handful of sociological changes.[2] Three of them, which I also see in my context as a young adult pastor in Southern California, are the shifts to being communal, pluralistic and experiential. First, postmoderns have shifted from being individualistic to communal. It used to be that one of the most communal media experiences we could have was going to the theater. So many people share the same experience and can talk about it after, reliving their favorite scenes. Aside from a sports game, television was considered a passive pastime. Now, audiences vote in real time, through telephone, text messages, and email, for their reality and game show champions and participate in the outcome. Even news programs regularly read email feedback from viewers as they receive them. Online, communities like MySpace.com have become an addiction to millions who can now easily create profiles to express themselves and connect with a network of “friends.” In our neighborhoods, there is a growing presence of places like Starbucks where even those who go there to read a book and keep to themselves enjoy a sense of community.

Second, postmoderns have shifted from being unanimous to pluralistic. Just next door to me live Catholics from Ireland on one side and Muslims from the Middle East on the other side. I am an Evangelical from Southern California. Among my friends are Pakistanis, Slovakians, Palestinians, Hungarians, and Canadians. They are Christians—Pentecostals, Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Evangelicals of all shades—ex-Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, New Agers, Shamanists, and Smorgasbord Spiritualists. In a post-Christian culture, there is bound to be confusion. And in the absence of knowledge about religious beliefs most people default to religious pluralism where they can believe all their friends, being good people, are on good and valid spiritual paths. Even many Christians who believe the gospel may not believe it in terms of its exclusive claims. For many, religious belief may simply be an accident of upbringing that “works for them” but may not, and need not, work for others.

Third, postmoderns have shifted from being rational to experiential. With the Advent of the Internet, we are moving away from linear thinking. And schools are not helping. They regularly graduate mediocre students unprepared for college, thus lowering the bar of excellence for many higher education institutions. Most high school graduates do not know or care about what a liberal education is and see general studies as obstacles to their goals rather than part of being well-rounded individuals. The prevailing attitude about school is not that it can prepare one for life, but that a degree could lead to a higher paying job. That is not to say that everyone should go to college, but to illustrate the low value placed on anything not tied to making money or enjoying life. Thus, the reason bookstores like Barnes and Noble are flourishing is because they have made reading an experience. There is a new element of “vibe” that old booksellers like Waldenbooks never had. Experience really is the currency of our age. In such a pluralistic world, shared experience now replaces common belief as the most significant factor in bringing people together.

In addition to these sociological changes, a few epistemological changes have also occurred in the postmodern mind. First, in a world with such diverse thinking, we have lost a common metanarrative. The Christian heritage of the West is being increasingly disparaged as secularism takes rise in the public square. And nationalism is being attacked by the hobgoblin of cultural relativism. It remains to be seen if the “War on Terror” will be an enduring narrative to shape our global future. In the meantime, Naturalism is the most prevalent basic presupposition of our time. In short, the Theory of Evolution has given credence to the story that all life evolved from common ancestry and there is no reality beyond the physical universe. Even those who reject the story know it well and are likely influenced by it to some degree. It is unfortunate since this worldview robs us of meaning, purpose and moral accountability.

Second, part of the reason for our collective identity crisis is that postmoderns are quite skeptical about knowing anything. They have a deep-seated suspicion that we cannot see, much less understand, objective reality. We see through, not with, our senses. And what we know is limited by the language we use to describe it. The common person may not be able to express it in these terms. But when it seems like every other week a scientific study is published that debunks the last, their confidence in knowledge wanes. Subconsciously, they might figure that if they cannot trust the experts and authorities out there then they cannot trust themselves either.

Third, if there is no reliable objective truth, then, in the interest of sanity and social order, we must make up our own realities. At the very least, this means we need laws that everyone agrees to follow, that there are agreed upon consequences for not following. However, if there is no objective standard on which to base those laws, then everyone will bring their own subjective interpretations. The practical result is a desire for power rather than justice; sophistry trumps philosophy. This principle gets played out in every area of life. Anything can be challenged; everything is up for discussion.

This is especially true in the area of ethics, in which postmodernism has made serious changes. Doing the right thing now means something completely different than it used to. Whereas before it meant doing what is right whether one feels like it or not, it now means doing whatever one personally feels is right. We follow other people’s standard of morality by way of social convention or so as not to unnecessarily offend anyone, not out of any actual moral obligation. Postmoderns live by two rules: Rule 1, do whatever you feel like doing as long as it does not hurt anyone else; and Rule 2, say whatever you feel like saying as long as you do not criticize anyone for following Rule 1. In other words, the new New Golden Rule is be true to yourself. The result is a me-centered, pleasure-seeking attitude toward life. No where else is this so exigent than in our view of sexuality, where marriage, sexual orientation, even gender, are being redefined in fluid terms. When fundamental moral choices are being treated as menu items at McDonald’s we are in grave times.

[1] You can visit the Emergent Village website at emergentvillage.com.
[2] Tony Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry: Exploring cultural shift, creating holistic connections, cultivating authentic community (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 27, 30-37.