Sunday Inquiries #6

Appoint a wicked man against him; 

let an accuser stand at his right hand.

When he is tried, let him come forth guilty;

let his prayer be counted as sin!

May his days be few;

may another take his office!

May his children be fatherless

and his wife a widow!

May his children wander about and beg,

seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!

May the creditor seize all that he has;

may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!

Let there be none to extend kindness to him,

nor any to pity his fatherless children!

May his posterity by cut off;

may his name be blotted out in the second generation!

May the iniquity of his fathers be

remembered before the Lord,

and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!

Let them be before the Lord continually, 

that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth!

Psalm 109:6-15

King David goes on and on from there.

So gentle audience, I beseech you:

How do solve a problem like King David?

How do you catch God and pin Him down?

How do you find a word that means justice?

The most basic and primal answer is to run on about how the Bible is a wide and open place, full of various forms of writing; one must comprehend the genre of literature one is reading in order to give a sound exegesis. Right, I get that. But that all seems like its an evasion tactic. David is, in this passage and others, pleading with God to bring recompense upon his enemies. So how do I read his words? This is Holy Spirit inspired stuff, yes? Why did God let him write it? Why did He allow it to make it into canon?

How do I reconcile the words of a desperate and angry man with the words of my King and my Lord who tells me to forgive seventy times seven? 

My partial answer is that the marrow of the Psalms is not a list of God's ordinances and reasoning towards the world, but rather, examples of impassioned pleas to the God who listens. It does, most assuredly, give credence to Christ's words, cast all your cares upon me. Indeed. Nevertheless, if the principle is simply just 'take all your thoughts to the Lord', what keeps us from interpreting other parts of scripture likewise? Furthermore, if we say that David's words here are not meant to be taken as something to emulate, than we are certainly betraying David's intent, correct? David wanted his enemies to perish and he thought it a good and noble thing to ask the Lord to punish them. Surely that's why he went to the point of writing this Psalm down and having it remain as a song to be song in the nation of Israel. 

If David's intent is not the Spirit's intent -- than by what criteria can we trust any writer in Biblical texts? This reminds me vaguely of the literary style of the untrustworthy narrative... something akin to the likes of Holden Caulfield or Alex DeLarge. You just can't trust those fellas.

What I see in Psalm 109 is a philosophical worldview that is richly distinct from that of Christianity. Love thy neighbor is no where to be sniffed. 

...What to do, what to do?

I ask once more:

How do solve a problem like King David?

Sunday Inquiries: #5

For the wages of sin is death...*

What to do, what to do; what do we do with this pesky sin thing? Ol' Adam took that first bite of betrayal and ever since we human folk have been living in a haze of dereliction and benedictarnoldian civility.

Our theology, our very make-up as Christians, rests firmly on the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth. We believe and hold ever conscious his act of death, having carried the burden of our sin by the outpouring of his blood. Thousands of years of animal sacrifices looked to this singular moment in history. Isaac, Abraham's only begotten son through his wife Sarah, was nearly sacrificed as what appears now as a Godly foreshadow of this explicit act of substitutionary atonement.

Paul makes it easy-peasy for us in Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

Voila! Done and done. Sin equals death. Jesus equals salvation. My sin kills me and Jesus saves me. Sounds good, yes?

Well, yes. It does sound good... but what about sin that doesn't kill you? Hypothetically speaking (and trust me, this is stiiiictly hy-po-thet-hi-cal!), what would the wages of non-deathly sins be?

This conversation can very easily and swiftly fly right on over into the equally mind-numbing topic of degrees of sin and punishment, but for our purposes today we will stick with just one simple premise from one simple passage.

Premise: Not all sin leads to death. 

And without further adieu, let us glance over to old grandfather version of John the Apostle (the one that calls us 'little children' all the times and slips Werther's Originals into our pockets when the parents aren't looking). Just a few ticks before he wraps up his First Letter, he writes a very strange little string of words.

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life -- to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. 1 John 5:16-17

Perhaps here John is alluding to the act of blaspheming the Spirit, which Christ informs us is the only unpardonable sin.** But taken as a whole, I'm simply left dumbfounded by the opaqueness of John's statement. He doesn't go to any measure at all to define his terms. Both those sins which lead to death as well as those undeath-leading sins remain decisively unclear in definition.

Such uncertainty brings into question the DNA of what sin is. The overarching description: Sin is that which separates us from God remains wholly intact no matter what wrinkles we come across, but the constitutionality of what falls under the umbrella of sin is always a thing of much fogginess. God sets out to make clear that there are several forms of sacrifice for the Old Testament Israelites, even so far as calling into practice the necessity of atonement for 'sins of accidence'. That one tends to bludgeon my easy-to-comprehend concept that sin is about motive and desire rather than act and substance. Catholic folk through the centuries liked to make categories. They had sins of commission and then the more shrewdly veiled sins of omission. I never liked dwelling on those ones.

Whilst mumbling through High School, I resolutely defined the moral world as a simple place: there were good things and bad things, and that which was bad was nothing more than the perversion of that which was good. Under this worldview, as long as I wasn't overtly going about sinning, I was doing good. I allowed for no hierarchy. I was sinning or I was doing good. There was no gray. This philosophy then allowed me to conceivably live my life as a couch potato with no regrets. But since those days, it just so happens that I have this little thing called a conscience, or, as I would reckon it to truly be, this Ghost living with me. And He makes me feel certain ways about certain things I do or do not do. And this Fella seems to insist gutturally to me that sitting on the couch all day is, in fact, a subtle action which separates me from my Lord.

In order to some semblance of order, I still need some ground rules. I need to get a grasp on what this sin business is and is not. I admit here, I find it hard to find order in John's words here, but rather, am comforted and assured from his writings in his Gospel:

And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment... John 16:8

*All photos taken from Tell Your Children (1936) aka Reefer Madness

**And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Luke 12:10

Sunday Inquiries: #3.5

Inquiry #3 was my general question of the overall motive of Satan, the one formerly known as Lucifer.

The quandary is not one that I imagine will ever be answered fully this side of Paradise (and perhaps not on the other side either), and that, truth be told, is okay. I don't need to know that stuff. Not really.

But what does seem a much more currently pressing dilemma, is this aspect of the 'Serpent' from Genesis, Chapter 3.

There is no mention whatsoever of this swarmy slitherer in chapters one or two. If he is, in fact, the very same being that we know as Satan, which Church tradition tells us was the head of all the angelic realm before he chose to fall, then why is there no note of his creation? We know that in the first sentence of the Bible God created 'the heavens' and 'the earth', but the Hebrew word for heavens can be a tricky one to define, and, it would seem, does not necessarily have to include the angelic realm as the indwelling residents of that 'heavens'.

Then along comes chapter three, and immediately we are gobsmacked with a villain: Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord had made. From that resume, we seemingly can conclude:
     a) the serpent is one of the 'beasts of the field'
     b) the serpent was made by God
     c) apparently he was a smart lad

So far so good -- no problems there... but the very next verse throws me for a loop: He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
     d) apparently the serpent can talk

This is where the story breaks from what we know of the world. I've never watched any sort of youtube video in which a 'beast of the field' just went on up and talked in full sentences.

In my mind's eye, the obvious solution is that the description of this 'Serpent' is told as an analogy for something else. But what, exactly? What did he look like? Was he a man? Was he half-human, half-snake? Was he Trogdor? We get no details on the nature of this creature.

Being raised as a boy in Sunday School that this 'Serpent' was in fact Satan taking the story somewhat allegorically is not difficult. Perhaps Beelzebub is a shape-shifter.

No matter... but then...

The story unfolds as we expect; the serpent's craftiness exceeds that of Adam and Eve and the two lovebirds eat of the fruit and incur God's wrath.

The exegesis of the story again gets tricky, however, when we are greeted with God's curse to the 'Serpent':

The LORD God said to the serpent, 

"Because you have done this, 

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel."

Now, I've ingested a wealth of fantastic sermonizing on the latter half of this curse. Jesus is said to be the offspring of the woman, whom Satan will bruise at the point of Christ's crucifixion, but Jesus will hurt him far worse by his resurrection. That's a lovely scene and fantastic foreshadowing: huzzah!

But what of the first half of the curse? It sounds to my plebian ears like a literal curse. What does it mean that the serpent will have to writhe on its belly, eating dust? If this is Satan, was he still rewarded something above that of the animal kingdom before the sinful seduction of man?

The simplest way to read the curse is literally, in which case we have the story of 'how the snake came to be'.

Why is this story veiled so?

It seems almost as if God does not desire for us to know the historical, literal depiction of how the fall came about... why tell the story with such apparent symbolism?

And again, if the curse is for Satan, who is his offspring? Can Satan reproduce? How could that be? Who is his seed? Nephilim? The Antichrist? That all sounds a bit too conspiracy theoristy to me.

I don't know how to interpret this stuff, but I do know one thing:

I hate snakes... and I have Biblical backing!
WHACKING DAY 2012 -- KILL 'EM ALL!!

 

Sunday Inquiries: #4

The philosophical battle between cessationists and continuationists (wikipedia has a decent article on the meaning and difference between the two>> here), is an overly complex, pedantic exercise.

As for me, the question is pretty darn simple.

Obviously, miraculous, 'charismatic' gifts of the Spirit were in full display during the first century of the Christian church. The Book of Acts speaks immensely to it, as does Paul's own words on numerous occasions.

It can be easily established that God has given, at times, supernatural gifts to his children through which He displays His power and edifies His church. This is a New Testament reality.

No Biblical text states that the times of the gifts of the miraculous are over. For me to jump onboard cessationism, I would need to see this concept explicit in Scripture. Furthermore, for those who hold rigidly to a classical form of cessationism, they must work to disproof and speak against every single apparent experience of a charismatic gift, no? As a whole, since Scripture doesn't speak to the end of gifts, the burden of proof rests on them.

Although I have seen with my own eyes spiritual gifts abused and/or faked, I am one ever inclined to embrace the Good Ghost's active and punctual involvement in the lives of His servants. He's a Ghost, after all, of course He's going to be esoteric and difficult to define and comprehend!

So -- if we establish that the charismatic Gifts of the Spirit remain with us today, where do we draw the line?

We, and I count myself foremost among these participants, think spiritual gifts and actions as things which are always about building up the good and restoring relationship and bearing in reconciliation.

But we have two very prominent New Testament cases that point to something else. Certainly it is fair to say that Peter and Paul are the two main human protagonists that the Book of Acts periscopes in on; both of them commit miraculous actions that we could characterize as CURSES.

FIGURE ONE:

Ananias and Sapphira

Acts 5:1-11

This relatively well-known story tells of how a church-y couple sell their home and lie about the amount they are giving to the church. Ananias lies, and Peter calls him out, exclaiming, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." The very next verse states, When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. 

Okay, maybe one could make the claim that Ananias merely had a heart-attack, or that God struck him dead directly --- that it was not done through the will of Peter. But then Sapphira comes tip-toeing in. When she too lies to Peter, he lambasts her with his response. "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." 

The text continues: Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last.

Again, perhaps Peter merely had foreknowledge of her death. He may have not been the conduit through which God doled out his justice. But the story ends on a strange note. Verse eleven states cleanly, And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

FIGURE TWO:

Elymas the Magician

Acts 13:4-12

Paul and Barnabas are in Cyprus. They come across this magician fella, who apparently is against the Word from the outset, trying to convince the Proconsul to turn away from the truth. The scripture specifically refers to Paul being filled with the Holy Spirit when he blasts the little man, boasting, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Paul is not mincing words here, and his aim clearly is to deflate entirely Elymas' efforts to stop the spread of the Gospel. Blindness for a period, apparently is the device that will fetch the needed results.

The story continues according to Paul's plan: Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord. 

Paul's indictment on Elymas followed by the sudden blindness upon the man clearly served a direct purpose; Elymas' efforts to convince the Proconsul away from Paul fails. The Gospel is spread as folks are "astonished" at God's story.

Likewise the sudden deaths of Ananias and Sapphira bring a certain new fear and respect for God and His eminently active Spirit amongst the brethren of the church.

So yes, the judgments of these supernatural outpourings from Peter and Paul served very concrete purposes, but nevertheless the question is still begging to be inquired:

Have our Christian leaders been given the authority 

to curse and blight for the sake 

of the unhindered continuance of the Gospel? 

Is supernatural cursing a spiritual gift?

Sunday Inquiries: #3

Let's call him Baal-zebub, which, literally translated refers to the Phoenician god Baal plus the word zebub, which means Dung.

This question is quite simple, and will take very few words to depict. I just want to get to the bottom of this shit-faced villain.

My simple question is this:

Who the hell is this Satan, and why does he hate us so damn much?!!

As Christians, we must stay persistent in not-falling into a form of Manichaeism. This is the religion St. Augustine was converted from, which essentially says that Goodness is at eternal odds with Darkness. The two are equal forces and worthy opponents. Our God is far far mightier than Lucifer, the one He created, so it really isn't a contest that can be weighted; God wins. That's the point.

And in knowing that; in knowing that WE can know that, how is it that Satan came to fall? How could the most marvelous of creation be so arrogant as to think he can beat the creator of all things?

Something isn't right here. The data doesn't make sense.

How could the most brilliant of creation be so naive to think he could win a battle against the his very maker? 

I don't understand...

Adam and Eve had a serpent. They at least had a scapegoat. Who does Satan have? What slithering beast can he point to as treasonous? When he fell from grace there was no precedent of evil. There was nothing yet called evil...

And yet now we have for ourselves an arch-villain. 

Jesus speaks devastatingly to his critics in the book of John. He says: 

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies,, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 8:44

Who did he murder from the beginning? What was his first crime? 

How is it that his character is rotten? How did it become that way? Did God put that in him? How could he choose for himself such a stupid resolution? Knowing as much as he did, far more than we do, why did he not choose life? Why was he not satisfied with being the head of the host of angels? Why, why, why?

Amidst the prophet Zechariah's many visions, we see that Satan, the adversary, is our accuser. Why? Why does he choose to hate us? Both Ezekiel and Isaiah may speak to his fall (Isaiah 14:12-24, Ezekiel 28:13-17) but who among us is renown enough to interpret these passages accurately? 

The devil plays a fundamental role in the John's vision of Revelation. The prophet speaks exactly to this adversary's final judgment. 

I just don't get any of it. 

What is his hope? What is his plan? What does he think he can accomplish against an omnipotent creator? How did he come to think that betrayal would be in his self-interest? Surely he knows the prophecy, knows that he has not the power to avoid it, right? Or are we mere mortals smarter than him? 

God is keeping much of this story from us, I reckon. 

Maybe someday we will know exactly how all these things came to be..........

.....but I doubt it.

Sunday Inquiries: #2

Right before the rough turn the plot is destined to take in Steve McQueen's newest film Shame, Sissy Sullivan comforts her brother:

We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place.

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Romans 8:20-23

Three years prior to his decision to write and direct Shame, first-director Steve McQueen took on the story of Bobby Sands, leader of a prisoner strike. He was a member of the British Parliament, yet sent to prison for his activity in IRA related protests. He pioneered a hunger strike in prison, making five demands. Wikipedia lists those demands as:

1. the right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. the right not to do prison work;
3. the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organize educational and recreational pursuits;
4. the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
5. full restoration of remission lost through the protest.

Sands and two other men lost their lives over those five points. They seem reasonable to me. They don't seem ridiculous, and they don't seem like they were worth the lives of the three men it took to gather the attention of British legislation.

When did men become so cruel to one another? When did Bobby Sands' life become so worthy of disregard. It took him sixty-six days of fasting to die.

Why are we so evil as a people? Why do we hate with such zeal? Why do feel such wretched pains inflicted?

It seems we were, from the beginning, fit (or destined) to bear evil in our hearts, minds, bodies and souls. The first man born from a woman, Cain, became a murderer. That's not a good way to start.

So why has God let us (let us be conditioned) become what we are -- sick-minded sinners, through and through? generation after generation... the sins of the Father expanded and re-imagined by sons and grandsons.

There was a time when God was fed up with us, when he seemed through with us.

The story of Noah and the flood is back-dropped by a rage of sin and violence.

Genesis 6:5 

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, 

and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

But the text goes on to speak of the mind of God -- and that's where I get confused.

And the Lord was sorry he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 

So the Lord said, 

"I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, 

man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, 

for I am sorry that I have made them." 

Genesis 6:6-7

How can God have regret? Didn't he know what he was doing when he created Adam? Didn't he see this coming? He let the serpent walk around in the Garden. I don't understand... how can God be regretful of what he's done?

How does God experience emotion? -- particularly regret?

And if He did feel this regret somehow, this low sense for having created such an abominable race, why did He not start over? Why not make all things new without sacrificing Himself?

I reckon the question comes down to:  

Is this the world that really brings You the most glory, Lord? Wouldn't it have been better if you created a people that wouldn't move You to regret? 

We groan. 

Richard Wurmbrand spent a better part of his life in Soviet-run Ukrainian gulags due to his unrepentant faith in Christ Jesus. The nightmares he tells in several of his books are nearly unimaginable. Reading his memories, we can see the great depth of human depravity exercising its most talented machinations of imagination for the torment of the soul.

One story remains with me. In Wurmbrand's book, In God's Underground, he speaks of a country priest who is vigorously tortured for months on end. By the end of it, this beaten man tells Wurmbrand, "I have suffered more than Christ." I can't imagine the horrors a man, indwelled by the Holy Spirit of promise, must have suffered in order to say such words.

Just a few verses later in Romans Chapter Eight, Paul dares to write these words:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,

for those who are called according to His purpose. Verse 24

All things work together for good... really? How? How do we say that to the man tortured in the gulag beyond any reason? How do we say that when You Yourself have been sorry for creating us?

My question is an age-old variant on the anthem of Why do bad things happen to good people? But, in knowing the usual answers, I re-state it this way:

If You regretted what You had done, 

why did You persevere with us? 

And

How much longer must we groan?

Please, make all things new again. Please.

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, 

"Hallelujah! 

For the Lord our God 

the Almighty reigns. 

Let us rejoice and exult 

and give him the glory, 

for the marriage of the Lamb has come, 

and his Bride had made herself ready; 

it was granted her to clothe herself 

with fine linen, bright and pure" ---

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. 

Revelation 19:6-8

Sunday Inquiries: #1

I am a man made both mighty and humble by inquiry. The attention of this new series of posts is to ask a question of the LORD on Sundays that perplexes me. You are welcome to join me. God knows my heart, and therefore knows that I do not inquire of him in a combative manner, but that my aim is only to know him, his imagination, and his will, deeper still. 

And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, 

whom the Lord knew face to face, 

none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the Lord 

sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 

and for all the mighty power and all the great deed of terror 

that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. 

Deuteronomy 34:10-12

Let's start with a bang --- perhaps something of a second big bang. The bang that was Jesus' coming into the world in first century Palestine.

Beyond the questions of why God chose to come incarnate at that stage in history (Israel in 4BC had no mass communication! ~ Jesus Christ, Superstar), is the question of the environment he chose to place himself into.

The Jewish people of course had been looking for a Savior, a prophet like Moses, since the very death of Moses himself. Hundreds upon hundreds of angst filled years waiting for the Redeemer. The Torah ends with the above quoted lines from Deuteronomy, the capstone of the five book history, which was mostly compiled by Moses himself. But things from a historic standpoint get sticky when you realize Moses dies before the end of the book. Someone added the ending. It is often conceived that this ending tag that includes Moses' death as well as the line, not arisen a prophet since was added to the book much much later in history. Maybe a thousand years later.

Anyway, this all bears some level of significance because the entrance of Jesus the Christ into the world harbors so many parallels to that of Moses. Highest among these parallels is that of the government infanticide brought on by the ruling parties of the day.

King Herod was fearful of the Jewish hope of a Warrior Savior. When some wise dudes came knocking on his door telling him about the star they saw, he feigned love, only to hide his intense fear and hatred for the baby that would be king.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, 

became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem 

and in all that region who were two years old or under, 

according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.  

Matthew 2:16-17

The text also tells us that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus (Oxford comma? What a quagmire!) escape the bloody hands of Herod by sneaking into Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew 2:15

My smart-as-a-whip-which-went-through-medschool-passed-the-bar-and-was-utilized-on-numerous-occasions-by-indiana-jones-himself fiancée (because frankly, I don't know why whips are supposedly smart...), in speaking about such things made a valid point; which was:

Why did so many children have to die for Jesus to come into the world?

We long can speak of Jesus' sacrifice for us (and for obviously good reason), but what of the sacrifice of the families who suffered the murder of their child for the sake of Christ?

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 

"A voice was heard in Ramah,

weeping and loud lamentation,

Rachel weeping for her children;

she refused to be comforted, because

they are no more."

Matthew 2:18

Sure, God didn't "cause" the death of those kids, in that Herod's plan was not something that was done in adherence to God. Nevertheless, surely the Lord could have come in such a way into this earth that so many would not have to suffer the consequences of the ushering in of the Lord of hosts.

So why did it play out like this? Why did Jeremiah's words need be fulfilled in this?

In the days of Moses, Pharaoh commanded all his people, 

"Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile..." 

Exodus 1:22

Was it so important to God that Jesus come into the world just as Moses, under direct persecution of the innocent? Why?

If the star did not shine, if the Wisemen didnt't see the star, then the children would not have been butchered. So then why did God see to it that his son would come into the world this way? No one can bring comfort to Rachel.

So we know that Christ's blood was shed for you and me, but what of the blood that was shed for him?