Posts
Victor J. Stenger. God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst: Prometheus, 2012. See here to buy the book.
Victor Stenger was a particle physicist, a philosophy professor, and
an atheist. Years ago, I checked out from the library one of his books:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
But I did not finish the book because, quite frankly, I did not
understand it: it was way over my head. Or it threw a lot of
information at me at once that I had a hard time digesting. Last
Sunday, I saw Stenger’s God and the Folly of Faith at my local
library, and it looked to me like it would be easier for me to
understand. Not only did it look like it would offer a robust and lucid
critique of the cosmological and fine tuning arguments for the
existence of God, but it also went through the history of science, which
I figured might be good for me to know, as someone who may eventually
teach religion. I decided to check out the book, and I finished it
yesterday.
The book was definitely worth reading for the history. While Stenger
ultimately argues that religion has retarded the progress of science,
he does interact with contrary points-of-view. The book had a lot of
the usual atheist critiques of religion that one can find in a variety
of places—-that religion has no evidence for its claims, that the Bible
has problems, and that the religious right is dangerous. But I did
learn things from this book that I either did not know before, or that I
knew vaguely. I learned about how animals can be superstitious, and
how more advanced animals appear to have a sense of morality. I also
learned about studies that indicate that the brain actually acts in a
certain way before humans consciously make decisions, and Stenger
wrestles with the question of whether this means that humans lack free
will.
There was a lot in the scientific parts of the book that were
difficult for me to understand, since the natural sciences are not one
of my areas of aptitude. As for Stenger’s discussion of the Big Bang
and the question of whether the universe had a beginning, which I
somewhat understood, I was not entirely clear about whether or not
Stenger believed that the Big Bang marked the beginning of our
universe. Stenger discussed the Big Bang in seeking to refute the
cosmological argument, the argument that the universe had a beginning
and that God was the beginner of it. On the one hand, Stenger seemed to
argue that the Big Bang was only the beginning of our universe, but
that there could have been previous universes going back infinitely, and
there may be other universes still. On the other hand, Stenger also
seemed to question that the Big Bang even marked the beginning of time
and space (my question: even for our universe?), and he defended the
argument that the Big Bang could have come from a quantum vacuum (which
is something, not nothing) by saying that the universe could have always
existed and did not necessarily have a beginning. Does Stenger define
“universe” differently based on what he is arguing: he means our
universe in some cases, and at other times means everything that exists
and has ever existed?
Stenger addresses the philosophical question of whether there can be
an infinite regress going backwards, for how can we arrive at the
present if the past goes on infinitely? Apologists argue this to say
that the universe and time had to have a beginning, which they attribute
to God. I was satisfied with some of Stenger’s answer to that. He
said that, according to theism, God goes back infinitely, and he
questioned whether creation can occur outside of time, for how can there
be a “before” and “after” creation if it was occurring outside of
time? Ultimately, though, I was not satisfied with how he addressed the
infinite regress. That does not mean that Stenger was unimpressive,
for his scientific arguments may very well hold water, and there may be
natural ways to account for the universe and life. While a lot of his
scientific discussions went over my head, in reading them I was amazed
by how the universe is—-particularly by how time can go forward and
backward. (Stenger says, for example, that we may have tunneled out of a
previous universe, and, from its perspective, it tunneled out of us,
since its time goes backward.)
Stenger is sometimes characterized as one who believes that science
disproves God’s existence. I thought that he believed that when I saw
the title of the first book of his that I checked out: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. He does not seem to go that far, though, at least not in God and the Folly of Faith.
He does not believe that there is proof for God’s existence, or that
God is necessary to explain the universe and life. He says at one point
in the book that, if scientists were to discover God in the future,
then they would believe in him, implying perhaps that he does not
utterly dismiss the possibility, from a scientific perspective. He is
also open about times when science has gotten things wrong in the past,
and yet he prefers an approach that changes with new evidence over the
dogmatism of religion. There are many times, though, when he seems to
maintain that God’s existence is unlikely. If there were a God, would
not there be some evidence for him? And, considering the chance that
exists in our universe, would there be a God who plays dice with the
universe—-who throws the dice and lets what comes up come up, as opposed
to being one who consciously and with forethought designed things the
way that they are? Stenger finds that unlikely.
In my opinion, Stenger’s discussion about morality was probably the
weakest in terms of supporting atheism, and yet I respected him more
after reading it. Stenger does take some good jabs at religion, as when
he points out the apparently immoral parts of the Bible (i.e.,
slavery). Yet he, and also atheist Sam Harris, seem to question whether
evolution can provide a solid explanation for certain aspects of
morality. Ultimately, Stenger settles on saying that, as animals become
more complex, they develop more of a sense of morality, and, for
Stenger, God is not necessary for those animals to become complex
because the simple becoming complex occurs often in nature. Stenger in
this book is critical of giving science to the scientists and giving the
field of morality to religion, for he believes that science has
something to contribute to the field of morality. I agree with him on
this, even if he seemed to acknowledge that science so far has had
limits in providing a foundation for certain aspects of morality.
Stenger has other discussions as well, as he addresses a scientist
who tries to find a scientific explanation for the miracles of Jesus,
the question of whether religion has practical benefits, near death
experiences, and attempts to apply concepts of physics in a spiritual or
New Age direction. Overall, he is skeptical of these things. He does
seem to acknowledge that religion can contribute to a positive attitude
and, in the process, greater physical health, but he also believes that
atheists can be healthy, too. Moreover, he maintains that atheism can
give people a humbler and better sense of their place in the universe.
Religion will still be a part of my life, for it gives me comfort and
direction, but I still found that Stenger made worthwhile points for me
to read.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Monday, May 11, 2015
Book Write-Up: The Circle Trilogy, by Ted Dekker
Ted Dekker. The Circle Trilogy: Featuring Complete Texts of Black, Red, and White. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004. See here to buy the book.
Ted Dekker is a Christian fiction author. As with Frank Peretti (with whom Dekker cowrote a book), my impression is that Dekker is a Christian Stephen King, in that he writes fantasy and horror books that are from an evangelical Christian perspective. But Dekker also writes books about suspense and international intrigue, so perhaps he can also be called a Christian Tom Clancy. I came across Ted Dekker’s name over a year ago, and what I read about his Paradise trilogy intrigued me. The thing is, in order to understand the Paradise trilogy, I would have to read the Circle trilogy, so I bought the three volumes of the Circle trilogy in a single volume for a cheap price off Amazon. I decided to read this trilogy during my move.
I will summarize the plot, and, just to let you know, there will be spoilers in my summary. The main character of the trilogy is Thomas Hunter, a man in his 20s. Thomas is an aspiring writer who has not achieved any success. He owes some loan sharks a lot of money. His father was a military chaplain, but his father leaving the family turned Thomas and his sister Kara off to religion.
Thomas is hit on the head by some thugs, and he wakes up in another world. This other world is the future. What will ordinarily happen is that, when Thomas is asleep in one world, he will be awake in the other. As in the Chronicles of Narnia, time can pass differently in both worlds, meaning that Thomas can spend a lot of time in the future world, whereas only a few minutes have passed once he returns to the present world.
In the future world, Thomas learns that, in the present world, a virus will emerge that will kill many, setting the stage for terrorists to hold the world hostage with an anti-virus. This somehow relates to the end times: the great deception and the Great Tribulation. This virus will be a mutation of a vaccine that is designed to do a lot of good for the world in eradicating disease. When Thomas gets back to the present world, he tries to warn people about the vaccine. As in the movie Frequency, a way to do this is to go into the future world and find out some information about the near future to share with the present world, which will then take Thomas seriously because he can predict the future. In Thomas’ case, Thomas learns and shares who will win the Kentucky Derby. Thomas does that, and he also kidnaps the French lady who is making the vaccine. In the course of this story, it turns out that Thomas is actually precipitating the events that he is trying to prevent.
The future world is like the Garden of Eden. Elyon is the benevolent god of that world. There is a black forest with evil bats, and people are warned not to drink the water from that forest because it could enable evil to spread outside of the Black Forest. Well, seduced by the evil bat Teeleh, the Adam character, Tanis, is tempted by the prospect of power and knowledge and drinks the forbidden water. The result is that an evil disease spreads on the inhabitants of the earth, a disease of dried skin. But people can stay clean if they wash in certain pools of water on a regular basis.
War emerges between a horde of scabs, who want to take possession of all of the land and recoil from bathing in the water because it is painful, and the faithful few who bathe regularly in the water. The faithful few believe that they are ordered by Elyon to stand against the Teeleh-worshipping scabs and to kill as many of them as possible, but a renegade from the faithful few, a man named Justin, reminds them that Elyon made the scabs, too, and proposes defeating the scabs by loving them. Justin is put to death as part of a peace agreement between the scabs and the leaders of the faithful few, and it turns out that Justin was actually Elyon, meaning that Justin is a Jesus figure. After Justin dies and rises again, his legacy is coopted by various religious agendas, as some say that the faithful few should accept the scabs as they are out of love, while others say that the scabs need to repent first by bathing in water. The "peace" that Justin's death brokered also has some problems, as syncretism develops between the Elyon religion and the Teeleh religion of the scabs, and religion becomes a way to control people, while simultaneously convincing them that they are not being controlled by human authorities.
These are intriguing concepts, so I cannot identify why exactly the books after the first one bored me. Maybe I was hoping for more theological depth or character development rather than a lot of action-packed scenes. Perhaps, at this particular time in my life, I am hungering for other kinds of books. I will say, though, that the very end did intrigue me. We learn at the end that the author of the story was a man named Billy. In the first book of the series, Thomas encounters a man named Bill in the Black Forest right after he wakes up for the first time in the future world. Bill seems to know Thomas and is encouraging Thomas to drink the water. Teeleh later tells Thomas that Thomas and Bill crashed into that world on a spaceship. The righteous bats, however, are telling Thomas that Bill is someone whom the evil bats conjured up to deceive Thomas into drinking the forbidden water. Is the Bill who wrote the story the same person as the Bill in the first book? Perhaps I will read other books and see if I can find out!
Ted Dekker is a Christian fiction author. As with Frank Peretti (with whom Dekker cowrote a book), my impression is that Dekker is a Christian Stephen King, in that he writes fantasy and horror books that are from an evangelical Christian perspective. But Dekker also writes books about suspense and international intrigue, so perhaps he can also be called a Christian Tom Clancy. I came across Ted Dekker’s name over a year ago, and what I read about his Paradise trilogy intrigued me. The thing is, in order to understand the Paradise trilogy, I would have to read the Circle trilogy, so I bought the three volumes of the Circle trilogy in a single volume for a cheap price off Amazon. I decided to read this trilogy during my move.
I will summarize the plot, and, just to let you know, there will be spoilers in my summary. The main character of the trilogy is Thomas Hunter, a man in his 20s. Thomas is an aspiring writer who has not achieved any success. He owes some loan sharks a lot of money. His father was a military chaplain, but his father leaving the family turned Thomas and his sister Kara off to religion.
Thomas is hit on the head by some thugs, and he wakes up in another world. This other world is the future. What will ordinarily happen is that, when Thomas is asleep in one world, he will be awake in the other. As in the Chronicles of Narnia, time can pass differently in both worlds, meaning that Thomas can spend a lot of time in the future world, whereas only a few minutes have passed once he returns to the present world.
In the future world, Thomas learns that, in the present world, a virus will emerge that will kill many, setting the stage for terrorists to hold the world hostage with an anti-virus. This somehow relates to the end times: the great deception and the Great Tribulation. This virus will be a mutation of a vaccine that is designed to do a lot of good for the world in eradicating disease. When Thomas gets back to the present world, he tries to warn people about the vaccine. As in the movie Frequency, a way to do this is to go into the future world and find out some information about the near future to share with the present world, which will then take Thomas seriously because he can predict the future. In Thomas’ case, Thomas learns and shares who will win the Kentucky Derby. Thomas does that, and he also kidnaps the French lady who is making the vaccine. In the course of this story, it turns out that Thomas is actually precipitating the events that he is trying to prevent.
The future world is like the Garden of Eden. Elyon is the benevolent god of that world. There is a black forest with evil bats, and people are warned not to drink the water from that forest because it could enable evil to spread outside of the Black Forest. Well, seduced by the evil bat Teeleh, the Adam character, Tanis, is tempted by the prospect of power and knowledge and drinks the forbidden water. The result is that an evil disease spreads on the inhabitants of the earth, a disease of dried skin. But people can stay clean if they wash in certain pools of water on a regular basis.
War emerges between a horde of scabs, who want to take possession of all of the land and recoil from bathing in the water because it is painful, and the faithful few who bathe regularly in the water. The faithful few believe that they are ordered by Elyon to stand against the Teeleh-worshipping scabs and to kill as many of them as possible, but a renegade from the faithful few, a man named Justin, reminds them that Elyon made the scabs, too, and proposes defeating the scabs by loving them. Justin is put to death as part of a peace agreement between the scabs and the leaders of the faithful few, and it turns out that Justin was actually Elyon, meaning that Justin is a Jesus figure. After Justin dies and rises again, his legacy is coopted by various religious agendas, as some say that the faithful few should accept the scabs as they are out of love, while others say that the scabs need to repent first by bathing in water. The "peace" that Justin's death brokered also has some problems, as syncretism develops between the Elyon religion and the Teeleh religion of the scabs, and religion becomes a way to control people, while simultaneously convincing them that they are not being controlled by human authorities.
These are intriguing concepts, so I cannot identify why exactly the books after the first one bored me. Maybe I was hoping for more theological depth or character development rather than a lot of action-packed scenes. Perhaps, at this particular time in my life, I am hungering for other kinds of books. I will say, though, that the very end did intrigue me. We learn at the end that the author of the story was a man named Billy. In the first book of the series, Thomas encounters a man named Bill in the Black Forest right after he wakes up for the first time in the future world. Bill seems to know Thomas and is encouraging Thomas to drink the water. Teeleh later tells Thomas that Thomas and Bill crashed into that world on a spaceship. The righteous bats, however, are telling Thomas that Bill is someone whom the evil bats conjured up to deceive Thomas into drinking the forbidden water. Is the Bill who wrote the story the same person as the Bill in the first book? Perhaps I will read other books and see if I can find out!
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Ramblings on Unconditional Love and Communion
I visited a new church this morning. It is a Lutheran church, of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which is a more liberal branch
of Lutheranism. The worship service was a blend of contemporary and
traditional. I found the holy roller church that I attended last week
to be a little pushy, or at least one of the people there was. At the
church that I attended this morning, by contrast, it is easy to be
anonymous, which is both good and bad. Still, I did meet the two
pastors and the vicar who gave the sermon. The senior pastor was
familiar with the small town in Indiana where I went to college.
The sermon was interesting because it was about the “if” clauses in John 15:9-17. Jesus told his disciples that they will abide in his love if they obey his commandments. He said that they are his friends if they do what he has commanded them. What does that mean? That Jesus only loves us if we do what he says? Or that, while Jesus loves everyone, he has a special love for those who obey him?
The vicar did not seem to me to tackle this question head on, but he was aware of it. He was saying that, in this world, there is so much conditional acceptance—-whether we are looking for a job, or even having friends. The vicar asked if we see the same thing in John 15. The vicar’s main point seemed to be that Jesus loves us unconditionally, but that we show that we are a friend to Jesus when we then go forward and love others unconditionally. Jesus is already our friend and loves us, but the question that John 15 addresses is how we can be a friend to Jesus and love as Jesus loves.
The theme of unconditional acceptance appeared a few more times in this morning’s service. One of the people who greeted me at the door told me that the communion is open—-anyone can take it. He said that, when Jesus distributed the loaves and fishes, he gave them to everyone who was there. The senior pastor made a similar point during communion: Jesus’ gifts are for everyone.
One can ask questions about this. Was Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes relevant to communion? Maybe not on the surface, but Jesus in the Gospel of John did use his feeding of the multitudes as a springboard to talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which is relevant to communion. What about Paul’s discussion in I Corinthians about not partaking of communion unworthily, and his statement that people should discern the body and blood of the Lord? Does this not imply that communion at least should be restricted to believers, people who somehow see Jesus’ body and blood in the bread and the wine (even if symbolically)? Well, maybe. But who exactly is a believer? There were times when I took communion and did not know what I believed, and God did not curse me on account of that. Still, I respected the sacrament even then as a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood.
I may visit this church again next week. Or I may visit a small United Methodist Church that I passed on the way. While I did not take communion this morning, there was something that I liked: grape juice was an option. I do not drink alcohol, and I was wondering how I would handle communion, especially since I have heard that Lutherans use actual wine. I was glad that they offer grape juice as an option.
The sermon was interesting because it was about the “if” clauses in John 15:9-17. Jesus told his disciples that they will abide in his love if they obey his commandments. He said that they are his friends if they do what he has commanded them. What does that mean? That Jesus only loves us if we do what he says? Or that, while Jesus loves everyone, he has a special love for those who obey him?
The vicar did not seem to me to tackle this question head on, but he was aware of it. He was saying that, in this world, there is so much conditional acceptance—-whether we are looking for a job, or even having friends. The vicar asked if we see the same thing in John 15. The vicar’s main point seemed to be that Jesus loves us unconditionally, but that we show that we are a friend to Jesus when we then go forward and love others unconditionally. Jesus is already our friend and loves us, but the question that John 15 addresses is how we can be a friend to Jesus and love as Jesus loves.
The theme of unconditional acceptance appeared a few more times in this morning’s service. One of the people who greeted me at the door told me that the communion is open—-anyone can take it. He said that, when Jesus distributed the loaves and fishes, he gave them to everyone who was there. The senior pastor made a similar point during communion: Jesus’ gifts are for everyone.
One can ask questions about this. Was Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes relevant to communion? Maybe not on the surface, but Jesus in the Gospel of John did use his feeding of the multitudes as a springboard to talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which is relevant to communion. What about Paul’s discussion in I Corinthians about not partaking of communion unworthily, and his statement that people should discern the body and blood of the Lord? Does this not imply that communion at least should be restricted to believers, people who somehow see Jesus’ body and blood in the bread and the wine (even if symbolically)? Well, maybe. But who exactly is a believer? There were times when I took communion and did not know what I believed, and God did not curse me on account of that. Still, I respected the sacrament even then as a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood.
I may visit this church again next week. Or I may visit a small United Methodist Church that I passed on the way. While I did not take communion this morning, there was something that I liked: grape juice was an option. I do not drink alcohol, and I was wondering how I would handle communion, especially since I have heard that Lutherans use actual wine. I was glad that they offer grape juice as an option.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
II Chronicles 32
II Chronicles 32
talks about King Sennacherib of Assyria’s unsuccessful siege of
Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah. It also covers
Hezekiah’s pride and death.
In preparation for Assyria’s invasion of Jerusalem, Hezekiah stopped up the water supply outside of the city so that the Assyrians would have nothing to drink, and he diverted water to Jerusalem, so that Jerusalem could withstand a siege. Hezekiah also repaired walls, made a lot of darts and shields, and appointed captains over the people. Hezekiah told the captains that God was with them to fight their battles.
Isaiah 22:9-11 was critical of Hezekiah for this, saying that the Judahites were not regarding or respecting God. The Chronicler, however, does not seem to disapprove of Hezekiah’s policies.
The Chronicler ordinarily does not express disapproval of a Judahite king taking practical steps to fortify Judah and to wage war; according to more than one commentator I have read, the Chronicler actually viewed a Judahite king’s building projects and victories as signs of divine blessing on the righteous king. The Chronicler, however, does disapprove of Judahite kings entering into alliances with other nations. For the Chronicler, that is a sign of not trusting God (II Chronicles 16:7), and it is especially awful in God’s eyes when a Judahite king enters into an alliance with someone who is wicked (II Chronicles 19).
According to Raymond Dillard, the Chronicler omits the part of the story about Hezekiah awaiting help from the Egyptians (II Kings 18:20-25) because the Chronicler, overall, wants to depict Hezekiah as righteous, and Hezekiah being in an alliance with Egypt would make him less than righteous. Granted, later in II Chronicles 32, Hezekiah does have some moral problems, specifically pride, and the Chronicler narrates that God was about to punish Hezekiah, Judah, and Jerusalem for that, but Hezekiah caused the punishment to be postponed through his repentance (which, in my opinion, is contrary to how the Chronicler’s ideology is usually stereotyped—-as supporting individual retribution rather than punishment being postponed to a future time). In the case of Sennacherib’s invasion, however, God miraculously saved Jerusalem through an angel, who slaughtered Assyrian soldiers, and the Chronicler may have figured that God would not have done that had Hezekiah been less than righteous.
The Chronicler’s ideology has long confused me, specifically when the issue is reliance on God. The Chronicler deems alliances as a sign of not trusting God, since the Judahite kings are seeking security in the alliances rather than God. Yet, the Chronicler has no problems with kings taking practical steps to defend their nation—-fortifications, weapons, soldiers, wars. Are not these things signs of distrusting God? If God has one’s back, why should one take any practical steps?
Hezekiah believed that God had Jerusalem’s back, even while he was taking practical steps to defend Jerusalem. He may have remembered that, while God sometimes unilaterally helps his people without them lifting a finger, there are also times when God blesses the efforts of the Judahites—-and yet they still had to make an effort. This occurs more than once in Chronicles. Perhaps Hezekiah did not want to put God to the test by doing nothing to protect Jerusalem; he still recognized that he needed God’s help, though, because his plans were not fool-proof. The Assyrians were powerful, with a lot of men and resources. Without God’s help, Jerusalem could fall, notwithstanding Hezekiah’s fortifications, weapons, and captains. In the end, it seems, God delivered Jerusalem without the Judahites having to lift a finger; maybe the water supply helped the Jerusalemites during the siege, however.
The Chronicler may have a problem with alliances because they can lead to compromise. A king fortifying his nation is one thing. Relying on somebody else, who worships other gods, is another. Alliances can also impose obligations on its members. Would I say that the Chronicler is misanthropic? I am not sure if I would go that far, but relationships can easily lead to compromise. Yet, in my opinion, the larger counsel of the Bible is not that we should avoid relationships but should pursue and enjoy them, while being careful.
I would agree with the Chronicler that a good policy is for one to trust in God, while also taking action. My dissertation won’t write itself. To find work, I need to apply. Yet, God can bless my efforts. If there is anything of which the Chronicler disapproves in II Chronicles 32, however, it is pride, which was made evident when Hezekiah showed off his wealth to the visiting Babylonians. In being proud, Hezekiah forgot that God was the source of his wealth, that he depended on God. That can be dangerous territory. Even if one is an atheist, a bit of humility is good, since so much wealth comes from factors beyond an individual’s control: intelligence, social skills, resources, opportunities, and sometimes just plain luck.
In preparation for Assyria’s invasion of Jerusalem, Hezekiah stopped up the water supply outside of the city so that the Assyrians would have nothing to drink, and he diverted water to Jerusalem, so that Jerusalem could withstand a siege. Hezekiah also repaired walls, made a lot of darts and shields, and appointed captains over the people. Hezekiah told the captains that God was with them to fight their battles.
Isaiah 22:9-11 was critical of Hezekiah for this, saying that the Judahites were not regarding or respecting God. The Chronicler, however, does not seem to disapprove of Hezekiah’s policies.
The Chronicler ordinarily does not express disapproval of a Judahite king taking practical steps to fortify Judah and to wage war; according to more than one commentator I have read, the Chronicler actually viewed a Judahite king’s building projects and victories as signs of divine blessing on the righteous king. The Chronicler, however, does disapprove of Judahite kings entering into alliances with other nations. For the Chronicler, that is a sign of not trusting God (II Chronicles 16:7), and it is especially awful in God’s eyes when a Judahite king enters into an alliance with someone who is wicked (II Chronicles 19).
According to Raymond Dillard, the Chronicler omits the part of the story about Hezekiah awaiting help from the Egyptians (II Kings 18:20-25) because the Chronicler, overall, wants to depict Hezekiah as righteous, and Hezekiah being in an alliance with Egypt would make him less than righteous. Granted, later in II Chronicles 32, Hezekiah does have some moral problems, specifically pride, and the Chronicler narrates that God was about to punish Hezekiah, Judah, and Jerusalem for that, but Hezekiah caused the punishment to be postponed through his repentance (which, in my opinion, is contrary to how the Chronicler’s ideology is usually stereotyped—-as supporting individual retribution rather than punishment being postponed to a future time). In the case of Sennacherib’s invasion, however, God miraculously saved Jerusalem through an angel, who slaughtered Assyrian soldiers, and the Chronicler may have figured that God would not have done that had Hezekiah been less than righteous.
The Chronicler’s ideology has long confused me, specifically when the issue is reliance on God. The Chronicler deems alliances as a sign of not trusting God, since the Judahite kings are seeking security in the alliances rather than God. Yet, the Chronicler has no problems with kings taking practical steps to defend their nation—-fortifications, weapons, soldiers, wars. Are not these things signs of distrusting God? If God has one’s back, why should one take any practical steps?
Hezekiah believed that God had Jerusalem’s back, even while he was taking practical steps to defend Jerusalem. He may have remembered that, while God sometimes unilaterally helps his people without them lifting a finger, there are also times when God blesses the efforts of the Judahites—-and yet they still had to make an effort. This occurs more than once in Chronicles. Perhaps Hezekiah did not want to put God to the test by doing nothing to protect Jerusalem; he still recognized that he needed God’s help, though, because his plans were not fool-proof. The Assyrians were powerful, with a lot of men and resources. Without God’s help, Jerusalem could fall, notwithstanding Hezekiah’s fortifications, weapons, and captains. In the end, it seems, God delivered Jerusalem without the Judahites having to lift a finger; maybe the water supply helped the Jerusalemites during the siege, however.
The Chronicler may have a problem with alliances because they can lead to compromise. A king fortifying his nation is one thing. Relying on somebody else, who worships other gods, is another. Alliances can also impose obligations on its members. Would I say that the Chronicler is misanthropic? I am not sure if I would go that far, but relationships can easily lead to compromise. Yet, in my opinion, the larger counsel of the Bible is not that we should avoid relationships but should pursue and enjoy them, while being careful.
I would agree with the Chronicler that a good policy is for one to trust in God, while also taking action. My dissertation won’t write itself. To find work, I need to apply. Yet, God can bless my efforts. If there is anything of which the Chronicler disapproves in II Chronicles 32, however, it is pride, which was made evident when Hezekiah showed off his wealth to the visiting Babylonians. In being proud, Hezekiah forgot that God was the source of his wealth, that he depended on God. That can be dangerous territory. Even if one is an atheist, a bit of humility is good, since so much wealth comes from factors beyond an individual’s control: intelligence, social skills, resources, opportunities, and sometimes just plain luck.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Derek Leman's Comments on Luke 16:19-17:10
Yesterday, I shared Messianic rabbi Derek Leman’s comments on Luke
16:1-18. These comments were from his free Daily D’var. Today, I want
to share his comments on Luke 16:19-17:10.
Luke 16:19-17:10 (KJV):
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Derek Leman’s comments:
NOTES: Luke has emphasized repeatedly Yeshua’s teaching about renouncing all attachment to possessions, about the importance of almsgiving, and about the kingdom perspective of reward and punishment. The rich man and Lazarus parable is not the place to find information about what the afterlife is like. Parables feature concrete images and unusual descriptions without needing to be taken literally. The term “Abraham’s bosom” reflects the tradition of viewing the afterlife as being “gathered to the fathers” (Johnson). As in a Greco-Roman symposium (banquet), the place of honor is to recline next to the head of the banquet, so Lazarus is pictured as reclining next to Abraham. See Matt 8:11 for the “table of Abraham”. See Luke 13:28 for the idea of people seeing the patriarchs in the kingdom. Many times Yeshua has taught the principle of reversal: those who make this life about riches are poor in the life to come and vice-versa. The whole parable is a denunciation of Yeshua’s opponents, Pharisees in this case, who Luke informs us are “lovers of money” and were scoffing at Yeshua. The Pharisees were a party seeking political power in order to enforce their notions of Torah purity on the people. Yeshua has said that their Torah teaching lacks the intensity of the kingdom ethic. They are not as good at Torah piety as they imagine. Almsgiving is an example of true Torah. So, in this parable, Yeshua makes the decisive point that Moses cannot help a person who refuses to submit to the announcement of the kingdom and to live for its coming. As Luke Timothy Johnson says of these Pharisees who opposed Yeshua, “In spite of their claim to hold the demands of the law, they reject the outcasts among the people.” So they will reject the one who comes back from the dead (vs. 31). Luke Johnson suggests that after a long section denouncing the comfortable and privileged, Yeshua now issues in 17:1-10 a demanding challenge for his followers. It may be true that as the poor or marginalized they tend to be humble, but they too need faith, must forgive, and in so doing are only doing their duty. In other words, Yeshua turns from excoriating his powerful adversaries to making hard demands of his followers. The marginalized followers of Yeshua should not rejoice in being a scandal to the power-mongers. Causing stumbling is never something to rejoice about. And if the scandal caused by the disciple falls on the “little ones,” likely a term taken over from Matthew referring to disciples of Yeshua, then the guilt for causing it is very high. In other words, we have a responsibility to assist the faith of others and not do anything to bring it down. Likewise, we cannot nurse the private satisfaction of wringing guilt from others, but must readily forgive offenses against us. These hard demands caused the disciples to say, “Increase our faith.” Yeshua replied that if they had the smallest grain of faith it would be enough to uproot trees. In other words, it is not the amount of faith but the power of the one in whom we have faith that matters. Focus on our own religious affections can be counter-productive whereas focus on the greatness of God and Messiah is paramount. Yeshua then continues his hard teaching. When we so live for others as to avoid causing scandal and to forgive repeatedly, we have only done our duty. The radical life of discipleship is not cause for high praise. To focus on our own greatness would again be counter-productive. It is the Master we must serve and not ourselves.
Luke 16:19-17:10 (KJV):
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
17 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It
were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Derek Leman’s comments:
NOTES: Luke has emphasized repeatedly Yeshua’s teaching about renouncing all attachment to possessions, about the importance of almsgiving, and about the kingdom perspective of reward and punishment. The rich man and Lazarus parable is not the place to find information about what the afterlife is like. Parables feature concrete images and unusual descriptions without needing to be taken literally. The term “Abraham’s bosom” reflects the tradition of viewing the afterlife as being “gathered to the fathers” (Johnson). As in a Greco-Roman symposium (banquet), the place of honor is to recline next to the head of the banquet, so Lazarus is pictured as reclining next to Abraham. See Matt 8:11 for the “table of Abraham”. See Luke 13:28 for the idea of people seeing the patriarchs in the kingdom. Many times Yeshua has taught the principle of reversal: those who make this life about riches are poor in the life to come and vice-versa. The whole parable is a denunciation of Yeshua’s opponents, Pharisees in this case, who Luke informs us are “lovers of money” and were scoffing at Yeshua. The Pharisees were a party seeking political power in order to enforce their notions of Torah purity on the people. Yeshua has said that their Torah teaching lacks the intensity of the kingdom ethic. They are not as good at Torah piety as they imagine. Almsgiving is an example of true Torah. So, in this parable, Yeshua makes the decisive point that Moses cannot help a person who refuses to submit to the announcement of the kingdom and to live for its coming. As Luke Timothy Johnson says of these Pharisees who opposed Yeshua, “In spite of their claim to hold the demands of the law, they reject the outcasts among the people.” So they will reject the one who comes back from the dead (vs. 31). Luke Johnson suggests that after a long section denouncing the comfortable and privileged, Yeshua now issues in 17:1-10 a demanding challenge for his followers. It may be true that as the poor or marginalized they tend to be humble, but they too need faith, must forgive, and in so doing are only doing their duty. In other words, Yeshua turns from excoriating his powerful adversaries to making hard demands of his followers. The marginalized followers of Yeshua should not rejoice in being a scandal to the power-mongers. Causing stumbling is never something to rejoice about. And if the scandal caused by the disciple falls on the “little ones,” likely a term taken over from Matthew referring to disciples of Yeshua, then the guilt for causing it is very high. In other words, we have a responsibility to assist the faith of others and not do anything to bring it down. Likewise, we cannot nurse the private satisfaction of wringing guilt from others, but must readily forgive offenses against us. These hard demands caused the disciples to say, “Increase our faith.” Yeshua replied that if they had the smallest grain of faith it would be enough to uproot trees. In other words, it is not the amount of faith but the power of the one in whom we have faith that matters. Focus on our own religious affections can be counter-productive whereas focus on the greatness of God and Messiah is paramount. Yeshua then continues his hard teaching. When we so live for others as to avoid causing scandal and to forgive repeatedly, we have only done our duty. The radical life of discipleship is not cause for high praise. To focus on our own greatness would again be counter-productive. It is the Master we must serve and not ourselves.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Derek Leman's Comments on Luke 16:1-18 (the Shrewd Steward)
Derek Leman
is a Messianic Jewish rabbi, and I subscribe to his free Daily D’Var,
in which he comments on passages in the Torah and the Gospels from a
religious and a scholarly perspective. I would like to share here his
comments today on Luke 16:1-18, which includes the Parable of the Shrewd
Steward.
Luke 16:1-18 (KJV):
1.
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which
had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his
goods.
2 And
he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee?
give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer
steward.3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5 So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Derek Leman’s comments:
NOTES: As with the manager in the parable, the Children of Light (Jewish leaders) are about to be visited by their master. What will they do to secure friends in eternal tents? Will they help people reduce their debt to God or will they continue doing nothing (or even opposing Yeshua’s movement of reaching out to sinners)? The parable confuses many concerned with the possibility that unethical actions of a manager are being praised. Some deny that the manager’s response is unethical (perhaps he is simply removing the high interest his master charges from the customer accounts). As Luke Timothy Johnson says, the issues in the parable amount to two simple things: how to respond to the visitation of the master and how to use possessions. The manager begins by using possessions selfishly. But when he hears the master is coming, he seeks to use possessions in a way to win friends. He uses his power to reduce the debts of those he does business with. Likewise, Yeshua’s disciples give alms to those in need and also teach forgiveness, so that people may reduce their debts both economically and spiritually. Vs. 9 suggests almsgiving as a way to use money wisely. Vss. 10-12 suggest that God rewards disciples based on their use of possessions. Vs. 13 suggests that money (or possessions) may either be an idol or a means of serving others. The exact logic of vas. 14-18 is hard to follow at first. Luke Johnson suggests the following progression: the Pharisees feel superior in their Torah piety, but Yeshua reminds them something new is here (announcement of the kingdom’s arrival) which builds on top of the old (Torah piety). Yeshua implies that the new teaching of Torah he brings (the gospel of the kingdom) is more intense than theirs (the law and prophets which were until John). He then goes on in vss. 19-31 to tell a parable questioning whether anyone who is not committed to almsgiving can hear Moses at all. And these Pharisees are lovers of money (and, thus, not fervent in almsgiving). Luke’s method of relating this conflict is transparent and simple. He pinpoints for readers a fault of these Pharisees (love of money) and shows this as opposition to kingdom values. Without Luke’s note in vs. 14, we might have guessed the esteemed things of vs. 15 were power and domination. But, while that may be true, Luke is focusing on a more narrow offense: greed. In vss. 16-18, Yeshua claims that the Pharisees are not as good at Torah piety as they imagine. Yeshua’s kingdom gospel is intensifying Torah, not diminishing it. Slackness about divorce is an example of the Pharisees’ failure to intensify Torah. And meanwhile, John the Baptist marked the boundary from before and after the arrival of the kingdom (in Yeshua’s life and deeds the kingdom can be said to have partially arrived). The real piety of Torah looks for the kingdom and makes this world like the world to come by providing for all who are needy and hurting.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Sermon at a New Church: The Significance of Baptism
I visited a new church (for me) this past Sunday. It is a small
evangelical church. For a variety of reasons, I do not think that it is
a good fit for me, but I did enjoy the praise and worship, and the
sermon was good, too. In this post, I want to interact with the
sermon. The sermon was about water baptism.
The pastor was critiquing his own evangelical heritage. He says that he was taught that people are supposed to accept Jesus into their hearts and then read the Bible regularly. People often accepted Jesus by raising their hand or coming forward at a church service or a revival meeting. But, in the Book of Acts, the pastor noted, we see a different picture. People believe in Jesus, and they are immediately baptized in water. His evangelical heritage, he was saying, tended to downplay or ignore water baptism, or it did not know what exactly to do with it or where it fit in.
The pastor did not believe that people go to hell after they die if they are not baptized. For him, baptism is not what brings forgiveness of sins, but faith in Christ is. Rather, for him, baptism symbolizes the new birth that a person has through faith, and it is also the first step that a person makes in obedience to God. The pastor said that we tell God that we love him when we obey God, and baptism is a way that we do that. It marked the first step of Jesus’ ministry, and, similarly, it is to be the first act of obedience in our Christian life. The pastor also said that any baptized believer can baptize somebody else. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts. And, while Jesus and Paul did not baptize, the disciples did.
The pastor was also saying that baptism means that we do not bring our old life with us. Romans 6 talks about how we die and rise again with Christ, and the pastor also referred to I Peter 3:20-21, which likens baptism to the flood in Noah’s day, and to I Corinthians 10:2, in which the Israelites crossing the Red Sea is said to be a baptism. According to the pastor, these comparisons are making a point about the end of the old and the beginning of the new. At the flood, God was cleansing the earth of wickedness, and, at the Red Sea, God was freeing the Israelites from Egypt by drowning the Egyptian soldiers. Similarly, the pastor was saying, baptism relates to the end of our old sinful life and the beginning of a life of righteousness.
It is ironic that the first sermon that I heard after moving here was about baptism. The first sermon that I heard when I moved to upstate New York was also about baptism, and I went to that church for four years after hearing that sermon. Is this a sign that God wants me to attend this evangelical church? Well, I’m still going to try out the Lutheran church in my area!
Did I agree with what the pastor was saying last Sunday morning? Well, not particularly. For one, I do not think that one can easily separate baptism from the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4 says that John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Some may say that the repentance is what brings forgiveness and not the baptism, but the verse does appear to me to be saying that baptism is connected with repentance and the forgiveness of sins. I am not being legalistic about this or trying to put God in a box, for there were times when Jesus forgave people apart from water baptism, and who is to say that he does not do so today? Still, water baptism somehow relates to repentance and forgiveness.
Second, as intrigued as I was by the pastor’s interpretation of I Peter 3:20-21, I was not convinced by it. I do not think that the passage is about the cleansing of the old earth, but more about how Noah was saved through water during the flood, by means of the Ark, and how, similarly, we are saved through water at baptism. Granted, the pastor’s interpretation of the passage makes more sense to me than my understanding of what the passage itself is actually saying. The passage’s argument strikes me as a bit awkward, whereas what the pastor was saying sounds like a reasonable comparison between the flood and baptism. But what I read in the passage is what I read in the passage.
There is also the question of whether I leave my old life behind at water baptism. Well, yes and no. I do not think that I can really escape who I have always been. In a number of respects, who I was then overlaps with who I am now. Baptism did not cleanse me of my introversion, for example, and some of the problems that confronted me then are still challenges for me now. But baptism can mark a decision to leave behind a sinful life and to start anew, and it can express a conviction that God is not holding my old life against me but is giving me new life. I would also like to add that water baptism is not the only time and place that this has to happen. There have been times when I have had to leave behind old ways and embrace new ways long after my baptism. There are passages in Scripture about dying daily.
The sermon was thought provoking, and I respected the pastor’s honest wrestling with his evangelical heritage.
The pastor was critiquing his own evangelical heritage. He says that he was taught that people are supposed to accept Jesus into their hearts and then read the Bible regularly. People often accepted Jesus by raising their hand or coming forward at a church service or a revival meeting. But, in the Book of Acts, the pastor noted, we see a different picture. People believe in Jesus, and they are immediately baptized in water. His evangelical heritage, he was saying, tended to downplay or ignore water baptism, or it did not know what exactly to do with it or where it fit in.
The pastor did not believe that people go to hell after they die if they are not baptized. For him, baptism is not what brings forgiveness of sins, but faith in Christ is. Rather, for him, baptism symbolizes the new birth that a person has through faith, and it is also the first step that a person makes in obedience to God. The pastor said that we tell God that we love him when we obey God, and baptism is a way that we do that. It marked the first step of Jesus’ ministry, and, similarly, it is to be the first act of obedience in our Christian life. The pastor also said that any baptized believer can baptize somebody else. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts. And, while Jesus and Paul did not baptize, the disciples did.
The pastor was also saying that baptism means that we do not bring our old life with us. Romans 6 talks about how we die and rise again with Christ, and the pastor also referred to I Peter 3:20-21, which likens baptism to the flood in Noah’s day, and to I Corinthians 10:2, in which the Israelites crossing the Red Sea is said to be a baptism. According to the pastor, these comparisons are making a point about the end of the old and the beginning of the new. At the flood, God was cleansing the earth of wickedness, and, at the Red Sea, God was freeing the Israelites from Egypt by drowning the Egyptian soldiers. Similarly, the pastor was saying, baptism relates to the end of our old sinful life and the beginning of a life of righteousness.
It is ironic that the first sermon that I heard after moving here was about baptism. The first sermon that I heard when I moved to upstate New York was also about baptism, and I went to that church for four years after hearing that sermon. Is this a sign that God wants me to attend this evangelical church? Well, I’m still going to try out the Lutheran church in my area!
Did I agree with what the pastor was saying last Sunday morning? Well, not particularly. For one, I do not think that one can easily separate baptism from the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4 says that John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Some may say that the repentance is what brings forgiveness and not the baptism, but the verse does appear to me to be saying that baptism is connected with repentance and the forgiveness of sins. I am not being legalistic about this or trying to put God in a box, for there were times when Jesus forgave people apart from water baptism, and who is to say that he does not do so today? Still, water baptism somehow relates to repentance and forgiveness.
Second, as intrigued as I was by the pastor’s interpretation of I Peter 3:20-21, I was not convinced by it. I do not think that the passage is about the cleansing of the old earth, but more about how Noah was saved through water during the flood, by means of the Ark, and how, similarly, we are saved through water at baptism. Granted, the pastor’s interpretation of the passage makes more sense to me than my understanding of what the passage itself is actually saying. The passage’s argument strikes me as a bit awkward, whereas what the pastor was saying sounds like a reasonable comparison between the flood and baptism. But what I read in the passage is what I read in the passage.
There is also the question of whether I leave my old life behind at water baptism. Well, yes and no. I do not think that I can really escape who I have always been. In a number of respects, who I was then overlaps with who I am now. Baptism did not cleanse me of my introversion, for example, and some of the problems that confronted me then are still challenges for me now. But baptism can mark a decision to leave behind a sinful life and to start anew, and it can express a conviction that God is not holding my old life against me but is giving me new life. I would also like to add that water baptism is not the only time and place that this has to happen. There have been times when I have had to leave behind old ways and embrace new ways long after my baptism. There are passages in Scripture about dying daily.
The sermon was thought provoking, and I respected the pastor’s honest wrestling with his evangelical heritage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)