Church Write-Up: Friendship with the World vs. Agape

Here are some items from last Sunday’s church services and events:

A.  The theme for the LCMS service was taken from James 4:8a: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (KJV).  The youth pastor said that, when we ask God for something and we do not get what we want, that is still okay because at least we are drawing near to God by making the request.  I like that concept because it implies that any prayer that we make is welcomed by God and is not wasted: it is accomplishing something, namely, bringing us closer to God, since we are sharing with God our desires.  I think that the concept is broadly Scriptural, as there are passages encouraging people to bring their needs and their requests to God.  In terms of the Epistle of James, though, I wonder how it fits with vv. 2-3: “Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.”  It coincides with v. 2 because it suggests that not receiving is a result of not asking, so it encourages people to ask.  Yet, the next verse says that there is such a thing as asking amiss, so that one might consume what one hopes to receive on one’s lust.  The verse after that appears to focus on the attitude behind prayer: not praying with an attitude of friendship towards the world, or an alignment with worldly values and desires.

I will sneak in a thought from the Sunday school class.  The pastor there was talking about I John and the difference between agape and phileo.  Agape is a giving love that originates from God and is exemplified by God’s love for us in sending Christ to die for our sins.  Phileo is friendship, which can easily be conditional: you do good to me, and I will do good to you.  The pastor was musing that perhaps the concept of friendship with the world implies a hope of redemption, because the friendship with the world is merely philia, which is not as strong of a devotion and attachment as agape.

A few weeks ago, I shared an old post that I wrote, which referred to the scholarly view that agape and phileo are interchangeable rather than distinct.  LXX II Samuel 13:1, 15 challenges the idea that agape is always some lofty form of love, for it refers to Amnon’s love for Tamar, whom he raped then rejected.  Still, could there be something to the pastor’s insight, and the thought of many Christians who differentiate between agape and phileo?  There is a love that Christians have, or are supposed to have, that is rooted in the Gospel, the self-sacrificial, others-oriented love that God showed and shows to us. That love goes beyond the quid-pro-quo of friendship and affection.  It is a stronger commitment to the well-being of others, planted and rooted in Gospel territory.  In addition, could not our friendship with the world be described as a conditional devotion or affection?  We are affectionate towards the world as long as it gives us what we want or makes us feel a certain way.

B.  At the “Word of Faith” church, the sermon was a mixture of references to Nehemiah and to the “work out your own salvation” concept in Philippians 2:12.

The pastor used two cups as an illustration.  One cup is how we see ourselves, based on our flaws.  We may recognize that we are lustful, or bitter, or alone.  The other cup concerns what we have in Christ: God, in Christ, sees us as righteous.  Which view do we live out?  The pastor put one cup into another, and the other cup into the other one, and that represented which cup takes center stage in our lives.  Christ may be inside of us, but do we work out the implications of that, living out God’s love and approval of us, or are we burdened by self-condemnation?  The pastor compared this to the walls in the Book of Nehemiah.  They were intended to keep the Jews safe from attack, so they were associated with salvation.  But, like Christians, the Jews rebuilding the walls were assaulted by various forces: commitment to the status quo, mockery, and intimidation.  The pastor said that small groups are an important part of the Christian’s battle, for that is where Christians can encourage and remind each other of who they truly are.  The pastor observed that Philippians 2:12 is second person plural: it is addressed to the community, not just individuals.

Current Events Write-Up: Yemen, Obamacare and Netflix, Bernie vs. Debs

Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.

TomDispatch: “The American War in Yemen,” by Rajan Menon.

The saddening story about the U.S.-supported war in Yemen, which has resulted in numerous civilian casualties.

The Federalist: “How Obamacare Is Making the U.S. Health-Care System Run Like Netflix,” by Adam Barsouk.

According to Barsouk, Netflix makes its own movies, and it skimps on quality for the sake of profit: the company wants to make money from subscribers, without spending a lot on production.  Similarly, Obamacare, in an attempt to contain costs, limits people to a particular network.  They cannot go outside of that network for care that may have more quality.  Barsouk also criticizes insurance company-run health care providers, as they seek to skimp on care in order to make more profits for the insurance companies.  Interesting analogy.  I read an article a while back that said that combining health insurance companies and health care providers into one is the way to go because, that way, both would not be waging war with each other, with the providers wanting to allow more treatments and thus make money, and the insurance companies wanting to deny treatments for the sake of their own bottom line.  But there are disadvantages to combining them into one.  Progressives, of course, would say that this is why we need to get profits out of the U.S. health care system.  On Netflix, I like some of its original programming, especially the Marvel series (i.e., Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist).  And, of course, there is Stranger Things!

Counterpunch: “When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid,” by Bruce E. Levine.

Levine argues that Bernie is too much of a warmonger and has become a shrill for the Democrats.  His old hero, Eugene Debs, by contrast, started out as a Democrat and came to see the system as corrupt.  There were people during the 2016 election who were saying that Bernie is not as progressive as people think.  Maybe.  Still, I am glad that he gave Hillary a run for her money!  And I will not apologize for feeling that way.  On his becoming a shrill for the Democrats, he may think that is the best option for the country: for him to work within the system and to move the Democratic Party further left.

Book Write-Up: The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger E. Olson

Roger E. Olson.  The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform.  IVP Academic, 1999.  See here to purchase the book.

Roger E. Olson teaches theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, which is at Baylor University.  In this book, Olson tells the story of Christian theology from the second through the twentieth century.

The book is organized chronologically rather than topically, but among the topics that it engages are: the tension between an emphasis on grace in salvation and an emphasis on good works; Christological debates about the relationship of the Son to the Father and the divine and human nature within Christ; ecclesiastical evolution and disputes over the primacy of the Bishop in Rome; monergism vs. synergism; the presence of Christ in the sacraments; the tension between emphasizing orthodoxy and emphasizing personal piety; the relationship between Christian theology and philosophy and, later, modernism; and liberation theology.

The book is very lucid.  There were some thinkers whom I failed to understand, such as those who posited that God’s existence was somehow contingent on the world.  Olson explained them as best as he could!  Overall, the book effectively broke down the thoughts of major Christian theologians throughout history.  Olson admits that this book is not a comprehensive treatment, but it does provide the gist of what prominent theologians have argued, and this can provide a crucial foundation and context for further study.

Olson managed to phrase issues in a manner that I found clear.  For instance, I have wondered how exactly to define Nestorianism and to differentiate it from what became orthodoxy.  It says Jesus had a divine and human nature.  What’s wrong with that?  But Olson explained that Nestorianism presented two personages as present within Jesus: a divine being and a human being.  Another question that I have had concerns who experiences prevenient grace, according to Arminianism.  Is it only those whom God chooses to woo, or is it everyone?  Olson states that, according to Arminianism, everyone does, on some level.

The book also conveys that there are nuances, without getting lost in a mess of details.  While it seems to acknowledge that a belief in Jesus’ divinity goes back to the first century CE, it states that the conception of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were different in the Shepherd of Hermas and Athanasius’ writings than in what came out in orthodox Trinitarianism.

Olson also corrects common misconceptions, as when he states that deists believed in a God who could interfere in the cosmos.  He also addresses questions that some may be afraid to ask, thinking they are dumb questions.  For example, does Black Liberation Theology hold that only black people will go to heaven after they die?  Olson’s willingness to engage this brings the book down to an accessible level.

Olson is not afraid to share his views, here and there.  He characterizes the Shepherd of Hermas as legalistic, seeing it as a departure from Paul’s message of grace.  He tends to root for the orthodox Trinitarian side.  He sees the Council of Orange as a mess when it comes to the issue of predestination.  He is skeptical about Process Theology.  While Olson is known as an Arminian theologian, he is not particularly negative towards monergism in this book.  Even when discussing positions that he may not hold, he tries to get inside of the heads of their adherents and convey their point of view, as when he explains the development of liberal theology.  At times, Olson discusses the effects of past disputes on the present, as when he maintains that the U.S. religious culture is privately pietist and publicly deist.

There were things that I learned in reading this book.  For one, Olson states that Celsus, against whom Origen argued, may have been raised in a Christian household.  Second, there was the issue of nominalism.  Nominalism believes in particulars, not categories.  As Olson explains, this has profound ramifications on Christian theology.  If there is no category of divinity, for example, what does that do to the Trinitarian model in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one what and three whos?  There is no longer a what called divinity!  There are only three distinct whos, and saying they are one because they share a divine nature is precluded, under nominalism.  Is there such a thing as goodness?  Olson shows that nominalism led to a divine-command model of ethics: something is right simply because God commands it, not because it is right in itself, according to some category called “right.”  According to Olson, such an idea influenced Martin Luther.  Olson explained nominalism well, but I have a hard time believing that Luther rejected the idea that God is good.

This book covers a lot of territory, but in an accessible manner.  It is a go-to book, yet it is more than a reference book, as Olson provides a compelling narrative and displays his love for the subject matter.  There are thinkers who are not treated in this book, such as Tillich, but Olson has written another book about modern theology, which I will read in the future.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest!

Church Write-Up: Jeremiah 11:18-20; Mark 9:30-37; James 3-4

The LCMS Wednesday Bible study started up again.  Here are some of the points that I got out of it.

A.  One of the texts was Jeremiah 11:18-20, in which Jeremiah complains of people from his hometown (Anathoth) trying to kill him and desires God’s vengeance upon them.  Jeremiah was unpopular because he was prophesying doom and gloom in a time of national prosperity.  He may have participated in righteous King Josiah’s reforms against paganism and in favor of the consecration of the Temple and the Judahites to God.  Now that Josiah was dead, Jeremiah was yesterday’s news.  Jeremiah entrusts himself to the LORD of hosts, who is sovereign.  The pastor told a story about how he counseled pastors whose congregations did not want them, and how that was a painful experience for these pastors.

B.  Josiah tore down the high places, and the pastor gave background about those.  High places were sacred sites on the hills that were dedicated to Baal, the weather god, and his wife Ashtoreth,  In an agricultural society, people prayed to Baal because they wanted rain and to Ashtoreth because they desired fertility.  Passages such as II Kings 21:3, 5 and Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35 say or imply that there were Israelite high places where worship of Baal occurred.  At the same time, there were also high places to Yahweh (I Kings 3:2-3), which ran counter to Deuteronomic centralization.  The pastor got me thinking some about the high places, since there were kings of Judah who were righteous, yet they did not tear down the high places (II Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35).  Righteous kings pursued reform, on a limited level, but they did not challenge the popular practice of paganism.

C.  The pastor asked if it is acceptable to desire vengeance because Jeremiah did.  The pastor contrasted Jeremiah with Jesus in our New Testament reading, Mark 9:30-37.  Like Jeremiah, Jesus was rejected by his hometown, in this case, Nazareth.  Jesus did not desire vengeance against his enemies, however, but served them with his life.  The pastor said that the reason the doxology occurs after Scripture readings is that it highlights that Scripture is to be read within the context of Christ.  Psalm 137:8-9 ends by wishing that the heads of Babylonian babies would be dashed against rocks, but Christians read that remembering that Christ paid the penalty for sins.  Proverbs 21:9 and 25:24 warns against living with a contentious wife, and Christians read that realizing that such contention can be healed through Christ.

D.  Jesus in Mark 9:30-37 teaches humility and service.  He exhorts his disciples to be like deacons, who waited tables and were the lowliest servants.  The pastor said that the apostles apparently were slow to learn this lesson, since they did not want to wait tables in Acts 6:2!  Jesus also exhorted his disciples to be like little children, in a world where children had hardly any status at all and were considered the property of their parents.  Jesus held the child and gave him status, and that demonstrates that we gain status through our relationship with Christ.

E.  The pastor moved on to the Epistle of James.  The Epistle is directed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (James 1:1).  The pastor said that these were Jewish Christians scattered throughout the known world.  Some were scattered due to persecution from Saul (Acts 8:1) and Herod Agrippa’s murder of James the brother of John (Acts 12:2).  Some scattering occurred later, close to the time when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed (70 CE).  Some Jewish Christians fled to Pella, some to Antioch.

F.  According to the pastor, the Epistle of James is not about how to be saved, nor is it merely a rule book.  It is wisdom literature for people who are already Christians.  The pastor said that Lutherans distinguish between wider justification and narrow justification.  Wider justification includes conversion but also sanctification, becoming practically righteous.  When James states that faith without works does not justify, he is referring to wider justification.  Narrow justification refers to conversion, and that is what Paul talks about when he affirms that people are justified by faith alone, apart from works.  Related to this, I asked the pastor to define grace, since the pastor talked about James 2:6, where James says that God gives more grace, and that God gives grace to the humble.  Is grace unmerited favor?  Is it mercy?  Is it the spiritual power to live righteously?  The pastor said that it is God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense, and that includes everything that God provides to people due to the sacrifice of Christ.  That would include God’s word, forgiveness, spiritual power to live righteously, and the list goes on.

G.  James 3:17 states: “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy” (KJV).  The pastor said that this describes Jesus: Jesus is the wisdom from above, and Jesus had those characteristics.

H.  James 4:5 states: “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” (KJV).  The NASB translates it the way the pastor was interpreting it: “Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: ‘He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us’?”  The question, apparently, is whether pneuma (spirit) is the subject or the direct object.  If it is the subject, the verse is probably criticizing the envious lusts condemned in vv. 1-4.  If it is the object, it is talking about God’s jealous desire to have us with him—-for us to draw closer to him rather than to have friendship with the world.  The pastor said that the spirit could be the Holy Spirit or the spirit that enlivens every human being: either way, God does not want that Spirit to go to waste but desires to be with that spirit.  The pastor noted that v. 5 says it is quoting Scripture, but this verse does not exist in the Hebrew Bible.

I.  The pastor and one of the people in the class were talking about devotions.  The person in the class was saying that her I-phone was reading the Bible text aloud to her, and she did not like that.  The pastor thought she meant that she preferred that, and he talked about how the biblical texts were originally intended to be read and heard aloud, not read silently, since few people could read back then.  When he understood that she was making the opposite point, he said that she may have seen her devotions as her personal time with God and did not want another voice interfering with that.

Church Write-Up: Help My Unbelief, I John 3, Calling and Humility

Time for this week’s Church Write-Up.

A.  The LCMS service focused on Mark 9:14-29, the story of the father with the demon-possessed son.  The father humbly said to Jesus, “I believe, help my unbelief.”  The youth pastor said that it is good to have faith, but we can always use more faith, and, when we ask Jesus for something spiritual, he gives it to us.  That encouraged me to think: rather than continually complaining about my inability to love, how about asking God more often for that ability?

B.  The pastor said that the people in the story were relying on their own strength, but Jesus was trying to direct their attention to himself, the only one who could solve their problems.

The pastor also referred to the transfiguration story, which precedes this story: Peter wanted to build tabernacles for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, and the pastor said this was Peter’s attempt to keep the experience going.

The pastor opened his sermon by referring to the movie, Finding Nemo.  The fish have escaped from the aquarium in the dentist’s office and are back in the ocean, and they wonder, “What now?”  Similarly, the church celebrated it’s sixtieth birthday.  What now?

We sang a hymn that stood out to me.  I had not heard of it before, probably because it is a distinctly Lutheran hymn.  It is called “O God, My Faithful God.” The third stanza especially stood out to me, perhaps because of my own desire to say the right things, in the right way:

Keep me from saying words
That later need recalling;
Guard me lest idle speech
May from my lips be falling;
But when within my place
I must and ought to speak,
Then to my words give grace
Lest I offend the weak.

C.  The Sunday school class on I John resumed.  I’d like to highlight two passages:

I John 3:2: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (KJV)

The pastor said that Christians are the children of God right now, but it is hidden from the world, in a sense.  Christians still die.  They still stumble.  The world is such that people have reasons to argue against God’s existence.  What Christians will be like in their eschatological state is a mystery, and taking field trips in the mind of God leads to speculation.

I John 3:11-12: For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.  Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. (KJV)

I’ll quote the pastor’s comments in the handout:

“John gets back to the Gospel—-Jesus’ words to love one another—-as a witness to the world of whose we are and because we are loved by the Father in Jesus.”

I like this, even though I am one who usually recoils from sermons about love.  The pastor said that love brings people together, and I thought, “Well, there are plenty of people I would rather love from a distance!”  But I liked what the pastor said here: we are loved by the Father in Jesus, and we testify before the world of that by loving one another.

“Why Cain/Abel?  Remember Cain was warned the Devil was crouching at the door and chose to leave the family and leave God’s love—-just like the Devil was the first one to rebel against God, lie and kill—-so those who make a practice of hating do.”

The pastor said that Cain was an example of the sinner John criticizes in I John 3: one who lives to sin and rebels against God.  Cain gave in to jealousy and murder.  In the same way that Cain selfishly murdered his brother, so were the Docetists damaging the Christian community, without caring.

I struggle with this.  Were the Docetists living to sin and rebelling against God?  They didn’t think so, since they were seeking a connection with the divine.  But they were rejecting doctrines that John saw as foundational: by saying that Jesus was not flesh and blood, they were denying that Jesus shed his blood for people’s sins, providing atonement.  In addition, because they felt the physical did not matter, some Docetists went in an antinomian direction, indulging the flesh.

D.  At the “Word of Faith” church, we had a guest speaker.  This speaker spent time in basketball.  He now runs a basketball camp for youth, so he can mentor them to be better people the same way that his coach mentored him.  He sees this as his calling.  Because of that, he is not as bothered by criticism as he was when he was a basketball player, checking blogs after each game to see what they said about him.  But his head also is not big on account of any celebrity he has attained in broadcasting or in basketball, for these things serve as a platform for God’s calling.

Current Events and History Write-Up: 9/15/2018

Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.  Actually, this is more of a History Write-Up, but most of these articles bring up the past within the context of Current Events discussions.

Townhall: “Wonder Where All the Government’s Money Goes? Look to the Lawsuits,” by Bruce Bialosky.

“Every governmental entity is grappling for money. They all have gargantuan unfunded liabilities for employees’ retirement and health benefits that already are impacting their annual budgets. The federal government has underfunded Social Security and Medicare costs. Despite this, these governmental agencies are spending massive taxpayer sums suing each other to the detriment of us all.”

Mother Jones: “California Wants All Its Electricity Carbon-Free. How’s That Possible?”, by Nathanael Johnson.

Challenges and possible solutions.

The Federalist: “The ACLU Has Become A Big Fat Hypocrite On Free Speech,” by Jay Hobbs.

How the ACLU is inconsistent in which free speech cases it will take, and how it has changed from its former free speech absolutism.  The article also discusses corporatist attempts to stifle free speech, and corporatism is a topic of interest of mine.

The Federalist: “Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism,” by Paul Jossey.

This article argues for the typical right-wing “The Nazis were liberals, not conservatives” spiel.  (Not an exact quotation, but the substance of the argument.)  Still, it is an interesting article.  It talks about Hitler’s private views on Marxism, religion, and the occult, his tolerance for private enterprise, and the racist and nationalist tendencies of prominent Communists.  I am currently reading Mein Kampf, and I will discuss Hitler’s views on Marxism there when I do my Book Write-Up of it.

National Review: “Did France’s Gun Control Hurt Its Resistance to the Nazis?”, by Robert Verbruggen.

Discusses a book by a Second Amendment lawyer.

Persephone Rising: “Patterns: Why I Am Nervous About the Far Right Fringe.”

To add balance, check out this old post, which argues that the Nazis were right-wing, not left-wing.

Reason: “The Alt-Right Loves H.L. Mencken. The Feeling Would Not Have Been Mutual,” by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers.

Menken fought for civil rights.

Tomgram: “Sandy Tolan, Was Oslo Doomed From the Start?”

Why did the Oslo accords in the 1990’s fail?  Tom’s introduction to the article also criticizes President Trump’s reduction of aid to the Palestinians.

Book Write-Up: Jesus in the Secular World, by Ben Pierce

Ben Pierce.  Jesus in the Secular World: Reaching a Culture in Crisis.  Steiger, 2018.  The book releases on October 1 and is not yet on Amazon, but go here for the group’s web site.

This book is about the importance of Christian evangelism in a secular world.  Its author, Ben Pierce, offers a profile of secularization, which includes a belief that religion is irrelevant as well as relativism.  He states that Christians should have a heart like that of Jesus for the lost, and that they can gain this heart through prayer.  The book stresses the importance of listening to people, as people crave to be heard and to be loved.  According to Pierce, apologetics can be useful in that they can help remove barriers that people have to believing.  Pierce also contends that the Gospel can be presented accurately but without church jargon that non-Christians may not understand; he offers a sample Gospel presentation that illustrates this.  Finally, he urges Christians to boldly share the Gospel with people, even if it will lead to their rejection, for God did not call Christians to be comfortable but to change the world.

Throughout the book, there are personal stories that illustrate Pierce’s points.  Pierce is part of a Christian band and has preached the Gospel to numerous audiences, even in countries that tend to frown on the Gospel.  The power of prayer and of the Gospel message comes out in his stories, which concern changed lives and hearts.

I had some disagreements with Pierce, as with his dismissal of evolution.  Still, the book was enjoyable to read.  Pierce is a thoughtful writer.  The stories enhance the book, as do Pierce’s references to his family.  For some, his advice may be easier said than done.  Many non-Christians may not want religion to be shoved down their throat, but, overall, the book balanced the boldness out with an exhortation to love and to listen.  Moreover, the book can perhaps encourage Christians to pray, to love, and to share the transforming Gospel a little more than they do.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.