thunder and plunder

"The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians." (Exodus 12:36)

Plundering is an activity which is supposed to be reserved for the strong, the mighty, the upper-end, the winners.  Here, against all of the wisdom and understanding of both modern and ancient world, it comes from the hands of slaves as they exit the front door of one of antiquity's most impressive civilizations. The ancient Israelites plundered the spoils of Egypt and began their migration into a land they believed to have been promised to them.

Of course, the exodus is at the foundation of the corporate identity of Israel, and the apostle Paul could easily reflect on this slave plundering when he spoke of how God was going to be glorified in his weaknesses, or how the weakness of God is mightier than human strength.  Slaves are the losers, exile is for those who have survived, and oppression was the result of defeat.  In Egypt it happened gradually, since Joseph summoned his family to come to the place where what his brothers intended for evil God intended for good (Genesis 50:20).  Over time they settled and became comfortable, watching as their freedoms eroded slowly and gradually, until they were faced with the back-breaking task masters of Pharaoh.

Regardless of how they reached this point in their history, it was evident that now was the time for them to go.  With many questions, much confusion, ten plagues and a Passover later, it was clear that this 'weakness' of God on behalf of his people the slaves was unravelling the might of the Egyptian empire.  And they plundered.  They were on the side of the winners.  They prevailed.

It is not coincidence that those who still follow the God of Israel in the modern church are faced with the same dilemma: we wish to plunder the riches of culture and achieve the status of winners, rather than be the losers of our society who must learn their place in the world.  It is not for the church to plunder the culture in that we strip it of all its riches, but rather come out as those who have truly subverted the status quo and have asserted the authority of a different kingdom.  Hence, we must learn just how ancient Israel pulled off this dramatic upset of an empire.

We must, as did they, learn that we are slaves first to Almighty God and not church workers, cultural servants, or people here to help.  Such endeavors might be well and good, but they are not the essence of who we are as a people.  This is not the thunder of power and might being displayed for all to stand in awe of our own projected greatness.  Rather, it is the life that emerges from death, the strength that rises out of weakness.  In echoing the self-identification of the apostle Paul, we are slaves of Jesus and are thus completely surrendered and bound to his will.  This is how those who are otherwise seen as marginalized losers of culture will come to have overcome from the most unexpected of places.

Of course, it will greatly help God's people to learn that there is no strength or security in such riches - they exist only as God's blessing and tools for further expansion of his will.  We must never lose ourselves in the blessing but continually serve the Creator from which they originate.  When we miss out on this God is more than willing to wait for a generation to respond to his life.  Slaves plundering the empires of the world?  This is what happens when the shadow powers are confronted with the true Lord of the world.

the great divorce 6

8.

"What are we born for?"

As the narrator moves from observing yet another scene with another of the Ghosts he begins to ponder the very existence of this place.  He admits that he has not yet considered the intentions of the Solid People, and now must consider whether or not there are ulterior motives to their apparent friendliness.  He recalls various scenes of mythology, and even imagery from Revelation, regarding the terrible fates of those who were given eternal punishment.  Thus he begins to wonder if this is nothing more than the same.

He speaks of Tantalas, a story derived from Greek mythology, which is a clever indication that he now is considering his visit nothing more than a temptation without satisfaction.  The story of Tantalas (which is not included in Lewis' work here) speaks of his invitation to dine at the table of Zeus.  There he stole nectar to bring back to the people and therefore reveal the secrets of the gods.  Further, he takes his own son, boils him and offers him to the gods at a banquet.  For this heinous act he is punished by being bound  in a pool of water beneath tree branches with fruit.  Whenever he would try to take a bite of fruit, the branches would raise beyond his reach.  Likewise, when he would bend to take a drink of water the pool would recede before he could do so.  The notion of tantalize come from this myth.

As the narrator considers these images in his mind he begins to see the Solid World in a different way: it becomes more sinister to him than it had previously been.  Here is an outcome of the fallenness of creation - what is good and pure is now either questioned or marred in our relationship to it.  At this point he sees another Ghost who is (making an attempt) to run and hide from another one of the Solid People.

The Ghost is trying to get away from the Solid Person and the conversation in which they had been engaged.  There is the (now common) plea to come toward the mountains and join this world, and it seems that the desire is indeed present in the Ghost, though not enough to overcome her own obstacles.  She is held up by her current state of being, "Do you really suppose I'm going out there among all those people, like this?"  Her concern is that everyone will be able to see through her (because of her being one of the ghosts), and her pride will not allow her to move forward.

The Solid Person continues to plead with her, "But we were all a bit ghostly when we first arrived, you know.  That'll wear off.  Just come out and try."  This leads the Ghost a little further, but she is still in a desperate state of affairs because of her present reality.  She eventually replies, "I wish I'd never been born . . . What are we born for?"

Despite all of this the Solid Person continues in her effort to persuade the Ghost to come and try to walk to the mountains.  For a moment it appears that the Ghost has come around and will indeed make the hard and long walk.  Suddenly, however, she recants and refuses to move.  The final effort given by the Solid Person was given, "Friend . . . Could you, only for a moment, fix your mind on something not yourself?"

This scene certainly highlights the current state of many people who are bound up by their own pride and circumstance.  Truly, the walk of faith is one which opens us up that those who watch us will definitely be able to see through us.  That is why it is necessary to have our eyes fixed on Christ for such a journey. The Solid Person never denies that everyone will see through the Ghost, and likewise there is no denying that the believer will not be exposed on many levels for such a commitment.  But, just like the walk to the mountains makes one more solid and whole, those who walk in faith will lose the transparency of hypocrisy, guilt, and sin, to become a solid representation of Christ into the world.

Here we see another barrier to the human heart from engaging the process of sanctification.  Our own pride keeps us focused on ourselves rather than on the goal - which contains the reason for life itself.  Further, not only do we harm ourselves but we lose our witness when we do nothing but hide our spiritual nakedness in the bushes.

review: turning the tide

Charles Stanley. Turning the Tide. New York: Howard Books, 2011. 1439190623.

Although there is no shortage of Christians who choose to speak on socio-political topics, there certainly does seem to be a lack of responsible dialogue in the arena.  In the name of fairness, one could say that this is somewhat true for believers on both sides of the political aisle.  I personally believe that many left-wing advocates are pushing in ways that discredit not only the Founders but also the Bible on which they forged this nation.  So I admit that I am personally biased in my assessment (you are too, even if you claim otherwise).  Having a stated position does not make a person wrong; knowing what you believe is a product of actual thought rather than sentimentalized feelings.

Anyways . . .

Given the sea of voices that have `emerged in the last decade, it is worth listening to the voices of our elders, who have spent their lives working in America's church to see God's Word make an impact in our culture.  Charles Stanley is one of our nation's great preachers, and he offers here the product of godly wisdom that has come from a life of service and devotion to Word and Truth now directed toward a shifting and changing nation.  And it is worth our time and effort to listen to his perspective, rather than follow the trends of those who only hear what they want to hear and forget that those who have built this country have a contributing perspective for us today.

In terms of a book review, I'll be brief.  Among other things, this book is a primer for young pastors on how the church should interact with the issues of culture, society and government.  Stanley speaks clearly from his own convictions, but never makes a statement which is tied to a particular party, movement or candidate.  That is part of the calling for preachers - one that needs to be relearned - to neither decry nor support a particular political agenda any further than it is working for the kingdom of God.  I have often said that in my work as pastor I do not look to speak about the state, but then there are days when the state comes into the church and must be addressed directly.  This is the same vein in which Dr. Stanley writes, and offers his perspective on this nation under God.

The book is written to the believer who wants to see a more godly presence in our nation, not out of legislative or judicial will, but out of a sincere turning to be the people of God among those who work together.  The Founders did not establish an official religion, and that is not what Stanley advocates here.  But the principles of Christian behavior remain at the core of what our first documents advocate, and the Christian faith has played a pivotal role in the history of this nation . . . the phrase God Bless America is not exclusive to us as a people, but is a prayer seeking to have the divine-human relationship flourish in this country.

Turning the Tide guides the reader (by the way, the book is more than suited for small group or personal devotional study, complete with prayers and action steps to help the process of moving forward) to understand biblical precepts of society and government.  Although the chapter titles begin to look more like a political platform type of book, the content never denigrates to that level.  There is a continual emphasis on life as a gift from God and the rights and responsibilities that come along with that gift.  Stanley does well to keep that at the forefront of the discussion.

Again, this book is highly recommended as a proper way to have a biblical discussion regarding the socio-political side of the American experience.  As I write this it is clear that all sides are unhappy with the present state of affairs.  But there remain some deep divisions on just how to move forward.  As Christians we ought not jump on the bandwagon of any movement or party, nor defame and disown any involvement in the political arena until we have considered the type of perspectives offered in this book.  Maybe Charles Stanley doesn't work for you, maybe it's not enough . . . Either way, consider this level of discussion, which begins and ends with Scripture and the glory of God through the kingdom come in Jesus.  (All in the tone of a humbled love.)

the wright new testament

Scheduled for a late-October release in the US is The Kingdom New Testament, a translation put forward by The Bishop, N. T. Wright.  The UK version has already been published (as The New Testament for Everyone) and public reviews are beginning to come in for it.  Of course, the latter version reads with an accent so American readers will want to take that into account before deciding on which to purchase.

In July 2011 Wright gave a paper regarding his translation to the International SBL Meeting in London, "The Monarchs and the Message: Reflections on Bible Translation from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century."

Why another translation?  Indeed, why do we have a plethora of translations in the first place?  Wright addresses these oft-stated concerns from the evangelical laity with: "The reason is that we believe in translation.  Putting the message of Jesus, and the message about Jesus, into different languages so that people can understand it in their own idiom is one of the things Christians characteristically do" (emphasis in original).  I rather enjoy the reading of that first sentence - we believe in translation.  Perhaps is cuts both ways (whether or not The Bishop intended for it to), in that while we are theologically committed to sharing the gospel, it is also true that our experience of belief happens in the translation fo divine to human.  Thus, our faith journey exists in translation - as the flow of Living Water to us, through us, and out to the world.

English Bible translations are traced back to the work of Tyndale, where Wright begins his story as well, identifying the social, cultural and political context into which that Bible was introduced.  The dedication and sacrifice of Tyndale certainly paved the way for translation, and his commitment to the kingdom message drove his own process, believing that he could help bring about much needed reforms from a public understanding of God's Word.  His move was somewhat counteracted by the work of the King James Bible (which uses more than 87% of Tyndale's original text), who sought to place the language just above the common reader once more.  Though, as Wright points out, ". . . in terms of style, Tyndale had already, as it were, let the English cat out of the bag."

With this historical background, Wright presents his own translation theory and approach to what he has provided in The Kingdom New Testament.  He begins with the example of 'Christ' - what is mostly used as a swear word in today's culture, or as the last name of Jesus and his family.  Others might take it as a sign of his divinity, but "none of these corresponds to what the word conveyed in the first century."  So there is a challenge in taking the meaning of that word (Christos) and communicating its importance and fullness to the contemporary reader.  While this one word can cause all sorts of problems in this regard (though, not all such problems would be considered bad), it highlights the vast amount of biblical language that is so contextually wrapped in first-century Judaism that translation becomes quite difficult.

One of Wright's aims therefore is found in his statement, "The best the translator can do is set up signposts pointing in more or less the right direction, and encourage readers to read on and glimpse the larger picture within which the words will flesh themselves out and reveal more of the freight they had all along been carrying."  Further on he shares, "Translation is bound to distort.  But not to translate, and not to upgrade English translations quite frequently, is to collude with a different and perhaps worse kind of distortion."

I believe that the latter statement is true for more than the translation of the text, inasmuch as it points to the way disciples of Jesus are meant to live their faith.  While it is certainly true that our witness is imperfect and bound to distort the truth, it is far worse to cease living out our faith in significant ways - a distortion that works along with the enemy's agenda.

The passion which Wright has for the text and its message comes through in this paper, and will undoubtedly be seen in the translation he provides.  Those who have been keeping up with the for Everyone series have already seen seeds of this.  He shares, "The whole point of the New Testament, after all, is that it is one of the most dramatic, subversive and life-giving collections of writings ever assembled.  lose that and you've lost the plot."

Yes, there are reasons for ongoing translation work and the continual production of versions of Scripture. Unfortunately, many in the church simply do not leave room for such reasons before grumbling, complaining and arguing.  It is probably too much to ask every churchgoer to have an appreciation for the work of translation, but is is certainly not too much to demand that no Scripture wars be started without a proper understanding of the original languages, translation theory, and proper Christian behavior.  Sadly, these realities continue on along with each new translation offered.

"But what a new translation can perhaps do today is to jolt people out of the familiar, and open their eyes and imaginations to new possibilities: particularly to the new possibilities which speak of the ultimate monarchy, of Jesus as the king of the world in a way that Paul and Mark understood well but most contemporary readers have hardly begun to imagine."

alive in the absolutes

Grey area is all around; we are surrounded by it.  The Christian philosophers have been screaming truth for more than one or two generations, knowing that the distillation of absolutes would lead to the ultimate undoing of the church and its mission.  Those who have decried the relativism of the postmodern culture may have caught the attention of some, but we still witness the abandonment of clearly defined parameters of right and wrong in the work of the church.

And this been a significant contributor to the failure of the church to bring about the kingdom of God.

Mostly it happens in the name of grace: we do not want to be known as a people who are close-minded and demanding, but rather considerate and compassionate.  These are good qualities, to be sure, but sentiment does not make for right and wrong.  There must be something more; the fruit must come from the Spirit and not from our emotional warmth.

One of the most striking aspects of Jesus is that a reading of his life according to Scripture does not yield the pseudo-neo-hippie that we wished he would be for us.  He remains the god-man who became emotionally and spiritually involved, many times angrily, because of the seriousness of the war he was waging against the darkness.  Evidently, when dealing with death it will not do to offer words of encouragement and make every attempt to understand all sides.

Yes, Jesus was full of grace and compassion.  But he also was the Word incarnate - the truth, the absolute, the essence of God - intent on bringing life more abundant into a broken and hurting world.  He loved people, but was not too fond of all of their choices of self-destruction.  (He was less fond of choices that brought others closer self-destruction.)  And so, while he at all times operated in love, he stood on the absolutes of the divine character.  We see this in the Torah (or Word), but we see it in the very life of Jesus, if we indeed consider him to be the incarnation of God.

While the world wishes to see in shades of grey all of the ethics and morality that make up the human experience, those who follow Christ should be able to recognize blacks and whites, even when life forces the in-between shades upon us.  This does not make our work easier.  In fact, seeing things in black and white should make it more difficult, thus providing a further narrowing of the path that the few will find to life.  Let us make no mistake about it, this is the very reason why shades of grey dominate - absolutes demand something from us, and it is easier to play with spiritualized sentiments than it is to live out the requirements of truth.

Let us not forget that within the absolutes there is life, and the death to our moral consciousness is found in the fog of relativism.  This is true even when it is masked in the (over-abused) name of grace.  For we are called to be agents of gospel more than we are to be people of grace in the first place.  And gospel, properly understood, does not leave room for make-it-your-own ethics.  It is instead the absolute proclamation of the definitive and universal lordship of God's Messiah over the entire world.  That is the source of our message, our hope, our ethic, and our life.

I am quite amazed at the number of Christians (many of whom are certainly well-meaning believers) who have abandoned the work of the gospel in the name of grace, giving free reign and license for the loss of Christian character and conduct in our churches and ministries.  Of course, we could avoid such loss if we could only remember that we are not raised to new life in the name of grace, but in the name of Jesus - who taught us what true grace looked like.  Indeed, a kingdom unlike any other and a life more abundantly lived in the absolutes of faith.

ponder anew

I think I first realized the lack of wonder within the church when it became painfully obvious that many congregations have simply become corporations capitalizing on the business of spirituality.  We now have church leadership books, seminars, retreats, coaches, etc. to teach us how to do church better - or, at least, gain some desired outcome.  And thus we now subject ourselves to a litany of tests: spiritual gifts inventories, church health profiles, core competency evaluations, ad nauseum.

When did the love of God become institutionalized?

Can someone please answer this for me?  At what point did we systematize and organize ourselves away from the passion and fire of the wild and fierce Spirit that can penetrate our hearts?  And, who still figures that we must simply do better systematization and organization to get ourselves back from our current state?

The pastorate is full of good men and women who are giving everything they have for the sake of becoming better leaders, teachers and ministers.  So there is no surprise that such books sell out, conferences fill up, and the coaching treks have become well-worn paths.  These are the signs of people who are giving of themselves, trying to erase whatever deficits they've been convinced their ministries will not overcome, and become the best kingdom workers they can be.  Perhaps, however, it is time to consider that sentiment does not make truth out of opinion, even when it is in the name of the Lord.

I find it inconceivable that the early church - and many, many centuries of believers since (even to this day!) - were able to successfully build the church without classes, seminars, retreats, 7 Secrets to Making Your Church Awesome, or even Outreach Magazine.  These poor souls had but the Word of God in front of them and the Holy Spirit surrounding them, and yet they still managed to make a little good come from it, if you think they're results were anything worth considering.

Of course, I speak facetiously here, but it makes my point.  We have all of these other things and we seem to be losing touch with the Spirit in the average experience of the church.  It would be good for us to remember that the average experience of the early church was a continual filling of the Spirit, personally and corporately, that led to the unleashing of the gospel.

In Acts 2 Peter (who quotes Joel 2) says of the experience at Pentecost, "In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams . . ."  One of the reasons we think that this passage is so exciting is because it demonstrates the passion and power of God as it moves to create and sustain his church.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe that such a promise has ceased since Peter said it - in fact, the point of Peter's message was that it was the dawn of a new era of salvation that comprised the 'last days' and would bring us to the return of Jesus.

Yet there are no dreams and visions in the shallow mindsets of systematized religion.  The love of God is a reckless raging fury that refused to be tamed or controlled.  It unleashes itself into the world with such abandon as to bring death upon the very Giver of life.  We who can not comprehend such love have no business trying to organize it and packaging it.  There are simply too many of us who fear that we will not have jobs (or a purpose) without doing so, thus keeping us from trusting in God alone . . . alone . . . alone.  We instead choose to trust in God plus whatever clever ideas we have in front of us.

Those who have awakened will ponder anew what the Almighty can do, rather than become lost in a sea of competencies that inevitably lead to vocational depression.  For, although we may try, and even succeed in convincing ourselves we are spiritually profitable in doing so, he is not silent and he will not be contained.

stand

A dream:

We were at the playground.  We had to stand on the playground because there was a man who was coming to knock it down.  He couldn't knock down the playground if we were standing on it, so we stood on it and told him, "No!"  When he saw us standing on the playground he turned around and walked away and was burned up in a fire.

:Melina, four years old.

the great divorce 5

7.
The Game.

At this point the narrator is confronted by another one of the Ghosts who engages in conversation.  It begins with a request from the Ghost, "Thinking of going back?"

There is more of a game-element to in this particular conversation, as it demonstrates the idle curiosity of humankind which so often overtakes the genuine longing of the soul towards God.  What is presented as humdrum is covering up the lack of wonder in the world, something that C. S. Lewis combatted frequently with his own perspective and writing.  The Ghost has determined that everything is essentially the same, and that it is all part of a worldwide system that dictates to people what should be fascinating.  So much so that even grey town does not live up to his expectation of what he expected of Hell.

Thus, the solid world in which the story takes place is no different than any other park the Ghost has seen, except for the disappointing and frustrating aspect of everything being too solid for him to experience.  What is more, the Ghost is unwilling to allow an unidentified "They" to keep this sort of game going at his expense.  He is ultimately denying the legitimacy of a higher authority, though he is willing to admit there are influential forces that may determine his actions.

I would say that the perspective shown here by the Ghost is a bit of Deism: the notion of a higher authority (typically god) who has created things that facilitate some sort of game (cosmos), but which does not interact directly with any person or have any moral standards or qualities to which one may appeal.  With the detached deity the individual may choose how to accept reality, but all ends up more or less the same.  In this case, more-or-less-the-same is a disappointing mediocrity.

Added to this perspective is a twist of gnosticism on the part of the Ghost.  Everything he's ever been told has been a lie, and in order to cope or escape this so-called game is to come to the knowledge and understanding of the higher truth - although here the Ghost would shudder to even be willing to identify some sort of truth.  For, in the end, the deistic and gnostic elements simply bring out a conspiracy theorist who is dissatisfied with life - now carrying that dissatisfaction into the afterlife.

In the end the Ghost refuses to accept the truth of what is being handed to him, again showing that the center of one's passion and purpose will carry on into eternity.  No one is stripping him of his opportunity to make a choice, but his fate seems to be sealed by the perspective that he has for so long affirmed.  He has moved from rationality into absurdity - a fate unfortunately reached by many long before they are standing in the world of solids.

speaking the love in truth

One of the challenges of living in a postmodern - and increasingly pluralistic - society is holding firm to the truth claims of the Christian faith.  There are a good number of churchgoing, self-affirming Christians who simply do not live out a visible acceptance of one standard of truth.  This, of course, is a major contributor to the church's ineffectiveness disarray.

Douglas Groothuis once wrote, "The truth itself does not decay" (Truth Decay, IVP, 2000).  And I have learned in recent years the modern day axiom, "The truth does not need a majority to prevail." (I withhold the reference for the time being, because it will cause a major distraction to my main point.)

If the church's primary problem is a lack of regard for truth, then it will certainly affect numerous areas of church life and witness.  One such area that ought to be recovered is that of reconciliation.  First, it should be noted that the biblical view of reconciliation is twofold: first to God, then toward each other (2 Corinthians 5).  Also, this passage shows us that Paul believed his ministry was one of reconciliation, and that the truth of the gospel through Jesus the Messiah was working toward this end.  So our understanding of reconciliation must be placed in the larger context of God's kingdom, and the Messianic enthronement of Jesus.

Once the church returns to the context of the cosmic restoration of the kingdom of God, then truth will not be allowed to suffer compromise.  Instead, there are far too many voices in the body of believers who are placing individual feeling and corporate sentimentality above the standard of truth.  This is played out in kowtowing and appeasement in our congregations, rather than accepting the premise of a messianic family who are summoned to work together and accept one another in the name of (true, biblical) reconciliation.

When feelings are placed above truth, the effectiveness of the gospel - even gospel reconciliation - is hindered.  Although I might be able to understand what is trying to be said, in the context of gospel and truth I disagree with the notion that "perception is reality."  For, among many, I have been handed the short end of the stick with this line.  Not to address a particular message being conveyed through my image or leadership, but as a means to accept what people have said about me regardless of any damage to the truth and concede without question.  Yes, there are certainly times when the letting go of minor offenses is good and worthwhile.  But this should not happen at the expense of the truth when the church will be required to pay the bill.

We are often reminded that it is the responsibility of all believers to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), and this should always be the tone of a Christ-follower.  But we must also remember that disciples of Jesus will follow him in speaking the love of God in words of truth that will not compromise, despite the fact that some will not want to hear, some will walk away, and some will crucify us.  Nevertheless, it is the truth of God's love and the truth of gospel, without which genuine reconciliation is impossible.  Despite the opinion polls, popularity contests, or the fear of dissatisfied consumers, the church must stand on truth.  Our culture is more than wrong, it is somewhere between ignorance and ambivalence; it is a greater need than before to proclaim God's truth.

aiden michael

Aiden Michael Thompson
September 29, 2011


(Or, the reason why I haven't been blogging much lately.)







May God's strength for you be
As strong as the typhoon wind
As faithful as the daily tide
As sweet as music of the violin
As pervasive as the starry sky


May God's care for you be
As light as a singing thrush
As swift as a mountain stream
As gentle as a baby's touch
As alluring as a lover's gleam


And may God bless you
The Father of power and strength
The Son of wisdom and knowledge
The Spirit of loving care