Tip of My Hat, Wag of My Finger: Onesie Edition
Tip of my hat to the person who invented the Onesie
Wag of my finger to the same person for not popularizing them for adult.
Why I Love Being a Father: Moral Values are a Distant Second
HT: JR Forasteros
God as Father: Rethinking the Proximity of God
During college I was completely convinced that people need first and foremost to hear about their sin and their depravity. My conviction was that we have a Christian culture too comfortable with God as “Father” and this coziness with the Father metaphor, I believed, led to lax ethical standards and an assumption that God is closer to Santa Claus than a wholly transcendent (removed) “Other.”
Today, I am not convinced that this conclusion is entirely off base. However, I am increasingly convinced that it is not entirely correct either. I believe this appealed more to my Calvinistic leanings which tended more toward seeing God as so transcendent and Other that immanence (closeness/intimacy) is almost beyond Him.
I want to suggest here that this over-emphasized image of a transcendent (removed) Father is actually hurtful in our culture. While it is important to maintain the transcendence of God, we live in a culture that experientially knows fathers as absent and removed from their children. Even fathers who are in the same home as their children are often mentally removed – thinking always of work, sports, or finances. They are there physically, but really there are anywhere but “there.”*
I’m not saying Christians should avoid discussion of sin or references to God as transcendent. I’m merely saying that we live in a culture which understands the brokenness of the world (the old notions of moral, spiritual, and material progress are nearly gone in the postmodern world), and the absence of father figures. No doubt, this brokenness needs a theological context, but that is to build people up in God’s great mercy, not to tear them down in violent fear of Him.
Because I am no longer convinced that we are cozy with the metaphor of God’s fatherhood I am convinced that we need a renewed interested in the immanence (closeness) of God. Because I’m convinced that we simply do not understand what it means for God to be our Father, we need a renewing of our teaching/understanding of the Trinity, what it means to be “in Christ,” and the Spirits indwelling work within us. A recovery of the transcendent necessitates a recovery of the immanent – both are at stake.
Rather than forsaking (in a reactionary theological move) the immanence of God, as some new-Calvinists and even Arminians have done, we need a reawakening, a re-defining of the immanent, close, and inviting Fatherhood of God. Jesus’ prayers to the Father were not cheap and neither do ours have to be. “Our father in heaven”. The immanence and transcendence of our God are both magnified in this statement. They are NOT held in tension – they are both accepted in their fullness. To understand God as transcendent we must understand Him as immanent. And to understand Him as immanent we must understand Him as transcendent. I’m not calling for balance – I’m calling for full realization of both un-opposing realities.
We need a re-awakening of our notions of God as Father in a world with absent, abusive, and faulty fathers. Fathers are both transcendent and immanent, which is why the metaphor works so well.
*And this doesn’t even take into account those who grow up with abusive fathers. It occurred to me recently that maybe some of these people have no problem with the wrath and violence of God because their own fathers were wrathful and violent. Their image of God, then might really be a perpetuation of a familial cycle of violence – they have found their identity in someone who abuses them and now they look for that same attention from God. They know of no other way to relate to father-figures.
Psalm 24:2 – Creation is Not Morally Neutral
Vs. 2 For he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.
This kind of language makes no sense to modern people – that is, substantiating Yahweh’s claim to ownership by appealing to His founding of the earth upon the waters. But to ancient Jews it would have made complete sense. Not only did their concept of creation involve the notion of the earth resting upon huge deposits of water, but that notion had interesting theological significance.
You see, ancient Jews associated water with chaos – even demons.
Consider all your Sunday School stories that involved major bodies of water and you will see that the water is hardly ever a good character:
1. Noah’s ark where the waters of chaos systematically undo the creation account of Genesis 1.
2. Think of the Nile River turned to blood. The Nile, and Egyptian deity, conquered, killed, slaughtered like an animal by Yahweh.
3. Consider the Red Sea where the sea stands between the Israelites and their salvation, where Yahweh proves powerful enough to move an entire body of water.
4. Or think of Jonah who goes out to the sea precisely because the sea is where He thinks Yahweh is not!
5. Or Jesus, who is out on the sea multiple times when he calms storms and, indeed, walks on the water.
6. Or finally, Revelation, where the sea is calmed and brought to glassy subjugation under Yahweh’s sovereignty.
For the ancient Jew, to say that God established the earth upon the waters was not merely a geological claim. No far from it – it was a theological claim. Yahweh was sovereign over all the forces of chaos in the world that threaten to unhinge creation and put an end to his redemptive purposes.
But consider this…
If Yahweh is claiming ownership, indeed Kingship, over a creation where he has set a certain order, a certain reality, a certain way of being, then it follows logically from there that this creation is not morally neutral.
To claim allegiance to any other deity, nation, or story is to fight against the very creation itself; indeed, it is to fight against Yahweh. But when people and nations center themselves within His story, there is an order to life, a shalom (a peace which is more than merely the absence of violence, but the presence of Justice!).
The larger biblical narrative is clear that Yahweh’s defeat of the agents of chaos is not only a creative act, but a redemptive act. Particularly in the cross Jesus is said to have defeated all principalities and powers, thrones, rulers, dominions, and authorities. In the cross, according to Hebrews 2, Jesus defeats death (anti-creation) and the devil.
From first to last creation is connected to redemption and redemption involves the defeat of evil, chaos, and disorder.
So it remains clear, that if this creation is not morally neutral, then any who wish to approach King Yahweh must not assume moral neutrality is an option. But we’ll explore this a bit more in the next post.
Psalm 24:1: Yahweh as King of Creation
The ANE was a place filled with deities, spirits, and mythologies all clamoring for allegiance, devotion and worship. The land was carved up by the nations, each with their own local deity and story substantiating that particular deities “rights” to that nations plot of land. These deities were often crowned King as a result of their victories over other deities.
But in the 24th Psalm we do not have one deity among many clamoring for His own piece of land. We do not see a deity beholden to a specific ethnic group. Nor do we have a God who is fighting other deities in an attempt to jockey for supremacy amongst the nations.
Rather, we have Yahweh, the Lord of the entire cosmos and all the inhabitants thereof. He refuses to share his creation with anyone. He will not allow allegiances to be paid to the neighboring gods, He refuses to acknowledge the authority of the surrounding mythologies, and He refuses to let humanity find genuine meaning in anything other than Himself.
The breakdown of this Psalm falls into three parts
1. Vs. 1-2 Where Yahweh’s sovereign ownership of the entire world is confessed and substantiated.
2. Vs. 3-6 Where the Psalmist lays forth the requirements of those who wish to approach Yahweh and the blessings given to the one is worthy.
3. And Vs. 7-9 (the climax of the psalm) where an ancient liturgical formula of Call-and-Response is employed to exalt Yahweh as a King as the ark enters Jerusalem. The entirety of the Psalm is really to be interpreted as an exaltation of Yahweh’s kingship, his narrative of creation, and his redemptive purposes that involved the defeat of all other claims to allegiance.
Vs. 1 The earth is the Lord’s and Everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.
The central proposition of this verse is that every inch of created space has a stamp on it that bears Yahweh’s name. He has written His name on every tree, every unborn child, every terrorist, politician (sigh!), and every codgery old person in your church. He has placed his name on them and said one word – MINE, MINE, MINE!
He will not share his sovereignty with competing nations (America or otherwise!). He will not share his sovereignty with competing narratives (the American Dream or otherwise!). He will not share his sovereignty with competing deities. And he will not share his sovereignty Christians who assume God is on their side, their own little marionette to be jerked around at their every political whim.
No, in fact, in this verse there is a movement from general (world) to particular (the inhabitants of the world). Though Yahweh could care nothing for our notions of private property He cares even less for our assumptions about ownership when it comes to people. It is not dictators, presidents, or even pastors who own the souls of men and women – it is Yahweh and Yahweh alone. We are not permitted to oppress, subjugate, or manipulate either the creation or the inhabitants of creation because none of it is ours and they are not ‘our’ people.
Do you see the soteriological implications? If Yahweh is the Kingly owner over all creation and its inhabitants then there is no segment of creation that is beyond redemption – be they homosexuals, democrats, terrorists, or even that old codger in the back row of every church I’ve ever been to. And despite our lack of faith, let’s forget this nonsense of “giving up” on folks because they’re our enemies or b/c they don’t like our political agenda. “Giving up” on their redemption was never God’s ordained means of bring them to redemption!
And though it may not seem like it on the surface, vs. 2 exactly about that redemption, for the Psalmist substantiates the claim of Yahweh’s sovereignty – but in an odd sort of way…but we’re going to save that for next time.
Remembering Rightly Until He Comes
I had the privilege of leading our congregation in the Communion part of the liturgy today at church. I thought about what I would say all week and tried to put a lot of work into it. Here are some of the thoughts I conveyed, plus some…
Because we take the Lord’s Supper every week, I’ve been more reflective on its meaning now than I ever have in my entire Christian life. Because of the constancy of my participation in this ritual I’ve had a number of ‘ah-ha’ moments. I’d like to share one of them with you.
One of the more meaningful thoughts I’ve had during the Lord’s Supper is articulated most clearly in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:
“The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Here we observe that the Eucharist has two functions – 1. Remembering a historical event, 2. Envisioning a future event.
Remembering a Historical Event –
The Eucharist looks back to the saving events in redemptive history, particularly the cross, where the body of Jesus was crushed and the blood of Jesus was spilled out for us. But this remembering is more than merely a cognitive function. No, far from it, “remembering” in the biblical sense involves participation in the saving events of history, themselves: When Jesus says to do this in ‘remembrance’ he is calling on us to enact this ritual as a means of participating in the redemptive work of God throughout history. In other words, when we participate in the Lord’s Supper, when we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we become one with not only his death, but also those throughout time and space that have become one with his death. We are united with Jesus, and through him we are also united with the disciples at the Lord’s Supper. We are united with the Son of God, and through him we are united with the first century saints who lived in light of the resurrection. We are united with Christ, and through him we are united with the slaves leaving Egypt who placed the lambs blood on their doorposts. In remembering this act this morning, we are collapsing these sacred, historical events into the present and thereby claiming that story as ours – or rather, placing ourselves in that story.
Envisioning a Future Event -
The Christian church is not merely a people who look to the past as the ‘glory’ days. No, far from it, we are a people who are future oriented, waiting for the return of our King. This is why Paul connects the “in remembrance” with the “until he comes.” When we participate in this body and blood before us, we are staking our claim in the future. We are saying that the temporal sufferings, trials, idols, sins, and calls for allegiance in this life have no ultimate claim on us. We are a people who, in participating in this event, participate in the anticipatory story of a Returning King! When we unite ourselves to this returning King in this way we proclaim that his return, though having not yet occurred, is still an established fact. In doing so we are not only united with that King, but we are united with all people, everywhere, in all times who have this hope. And, again, we collapse the future, sacred time, into the present and claim the future of this story as ours – or rather, placing ourselves in that story which goes beyond this present moment and envisions the Kingdom of God come to earth.
So, in both the remembering of historical acts of saving grace and the anticipation of future salvation, this Means of Grace event collapses all time, space, and believers into the present, uniting us under one God, who is Father, Son, and Spirit by enacting the story of redemption in our midst.
Think on these things brothers and sisters.
Words that Send You to the Dictionary – See How Many You Know.
The NT Times put out this list of the top 15 words sending us diving in the dictionary for a definition. I knew 9, see how many you know…
sui generis – Being the only example of its kind; unique:
solopsistic -
- The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
- The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
louche – dubious; shady; disreputable.
laconic – using few words; expressing much in few words
saturnine -
) of or pertaining to Aristotle, who taught philosophy while walking in the Lyceum of ancient Athens.) of or pertaining to the Aristotelian school of philosophy.) a member of the Aristotelian school.The Meaning of Life
This is segment of the William Lane Craig debate with Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God. Enjoy…
Being Led into God’s Presence
We often assume the job of the worship minister is to “lead people into the presence of God.”
While on some level I understand what we mean by this, I also think there are some fundamental misunderstandings of both worship and God in a statement like this.
FIRST, the statement assumes that the presence of God is “out there”…wherever “there” might be. I’m afraid we have this abstracted notion of God that He is off in some distant, heavenly space far removed from our every day lives – almost like the God of Deism, only we can (sometimes) encounter our God on Sundays when we go into His presence.
But this is not the case. God is not “out there” somewhere waiting for us to invite him into our presence or waiting for us to come into his presence. God is with us, amongst us, inviting us to participate in what he is doing in the world. If the Bible teaches us anything it is that God desires to dwell among His people and within His people.
The practical implications of this faulty assumption are huge – It suggests God is not a participatory God. Rather, He is distant and removed from our everyday experiences and therefore offers little if any help. He is high and lofty in this view, to be sure, but He is hardly helpful or intimate.
SECOND, notice how this statement makes humans, not God, the primary actor. It is our job to approach God. It is our job to lead others into his presence. It is our job to make ourselves worth of his presence.
But the biblical story is of a God who acts on behalf of humans, who lifts them into his presence, who calls, woo’s, and dies for us. In the biblical story God, not humans, is the primary actor. He does not need us to come into his presence; He dwells, willingly, among us. He has condescended to come and be with us. We do not approach him, he approaches us.
Again, the practical implications are huge. If we are the primary actors and movers in worship, then worship is about us. It becomes about whatever style suits our desire or whatever method makes us feel good. But if God is the primary actor in worship, then worship originates and concludes with Him. He is the creator of the story we live in as we worship and therefore he is the beginning of worship. We worship out of that story, His story, and therefore worship is all about him, from first to last.
When we realize that worship originates in God’s activity, not ours, we are able to delight in worship for what it is, not how it makes us feel or what style of music is used during a service. Worship becomes more than about my emotion or even my own theological statements – it involves participating in the story of the Triune God to redeem the world. Worship does not originate in me and therefore is not dependent upon me to be accomplished through technique or effort – as if God needed something from me. When the story of God’s redemption is in me and I am participating in it, my worship is an overflow of God’s activity within me, within us.
Therefore, we do not need anyone to lead us into the presence of God. We need worship “leaders” who exemplify for us what it means to dwell in God’s story of redemption. This also means that worship “leaders” are not just music directors. The worship leaders position is democratized – that is, applied to the entire church. Everyone who participates in the redemptive story of the Triune God is one who proclaims the truth that God is the primary actor in the Christian story, not me!
