Thoughts on the Incarnation

In a few days it will be Christmas. Though there is much speculation on when exactly Jesus was born, for all intents and purposes we celebrate his birth in December. Looking back a couple thousand years, Mary must have been quite ready to give birth to Jesus by now. She probably was not in the mood too travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem on a donkey, knowing she would soon deliver her baby. Joseph was probably not very happy either. He was probably worried about his wife and unborn son. Even though they knew that Jesus was a miraculous baby, there must have been the typical fears about whether Mary would survive the delivery. The gospels do not mention any midwives being present at the birth, so perhaps it was only up to Mary, Joseph, and a few animals to welcome God incarnate into the world.

There is so much mystery surrounding the incarnation, and it is something we often forget during the Christmas season. How is it possible for God to become a human embryo that grows and is subject to all of the limitations and problems that any other human baby has as it develops. When you think about it, Jesus faced all the prospects of mortality that all infants faced. He had had to be cared for and fed by his mother or else he would die. Mary is called the "theotokos," or the "god-bearer," in Christian tradition. We remember that Mary is not only carrying a full human being, but also the eternally existing God.

I was thinking earlier this morning about the reason for the incarnation. So often we simply treat it as a necessity that Jesus had to go through so that he would die and resurrect just so we can go to heaven. We so often view Salvation simply like a business exchange (i.e. Jesus draws up the contract on the cross, you pay God your faith, He gets you out of Hell in return), that we see the incarnation as simply the way Jesus shows up so that he can get to work saving us. However, I believe we need to look at the incarnation and the cross as so much more than that. In the incarnation, God truly becomes one of us, like so many have said. If we view the life and mission of Jesus as having simply no other purpose but to get us a "get out of Hell free" card, we need to remember that God could have done some cosmic payment in the heavenly realms that we would not even be conscious of. No, in the incarnation, God comes to live with the human beings he made and loves. God lives life like we do; he experiences the things we experience. God learns how to be a carpenter as he grows up under Joseph. God learns Torah in the synagogue with the pharisees. God smashes his finger with his hammer as he works. Though Jesus was never married, I imagine that he knew what it felt to be attracted to the young Jewish women he was around.

In the incarnation we have the God bridging the gap between humans and Himself. As the early theologian Athanasius said, "God became man, so that man might become gods." That's not to say we will become "gods" like the Mormons would have us believe, but that because of the incarnation human beings are being set on a path to be glorified. Humans are special creations of God. Jesus himself says in John 10:34 "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" The doctrine of the resurrection of the saints says that we will be raised with perfect bodies one day and will live with God forever. The incarnation is God coming to live with us "on our own turf," so to speak, so that one day we might live with God on His. I wondered this morning about the idea of the incarnation if humans had not sinned. The Eastern Orthodox church believes that there still would be an incarnation. The Bible doesn't say, so it is all speculation. However, I believe that in some way there would have been an incarnation. I don't know what it would look like, but I do imagine that God the son would still have become human and lived among us. I do know that we would not have killed Jesus, but would have exalted him like we should have done in the first place. I imagine that the relational part of God is so great that the incarnation is a natural outpouring of his love. However, we will never know how things COULD be, but we know how things ARE. I think it is best to be thankful for the presence of God as a human being in Jesus as we celebrate this Christmas.

Prayer for Peace

This afternoon as I was reading my text on Martin Luther King Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, considering their examples of Christ-like care for the world, I was reminded of the dire situations the world is facing. While the world is full of wars right now, the peace of Christ is still alive in the hearts of his people. I decided to write a prayer that expresses a desire for the peace of Christ to come and rescue our world.

Loving and merciful God,
Who created all things well,
Who even in our sin has chosen to save us,
As your people we pray for your world.
For we are well aware of its groaning.
War is ravaging many parts of the globe,
Rumors of war are spreading as well.
Violence is in our cities and in our homes,
Violence is in your church and in us, your children.
We implore you, the Prince of Peace,
Who repaid no one evil for evil,
But taught us to turn the other cheek,
To forgive us our sins against you,
and to teach us to live like Christ.
We are your people, scattered among the nations.
Some of us live among the oppressed,
Some of us live among the oppressors.
We ask, Lord Christ, that as your people,
We will stand in solidarity with the downtrodden.
That we will be ministers of peace and justice.
That we will live true to the teachings of Christ,
And as your people show the world there is another way.
Establish your kingdom, Lord God,
Where suffering and violence are no more.
World without end.
In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Woods of Doubt

Woods of Doubt

There are some woods through which we all must pass,
On the journey toward our home.
For on the other side of these woods of doubt,
Lies the city of Shalom.
The woods of doubt are dark and hostile;
They try to consume what we know is real.
Many have lost their way and perished,
But these woods must still be braved.
For on the other side,
Our anxiety will disappear.
For God appears as we find our way home;
At the city of Shalom.

Country Music and the Psalms

I haven't written anything for awhile, mostly due to the fact that I have been tremendously busy these last couple months. However, tonight I managed to find a few spare minutes to write some stuff down. I sometimes get into a mood where I just want to listen to some sad country music. I'm not sure why, all the time. It's not as if I'm depressed or anything, there's just something about listening to sad country songs and spending some time in introspection.

I was thinking about sad country songs (or any other sad songs, for that matter), and how similar they are to a lot of the Psalms. Now, when we read the Psalms, I think we mostly like to read the ones that are very encouraging. Maybe the old favorite, Psalm 23, which arouses a deep comfort in the image of God as a shepherd. Or maybe when we've sinned we like Psalm 51 where David asks God's forgiveness for his affair with Bathsheba. I love those Psalms and the messages of encouragement they bring to me and everybody else when they read them. Tonight, however, I was thinking about some of the more depressing Psalms. The ones in which the Psalmist cries out for justice and vengeance on his enemies. The ones that sort of make us uncomfortable to read (For example, in Psalm 137, the Psalmist basically says "It's going to be great for the guy who throws your babies into the rocks and kills them!"). There are a lot of those Psalms that are really uplifting and encouraging, but there are also those that are just downright depressing or offensive. They are called the Imprecatory Psalms.

What do we make of these Imprecatory Psalms? I believe that all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for faith and practice, even these Psalms that do not necessarily leave me with a feelings of hope, forgiveness, and love for my enemies. Do these Psalms, such as Psalm 137, mean to say it is perfectly alright to wish evil upon everyone who wrongs me, or that it's fine to throw babies on rocks? Not at all. What these Psalms tell me is that God is big enough to handle our problems. What the Psalmists were feeling when they wrote these Psalms calling out to God to curse and destroy there enemies is something that each one of us is perfectly capable of feeling; most of us probably have felt that angry and upset at some point. That's part of being a human in this world that is still rife with sin. I watched a video clip of Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann discussing the Imprecatory Psalms, which I shall attach. He makes the point that Christians often don't use these Psalms because we Christians, of course, never ever feel the way the psalmists do. Right? However, in these Psalms which are depressing and angry, we have the psalmist being real with God. God is a God of truth. He is truth, and he loves the truth. The truth is, we people don't always feel we can tell the truth to God when it comes to how we are feeling about the problems of the world. However, God knows how we really feel, and what we really want. So why not be honest with Him?

Bringing this back to country music, many people I know say they don't like country music because it can be so depressing. It's all about you're woman leaving you, or it's about people getting depressed and drinking, they say. Of course, not all of it is, but there is a fair share of the music that does contain those elements. However, there is something therapeutic about listening to it at times. There is something about listening to a sad country song that just makes you feel better about your situation, whether it's bad or good at the moment. It gives you a kind of resolve to weather the next crisis. In other words, it connects with what is real in life at some level. The Imprecatory Psalms do the same thing. They're sad and make you wonder if the psalmist just went out and hanged himself after writing it, but it connects well with reality. You can relate to those feelings in the country music or the Psalms. Sometimes I just like to listen to sad songs and think. In the words of Elton John, "sad songs say so much."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDfzzJD8IpI

Forgiveness vs. Justice

Recently I have been thinking about the concepts of forgiveness, justice and how they relate to Christian responsibility in the world. There is absolutely no question regarding the Christian imperative to forgive others. In fact Jesus, Himself tells us that if we do not forgive others God will not forgive us (Matthew 6:14-15). Forgiveness is a way of life for Christians. Because God has reconciled all things to himself and made peace with humanity (Colossians 1:20), the church is privileged to be working as God's ambassadors of His Kingdom. In 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Paul writes "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." Forgiveness and reconciling God's creation to Himself are deeply important to Him and to His church. The Church has been given the ministry of reconciliation, that is proclaiming that Christ has conquered the power of sin and made possible the restoration of a broken relationship with humanity. And what I mean by the church, is the same thing Paul means in his epistles; not just the institutional church, but every one of us who make it up. We are given the ministry of reconciliation. The gospel is for all human beings everywhere at all times and proclaiming it is the purpose of the church. As Christians, we simply cannot afford to carry any grudge or ill-feeling toward anybody anywhere, even when they have hurt us, our loved ones, or our way of life deeply.

I think of this because the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attacks are coming up within a few days. That was a day that many people believed changed the world permanently (However, Stanley Hauerwas makes the correct point that Easter was the only day that changed the world permanently. 9-11 was just another instance of the world's rejection of the gospel). The immense hatred and evil we saw displayed on that day against the United States of America and the Western world has sent us Americans and Westerners spiraling into a struggle against the forces of Radical Islamic terrorists. The question is, how are we as Christians supposed to carry out God's mission of reconciliation when our societies are at war.

I approach this subject with a very great deal of trepidation. Whenever one begins to talk of forgiving a group or country that has done terrible evil, their is the risk of being accused as being uncaring, unpatriotic, a pacifist, or a variety of other politically unpopular names. However, the point I am about to make is not based on a political ideology, but simply on what I believe the responsibility of Christian is, according to the command of Christ.

I have seen among Christians a great deal of animosity and fear toward Muslims. Of course, this makes a lot of logical sense. Among the general population that attitude is common. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the subsequent attempts at terrorism in the last several years have lent to us very good reason to be fearful of the enemies of our nation. However, being that we are at war against "Terror," attitudes of viewing the enemies of our nation as enemies of the body of Christ naturally creep in. This should not be so. I must also say I am as guilty as anyone else for developing and "us vs. them" mindset and falling short of Christ's command to forgive.

If as Christians we are required to forgive those who have sinned against us and to leave vengeance up to the Lord, we are required to forgive the terrorists. On September 11 this year, a Christian group in Florida will burn copies of the Koran, and that caused me to think. Has the church made a formal stand against Terrorism by saying "We forgive you?" In my own conversations about the current conflict, do I reflect the forgiveness I am required to give? Am I carrying out the mission of God's reconciliation in the world as the Bible commands? As the church, that is our role. We need to make a public stand before our friends and neighbors that we have forgiven the sins committed against our fellow countrymen.

Now I know the response to this will be "You're just saying we should let the terrorists do whatever they want and just keep on forgiving?" The answer is no. The terrorists have committed an offense against the nation we live in and it is justifiable, I believe, to go after the ones responsible. Romans 13 explains that the state is ordained by God to bear the sword as a way to keep the peace. As the ruler of the nation, the president or king has the charge to keep order within a lawless society. This involves the execution of justice against evildoers.

However, on the flip side, Romans 12 gives directions for the way Christians are to deal with their enemies. Christians are to repay evil with good, to leave room for the vengeance of God, and to defeat evil through love. It is in this way that Christians carry out the work of reconciliation. We imitate Christ, who defeated evil by Godly love. Therefore, as Christians, when we have a perceived enemy, we cannot treat them like an enemy. We must forgive and proclaim that forgiveness God has given the world through his son.

So in regards to forgiveness, justice, and the terrorist enemy, the answer is somewhat complex. We Christians are not only required to support the victims of the terrorists and the war on terror, but also to forgive the enemy that did so. We cannot in our hearts harbor un-forgiveness, even against such monstrous evil. We must pray for their conversion and remember that they are simply doing what the world does when it rejects the peace of Christ. In our conversation we must try to express our wish that they will be led to Christ. We must, when others are burning Korans say "We forgive you for the wrongs you have done."

As for Christians in the military or law enforcement, they are serving the state and its execution of justice. Nowhere in the Bible does it say a Christian cannot serve the state in such a way. But I do believe there is a way to execute justice and forgiveness at the same time. As a Christian one must forgive and not hold any ill-will against an enemy, but in the interest of keeping the peace the evil-doers must be put away. In fact, having Christians doing these jobs who are committed to following the commands of Christ could serve to make for a much more merciful and effective peace-keeping tool. Only what is necessary to restrain evil would be done. By the act of forgiving and loving one's enemies, much of the nastier horrors of war or peace-keeping could be avoided while still carrying out justice in the name of security.

So let us remind ourselves to forgive those who terrorize us and our fellow citizens. It is hard, it is scary, but it is the mission of a Christian. Let us pray for the gospel to go out to all the world. Let us reveal in our speech the forgiveness of Christ to all men. Let us remember that justice is to be carried out with compassion. After all, God gave us not justice, but mercy in the cross and requires us to do the same.

John Piper on the "End Times"

Misgivings About Hal Lindsay’s “Planet Earth”
Download:
By John Piper March 1, 1974



I have no doubts about Hal Lindsay’s faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, nor do I doubt that God uses his lecturing to bring people to Christ. I talked with one Campus Crusade girl who told me how she had been changed by such a talk on prophecy. Nor does he take any doctrinal position which would cause me to break off fellowship with him as a brother in Christ. Nevertheless, I have strong misgivings about the basic attitude toward the future which his book The Late Great Planet Earth contains and fosters. Besides that, I disagree with many of his single points of interpretations which falsely construe the New Testament texts.
I. The Basic Attitude Toward the Future

Lindsay and thousands with him have a desire “to pinpoint the time” (p. 51). For them “it is of paramount importance to identify the time…” (p. 60). Their desire is to fit current and future events together “into a precise pattern of predicted events” (p. 80, my italics). This, I believe, is an unhealthy attitude in our churches. Why?

1. The more detailed one attempts to map out the future, the more inferences one must make which are not explicit in the Scripture. Therefore, the tendency of the imagination to fill the gaps increases and the probability of erroneous calculation grows.

2. The stress on the present course of events attracts a great deal of attention from fascinated Christians, for, as Lindsay says, “People have been obsessed [from the beginning of time] with the desire to know what is going to happen in the future” (p. 11). The description of a particular sequence of current events as a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his predictions creates an emotional and intellectual connection between the Christian’s faith and the events around him. The result, too often, is that the ups and downs of his life of faith are caused by the fluctuations of world affairs and his ability or inability to fit these into a complex eschatological pattern.

Since speculation increases as one constructs his “precise pattern” of world events, therefore, the more one sets his hopes on this particular pattern taking place, the more fragile and liable to frustration this hope will be. (That people do in fact tend to set their hopes on their calculations of future events is evident from how “spiritually turned on” some people get when they can fit a new current event into their scheme. The Six-Day War was a “spiritual high” for many a calculator.)

God will surely remain faithful, but we may well miscalculate. Lindsay thinks prophecy is becoming clearer as the end approaches, but Paul still says we know only in part and I think this is also true of the future course of events.

3. When a person thinks he knows exactly what role a nation is going to play in God’s battle plan, which must all take place within the next 15 years (cf. p. 54), then he tends to think less responsibly as a citizen who is to pray for all rulers (1 Timothy 2:2) and seek peace with all men (Romans 12:18). He loses interest in such things as trade agreements, arms talks, currency stability, world food problems, etc.

In short, the effort to combat injustice and suffering in the world seems nonsense since we know what the fate of most nations will be anyway and that it all must happen very soon. This is, in part, the result of closing a chapter with the empty and misleading admonition: “We should be living like persons who don’t expect to be around much longer” (p. 145).

It is sadly ironic that the predictions of the prophets thus have the effect of nullifying the great commands of the prophets: to “do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8); “to hate evil, love good and establish justice in the gate” (Amos 5:15); “to hold fast to love and justice and wait continually for your God” (Hosea 12:6); “to cease to do evil, to learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17).

I know Lindsay’s book has this effect because I met a hippie-type fellow and his wife passing through Munich on their way from Kansas City to Israel as missionaries who told me how they had been captivated by this kind of calculation of the future, but later were so convicted about their attitude toward the powers of the world that they had to confess their sin and ask for repentance.

4. This is the most important: among those who calculate about the time and sequence of the coming events and who try to give detailed descriptions of how it will be, there is, I think, a fundamentally wrong focus, a dislocation of our “blessed hope.” Throughout the New Testament the all-important focus of our hope is personal fellowship with God and our Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 21:3; 1 Peter 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Philippians 1:23; John 14:3).

The hope of the Christian springs from an intense love of his God and Savior (1 Peter 1:9) so that he says with the psalmist, “Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:25-26).

But for the calculator of the end times this all-important personal focus of our hope gets blurred in a mass of secondary (often speculative) details. What is the effect of Lindsay’s forecasts on the hope of the believer? What becomes important when one gets caught up in the mapping out of the future? This: “The big question is, Will you be here during this seven-year countdown?” (p. 137). That is not “the big question” in the New Testament. The big question in 1 Peter , for example, is, Will we be willing to share the sufferings of Christ in order that we may rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed (4:13, cf. 14-18)?

The one who maps out the end times tends to focus his hope on things (the escaping of bad things and the receiving of good things), not on the all-important “with the Lord.” This dislocation of hope is not always intended; it is something that can happen almost unconsciously in a group or in a church which becomes infatuated with thinking about how it will all take place.

When our future perspective becomes chronological instead of theological, then faith is endangered. For faith is nurtured not by fitting tomorrow’s headlines into a probable scheme, but by being rooted in the faithfulness of God manifest in the death and resurrection of our Lord and by hoping in him alone (1 Peter 1:21), whatever may come. “In thy presence there is fullness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures forever more (Psalm 16:11).” That is our blessed hope.
II. Single Points of Interpretation

I must resist the temptation to go into every detailed exegetical problem I see in Lindsay’s approach. To yield to such a temptation would involve me in a similar preoccupation with calculation. There is too much to be learned from God’s Word for faith for me to let it become a source book for the construction of battle maps (pp. 155 and 159) and time tables. Therefore, I will only mention briefly four points of disagreement.

1. The anticipation of a pre-tribulation rapture (ch. 11) is, I believe, not only an erroneous inference from the New Testament (an inference because nowhere is the coming of our Lord explicitly divided into two events), but also could be the cause of a great apostasy. Lindsay says (p. 144) with mild sarcasm that he will have to say to some of his post-tribulationist friends on that day, “I told you so friend!”

I wonder if he has considered how many people’s confidence in the mercy of God will be shattered when times of great tribulation come upon them from which they thought God would deliver them? Then Christ may say to Hal Lindsay, “Why didn’t you tell them so, friend?” As Peter Beyerhaus wrote in the April 13, 1973 issue of Christianity Today, “The widespread teaching of a rapture that dodges this serious reality must be refuted as a dangerous distortion of New Testament eschatology” (p. 56). The reasons for this view are laid out clearly in Dr. Ladd’s The Blessed Hope (Eerdmans, 1966).

While it is not decisive for what one believes, it is good to know that “we can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church; and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century,” (Ladd, p. 31). It was not asserted until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when through an “utterance” it was thought to come from the Spirit in a Plymouth Brethren meeting (cf. S. P. Tregelles, The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming, 1864). It has found amazing acceptance in America and England largely because of the Scofield Reference Bible.

2. Lindsay’s treatment of Matthew 24 in general (cf. p. 53) is improper, for, instead of letting the text speak for itself out of its own situation, he imposes on it a structure which he has deciphered elsewhere. For example, he arbitrarily refers the fig tree to the nation of Israel (Matthew 24:32ff) and postulates that on May 14, 1948 the fig tree put forth its first leaves.

Then, of course, it follows from these two assumptions that “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) refers to the generation from 1948 on. This is not exegesis; it is speculation and it makes nonsense out of Jesus’ words for those who were listening to them there on the Mount of Olives.

There are other and better ways to understand Jesus’ words here, but Lindsay never mentions them and gives his ideas as gospel truth.

3. On page 173 he violates his own hermeneutical principle stated on page 50 by changing the clear “natural” meaning of “clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62; Revelation 1:7; cf. Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) into “myriads of believers.” He omits the text reference here (as he does at other trouble spots) so it’s hard to check him out.

This is not a major issue; it just shows where a speculative orientation to the future leads and how even Lindsay will abandon his hermeneutical guidelines in order to add another detail to the vivid drama of the end times.

4. His last paragraph (p. 188) represents inexcusable ignorance by a man with a seminary education. “Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:21—again he doesn’t give a reference) does not mean “the Lord is coming soon.” It is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic for “Lord, come!” It is probably the Aramaic behind the prayer in Revelation 22:20, “Come, Lord Jesus.”

It is a comparatively small thing when one calculates a “precise pattern of predicted events,” for to do this and even to believe it, one need not even be redeemed. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name…?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers!’” The one who enters the kingdom will be “the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21-23).

Still Not Marriage

Today, as many of us know, a Supreme Court judge in California overturned Proposition 8. The state voted on Proposition 8 in November of 2008, determining that the state can only recognize marriage as between two heterosexuals. This was a bill that the citizens of California had already voted on previous to the 2008 election and was overturned by Supreme Court judges as it was today. On a political level, this is simply outrageous that one judge can overturn what the people voted as law. However, my aim in this post is not to address the politics and the misuses of power that we are witnessing in this event. Rather, what I would like to do is examine how we Christians are to view this apparently disturbing turn of events.

If this second instance of a judge ignoring the will of the people has taught the church anything, it has been the well-needed reminder that the body of Christ cannot put any hope in politics for the preservation of and/or change to godly values in the society God places us in. The church, by definition, is not a kingdom of this world, and therefore cannot expect the kingdoms of the world to do things that are compatible with the Kingdom of God. While God has ordained earthly governments to keep the peace and provide stability within society (Romans 13), governments are made up of human beings who are lost in sense and tend to reject the offer of peace and godliness that God makes available to humankind through Christ Jesus. When people are lost in sin, we should not be surprised when governments try to legitimize sinful lifestyles or break their own laws (as in the case of the judges overruling the will or the people). If the church is going to try to affect the world, our hope simply cannot be in our votes. While I believe we should vote for the most godly options when we have the chance, we must realize that unless the minds and hearts of the people living on this planet are changed toward Christ, godly values will not prevail. The judge overturning something we worked so hard to pass should remind us that we cannot create change through the powers of this world.

However, the question remains, how are we Christians supposed to handle this? I think the most important thing to remember is that marriage is a man and woman making a commitment before God to live together permanently and to pour love into each other, two becoming one flesh as God Himself is three in one. The image of God, according to the first Chapters of Genesis exists in our distinct male and femaleness. That image of God is complemented in marriage. Homosexual relations, like premarital relations, are simply off limits in God's eyes. The good news about this is that even if the state recognizes homosexual unions, it still is not marriage in God's eyes. The Godly model of a family is still preserved simply because homosexual "marriage" can never be godly anymore than premarital heterosexual sex can be godly.

Another thing we must remember is that a constitutional amendment is not going to stop the misuse of sex! I do not believe that because gay marriage is legal, will everyone suddenly begin engaging in homosexual behavior. What will change is something on the couples' tax forms (something that I'm not sure is really all that relevant). However, the homosexual lifestyle will end up being promoted as a valid alternative in public schools. What that means is that Christian students will have yet another worldly lifestyle being promoted as good. Our public schools are not places to learn sexual ethics anyways, and for the simple fact that they are being run by people without Christ. We would do well to remember that Christianity came into a world full of Roman sexual immorality. The issues regarding sexuality today are not new. Many of the Christians in Corinth, according to Paul, had lived lives of sexual immorality (I Cor. 6), before coming to Christ. We are not unprepared.

What I would like to do in ending this post is to reaffirm the fact that God loves homosexuals. The sin of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. Jesus paid for all sin at all time and is fully capable of cleansing everyone who comes to him. As Christians we cannot pick on homosexuals or homosexuality. We need to love them as Christ loves us in our sin. We need to be the kind of Christians a friend who is struggling with homosexuality can come out to. We need to love and support those of us who struggle with it while maintaining our Christian standards. It is my personal belief that rather than going on the campaign trail and trying to change the law again (which will be overturned again), our Christian mission would be best carried out by doing the work of spreading the gospel. Find the nearest person who is homosexual and be their friend. Love them like Jesus. Hang out with them, help them paint their house or mow their grass. Win them to Christ because he loves them.

What I Like About John Calvin

Today, July 10,2010, is John Calvin's 501st birthday. He is probably one of the most controversial of the Reformation theologians, but he is also equally regarded as one of the best. Whether you agree with his "Calvinist" theology (which, by the way, some theologians have argued came along to a great degree after his death), there is no question in my mind that without him, Protestantism would not be what it is today. He, unlike Luther, for example, really developed a Systematic theology. This theology that he developed spread widely and rapidly across the European Continent. Calvin's most famous work, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," were not only translated into Latin, the academic language of the day, but also into French to be made accessible to the common man. His teachings were spread into France by way of an underground system that kept Reformed pastors safe from authorities. He, picking up from Augustine's ideas about grace and election, helped to craft one of the most disputed points of theology Protestantism has ever known (Unconditional Election vs. Free will).

What I admire about Calvin is his amazing intellect. He was said to be able to quote many of the church fathers by memory and cite which passage he was quoting from. I am struck by the deep amount of insight he had into understanding the Biblical text. My favorite contribution of his is his theory that in the inspiration of scripture God accommodates Himself to the scientific and cultural knowledge of the writers. While this may seem no surprise to us, this truly is a profound thought. It helps to create a theological system in which we have nothing to fear from scientific study. I like how deeply reliant upon God's grace Calvinism demands us to be. While the idea of Double Predestination (that God determines some to go to Hell and some to be saved) has been considered quite offensive to many over the centuries, it does an excellent job of elevating the sovereignty of God far above what we humans can understand. Theologians such as Karl Barth have offered revised versions of this doctrine in which Jesus Christ is the object of God's election and rejection. We view our election through God's act of coming to us through Jesus Christ. Through Jesus, all humans are elected by God, while Jesus faced the rejection of God on the cross. God only elects, not damns, and this is what Calvin was getting at, Barth claims. Would Calvin agree with Barth? I do not know. The mystery known popularly as "Calvinism" will simply have to wait until the new creation to be understood fully. In the meantime, I prefer to enjoy Calvin's genius, whether I agree with him on all points or not. This I know about him; he loved God with all his heart, soul, body, and especially his mind. His contribution to my own theology is immense. Being that many of my favorite theologians seem to be of a somewhat Calvinist stance seems to make me think that he must have got something right. Happy birthday, John Calvin.

Thoughts for Independence Day II

As I'm writing this second post concerning my thoughts for the role of Christianity in the formation of this country, I'm listening to Bob Dylan's classic song "The Times They are a Changing." I cannot help but think that change has been the only consistent force in the shaping of the United States. Change is the way of the world. Nothing in our universe ever remains constant. Every event that occurs whether in nature or in human behavior changes something in the universe and effects everything else, I believe. There is no such thing as a neutral action that affects only the being or force doing the action. Even something so simple as a deer walking through a forest creates change. It may spread the seeds of an invasive plant that kills everything else or the deer may destroy the habitat of an endangered insect. The fact is, the world is always changing and so are human beings. The only thing that does not change is God. God is "the same yesterday, today, and forever," "All glory be to thee oh Lord as it was IN THE BEGINNING, IS NOW, AND EVER SHALL BE, WORLD WITHOUT END, AMEN (emphasis mine)."

While God never changes, Christianity often does. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. While many would think it is a good thing that most Christianity in America is no longer like that practiced by the Puritans, it is bad that some factions have begun to say certain sins like abortion and homosexuality are not sin. In the case of American history, much of the change our nation has gone through culturally has been deeply affected by, or has affected the church.

Like I mentioned in my last post it was because of the history of religious persecution that the relatively new idea of separation between church and state was included in our constitution. During the pre-Civil War era, the church found itself split along with the rest of the nation over the issues of slavery. The temperance movement was fueled to a great degree by the church. During the Progressive era of the late 19th century, liberal protestantism found itself working for social reform while forgetting the gospel. This helped give rise to the distinctive American Fundamentalist movement. As the years wore on and the culture changed, fundamentalism gave way to modern Evangelicalism. The last hundred years have been, like much of American history, a time when the Christian community has been a force to be reckoned with concerning many different issues. Abortion, homosexuality, entertainment, evolution, and even foreign policy have been issues inseparable from the presence of the Christian population.

The ability of Christianity to thrive in a country that aims to leave religion alone has also been the source of much overseas missions work. The Evangelical churches in America are, and have been, very missions-minded. Our great prosperity has made it possible for practically any church member, who so desires, to go on a short term missions trip. In continuation with the Christian character of this country, Americans supply a great amount of aid to underdeveloped countries all over the world. Because of the Protestant work ethic that has so pervaded the populace, our wealth has given us so much more than we need, even plenty to spare.

However, the world still changes, and within recent years, it seems our wealth is not as stable as it used to be. We have been given the blessings, but we have not been godly stewards of it. We have forgotten God and have bloated ourselves on our riches. The recent economic crashes have begun to show us that money is a fickle master to have. We have been faced with the reality that we cannot have everything we want, as we have long believed. However, even in our economic hard times, we are still richer than most of the world. As Christians living in this context, we have found that even we have fallen into the sin of idolatry in our pursuit of consumer goods and money. However, American Christians can use this time of economic hardship to begin to break free from our idols. We can look at our brothers and sisters throughout the world and see that they live in greater poverty than we ever will. This can show us that the gospel and power of Christianity lies not in a strong society but in the lives of believers. When our Christianity becomes so closely tied with our culture, especially a culture of wealth, it can become difficult to remember the distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the world. Our Mega Churches are a good example. They are a product of our wealth and can be used for God's glory. But we can also reach just as many people, if not more, without the grand buildings and fancy worship bands. We can meet in our homes for Bible study. As our culture repairs itself, it is up to us to show America the lessons we have learned. I will discuss more about Christians as the conscience in America in my next post.

Thoughts for Independence Day I

As we approach Independence Day, I have been thinking quite a bit about the United States of America and we Christians living here. I have been thinking about the history of this nation and all of the great things it has done, as well as some of the not-so-great things it has done. I have been considering the role that Christianity has played in our history and the role that we must play in the future. While I am not making the argument that America and her inhabitants are God's chosen people for today, I do believe that in many ways, we have felt many blessings from God.

America never was a Christian nation, as some people claim. Many of the founding fathers were deists and secularists. America was framed partly according to the governmental models of Ancient Greece and Rome as well as drawing from the Magna Carta and much Enlightenment era work. While some of our documents such as the Declaration of Independence appeal to a Creator, Thomas Jefferson, the author, did not believe in the God of Christianity. Rather than trying to create a country run by Christians, the framers made a country where it was safe to be a Christian of whatever persuasion one might be. Those ideals also made it safe for those of other faiths to live in this country without fear of governmental persecution.

However, beneath all of the Enlightenment philosophy there did lie the influence of Christianity. It was Christianity that made Western culture. Christianity was the religious motivator of all of Europe since the time of Constantine. To understand Europe and America without the influence of Christianity can be likened to trying to understand middle eastern history without the influence of Islam. American history is linked to the influence of Christianity, and especially Protestantism. Much of the early settlement in North America was due to religious persecution. It was this that helped to establish America as a country that held religious freedom in such high esteem. A population with a fairly Christian worldview combined with much of the wisdom gained from the lessons of history helped to create a prosperous country that millions of people have flocked to in hopes of a better life. This is the most prosperous country in the world, and even today people all over the world desire nothing more than to come to this land.

Christians and the Environment

It has been over six weeks since the terrible accident that sank the BP oil rig, killed eleven oil workers, and caused thousands of barrels of oil to be released into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico since then. I have been looking at pictures of the spill and seen the terrible ecological devastation it is causing. I cannot fathom how much sea life has been permanently destroyed by this unfortunate event. While I'm not a scientist, I am afraid that this accident may take the environment hundreds of years to fully recover, if that is even possible.

It is sad when we humans are the cause of such ecological destruction. This oil spill is only a part of a larger environmental tragedy that we have been a part of over the last several thousand years. The natural world is out of balance. This is a result of sin, I believe. When God tells Adam the ground will bring forth thorns as he works to till it, I see the beginning ecological imbalance. Thistles and thorny plants are good plants when they are in their natural habitat, but it is when they get into areas they are not native to that they begin to be a problem and choke out the other native plants. The entry of sin brought on this ecological struggle between man and the natural world. God's good creation became damaged by man's sin. Man began to destroy the creation, though not always intentionally. The environmental problems of today, I believe, are mostly the result of good intentions yesterday. Man is the only creature made in the image of God. Man is also the only creature capable of destroying the planet God made for us. Between our environmental accidents and our weapons of mass destruction, it is safe to say that life on Earth hangs by a thread.

So what are we to do? I believe that Christians should be the most environmentally minded people out there. We believe God created this good world, and cares about it very much. Man was given the responsibility of caring for it and stewarding it. This is something we dare not forget. Many times I see Christians who hate any form of environmentalism. They say that global warming is a myth, despite the overwhelming evidence that the pollution we cause is affecting the global climate. Some even say that since God is going to give us a new heavens and new earth in the future, we shouldn't worry too much about exploiting the world right now. This way of thinking is terrible! Yes, God promises a future heaven and earth that will be free from the effects of sin, but that is no excuse to mistreat the one we have today. If a parent gives their son or daughter an old car that is starting to fall apart with the promise that one day soon, they will buy him or her a new car, does that mean the child should abuse and mistreat the old car? No! Because of the promise of the future new vehicle, the son or daughter should treat the present car with the utmost care. They should prove to their parents they are capable of taking care of a good car. It is the same way with the earth. As Christians, we owe it to God as an act of devotion to Him to take care of what he has given us.

As we live in the wake of this tragedy in the gulf, let us pray for the future of our world. A lot of damage has been done, a lot of God's world has been destroyed due to our fallen, imperfect state of being. Let us pray and work to find ways of preventing this in the future. Let's try to find ways to live within the world in a way that uses cleaner energy and causes less ecological damage. Let us try to be active in the preservation of this wonderful planet, with the worship of our wonderful God in mind.

Jesus and Self Defense

As I have been writing on and discussing the Sermon on the Mount, the question of self defense has been ruminating within my mind. If Jesus says we should "turn the other cheek," "go the second mile," and "love our enemies," does this mean that we, as Christians have no right to fight off an attacker or defend our homes and families against a criminal? This is a very tough question to answer. I realize there are many Christians out there who hold differing views on the rights of a Christian to defend themselves. What I am offering here, is simply my opinion. I hope that it is helpful and that God will forgive me for where I get it wrong.

One thing I have discovered while studying the Sermon on the Mount is the context in which Jesus places his lessons. When he says "When someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also," what he is referring to is a back handed slap. In that context, according to William Barclay's commentary on Matthew, that was a very strong insult to someone. In the following verses, when Jesus says to give the man suing you both your cloak and your tunic, to give generously to all, and to love and pray for our persecutors, he is speaking within the same context. Notice, that none of these situations are extremely life-threatening or harmful to others. He does not say, "If someone has broken into your home and is trying to rape your daughter, let him have your wife as well." The context in which he is speaking these words is in the day to day life of his audience. As most of us realize, at our jobs, work, or social gatherings being insulted or mistreated is something that occurs quite often. Sometimes we are even the vessel for insults and bullying, sadly. However, what Jesus is saying, is don't retaliate to insults. As Christians, it ruins our witness if when someone insults us, we fly off the handle and respond with cursing, insults of our own, or physical retaliation. I believe this is part of what it means to deny ourselves and take up our cross. We must deny ourselves the enjoyment of repaying evil for evil, and instead try to be reconciled with our enemy. Our first and foremost priority is the Kingdom of God; we simply cannot afford to cause any sort of anger in someone against Christianity due to a personal dispute. Make peace with our enemies Christ says.

But what about in a life-threatening situation? Can we defend ourselves then? My personal belief is that we can. In Luke 22, Jesus urges his disciples to go out and buy swords. I do not imagine Jesus wanted his disciples to carry the swords around so they could chop weeds. It appears that Jesus was giving his disciples permission to defend themselves if they were attacked. Yet elsewhere, Jesus rebukes Peter for attacking the High Priest's servant, says that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and says that his servants are not of this world and would not fight. What is he saying? Can we or can we not defend ourselves? I believe this is completely situational. While resorting to violence should always be our last resort, I believe we can use it when someone's life is at stake. If I am walking down the street and someone attacks me, I believe I can fight back rather than let them harm me. In the case of women especially, I believe they are justified in fending off an attacker. However, once again, this is situational. I would try to avoid a physical confrontation at all costs. If the attacker held a knife or gun to me and demanded my wallet, I would try to diffuse the situation by giving it to him. That's actually something they teach in martial arts; a few dollars isn't worth getting stabbed or shot over.

There is an excellent video on Youtube that John Piper does on this subject. He recounts the story of the martyrs in Ecuador during the 1950s who had the movie "End of the Spear" made about them. He says that when they were attacked by the natives, they had a gun with them, but fired it into the air to try to scare them away. They would not shoot their attackers because they knew those people did not know Jesus and would have gone to Hell if they died. The missionaries, Piper says, knew that they were ready to be with Christ if they died. That is one thing we need to remember when we need to defend ourselves. My attacker may not know Christ and will spend eternity in Hell if I kill him, whereas I will go to Heaven. When the attacker breaks into our home and threatens our family, we should make every effort possible to diffuse the situation without causing any bloodshed. I personally would make every effort to make the attacker lie down on the ground at gunpoint while I called the police, rather than shoot him.

There really is no cut and dry answer to this question. It is part of living in a world filled with violence and sin. We must do everything we can to work for peace and reconciliation, but this does not mean letting evil run rampant. Loving our enemies also includes stopping them from doing evil. We must be prepared at all times to sacrifice our lives for Christ and for others. We must also protect the innocent and the weak of this world. While we should do this through the means of Christ-like love and sacrifice, there may be a time when we need to physically fight off a mugger on the street or an intruder in our home. When doing this however, we must remember that our enemy is loved by a God who desires him or her to be saved. We must never relish any harm done to an oppressor, and only do what is necessary to avoid further bloodshed.

Some Thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount

Reading the Sermon on the Mount never ceases to impact me. Yesterday morning I read through Matthew 5-7 once again, and as usually happens, began to examine myself in light of what Jesus was saying. I always struggle with the commands to "turn the other cheek," "go the second mile," "love your enemies," "repay no-one evil for evil," etc. I guess the reason for this is that it runs so contrary to my nature as a human being, and especially as a male. In all of our entertainment, the guy we admire and root for is the one with all the combat skills, guns, power, and "don't mess with me attitude." We see that as a great strength. When John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, or Harrison Ford is slighted in a movie, we don't expect to see them turn the other cheek and forgive the sin of the offender, we know there's going to be some butt-kicking! In our own personal lives, when someone offends us, the thing we want to do is strike back, either verbally or physically. When someone has attacked someone in our family, circle of friends, job, or country, we view them as "the enemy" and create this wall of hate between us and them. We relish in making offensive jokes about them, gossiping, or rejoice in their injuries and deaths (in the case of an international enemy, especially). All of this flies in direct opposition to the message of Jesus.

The thing that I do not like about the Sermon on the Mount is that it unequivocally calls the Christian to a life of forgiveness and peace-making. It requires that we empty ourselves of our pride and selfishness. It demands that we make that terrifying leap of releasing our grudges and hate. It means forgiving people who have slighted us. It means not retaliating when we are harmed by others, but absorbing the sin and violence of the world in Christ-like love. It means taking seriously Christ's call to love our enemies, both at home and in other countries. How often at church or in our own prayers do we pray for the love of Christ to reach the terrorists that they might be saved and the fighting cease? If we are to take seriously the message of Jesus to love our enemies, that is something we must be doing. These uncomfortable commands mean I can wish no harm to any man, but only desire that they be saved and brought into the fellowship of Christ in peace.

What Jesus requires of us is so contrary to what we know to be "right." I am so often convicted by the way we try to rationalize the commands of Jesus in this area. "He didn't really mean it literally. He was just using hyperbole. Of course if someone hits you on one cheek you should hit them back. He was just saying we should be patient people." Why, if he did not really mean "love your enemies" did he not say something different. Why did he not say, "try to be patient with your friends and family, but as for those guys out there who hate you or would really like to kill you, it's alright to continue to dislike them and hope for their destruction." Jesus really meant what he said. He proved that he meant his sermon because he really lived it out! Jesus reached out to his enemies, rebuked Peter for violently defending Jesus in the garden, "opened not his mouth" when he was reviled and beaten, and he prayed for the forgiveness of those who harmed him. If we are to follow in the footsteps of Christ, we must also be prepared to meet violence, hatred, and oppression with love. This irritates me because I want to be the man that nobody will mess with. As a human being I want power, I want people to fear and respect me. We all want this. However, if we are to call ourselves Christians, we must throw away all of those desires and, as Paul says, make our attitudes to be the same as Christ who humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

I have to believe that in the attitude and example of Christ is true strength. It is so terrifying to think that being a Christian may mean being violently attacked and persecuted and not retaliating. It is scary to turn the other cheek, to love my enemies, to forgive sins against me, to release my grudges. It runs the risk of appearing weak to the world. The world will mock us because of it. However, it is what Christ has commanded us to do. All we can do is obey.

The Begining of Sorrows

This morning I had a very disturbing article sent to me. I encourage you to read it at http://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/PeopleGetReady. This article recounts how a preacher speaking in Canada was made to sign a pledge that he would not speak out against the practice of homosexuality or the religion of Islam in his sermon. While I am completely against hate speech in any form, what I see here is a violation of the right to freedom of expression. This is something that we in the west have long valued. It is one of the things that distinguishes us. Silencing one's ability to speak freely on whatever he or she may desire is something we have all long associated with totalitarianism. In our minds, it is something that occurs in Iran or Soviet Russsia, not in western Europe, Canada, or the United States. Yet what we have in this case, is a totalitarian policy being enacted next door. The state is telling a preacher what he or she cannot say.

This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Hitler's totalitarian government made every effort to silence men who preached against the moral corruption of Nazism. Men like Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Martin Niemoller, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were among those targeted by the state for their preaching. Barth and Tillich, while continuing to oppose Nazism, were forced to flee to Switzerland and America, respectively. Niemoller and Bonhoeffer were imprisoned because they stayed and continued to fight the injustice that was prevalent in that country. Bonhoeffer was hanged for his opposition to Nazism, while Niemoller survived his imprisonment.

What then, are we as Christians to do? We have two options. Either sit back in our respective countries and try to not say anything the state would disapprove of, or vehemently voice our opposition to such injustices. It is my personal belief, that what I see happening in Canada could soon be a reality in my own country. When that happens, it will be up to the Christians to peacefully oppose that law. We can say, just like the apostles did when told to refrain from speaking the truth, "We ought to obey God rather than men." The Christians in Canada should not be silenced by this legislation. They must continue to speak the truth of God, even if it means fines or imprisonment. Those of us in America, where we still have the right to speak freely should support our brothers and sisters to the north, helping them and equipping them in every way possible. We must also ready ourselves for the possibility that someday soon, those of us who speak out against sin will be persecuted as well. Are we going to sit back and comply with the laws of man, or are we going to obey the law of God and continue to call sin what it is in hopes of bringing the good news of the gospel to those who need it?

Living in the World

While entire books could be written on the relationship of the Christian to his or her life in the world, I would like to share a few thoughts that I have been considering lately. I have been thinking about how we, as Christians, view the world in which we live. I see that there can be a general trend among us to think of this world as just something we must endure until Christ calls us up to Heaven where we can sit around for the rest of eternity playing harps like the cherubs on Precious Moments greeting cards. I have been subject to this temptation and mode of thought as well. However, lately I have been reading several works by N.T. Wright and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and comparing what they have to say with the message of scripture. I am becoming more and more convinced that the "Precious Moments" theology I just described is something that needs to go.

When Jesus is praying for his disciples, he prays "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world" (John 17:15-16). This prayer is in continuation with a constant theme that runs throughout John's gospel; Jesus came to save the world. The world Christ made is good, but broken. Christ has come to fix it. Read the first chapters of Genesis and then read the last chapters of Revelation and take note of how everything that went wrong at the beginning is ultimately rectified and restored. The world is important to God. He made it and loves it. Why then, do we often speak of how much we hate living in the world? The world is full of sin and evil, but we know how the story ends. Christ will return and fix it all. Christ has come to us in the flesh and through his resurrection has become the first glimpse of what this new creation will look like. God's work in the world is in progress and we are invited to participate in it! In the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, we are God's "Special Forces." Just like the Navy Seals or British SAS might be the first to spearhead an invasion by going into the target zone and softening up the defenses, we are supposed to be preparing the world for the culmination of the new creation. Christ has won, but there is still resistance that needs to be overcome as much as is possible. That is why Christ prays that God will not take us out of the world. We are citizens of God's country; that is where our loyalties lie. However, we are in the world to spread God's Kingdom, not simply to just wait life out until we die. That means getting involved as much as we can, not just in our churches and in specific ministries, but in the secular realms as well. The Special Forces do not spend all their time working on their base, but in the midst of the enemy's territory. The mission Christ began and commanded us to fulfill, is one that is carried out by living as God's agents in our workplaces, schools, volunteer organizations, and governments. By infiltrating the day to day life of the world with our training in righteousness and our weapons of love, sacrifice, and reconciliation, we open up doors to tell the world Christ is king and has made available membership in his kingdom.

We are called to living within a paradox. On the one hand, we are commanded not to "love the world" (1 John 2:15). On the other hand, we hear that God has loved the world and is committed to saving it (John 3:16). How then do we do this? The "world" can mean to things in the Biblical text. In some cases it means it in a general sense of the creation and the people within it. In the other sense, it means the structure of evil within creation that is opposed to God's rule. When it says "Do not love the world," it means do not love and enjoy the sin and evil that is active and at work to oppose God. In our existence in the world, we are to remember we are of God's Kingdom and should live as God's citizens. However, we are to love the world in the way that Christ did. We are to bring the good news to it and pray for the salvation of everyone we meet. We are not called to despise our present state of being, but we are not to indulge the sinful nature either. Despise the evil and wickedness that is at work right now, but fight for the good and keep in mind the hope of the coming restoration of all that has gone wrong.

The Duty of Love

I came across an interesting quote by Paul Tillich the other day. It reads "The first duty of love is to listen." Since I found it, I have been considering what it means and what it would look like if we practiced this idea. I see that we often go about our daily interactions with the idea that we have everything figured out. When our friends, family, or co-workers begin to tell us about what is going on in their lives, we often wish they would simply hurry up, let us tell them how to fix their problems, and leave us alone. This stems, partly, from the fact we have so many of our own problems we would like to fix that we do not feel we have time for those of others. This, I believe, is a mistake. As Christians, we are called to live in community with one another; we worship together, pray together, take communion together, and fellowship together. There is no such thing as the solitary Christian. If we do not love each other, life within the body of Christ becomes impossible. The problem with loving each other lies in the reality that each of us enters into the body with all the nasty baggage this life throws on us. We all have different likes, dislikes, sins, struggles, personalities, and ideals.

If we are expected to live together without killing each other, being able to sit down and listen to what the other is saying is imperative. When we lose the ability to try to see things from a perspective other than our own, we cannot expect to live in peace and fellowship. When we become too busy to care about the struggles our fellow Christians are undergoing, we become afflicted with a sort of spiritual leprosy. Someone with leprosy cannot feel pain, and as a result, cannot tell when a member of their body is injured. This eventually can result in the death of the member, and ultimately the person, due to infection. When we cannot feel the pain of our brothers and sisters, we are like the person who cannot tell when he or she has lacerated his arm. The first step to avoiding this is to sit down and listen.

Who better to emulate in this than Christ? Jesus genuinely cared about the people he was with. The woman he met at the well in the Gospel of John, he listened to her and took personal interest in her. This was done in a time when a good Jewish man was not expected to speak to a woman. When Nicodemus came to Jesus in the night, Jesus listened to the pharisee's questions and explained to him the way of the kingdom of God. When sincere seekers came to Jesus, he took them very seriously and poured out the love of the Father on them. We must take this example when we are living our lives among people in the church who do not understand things like we do. We must also live like this in the secular world. We need to sit down with those who do not understand the Kingdom of God and patiently explain to them what we believe. We must also take them and their doubts, questions, and problems seriously. While the temptation is always there to become defensive when questioned, or to try to hurry the conversation along until the person "gets saved," we must remember that Jesus did not become defensive, nor did he try to hurry his way through conversations. Jesus listened to people. Jesus took them seriously. Jesus loved them into the kingdom.

If we are going to love our brothers and sisters in the Lord, we will listen to what they have to say. We cannot simply shut down because the person we are talking to is a "narrow-minded fundamentalist," or a "liberal Christian." That will only cause us to alienate them (Note: there is a time to split away from other Christians due to doctrinal error, but that is an entirely different subject. Splitting should only be a last resort, however). If we listen to them, and they to us, we can have a fruitful discussion that can help us all to see where we might need to change our thinking a bit. One does not win people to the truth by brow-beating them with arguments and polemics, but by listening and correcting in Godly love. This goes for the brothers and sisters with personal problems as well. We must learn to care and to empathize with them in all their struggles. We need to ask ourselves if our brothers and sisters in Christ feel they can share with us. We need to ask ourselves if we are willing to help them when they do, or if we are simply to busy to be Christ to others. "The first duty of love is to listen." Let us fulfill that duty.

National Day of Prayer

Something that's been in the news lately is a controversy surrounding the constitutionality of a government approved and endorsed "National Day of Prayer." So far, it seems the judges going over the case see it as a form of government-imposed religious observance and are systematically striking it down. To many Christians, this seems like a form of persecution; the lawmakers are trying to remove God from the public sphere and promote atheism and secularism. This, they claim, is an attempt to take America further and further away from being a "Christian nation."

In regard to the lawmakers striking down this piece of legislature I say, "Thank you. You are doing your job well! We do not want or need a government instigated National Day of Prayer." If you live in the United States of America, you are in a country that protects the separation of church and state. The government has no right to influence religious practice in any way, shape, or form. The government cannot make an atheist observe a National Day of Prayer any more than it can make a Hindu observe Yom Kippur. Instituting a National Day of Prayer is not only unconstitutional, but can violate the freedom of conscience of millions of the people.

Let me explain some of the problems associated with a National Day of Prayer. Who are we going to pray to? Are we going to pray to the triune God of Christianity? Jews do not believe in a Trinitarian God or that Jesus is God. Are we going to pray to Allah? As a Christian I will not. Buddhists do not believe in a god. Hindus have millions of gods. What about the atheist or agnostic who does not believe in a deity? If this is to be a government endorsed event, there is no way it can do this in a way that will satisfy all of its citizens without calling us all to compromise our faiths in some way. As a Christian, compromising my belief in the Triune God who revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ is not something I will do. Nor does the government have a right to force me to do so. The other alternative is for the government to simply adopt one god as its official national deity and pray to that. Presumably. this would be the Christian God because the majority of the people in the country identify themselves closest with Christianity. However, it is a dangerous thing to adopt a form of religion as the official one of a nation.

In case any of us are forgetting out history, let us remind ourselves that many of our earliest founders came here fleeing the state-allied religions common in Europe since the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. The governments of Europe gave special preference to certain religious groups whether it was Roman Catholicism in the last stage of the Roman Empire and Middle Ages, or the Reformed and Anglican faiths of the post Reformation age. Even today, many of those nations' governments give money or power to ecclesiastical authorities. For example, one of my favorite theologians, N.T. Wright, is a member of the House of Lords in England because he is the Bishop of Durham. The Puritans, Anabaptists, and others fled from Europe because the result of a state-sponsored religion is persecution from deviants of the established faith. Our founding fathers recognized this and included the Separation of Church and State clause in the constitution. As soon as the government gets its hands into the realms of religious practice, either the government becomes subservient to the church as happened with Roman Catholicism, or the church becomes a subject of the state as happened with the Lutheran church of Germany during the Nazi reign.

The United States is not a theocracy. It is not, nor was it ever, a "Christian Nation;" the countries our ancestors were fleeing were "Christian Nations," and many still are. The United States is a nation where it is safe for us to be Christians of whatever persuasion our conscience dictates. It is also a safe haven for those who are not Christians. No religious group has the authority to impose its views on the people, and a government cannot impose religious views or practices on its people. A day of prayer is a matter of personal conscience. Let me say it again; when the state becomes involved in religion, we find ourselves on a fast track towards totalitarianism. Should we have a National Day or Prayer? Let's have it as long as it is organized and executed solely by the federally independent churches that make up this country. If the government wants to make it a law, I believe as Christians who believe there is no religious authority except Christ and the Bible, we should oppose it.

An Indictment Against the Word "Literal"

There is a word which, especially in regard to Biblical Studies and theology, is almost always misused. That word is "Literal." How often when I am in the presence of theological discussion I invariably hear phrases tossed around like, "Should we take this story literally?" "So do you believe Jesus literally rose from the dead?" "I take the Bible literally." I have a problem with this kind of language. The problem is that the word "literal" is a literary term meaning the author is using language in its plain meaning, rather than in a metaphorical sense. "Literal" or "literally" are terms that are confined exclusively to the world of the text. They have no bearing on reality, or what actually happened in space and time.

Allow me to provide an example. In one chapter of "The Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkien describes how Gandalf kills the Balrog. One can say that Gandalf "literally" killed the Balrog. That is, the story of Gandalf's battle with the Balrog is not a metaphor in the story. Tolkien means the Balrog was really a Balrog and Gandalf really did kill it. However, this story can be literal without having actually happened within space and time in our dimension.

When the Biblical authors say Jesus healed a blind man and people ask if it literally happened, we should say, "Well, it's not a metaphor. The blind man and the miracle in the story is not representative of something else." However, I do realize what people are asking. They are asking a question not of literary genre or form, which is what the term "literal" in its correct sense should be limited to, but "Did this event the author records really happen in space and time." He or she is then asking a question about the world that exists behind the events recorded in the text, not a question of the text itself.

The terms we should be using in place of "literal" is "historically." One can believe in a "literal" resurrection of Christ in that he affirms the Gospels are describing Christ brought back to life without believing it was an event that occurred historically. As Christians we believe in both the literal and historical meaning of the text. We believe the gospel writers actually did mean the body of Christ was resurrected, and weren't trying to make some sort of abstract metaphor. We also believe in the historical meaning of the text in that if we were to hop into our time machines and travel back to that first Easter morning, we would be able to see and touch Christ.

This also goes for the Creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. This is perhaps where the word "literal" gets abused the most. It saddens me to see people asking whether the days of Genesis are literal or not. In Hebrew, whenever the word for day (yom) is coupled with a numerical value (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc), it means a day as people would understand it. So of course in the text the "day" literally means "day". Those words are not metaphors. Neither are the creation accounts metaphors for something else. However, the question we are to ask is "what kind of literature is being written? What is the author trying to say or argue?" It is at that point we can begin to textually examine them and deduce that the author is making arguments about how the universe is structured, who made it,a reason for the six day work week prescribed in the ten commandments, and man's relation to God and the world. We can then ask "what historically happened?" Did the events happen exactly according to the two accounts the author describes, or is he trying to show something else while using "days" as a narrative framework to portray reality? We can then begin to examine the universe, the product of creation, to attempt to make sense of it. (note: we must also realize here that if there is any science in these stories, it will reflect the understanding of the men of the time it was written. We should not expect it to contain modern, scientific insights, as that is not the purpose of the Bible.). However, by this time we have moved out of the realm of the text.

Let's remember, then, to keep our terms under control. Use the word "literal" when appropriate, and the word "historical" when appropriate. It will ultimately lead to greater and more accurate understanding of the text. This is the Word of God we are dealing with, and we should deal with it in the most accurate terms possible.

Some Thoughts on Suffering and Tragedy

I have not posted for some time now, due to various circumstances. However, this morning I felt the need to address the very difficult topic of suffering and tragedy, once again. Recently I have learned of two fellow Simpson students who were involved in a serious car accident. Needless to say, the entire campus is fervently praying for them and their families, asking God to bring healing to the injuries sustained in the collision.

Possibly one of the most frustrating things about this situation is that the accident was sustained while the driver was attempting to help a man asking for food on the side of the road. The question I am sure many of us are asking at this point is why does tragedy strike a fellow believer when he is trying to imitate Christ and give aid to the needy? Sadly, it is a question I do not think we can fully answer. We may never know exactly why tragedies such as car accidents, earthquakes, and diseases strike the righteous but not the wicked, however, we do know that God is intimately involved with the suffering occurring here on earth.

I notice in our prayers that we often call out to God and ask Him to come down and intervene in our situations. I think this is a mistake. It subconsciously presupposes that God is somehow distant from us and the situation; as if He is sitting up in Heaven, letting the world run its course, and only stops to intervene at certain times. I think what we need to remember in our thoughts and prayers is that God is already involved and working in the world in ways we cannot see. He is "working all things for good to those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28) long before the first prayer reaches His ears. He has also promised never to leave us nor forsake us (Hebrews 13:5b-6). In Christ, God felt the pain of suffering that so often afflicts us and those we love. Our God is familiar with suffering and is present with us in it.

When suffering comes along, it not only tests our faith and teaches us perseverance (Rom. 5:3, James 1:3), but the end result of it is becoming more like Christ (James 1:4). Let's then remember, that when suffering comes along, rather than focusing on the injustice of the situation, look to Christ as an example of how to suffer (1 Peter 2:21). Christ looked ahead "to the joy set before Him" says Paul in Philippians 2. Christ suffered injustice and tragedy, not for doing evil, but for doing God's will. Christ's suffering resulted in the resurrection, making possible the salvation of mankind and the restoration of the broken world we inhabit. In the same way, when we are faced with suffering, remember that God rewards the ones who persevere with a better resurrection (James 1:12, Hebrews 11:35). That is the gospel in suffering.

The Good World

Today as I was making my way to breakfast, I was busy enjoying the warm morning sun and the freshly blooming trees when I was reminded of an important theological truth I believe we often forget. The world is good. When confronted with the beauty of blooming plants, snow-capped mountains, even barren deserts, the only proper response is praise and thankfulness to the one who made it all and saw that it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).

But why do we not think of the world in terms of it being good? Perhaps it is because the harsh reality of the presence of sin stares us in the face every single day. When we are not witnessing the sins of mankind through genocide, terrorism, war, environmental abuse, and human oppression, we see the devastating effects of tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and wildfires. How can this world be good when in the last two months several earthquakes have killed and displaced millions of people?

What we need to remember is that this world is currently feeling the effects of sin. God created the world in state that was just right, and will one day restore it to its former glory (Rev. 21:1-5, Isaiah 65:17-25). In that day, there will be no earthquakes that will kill millions of people. There will be no wildfires, hurricanes, or environmental exploitation. In the meantime, if we look, we can still see traces of the world's former (and future) beauty all around us. All the natural world has proceeded from the mouth of God and bears his divine fingerprint, so to speak. Even we humans were created good (in fact, we are the crowning achievements of God's creation). During this present time, we may still feel the effects of sin, but those of us in Christ are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) moving toward the day of glorification. Let's remember that while sin and its effects are incredibly real and present, Christ is in the process of redeeming the whole creation to its former state(Romans 8:22-23).

If this is the case, we as Christians should remember to think of everything through the lens of Christ. The world is good; sin and its effects are only temporary. This way of viewing the world, known theologically as "High Destiny" is a view that is more common in the Eastern Church than the western. However, I think there is much we can take from this. Looking for the vestiges of a once innocent world and looking forward to the perfected world expresses fully the Christian sense of optimism we get to hold because of Christ.

N.T. Wright Disassembling the Rapture

What I have included in this post is an article written by N.T. Wright on the fallacies surrounding the idea of the rapture. N.T. Wright is rated as one of the world's top evangelical New Testament scholars. He is very well known for his work on the doctrine of the resurrection and the so-called "new reading of Paul."

Farewell to the Rapture
(N.T. Wright, Bible Review, August 2001. Reproduced by permission of the author)

Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.

The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.

This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?

It is Paul who should be credited with creating this scenario. Jesus himself, as I have argued in various books, never predicted such an event[2]. The gospel passages about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Mark 13:26, 14:62, for example) are about Jesus’ vindication, his “coming” to heaven from earth. The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11-27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever.

The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines[3], and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether.

The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).

Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.

Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it? And how can we do so, as he did, in such a way as to subvert the political imagery of the dominant and dehumanizing empires of our world? We might begin by asking, What view of the world is sustained, even legitimized, by the Left Behind ideology? How might it be confronted and subverted by genuinely biblical thinking? For a start, is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon? Wouldn’t this be overturned if we recaptured Paul’s wholistic vision of God’s whole creation?

On Doubt

One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich. He says, "Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith." I believe this is very true. While there are many kinds of doubt, two of the most general ones regarding the character, nature, or plans of God and the other being the existence or presence of God, both are something we all must reckon with. Doubt, for us Christians, is a very real problem, but it is one that is seldom talked about. Perhaps we seldom speak about it in honest, personal terms because we are afraid of what others will think of us. Our other Christian friends might begin to believe we are closet atheists or on a slippery slope to liberalism. I think in some situations, we are even afraid that voicing our doubts and fears will make us look less spiritually mature. What I would like to do in this post is just share some very general thoughts on the phenomenon of doubt.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see," Hebrews 11:1 says. Faith is something that we choose to do in spite of having no concrete knowledge of what we hope for. To be quite honest, there are many days and times in my life when I have a hard time believing in the existence of God. When I look at the world around me and see the extent of suffering and pain that goes on, I just have a hard time reconciling that with the existence of a good God. I've heard and studied all of the reasons why the state of the world is as it is, but still the seeds of doubt remain. There are also many things in the Bible that just present huge obstacles for me in terms of belief. However, I shall not delve into them at present.

I have read and watched thousands of apologetic videos and books that seem to promise to give you an airtight defense for your Christian belief. They sound very good at the time, however, it does not take me long until I hear someone poke a hole in their argument. I then wonder if I have put my faith in the right thing. Is this all just an illusion? Is God and Christianity just a projection of my mind meant to fulfill a need I have? These are the questions that rack my brain.

So why am I a student of theology still? Why do I still plan on entering the ministry if I struggle so hard with belief? Because as I study, I see that all worldviews have insurmountable problems at some point. I also see that Christianity makes a lot more sense than most worldviews. My faith is based in the person of Jesus Christ and His work, not in my intellectual capabilities to answer all questions. I realize that to be a finite human being means having imperfect knowledge. Therefore, faith is letting the arguments take us as far as they can, but then making a decision to believe despite our unanswered questions. That is why it is "being certain of what we do not see."

Along our Christian journey, faith is something we must work on. As one of my professors says, "Doubts are like headaches; everybody gets them, and they don't last forever." Christian Mystical Theology calls this process The Dark Night of the Soul. It is a time in the Christian journey where everything we "know" is disassembled. We go through times of inner struggle as we seek to understand God. Prayer, Bible study, and other religious practices may seem hard or unhelpful, but we continue to do them anyway. It can't be said how long this "dark night" will last. Perhaps weeks, months, years? Mother Theresa went through this process for most of her adult life. She struggled with feeling the presence of God. Some, like Christopher Hitchens, called her a closet atheist. However, despite her doubts, she kept the faith. The good news for us in the pit of doubt is that one day, we shall emerge from the dark night into a beautiful and glorious morning. Our faith in Christ will be stronger and more personal. Our job, then, is simply to continue walking where we cannot see.

Let us remember that God is big enough to handle our doubts. By working through them, entrusting them to God, and soldiering on, we can live the Christian life. So by now, those of you who are reading this are probably either freaking out and thinking I have lost my faith or am in the process of doing so, or are feeling blessed because you have gone through the same thing at some time or another. I encourage the church to begin to be more open about our existential and intellectual struggles. Share them, contemplate them. Weather the Dark Night of the Soul together.

Church and Real Men

I am going to vent today. After this video by Mark Driscoll, I realized even more how badly the church needs real men. The church has done a good job reaching out to women, and is even somewhat appealing to more effeminate men. In fact, it seems a lot of younger, Christian men tend too be more feminine than the ones outside the church. Perhaps it is just that society today likes metro-sexual men. Sadly, the metro-sexual thing is a disgrace to manhood. We have young men in the church (and out) who have never worked a real job in their lives. The styles of dress are meant to make men look more like women. Seems like 90% of these guys can't change a tire, change their own oil, much less do any real car repair. They can't do a hard day's work. Back in the day, if you were a young man, you would be working in a coal mine, or logging trees, or farming, maybe even working in a factory. Nowadays, there's a taboo against hard labor. I think it's up to the church to start reaching out to the manly men; the ones who like to hunt, fish, work on cars, and shoot guns. Let's get some more ministries that reach out to that kind of man. Let's make sure all of the other young men in the church can learn how to be a man. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with enjoying the finer things in life, but I do think that manhood is losing its masculinity.

(Note: this would not let me publish the video, so go to Youtube and type in "Mark Driscoll Macho Man")

Haiti and God's New World

This week for my New Testament class, as part of our meditative Bible reading, I have been meditating on Isaiah 65:17-25. This passage (read it on your own; it's short) deals with the hope of the new world Christ will create at His Second Coming. This is the oft-cited passage filled with the imagery of lions lying down with lambs, and the world being filled with prosperity, longevity, and close communion with God. This is a picture of the future hope that we are all looking forward to. We acknowledge, along with scripture, that Christ has been exalted to God's right hand where He rules the world as His kingdom is established (Phil. 2: 9-10, Acts 2:33). As Christians who are in Christ, we have become part of the new creation that God is undertaking. We get to look forward to the bright future ahead as both hope and motivation for doing the work of God on earth.

Strangely, I am meditating on all this within the week that a huge earthquake has struck the island of Haiti and killed thousands of people. While we could ask hundreds of questions concerning the goodness of God in allowing this to happen or the origin of evil, including natural disasters, what I would like to consider is how to evaluate this with the coming Kingdom in mind. How do we understand this sort of tragedy that occurs based on simple plate tectonics? Will the coming kingdom involve such tragedy? I do not know. I do not believe we can assume all natural processes will stop when God restores the world. The Isaiah passage itself suggests that natural life cycle processes will still occur (Is. 65:20), while at the same time making the world seem rather safe through the use of the lion and the lamb metaphor. I do not think this passage is to be taken literally, because if it is, then we have a terrible contradiction (people will die, but soulless animals will not?). I believe that everything God created is good, including the forces of nature. What I think this passage is trying to show is the extent of cosmic restoration the world will undergo. So will events like this occur in the new creation? Perhaps, but with no widespread destruction like what we see there. In our resurrected bodies, I imagine we shall be immune to the effects of death and destruction, because that is the final enemy that will be conquered (1 Cor.15).

So, as we see the effects this earthquake has had on the island of Haiti, let's do the work of the coming kingdom. While we live in these present bodies that are subject to the laws of death, let's look ahead to a better time. It is the job of a Christian to help out those who cannot help themselves. The poor, the oppressed, the hungry, those who have been displaced, these are the ones who God is calling into his kingdom. Failure to assist these people is failure to participate in the mission of the kingdom of God. Sending money, help, or prayers is the least we can do as beneficiaries of God's grace. While we may not understand why God allowed such evil to happen, we do know what His will is in it. His will is for us to show the people Christlike love.

World Without End

Currently I am reading a really excellent book. It's called "World Without End" by Ken Follet. It is the sequel to his 1989 novel "Pillars of the Earth." The story follows the lives of a group of peasants and merchants living in the town of Kingsbridge in the 14th century. The story revolves around the constant struggled between the Kingsbridge priory and the ordinary folks who are trying to make a living in a harsh time period. The Hundred Years War is raging and the bubonic plague is wrecking havoc on Europe. The church officials are corrupt and the lords and kings are selfish oppressors. It is not a time I would want to live in. However, it is an excellent novel and at over 1000 pages, it still feels too short. The only complaint I have against it is that at certain points it is far too sexually graphic for my taste. Sometimes it just seems Follet could have been a little more subtle and left more to the imagination. Otherwise, I would suggest it to anyone who loves a good historical novel.