Bonhoeffer

My wife gave me a great gift this year for Father's Day, Eric Metaxas' new biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I recently have been very interested in Bonhoeffer's life for several reasons, but for me, it is mostly interest in his theology, and specifically in how his theology really affected how he lived, and eventually gave, his life. If you've never heard of him, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian who was martyred in a Nazi Concetration camp for his part in an assassination plot against Hitler. One of his more famous works is "The Cost of Discipleship", which he really understood. I'm into chapter four, and Metaxas does a great job showing how Bonhoeffer interacted with the two competing sides of theology in his time: the historical-critical liberals and neo-orthodox Barthians. Towards the beginning of the chapter, he makes a statement about Bonhoeffer that jumped off the page at me. It seems like something maybe we should emulate in Bonhoeffer!

"As a result of his intellectual openness, Bonhoeffer learned how to think like a fox (historical-critical liberal) and respect the way foxes thought, even though he was in the camp of the hedgehogs (Barthian neo-orthodoxy). He could appreciate the value in something, even if he ultimately rejected that something - and he could see the errors and flaws in something, even if he ultimately accepted that something." (p. 61)

Something I have noticed in the circles that I am in, and even in myself, is a tendency to label and dismiss other opinions while putting the views I hold up on a pedestal. But is this really the way to true confidence and rock solid conviction in what you believe? One of the threads that I've seen so far in Bonhoeffer's life is that he was confident, and many times even accused of arrogance. Perhaps his confidence in what he believed came from a willingness to think critically about everything? Maybe if more Christians would be like this, we would have more true disciples, like Bonhoeffer, and less people playing games. More Christians would know what they really believed, and not what they think they should.

NBC, What were you thinking?

Watching some of the US Open broadcast on NBC yesterday, I heard this apology from NBC Sports Announcer Dan Hicks:

"Earlier we began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago, and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation’s capital for the third time. Regrettably a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you that were offended by it."

Since I didn't tune in until mid-broadcast, I didn't think much about it, until this morning when I came across the footage prompting the apology.  Now I'm not one to get all riled up about stuff like this, but the omission of the 'under God' statement from the pledge seems so blatant that those responsible for airing this video deserve a good slap in the back of the head.  What were you thinking?  Did you not think anyone would notice?  Were you actually looking for more boycotts?  'Regrettably a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance[just the most emotionally contested portion, mind you] was edited out.'  Even if the edit was unintentional, which I have a hard time believing, how could you be so careless to not foresee an outcry, or did you prepare your apology in advance?  "It was not done to upset anyone"?  Really?  You didn't think anyone would care?   Absolutely amazing.  I am not so much offended by the video as I am floored by the empty-headedness of those who aired it.   

So brothers, earnestly desire to prophecy...

In the OT, prophecy was in many cases prediction of the future. It was reporting and recording the exact words of God, and the phrase “thus says the LORD” made it known that the message to follow had divine authority.

But as we turn the pages to the NT, who is speaking with divine authority? Are these men described primarily as prophets? The answer is no, they are described as Apostles. In fact, any time Paul, Peter, or any other writer wants to claim divine authority, they do not appeal to the title of prophet but rather, Apostle.

As we begin to study “prophecy” in the NT, it becomes clear that it is not on the level of Isaiah’s “thus saith the LORD”. I Thess. 5:19 says, Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. I Cor. 14: 29 says “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” Do you think an Old Testament prophet like Isaiah would have said, “Listen to what I say and weigh what is said—sift through it and make sure it’s right!" Doubtful. And why should they judge other’s prophecies if they were really the authoritative word from God? Paul, in instructing the Corinthians in the proper use of the gift, even makes the distinction clearer when he says, “Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” (I Cor. 14:36-37) So Paul is saying that his words are God’s words, but prophecies are something less.

So what then is prophecy in the NT? I agree with Wayne Grudem’s definition: “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.” It is not on the level of Scripture, and should always be tested. It is fallible, and can be wrong as it has come through merely human words. (So, for example, “I think the Lord is showing us”…, or “I feel the Lord is moving me to tell you…”) It is not fallible, but is being open to direction from God and speaking it. We are commanded to earnestly desire this gift. Why? I believe that we should so have our minds saturated with the Bible, and our hearts in tune to the heart of Christ, and our spirits so in sync with the Holy Spirit, that we can be moved, led, and guided by him in our lives, and thus prophesy to the edifying of the body of Christ. Rom. 12 says that we should prophecy according to the measure of faith, and as a persons’ faith grows through knowledge of the Word, God will guide, partially, through this gift. This study has caused me to take a hard look at how I operate as a Christian. I don’t think I have been open enough to God’s leading, and in his prompting to speak to others! I have been so skeptical and leery of what I have seen (which has been extremes mostly), that I think I have closed myself to this ministry of the Spirit in my life.

But won’t some people abuse this gift and claim that everything they say is from the Lord?
I’ll end this post with the caution and encouragement that Grudem gives in his discussion of prophecy:
“If the gift of prophecy begins to be used in a church, the church should place
even more emphasis on the vastly superior value of Scripture as the source to which
Christians can always go to hear the voice of the living God. Prophecy is a valuable
gift, as are many other gifts, but it is in Scripture that God and only God speaks to us
his very words, even today, and throughout our lives. Rather than hoping at every
worship service that the highlight would be some word of prophecy, those who use
the gift of prophecy need to be reminded that we should find our focus of joy, our
expectation, and our delight in God himself as he speaks to us through the Bible.
There we have a treasure of infinite worth….”

So for discussion: Do you agree with this understanding of prophecy in the NT? If you somewhat agree, how can this function in the church in a practical way, and how can we benefit from it? What fences could we build to protect against abuse of the gift?

Just Win Baby!

It was an intense evening.  Two evenly matched teams battling it out on the diamond.  Coaches yelling at encouraging their players.  Umpires making ridiculous calls and fans letting them know about it.  The animosity of the crowd toward the opposing team's coaches growing with every inning.  The innocent desire to win had been replaced with a thirst for blood.  Yankees versus Redsox?  Giants versus Dodgers?   No.  Cascade # 6 versus Monrovia #1 in the second round of the local U6 baseball tournament.  The park not fielded with finely tuned professionals looking for the promise of glory, but with awkward 5 and 6 year olds looking forward to the promise of  ice cream.  And so begins my foray into the obsessed world of kids sports.  Here's to 18 more years of this madness.

And yes.  We won.  Victory was sweet... and ice cream was served.

And on the 8th day, man created .... Chickenosaurus?

Bringing back the dinosaurs, one chicken at a time.  If you've been longing for a pet dinosaur, there is hope.  With both Frankenstein and Jurassic Park implications, I found this article (and video) interesting on several levels.  Makes you wonder (and worry?) what science will do in the next century.

"And He will turn the hearts of the Fathers to their Children"

We are studying through the book of Luke together at church, and we came to the description of John the Baptist in chapter one. One of the things that would be true of him is that he would turn the hearts of the Fathers to their children. As I thought about this, I asked myself how much my heart is toward my sons. My deepest desire for them cannot be that they would excel in sports, or that they would be successful in finances, or that they would have an easy, problem free life. My deepest desire for them has to be that they would know and love God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength. That I think is the definition of a Father whose heart is toward his children. I want to be that kind of Father, and Christian Fathers should be leading the way for our culture in this area. But sadly, we’ve failed. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million children in America - one out of three - live in father-absent homes. As agents of reconciliation, Christian fathers have to start following in the footsteps of John the Baptist, and be the kind of men that cause other fathers to turn their hearts to their children, and off of themselves. This is one area that Christians have failed in affecting their culture in America. I am praying and crying hard out to God this week that my generation, that are mostly new Dad’s, would have their hearts toward their children. Maybe Dad’s reading this blog could do the same! Instead of wanting to be honored this Father’s day, maybe we should honor God by pleading with him to give us grace to love our families well, and be men that turn other Dad’s hearts to their kids!

Did Adam have a belly button? Be careful how you answer.

The battle lines in the creation/evolution debate were drawn quite some time ago.   From the Scopes trial, to the rise of American Fundamentalism, to the popularization of Young Earth Creationism, the American church has taken upon itself both the sword and the shield in defense of God's word against secularism.  What's changing in the 21st century?  The battlefield.  No longer is the debate found only in the public arena.  It has come home.  Christians are speaking up in defense of Darwin.  Scientific dogma is no longer taking a back seat to church dogma.  Some would say the Devil has entered the church.  Others applaud and are finding it comfortable out of the closet.  The June Issue of Christianity Today does a fairly balanced job of reporting the more recent issues coming out of this debate.   Like with any revolution, there have been some early casualties.  But I don't see this going away.  I for one have been especially fascinated with the creation/evolution debate for almost 20 years now but have never been more excited with the intricacy I see in God's Creation.   What do you think?  Do you foresee Evangelical Christianity (dare I say Fundamental Baptists) ever warming up to evolution?  What ramifications are born out of the church accepting , or rejecting, evolution as a valid science?  And finally, is this debate safe for discussion or out of bounds in our conservative circles?

OT God, NT Jesus: Are they so different?

It seems that sometimes our feelings and human understanding of life, ourselves, and God can get in the way of letting God be God. I follow the JesusCreed blog some, and it seems that many of those who comment seem to place their thoughts and understanding over God's word. I believe in the clarity of Scipture. Not that we will understand everything in the Word, but that there is a sense in which we can understand what God is telling us about himself. The question is, will we believe it. Should we accept the things that we can't understand, or reject them and reconstruct our Bibles to fit our understanding? The following comment seems to be a weighty argument for the latter.

"Rick, there are questions that we won’t get an answer for but those shouldn’t be about a flexible definition for good, justice, mercy or other things God calls us to be and has revealed himself to be in Christ. It is a lazy position to say “I guess we’ll never understand in our finite humanness how Jesus can call us to mercy, cry, “Father forgive them…” and justify the mass destruction of non-combatant men, women, babies and livestock.” These are clearly incompatible. John and James want to call trouble down on a village – very O.T. – and Jesus says, “No. Not my way.” Is it his way or isn’t it his way? Do we worship a god with a personality disorder?
These are fair questions by new and not yet believers in my community that must be wrestled with and not disrespected with by an answer that “God’s ways are just higher than our ways…” Killing babies isn’t higher."

Asking the tough questions of life is certainly a must if we are going to grow. However, at some level, we are "pieces of clay" and not "the potter". Human pride will always look for wrong in the creator God.

So what is the answer here? Is the God of the OT not really God? Does he have a personality disorder? Is the Jesus in Revelation so different from the God of the OT?