Chapter 3 - Participatory meetings  -  12/6/2009
Continuing notes on the book "House Church" by Steve Atkerson. 

This chapter discusses one of the most important contributions of their book, in my opinion.  Quite simply, they build their case on 1 Corinthians 14 that church meetings should be participatory.  This means that instead of one pastor giving all the teaching/preaching in a meeting, each man attending should come prepared to share something that will edify everyone.  Cf. 1 Cor 14:23-40, certain sections highlighted that pertain to participatory meetings:

 23Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?
 24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;
 25the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.
 26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation.  Let all things be done for edification.
 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;
 28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.
 30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;
 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
 33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
 34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
 36Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
 37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
 38But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
 39Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
 40But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

Isn't 14:26 crystal clear?  "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation."  

And isn't it so widely ignored throughout the world in churches today?  Typically there is one person up front who teaches, while everyone else listens silently in pews.  Some churches have multiple pastors/elders that rotate the teaching, which is a step in the right direction.  And many churches have smaller group Bible studies that meet throughout the week and include participation, which is a great step in the right direction.

But very few churches today seem to follow this clear Biblical pattern in 1 Cor 14:26/context.  Or am I missing something?   I certainly didn't notice the difference between 1 Cor 14 and the churches I attended while growing up, but now I am starting to see some differences.  I am asking my friends - 'Do you see these differences too?  Are they legitimate?  Are we 'doing church' in a suboptimal/unBiblical way?  Or am I missing something?  Are these differences between Paul's directions and our practices acceptable or not?"

Other corollary points the authors make in this chapter:

• This participatory pattern came out of the Jewish synagogue pattern, where Jewish men were encouraged to raise questions, hear new teaching from visitors (e.g. Paul/Barnabas), weigh in, etc.
   
• In Acts 20:7 where Paul teaches the church until midnight,   the Greek word used is "dialegomia", (dialog, argument, discussion, etc).
   
• The authors say that today's meetings are usually called "worship services", wheras the NT meetings were not described as focusing so much on worship of God, but rather fellowship and edification of each other.  I.e. they are not saying that worship is inappropriate, but that there should be a shift in emphasis... more emphasis on fellowship and participatory teaching, less time spent in worship.
  I'm not sure what I think about this.  I agree that the NT meetings were not called "worship services".  I guess part of the modern approach is a throwback to the Solomonic Temple mindset, where indeed there were professional musicians (1 Chronicles 25), big crowds of hushed people listening to the law and its exposition (Ezra, etc) and everything was oriented toward worship of God (since He actually DWELT there in the temple).
  The authors discuss the 'performance' aspects of today's church meetings, and compare to the 'participatory' aspects of the 1 Cor 14:26 meetings.
  What are your thoughts?
   
• The authors raise the point that participation is closely linked with the small size of the NT group meetings.  When people started meeting in large pagan temples after Constantine, the participation became impossible.  Conversely when people meet today in small home groups, participation feels natural.
   
• They make the point that if every man starts bringing some teaching to share, each teaching/preaching will naturally need to be shorter, to fit everybody in.  This intrigues me and saddens me a little.  I have been so blessed by the lengthy/carefully-researched sermons by pastors throughout my life.  If things were changed so that there was "a lot of short teachings by less-trained people", it seems to me that there would be a big hole left from the former "few teachings by highly-trained people".
  On the other hand, I suppose that just because a teaching is shorter (say 5 min instead of 40 min) doesn't mean that it need be 'off-the-cuff'... each man could still carefully research and distill what he has to say... we could still take notes... the "weighing"/"judging"/questioning that occurs after each teaching/prophecy could expand on the interesting points of his teaching...  I solicit your thoughts and comments on all this.
   
• Relatedly, on p. 58, they talk about "special-purpose meetings" of some visiting gifted teacher who spends the whole meeting time sharing what God has gifted him to share.  I suppose that one could say that our churches today are exactly this- "special purpose meetings" every Sunday morning, with the occasional "New Testament church service" relegated to our "monthly small group Bible study".
   
• They answer the objection that if everyone taught there would soon be a lot of off-the-wall teachings and heresies taught, by the reminder that the purpose of the elders is to prevent exactly that.
   
• On tongues, they mention the scripture 1 Cor 14:39 which says "do not forbid to speak in tongues".  I think this is a balanced way to look at the issue.  Tongues may or may not be given by God to the church today (perhaps it depends on the area of the world).  But we should not "forbid" to speak in tongues, and if ever someone wants to speak in tongues, it must be under the pattern of the Scriptures (1 Cor 14 - interpreter must be present or else the person must speak silently to God, implication that the 'tongue' is a spoken language, one person at a time, etc).  And tongues are never commanded in the NT as a sign of salvation or a "second blessing" or the filling of the Spirit.  They are recorded as a sign of the Holy Spirit's filling only in certain instances in Acts which seem inaugural (beginning of the Church, first Gentile converts, first formerly-John-the-Baptist converts, etc), but elsewhere (Rom. 8:9) the Spirit is clearly taught to live in everyone who belongs to Christ.
   
• They discuss problems with participatory meetings which might arise, one of which they label "Pooled Ignorance", when a person comes with a question rather than a teaching.  They recommend discouraging such questions...  However, having had (/having still) many such questions myself, perhaps those could be 'redirected' rather than 'squelched'.... e.g. "That's a great question - let's discuss that over the meal afterward and keep this time open for those who have prepared teachings or songs or messages to share."
   
• They raise the huge issue of what 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means when it says "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."   Of course 1 Cor. 11:5 says "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved."  In 'House Church', chapter 18 delves into this issue at more length and presents two standard reconciliations of these verses: either (1) that women are to be silent in the 'judging' of prophecies/teachings but they are allowed to prophesy/pray in the assembly if God so moves them, or (2) that women are to be completely silent throughout the assembly/teaching time of the meeting, and that 1 Cor 11:5 refers to praying/prophesying at other times/places, not in the church meeting.   I tend to think that (2) has a bit more scriptural support, but I'm very willing to hear others' thoughts on this.
   
• They complain about the way many non-house-churches today "squelch spontaneity": here's a quote from page 63:
  "Many people today have read 1 Corinthians 14 and judged their churches to be in complete compliance merely because the congregation participates through responsive readings, genuflecting, partaking of the wafer and wine of the Lord's Supper, singing hymns, giving tithes and offerings, etc.  Part of the problem is that all of this is planned out, it is not spontaneous, the structure is the same every week, and the entire order of worship is laid out in the bulletin.  There may be limited audience participation, but there is no real liberty.  Is any one of the brothers free to pick a hymn?  To bring a teaching?  To raise his hand and ask a question?  Is there spontaneity?"
  Personally I would love more 'spontaneity' in the order of church meetings.  But I am considering the question: Is this desire of mine (and the "House Church" authors) just a personal/genetic/American-individualist/ADHD/etc type of thing, or is it an actual Biblical principle? 
  Certainly the principle of participation of all the men seems Biblical - 1 Cor 14:26.  But of the rest of what they say, how much is American individualism, and how much is straight from the Bible?  Your thoughts are welcome.

In summary of this chapter, they say that 1 Cor. 14:26/context clearly commands participatory meetings, and that the church today usually ignores this.   I find their points extremely compelling.  How about you?

"House Church", by Steve Atkerson et al, notes on Chapter 2...  Your thoughts and comments in reply are welcome...

 

Chapter 2  - The Lord's Supper

p.32 They state their point that the Lord's supper is to be a joyful occasion (more focused on the Lord's coming and heaven than on quiet/somber remembering His past death for us), that it is to be a full meal, not just a token.

p.35 They look at 1 Cor. 11.  I certainly agree that the Corinthians were eating a full meal, but the question is what Paul was criticizing.  He was very critical of the way they were partaking of the Lord's supper.  But was the problem that they were treating the supper as primarily a MEAL to satisfy their physical hunger?  Or was the problem that they were not waiting for each other, some eating first so there was no food left?   Here's the passage:
--
 20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
--
They contend that it's the second interpretation that's correct.  I can just barely agree with them, but I'm not 100% convinced.

p. 36 They claim that the Greek of Luke 22:19 means "Do this to remind Me" rather than "Do this in remembrance of Me".  Wow, that is a huge change of meaning.  They talk about other times in the Bible that people 'remind God' of His promises, and I'm with them there.  There's no problem with that.  For example, John at the end of Revelation asks Jesus "please come quickly", after Jesus had just told John that He would be coming quickly. Habakkuk, Isaiah, David, etc. The only question is what this Luke passage is truly saying. Here's Luke 22:
--
 14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him.
15And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."
19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."  [OR.. "do this to remind Me."]
20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
--
You can also check out the Greek at Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=22&v=1&t=KJV#conc/19
I am honestly not sure about this one.  I tend to doubt that some German theologian 'Joachim Jeremias' has suddenly come up with the "right" interpretation that the rest of the church has been missing for all these centuries, but it is conceivable.  As far as I can tell, the Greek could be translated either way.  Either meaning makes Biblical sense also.  I still tend to lean slightly toward the traditional interp, as follows:  The original Passover seemed to have been instituted primarily as a reminder to the Israelites, and only secondarily as a "reminder to God" (that the Redeemer was coming).  Everything about the context and later explanation of the Lord's Supper points toward the fact that Jesus was taking off on the Passover to make a new ritual that would be the perfect reminder to His followers of His death in fulfillment of the old covenant and His establishment of the new covenant.  I'm fine with the notion that we "remind God" so-to-speak every time we take the Lord's supper, but since the rest of the NT seems to focus more on the reminder to us humans, that makes the traditional interpretation of this verse seem more sensible to me.  E.g. 1 Cor 11:26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

p. 38 They complain that the modern eating cracker fragments and drinking from little individual plastic cups destroys the picture / analogy of the one loaf--one body analogy of 1 Cor 10:16-17 - "Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread."  They're probably right that the analogy breaks down at that point... but surely it already had broken down at the point of yon house church across town eating from a different loaf of bread than the current house church, yes?    Also they skip over the question of sanitation / germs passed from person to person through all that saliva on the passed cup...

p. 38/39 They discuss one purpose of the Lord's supper as "creating unity" -- i.e. I think, reminding people that they are all "one" in Christ Jesus - there is no rich/poor, slave/free, male/female distinction of worth or value any more.  This is good.

p. 40 - They point out that contemporarily participation in the Lord's Supper looks more like a funeral than a wedding feast, as soft mournful music plays on the organ, the ushers look like pallbearers, etc.  However, what about Paul's statements that "let a man examine himself, and so let him eat"... and his strong warnings about eating unworthily/unexamined-ly...  Certainly the reason for the modern atmosphere is that people are indeed remembering Jesus' death ("proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes") and taking some time to examine their hearts before eating.  Would not loud laughter and jubilant conversation feel out of place at someone's funeral?  Did Jesus mean for the Lord's supper to be mostly remembrance of the past, or mostly anticipation of the future?  Most contemporary churches say the former, Atkerson and colleagues say the latter.  What does the Bible say?  Your comments are welcome.  Certainly we're to be "rejoicing in the Lord always"(Phil 4)... and fixing our hope on His coming (1 Peter 1) but don't the few passages that specifically talk about the Lord's supper seem more solemn and remembrance-oriented?  (1 Cor 11, Luke 22, etc)   If Jesus wanted the Lord's supper to focus on His return rather than His death, why didn't He say so specifically?  Instead, He and Paul seem to put the emphasis on Jesus' death....  yes?

p. 40 They make the point that the supper was celebrated weekly in the NT.  Makes sense to me.

p. 42 They give some nice practical considerations for church meals.

p. 43 They suggest that unbelieving visitors can partake of the Lord's Supper with no problem, as the warnings of 1 Cor 11 only apply to believers.   ???  Where do they get that from?  If I were responsible for explaining the Lord's supper to unbelievers, after reading 1 Cor 11, I think I'd recommend that they not participate in that symbolic act that says "I have been saved by Jesus Christ - I am a participant in His body and blood."....
In summary, I share their queasyness at the prepackaged/assemblyline version of the 'token' Lord's supper and I think that most churches don't fellowship together over meals often enough.  However, I am still pondering whether their contention is correct that the Lord's supper should be a boisterous occasion focused on His return rather than a solemn remembrance of the price He paid for us.  Perhaps both could be incorporated... A time of solemn reflection followed by a time of more anticipatory participation....  Overall, I think their vision of weekly church meals with the intentional inclusion of the "ceremonial"/cultic part of the Lord's Supper is a good vision.

I'm re-reading the book "House Church" by Stephen Atkerson, and posting some notes on each chapter.

 

Chapter 1

- p. 16 "Most churches still do follow some New Testament patterns.  Our question is: 'Why not follow all of them?'"  This is a key question/thesis of the book...  Their claim is that in a couple specific areas, the church over the past two millennia has incorrectly deemed these areas to have not been clearly prescribed in Scripture, and so the church has incorrectly assumed that each culture is free to implement these areas independently.  These specific areas include: taking the Lord's supper as a weekly full meal, meeting in homes as opposed to church buildings, hiring salaried pastors as church executives versus plural 'lay' elder 'facilitation', passive listening to 'trained clergy' rather than active participation of every (male) attendee, etc.  

- p. 18  1 Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."  "traditions" = Gk paradosis
They use this to make the point that traditions means all areas of church practice.   But is it possible that this word more refers to doctrine and teachings, and not so much church customs?   In their favor, the context of 1 Cor 11 is definitely church custom-related...

- p. 19  referring to Jesus' statement "Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?", their comment: "We must be careful not to develop our own church traditions that might actually inhibit our ability to obey the commands of our Lord."   True.  Whether house church traditions or non-house-church traditions.

- p.20 Watchman Nee's quote about "returning to the beginning" (Acts) - this raises many questions about how normative Acts is for today... e.g. do we have apostles today? tongues? gifts of healing?  More on this later.

- p. 21  2 Thess 2:15 "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."  They again make the point as in 1 Cor 11:2 that we today ought to "hold to the [apostles'] traditions".
In other words, the attitude in churches today is that "if the Bible doesn't clearly teach or command a certain church practice, then churches are free to adopt whatever approach works best for them", wheras the authors of HC say that it's not enough to go by only what the Bible "teaches/commands", it's also important to follow the Bible's "patterns" / the "traditions of the apostles".  If one of the apostle-led churches was recorded as doing such-and-such, then (says HC) we ought to do it likewise in our churches, even if the Bible never specifically commands it.
Extended quote from page 25:
"If the Bible is silent about something - if there is neither command nor pattern to follow - then we have the freedom to do whatever suits us (following the leading of the Holy Spirit). ...we promote a normative hermeneutic, insisting that we should hold to those practices that clearly were normative for the early church.  Matters of silence are matters of freedom."

 

A couple mini-posts today:

-----------------------------------------------------

1.  I just finished reading "House Church" by Steven Atkerson.   Very fascinating and controversial book.   Highly recommended for provoking thought.

I am wondering about various "church ministries" that exist today, and whether these would not be possible in a house church model, and which ministries would continue on unchanged, and whether if some ministries weren't possible if that would actually be a healthy thing somehow.

Ministry examples:

- Christian radio stations?  They'd probably be able to continue on unabated or with even better financial support

- Christian camps?  Likewise.

- Church choirs?  They would be replaced by other choirs, such as (Christian) school choirs, town choirs, etc.

- Music lessons in general?  Probably still continuing on unabated.

- Lengthy sermons that carefully and thoroughly expound a text?   Atkerson says that there is a separate place for "teaching meetings" for things like this, separate from the Lord's Supper fellowship/participation meetings that are the backbone and essence of "church."  But how would this work in practice?   On the plus side, "less teaching" might encourage the meditation and application of the smaller amount, just as in China they used to give out stones with a single Bible verse written on them to peasants, who would take the stone for a couple days or weeks and then swap.   On the negative side, Biblical illiteracy is already high in our churches... would reducing the external teaching exacerbate this?  But, it could be countered, the increase in shorter/participatory sermonettes might help to alleviate this...

- Christian colleges? and schools?  I suppose these could continue on...  with their related research/excellence thrusts...

- door to door evangelism groups?  These could continue...

- organ playing?  handbell choirs?  The development of beautiful music for God's glory that relies on big, expensive instruments of these types?   This would likely cease...  yes?

 

2. Thinking about Noah's flood and the decline in life spans from ~900 years down to ~120 years.  (cf. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/04/did-people-live-over-900-years  and John Sanford's book http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028)

The current creationist theories explain this through genetic bottlenecks (huge loss of genetic information from the healthy gene pool when 99.9% of the earth's population died in the Flood), which makes sense to me.

Theologically, I find it interesting that humankind's evil tends to be magnified and amplified whenever many people are placed together in close proximity (e.g. the tower of Babel, and modern innercities), and that God specifically commanded that people spread out and fill the earth (i.e. go live in rural areas, instead of condensing into cities, at least until the earth was filled....) ... God sought to reduce the pain of the evil, until the end would come when He would remove it completely.

Likewise, I think the same applies to Noah's Flood.   Why would God wipe them all out, while "never again" doing so throughout history, even though we are obviously just as evil?  One reason might be the lifespan issue.... when people are left to 'harden' in their sin for 900 years of life (as well as all their peers), perhaps the outcome is extremely horrible.   So God brought the flood to deliberately shorten our lives, out of mercy because our society would not get into the depths of evil that would otherwise occur.

As Tim Keller points out, for redeemed perfect saints as we will someday be, the innercity will be the exact opposite... the close proximity of perfect saints to each other will form a 'critical mass' that will foment glory and beauty and white-hot pure love, and that's why the new Jerusalem will be a (cubical) city (rather than a Garden of Eden).
3. A good wife is not 'snagged', but is a gratuitous/undeserved gift from God.

Maybe other types of wife can be 'snagged', but not this type.
4. Do babies go to heaven when they die?

I'll delay this post because I don't have the time right now.  But I think it's a question worth pondering.

What cultural values shape your priorities and actions?

I have heard it said that western (european and north american) societies are based on an "Innocence versus Guilt" mentality, wheras eastern (middle-east, far east, and northern africa) societies are based on an "Honor versus Shame" mentality, and that tribalist (southern africa, rural tribes in all other parts of the world) societies are based on a "Strength vs Weakness" mentality.

In many anthropological and missiological circles, this is taken as established fact and rarely questioned.  And there are good reasons to see these basic differences as real.   For example, see this anecdote (http://www.iculturelink.com/pitfalls-for-westerners-in-a-shame-based-culture/) and many other such published anecdotes.

Westerners, so the theory goes, are very concerned with doing what is "right" and avoiding what is "wrong".  Those in Oriental cultures however, says the theory, are more concerned with doing what will bring honor... not only to the person themselves, but to the person's family.  These cultures are more focused on the group / the collective in general, as opposed to more of an individualistic focus in Western cultures.   For this reason the concept of "saving face" is more important in Eastern cultures.

I think there's a fair amount of truth to the generalization.  However, I have a few thoughts.

1. Often these categories are brought out by people who are trying not merely to describe, but to prescribe.
That is, when someone like David Marantz writes his book "Afrian Friends and Money Matters", although they generally try to stay neutral ("this is how an African thinks about friendship"), they sometimes slip into persuasion mode ("these are the problems with how Americans conceive of friendship").
Likewise with these categories.  The persuasion can be mild and innocent, as in trying to help someone understand a non-western culture so as to not offend people when he/she travels there, or it can be subtle/deadly, as when someone suggests that the understanding of the Gospel that emphasizes Christ's substitutionary propitiatory atonement for individuals' sins is misguided and is superseded/overshadowed by the Bible's teaching about ethics and personal morality or the global kingdom-of-God teachings.
In other words, if one is simply pointing out differences between societies, fine.  But if one goes beyond this and indicates that we shouldn't be so focused on guilt/innocence because that's a culturally myopic "Western" perspective on the gospel, I say in response that the Bible itself is our only absolute standard...   And what if, in fact, the Bible has had a historically larger effect on "western" society than on "eastern" society (e.g. when Paul the apostle was directed into Europe by the Holy Spirit rather than into Asia, in Acts 16)?  Our goal is not the average of all cultures, but conformity to the Bible!
Learning about other cultures' subconscious/ingrained values can be helpful in understanding our own cultural glasses, but there is an equal danger of uncritically adopting other cultures' values.  The Bible alone is the perfect truth....

2. Is it really true that the Western value system is "guilt-innocence" based?   I think it might more accurately be characterized as "pleasure-pain" based instead.  In other words, Westerners seem to put highest value on personal pleasure, and avoiding personal pain.  "Doing the right thing" is not quite as important, subconsciously, it seems to me.  Pleasure comes in different forms - money, shopping, technology, entertainment, movies, sex, and most importantly, health...

3. The question is asked by others - how best may the Gospel be wrapped in a presentation that most appeals to the subconscious values of people in different cultures?  Paul talked about "becoming all things to all men so that I might by all means save some", referring to following Jewish cultural traditions when talking with the Jews, Greek cultural traditions when talking with the Greeks, etc.
Missiologists today talk about presenting the Gospel to Oriental Muslims in terms of "Christ the Victor who triumphed over sin and death and the devil and was brought to a position of supreme power and glory by His Father (Philippians 2)".  In other words, emphasize the parts of the gospel that most resonate with the cultural values of the person you're witnessing to.  Missiologists talk of couching the Gospel to tribalists in terms of the absolute power of God who raised His Son from the dead, "since it was impossible for Him to be held captive to it", and His absolute superiority and supremacy over all the evil spirits.  In the New Testament, whenever Christ commanded a spirit to do something, it had to obey immediately.
This understanding of cultural values has some usefulness, since the Bible does talk about these other "perspectives" on the Gospel...   But there are some pitfalls to be careful about.  Eventually the full counsel of God MUST be presented... and before the person 'converts' too! ...or else how will he/she be able to knowledgeably 'count the cost' of following Christ?  If the cost is not understood, there will be many initial converts, but most of them will fall away.
For example, the Oriental Muslim must understand that the way of Christ is characterized by extreme dishonor... "You will be hated by all men on account of My name," said Christ.  They will bring dishonor and shame upon their families.  Christ's own exaltation came after His extreme descent into degradation and dishonor (Philippians 2 again!).  The tribalist must understand that the way of Christ will be accompanied with extreme weakness (2 Corinthians 4).... "My grace is sufficient for you... [My] strength is perfected in [your] weakness..." said God in 2 Corinthians 12:9.

4. Perhaps the way to avoid the pitfalls is to focus on heaven!...
Will Jesus' disciples receive honor?  Absolutely... but it will only surely come in Heaven.  Before that, it will come and go capriciously.  On that day, the honor will come from God Himself.  John 5:44 - "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"
Will Jesus' disciples receive power and be "set securely on high" forever (and get to judge the angels)?  Absolutely.  But there will be many valleys of weakness in this earthly life before we finally get there.
Will Jesus' disciples receive "pleasures forevermore"?  Absolutely.  Not here.  There.

5. Perhaps John Piper (known for his teaching of "Christian Hedonism") is a good example of wrapping the gospel in a message that is aimed directly at the pleasure-seeking hearts of Americans (including myself of course).   All his dozens of books are perfused with that thesis:  the eternal pleasures that come from God are eminently WORTH.... anything/everything/putting-Christ-first-and-obeying-Him.

6. I wonder if the cultural values of the so-called "Generation X" or "Generation Next" (the young generation of current Americans and Europeans) might be slightly modified from pleasure-pain....  namely, excitement-boredom.   In other words, having a life that is "fun" and "exciting" and "happening" and "in the center of the action" and "not-out-of-the-loop" might be a cultural value that is pervasive across American youth (and conversely, the thing to avoid at all costs is having a "boring" life).  Similar in some ways to the Roman culture right before they fell.... circuses, gladiators, people thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, etc...
Perhaps this is a slight shift in American cultural values...?  Or perhaps this is just the age factor, and the youth of all cultures would evince more of this than the elders?  But I wonder if the technology of America has exacerbated this trend.... e.g. Hollywood movies, television shows, video games, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

7. And so the challenge to the next generation of American evangelists....  what does the Gospel of Christ have to offer to excitement-hungry teens?   Is there any excitement to look forward to in heaven, that can sustain a disciple of Christ through the boring backwaters of God-focused earthly life?

 

Some thoughts on Lamentations 3.    First, a brief intro.  Then the passage copied and pasted for you to read.   Then some thoughts.  Notice: this is a very long post.   I have kind of a backlog of xanga posts right now... I started this particular post more than a week ago, but haven't had time to finish it until now... and I have a few more things that I wanted to write about but haven't had time to write this week.

-----

Jeremiah was a young man who was called by God to give his nation a message.  He was scared and told God he didn't know how to speak and that he was only a youth.  God told him not to be afraid.

Jeremiah told the inhabitants of Jerusalem to repent, or else God would judge them.  They laughed at him.

Then the Babylonians came and besieged Jerusalem.  Jeremiah told the Jews that they should surrender, for their own good.  Now Jeremiah's neighbors didn't laugh at him anymore.  They called him a traitor.

The king put him in jail, and he was thrown into an empty water pit and almost died by sinking into the mud at the bottom.  He was pulled out just in time by one of his friends.

The Jews sent to the Pharaoh of Egypt for help against the Babylonans, despite Jeremiah's warning (from prison) not to do so.  Their attempt to enlist the Egyptians backfired.  Within a couple months, the Babylonians broke into Jerusalem and horrifically destroyed the city.

Jeremiah was taken with the other captives to Babylon, where he wrote the poetry now known as the book of "Lamentations".   In chapters 1 and 2, he laments specific aspects of the destruction.  In Chapter 3, he gets a little more 'philosophical', drawing some conclusions from what he has learned in his grief.
Lamentations 3, whole chapter

    1 I am the man who has seen affliction
Because of the rod of His wrath.
2He has driven me and made me walk
In darkness and not in light.
3Surely against me He has turned His hand
Repeatedly all the day.
4He has caused my flesh and my skin to waste away,
He has broken my bones.
5He has besieged and encompassed me with bitterness and hardship.
6In dark places He has made me dwell,
Like those who have long been dead.
7He has walled me in so that I cannot go out;
He has made my chain heavy.
8Even when I cry out and call for help,
He shuts out my prayer.
9He has blocked my ways with hewn stone;
He has made my paths crooked.
10He is to me like a bear lying in wait,
Like a lion in secret places.
11He has turned aside my ways and torn me to pieces;
He has made me desolate.
12He bent His bow
And set me as a target for the arrow.
13He made the arrows of His quiver
To enter into my inward parts.
14I have become a laughingstock to all my people,
Their mocking song all the day.
15He has filled me with bitterness,
He has made me drunk with wormwood.
16He has broken my teeth with gravel;
He has made me cower in the dust.
17My soul has been rejected from peace;
I have forgotten happiness.
18So I say, "My strength has perished,
And so has my hope from the LORD."
19Remember my affliction and my wandering, the wormwood and bitterness.
20Surely my soul remembers
And is bowed down within me.
21This I recall to my mind,
Therefore I have hope.
22The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
23They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
24"The LORD is my portion," says my soul,
"Therefore I have hope in Him."
25The LORD is good to those who wait for Him,
To the person who seeks Him.
26It is good that he waits silently
For the salvation of the LORD.
27It is good for a man that he should bear
The yoke in his youth.
28Let him sit alone and be silent
Since He has laid it on him.
29Let him put his mouth in the dust,
Perhaps there is hope.
30Let him give his cheek to the smiter,
Let him be filled with reproach.
31For the Lord will not reject forever,
32For if He causes grief,
Then He will have compassion
According to His abundant lovingkindness.
33For He does not afflict willingly
Or grieve the sons of men.
34To crush under His feet
All the prisoners of the land,
35To deprive a man of justice
In the presence of the Most High,
36To defraud a man in his lawsuit--
Of these things the Lord does not approve.
37Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass,
Unless the Lord has commanded it?
38Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That both good and ill go forth?
39Why should any living mortal, or any man,
Offer complaint in view of his sins?
40Let us examine and probe our ways,
And let us return to the LORD.
41We lift up our heart and hands
Toward God in heaven;
42We have transgressed and rebelled,
You have not pardoned.
43You have covered Yourself with anger
And pursued us;
You have slain and have not spared.
44You have covered Yourself with a cloud
So that no prayer can pass through.
45You have made us mere offscouring and refuse
In the midst of the peoples.
46All our enemies have opened their mouths against us.
47Panic and pitfall have befallen us,
Devastation and destruction;
48My eyes run down with streams of water
Because of the destruction of the daughter of my people.
49My eyes pour down unceasingly,
Without stopping,
50Until the LORD looks down
And sees from heaven.
51My eyes bring pain to my soul
Because of all the daughters of my city.
52My enemies without cause
Hunted me down like a bird;
53They have silenced me in the pit
And have placed a stone on me.
54Waters flowed over my head;
I said, "I am cut off!"
55I called on Your name, O LORD,
Out of the lowest pit.
56You have heard my voice,
"Do not hide Your ear from my prayer for relief,
From my cry for help."
57You drew near when I called on You;
You said, "Do not fear!"
58O Lord, You have pleaded my soul's cause;
You have redeemed my life.
59O LORD, You have seen my oppression;
Judge my case.
60You have seen all their vengeance,
All their schemes against me.
61You have heard their reproach, O LORD,
All their schemes against me.
62The lips of my assailants and their whispering
Are against me all day long.
63Look on their sitting and their rising;
I am their mocking song.
64You will recompense them, O LORD,
According to the work of their hands.
65You will give them hardness of heart,
Your curse will be on them.
66You will pursue them in anger and destroy them
From under the heavens of the LORD!

Lamentations 3 again, with interspersed comments

    1 I am the man who has seen affliction
Because of the rod of His wrath.
2He has driven me and made me walk
In darkness and not in light.
3Surely against me He has turned His hand
Repeatedly all the day.
4He has caused my flesh and my skin to waste away,
He has broken my bones.
5He has besieged and encompassed me with bitterness and hardship.
6In dark places He has made me dwell,
Like those who have long been dead.
7He has walled me in so that I cannot go out;
He has made my chain heavy.
8Even when I cry out and call for help,
He shuts out my prayer.
9He has blocked my ways with hewn stone;
He has made my paths crooked.
10He is to me like a bear lying in wait,
Like a lion in secret places.
11He has turned aside my ways and torn me to pieces;
He has made me desolate.
12He bent His bow
And set me as a target for the arrow.
13He made the arrows of His quiver
To enter into my inward parts.
14I have become a laughingstock to all my people,
Their mocking song all the day.
15He has filled me with bitterness,
He has made me drunk with wormwood.
16He has broken my teeth with gravel;
He has made me cower in the dust.
17My soul has been rejected from peace;
I have forgotten happiness.
18So I say, "My strength has perished,
And so has my hope from the LORD."

Jeremiah is here "brutally honest" with his feelings about God in his suffering.  Few places in the Bible are as explicit as this, and even fewer writings of modern American evangelicalism.

Jeremiah emphasizes that it is GOD who has deliberately brought this hardship into his life.  It is GOD who "set me as a target for the arrow".   It didn't just happen.

God, furthermore, "shuts out my prayer".  When Jeremiah asked God for national relief, none came.  Cf. vs 44, 55-56...?  When people asked God to relent on the national calamity, He shut out their prayer.  When Jeremiah asked God for physical deliverance when he was about to die, God answered him.  Yet God doesn't answer all such prayers.  Why the variability?  What principle can be drawn?  Maybe just that God answers some prayers and not others... ?

Why would God allow His own special prophet, the godly man, to suffer in this way?  ...to be mocked by the vulgar people, to experience no peace in his heart, etc?   Why do really bad things happen to God's own people, when they are walking closely with Him in righteousness?
    19Remember my affliction and my wandering, the wormwood and bitterness.
20Surely my soul remembers
And is bowed down within me.
21This I recall to my mind,
Therefore I have hope.
22The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
23They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
24"The LORD is my portion," says my soul,
"Therefore I have hope in Him."
25The LORD is good to those who wait for Him,
To the person who seeks Him.
What was Jeremiah's consolation in the midst of his grief?  Apparently, the belief that EVENTUALLY, God would turn around and bring peace and honor and joy to his life.  The whole Bible echos this theme repeatedly.   However, for most people this reversal is not promised in this life.

On v. 25, cf. Isaiah 40:31/context.

    25The LORD is good to those who wait for Him,
To the person who seeks Him.
26It is good that he waits silently
For the salvation of the LORD.
27It is good for a man that he should bear
The yoke in his youth.
28Let him sit alone and be silent
Since He has laid it on him.

"It is good that he waits silently....  what does this mean?  "Let him sit alone and be silent."  Is it better to sit alone, when suffering grief, rather than seek the company of friends?

Cf. Jeremiah 15 -

    15You who know, O LORD,
Remember me, take notice of me,
And take vengeance for me on my persecutors
Do not, in view of Your patience, take me away;
Know that for Your sake I endure reproach.
16Your words were found and I ate them,
And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart;
For I have been called by Your name,
O LORD God of hosts.
17I did not sit in the circle of merrymakers,
Nor did I exult
Because of Your hand upon me I sat alone,
For You filled me with indignation.
18Why has my pain been perpetual
And my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?
Will You indeed be to me like a deceptive stream
With water that is unreliable?

There may well be a place for silent isolated endurance of grief.  But perhaps Jeremiah is talking more about the loneliness that occurs when one is concerned about the things of God, and one's neighbors and acquaintances and even family and church friends don't care about God and His Kingdom purposes.  Why God, says Jeremiah, are you pouring out your fury upon me, when I was the one concerned about following You and about righteousness and about my nation while my acquaintances didn't care and just partied?   They all criticized and mocked me, even though "I was called by Your name" and I deeply loved Your Word.  Why me?
    29Let him put his mouth in the dust,
Perhaps there is hope.
30Let him give his cheek to the smiter,
Let him be filled with reproach.
This seems to be talking about "humbling oneself"... even extremely/excessively...  not clamoring for justice for himself, but 'waiting' for God's vindication...

Cf. Jesus -- "while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously..."  2 Peter 2:23

and Peter's conclusion: "Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time..."  1 Peter 5:6

 

Another powerful example of this is David, when fleeing from Absalom.  Here's the story from 2 Samuel 16-

⁵When King David came to Bahurim, behold, there came out from there a man of the family of the house of Saul whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera; he came out cursing continually as he came.
⁶He threw stones at David and at all the servants of King David; and all the people and all the mighty men were at his right hand and at his left.
⁷Thus Shimei said when he cursed, "Get out, get out, you man of bloodshed, and worthless fellow!
⁸"The LORD has returned upon you all the bloodshed of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the LORD has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. And behold, you are taken in your own evil, for you are a man of bloodshed!"
⁹Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now and cut off his head."
¹⁰But the king said, "What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah? If he curses, and if the LORD has told him, 'Curse David,' then who shall say, 'Why have you done so?'"
¹¹Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, "Behold, my son who came out from me seeks my life; how much more now this Benjamite? Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him.
¹²"Perhaps the LORD will look on my affliction and return good to me instead of his cursing this day."
¹³So David and his men went on the way; and Shimei went along on the hillside parallel with him and as he went he cursed and cast stones and threw dust at him.

 

False accusations.....   how extremely extremely painful they can be.   I have experienced them myself, and several of my friends have also.

Was David "a man of bloodshed" as Shimei said?  Was God punishing David because of his treatment of Saul's family, or because David was somehow 'in cahoots' with violent deeds of his predecessor Saul?  Was David a usurper of Saul's crown, and now God was booting him out because of his past?

There are so many ways David could have responded.  He could have spoken about his extreme respect for his father-in-law Saul, and how he refrained from killing him many times when all his friends were urging him to kill him, and when Saul's death would have made life a lot safer and more pleasant for David.  He could have quoted one of his own psalms about how he habitually walked in integrity and righteousness and honesty before God (confessing and forsaking sins as soon as possible).  He could have quoted the story of Job to illustrate that personal calamity does NOT necessarily mean that the person is being judged for some particular sin.  He could have reminded Shimei that Samuel had personally annointed David king in Saul's place, so that David was indeed God's approved/rightful king.

But David responded instead in complete humility.   "If he curses, and if the LORD has told him, 'Curse David,' then who shall say, 'Why have you done so?'" ...Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him."

What is going on here?  What is David cognizant of that Abishai was overlooking?

His own sin.    The sins he really DID commit.

That is to say ---  every time someone accuses you falsely of something, you have a choice:  You can either get defensive and upset and try to vindicate yourself, or you take the accusation quietly and use it as an opportunity to personally repent of OTHER sins in your life.  Every false accusation people make against you is an opportunity for you to walk more closely with God!   Wow.

Specifically, in David's case, although he was innocent in Saul's case, he was spectacularly guilty in the case of Bathsheba.  He really could legitimately be labeled "a man of bloodshed", after having slept with Bathsheba and then having killed Uriah by proxy so that he could marry Bathsheba.   After the debacle, Nathan had said the following to him from God:  'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'  This had indeed come true - his son Amnon had raped his half sister Tamar, then his other son Absalom had killed Amnon in revenge, and now Absalom had just staged a revolution and deposed him from being king.   David was mindful of his own sin, and so he responded in humility to the criticism.....    essentially, "Yes, I am indeed a very wicked person.  Probably far more wicked than you're even aware of.  Although the specific thing you're accusing me of is incorrect, I have so much other evil in my past and present that it's not worth trying to defend myself here.  The One I am putting all my hope in is God.  He is the One who has forgiven all of my sin through the coming Lamb-of-God-who-takes-away-the-sins-of-the-world (Psalm 32, 51), and He is the One who will vindicate me in this matter you're falsely accusing me of."

Wow.  What an example...  this is exactly what Jeremiah is talking about, albeit back and forth between 'personal' and 'national' senses, in Lamentations 3 --

    25The LORD is good to those who wait for Him,
To the person who seeks Him.
26It is good that he waits silently
For the salvation of the LORD.
27It is good for a man that he should bear
The yoke in his youth.
28Let him sit alone and be silent
Since He has laid it on him.
29Let him put his mouth in the dust,
Perhaps there is hope.
30Let him give his cheek to the smiter,
Let him be filled with reproach.
...
39Why should any living mortal, or any man,
Offer complaint in view of his sins?
40Let us examine and probe our ways,
And let us return to the LORD.
41We lift up our heart and hands
Toward God in heaven;
42We have transgressed and rebelled...
If it ever happens to you that circumstances shatter your life, and then on top of everything some of your friends start to point fingers at you and say that it happened because of such and such a sin in your life (while you know that their remarks are not accurate), and when the gossip causes you to lose friendships and other things that you consider precious, use that as an opportunity to "examine and probe your ways, and return to the Lord."

Sure you may be innocent in that matter that they're falsely accusing you of, but you surely have other sins in your life that need to end!   Sure the Lord is not crushing you in punishment for those sins, but He is graciously crushing you in discipline... 

"He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness." Hebrews 12:10

"...when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world." 1 Corinthians 11:32
   31For the Lord will not reject forever,
32For if He causes grief,
Then He will have compassion
According to His abundant lovingkindness. 

Huge, awesome promise here!   Again, nowhere does it say that this reversal will happen in THIS life, on THIS side of death.    But EVENTUALLY, it will happen........

    33For He does not afflict willingly
Or grieve the sons of men.
34To crush under His feet
All the prisoners of the land,
35To deprive a man of justice
In the presence of the Most High,
36To defraud a man in his lawsuit--
Of these things the Lord does not approve. 

Well, why do these things happen then????

If God is good and kind so that He does not "approve" these things, and if God is big enough and powerful enough to put a stop to them right NOW, then why doesn't He?

...the fact that evil exists implies either that God doesn't exist (as the atheists argue), OR... that He has some bigger and better plan, such that although the short term brush strokes are heartbreaking (to Himself as well as to us and others), the complete painting will be so awesomely beautiful as to be worth every single stroke.... such that not a single item of earthly life will be desired to have occurred differently, when seen from the perspective of eternity.... such that we might, in fact, indeed be living in 'the best of all possible worlds'.

Lamentations 3:33 is an incredibly important verse.  Is this true?  The implications are huge.

What kind of a Father would send His Son on a mission, knowing that His Son would end up being crucified?

I highly recommend this article "Are there two wills in God?" by John Piper and the book "God's Greater Glory" by Bruce Ware to investigate this point more fully..... how God "unwillingly wills" evil to occur, in a sovereignly-permissive way (yet with 100% meticulous ordained sovereign control, cf. 2 Chronicles 18:19?!?!?!?!)  while in contrast "willingly wills" good to occur... "   Literally in Lam. 3:33 "from-His-heart", as "He does not afflict from-His-heart".... He reluctantly allows evil acts to be performed, ravaging sicknesses to kill, earthquakes, tornados, car crashes, etc (and perfectly using each 'bad' event for overall good, Genesis 50:20), while joyfully "from-His-heart" "willingly" pours out love upon His adopted children "according to His abundant lovingkindness"........

 

More: look at the "spectrum texts":

    37Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass,
Unless the Lord has commanded it?
38Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That both good and ill go forth? 

Contrary to the sunday-schoolish notion of God as a jolly old guy who chuckles when people have good harvests and get married but wrings His hands and disowns responsibility for wars and tsunamis,  the Biblical God is a robust, energetic, majestic Lion of a Personage who roars with laughter when the tiny squeaking voice of the wicked shrills self-exalting words.... the weeping-and-laughing King who BOASTS repeatedly to His dearly loved people of His sovereign omnipotence....

    "I am the LORD, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these."    (Isaiah 45:5-7)

One implication of Lam 3:37 is that any human authority that exists has been established by God... Romans 13:1...  As Jesus said to Pilate - "You would have no authority over me unless it had been given to you from above."   This can give us peace if/when the government (or other authorities) abuses its authority.... God sees... He doesn't miss anything...
    39Why should any living mortal, or any man,
Offer complaint in view of his sins?
40Let us examine and probe our ways,
And let us return to the LORD.
41We lift up our heart and hands
Toward God in heaven;
42We have transgressed and rebelled,
You have not pardoned.
43You have covered Yourself with anger
And pursued us;
You have slain and have not spared.
44You have covered Yourself with a cloud
So that no prayer can pass through.
45You have made us mere offscouring and refuse
In the midst of the peoples.
46All our enemies have opened their mouths against us.
47Panic and pitfall have befallen us,
Devastation and destruction;
48My eyes run down with streams of water
Because of the destruction of the daughter of my people.
...
51My eyes bring pain to my soul
Because of all the daughters of my city. 

Jeremiah repents for the sin of his people...  He admits that God's judgment against them was justified... but he still cries over the awfulness of it all...

 

    49My eyes pour down unceasingly,
Without stopping,
50Until the LORD looks down
And sees from heaven.

What is Jeremiah saying here?  I don't quite understand what he's praying for.   Any thoughts?

 
    52My enemies without cause
Hunted me down like a bird;
53They have silenced me in the pit
And have placed a stone on me.
54Waters flowed over my head;
I said, "I am cut off!"
55I called on Your name, O LORD,
Out of the lowest pit.
56You have heard my voice,
"Do not hide Your ear from my prayer for relief,
From my cry for help."
57You drew near when I called on You;
You said, "Do not fear!"
58O Lord, You have pleaded my soul's cause;
You have redeemed my life. 

His own story, in poetic form... read the prose here...

God sometimes gives these awesome direct deliverances.    But sometimes He doesn't, I think (Hebrews 11)..... am I right or wrong about this?    Anyway, either way He will be glorified... and in the END, He will certainly 'deliver' all His servants.... just not all of them here in this life.....

 
    59O LORD, You have seen my oppression;
Judge my case.
60You have seen all their vengeance,
All their schemes against me.

 

Again-- trusting in God for vindication, not in human justice...   God is the one who sees all and will reveal all secrets at the Judgment Day... including the thoughts and motives of every man's heart....

 
    61You have heard their reproach, O LORD,
All their schemes against me.
62The lips of my assailants and their whispering
Are against me all day long.
63Look on their sitting and their rising;
I am their mocking song.
64You will recompense them, O LORD,
According to the work of their hands.
65You will give them hardness of heart,
Your curse will be on them.
66You will pursue them in anger and destroy them
From under the heavens of the LORD!

 

"Give them hardness of heart"....    Wow.... what a terrible curse to ask for someone!!    To what extent is it right/good/proper/correct for us to pray imprecatory curses of this sort upon our enemies ( / "the enemies of the Lord") ?

 

 

In summary, the verse that could summarize the whole chapter, the whole book and in some sense (for those who have believed in Christ Jesus), the whole Bible:

"The LORD is my portion," says my soul,
"Therefore I have hope in Him."

(thoughts-in-progress... maybe some day I'll flesh it out into fuller form)

 

problems:   (question- why are these often seen together in churches, despite seeming opposite upon first glance?  answer: common tie: overly high view of man and human freedom)

#1 - easy believism / 'just say the prayer' salvation / non-lordship-salvation

#2 - works-oriented christian life / Galatians3 / emphasis on practical 'do, do, do' / 'higher-life' / victorious-living-formula  (elder-brother-ism)

 

antidotes:

#1 - Lordship-salvation / count the cost / parable of the soils / 1 John / James 2   .... implications... only god can open a person's heart to believe (#2)

#2 - Preaching God's grace.... Romans 3.... 4,.... 5, 6, 7,.... 8.... Galatians 3... Pharisee vs Tax-collector...  2 Tim. 2:19...   implications: such radical complete love, when understood/believed, produces 100% surrender/allegiance... (#1)

 

avoid other sides of the pendulums:

#1a - catholic/mormon 'works necessary for salvation' (justification)

#1b - constant questioning whether one is saved after every sinful thought/action

#2a - licenteousness / antinomianism / younger-brother-ism

#2b - hypercalvinistic fatalism / overemphasis on predestination without giving the Biblical commands to believe, trust, repent, "produce works in keeping with repentance", "believe in God who justifies the ungodly", etc

 

 

Some initial thoughts on "spiritual nutrition"...

We're all familiar with the idea of making sure we're eating a balanced and healthy food diet.  Not that we always do, but we have some knowledge on how it's done.  For example:

- Whole grains/carbohydrates - breads, cereals, rice, etc - foundation of diet, should compose bulk of intake

- Vegetables and fruits - fresh vegetables and fruits, juices, etc - should eat a serving or more per day

- Protein - meats, eggs, vegetable protein sources like soy/tofu, etc - some protein needed every day, especially for athletes, but can use vegetable protein to supplement meat protein

- Dairy - milk, yogurt, etc - for calcium, etc

- Fatty and sweet food - some fat/oil is helpful each day, especially oils high in ohmega-3 and ohmega-6 acids and low in saturated fat... but generally fatty and/or sugary/high-glycemic-index food should be minimized for best health

 

What about spiritual nutrition?  The Bible uses the analogy many times between physical food and spiritual food - Scriptural teaching and thoughts-to-meditate-on that feed the soul and keep it healthy...  1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:12, etc.
Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. Hebrews 13:9

In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.  1 Tim. 4:6

Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.  Acts 20:26-27
Two aspects of this, followed by a quote and a question (the question that spawned this whole post):

1. Personal - what are the essentials of spiritual nutrition for your and my own daily walk with God?   (to be combined with Biblical preaching/teaching from church, ideally)

- Some people rely on devotional books which have a daily verse of scripture, some commentary, and a couple heartwarming anecdotes.  The advantage of this is that the convenience of it helps one stay consistent, it provides a bite-sized piece of Scripture to think about throughout the day with a minimum of effort.  The disadvantage is that it's kind of like a '90-second microwave dinner' - convenient and packed with the necessary calories, but overly processed and lacking in the full cohort of minerals...  i.e., it can lead to reliance on human commentators rather than teaching one to dig into the Scriptures for oneself.  Especially, if one only reads these pre-written devotional books, one can gradually absorb the theological biases of the commentators or organization, and become gradually hardened to the voice of the actual Scriptures.  The Pharisees had this problem too... Matthew 15:3.

- Some people slowly work on memorizing a large chunk of Scripture.  The advantage of this is that when you're done, you know that passage of scripture really really well, and you have it memorized, in context.  The downside is that you don't get exhortation from other parts of scripture during this time.  Imagine eating steak every day for three months, without vegetables, bread, or anything else.  Steak is a good source of protein, but...

- Some people flip the Bible open randomly each day and read a little bit to think about each day.  Advantage: One gets "the whole counsel of God."  Disadvantage: hard to remember what you've read earlier that week, because there's no theme... also, if one comes upon a confusing passage, how is one to understand it without study and commentaries and meditation and prayer and conversation, etc?

- Some people use Bible-reading schedules like Andrew Murray's or the One Year Bible that has you read a little Old Testament and a little New Testament every day.  Advantage: continuity across days, and widely-varied 'nutrients' from across the Bible.  Disadvantage - one has to read so fast and so much that one has little time to ponder and 'chew on' the passage throughout the day.

- What other thoughts or ideas can you contribute?

2. Pastoral - When one is a spiritual teacher of others (either an church elder, or a teacher, or a sunday school teacher, etc), how does one decide what spiritual meal to cook up for your dependents?  (I am taking for granted that the BIBLE is what is being exposited, not the church fathers, C.S.Lewis, Augustine, Readers' Digest, or whatever other 'words of men' might tempt comparison with the written "Word of God")

- "Expository" style - Preach/teach through one book of the Bible, verse-by-verse or chapter by chapter.  Advantage: It is easier to arrive at the contextually-accurate meaning of each passage when one is studying each book as a whole, and one doesn't have to worry as much about his/her own biases causing only one's "favorite" passages to be studied while ignoring the others.  Disadvantage: How does one choose which book to study at which time? Also, as one becomes aware of specific needs or areas of ignorance in the group, it is impossible to address those areas if one is bound to the structure of teaching on a different passage which has a different point.

- "Topical" style - Pick a topic, either for one session or for a series, and develop it throughout the Bible.  As an example, it seems that Jesus and James preached topically (although they certainly jumped from topic to topic a lot).  Advantage: one can collect all of the relevant Bible verses and build a full understanding. Also, one can pick topics that are flexible and relevant to weekly current events or group questions.  Disadvantage: more subject to personal bias in which topics get picked.

- Mixtures of the two above... As a variation on the "Topical" style, there are many "basic staples" and "essential vitamins and minerals" which are proposed as essential emphases by various preachers.  Tim Keller says "Always preach as if unsaved people are in the audience, and then eventually if you always preach that way, they will start coming" (i.e., he recommends adding "apologetics" as a supplement to every meal). Piper and Reisinger and the fundamentalists talk about weaving in the Gospel and God's grace into every sermon.  Others say people need to "drink from a moving stream", meaning that you should preach/teach out of what God is showing you in your own personal life.  But the risk is that if you're only focusing on what God is teaching you, you'll overlook what they need to hear for their own life situation.   Others recommend sharing of one's own failings so the audience can empathize and doesn't place the speaker on a pedestal.  Still others contradict this and say that that is 'preaching ourselves' rather than 'preaching Christ Jesus as Lord'.  Either way, all these 'vitamin additives' are pulling the meal away from the text being exposited, though they may be part of the 'relevance frame' (Acts 17, 1 Cor 9:22) that garnishes the meal and helps it to be better accepted and digested....   ????

- What other patterns or ideas can you contribute?

Interesting quote:

But once preach the whole counsel of God, and you shall have both parties down upon you; one crying, "The man is too high," the other saying, "No, he is too low;" the one will say, "He’s a rank Arminian," the other, "He’s a vile hyper-Calvinist." How many there are kept in bondage through neglect of gospel invitations. They are longing to be saved. They go up to the house of God, crying to be saved; and there is nothing but predestination for them. On the other hand, what multitudes are kept in darkness through practical preaching. It is do! do! do! and nothing but do! and the poor souls come away and say: "Of what use is that to me? I can do nothing. Oh, that I had a way shown to me available for salvation."  -- Charles Spurgeon

 

Question: What about when one is in an imbalanced church?  (And the rub is: every church is imbalanced in some way!)

For example, what if one goes to a church in which everyone is all about love and friendship but they don't emphasize Bible study or doctrinal truth very much, and they just skip around to the "love" passages of the Bible but never talk about 2 John 1:10 or Jesus' "Hell" teachings, etc.  If one is given a sunday school teaching responsibility, should one say "I'll emphasize doctrine and apologetics here, because they don't get enough of this spiritual nutrient in their diet from the rest of the church", or should one try to present the exact balance found in Scripture (but how???)  ?

Or what if one goes to a church that heavily emphasizes "higher-life"/"clean-up-your-life"/"improve-yourself" teachings and fits Spurgeon's description of a church that keeps multitudes in darkness through "practical preaching. It is do! do! do! and nothing but do! and the poor souls come away and say: "Of what use is that to me? I can do nothing. Oh, that I had a way shown to me available for salvation.""   Would one here place a heavier-than-Scriptural emphasis on "Grace, Grace, Grace", reasoning that they don't hear enough of it from their background?  Or would one teach both "to him who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly" AND "cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you doubleminded", knowing that your hearers will likely only hear the latter because of their background of legalistic/arminian teaching...  ?   Would you 'slant' your emphases based on one's perceptions of where one's pupils are at?  Or keep one's teaching 'unslanted' in the hope that eventually God's Word will do its work?
Your thoughts are welcome.

Here's a very interesting article on justification:  http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=847

Here's an excerpt:

One of my favorite stories that illustrates this particular matter deals with a time when Luther was under the ban of the Empire, was translating the Bible into German at the Wartburg castle, and could only have contact with his star student Melanchthon by courier. Melanchthon had a different sort of temperament than Luther. Some would call Melanchthon timid; others of a somewhat less generous bent might call him "spineless." At one point, while Luther was off in the Wartburg castle translating, Melanchthon had another one of his attacks of timidity. He wrote to Luther, "I woke this morning wondering if I trusted Christ enough." Luther received such letters from Melanchthon regularly. He had a tendency, a propensity, to navel-gaze, and to wonder about the state of his inner faith, and whether it was enough to save. Finally, in an effort to pull out all the stops and pull Melanchthon out of himself, Luther wrote back and said, "Melanchthon! Go sin bravely! Then go to the cross and bravely confess it! The whole gospel is outside of us."

This story has been told time and time again by less sympathetic observers in an effort to caricature Luther and the Reformation generally as an invitation to licentious abandon. If we are not justified by our own moral conformity to the Law, but by Christ's, surely there is nothing keeping us from self-indulgence. Of course, this was the criticism of the gospel which Paul anticipated in Romans six: "Shall we therefore sin so that grace may increase? Heaven forbid!" Nevertheless, Luther's pastoral advice was calculated to jar Melanchthon out of morbid introspection. Great sinners know liberation when they have it, but Melanchthon had been a scrupulous, pious Catholic. This, however, did not bring him assurance, but only doubts. For his assurance depended, not so much on God's promise to the ungodly as ungodly (Rom.4:5), but on his ability to see growth and improvement in his Christian walk. Luther's frustrated counsel was not an invitation to serve sin, but an attempt to shock Melanchthon into realizing that his righteousness was external to him: The whole gospel is outside of us.

I wonder what the apostle John would say about a sunday school series entitled "When Godly People Do Ungodly Things" ..... ?

1 John 1:5-10
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

1 John 2:3-6
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.
By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

1 John 3:2-10
Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.