The Righteous Shall Live By . . .

Next to Gereth Reese's "The Faith that Saves," I believe this is about the best demonstration of how SAVING FAITH that is lived daily, has been degraded to MENTAL ASSENT, a one-time event requiring no further action. The BOLD emphases are mine -- Dan.

This Stevenson book is a must read for all who are dissatisfied/frustrated/fearful with/about their church and personal lives.

TylerWigg Stevenson, Brand Jesus; Christianity in a Consumerist Age, (NYC, Seabury Books, 2006), 122-130.

Chapter 15
The Righteous Shall Live By . . .

The final and perhaps most fundamental reason why Brand Jesus is allowed to thrive in the American church is because we have profoundly misinterpreted the meaning of "faith." Faith is and should be the core of Christianity. In today's popular Christian parlance, however, faith is frequently nothing more than a synonym for belief. And belief is as easy to define as it is to have. That is, belief consists of internal convictions about God. In many churches, the bare minimum of belief is the conviction that because we know Jesus as our personal savior, recognizing that he died for our sins, we arc going to heaven when we die.

Faith, by contrast, is considerably more challenging to define and to have. In feet, you can't hove faith. You live it. But our everyday understanding of faith as belief has drained any quality of action from the idea of faith. We speak of faith as if it were a noun to be possessed, rather than a verb to be enacted. So—how should we think of faith?

Outside of church, we use the word most frequently when talking about marriage. And, as it turns out, the way we use faith in that context can teach us a great deal about how we ought to use it in church. Everybody knows that keeping faith in a marriage is about fidelity or faithfulness over the long haul.

In other words, faith takes time in a way that belief doesn't. Imagining that belief is sufficient for Christian living is as absurd as imagining that a good wedding day will ensure a happy marriage. The bride and groom may believe their wedding vows with all their hearts and speak them clearly with their lips, but their convictions on the wedding day are only the beginning—not the end—of the story of their marriage.

From the wedding onwards, faith will be the day in, day out enactment of the couple's relationship. And a faithful marriage is one in which both spouses actively live out their wedding vows, in ways large and small, throughout their years together. The wedding day only asks that we believe. But vows are easy to say and celebrate. The faithfulness of marriage, with its having and holding, loving and cherishing, sickness and health, and riches and poverty, is hard. So, too, goes our Christian faith. But the way that we commonly read scripture has distorted our understanding, leaving us with the profoundly unbiblical idea that faith is no more than belief.

Let's look at one of the most important biblical passages about faith, the thesis of Paul's letter to the Romans in 1:16-17. Translations invariably make as neat a package of this passage as they can, though the Greek is distinctly difficult to pin down, especially in terms of what is usually translated as "faith.”

Observe below two reputable translations. In each of them, I have italicized the English rendering of the Greek pisieuonti. Notice how in each that the gospel is the "power of God for salvation" to the person who has something—the possessor of a spiritual commodity:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel; ft is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous will live by faith." (NRSV)

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile, For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last [or: that is from faith to faith], just as it is written: "The righteous
will live by faith." (NIV)

In many standard evangelistic presentations, these verses are read alongside the great promise of Romans 10:9, which pledges salvation to the one who verbally confesses Christ's Lordship and internally believes that God raised him from the dead. This combined reading produces an exhortation to a singular moment of belief, usually marked by something like the Sinner's Prayer. After that, the conventional wisdom goes, if the person meant it, he or she is saved. In other words, Paul is understood to be describing the work of an instant.

If Romans 1:16 is read in this way, then the reader is already predisposed to interpret "faith" as a possession when she reads Paul's quotation from the prophet Habakkuk in the next verse: "The righteous will live by faith." And because this verse from Habakkuk is the climax of Paul's thesis in 1:16-17, the reader is then left with an understanding that faith is something that she is supposed to have, rather than do. If we read Romans like this, we can come away with the idea that being a Christian is fundamentally about what one believes in heart and mind.

James wrote scathingly about such "faith": "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one pod. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder?' (2:18-19, italics mine). In the false understanding of faith, one's Christianity can (in theory, at least) be an entirely internal and private matter, never requiring a connection to a church or any outward change in life. If Christianity simply requires belief, then Christ is technically no more significant than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or any other object of belief.

Many churches will put every emphasis on your conversion and the belief—the coming to a conviction about Jesus as savior—obtained in that moment. This belief is your possession, effective for salvation whether you act on it or not. And the only way you can give up that belief is to replace it with some other belief. Such a reading makes for easy conclusions to evangelistic tracts.

The problem, of course, is that a reading of Romans 10:9 that understands it to mean the work of an instant is a reading that ignores the rest of the New Testament context. Coming to faith is actually about joining the family of God, the body of Christ, and living out this new relationship faithfully. The biblical understanding of faith bears no resemblance to the quick belief that we so often sell. No, in the biblical understanding of faith, the righteous one will live by fidelity, or even trusting obedience.

To be sure, faith as fidelity or trusting obedience incorporates and even begins with belief, just as a marriage begins and often finds its inspiration from a wedding. One cannot be faithful to that which one does not first believe. Thus, the connotation of belief is clearly present in the classic definition of faith of Hebrews 11:1—it is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." But, as Hebrews 11 goes on to describe, the faith for which "the ancients were commended" is an obedience over the long haul, not a spiritual possession that they acquired once and for all.

The way we use belief is not the way the Bible uses it. In the biblical usage, belief is what we would call faith, endurance based on a confidence in the final righteousness of God, regardless of one's present circumstances. Take Hebrews 10:39 as an example: "We are not of those who shirk back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved." Faith, in other words, is lived in and over time. It is not something to hoard, but something to do—or, to be more precise, it is a way of living life.

This understanding of a way of life is consistent with the New Testament portrayal of conversion. Someone coming to faith in the biblical context was one who began to follow the way of the disciple—with all its stumbling and missteps (Mark 10:52). The book of Acts even refers to the early church as "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9). And this in turn resonates with the message of the Old Testament prophets, who called the people to "ask where the good way is, and walk in it," and so "find rest for your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16). Contrast this with the life style offered by Brand Jesus. It is a belief to be worn, showed off, even posed in. But it is not the way of life that is biblical faith.

Biblical faith is the way in which God instructs the prophet Habakkuk: not only belief, but rather an active, lived trust in the sovereignty and final judgment of God. Habakkuk—one of the most honest figures in the Bible—cries out to God with a Job-like complaint: Why does wickedness prevail? God's answer does not offer immediate satisfaction, to say the least:

... the revelation awaits an appointed time, it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay. See, [the wicked one] is puffed up; his desires are not upright—but the righteous will live by his faith.... (2:3-4)

Interestingly, the comment on the faith of the righteous is merely an interjection in the middle of a longer judgment against the wicked. Both Habakkuk and the wicked one perceive the same situation—that evil goes unpunished for now, and that violence and greed run unchecked for the gain of the few. The wicked one is "arrogant and never at rest... greedy as the grave," God tells Habakkuk. But whereas the wicked one sees the situation and exploits it, Habakkuk cries out to God for relief. God's answer to Habakkuk—that God will be faithful to God's own character, which promises justice—points out the flaw in the perception of the wicked, who acts as if the present is all there is, with no judgment to come.

By contrast, the righteous one will live in the continual, present expectation of the future judgment of God— that is, in fidelity or trusting obedience to the dependability of God. Thus, the "by faith" of the righteous seems to refer both to God and humankind. The faith of people finds its home in the faithfulness of God. God is faithful. The Lord has not abandoned the world, the wicked do not build to their own lasting glory, and the righteous do not suffer without the sure knowledge of a final vindication. This emphasis on faithfulness is especially helpful in our present context, when it is difficult even to hear the word "faith" without simply thinking "belief”—given that the saying "have faith in Christ" usually means "believe such-and-such about Christ."

According to Habakkuk, the righteous one's life has everything to do with waiting for God with trust. This understanding of faith is beautifully expanded by the illustration in the final verses of his concluding hymn of praise:

Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights. (3:17-19)

It is not the case that Habakkuk sings his hymn because all is well with the world. He is not deluded about the quality of his present circumstance. Neither is it true that Habakkuk simply believes a set . of propositions about God. No, faith is the way Habakkuk lives. He enacts the faith of the righteous by rejoicing in the Lord and being joyful in God his Savior. He does not trust in his own strength (such trust being the imperative to Mammon's devotees) but relies upon the steadfastness of the Lord.

Taking the original meaning of faith in Habakkuk and applying it to our Romans text leads us to a very different interpretation than that of the status quo as described above. Notice that Paul's "from faith to faith" makes explicit the dual implication of Habakkuk's faith, which leaves faith as a shared action between God and humankind. Faith is the double-sided character of the divine-human relationship. We believe that God is believe-able, trust that God is trust-worthy, and have faith that God is faith-ful. An expanded paraphrase of Romans 1:16-17 along these lines might read as follows:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who trustingly obeys [God], to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed by [God's] faithfulness to the faith [of those who trust him], just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith/fulness."

In summary, faith is something we are to live, rather than something we can have.

Let me say for the record, in anticipation of the inevitable criticism, that I am not advocating works righteousness. I hold to the traditional Protestant assertion of justification by faith alone. However, I am arguing that, while the formulation of "faith alone" is correct, in such contexts we often proclaim an emaciated "faith." Faith alone—always. But belief alone—never. The righteous one does not live by belief.

But if faith is something we do, then am I not making it a work? Am I not somehow saying we can earn our way into heaven? (The assumption that the question of heaven ought to be primary for the Christian is itself dangerous—see above.) The answer is "no."

To begin with, we have to remember that, during the Reformation, our Protestant forebears drew a stark line between faith and works in part because of the ecclesial situation they found themselves in protest against. We have inherited their (justifiable) hostility toward labeling specific works, like indulgences, as the effective work of faith. But the fear of backsliding on this issue has led many of us to shirk any connection whatsoever between faith and action.

Such a distinction is unbiblical, however, since James himself connects the two when he contends that belief, if it is something possessed but not enacted as faith, is not salvific (2:14). The fundamental truth of the Reformers was that good deeds neither constitute nor prove a saving faith. With them, we affirm that no one can work his or her way into God's favor. But though deeds cannot prove the positive presence of faith, their absence can and does prove the negative: A life without deeds is a life without faith. "By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:20). Belief that is an internal quality—an assertion or conviction regarding a set of principles or propositions—is therefore an unbiblical faith. This is bad enough on its own, but in our age, the understanding of faith as possession of belief has resulted in the rise of an idol, Brand Jesus, a commodified Christianity.

So how can we understand an enacted faith without making it a "work"? Our trouble comes out of an inability to think past the presuppositions that accompany the compartmentalized life (spirituality/faniily/job/ finance/politics/etc.), which is so hospitable to Brand Jesus. This fact is yet another indicator of how deep our problem is as a church. It is not true that the church body is healthy overall, with the exception of some doctrinal error called Brand Jesus, which we can excise as easily as an isolated tumor. Our problem is rather that the very way we live makes such a fertile soil for the false gospel of Brand Jesus.

To paraphrase Pete Rollins, our problem is not so much that we believe the wrong things, but that we believe the wrong way. [1 Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God, (London, SPCK, 2006), 2-3.] We think of our lives in much the same way as we do belief; in other words, as something we have. And, in having life, we take actions—works— in the various spheres or compartments of our lives. In this manner of thinking, it is entirely possible to fall into the error of attempting spiritual works to gain the grace of God.

This course of action is based, however, on a false view of life.

Life is not truly a possession because it cannot be hoarded. It must be lived. So, too, faith— which is no more contained in the moment of coming to belief than a marriage is contained in the video of the wedding day. Those events, frozen in a DVD and a hundred photographs, can be possessed. But the faith of the marriage, like the Christian faith, cannot be.

Life and faith, in other words, are enacted without being "works." To get to this understanding, we have to extract belief and faith from the compartments in which we have stuffed them. They are too big and too complex to fit there. Faith enacted is not a work; it is the basis for all works. Faith is not an action, but it is unrecognizable if not through one's actions.

Put grammatically, faith is an adverb. It is life lived trustingly. Faith takes the life that everyone possesses—good and evil alike—and commits it to the inbreaking dominion and final providence of the Lord Jesus Christ and the God who raised him from the dead. Faith is therefore enacted, but it is not an action in the way that obedience to the law is an action.

Recall the first of the parables that Christ told to the chief priests and elders in the Temple courts (Matthew 21:28-32). There was a man with two sons who told them each to go work in the vineyard. One refused, but later repented and went; the other assented, but did not go. Which did the father's will, Christ asks? And the religious leaders condemn themselves, correctly identifying as righteous the one whose repentance led to action, though they were more like the one who agreed and did nothing. Charles Spurgeon, preaching on this text, assailed the "deceptively submissive" in his congregation as latter-day examples of the religious leaders:

You utter a polite, respectful "I go, sir," but you do not go. You give a notional assent to the gospel. If I were to mention any doctrine, you would say, "Yes, that is true. I believe that." But your heart does not believe: you do not believe the gospel in the core of your nature, for if you did, it would have an effect upon you. A man may say, "I believe my house is on fire," but if he goes to bed and falls to sleep, it does not look as if he believed it, for when a man's house is on fire he tries to escape. [Charles Spurgeon, Sermon 742: "A Sermon to Open Neglecters and Nominal Followers of Religion," in Spurgeon's Sermons, Vol 13, www-ccei.org (accessed 27Sep06)]

Those whom Spurgeon addressed, like many today, had an un-enacted belief, a propositional possession that was like a jewel in a safe, beautiful in shape, but worthless for the fact of its being locked away. They were, as Spurgeon quipped, as religious as the seats they sat in, and as likely to get into heaven.

"Notional assent"—in modern parlance, belief as commodity—is not faith. Because the correctness of one's belief is not simply its content but how one carries it, a belief that is doctrinally correct but merely internal is not a correct belief. Internal belief that remains internal is faithless. Many cry, "Lord, Lord," but the only true belief is the one that is lived out in accord with the will of the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 7:21-23).

I realize that the above account will not satisfy some whose primary concern is avoiding works righteousness. It seems to me, however, that our desire for clean and simple answers can lead us astray. A paranoia about works righteousness that leads us to conceive of faith as merely one of faith's components—belief, and that simply as propositional assent—imposes an unbiblical sterility on the complexity of the actual biblical witness.

We may not resolve for our leisure what the Bible leaves as a challenge. The narrow way is surrounded on both sides by unavoidable slippery slopes. And discipleship, like it or not, is the hard task of avoiding a fall in either direction. There is certainly the danger that talking about faith in action will lead to the errors of works righteousness. But divorcing faith from action has led to the error of desiccated belief. And we were never promised an easy road. Jesus did not tell us that two thousand years into the game someone would come up with a foolproof, ten-point church strategy that would suddenly make it easy to follow him. Christians are supposed to stay awake, so it is counterproductive to weave the doctrinal equivalent of a hammock on a sunny afternoon. Faith as belief, a possession to be had—who wouldn't be ready to put his or her feet up and relax on that?

Given our comparison with weddings and marriages, American Christians' overemphasis on belief is perhaps unsurprising. After all, the wedding industry has become a huge business in the United States. We subscribe so readily to the fantasy of that single, perfect, "magic" day; entire magazines are dedicated to perpetuating this myth, and our infatuation with reality television shows about weddings ("Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?") demonstrates that we fall for it completely. The average expense of weddings continues to rise. Yet so do divorce rates. Is it any coincidence that our iniatuation with the magic of a single day corresponds to an inability to consider the span of a lifetime? And can the church therefore be surprised when so many take the plunge of making their baptismal vows to Christ but are unwilling to live them out over the long years of faith?

Why I believe what I beleive

Expectation of the NT writers

Students of scripture are often reminded that just as successful real estate dealings depend on location, location, location, a successful heremeneutic depends on context, context, context.

Here is just one of many descriptions of what this means (emphesis mine – DS):

Historical-critical study involves the attempt to discern the date, authorship, and recipients of the biblical materials, which involves the examination of materials internal to the manuscripts as well as external, archaeological and historical study. Modern interpretation must begin from a baseline that understands the most likely literal meaning of the text for those persons to whom it was first written. It is necessary to establish whether the text is prose, poetry, allegory, parable, or some other form of writing, for considerations bear directly on methods of interpreataion. For example, few scholars would interpret Mark 9:47 literally: “if your eye causes you to sin, plick it out.” Nor do many modern ministers follow Jesus’ instruction to “take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but notan extra tunic.” (Mark 6:8,9). [David C Stancil]

Another important rule of proper exegesis is: a text can NEVER mean to later readers what it DIDN’t mean to the original recipients.

Students and theologians deal with this constantly as they exegete 1st century passages for application to 21st century discipleship. While each of the biblical writings have specific contexts, there is one common context that should be considered as we read, consider, and apply each NT document—the expectation of Jesus’ imminent return (parousia), the resurrection, and judgment (PRJ).

Here are just a few of the 100+ references to the imminent PRJ showing that every NT writer had this in mind when he wrote.

John the Baptist to Jews:
Matthew 3:2, "...Repent you: for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near."
Luke 3:7,9, "Then said he to the multitude... O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? And now also the axe is laid…every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

The Teachings of Jesus

Jesus to His twelve apostles (telling them to preach to Israel):
Matthew 10:7, "...preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven has drawn near. "
Matthew 10:23, "...In no wise will you have completed the cities of Israel, until the Son of man be come."
Notice Jesus told these 12 apostles that they would not have completed preaching to first-century Israel when the Son of man comes.

Jesus to Peter, James, John and Andrew…privately:
Matthew 24:30,34, " they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory…This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Mark 13:24,25,30, " But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken....this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. "
Luke 21:22,26,32, "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled... for the powers of heaven shall be shaken…This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. "
"This generation" refers to the generation then living at the time Jesus spoke these words.

Jesus to His disciples:
Mark 8:38, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
What "generation" was Jesus referring to in this passage? Jesus said it was the adulterous and sinful generation that was then living while Jesus was alive! The above passage was spoken before this next passage (the following are all parallel verses):

Jesus to His twelve disciples (who were standing in front of Jesus):
Matthew 16:27-28, "For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Mark 8:38 - 9:1, "…when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels....there are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God having come in power. "
Luke 9:26-27, "... when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels…there are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the kingdom of God. "
Notice how Jesus said that some of his disciples, who were standing right there in front of him, would not physically die by the time He came with his angels to reward every man according to his works (Revelation 22:12). John was one of these men who lived to see it...as you can see by the following verse...

Jesus to Peter:
John 21:22-23, "...If I (Jesus) desire him (John) to abide till I come, what is that to thee?" [John was one of the twelve apostles who was never martyred, and abided on earth well after 70AD. Therefore, John did abide until Christ came in 70AD, just like Jesus desired him to!]
John 14:3, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming, and will receive you unto myself;"

Jesus to the high priest:
Matthew 26:64, "...Hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. "

Jesus to Nathanael:
John 1:51, "...you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. "

Jesus to Jews:
Matthew 4:17, "...Repent: for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. "
Matthew 23:36,38, "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
Mark 1:15, "...The time has been fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near: "

Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem:
Luke 23:28-29, "…weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming,"

Jesus to the Jews who sought to kill him:
Matthew 3:7, "...O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? "
John 5:25, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, communicated through John, to the seven literal churches which were in Asia in the first century:
Revelation 1:1, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must take place shortly."
Revelation 1:3, "...the time is near."
Revelation 1:7, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." (Those Jews who had crucified Jesus in the first century would see his coming!)
Revelation 2:16, "...I am coming to thee quickly, "
Revelation 2:25, "…hold fast till I shall come." (To the church in Thyatira, 1 of 7 real churches that existed in Asia Minor between 61 and 65A.D.)
Revelation 3:11, "Behold, I come quickly:"
Revelation 10:6, "And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever…that there should be no more delay:" (Jesus said he would not delay his coming to those living in the first century!)
(The remaining verses are from the very last chapter of Revelation, after all these prophesies have been revealed. Just when will all these things come to pass? This chapter tells us!)
Revelation 22:6, "…God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must come to pass soon."
Revelation 22:7, "Behold, I am coming quickly:"
Revelation 22:10, "...Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is near. "
Revelation 22:12, "And, behold, I come quickly;"
Revelation 22:20, "...Surely I am coming quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

The Teachings of the Apostles

Paul to all who were beloved of God in Rome:
Romans 13:11-12, " And that, knowing the time,...now is our salvation nearer than when we believed…the day has drawn near: "
Romans 16:20, "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." (See this prophesy in Genesis 3:15).

Paul to Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:14, "That you keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:"
2 Timothy 1:18, "The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day:"

The Preacher to the Hebrews:
Hebrews 1:1-2, "God…Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," (The scripture says the last days were in the first century, not 2,000 years later).
Hebrews 9:26, "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the consumation of the ages hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
Hebrews 10:25, "...you see the day drawing near. "
Hebrews 10:37, "...he that shall come will come, and will not delay."

Paul to the Philippian church:
Philippians 4:5, "...The Lord is near. "

Paul to the church of Corinth:
1 Corinthians 1:7-8, "So that you come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 7:29, "...the time is short: "
1 Corinthians 7:31, "...the fashion of this world passeth away."
1 Corinthians 10:11, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are arrived."

Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 3:13, "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints."
1 Thessalonians 4:17, "Then we the living who remain shall be caught away together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
1 Thessalonians 5:23, "...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. "
2 Thessalonians 2:2:, "...the day of Christ is present. "

Paul to the Galatians:
Galatians 4:4, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"
Galatians 5:5, "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."

Paul to the Colossians:
Colossians 3:4, “When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in Glory.”

James to the twelve tribes who were dispersed abroad:
James 5:7-9, "(You) Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. …the coming of the Lord has drawn near…behold, the judge stands before the door."

Peter to the elect scattered abroad:
1 Peter 1:7, "That the proving of your faith…might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:"
1 Peter 1:9-10, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:"
1 Peter 1:13,20, " Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the appearing of Jesus Christ; Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," (Now Peter confirms that the last days were during the first century).
1 Peter 4:5, "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead."
1 Peter 4:7, "But the end of all things has drawn near:"
1 Peter 4:17, "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God:"
2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord does not delay concerning his promise" (What promise is this verse talking about? The very next verse reads, "But the day of the Lord will come..." Peter wrote the Lord would not delay his promise concerning the Day of the Lord!]
2 Peter 3:12, "Expecting and hastening the coming of the day of God,"

Peter to the men of Judaea:
Acts 2:16-20, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days…The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:" (This confirms that the "last days" the Old Testament prophesized about took place in the first century).
Acts 3:24, "Ye, and all the prophets…have likewise foretold of these days." (Peter said ALL the prophets foretold of which days? "These days" of the first century, which were "the last days" of the Old Testament era).

John to those who believed in the name of the Son of God:
1 John 2:17-18, "And the world passeth away…Little children, it is the last hour…we know that it is the last hour." (John wrote these epistles sometime after 60 AD. Notice how, as 70.AD was very nearly approaching, John wrote that it is the "last hour", instead of the "last days.")
1 John 2:28, "And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
1 John 3:2, "when he shall appear..., we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

Readers/teachers since the second century have had great difficulty in understanding then explaining these references. I’m no different. There are several of them that are beyond my understanding. Faulty exegesis abounds in sermons, commentary, essays, blog entries, etc. Vigorous linguistic gymnastics have been necessary to show that the PRJ did no nor could not have happened as the NT writers.

One would expect an enemy of God/scripture/church, such as Bertrand Russell, in his book, Why I Am Not A Christian, to state:

I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the gospekl narrative…. He
certainkly thought that his second comning would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at the time. There are a great many texts that prove that. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of lhis moral teaching.

But who would expect one of the most beloved Christian writers of the 20th century to say:

Say what you like, we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved false.” It is clear from the NT that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very imbarrassing. Their Master had told them so! He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said these words, “this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.” And He was wrong! He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. (emphesis mine – DS)
Those words were written by C S Lewis in his essay, "The Lord’s Last Night" (1960) found in The Essential
C.S. Lewis, pg 385.

I gotta tell you, if I believed what Lewis wrote, I would be out of
here—faith in God/Jesus/scripture—in a flash. Here’s my bottom line: if Jesus DID NOT return, if the resurrection and judgment DID NOT happen as promised, I have NO CONFIDENCE in anything written in the entire Bible. What good is a resurrected liar?

Whatever one’s eschatological position (pre-, post-, a-, or preterist) depends on how one views two aspects of eschatological language:
the when and what. One or the other must be viewed literally and the other figuratively. The futurist sees the what as being literal while the when must, therefore, be figurative. The preterist sees the when literally and the what figuratively.

Yet, there is another area which requires a literal vs figurative understanding. In the passages above, I have tried to point this out
by highlighting the first person plural and second person (sing. or plural) pronouns. Failure to literalize these pronouns leads to what I call as
antecedentitis: the imposition of one’s self into the text by assuming to be the antecedent of those pronouns. This problem poses a significant problem in the application of NT texts to subsequent (in whatever century one finds himself) understanding/application of the text.

One may insist upon the figurtive understanding of the when while completely misunderstanding the who. When we perform all those linguistic gyrations needed to make the when mean something other than the original reader would have understood in order to literalize the what, one is still left with the need to figuratize the who. How would the writer/recipient (the we, us, you) set aside the when to some far distant what?

I, for one, cannot do that. I see it as two – when (soon, at hand, during
this generation) and who (me and us) -- against one – what (PRJ). I’ll go with the two.

In addition to a problem with eschatological doctrine, this antecedentitis poses an even more critical position within the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I’ll discuss this later.

Comments welcome.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

JESUS CHRIST, "THE WAY" ­

Jesus is the Way that avoids the ditches of undue epistemology and experientialism.

by James A. Fowler.

In His departing words to His disciples, just prior to His arrest, imprisonment and death, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6). The early Christians, you may recall, were identified with "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).

When Jesus said, "I am the way," the intent was not to identify Himself as the pathway, walkway or roadway that would lead to heaven or to God. Jesus knew Himself to be God (John 10:30), and that to know Him was to know God (John 14:7). Neither did Jesus mean to imply that He was the method or procedural way to comprehend God. The Hebrews understood that the "way to God" referred to the saving activity of God. They knew well the plea of the Psalmist that "Thy way may be known on the earth; Thy salvation among all nations" (Psalm 67:2). Jesus identified Himself with the "saving way" of God, comprehensive of both way and means. When Aquila and Priscilla explained to Apollos "the way of God" (Acts 18:26), they did not explain the path, the road, the procedure, the plan of God. They explained to him Jesus, "the way of God," the saving way, the real way, the living way. Jesus is the way to be man as God intends man to be, the way to do what God wants to be and to do in us. Jesus is the way to glorify God, for God does not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).

What then did Jesus mean when He spoke of "the broad way that leads to destruction" and "the narrow way that leads to life, with few who find it"? (Matt. 7:13,14). He knew Himself to be "the life" (John 11:26; 14:6). He knew that many would choose the broad way where "anything goes" in the satisfaction of their own desires, rather than identification with His Life, restricted as it is by the parameters of the character of God. So the narrowness of the Christ-way is not determined by man-made definitions of belief and practice, but only by comparing how "God goes" (always in accord with His character) with "anything goes." Accepting these parameters of God's character expressed in us by His grace, the Christian then discovers Christ, the God-way, to be as broad as can be imagined. There is seemingly unlimited (infinite) latitude within the liberty of God's grace, within the expression of the Christ-Life.

The God-way is Jesus Christ. This ontic distinctive is so often jettisoned by those who would be Christian teachers because they fail to understand that Christianity is Christ, way and means. Christianity is the indwelling living presence of Jesus, the God-man -- the same Being of that One who was born, lived and died on earth historically. The dynamic Being and activity of the very Life of Jesus Christ functions in the Christian (II Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27). There can be no act of God apart from His Being. He always acts "in character" and does what He does because He is who He is. His doing is the dynamic expression of His Being. Christianity is always and only the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ in the Christian, individually and collectively.

It is most regrettable that the early polemic arguments, hammered out so meticulously by the likes of Athanasius and Hilary, were not applied also to salvation and sanctification. Establishing the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, they explained the essential oneness of being, the 'omoousion, of God the Father and God the Son. They did not proceed to point out with equal precision of terminology how the oneness of Being is retained as God functions within the Christian, always acting in the expression of the oneness of His Being. Were they to have done so we might have avoided the extremely deficient Trinitarian theology that is rampant in contemporary evangelicalism.

Jesus is the divine way of expressing Himself. The Christian has received Him (John 1:12), Jesus Christ the Way, into himself, and is "in Christ," identified in spiritual oneness (I Cor. 6:17) with the Way. Christian living, the behavioral expression of the Christ-life, is contingent on the dynamic expression of Divine Being expressed in behavioral action. Created as a derivative man, the Christian derives his/her spiritual condition and identity, as well as behavioral expression, from God in Christ.

If this then is the dynamic of the Christ-way, what then are the ditches into which religion inevitably slides in the broad way?

The left ditch is epistemologically established with religious rationalism. Epistemology "stands upon" propositional premises of sentential truth statements concerning the historicity and theological accuracy of Jesus Christ. Such an epistemological emphasis converts Christianity into an ideological belief-system intent on preserving doctrinal orthodoxy.

The right ditch is well entrenched with experientialism and the subjectivism of personal impact or effect. This is inclusive of philosophical existentialism and Bultmannian demythologizing alongside of simple mysticism and charismatic enthusiasm. Such religious experience centered in personal emotions and feelings is often seen as the antidote to the sterility and rigidity of rationalism.

A comparison of the epistemological and experiential approaches with the ontological reality of Jesus Christ will serve to expose the differences.

The epistemological religionists want to "figure it out" and "work it out." With their intellect, reason and mind they attempt to "figure it out" logically. They analyze, systematize, formulize, theologize and criticize. They "study to show themselves approved" (II Tim 2:15-KJV), engaging in doctrinal disputation and apologetics. Concluding that they have arrived at "the knowledge of the truth," they affirm the fundamentals of their belief-system with dogmatic absolutism Having thus "figured it out," they set about to "work it out," to keep the rules, to obey the law. They carefully figure out the techniques, the procedures, the formulas, the "how-tos" to guide other people in the working out of the Christian faith. The precepts and principles for every procedure are documented precisely. It is an intense system of legalism and moralism. Underlying their striving to "work it out" is the humanistic premise of self-generative man and his innate ability to create and perform what they perceive God expects of them.

The experiential religionists, on the other hand, want to "feel it," "experience what it does for you," and perhaps merge with the sensation. Instead of objective rationalism, they focus on internal subjective experience. Filled with enthusiasm, they seek the sensation of the religious "high," the ecstatic emotional feeling. They sense that there is a metaphysical "energy" that they want to plug into and merge with. The objective of the experience is "what it does for you;" the impact it has upon you; how it affects you. These existential effects are then often regarded as "the moving of the Holy Spirit" in one's life.

Notice that the epistemological and experiential religionists are both dealing with a static object, an "it" which they seek to figure out and work out, or feel and experience in order to merge with. Jesus Christ is not an "it," an object. He is the personal dynamic of God. As the God-way, He is "the summing up of all things" (Eph. 1:10). All that we need to function as God intended man to function is made available in the dynamic of Christ's life. We are to derive all from Him, ek theos. "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is of God" (II Cor. 3:5).

The epistemological religionist tends to view God as the purveyor of plans, precepts and decrees, Who has a sovereignly revealed "will" that must be discovered, discerned and adhered to. Thus he engages in "natural theology" that attempts to know God by deductive knowledge about God. In the other ditch, the experiential religionist tends to equate metaphysical and supernatural happenings with the activity of God, so that God is identified with the "energy" behind the ecstatic experience. Both have deviant ditch theologies because God is known only in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6). This might be called "relational theology" in that a personal relationship is formed as the very Life of God dwells in the Christian. God is known relationally as He dynamically reveals Himself in the expression of His own character in our lives, the life of Christ lived out through us.

Consider the different approaches to salvation: The epistemologist tends to view salvation either as a product which Jesus dispenses or as a procedure in which the precise points on the ordo salutis must be precisely plotted (ex. Lordship salvation debate). The experientialist wants to be saved from "erroneous zones" in order to arrive at enlightenment and ecstasy, so as to experience salvation in the deliverance from unhappiness. Both separate salvation from the dynamic function of the Savior, Jesus Christ. There is no salvation apart from the living Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as He makes us safe from human dysfunction and misuse apart from Him, and restores us to the divine intent of divinity functioning in man, the "saving life of Christ" (Rom. 5:10).

For the rationalist religionist the "gospel" is a repository of information, the tenets of his teaching. Jesus came to teach the gospel, the "gospel according to Jesus" (ex. John MacArthur). For the charismatic enthusiast, the "good news" is the experience, the "heavenly" feeling, the subjective "burning bosom." The gospel is not essentially information or experience. The gospel is Jesus Christ! He is the "good news." In the dynamic restoration of divine life to man in Jesus Christ, we find the only "good news" for mankind.

"Grace" is defined by the propositional epistemologist as "the undeserved favor of God," historically manifested most specifically in the death of Jesus Christ for man's redemption. "Grace" is experienced by the subjective experientialist in the suppression of adversity and the unlimitedness of opportunity. Rather, "grace is realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Grace is the dynamic activity of God by the risen Lord Jesus in the life of the Christian. We live in Christ by the grace of God.

The externally oriented epistemologist often considers the church in architectural, institutional and academic categories. Ecclesiasticism becomes absolutism of belief-system, authoritarianism of leadership and activism of ministry. The experientialist emphasizes the need to belong and "bond" within community, the need to accept ad to be tolerant of all diversity and pluralism. The Church is described by Scripture as the "Body of Christ" alive with the life of Jesus Christ. The interaction of individuals indwelt with the dynamic of Jesus will evidence the loving character of God as they "love one another."

Eschatological considerations become a preposterous confusion among epistemologists as they debate their presuppositions of historical division (dispensational, covenant), their millennial perspectives (pre, post, a), and their tribulation theories. The "last word" for the experientialist is "how you feel," "does it work for you?" Sometimes the present experience becomes the focus to the denial of any future. The "last things" of God are all "in Christ." Christians participate in the "last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45) in these "last days" (Acts 2:17) since Pentecost, as our King, Jesus, reigns in the kingdom of our hearts.

Long have the tribes in both ditches hollered and hurled accusations at one another, perceiving the other to be so far removed in error and to be their enemy. Long have they also fought hand to hand combat with those in their same trench over variations of belief or experience. They seem to be "blinded" (II Cor. 4:4) to the fact that there is any other way. The alternatives are not merely left or right ditch, rationalism or experientialism, objectivity or subjectivity, mind or emotion, fundamentalism or mysticism, but most often the other extreme position is all they can identify in opposition to their own, and they live in great fear of crossing the line into the evils and errors of the other. The polarization of consequences is not the either/or of either being in the left ditch or the right ditch, but the either/or of either being "in Christ" with the dynamic of God's Being operative in and through the Christian, or remaining in the ditches of doomed humanity. Satan is the extremist who controls both ditches.

Ditches are places where you can get stuck. When you are stuck you aren't moving; you're static. Ditches are places of death! A "rut" has been defined as "a grave with both ends extended." Many there are who never "see" to get out of the ruts and the ditches of human thinking. One can only do so by the revelation of God.

Jesus is the way! Not the methodological way to get everything figured out. Not the procedural way to live morally. Not the enlightening way to self-knowing. Jesus is God's Way, the saving way, the living way. Jesus Christ alone is the dynamic of God's Life whereby God's Life functions within and through man as derived receptively by faith. Jesus is the way to be man as God intended man to be.

A Christian parent's major fear is an unbelieving child. We take steps (often the wrong ones) to "assure" his/her spiritual safety -- often with heart-breaking results. Here is a 2005 InternetMonk blog in which Michael advises a family whose middle-school son declares that he no longer believes in God:

A Prayer for Alex: What to do when your child says he doesn’t
believe any more.
January 15th, 2005 by Michael Spencer

A friend stopped in to ask me some questions about her 6th grade son’s
sudden announcement that he no longer believed in God or Jesus. Our time was
simply too short for a substantial answer, so I thought it would be a good topic
for an essay. Probably others are facing similar struggles with your own
children. There are thousands of “Alexes” out there, and thousands of agonized,
surprised parents. I hope this is helpful. Feel free to write me with your
thoughts.

God answers EVERY prayer

After praying for years that his cancer would be healed, and then praying that his "homecoming" would be soon and peaceful, a dear brother, Mike Casey did go home last night while his Pepperdine family dealt with the fire. Although I couldn't call Mike a dear friend, he was a strong influence. His writings -- articles and books -- constantly caused me to rethink much about my beliefs and practices. I will miss him.

This morning's InternetMonk blog was about God answering prayer. Michael's words as well as those who posted comments would lead a reader (who didn't know Michael) to think that he suffered from the common malady of considering only "yes" as the only answer to prayer.

Of course, scripture tells us of at least four answers from God: YES (you know of some); LATER (Elizabeth/Zacharias seeking a child [Lk 1]; Paul seeking relief [2Cor 5]); MORE (what a surprise! [Eph 3:20,21]); and most often, NO (many -- Jesus in the garden seeking relief, Paul's thorn, David seeking life for his son).

Here are a couple of poems that thank God for saying, "NO":

THANK YOU FOR SAYING "NO"
Ruth Harms Calkin

Lord, day after day I've thanked You
For saying "yes."
But when have I genuinely thanked You
For saying "no"?

Yet I shudder to think
Of the possible smears
The cumulative blots on my life
Had You not been sufficiently wise
To say an unalterable "no."

So thank You for saying “no"
When my want-list for things
Far exceeded my longing for You.
When I asked for a stone
Foolishly certain I asked for bread.
Thank You for saying “no"
To my petulant "Just this time, Lord?"

Thank You for saying "no"
To senseless excuses
Selfish motives
Dangerous diversions.

Thank You for saying "no"
When the temptation that enticed me
Would have bound me beyond escape.

Thank You for saying "no"
When I asked You to leave me alone.

Above all
Thank You for saying "no"
When in anguish I asked
"If I give all else .
May I keep this? "

Lord, my awe increases
When I see the wisdom
Of Your divine "no."

*******

God said “NO”
Nimesh Bakshi

I asked God to take away my pain.
God said, No.
It is not for me to take away,
but for you to give it up.

I asked God to grant me patience.
God said, No.
Patience is a by-product of tribulations;
it isn't granted, it is learned.

I asked God to give me happiness.
God said. No.
I give you blessings.
Happiness is up to you.

I asked God to spare me pain.
God said, No.
Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares
and brings you closer to me.

I asked God to make my spirit grow.
God said, No.
You must grow on your own,
but I will prune you to make you fruitful.

I asked for all things that I might enjoy life.
God said, No.
I will give you life so that
you may enjoy all things.

I ask God to help me LOVE others,
as much as he loves me.
God said...Ahhhh,
finally you have the idea.

*****************

Giving to the Lord?

Most of us grew up listening to the exhortation to "return to the Lord a portion of that with which He as blessed us" spoken before the "collection" was taken, as if the dollars contributed were in some way different from the dollars we spent on food/housing/clothing/entertainment/etc. Of course, everything we "have" is, in fact, our stewardship of the Lord's possessions. This being so, how can we "return" it to Him, to whom it already belongs?




Here are my remarks of this subject made to my church family a few months ago. Your comments are welcomed.

THE BLESSING OF THORNS

Many of us are facing serious threats to our faith -- poor health, troubled marriages, rebellious children, to name just a few. Here is something I found at James Fowler's site that struck home for me -- and for you, hopefully.

THE BLESSING OF THORNS
Sandra felt as low as the heels of her shoes as she pushed against a November gust and the florist shop door.
Her life had been easy, like a spring breeze. Then in the fourth month of her second pregnancy, a minor automobile accident stole that from her.
During this Thanksgiving week she would have delivered a son. She grieved over her loss. As if that weren't enough, her husband's company threatened a transfer. Then her sister, whose holiday visit she coveted, called saying she could not come for the holiday.
Then Sandra's friend infuriated her by suggesting her grief was a God-given path to maturity that would allow her to empathize with others who suffer. She has no idea what I'm feeling, thought Sandra with a shudder.
Thanksgiving? Thankful for what? She wondered. For a careless driver whose truck was hardly scratched when he rear-ended her? For an airbag that saved her life but took that of her child?
"Good afternoon, can I help you?" The shop clerk's approach startled her.
"I....I need an arrangement," stammered Sandra.
"For Thanksgiving? Do you want beautiful but ordinary, or would you like to challenge the day with a customer favorite I call the Thanksgiving "Special?" asked the shop clerk. "I'm convinced that flowers tell stories," she continued. "Are you looking for something that conveys 'gratitude' this thanksgiving?"
"Not exactly!" Sandra blurted out. "In the last five months, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong."
Sandra regretted her outburst, and was surprised when the shop clerk said, "I have the perfect arrangement for you."
Just then the shop door's small bell rang, and the shop clerk said, "Hi, Barbara...let me get your order." She politely excused herself and walked toward a small workroom, then quickly reappeared, carrying an arrangement of greenery, bows, and long-stemmed thorny roses. Except the ends of the rose stems were neatly snipped: there were no flowers.
"Want this in a box?" asked the clerk.
Sandra watched for the customer's response. Was this a joke? Who would want rose stems with no flowers! She waited for laughter, but neither woman laughed.
"Yes, please," Barbara, replied with an appreciative smile. "You'd think after three years of getting the 'special', I wouldn't be so moved by its significance, but I can feel it right here, all over again," she said as she gently tapped her chest. And she left with her order.
"Uh," stammered Sandra, "that lady just left with, uh....she just left with no flowers!"
"Right, said the clerk, "I cut off the flowers. That's the 'Special'. I call it the Thanksgiving Thorns Bouquet."
"Oh, come on, you can't tell me someone is willing to pay for that!" exclaimed Sandra.
"Barbara came into the shop three years ago feeling much like you feel today," explained the clerk. "She thought she had very little to be thankful for. She had lost her father to cancer, the family business was failing, her son was into drugs, and she was facing major surgery."
"That same year I had lost my husband," continued the clerk, "and for the first time in my life, had just spent the holidays alone. I had no children, no husband, no family nearby, and too great a debt to allow any travel."
"So what did you do?" asked Sandra.
"I learned to be thankful for thorns," answered the clerk quietly. "I've always thanked God for the good things in my life and never questioned the good things that happened to me, but when bad stuff hit, did I ever ask questions! It took time for me to learn that dark times are important. I have always enjoyed the 'flowers' of life, but it took thorns to show me the beauty of God's comfort. You know, the Bible says that God comforts us when we're afflicted, and from His consolation we learn to comfort others."
Sandra sucked in her breath as she thought about the very thing her friend had tried to tell her. "I guess the truth is I don't want comfort. I've lost a baby and I'm angry with God."
Just then someone else walked in the shop. "Hey, Phil!" shouted the clerk to the balding, rotund man.
"My wife sent me in to get our usual Thanksgiving Special....12 thorny, long-stemmed stems!" laughed Phil as the clerk handed him a tissue-wrapped arrangement from the refrigerator.
"Those are for your wife?" asked Sandra incredulously. "Do you mind me asking why she wants something that looks like that?"
"No...I'm glad you asked," Phil replied. "Four years ago my wife and I nearly divorced. After forty years, we were in a real mess, but with the Lord's grace and guidance, we slogged through problem after problem. He rescued our marriage. Jenny here (the clerk) told me she kept a vase of rose stems to remind her of what she learned from "thorny" times, and that was good enough for me. I took home some of those stems. My wife and I decided to label each one for a specific "problem" and give thanks for what that problem taught us."
As Phil paid the clerk, he said to Sandra, "I highly recommend the Special!"
"I don't know if I can be thankful for the thorns in my life." Sandra said. "It's all too...fresh."
"Well," the clerk replied carefully, "my experience has shown me that thorns make roses more precious. We treasure God's providential care more during trouble than at any other time. Remember, it was a crown of thorns that Jesus wore so we might know His love. Don't resent the thorns."
Tears rolled down Sandra's cheeks. For the first time since the accident, she loosened her grip on resentment. "I'll take those twelve long-stemmed thorns, please," she managed to choke out.
"I hoped you would," said the clerk gently. "I'll have them ready in a minute."
"Thank you. What do I owe you?"
"Nothing. Nothing but a promise to allow God to heal your heart. The first year's arrangement is always on me." The clerk smiled and handed a card to Sandra. "I'll attach this card to your arrangement, but maybe you would like to read it first."
It read:

"My God, I have never thanked You for my thorns. I have thanked You a thousand
times for my roses, but never once for my thorns. Teach me the glory of the
difficulties I bear; teach me the value of my thorns. Show me that I have drawn
closer to You along the path of pain. Show me that, through my tears, the colors
of Your rainbow look much more brilliant."

Praise Him for your roses; thank him for your thorns!
-- Author Unknown

Do Christians Have Peace with God?

Here's a good discussion (albeit fairly technical for us non-Greek readers) of a problem most of us didn't know existed. Pardon me for providing yet another reason for consternation at a possible textual problem. I believe that our view of scripture needs to be challenged frequently.

Do Christians Have Peace with God?A Brief Examination of the Textual Problem in Romans 5:1
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

“Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…” —NET Bible

Like virtually all verses, Romans 5:1 can be variously translated. But apart from some minor tweaking—for example, “Since we have been justified” vs. “Having been justified” and the like—there is one substantive variation in how this verse has been translation. The main verb “we have” involves a textual variant, “let us have.” At issue is not two different translations of the same word, but two different words—or, rather, two different forms of the same Greek word. The difference in spelling is one letter (either an omicron or an omega—that is, either a short ‘o’ [o] or a long ‘o’ [ w]), but the difference in pronunciation, as far as we can tell, was nil in the first century AD.1 This is not to say the difference in meaning was nil! Spelled with an omicron, the verb is in the indicative mood—“we have peace”; spelled with the omega, the verb is in the subjunctive mood—“let us have peace.”

One can easily see how such a textual problem could come into existence. A scribe is listening while someone else is reading the manuscript to him; since the two words would be pronounced virtually identically, he has to make a choice. The question is: Which one is the original reading? And how can we know?

Go to http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1159 for his answer. Then see his answer to a reader's question at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1156

Introducing the Athenians to God

I have a few commentaries on Acts and have read many more. Some are, of course, better than others. Each of them share a common deficiency -- how should we understand Paul's comments to the Aeropagus (Acts 17). I recently came across what I believe to be the very best commentary on this short speech. It is from Bruce Winter. Here are the opening paragraphs:

When an early twentieth-century Archbishop of Canterbury heard that Anglicans and Methodists had joined together in a service of Holy Communion in East Africa, he declared, ‘It was highly pleasing to Almighty God, but never to be done again.’ Luke’s succinct summary of Paul’s Areopagus address has sometimes been similarly judged. As such, it is seen as a one-off, valiant attempt at philosophical discussion concerned with Providence (de Providentia) and The Nature of the Gods (de natura Deorum) in the sophisticated field of apologetics in the late Roman Republican and early Empire.

It is acknowledged that Paul’s speech was sufficient for some of those who heard to believe and to identify with him and his gospel message. Among them was a distinguished Athenian, Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus Council, and a woman, Damaris. The former would have been a leading citizen of Athens because of his membership of its very ancient and distinguished ruling body. The woman had rank and status, and presumably was a patroness because the description of ‘others who were with them both’. In view of his rank as an Areopagite, Dionysius would also have had clients accompanying him.

However, the Areopagus address is regarded in some Christian circles as a well-meaning, innovative experiment, ‘highly pleasing to Almighty God’—after all it resulted in the conversion of the two distinguished Athenians and their entourage—but it was ‘never to be done again’. Therefore, it has to be concluded that today Acts 17 provides no paradigm for Christian apologetics which are an essential prerequisite to evangelism.

Those who believe that this address was, in effect, a failure, support their contention by arguing that Paul himself subsequently resolved never again to attempt this approach in his ministry. They argue that, of his evangelistic endeavours at his next port of call, Paul ‘determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2) in that culturally sophisticated city of Corinth.

It is concluded that even though there were converts on the day, Paul himself put the Areopagus style of evangelism behind him. He expected that others would never attempt to imitate his Athenian foray into the field of apologetics. This view of Acts 17 provides no paradigm for contemporary presentations of the Christian gospel. If that is the case it also has to be concluded that the address was recorded in Scripture simply as an interesting museum piece in the intellectual heartland of Athens and Greek culture.

You can read the rest here.

Through A Glass Darkly

Here's an unpopular commentary on 1Cor13 -- that's why I like it.

Through A Glass Darkly
by
Kurt Simmons

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (I Cor. 13:8-13)

I Corinthians 13 is among the most famous chapters in the Bible. Its use is so common in wedding announcements and bulletins that it is known even among those that never read the Bible or attend church. The lessons of the chapter concerning the qualities of charity, compassion and love are clear enough. But what about the rest of the chapter? What about those verses referring to the passing away of miraculous gifts and seeing through a "glass darkly" versus "face to face"? To what does this language refer? Some have taken Paul's language of seeing through a "glass darkly" as referring to our lives upon the face of this dark and sinful globe, and that his use of the phrase "face to face" refers to when, in Heaven, we shall see God. Does this interpretation bear scrutiny? Probably not. As we shall see, the better view is that Paul is referring to the Mosaic versus Christian age.

The Two Covenants
If we would understand I Cor. 13:8-13, we must first understand its companion text, II Cor. 3:12-18:

"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

Even a cursory glance at these verses will reveal their relationship with I Cor. 13:8-13. They were written by the same apostle, to the same church and use the same images. In both texts, Paul refers to a mirror or "glass." In I Cor. 13:12, he says they see through a glass "darkly." In II Cor. 3:18, he says they behold as in a glass with "open face." That Paul is referring to the same things in both texts is almost beyond dispute. Although his language seems furtive, the context shows that Paul is making allusion to the Old and New Testaments.

The Corinthian church was being troubled by false teachers from the Judaizers. The church at Corinth had given these Jews a forum to teach and they were subverting the gospel and seeking to turn the Corinthians away from Paul. (II Cor. 2:17; 10:10,11; 11:4,13-15) The Judaizers were preaching "another Jesus." (I Cor. 11:4) The Judaizers were gainsaying Paul's apostleship, twisting the fact Paul did not accept money to preach, saying it was an insult the Corinthians. They also called his credentials as an apostle into question, saying he was not an eloquent speaker. (II Cor. 11:5-12;12:12,13; cf. I Cor. 2:1-4) Thus, one of Paul's purposes in his second letter to the Corinthians was to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian system and its complete incompatibility with the Old Law. Paul wants the Corinthians to separate themselves from the Judaizers (II Cor. 6:14-18), his thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7), and be reconciled to him and, through his ministry, be reconciled to Christ and God. (II Cor. 5:19,20;7:2)

It is against this background of the Judaizers troubling the church that Paul wrote II Corinthians, chapter three, comparing the ministry of Old and New Covenants. In the course of the chapter, Paul moves back and forth from one covenant to the other, comparing the attributes of each: The Old Law Paul says was of the "letter" (i.e., "fleshly ink"); the New is written with the Spirit of God. (vv. 3,6) The Old was written and engraven in stone; the New upon the believer's heart. (v. 3) The Old, Paul called the "ministration of death" (v. 7); the New, the "ministration of righteousness." (v. 9) The one system gendered death, the other life. (v. 6) The glory attending the giving of the Old was fading (vv. 7,13; cf. Heb. 8:13); the glory of the New surpassing. Paul concludes, saying, Moses put a "veil upon his face" so the children of Israel could not see clearly the end or purpose of law (v. 13), but that he (Paul) used "great plainness of speech" in declaring the gospel of Christ. (v.12) In the gospel, believers behold the glory of the Lord with "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face (v. 18), but the mind of the Jews remained veiled and blinded in reading the Old Law. (vv. 14, 15)

The Old Testament Concealed
A familiar saying has it that the "Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." If this saying is attributable to any particular passage of scripture it is to II Cor. 3:13, above. In saying Moses put a "veil upon his face," Paul avers to the fact that there lay concealed with in the types and shadows of the Mosaic law prophetic images of the substitutionary death of Christ. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect...For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb.10:1,4) Because the mystery of the gospel was concealed and not openly declared, the Jews could not "steadfastly look to the end" of the law: They could not see that the law was merely transitional, to lead men to Christ, but mistook it as an end in itself. "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law to all that believe." (Rom. 10:1-4; cf. Gal. 3:24) The Jews mistook the law as an end in itself; a perfect and complete system of righteousness and not the shadow that it was. Hence, they did not submit to the righteousness of God in Christ.

From what has been said, it is plain that the apostle's reference to Moses putting a veil upon his face is merely a metaphor for the types and shadows of the law; the prophetic aspect of the temple service and other Old Testament laws pointing to Christ. But if Moses put a veil upon his face, Paul used "great plainness of speech" (vv. 12,18), depicting plainly the glory of God in the "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face of Christ. In other words, the apostles did not use types and shadows to convey the message of Christ's redeeming blood. Their job was not to conceal the mystery of the gospel, but to reveal it. Thus, when Paul says that they behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror clearly, with open face, we understand that he is simply averring to the fact that the gospel is not veiled beneath types and shadows like the Mosaic law. With this explanation of II Cor. 3:12-18 in mind, we are prepared to look at I Cor. 13:8-13.

New Testament Revealed
The context of I Corinthians, chapters 12-14 revolves around the purpose and use of spiritual gifts. In Cor.13:8-13 Paul explains the purpose and duration of miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, likening them to the stuff of childhood, saying that upon attaining maturity they would be done away. The time of childhood reasoning and understanding Paul describes in terms of seeing through a "glass darkly;" but upon maturity, "face to face." (vv. 11,12) Based upon his comparison of the two covenants in II Cor. 3:12-18, it seems clear that Paul is referring to them again here.

God's people were in their infancy under the law, but would come to maturity in Christ. "Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children were in bondage under the elements of the world." (Gal. 3:24; 4:1-3) The period of infancy that obtained under the law corresponds to the childhood Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:11. The spiritual gifts associated with the early church were given for the very purpose of equipping God's people with the doctrine and ethical teaching necessary to bring them to majority; to an understanding of man’s need of a Savior and that that Savior is Christ. These gifts were distributed in the beginning of the Christian era during the final days of the Mosaic age. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17,18; cf. Joel 2:28-32) The "latter days" of the Mosaic age was the beginning of the Christian era. The two overlapped by approximately 40 years, or from Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. During this period, the infancy that attended bondage of the law was being brought to maturity in Christ:

"And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine...but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him that is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4:11-15)

Note that the Christian era did not mark the beginning of spiritual gifts, but their end. The gift of prophecy and power of the Holy Ghost had existed under the Mosaic law, as evidenced by the powerful works of the prophets, but came to completion and ceased in Christ. This is an important fact often overlooked. The infancy Paul refers to in Ephesians is often assumed to belong solely to the church, and somehow different from the infancy under the Mosaic law. But this is incorrect. The infancy that characterized the early church was the same infancy that obtained under the law. It is the doctrine of the gospel that brings those who were children under the law to the "measure and stature" of Christ. Hence when Paul characterizes spiritual gifts as belonging to childhood in I Cor. 13:11, he is saying that they were associated with the era belonging to the Old Law which was about to "vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) If this is correct, then Paul's language in I Cor. 13:12 about seeing through a glass "darkly" may be clearly seen to refer to the indistinct image and shadows cast by divine revelation during the pendency of the Mosaic age.

Through a Glass Darkly Versus Face-to-Face
The term "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 in the Greek is enigma (i.e., "in a riddle"). Opposite of seeing through a glass darkly, is seeing "face to face." (v.12) These correspond to the "veiled" speech of Moses, and the "great plainness of speech" and "open face" characteristic of the gospel in II Cor. 3:12-18. The Hebrew writer says substantially the same thing: "God, who a sundry times and in divers manners spake in past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb 1:1) That is, God spoke to the father in types and metaphors, but now speaks to us openly and clearly (i.e.,"face to face") through Christ. That this is the correct meaning of the phrase "face to face" is easily demonstrated.

In Numbers chapter twelve the story is recorded how Miriam and Aaron reproached Moses for having married an Ethiopian woman. This displeased the Lord, who rebuked the two with the following words:

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. How then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8)

Notice that the phrase "mouth to mouth" and speech that is plain or "apparent" is set in opposition to "dark speeches." This language corresponds with I Cor. 13:12. The phrase "mouth to mouth" is equated with seeing "face to face," and "dark speeches" equates with "seeing through a glass darkly." Similar usage occurs in Exodus 33:11, where it is said that the Lord spoke unto Moses "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend. This does not mean that Moses saw the face of God, for "there shall no man see me, and live." (Ex. 33:20) Rather, use of the phrase "face to face" and "mouth to mouth" signify that the Lord communed openly with Moses, perhaps telling him plainly of the coming substitutionary death of Christ, whereas God communicated the plan of salvation to other prophets through more obscure, indirect means. Jesus himself made a similar remark to the apostles shortly before his crucifixion, saying that he had concealed nothing from them. (Jn. 15:15; 16:29)

Although God spoke "mouth to mouth" and "face to face" with Moses, Moses put a veil on his face when speaking to the sons of Israel. (Ex. 32,34; Deut. 9:7-21;10:1-5) But the veil woven from the law of Moses is taken away in the gospel, and we behold the glory of God’s salvation openly in the face of Christ. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4:6) The "shining" in the hearts of the apostles was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; the glory of God in the face of Jesus is the redemption he wrought in his death, burial and resurrection.

That Which is Perfect
Some will ask, Why does Paul say in I Cor. 13:12 that they saw "darkly," but in II Cor. 3:18 he says we see with "open face?" Doesn't Paul contradict himself? This can be explained in two ways. First, Paul's use of "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 versus "open face" in II Cor. 3:18 reflects the different emphasis of the two passages. In I Cor. 13:8-13, Paul is emphasizing the temporary nature of spiritual gifts and their identification with the age that was passing away. In II Cor. 3:8-18, the emphasis is upon the surpassing glory of the gospel of Christ. The age to which spiritual gifts belonged was a time of types and shadows wherein man saw only darkly the mystery of the gospel and the glory of the age to come. On the other hand, in the gospel, God causes the radiance of his glory to shine openly in the face of Christ. Jesus has brought his blood within the veil (Heb. 9:12,24); the glory of God's presence has illuminated his skin, which now shines openly in the face of Jesus, our High Priest, as he blesses the people. (Ex. 34:29-35)

Second, Paul's use of "darkly" versus "face to face" reflects the "already but not yet" character of the first century A.D. It must be borne in mind that the church was in a period of transition. The Mosaic age did not stop immediately at the cross, but lingered on for a time, the Hebrew writer describing it as a thing that "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) The Christian age, on the other hand, although begun at Pentecost 33 A.D., did not come in fullness until the old had passed away. Indeed, not even the atoning work of Christ was come in its fullness to the early church, which was given the gift of the Holy Ghost as the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. (Eph. 1:13,14; II Cor. 5:5) This is why the Hebrew writer describes Christ as a high priest of "good things to come." (Heb. 9:11) If the benefits of Christ's blood and the power of the age to come (Heb. 6:5) were fully realized by the early church, the Hebrew writer would not have had occasion to characterize them as things yet to come. But as it is, the receipt of these things was still in expectation. The seal given in evidence of God's ownership and assurance of the promised redemption was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, imparted by the laying on of the apostle's hands. (Acts 19:6; cf. 8:17) The earnest passed when the church has redeemed out of the "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4) in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome. This is the time Paul referred to in I Corinthians, chapter thirteen; the time when that which was "in part" was done away and replaced by that which is perfect and complete.

Conclusion
During the pendency of the Mosaic age, man saw through a glass darkly. The mystery of the gospel was veiled in Moses, but is done away in Christ. The gifts of the Spirit belonged to the latter days of the world-age identified with the types and shadows of the Mosaic law. Their existence testified to the fact that that which was complete had not yet fully come. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." (Heb. 7:19; cf. 7:11; 8:7) Just as the types and shadows of the law found fulfillment in Jesus, so the gifts of the Spirit found completion in Christ also. Their utility ceased when the body of believers was come to majority; the age set by the Father for inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. (Gal. 4:1-4; Eph. 4:11-13) Childhood has yielded to maturity; and Christians now behold the glory of God "face to face" in the open, unveiled face of Jesus.

The Bible and US Foreign Policy

I have long maintained that American foreign policy, beginning with Wilson and especially the events surrounding the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, has been in some (large?) part influenced by a faulty eschatological view. Here is a book that discusses this in some detail, reviewed by Stephen Sizer, an Anglican vicar, who I met a few years ago at a conference in Colorado Springs. Stephen has written extensively on the problems in the Middle East, especially related to Israel and Zionism.

Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence
Captain America and the Crusade against Evil,
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, xv1 + 392pp

[available from Amazon for <$5]
A Review for Anvil

This book is scary. Its thesis could be summed up in a question: Is it conceivable that American foreign policy is in some way shaped by the comic book heroes its leaders read about when they were little boys? In February 2002, the cover of Der Spiegel depicted “the Bush Warriors” (die Bush Krieger). Dick Cheney was portrayed as the Terminator, Colin Powell as Batman, Donald Rumsfeld as Conan the Barbarian and Condoleezza Rice as Xena, the Warrior Princess. George W. Bush was depicted as Rambo with a bandoleer draped across his chest. When Daniel Coats, the U.S. ambassador to Germany saw the cover he asked Der Spiegel to supply poster-sized copies for the White House. Have America’s leaders become inoculated against the irony by the sheer success of their own pop culture?

In Captain America, Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence claim that we have indeed got a Rambo in the West Wing. But more disturbing, they trace the roots of this superhero myth and what they term ‘zealous nationalism’ which increasingly shapes America’s dealings with the rest of the world, back to the Bible. Well documented and illuminating chapters address issues such as the ‘world redemptive impulse’, the growing popularity of zeal and jihad, the danger of stereotyping enemies, the worship of national symbols like flags and the crusade against terrorism.

The author’s provide a compelling analysis of the religious roots of American culture, arguing that at various times, one of two competing and incompatible political traditions rooted in Scripture has dominated, namely, prophetic realism (epitomised by the emphasis on justice and tolerance in Hosea and Jeremiah) and zealous nationalism (illustrated in the redemptive violence of passages in Deuteronomy and Revelation).

They show how the tradition of Zealous nationalism, now dominant in American civil religion, perceives America to be a chosen nation raised up by God with a sacred calling or ‘Manifest Destiny’ to redeem the world. Political complexity and moral ambiguity are subservient to the simple biblical dualism of good verses evil, in which redemption is achieved by destroying those we identify as our enemies.

Intrinsic to this world view is a moral absolutism which divides the world into two peoples – true believers who will be rescued and the rest who will suffer. Jewett and Lawrence note, “This sustains the popular feeling that Americans are innocent while their adversaries are full of malice, that political opponents are evil and should be opposed on principle.”

The authors show how the apocalyptic religious zeal, now dominant in America, is also ironically a mirror image of both Islamic jihad as well as Israeli militancy witnessed in the settler movement. The parallels are both striking and worrying. They note the inherent contradiction of America progressively distancing itself from any accountability to the United Nations or international law, in order to fulfil its unilateral crusade to impose Pax Americana and, to use the words of George W. Bush, “rid the world of evil”.

Like Captain America, it seems, its leaders justify circumventing the law in order to protect the innocent, but in so doing, deny the human rights of those they want to save. As the events in Guantanamo Bay post 9/11 and more recently in Abu Ghraib reveal, despite the heroic exploits of Captain America, the purest of motives do not ensure immunity from corruption.

In Captain America, Jewett and Lawrence clearly major on the bad news and probably give insufficient space to the prophetic realism strand within American civil religion. It is also something of an oversimplification to suggest that the competing and contradictory dualism they observe in America is intrinsic to the biblical narrative itself. The Bible is not the cause of this conflict but rather, as in the case of Christian Zionism, a convenient source of authoritative proof texts to sacralise political colonialism and racism.

The authors insist, “It is not our adversaries alone who must change: it is ourselves. But we cannot accomplish this alone.... Its calls for a creative rechanneling of Captain America’s impulse to ‘fight for right’ toward a religious commitment that is shaped both by self critical questioning and a sense of hope about the possibilities of peace.”

The publication of Captain America and the Crusade against Evil could not be more timely or relevant, as much for the survival of American democracy as for the peace process in the Middle East. Through the literary tactics of shock and awe, the book will hopefully provoke internal debate within America and, God-willing, soul searching will lead to change. For, if we are to avoid the apocalyptic eschatology of fundamentalism, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, we must break the cycle of violence by peaceful means. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”

“The worst vice of a fanatic,” Oscar Wilde once noted, “is his sincerity.” The sincerity of American religious zeal is clearly not in doubt. Nevertheless, the question Captain America leaves unanswered is this: “Who will save the world from those who want to save America?”

Stephen Sizer© August 2005