Book Review – Faith Formation in a Secular Age – Andrew Root (Pt. 2)

I want to “extend and revise my remarks” regarding Andrew Root’s challenging work, Faith Formation in a Secular Age. For my initial response, see the previous review Book Review – Faith Formation in a Secular Age (Andrew Root)

I suggested at the beginning of that review that, as I was reading this work, I could not help but feel like I had been there before, I guess sort of a deja vu moment. More than once after digesting some of Root’s conclusions, I thought, “Reading this book is like returning to a place I have never been before.” Then something hit me – I had been somewhere close before, but not exactly in the same place. Let me explain.

Many years ago three professors within the family of the Churches of Christ created a minor firestorm with the publication of a deceptively short book, The Worldly Church: A Call for Biblical Renewal (C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, Michael R. Weed, ACU Press, 2nd ed. 1991, 107 pages). While so much of the book needs to be reviewed here, just a couple of quotations will suffice:

We see the church floundering between two equally disastrous paths. On the one hand are those who advocate a rationalistic orthodoxy which arrogantly imposes its own limited scheme upon the Bible and places human restrictions upon God. On the other hand are those who are increasingly attracted by a generic Protestant pietism – sprinkled generously with therapeutic terminology – which eagerly caters to the shifting whims of the surrounding society. We have little sympathy with either of these secularizing options. We plead for a return to our historic roots in the central message of the Bible. (p. x)

We seek to reaffirm the great biblical truth that authentic Christianity stems from faith in God, not self; from worship of God, not self; from reliance on God’s power, not on the power of self; and from living out Christ’s teaching that ‘whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it’ (Lk. 17:33) (p. 3)

The secular church’s adaptation to modernity, and particularly its wholesale adoption of the utility principle, leads directly to fundamental theological problems. The most far-reaching of these is a loss of the sense of transcendence. (p. 17)

When Christians forget who they are and who they are called to be, no amount of technique or programming will restore lost integrity. The church does not simply need more experts in communication, counseling, or church growth. It does not need more leaders who are clever and successful. But it desperately needs more leaders who are wise and faithful to the crucified one. (p. 22)

I really could go on for quite some time, but these themes are precisely what Root analyzes in Faith Formation. In going back to Worldly Church, I am struck by the phrases, “therapeutic terminology,” “secularizing options,” “authentic Christianity,” “transcendence,” and “faithful to the crucified one.” You do not even have to be a careful reader of Root’s work to hear those concerns being raised again and again. Now, I grant you that the audience to whom Allen, Hughes and Weed wrote is much more narrowly defined than the audience to whom Root addresses, but I just cannot get past the similarity in themes, and in the underlying similarity in the solution(s) they present.

There are differences in the two works, to be sure. For one thing, Allen, Hughes and Weed are primarily historical theologians, and, from my perspective anyway, Root is a philosophical theologian. What I mean is that, while Allen, Hughes and Weed reference some non-theological works, they do not attempt to locate the problem of “modernity” in anything close to the precision that Root is able to do. Root provides in his first 6 chapters the equivalent of a semester of university studies in a survey of the philosophical underpinnings of modern thought. (Aside here – the footnotes Root incorporates are prodigious, and provide an additional wealth of material and thoughts to consider, in addition to his main line of argumentation). The two works converge at a central point, however – the cross of Christ, and, I might add as a second point of convergence, the transcendence of God.

C. Leonard Allen and Richard Hughes followed The Worldly Church with a number of other works, each fleshing out in some greater degree a specific emphasis that they considered to be critical for the Churches of Christ. Allen called for the church to return to a cruciform nature. Hughes, for his part, called on the church to return to its apocalyptic heritage – as viewed primarily in the writings of Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb. (Allen also shares in this call to an apocalyptic worldview). Andrew Root has studied and written about the life and theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who, in his own way, offered an apocalyptic vision of what the church is called to be (although, perhaps, not in the same terminology that Stone or Lipscomb would use).

So, in what can only be described as a very powerful, but in some ways very discomforting way, so many threads of my Christian journey have met in a mighty confluence of parallel themes. Going back 200 years to Stone, about 125 years to Lipscomb, about 75 years to Bonhoeffer, and now to my contemporaries Allen, Hughes, Weed – and now Root – I keep hearing the same voices, the same concerns, the same “prophetic” response. The church is caught – in fact always seems to be caught – in a vortex of secularizing powers that batter from without and corrupt from within. The answer today, which appears to have been the answer for Stone and for Lipscomb and for Bonhoeffer, is not more adept analyzing of the contemporary world so that the church can copy what is successful, but a total and unrelenting return to the basics of discipleship in Christ. Stone, Lipscomb, and Bonhoeffer might have expressed it differently, but the core concept is what Root identifies as an emphasis on biblical faith.

I have much more to say about Root’s book – it has utterly captivated my imagination. But I just had to unload this particular observation first. I apologize if it has been far too personal, but maybe will help explain some later remarks I make about Andrew Root’s powerful study.

The Glory of the (Not So) Ordinary

Today my mind was struck by a goodly theme – pardon me for not being academic or profound or philosophical or theological. Today I’m just being me.

I wanted to write a post on the glory of little things. I have been touched so many times lately by things that at other times I would have just missed – either through my hubris or just plain inattention. That got me to thinking about how I have been formed by little things. And the more I thought, the more the “little things” came to mind, proving to me that they really were not little at all. In fact, in retrospect, they were really quite huge.

Let me begin with the description of a little gift. My wife and daughter gave me a framed picture of me on a horse. Just a little gift you say? Bite your tongue, knave, I respond. That picture is utterly priceless to me. It reminds me of me as a little boy – so innocent and full of promise. It reminds me of my childhood home, and the treasures that are associated with it. It reminds me of my precious friend – Wimpy – the horse of any little boy’s dream. Wimpy was the horse that Trigger and Champion and whatever Matt Dillon’s horse was named all dreamed about being. He was the best! I loved that horse, and I treasure that picture with all that I have!

I think about my “little” job of flying freight. I had a co-worker named Barney. Barney was the greatest. He scared me to death. One day I had the privilege (terror?) of flying with him. He knew his route so well that he put the plane down to about 100 feet off the ground, put it on autopilot, and started working a crossword puzzle!! Like I said, Barney was the best. One day we were all sitting around commiserating about our mutual sad affairs. One pilot said that he looked forward to getting a real job, one that was important. Barney gave us one of those Clarence speeches – you know, Clarence the angel in “It’s A Wonderful Life.” Barney pointed out that we were flying critical freight – boxes and letters and other time sensitive materials that could make or break someone’s life – or at the very least enhance it. “Seems to me,” Barney said, “that this job was mighty important after all.” We all sat in silence, in awe of the greatness of the Barney-meister. Barney was the greatest, and no one who was blessed by his skill in getting packages from point A to point B would ever have known his name.

I think about the little preachers in my life – the ones only a truly few people are blessed to have heard preach. I remember one time in Farmington N.M. when a bunch of us preachers got together to have a little seminar of sorts. It was during a VBS – one preacher would take a night during the VBS to speak to the parents and other members of the church. I worked and worked and worked and “waxed an elephant” and probably sprained an elbow congratulating myself on what a wonderful preacher that I was. And then a fellow minister by the name of Philip James stood up and delivered one of the most truly awesome lessons I have ever heard. Never heard of Philip James? – I don’t doubt it. He preaches for a little congregation in a little community in northern New Mexico that you probably would not remember if you drove through it. At the time Philip was almost blind – I don’t know if he has received the healing he so richly deserves – and he was quiet almost to a fault. He was also one of the funniest preachers I have heard, once you got him to tell a joke. But people will go on and on about all the “mega preachers” in all the “mega churches” and they will never have the blessing of hearing Philip James, one of the greatest preachers I have ever heard.

I think about the little people in my life – the guys like George Olmstead. Don’t know George Olmstead? He was just the custodian at Montgomery Blvd. Church of Christ – and gave me one of my first jobs. He asked me to help him clean the building on Saturdays so he could do some of the more heavy cleaning and waxing and what-not. Every once in a while he would bring a bottle of “pop” over to where I was cleaning and just sit and talk with me. What a giant of a man! Few people knew, or ever cared to know, about George, but to me there was not a bigger or more important man in that congregation, and there were some heroes of my faith in that congregation!

I think about little words of praise. Due to my severe acne problem I never got to play high school football beyond my 9th grade year. My coach was named Bob White. Coach White was a zen master to me. One day we were doing a particularly painful drill in which we had to line up in two lines facing each other and, on Coach White’s whistle, try to knock each other into semi-unconsciousness. There was somewhat of an unwritten rule that the big guys tried to arrange it so they would hit a big guy, and leave us little squirts to whale on each other. Well, something got goofed up because I ended up facing our number one running back, Buddy Baker. Buddy was a great guy, but he was a beast. I looked at him, he looked at me, and then looked at Coach as if to say, “can we switch, Coach, I don’t want to hurt the little fella.” Coach looked at Buddy, looked at me, and said, “what’s the problem, Smith can do it!” We got into position, and the last thing I clearly remember was hearing Coach’s whistle, and then a pain like I have never felt before. As I stumbled back to get into line again all the guys were looking at me in a state of disbelief. I lost the battle, for sure. It had to have looked hilarious. But I will remember those words to my dying day – “Smith can do it.” Well, sometimes Smith can’t, but I’ll always line up and wait for the whistle.

So many little things, so many little people, so many little words. But none of them are little to me, all of the people are spiritual giants, all of the gifts are priceless treasures. All of them make up who I am.

The glory of the ordinary, even if it is not ordinary at all.

Book Review – Faith Formation in a Secular Age (Andrew Root)

Andrew Root, Faith Formation in a Secular Age, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 211 pages.

I was first introduced to Andrew Root through his book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer as youth worker. I had seen several references to this book after reading his work on Bonhoeffer, and so I thought I would give it a read (after all, if someone writes on Bonhoeffer, they can’t be all bad, right?). I can honestly say that from a philosophical/theological perspective, it has been a long, long, time since I have had my foundations as shaken as they have been by this book – if ever. But I mean this in a good way – it was a constructive shaking, and in a strange sort of way, it was also re-affirming for some ideas and conclusions that have been latent, but that I have not had the mental acuity to put into concrete expression.

This post will not be all that I have to say about Root’s book – it is just too deep for one little review. What I intend to do here is to just give a brief overview, add some reflective comments, and suggest that I will be looking at a number of Root’s conclusions in greater depth in later posts.

In summary, Root asks one question, “How can we form faith in a secular age,” but in so doing he actually raises a far more basic question – “What is faith?” You might think that is a silly question, because everyone knows what faith is. But for Root (and I think he is spot-on correct here), what we have come to accept as “faith” is really nothing more than assent to a doctrine or set of doctrines. This understanding has had all kinds of negative effects on the church, and is the primary reason why the church is so frantic to discover why so many people are leaving “faith” and to discover what to do to reverse the exodus.

Faith Formation in a Secular Age is divided into two main sections: Part One (chapters 1-6) is basically a philosophical explanation of how the culture and the church have arrived at the place where we stand – the “secular age.” Part Two then addresses how faith can be formed in that secular age, and more fundamentally, addresses the content of what we call “faith.”

I will say with no hesitation that this is NOT an easy book  to read unless you are conversant with (1) philosophical terminology and (2) academic theological terminology. While I would never discourage anyone from purchasing a book, I have to be honest and say that unless you are willing to exercise some synapses and look up some technical vocabulary, this book might be above the head of many readers. I’m pretty sure Root lost me in all the verbiage, and that is unfortunate – this book needs to be read at the non-specialist level, and it just comes across as more of a university level (or maybe even graduate level) philosophical/theological work.

With that caveat in place, the real genius of this book is that Root traces the development of our “secular” world and puts his finger squarely on a problem that has bedeviled the church for decades – the rise of our infatuation with “youth” and “youthfulness.” He openly confesses that he is following the writing of a philosopher whose work Root believes is the “first philosophical book written in the twenty-first century that will be read in the twenty-second” (p. x). Part one is, hopefully not to be too dramatic, a devastating examination of our infatuation with youth, the youth culture, and how that fascination has utterly changed the teaching and behavior of the church. I would suggest that part one is the most easily understandable section of the book, and is worth the price of the book by itself.

In part two, Root then tackles the main question he raises (what is faith), and suggests there is a way for the church to form that faith in this secular age. It is in chapter 7, however, that the real heavy lifting of the book begins (at least for me – others may have different opinions). In chapter 7, Root identifies three different levels, or modes, of secularity. The rest of the book is difficult if not impossible to understand if you miss, or misunderstand, these three modes of secularity. I cannot begin to explain them here (I will discuss chapter 7 and its importance in a later post) but suffice it to say that the “secular” age in which we live today is one that eliminates the possibility of any experience with a transcendent being – God, as a personal being, is simply eliminated from the picture. Faith, in Root’s understanding, is the experience of this transcendent being in our lives, and therefore to form faith in this secular age we must open ourselves up to the indwelling presence of this transcendent God. The key for Root is the apostle Paul’s phrase “in Christ.” Root’s development of the importance of this expression, and the relationship of this concept to faith formation, is deep, and his terminology frequently gets in the way, but I will suggest that Root is on to something here – and his conclusions make far, far more sense to me than the other “solutions” to the faith problem that I have seen.

As with any book that is this heavily philosophical, and theological, I do have some serious concerns. For me, the biggest problem lies in the final two chapters of the book where Root attempts to align his conclusions with the (primarily) Lutheran concept of “faith only.” My issues with this attempt are two: (1) Paul never says “faith only” – it is a purely Lutheran creation, and (2) Root seems to go out of his way to “reconstruct” common Lutheran understanding, and, not being a Lutheran scholar, I am just not convinced he is entirely successful.

I will have much more to say about this particular issue, but the most glaring failure of this book is Root’s (intentional?) refusal to acknowledge one of Paul’s most profound emphases – that of the necessity of baptism for his understanding of faith. I kept waiting for Root to discuss this point and it just never comes. I think Root is basically correct in his understanding of faith in Paul’s thought, but by neglecting the event of baptism he short-circuits his entire argument. In short, Root is just entirely too Lutheran to admit that baptism is critical for the formation of faith – even as he as gone to such great lengths to prove that faith for Paul is being “in Christ.” The omission just boggled my mind.

It is not often that I find a sentence at the end of a book that serves as one of the greatest in the book, and as an advertisement for the purchase of the book. However, I will close the “review” section of this post with just one such quote from Root – and one that I hope will spur you to consider buying, reading, and even studying this book:

The church will never be able to convert an atheist through argumentation but can only invite that person to experience faith by experiencing the action of ministry. (p. 210-211).

If you are a minister, elder, youth leader, or other church leader, you owe it to yourself to buy this book and invest in some time to read it. As I said above, it will not be the easiest book you read this year – but it may be the most significant! You will not agree with everything Root says – I never agree with everything an author says. But, and I say this cautiously, you will learn more about the culture in which you live and will be challenged to review some of your previously held beliefs, more by this book than perhaps any you might read this coming year.

P.S. – This is volume one in a three volume “trilogy” – and the second volume is in the pipeline for delivery some time this year, I believe. I look forward to reading it as well.

The Sin of Teaching Too Much (When You Expose Your Ignorance)

Big sigh. It happened again yesterday. I was skimming through one of my social media sites and just briefly read the introductory section of an interesting looking article. I can’t remember if it was in the first or second paragraph, but it was right up there close to the top, when the author wrote (in regard to John 3), “. . . ‘born again’ literally means ‘born from above.'”

Grrr and grrr.

First, let’s lay aside the fact that the author equated two English phrases that have no “literal” equivalence. However, what we cannot lay aside is the inference, nay, I would suggest, the very strong implication, that the Greek word behind the two phrases has a “metaphorical” or connotative meaning and a “literal” or denotative meaning. It doesn’t. That is just wrong. The author is trying to make a profound spiritual point, and all he did was expose his ignorance.

Just to set the record straight, I looked up in my Greek lexicon the Greek word under consideration (anothen, for those who are curious). The lexicon gives three primary definitions for the word, with a number of sub-definitions. Those definitions are: 1. locally, from above; 2. temporally, from the beginning or for a long time; and 3. again, anew. There you have it. Three meanings, three definitions. No “metaphorical” or “literal” about it. Some words have different meanings, and the context of the passage is controlling when we attempt to discern which possible meaning is appropriate for that passage. (The lexicon goes on to note that in John 3 the meaning is deliberately obscure, so as to generate discussion as to the meaning Jesus intended).

This discussion just goes to prove a mantra my first year Greek professor drilled into us Greek newbies – one year of Greek (or less) only serves to make you dangerous. It takes a minimum of two years, and far preferably more, before you can claim an adequate understanding of a foreign language. Another preacher friend said it this way – the purpose of learning Greek or Hebrew is not to discover of new world of hitherto unknown spiritual truths, it is to keep you from making some really profound, and stupid, mistakes.

This sort of problem is compounded nowadays with the proliferation of computer programs which parse and decline Greek words with the simple move of a cursor. This is not a problem for the wise user who understands his or her limitations and simply uses the program as an aid or tutor. Where it becomes a serious problem is when someone mouses over a word, gets a thumbnail description of the tense or declination of a word, and then goes off to wax eloquently about things he or she knows little or nothing about.

[Pet peeve and aside here – more and more theological schools and seminaries are reducing or eliminating the emphasis on biblical languages in their degree programs. This is a huge, and in my opinion, tragic, move. It is justified because once a graduate leaves the school, he or she never really makes use of the hours and hours spent memorizing arcane rules and words that only occur 10 or 15 times in the text. In my opinion, that is a response to a crisis by letting the inmates run the prison. Just because graduates do something stupid – and yes! I have done and still do the same stupid thing – is no reason to abandon a critical part of theological education. Rant over.]

The example I used above regarding John 3 is not really a huge issue – I think the author borrows on expertise he clearly does not have, but his topic is not of any huge exegetical or theological import. There are, however, other examples where the profession of knowledge one does not have does become critical.

Quite some time ago I was reading an article written by a fellow minister of the Churches of Christ. The topic of his article was a Greek preposition, one of those little words (in this case eis, pronounced by some as ice, but I prefer the pronunciation ace), that are notoriously difficult to translate in a number of instances. The targets of his ire were those who want Acts 2:38 to mean that the first hearers of Peter’s sermon were baptized because of the forgiveness of their sins, rather than for the purpose of having those sins removed. The entire point of his article is that this little word can never, in no way, absolutely not, never, ever, ever, be translated as “because of.”

Except it can, and in at least one case, it has to.

In Matthew  12:41 Jesus said, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” You guessed it, the little word I highlighted is that same little word eis. In this context the only way you can make sense of the statement is to understand that the people of Nineveh repented as a result of, or because of, Jonah’s preaching. Jonah preached, they repented. If that is not a causative  meaning, I will eat my lexicon.

The meaning of eis in Acts 2:38 cannot mean “because of,” because the context will not allow it to mean “because of.” The sins of those in the audience had not been forgiven – they had just asked Peter what to do in order to have those sins forgiven!! Peter told them what to do in order for their sins to be forgiven – repent and be baptized. But – and this is critical – to base one’s theology on the vagaries of a little Greek preposition is just wrong. Talk about putting a hermeneutical cart in front of an exegetical horse! While I agree with my preacher brother that the use of eis in Acts 2:38 is “for the purpose of,” I lost a lot of respect for his exegetical skill (and maybe some of his integrity) because he based his argument on a false conclusion.

I will defend my understanding of truth until my face turns blue, but I refuse to use bad, or in this case, utterly incorrect arguments to do it.

The point is, if you only have a rudimentary knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, then recognize your weakness and don’t go around spouting information the truth or falsity of which you are absolutely clueless. If one year of university level Greek only serves to make a student dangerous, what is the result of training that is less than that?! By all means use those computer programs that help you understand more of the text – I am not arguing against their use as a helper, but they can only give you a thumbnail picture of what is going on. In order to fully understand and comprehend what is going on in the Greek or Hebrew, one must learn not only the grammar of the language (verb tenses and such), but the syntax (what it means for certain noun declensions and verb tenses to be used as they are) as well.

As the old adage goes, it is far better to remain silent and have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Thanks for a Great Year!

Just did a little check up on this site for the year 2018. This was the first full year of this blog, which is kind-of a rebirth of my old blog, “Instrument Rated Theology.” I have been deeply blessed to have been in conversation with many of you – and I wanted to pass along that I enjoy each and every response, question, or push-back that I get.

My numbers in terms of readers and views for the entire year would probably make for a bad month for some blogs – maybe even a bad day – but for me, I just appreciate every time someone reads my meandering thoughts. As I noted somewhere, sometime, I write mostly just for me, and if  what I say proves to be beneficial for someone else – so much the better. I don’t even mind if someone disagrees (so long as it is done politely), because at the very least I can say that I provoked some thought. And, who knows, maybe you can change my mind – or at least get me to change how I portray something.

So, just for giggles and grins, I thought I would share the top 10 blog posts for the past year on Ascending Lower (as voted by you all, the reading public):

  • The Bible’s Greatest Silence . . . and the Church’s Loudest Cry
  • A Pox on ‘Praise Teams’
  • Rocky Mountain High
  • Praise Teams (Again)
  • Why Are We Divided?
  • Of God and Guns
  • Willow Creek and Human Pride
  • Proposing a New, Really Old, Hermeneutic
  • Disciples and the Lord’s Prayer
  • Mega-Star, Mega-Preachers – a Pox on Your House Too

Okay, so I probably need to stay away for Poxes and Praise Teams in 2019.

My goal is to do more writing on individual texts and theological topics – but invariably some ‘hot-button’ issue comes up and I feel a need to swat at it. I also want to improve my review articles on the books that I read, and I have a doozy for my first review of 2019. I hope I can do the book justice.

Once again, thanks for reading, and a huge thank you to those who have chosen to “follow” this blog. I hope I can repay your kindness by providing thoughtful, if not always agreeable, content.

Let us all resolve to ascend higher by climbing lower this coming year.

The Value of Systematically Marking Your Bible

Last year I started doing something that many, many people already do, and almost immediately I started seeing things in Scripture that had earlier eluded me. The practice is inexpensive, and totally flexible – there are no set rules and each reader can adjust the process to fit his/her needs. What is this magic elixir of Bible reading?

I started marking my text with different colored markers. (Duh.)

I purchased a set of 8 markers, marketed as the “Inductive Bible Study Kit” packaged by G.T. Luscombe, and I bought mine through Christian Book Distributors. This particular set has a .01 fine line black and red markers, and .05 fine line markers in yellow, pink, green, blue, orange and purple. If you so desire they have a rather complicated (and in my opinion, far too busy) system of marking the text, so, being as simple-minded as I am, I came up with my own system.

Not that it matters, but I use the black marker for simple emphasis kind of texts, and for making notes in the margin. The red I use for translation kind of notes, and to underline words where translation issues can affect the meaning of a verse or verses. I use the yellow to highlight words that seem to be central or key themes in a book or chapter (fer instance – the words “believe” “live” and “sent” in the gospel of John, the word “righteousness” in the gospel of Matthew). I use green to underline references to God’s people, the church, or God’s kingdom (more on that later). I use blue to underline references to God’s Spirit or the Holy Spirit. I have not really found a use yet for pink (too close to red), orange, or purple, but their use may come later.

A couple of really interesting things have occurred as I do this (and I try to keep all of my physical texts marked identically, which is taking some time). First, specifically in regard to marking all the texts that refer to God’s people, the church, the kingdom of God, or God’s kingdom, or His kingdom, etc., I came to a rather profound conclusion (at least for me, profundity is measured in small containers). The prevailing attitude among the teachers and preachers of my youth was that the New Testament church is the kingdom of God. Ergo and therefore, good Christians cannot pray for the “kingdom of God to come” as Jesus taught in Matthew 6:10, because it already came on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2. To pray for the kingdom to come (as in some future sense) was to be either a closet premillennialist, or worse, a flaming premillennialist. (A brief historical aside here – in the days of my youth, to be a premillennialist was somewhat to the left of being a Baptist, and being either one endangered your soul. To be a Baptist and a premillennialist was especially dangerous. Times have changed, and I don’t think many members of the Churches of Christ even understand what a “premillennialist” is; and we have even started having conversations with the Baptists, so long as they are not premillennialists, or Dallas Cowboy fans. Well, maybe that last one only applies to me.)

So, as I worked through the New Testament, merrily marking passage after passage in green, something occurred to me. In the overwhelming number of passages where the kingdom is specifically mentioned, there was no way I could substitute the word “church” and have the context remain intelligible. In plain English, in the overwhelming number of passages, the kingdom and the church are not equal, they are not interchangeable, they are not the same. Now, in a few passages it is possible to interchange the words kingdom and church, but they are indeed few.

I am not a closet, and certainly not a flaming, premillennialist, but thems are the facts.

Something else I noticed – there are a LOT more passages that have blue under them in the Old Testament than I ever expected there would be. Now, I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit as is specifically discussed in the New Testament can be read back into the Old Testament, but there is a much higher number of references to “God’s Spirit” or “my Spirit” when God is the speaker, than I had otherwise caught on to. So, it just got me to thinking . . . a commonly held belief is that the “Holy Spirit” (especially as Luke describes him) is a New Testament being – not really present in the Old Testament. However, the number of references to the Spirit of God or, as I indicated, “my Spirit” would seem to contradict that. If we read the Bible in a “New Testament Centric” model, I think our reading is therefore distorted. Perhaps if we read Luke after considering these texts in the Old Testament, we could arrive at a more well rounded view of the Holy Spirit. Something to think about, anyway.

So, anyway, if your Bible reading and study has  reached a stale plateau, try this very simple and inexpensive experiment. Buy a new copy of the Bible (if you do not want to mark up your “old faithful” copy), and create your own system of marking the text. The markers I have purchased do not bleed through the pages, and I have used them on several different copies. I think creating your own system has a far greater value than using some pre-packaged system, but to each his own, I guess.

Blessings on your study, and may you find a precious nugget in your daily Bible reading!

The Genesis of God’s Laws (Pun Intended)

I am a strong proponent of daily Bible reading – whether one is motivated to read through the Bible in a calendar year or has other motivations (the slow and meditative reading of a particular genre, such as the gospels or the prophets, for example). The simple fact of our human weakness is that we cannot always be on the top of our game, and some days we read with brilliant clarity, and some days we read as if swimming in molasses. If we wait for one of those “brilliant clarity” days, we can make all kinds of excuses for not reading God’s word. I like to read whether I feel like it or not, because I have found that, just as frequently as not, I find a profound verse or two on my “down” days as much as my “up” days.

So, I was reading along in Genesis this month, and came across this sentence:

Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5)

Wait, what?

When did God give Abraham any charges, commandments, statutes, or laws? The language is precise here – and is the language that is used repeatedly of the laws given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. But that event is centuries in the future as Genesis 26 unfolds. Such language then would be considered prescient, not reflective.

And, while we are at it, why would it have been a crime for Pharaoh to have taken Sarai sexually in Genesis 12, or for Abimelech to have done the same in Genesis 20? Or, to go further, why was it a sin for Cain to offer an sacrifice unpleasing to God, or for Cain to have killed his brother? Why was it wrong for Shechem to have had sexual intercourse with unmarried Dinah?

What, exactly, is the Genesis of God’s laws?

You see, there are certain beliefs and attitudes that creep into our understanding of Scripture that are not necessary bad or malicious, but they are never-the-less wrong. One such belief that I labored under for many, many years was that prior to Mt. Sinai, the world basically operated under a “wild, wild, west” form of government and things were considered wrong or sinful based on “secular” or human concepts (i.e. the Code of Hammurabi, for example).

There is only one fly in that ointment, however. Well, there are probably many more than one, but one will suffice. God did not say that Abraham obeyed the laws of the land. God did not condemn Cain for violating a civil code against murder. Simeon and Levi were not responding solely to social mores (although, they were probably doing that as well). Jacob did not respond with approbation against Simeon and Levi just because they went too far with their form of “justice.”

Cain, Abraham (and later, Isaac), Simeon, Levi – all of these violated the expressed will of God prohibiting falsehood and murder. Pharaoh and Abimelech knew of a code that prohibited the taking of another man’s wife – more than just staying out of hot water with the local magistrate (note, for example Genesis 20:5). The problem for us is that we do not have written down for us exactly when or where those expressions were made. In other words, there is more to the Word of God than we have recorded for us.

On one level I find that deeply disturbing. On another level, I can be assured that I have all I need, and that is sufficient (see, for example, 2 Peter 1:3). John the Revelator was given more insight and more “revelation” than he recorded (Revelation 10:4), but should that bother us? I think not. God’s ways are utterly and completely beyond our understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9), so it should not surprise us that there are things that he revealed to his servants the prophets that were, and/or are, not appropriate for general audiences.

I really did not intend to get too terribly philosophical here – what I really wanted to point out is how important it is to read a portion of God’s word every day, because you never know when you will come across a text, or even a series of texts, that re-shapes and possibly even corrects, a flawed or incorrect understanding.

Read. Meditate. Pray. Ascend lower.