“Some Time With Jesus (A Cautionary Tale)” by Armand Nigro

Jesus had invited me to spend an hour with Him.  I was a bit uptight about it, so for days I prepared by boning up on my seminary course in Christology and I reread the documents of Vatican II.  I glanced over my notes on Lonegran’s Method in Theology and breezed through another on liberation theology.  After all, I didn’t want to seem too far out of it.  I looked through the four Gospels, again, too.  Just in case He referred to something in His past recorded there.  And I cleaned up my room (as I faithfully do each year anyway), because He insisted on coming here instead of meeting in the chapel or on neutral grounds.

When he came I started to genuflect and kiss His hand, but He pulled me up and said:  “Can’t we just sit down together?”

I felt awkward and didn’t know how to start the conversation.  Reading my mind, He said:  “Relax!  I just like to be here with you and enjoy the scenery from your window.  The river and skyline look beautiful today.”

Well, I could hardly believe that.  If I’m busy and can’t afford that waste of time, He must be infinitely busier.  And there were so many important things to accomplish during that hour.  I really wanted to get the most out of it.  But He just sat there in silence with a hand on my shoulder.

“Lord,” I broke the silence.  “Where do you stand on the Christological controversy on how humanly conscious You were of Your divinity and future life before Your death and resurrection?”

“What’s that got to do with our enjoying this scenery together?”  He asked.

More silence.  I was uneasy.  I reached for the book on process theology and said:  “He really has something here on the development of conscious and the…”

“What difference does it make.”  He broke in, “to our time together here?  Do you like the way my Father has fashioned these clouds in process and the flowing river.”  More silence.

I opened the book on liberation theology.  “How can your gospel be authentically proclaimed, Lord, to people enslaved by oppressive economic and social structures?”

“You haven’t forgiven your brother down the hall yet, nor let me heal your anger and unkind judgments of him, have you?”  He countered.

“That doesn’t answer my question, Lord.”

“Your question does nothing to our precious time together except mess it up.”  More silence.

“Are you happy with Vatican II and the aftermath of it, Lord?”

“Are you?” He returned.

“Oh, yes – some of the new thinking and changes are really good, but I think some of the liberals have carried things too far and some of the far-right conservatives are obstructive and not thinking with the Church.”

“You’re impossible.”  He laughed.  “Aren’t you happy to spend a few friendly minutes with me without trying to get some new insights for your lousy – I mean brilliant – class lecture?”

“You’re confusing me, Lord.  I was taught how to meditate 34 years ago in the novitiate.  And I’ve studied ever since.  I’m not exactly new at this, you know.”

“No, not new – just a bit slow – and dumb.  But I love you anyway.”  That helped – but not much.

More silence.  I saw a shelf I forgot to dust and a letter that had to be answered and notes for the next class I needed to prepare.  I was getting more restless.  “Lord, would you like a glass of juice or something?  It would take only a minute to run down and get one.”

“And what would I do while you’re gone?  I prefer we just sit here together.”  Silence.

“Do you love Me?” He asked.

“Lord, you know everything.  You know that I love you.”

“I liked that when Peter said it.” He chided.  “But is it really you?”

“Honestly,” I protested.  “honestly – you’re not making this hour very easy for me.”

“You’re the one who’s making it hard.”  He replied.  “I just like to spend time with you, sharing My presence with you and assuring you of My love.  You don’t even have to entertain me when we are together.  Just be there, okay?”

More silence.  “Who do you say that I am?”  He asked, nudging my shoulder.

“Well, I’m with the best of our theologians, Lord, who say that You are – You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being; you are the incarnate word of God; you are our ultimate kerygma and the full revelation of the Trinitarian, Christological, soteriological, antithetic and ecclesial mysteries of our lives.”

There was a long pause before He said, “What?”

Then He exploded with laughter, rose and raised His arms straight up with His head back roaring.  He gave me a big bear hug.

“Yes, you’re impossible!  But I still love you.”

And He left, still laughing all the way down the hall.

I didn’t think that was very funny at all.

I stood gazing out the window for a few moments, still confused, before getting back to the important things on a desk full of work.

Then I really missed him.

“Talitha Cumi’ [A Poem Written on the Occasion of the Death of a Child Recently Baptised] (2012)

Today I watched a child who I baptized in March of this year go home to be with her Lord.  I have decided to write a poem for Nautica because she is worthy of a poem.

She is certainly worthy of a better poem than this.  I am no poet and make no claim to understand poetry or the structure of it (which will be evident) or any such thing.

But if poetry simply means the expression of the human heart when it has been deeply moved, then I at least have warrant to put it here.  Regardless, it is for Nautica, and for her mother, Teona.

Talitha Cumi

[Written on the occasion of the death of a child recently baptized.]

Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”

Mark 5:41

“Jesus is Lord,” she said

almost in a whisper

in March of this year

when I baptized her

the little girl

saying the ancient creed

before the body of Christ

who cheered and “amen’d”

“Jesus is Lord,” she said

when I asked for her confession

and the water was almost neck high

where she stood and smiled

“Jesus is Lord,” she said

three words

that have changed the world

(including her own)

she said it

and I buried her

under the water

and in the Name

but only for a moment

for she rose from the water

because death doesn’t get the victory

over those who say the Name

“Jesus is Lord,” she said

and we will bury her again

in earth this time

from whence she came

but only for a moment

for the ground will not hold her

just as the water could not

and she will rise

because of the Name

“Jesus is Lord!”

little girls don’t stay buried

death doesn’t win

then she said it in the water

now face to face

“Jesus is Lord,” she is whispering

and He is whispering back…

“Yes, and I love you little girl.”

Danny Akin’s Five Who Changed the World

Danny Akin’s Five Who Changed the World was distributed for free at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Indianapolis last month.  They are apparently for sell somewhere, though I’ve yet to figure out where.  Akin’s personal website has a link that takes you to a blank page.  This is a shame, and I hope to figure out where to get these soon, because this is a fantastic and moving look at five great missionaries that will inspire and, I honestly believe, change you.

Originally delivered as five sermons at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, these missionary portraits are delivered to the reader (and, I’m sure, the original audience) with conviction, passion, and an obvious desire to see the readers moved to action by this inspiring accounts.  Akin looks at William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Lottie Moon, Bill Wallace of China, and Jim Elliot.

Akin depends heavily on the standard biographies of each of these, which is fine.  His goal here isn’t original historical research.  His goal is to pass on the stories of five great champions of the gospel and to remind us of the high cost that many have paid to take the good news to the world.  He obviously is wanting to shake us out of our own complacency, and he does so with genuine conviction and in a non-manipulative way.  In other words, Akin’s agenda is clear and it is correct.  We desparately need to hear these great stories again.

My wife and I were frequently and deeply touched by these biographies.  The essay on Lottie Moon was particularly moving and Akin chose well from her letters.  In short, Roni and I have been moved to have sincere conversations about our own failure in the area of following the Great Commission and I believe we will be much more sensitive to this crucial need today and in the days to come.

Daniel Turner’s A Modest Plea for Free Communion at the Lord’s Table; Particularly Between the Baptists and the Paedobaptists. In a Letter to a Friend

Daniel Turner of Abignon, England, wrote A Modest Plea for Free Communion at the Lord’s Table; Particularly Between the Baptists and the Paedobaptists. In a Letter to a Friend. under the pseudonym “Candidus” in 1772.  He did so in conjunction with John Collett Ryland of Northampton who released essentially the same document (with some minor changes) under the pseudonym “Pacificus.”  (A nice summary of this particular skirmish in the controversy surrounding the question of open and close(d) communion can be read here.)  Turner’s little book has been reproduced in this print edition of the “Eighteenth Century Collections Online” “Religion and Philosophy” series.  It is a nice little facsimile addition to anybody’s library who is interested in such things.  It can also be read online, for free, here.

I am drawing attention to this work because it is a helpful summary of the “open communion” position (i.e., defined as allowing all who are believers in Christ to come to the Lord’s Table, regardless of their mode of baptism) Turner’s writing has a surprisingly modern feel to it, and I suspect that any who would read it would do so with profit.  (The only adjustment you would likely have to make, by the way, is making sure that you do not mistake the older English “s” for an “f” ((minus the crossbar)) since the latter is how they communicated the former ((except, apparently, when they used “ss” which appears, roughly, as “fs”)), but it’s an easy enough adjustment to make.)

Turner writes, he says, because he has heard “that I, and the Church under my care, have been severely censured by several of our stricter brethren of the Baptist denomination, for admitting Poedobaptists to commune with us at the Lord’s Table” (3).  He then gives his reasons for allowing infant-baptized believers to come to the table.  These reasons include:  because all who are saved “must have an equalright to ALL the privileges of the Gospel,” because he doesn’t feel that they have a “sufficient warrant” to exclude these believers, that excluding such believers from “the means of his grace” makes them “guilty of invading the prerogative of Christ,” because Jesus accepts infant-baptized Christians “at his table,” because if Jesus overlooks their mistake on baptism, so can we, because “we are expressly commanded to receive the weak in faith,” and because showing charity to those with whom we differ may go a long way towards building unity and opening doors of conversation.

Turner then moves on to answer some objections to their practice.  He upholds “the right of private judgment” and the need not to disobey conscience in interpreting scripture.  Problematically, in my opinion, he write thus:

“If my Poedobaptist brother is satisfied in his own mind, that he is rightly baptised, he is so tohimself, and, while the answer of a good conscience attends it, God will, and does own him in it, to all the ends designed by it, so that while he considers it as laying him under the same obligations to holiness in heart and life as I consider my baptism to do me, why should he not commune with me at the table of our common Lord?”

Obviously, this opens Turner up to the charge of subjectivizing truth itself, which he anticipates in the next objection, which he expresses in these terms:  “that the allowing of this free and open Communion, is the way to beget a cold indifference to the cause of truth, and by degrees entirely ruin it.”  To this, Turner argues that such an assertion is merely theoretical, that this destroying of truth itself has not been witnessed in churches that practice open communion and that, on the contrary, showing charity to differing interpretations tends to earn the truth itself a greater hearing, not a lesser respect.

I remain concerned, however, about this particular train of thought.  I think Turner is at his best arguing for charity and pointing out the lack of a command excluding infant-baptized believers.  To suggest, however, that if a person is baptized in their own mind, they are indeed baptized, opens a Pandora’s box for the kind of grotesque relativizing of truth we see in our own age.  Let me quickly add, however, that I think this is simply a weak argument, or one that he did not flesh out enough, not that Turner himself was a relativist.  It is clear enough that he believed in truth and that he was, in fact, a Baptist by conviction.  Again, this is simply not his best argument.

Finally, Turner draws an interesting parallel between the Baptists and paedobpatists and the Jewish-Gentile conflicts of the first century.  He argues that Jews and Gentiles who came to know Christ had to learn to love one another and honor one another within the same church, even with their differences.  So too, he says, those who differ on baptism must do the same.

This is a helpful and interesting work on a topic that remains relevant to this day.  I would encourage you to read it.

David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

This review will be regrettably brief since, for some reason, I have waited a very long time to write this since finishing David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion.  Even so, I wanted to post at least a strong recommendation of the work because of the significant contribution I believe it makes to the literature responding to the so-called “New Atheism.”  In fact, I would count Berlinski’s work up there with (though still beneath) David Bentley Hart’s insofar as responses to atheism go, though the works are very different in so many ways.

It is a perplexing and intriguing book from a modern polymath.  Berlinski is not a Christian and claims no particular religious beliefs at all, other than, I presume, theism.  He is Jewish by birth and a mathematician by profession.  He possesses a frequently humorous, sometimes eccentric and oftentimes dazzling intellect that probably warrants him the admittedly overused monikor of “rennaissance man.” He speaks of mathematics, philosophy, science, physics and theology in ways that reveal significant study in these field, and, refreshigly, he does so with an often-moving literary flourish.

Essentially, Berlinski is skewering the pretentiousness and patronizing absurdities of the assumptions of modernity, and, particularly, of scientific modernity, in this work.  He paints a picture of theories-run-amuck in many quarters of the scientific community.  These theories are then dogmatized, Berlinski suggests, by a thin-skinned and tight-knit community which utilizes a slick media machine to demonize any who dare to question the assumptions and conclusions of this machine.  The victims, he argues, are an unsuspecting public who cower before the double barrell approach of scientific obfuscation and media aggressiveness.

In saying these things, Berlinski is not pandering to ignorant, anti-science bigots who want to be shielded from uncomfortable conclusions.  Rather, he demonstrates his thesis in profound and provocative ways that I can only encourage you to read.  You may or may not agree with all of Berlinski’s conclusions, but I daresay you cannot read this work without appreciating his case that a great many of the mantras of modernity, scientific and philosophical, are buttressed by establishment-driven and media-propagated agendas.

Read this book.

 

The 2012 Little Portion Hermitage Retreat with Michael Card

Our Minister of Music, Billy Davis, and I are in Eureka Springs, AR, at a retreat hosted by the Little Portion Hermitage and being led by Michael Card.  The retreat is centered around the gospel of Matthew though it has begun with Card offering concluding comments on the gospel of Mark with which he dealt last year.

Tonight’s session was tremendous, as Card sang, led us in song and offered some fascinating comments on Mark.  I thought I might offer my notes from the session here.  They are raw and offered as I took them.  I hope, however, that they might communicate a bit of the content of Card’s teaching.  I will add my notes from tomorrow’s sessions sometime either tomorrow night or Sunday.

 

Michael Card – Matthew Conference
Little Portion Retreat Center
Eureka Springs, AR
2012
MARK RECAP
– the Fall has disintegrated us / affects us on a cellular level / affects relationships / affects the way we read the Bible (head or heart)
– Deuteronomy 6:5 – the Shema (the great creed of monotheism)
– the best way we can show God we love Him is to listen to Him
– the imagination integrates the heart and the mind
– the Bible is not didactic, it demands that you engage / we are not stamp collectors
– the incarnation, the Lord’s table: we must engage
– we take a fact and seek to integrate (what does that mean?)
– who is Mark?  Acts 12, when Peter busts out of prison by angel, goes to Mark’s house / they are praying for Peter’s release / Marks’s cousin is Barnabas / Mark bugs out on 1st missionary journey / Barnabas goes with Mark / eventually restored to Paul / Mark’s mother Mary is important / Mark’s house may be the locus of the ministry in Jerusalem / may have been led to the Lord by Peter
– July 19, 64 AD – fire in Rome / 1 Peter 4:11, end of one letter & 4:12 beginning of second (“fiery” trial, Babylon = Rome, lion = Nero)
– only in Mark: Jesus with wild beasts / Jesus’ family thought He was out of His mind (the experience of the Christians)
– fast movement in Mark / “only 22 minutes of face time with Jesus” / no interest in “the sayings of Jesus”
– Mark is the only gospel without an agenda (not a bad thing that the other gospels have an agenda)
– Mark gives us the emotional life of Jesus (Peter probably behind this) / 15 adjectives to describe emotion, more than other gospels
– in Mark, Jesus is consistently covered up by people / rarely if ever does He get irritated with the crowd
– Mark 1-8 & Mark 9-16, both end with confessions, Peter and the Roman Centurion
– Bartimaeus (bar = “son of”)
– the gospel of Mark is all about Bartimaeus
– He is the disciple that Jesus has been looking for for three long years
– believing before healing is a theme in Mark: Peter confesses before n / man whose daughter dies / “Come down from the cross so we may see then believe.”
– Bartimaeus is blind = perfect disciple
– Mark 10:46-52 [with bracketed comments throughout]
46 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, [Mark and John translate but Matthew never does] was sitting by the roadside.
47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus [The only person in Mark who calls Him “Jesus”], Son of David, have mercy [hesed – 250 times in OT / translated in 14 different ways / KJV = “loving kindness” / Bruce Waltke – when the person from whom I have no right to expect anything gives me everything] on me!”
48 And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” [persistence]
49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart. Get up; he is calling you.”
50 And throwing off his cloak [that’s all he owns], he sprang up and came to Jesus.
51 And Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi, let me recover my sight.”
52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.
Components of Bartimaeus’ story
1. Blind
2. Mercy
3. Persistent
4. “Jesus”
5. Leaves cloak
6. “go”
– Put yourself in this model. What would you ask of Him? You could be the disciple He has been looking for.
– distinction between primary and secondary: these details and nuances are secondary, but what the Bible clearly says are primary / bullet theology: those ideas you’d take a bullet for

MATTHEW

Saturday, June 26, 2012

– review of the Bartimaeus assignment – plugging yourself in the story (share time) / [It’s really moving hearing how others have plugged themselves into that story.  You can really hear the frustration and pain in some of these voices as they call out to Jesus, like Bartimaeus, for help.  I think we sometimes forget the power of testimony, or I do.]

– learning to listed to the voice of Matthew

– problem with Matthew:  Matthew’s voice is less-distinct / i.e., John has a developed voiced over a long period of time, Mark – friend of Peter, etc., Luke – medical doctor, historian, etc. / but with Matthew, not developed around his personality:  i.e., Matthew is the most Jewish gospel and it’s written by the worst Jew (tax collector for Rome, etc.)

– this is secondary, not bullet-worthy

– the most Old Testament:  36 references, more than all other gospels

– only one unique tax collector story, the Temple tax collector, but that wasn’t the kind of taxes he collected

– the voice you hear in Matthew is that of “a Christian scribe” (in the scribal tradition) / scribe was an expert in the Law / knows his O.T., integrated with Judaism, but a Christian

– earliest word on Matthew from Papias in 103 AD [sources:  (Eusebius – Church History, read carefully) / need to read the (Babylonian) Talmud (commentary on the Mishnah – 20 volumes) and the Mishnah / Suetonius –Lives of the Caesars / Tacitus – Annals / Pliny the Younger – Letters / Ginsburg – Antiquity of the Jews (4 volumes, free on Kindle)] / Papias says that Matthew collected a series of logia, a collection of sayings (in Matthew we have 5 blocks of sayings of Jesus)

– 22 minutes of face time with Jesus in Mark

– Block 1 – 5:1-7:27 / Block 2 – 10:5-42 / Block 3 – 13:1-52 / Block 4 – 18:1-35 / Block 5 – 23:1

– Point 1:  the gospel wasn’t written by Matthew, it contains sayings of Jesus that were put together by Christian scribes

– Point 2:  we connect with Matthew by understanding to whom the gospel was written

– Crisis in Galilee:  Matthew is the gospel of Galilee / the explanation for Jesus moving to Galilee is only in Matthew / Matthew likely written for a synagogue community in Galilee (a new idea / the old idea:  that Matthew was written in Antioch for Christians)

– Galilee:  old idea – rural, “kind of a hick place,” people made fun of it / in truth, Galilee was the most heavily populated area in the East / Josephus, the governor of Galilee, estimates the population at 3 million (modern scholars refuse to do that) / looked down upon, marginal Jews

– crisis: Judaism is divided / Talmud says that when Judah is divided into 24 sections, it will fall / that comment was made right before 70 AD

– the Gospel of Matthew was written to Christians who don’t know they’re Christians / question in Acts: do I have to become a Jew before I can become a Christian? / when Claudius kicks the Jews out of Rome, he kicks them all out, including Christians / Christianity, a sect of Judaism / look for the use of the word “synagogue” in Matthew

– 40 AD: Caligula orders statue of self put up in Temple, but dies before it happens

– 52 AD: Claudius kicks Jews out of Rome

– 66 AD: First Jewish revolt begins in Galilee

– 70 AD: the destruction of the Temple (read Josephus’ account – he was there and was begging the Jews to give up – was allowed to go in and save one of his friends who was hanging on a cross)

– what does it mean that the Temple was destroyed? / what it means is, “it’s over”:  no more priests, no more Sadduccees, Herodians are gone, Essenes are gone, Pharisees are all you have left / Pharisees allowed to go to a city called Jamnia (modern, Javneh) where they reform Judaism (where the Mishnah comes from) – how are we going to replace Temple sacrifice, answer:  Torah observance (studying the Bible in the synagogue – accepted which books in the O.T.) / Gamaliel II (grandson of Paul’s teacher)

– Matthew written right around 70 AD, maybe a little before, maybe a little after / we need to be careful not to superimpose post-70 AD Judaism on pre-70 AD Judaism, the two are not synonymous

– Pharisees are not one monolithic group, all opposed to Jesus / the Pharisees divided themselves into 7 groups / all of these groups are divided / Jesus not coming up against a monolithic movement

– the big crisis:  Jamnia, “the 18 Benedictions,” 18 prayers / benediction = barocha, blessings / Gamaliel II asked Samuel the Small, a rabbi, to compose a blessing (benediction #12) / For the apostates, let there be no hope…let the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed in a moment and blotted out of the book of life / this created a crisis with the Christians meeting in synagogue / Talmud says to watch closely who does and does not pronounce the 12th benediction in synagogue / Christians being shown the door in Galilee (whether it’s happened yet in Matthew or not, it’s about to happen)

– the Gospel of Matthew is written to establish their new identity / faithful Jews in Galilee being kicked out of synagogue / shunned by families / ratted out by friends (i.e., “He did not pronounce benediction 12.”) / if you can’t recite that benediction, you’re bound / “Jews for Jesus” face this same phenomenon today / son of the orthodox rabbi in Nashville became a Christian and they put up a tombstone for him – “You’re dead to me.” / reading Matthew in this paradigm will make Matthew come alive for you / we do this kind of background work when we approach Paul’s letters but not so much when we come to the gospel

– major theme in Matthew:  kingdom / you’re part of a kingdom and Jesus is the King

– identity in Matthew’s gospel (working through “Identity in Matthew’s Gospel” handout)

– recommended McReynold’s Word Study New Testament

– Identity as an Organizing Principle for the Gospel of Matthew

– lepers are made clean:  has a new identity / you can do this all through Matthew

– Chapter 9 – Matthew given his name in the same way Jesus gave the other disciples new nicknames (Card’s own opinion)

– bleeding one, outcast, given a new identity

– the word “apostle” was recently applied to a ship – “something that is sent out”

– John the Baptist questions the identity of Jesus

– Lord of the Sabbath – probably one of the most shocking things the Jews ever heard / Card was once in Israel at a restaurant when they accidently served a Jewish woman non-kosher food.  She went crazy and tore the kitchen apart: breaking plates, dishes, windows, etc. / Lord of the Sabbath – Jesus is even Lord over the right things, like the Sabbath. / Jesus is Lord over your Catholicism, your Protestantism, your right interpretations, your theology, etc.

– (Bill Lane believe that Jesus became gradually aware of who He was.)

– Jesus and Beelzebub: confronting a false identity

– seed parables

– (Card says that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t work – this identity scheme, but he’s working on it) / all the uniquenesses about Matthew have to do with identity

– Transfiguration: an identity issue

– ch.19 – Rich Young Ruler – identity = you follow Me, but he can’t embrace his new identity

– (identity is not just a major theme, it is an organizing principle)

– all self-disclosure in the Bible is Christological / we are defined by Christ

– the workers in the vineyard: identity

– sons of Zebedee: need to think about whether or not you really want to embrace My identity

– Temple cleansing / Jesus’ prophetic identity / etc.

– Mary’s anointing in Matthew 26 – (a woman’s intuition is often better than a man’s wisdom)

– Gethsemane:  Jesus’ ultimate struggle with His identity

– Peter and Judas both betray Jesus:  Peter weeps and repents, Judas tries to fix it / people who try to fix things usually end up hanging from trees

– Card’s diagram on the “Carmen Christi” (Philippians 2) and the Lordship of Jesus

 

We were unable to stay for the remainder of the retreat and had to get home, but both of us agreed that Card’s handling of Mark and Matthew were profound, insightful and edifying.  I would highly recommend the IVP books he is currently publishing on the gospels.

Akers, Armstong, and Woodbridge’s (eds.) This We Believe

“Of the making of books there is no end.” This is true enough, but we might also say, “Of the making of doctrinal statements there is no end.” There has been a rash of Protestant and ostensibly Evangelical doctrinal statements published recently. However, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration” is one of the more ambitious efforts out there today. Its list of signees is impressive and its marketing scheme (cheap mass-market editions and pastors’ edititions) has obviously been well thought out.

This We Believe includes the statement as well as chapters by noted Evangelical authors speaking in further detail to divided portions of it. While the chapters are by and large very good, the statement itself, presented in its entirety in an appendix, is the best part of the book.

I believe this is a very good statement. It is broadly Evangelical without being excessively latitudinarian. It speaks with conviction but not an undue harshness. It has obviously been prayed over and labored over for some time.

One hopes that this statement will receive a wide hearing and acceptance. The list of signees should guarantee the former. We may hope that a committment to biblical fidelity and cautious ecumenism will guarantee the latter. You will enjoy this book.

David Bentley Hart’s The Devil and Pierre Gernet

When I first heard that the inimitable David Bentley Hart was publishing a collection of short stories I was almost excited as when I heard that the inimitable David Bentley Hart is publishing a (still forthcoming) translation of the New Testament.  Hart is a Greek Orthodox theologian and classicist.  He authored the staggering book, Atheist Delusions a few years back, for which he won the Michael Ramsey Prize.  He is also a frequent contributor to First Things, where he is currently authoring the concluding article for each issue.  Furthermore, his The Doors of the Sea is one of the more erudite and provocative takes on theodicy that I have ever seen.

Hart is an intellectual who writes theology and history and observations with a certain literary flourish that stops just short of being pretentious but just after the point of establishing his brilliance as a thinker and writer.  He is a wordsmith with a keen sense of insight and perception. I almost never read him when I don’t come away bettered by the experience.

The thought of DBH writing fiction seemed only natural to me when I first heard of it, and it was with bated breath that Mrs. Richardson and I dove into the collection which we finished just a couple of days ago.  The Devil and Pierre Gernet is vintage Hart:  lush and occasionally recondite writing that never leads the reader so far afield that they cannot see at least the shadows of the intended gist.  I kept thinking of Umberto Eco while reading Hart’s fiction, an analogy that he perhaps would not appreciate given his recent piece on Eco, self-explanatorily entitled “The Inertia of Reputation.”  What I mean, though, is that Hart’s writing and style and approach is Ecoan at its best, which is to say that it tantalizes with arcanae without losing the reader in the author’s own idiosyncratic intelligence.

The stories are quite interesting.  “The Devil and Pierre Gernet” reads somewhat like a more nuancedScrewtape Letters set in narrative.  It is less didactic in nature, but equally forceful in its effect.  “The House of Apollo,” perhaps my favorite of the stories, deals with Julian the Apostate’s efforts at the re-paganization of the Roman Empire.  It is pitiful and humorous in its depiction of the frustrated Emporer’s misguided efforts and, perhaps more than any of these stories, depicts the central themes of Atheist Delusions in a fictional vehicle.  “A Voice from the Emerald World” was probably the most moving of the stories, depicting as it does a married couple’s efforts at coping with the death of their child.  “The Ivory Gate” and “The Other” are both well-written but curious stories on which I continue to ruminate, the former being about a dying man’s struggle with transendence and the implications of his own recurring dreams, the latter being about…well…as I say, I’m still ruminating on it!

The reading of these stories requires some effort and some work, as the reading of most great stories inevitably does.  If you would like to read some very well-written, occasionally challenging, frequently humorous and always worthwhile tales, this is a great book to which to turn.

Martin Hengel’s Crucifixion

I cannot rightly remember, but I believe I picked up Martin Hengel’s wonderfully helpful little book,Crucifixion, while a student at Southwestern Seminary in the mid 90’s.  At that time, I did a thorough skimming of it, highlighting and underlining some of the more fascinating references to crucifixion from antiquity which I have subsequently used throughout the years in sermons.  I found it, at that time, extremely helpful and promising and I determined, after that initial approach, to read it more thoroughly later.  Having finally done so, I can say that this book is even more helpful than I previously realized.  Furthermore, it is strangely moving and inspiring in its theological reflections on the cross.

That being said, the work is not primarily theological.  It is rather a historical compendium of ancient references to the act of crucifixion.  Hengel primarily considers references from Roman and Greek antiquity, returning time and again to scriptural references throughout.

The book is significant for a number of reasons.  First, it is a fascinating compendium of primary citations demonstrating the ancient view of crucifixion.  Hengel combs historical narratives, ancient literary works and the mythologies of the time for any reference to the act of crucifixion.  The result is the construction of an illuminating and compelling case for the monolithic disdain of the cross throughout antiquity.  It definitively demonstrates the opprobrium with which the word and the act were greeted in that time.

Second, there is a helpful commentary element to this work.  While not intended to be a commentary, Hengel’s deftly-handled interaction between ancient references to crucifixion and the biblical references are extremely helpful.  After reading Hengel’s work, you will read the biblical references to the cross with a heightened sense of the cultural context in which the cross of Christ was raised.  This is most beneficial.

Third, and most importantly, Hengel’s book goes a long way towards returning the scandal back to the original gospel proclamation.  Few ancient ideas have been so domesticated as the cross. After two millennia of religious cultural diminishment, the cross stands as a mere religious symbol.  It is very difficult for those of us who have grown up in a culture in which the cross is a piece of jewelry, a tattoo, a sign on a billboard or a graphic design on a t-shirt to appreciate the horror and outrage that the original proclamation of Christ and him crucified received.  Hengel’s work will jolt you into appreciating this forgotten but crucial dynamic.

I mentioned that the work is strangely moving.  That is true.  In fact, it has an almost devotional quality about it, though that was not Hengel’s intent.  I daresay that no believer can read this book and not be struck once again by the beauty and grace of our crucified and risen Savior.  I daresay you will marvel, after reading the citations that Hengel has assembled and the explanations that he offers, that God chose to redeem His people in just this way.

Read this book.

Galatians 6:14-16

Galatians 6:14-16

 

14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 

I would like to begin my sermon this morning by saying a bad word, an obscene word.  Or, to be more precise, by saying a word that used to be considered obscene two-thousand years ago.  The word has had an interesting journey for reasons we will discuss today, but, make no mistake about it, the word I am going to share with you today was once considered profoundly obscene and profane.

Two millennia ago, in Greece, Rome and the civilized world at that time, this word was largely off limits. It was taboo, obscene, profane.  This word was largely avoided as something beneath the dignity of cultured people.  People knew it happened, of course, the act that this word signified.  It happened not infrequently.  But it was a kind of open secret.  In fact, from the 3rd century onward, the word that rested at the center of this one act was actually used as a vulgar word, a profane word.  History often puts the word on the lips of slaves and prostitutes from that time, but virtually never on the lips of cultured, respectable people.  It was too scandalous to be on the lips of respectable people.  The Roman Varro said that even the sound of this word was too unpleasant for ears to hear.  Martin Hengel said that, to ancient people, this word was “utterly offensive” and “obscene.”[1]  In fact, most writers considered the subject that this word spoke of as so distasteful that they almost never mention it.

The Romans and Greeks practiced this act, but in their writings they referred to the act itself as shameful, infamous, barren, criminal and terrible.  Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian, referred to this act as “the most wretched” of acts.  Cicero called it “that plague.”  The Stoic philosopher Seneca said that what this word signified could only arise from the basest of human emotions, anger.

The word I’m talking about is the word crux in Latin.  In English, we translate crux as “cross.”  Two thousand years ago, and before that even, the word cross was essentially a swear word, a profane word.  It was profane because crucifixion on a cross was reserved for the worst of criminals.  The ancient jurist Julius Paulus (200 A.D.) wrote the Sententia.  In it, he listed the worst punishments for the worst crimes.  The crux (cross) is listed as the summa supplicia.  It sits above crematio (burning) anddecollation (decapitation) in Paulus’ list.

The early Roman opponents of Christianity were shocked and outraged that this new group, the Christians, would present their Lord as having been crucified.  In fact, they considered the Christian focus on the cross as a sign of madness, what Pliny the Younger called amentia, or a mental disorder.  Minucius Felix had one of his literary characters refer to the “sick delusions” of the Christians.  He called Christianity a “senseless and crazy superstition” leading to “old-womanly superstition.”  His main complaint was the fact that Christians dared to worship somebody who had been crucified.  He said:

To say that [the Christians’] ceremonies centre on a man put to death for his crime and on the fatal wood of the cross is to assign to these abandoned wretches sanctuaries which are appropriate to them and the kind of worship they deserve.

In ancient oracle of Apollo, a man complains that his wife has become a Christian.  He is told:

Let her continue as she pleases, persisting in her vain delusions, and lamenting in song a god who died in delusions, who was condemned by judges whose verdict was just, and executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron.

The ancient parody De Morte Peregrini calls Christians “poor devils” for believing in a crucified God. Some early anti-Christian graffiti from the Palatine shows a crucified man with a donkey’s head and the words, “Alexamenos worships his god.”

 

I want you to see this morning how utterly abhorrent the idea of worshipping anybody who had hung on the cursed tree of the cross was to the ancient world.  In truth, it is abhorrent to the world today as well. But more than that, I want you to see how those who knew Jesus, those who walked with Jesus, those who, like Paul, had had an encounter with Jesus came to see in this despised word a thought so beautiful, so unbelievable and so shockingly hopeful that their lives were altered forever.

I. The cross redefines our understanding of ourselves and our abilities. (v.14a)

We are considering today the Apostle Paul’s conclusion to his great letter to the Galatians.  He starts his conclusion in a jarring manner.

14a But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ

“But far be it from me…” Paul writes.  John MacArthur notes that “far be it from me” (or “may it never be”) “translates me genoito, a strong negative that carries the idea of virtual impossibility.”[2]  In other words, it is impossible in Paul’s mind for him to boast about anything other than the cross.

Keeping in mind how obscene this word was to the ancient world, can you imagine how flabbergasting this statement must have sounded to the people of that time?  The great Roman Cicero wrote that the very word “cross” “should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears,” and here is Paul proclaiming that this word is his greatest boast and his greatest hope!

We must try to get how shocking this idea was!  In the mid-20th century, the Southern Baptist minister Clarence Jordan tried to reclaim this sense of shock for Southern Christians in the 1950s and 60s.  He did this by paraphrasing the verse in his famous Cotton Patch Gospels in this way:  “God forbid that I should ever take pride in anything, except in the lynching of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[3]

At that time, with the great racial upheavals in the South, that was Jordan’s best shot at getting people to understand how unexpected Paul’s boasting in the cross was.  It is hard to think of a parallel in our culture.  The cross, for us, has been domesticated.  We frankly have to work to find the cross offensive. We grew up looking at the cross, singing about the cross and thanking God for the cross.

But the cross was a bloody scene of execution in the ancient world.  It was not a piece of jewelry and it was not on any 100% cotton t-shirts.  It was not pretty, ornate, decorated or stylish.  Musicians did not wear it and athletes did not have it on gold chains.

The idea of the cross as something beautiful would never have been imagined in the ancient world.  To them, it was a brutal, barbaric, but necessary act reserved only for the worst of the worst.

And here we find Paul, in the midst of that same culture, writing “far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

His boasting in the cross was amazing enough, but notice the beginning of the verse:  he proclaims that he will boast in nothing but.  Meaning, the cross of Jesus has now become more important to Paul than his own sense of self, his own accomplishments and his own abilities.

The cross, in other words, changed Paul’s view of Paul.  Why?  Because Paul knew that his greatest efforts could only accomplish the sins for which Christ died on the cross.  Paul knew that, at his peak, he was an enemy of God and blind to the things of God.  Paul had seen himself at what the world would have called “Paul’s best” and he knew that his best was nothing but a sham and a shame.

Church, the cross is where we see ourselves for who we really are.  This is why the cross remains repellant to many people today.  People who want to boast in themselves hate the cross, for the cross calls for us to see our own sins and weaknesses and failings.  The cross demands humility and surrender.

For those who are willing to surrender, however, the cross is our greatest boast and our greatest hope. The way of the cross leads home for the way of the cross leads us from the death of our own rebel souls.  The cross and the resurrection leads us to God through Christ.  The cross redefines us.

Carl F.H. Henry said, “How can anybody be arrogant who stands beside the cross.”  Indeed!  How indeed!

II. The cross establishes a life-giving disconnect between the believer and the world. (v.14b)

Paul then says something even more shocking and enigmatic.  He says:

14b But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Some commentators have noted the fact that, biblically, the cross speaks of three crucifixions:  the crucifixion of Jesus, the crucifixion of the world to the believer and the crucifixion of the believer to the world.  Of course, there is only one cross, one crucifixion that matters:  the cross of Jesus.  But what Paul is doing in the latter half of Galatians 6:14 is unpacking the deep and profound implications of Christ’s cross:  “by which the world has been crucified to me, and the I to the world.”

First, in the cross of Jesus, the world has been crucified to us.  Paul is using the word “world” here to refer to the fallen, anti-Christ, rebellious, wicked world order:  its assumptions, its values, its arrogance, its love of evil.  This world does not own us anymore.  It does not control us.  It does not define us.  It does not give us our marching orders.  It does not tell us how we will live.  The world no longer has us in its grasp.

When Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave, the power of sin, death, hell and the world was shattered.  We still live in it and we still battle against it, but we have been given victory over it.

Furthermore, Paul says that he has been crucified to the world.  This communicates a posture of basic hostility between the church of the Lord Jesus Christ and the fallen world order and system.  To the world, Paul is now insane, deluded, foolish and weak.  The world that once respected Paul now think he has lost it and has been duped.  The world now hates Paul’s values, Paul’s new sense of right and wrong, Paul’s devotion to this crucified Jesus.

In his usually subtle way, Martin Luther comments on this verse and says:

“Paul regards the world as damned, and the world regards him as damned.  He abhors all the doctrine, righteousness, and acts of the world as the poison of the devil.  The world detests Paul’s doctrine and acts and regards him as a seditious, pernicious, pestilent fellow and a heretic.  The world’s judgment concerning religion and righteousness before God and the devil are contrary to one another.  God is crucified to the devil, and the devil to God; God condemns the doctrine and acts of the devil (1 John 3:8), and the devil condemns and overthrows the Word and acts of God, for he is a murderer and the father of lies.  So the world condemns the doctrine and life of godly people, calling them pernicious heretics and troubleers of the public peace.  And faithful people call the world the son of the devil, following its father’s steps as a murderer and liar.”[4]

What this means is the cross establishes a life-giving disconnect between the believer and the world. This disconnect can be temporarily difficult, for it means we now live in a world that does not and cannot understand us.  But it is a life-giving disconnect in that it frees us from a world system that, if it had its way, would drag us to hell with it.

Friends, some of you have experienced this disconnect.  You have received opposition in your workplaces or in your homes or, Heaven forbid, even in your churches when you have tried to follow and love Jesus. Some of you have felt the sting of the world’s reproach when you have stood up for what God’s Word calls the truth.  Some of you have paid prices for refusing to abandon the way of Jesus in how you conduct your business, in how you stand for the truth, in how your live as a spouse or as a parent or as a friend.

Please remember that Paul said the world had been crucified to him and him to the world.  This is not a call for abandonment of the world.  We must love those in the world and plead with them to come to Christ, but recognize that the cross of Jesus affects a disconnect that it will be observable, palpable and real when you seek to walk in the ways of the Lord.

III. The cross is the means by which we come into a new way of living. (v.15)

Yes, the cross changed everything for Paul, as he next reveals:

15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

The cross affects a new creation.  This is where we cannot speak of the cross without remembering the resurrection.  The two great events go hand in hand.  Because Paul had died to self and embraced the cross and because Paul was so enraptured by the beauty of Christ crucified and risen again that he could boast in nothing else and because Paul’s immersion in the ways of the world had been severed on the cross, Paul was not able to become a new creation in the midst of the renewal of creation itself.  Jesus was making all things new, including Paul!

New Testament scholar Leon Morris notes concerning this verse that “[Paul’s] acceptance of the crucified Christ was not simply an interesting episode:  it was a death to a whole way of life and a rising to a new mode of existence.”[5]  It was a new way of living life.  The only thing that “counts for anything,” to Paul, is “new creation.”  He must now become a new creation in Christ.

In another of his letters, Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

He understood what we must understand, that Christ came to replant Eden, to redeem us from the curse, to win the battle!  Our brother John put it prophetically like this in Revelation 21:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.

Can you say what Paul has said!  Can you say, “The things that used to matter to me do not matter anymore.  The bigger paycheck does not mean what it used to mean, because of the cross of Jesus.  The perfect job does not mean what it used to mean, because of the cross of Jesus.  Fame does not mean what it used to mean.  The desire to be the best does not mean what it used to mean.  The need for more does not mean what it used to mean.  The frantic search for pleasure does not mean what it used to mean.  The need to be adored, the need to be feared, the need to be respected, the need to be successful, the need to be popular, the need to have it all…none of that matters now to me, all because of the cross of Jesus.  All that matters to me now is becoming a new creation in Christ and being useful in God’s great work of bringing new creation into all things!”

In 1707, the great hymn writer Isaac Watts wrote a hymn expressing the truth of our text this morning. This hymn has been rightly adored throughout the ages.  Charles Wesley, another great hymn writer, said that he would gladly give up all the hymns that he wrote if he could only have written this one.  Hear Isaac Watts’ hymn:

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

 

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,

Save in the death of Christ my God!

All the vain things that charm me most,

I sacrifice them to His blood.

 

See from His head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down!

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

 

His dying crimson, like a robe,

Spreads o’er His body on the tree;

Then I am dead to all the globe,

And all the globe is dead to me.

 

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.

IV. The cross is an invitation to a life in which God pours His peace and mercy upon us. (v.16)

Paul reveled in the cross.  But the cross, to Paul, was not stuck in time.  Oh, it was a one-time event, an event that, by its nature, could never be repeated.  Yet it was a living, daily reality, not a stagnant, historical truth.  He reveals this in the next verse.

16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Paul speaks here of the life-altering reality of the cross as a “rule.”  Craig Keener notes that “Jewish teachers described their moral laws derived from the Old Testament law as halakah, which literally means, ‘walking’…Paul blesses those who ‘walk by this rule’ (NASB) as opposed to the ‘rule’ of Jewishhalakah.”[6]

We must remember that, in Galatians, Paul is concerned with freeing the believers in Christ from the legalist rules of the Judaizers who were saying that you must have “Jesus plus”:  Jesus+circumcision, Jesus+kosher, Jesus+following the customs.  In calling the way of the cross a “rule” he is contrasting it with the burdensome “rules” of the false teachers.  As if to say, “If you demand rules of the people of God, let our rule be this:  the rule of the cross, the rule of the crucified and risen Jesus!”

Christ is our halakah, our rule!

Notice that the cross is an invitation to a way of life, a way in which we are invited to walk.

16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

We have come to treat the cross as a bank of salvation that we rob and leave.  We have come to treat the cross as a pantry that we raid for eternal goodies.

But the cross is a way, it is a life.  We walk in it and by it and in the shadow of it.  The result:  “peace and mercy.”

Let us return to the cross as a living reality, an ever-present reminder and motivation.  Let us free it from its status in the religious museum of our own customs.

The way of the cross leads home.  It leads to Jesus.  It leads to life.

Love the cross of Christ.

May the Christ who took the cross change you now and forever.

 



[1] Martin Hengel. Crucifixion. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), p.22.  The many quotations and references in the opening illustration for this sermon come from Hengel’s tremendous and very helpful work.

[2] John MacArthur, Jr., Galatians. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1987), p.204.

[3] Quoted in Timothy George, Galatians. The New American Commentary. Vol.30 (Nasvhille, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1994), p.436.

[4] Martin Luther, Galatians. The Crossway Classics Commentaries. Eds. Alister McGrath and J.I. Packer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), p.299-300.

[5] Leon Morris, Galatians. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p.189.

[6] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p.534,537.