"Who is a Jew?" Revisited

My home group has been studying the Book of Galatians for over a year and a half now. Its a book that can be easily misunderstood. Most misunderstand the question that Paul is trying to answer. He isn't trying to answer a dilemma between Law and Grace. Paul is trying to answer the question: Who is a Jew?

I've finally found a succinct summary of the position I have been developing on Christian Identity. It turns out that Spurlock from Bereans Online has already beaten me to it and saved me a lot of time:

• Eph 2:1-10 Gentiles become a part of Israel by grace and faith.
• Eph 2:11-12 Are no longer Gentiles. Not "commonwealth" but citizenship enjoying the full rights and benefits of any other member of Israel.
• Eph 2:13 Ex-Gentiles have been brought near
• Eph 2:14-16 The dividing well having been removed by Christ. Spurlock refers to the "18 measures." What are they?
• Eph 2:17-21 Peace not just between God and Mankind but also peace within the house of God.
• Eph 3:1-6 Thus the ex-Gentiles are part of the same body, fellow heirs with the incumbent members and partakers of the same promises.

One king, One people, One Torah: Echad. The fulfilment of John 17:16-22.

If this is true, then even more questions arise, here's one or two:

1. If all believers are to obey the Torah, then what are we to do with 1 Corinthians 7:17-24?
2. Should all Christians be making Aliyah?
3. Where should Christians then stand on the Middle Eastern peace process?

For further reading:  who_is_a_jew.pdf (bethimmanuel.org)

September 28: Another Major Christchurch Earthquake Predicted: How not to assess prophecy

Buildings burn following the September 2010 Christchurch Earthquake

You may not know it but there is quite a buzz going on in some Christian circles as several prophecies are circulating the city, predicting a major earthquake event affecting Christchurch at the end of the month.  Some credence has also been added by other forecasters such as Ken Ring, who bases his theories on the movements of Moon's orbit.

The most widely circulated prophecy can be obtained here.

How should a Christian process such a document?

A written response from a number of prominent Christchurch Protestant church leaders might give us some insight.  Their responses can be found here and here.

All the leaders acknowledge that they cannot definitively rule out that the prophecy is true.  Their call to individual prayer and meditation is also useful and constructive. 

Their causes for doubting it may be summarised as follows:

1. Date and time specific prophecies never come true.
2. We are in an "Age of Grace" so God would never administer judgment like this.
3. God's prophecies are always encouraging and edifying.  This prophecy only promulgates fear and panic.  God wouldn't act like this.
4. Other prominent leaders don't "witness" or feel that God is speaking to them in the same way, confirming it.
5. The source of the prophecy lacks credibility.

It is a useful technique to challenge positions such as these by looking for counter-examples from the bible as a test procedure.  How do these four factors measure up when put through this test?

1. Date and time specific prophecies:  Despite David MacGregor not being able to recall any, in fact there are quite a few prophecies which are date and time specific.  A few biblical examples include: Joseph's prediction of seven years of plentiful harvest, followed by seven years of famine; Moses' prediction that the Firstborn would die from midnight on; Elisha's prediction that the siege of Samaria would be broken within 24 hours (2 Kings 6:24-7:20); Jesus' prediction of his resurrection being 3 days and nights after his death.
2. "Age of Grace": This implies that previous to this era of Grace, we were in an era where Grace was lacking.  In fact, Grace is a recurring theme throughout the bible from Genesis to Revelation.  There is no Age of Grace.  We follow a God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  A God of lovingkindness, tenderness, righteousness, justice and judgment; all in One (Jeremiah 9:24).
3. God's prophecies are always encouraging and edifying:  The corollary to this is that God's authentic prophecies don't cause fear and panic.  Is this true?  When reading the account of the Samarian siege, the King's captain doubts Elisha's prophecy.  Elisha predicts that as confirmation, the captain would not live to see it.  I'm sure the captain found it hardly edifying.  When Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem he advises his followers then to flee, warning that pregnant and nursing women would be greatly distressed.  Ananias' sudden death is another NT example.  Hardly "uplifting" stuff.
4. The "witness" of other leaders and credible sources:  MacGregor says he would like to think that God would tell the leaders of a church if he had a message such as this.  Yet God seems to make a point of singling out obscure, and unlikely messengers to bear his communiques.  Joseph was from a family of shepherds.  Moses was a Midianite shepherd.  Egyptians looked on shepherds with disdain.  Jesus was a Galilean carpenter.  Urbane Jews looked on Galileans with disdain.  God might be telling the leaders but through his chosen messengers, whoever they might be, whether they are recognized prophets or not. Even the recognized prophets can get it wrong (1 Kings 22:13-28).  I assume that Christian leaders teach their people to hear from God, then why be surprised if God chooses to speak to them?  Eli Wiesel relates the story of his journey to Auschwitz in his book "Night." During the journey a woman has a nervous breakdown and begins to hallucinate that she can see flames and that they were to burn.  She ranted and raved for hours.  Eventually she was beaten into silence.  When he stepped off the train, he saw the flames leaping from the chimney of the crematorium.  He understood.

It's easy to be dismissive.  There is little or no risk of derision.  1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 tells us not to despise prophecies but we should test all things.  Deuteronomy 18:15-22 says that we can tell a prophet after the date and time of the predicted event has past.  So can we test a prophecy in advance of its predicted occurrence?  Yes, we can.  The biblical tests are there.  What do you think they might be?  I look forward to reading your responses.

In the absence of anything else, no matter which side of the debate one might be, it is good risk management to ensure disaster survival kits are well stocked.  If you decide to leave town for a day or two, then what is the cost if nothing happens, a small amount of embarrassment?

School for Christians

Since we started looking for a suitable school for my eldest son (who is now just about to turn 6), it has struck me that in Western society, if we think something is important then we educate for it.

If you want to drive a car, then there is a "road code" that has to be studied, each chapter has its learning objectives and eventually an examination has to be passed before a learner's licence can be obtained. Even then a practical examination is also required to prove one's competency behind the steering wheel.

The principal tools of education seem to me to be:

1. Curriculum
2. Age-appropriate learning objectives
3. Assessment
4. Recognition

Most Christians would believe that the Bible is really important to living our lives under God. Yet few of these four tools are commonly used in a systematic way unless one goes to Seminary. But how many go to Seminary and why should one be typically over 18 before the benefits of education can be applied to Christian learning by a Christian?

In my experience people learn differently when they know that there is going to be a test to sit after a unit of work. Just passively listening to sermons each week doesn't cut it because:

1. Many ministers and pastors don't set out to evenly cover what the Bible has to say, instead preferring to move from topic to topic "as the spirit leads." Unfortunately this can end up leaving the congregation very familiar with that particular leader's soapboxes but their understanding of other issues are neglected.
2. The congregation learns to be an audience rather than taking responsibility for building and maintaining its understanding of the scriptures. Instead of maturing the congregation to carry out the works of the ministry they become dependent on leadership.
3. When the list of soap boxes run out they can fall into the trap that there is little else to learn and they cannot see how there can be a lifetime of inquiry and engagement with God through the Scriptures. Starved of any brain food, they apply their energy into other interests, their careers, hobbies or families.
4. Without a good understanding of the scriptures, the congregation do not know what solutions there are to life's issues and challenges that can be found there. Yet those issue's and challenges must be met, so the scriptures do not seem relevant to a modern society. Christians must then resort to secular common-sense. Non-Christians aware that this is so, do not refer to Christians since they cannot bring a unique perspective to problem solving. The church is therefore perceived as irrelevant.
5. Being brought up to be an audience means that few Christians realize that there is a work ethic that comes with Christian living. Instead a consumer culture can prevail in the Church. In Marketing 101, the needs of the market are paramount. Without moderation such a philosophy can only lead to selfishness.

I propose that Churches should run night schools for its congregation with multiple age-appropriate units of work that can be established for self study or through attendance in classes. A suite of examinations can be written that can mark the end of each module and if they aren't passed then a student can sit another examination until it is. This is the Keller Plan system.

The benefits of such a night school are manifold:

1. By running them at night, church members can attend without being distracted by work.
2. A night school can become a wonderful place for discussion and debate that can fuel interest in the Scriptures as a handbook for modern living.
3. It creates an environment for developing new talent for teaching the scriptures. If a church is almost exclusively limiting its venues for teaching to the pulpit, few individuals can find opportunity to develop their giftings.
4. If a certificate or other age-appropriate qualification was an object of study then students can be further motivated by having something to focus on and work toward.
5. Over time, church members will build their confidence to study, research, discuss and debate the Scriptures so that they find answers to life's challenges. Eventually the church will find its relevance once more.

Not all church members will find night-time courses appropriate. Young children need to sleep earlier, and the elderly may find travelling from their homes at night not only ardous but hazardous. However these methods can be adapted for sunday school teachers and parents to administer to their children; and for the elderly during the day.

By creating a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, we will address a great source of malnourishment in the Church today.

The Gospel of Moses

The Gospel of Moses is Athol Dickson's journey of discovery after he attends an interfaith bible study. In the study he discovers a new world of biblical inquiry where every question however irreverent is considered seriously. Nothing seems out of bounds, no subject too sacred for doubt and challenge:  Over time he learns of a biblical basis for questioning God. That far from being prideful or arrogant, a sincere question acknowledges the enquirer's lack of knowledge, God's power. "It honours Him."


As I follow Dickson's journey of enquiry, I find myself intrigued by the questions he seeks to unearth answers for:

• Why does Judaism hold the Shema in such high regard when the bible is replete with passages which on the face of it seem more profound?
• Why do bad things happen to good people? Is God limited in some way, unable to restrain evil or protect His chosen people?
• Israel is told to be holy because God is holy. The holiness they must maintain is compared to God's absolute standard of perfection. But is that really fair?

The Gospel of Moses exposes us to an investigation of God's paradoxes. Dickson shows that far from black holes full of risk and danger, they are portals to light and truth; opportunities to wrestle with God, engaging with Him as one friend to another. It is deep calling unto deep. This is a book that naturally leads to meditation and I highly recommend it.

-------
Sent from an Apple Newton MP2100

The Shack

With 8 million copies already sold and still more still flying off the shelves, William Young's novel "The Shack" has clearly captured the imagination of a significant proportion of the Christian community.

The Shack is a novel about a man whose daughter was abducted by a serial killer at a holiday camping ground. As time draws on and the crime remains unsolved the man descends into depression. He receives a note inviting him to meet at the Shack with "Papa."  Aware that this is his wife's nickname for God, he wonders whether or not this is someone's idea of a sick joke.  

Yet still intrigued, he takes advantage of his wife's weekend away to investigate. There, at the Shack, he meets three apparitions who represent themselves as God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son.

The novel sets up what every Christian must secretly desire, the opportunity for a one-on-one interview with God, to ask any question that has ever puzzled the believer. It's in the answers to these questions that the book has its power.  

The book conveys a sense of God's all-encompassing and heartwarming love for mankind and leaves the reader with a greater sense of love for community and acceptance of diversity. Both are important things to consider in the Western world as society adapts to new technological modes of interaction which reduce face to face engagement and relaxed immigration policies have allowed new ethnic groups to grow in different societies. In this sense, the book goes some way towards breaking down racial and religious intolerance.

The Shack has fuelled considerable controversy because of its positions regarding the nature of God, Humanity, Sin, Salvation and the Bible.  

On God and Humanity, it takes an egalitarian view of the Trinity and rejects the hierarchical order of authority traditionally held by Orthodox Christians. In Young's Trinity, God the Father has no authority over God the Son. He goes further to say that the believer is meant to join the circle of relationship as an equal partner. The reader has to put aside the idea that "no one can see God, and live."  Some of the ideas seem very similar to the now discredited Agnostic teachings.

On Sin, he rejects the concept of God's punishment (p119). He likens sin to a disease which needs to be cured. Certainly sin brings its own calamity but that does not mean that God himself does not inflict punishment. The image of God as a judge who passes sentence for certain is a prominent concept.

On Salvation, Young gives the impression that everyone has already been saved through the work of Christ and God is but waiting for everyone to accept it.  A form of universalism.

On the Bible, Young rejects the idea that God has stopped overtly communicating with His people, leaving the Bible (p63) as the sole source of contemporary revelation. He is correct but does not then go on to add that the bible disciplines these communications by providing a standard by which they can be authenticated (1Th 5.7, 1Jn 4.1).  

There is a lot more in the book but this should be sufficient to suggest that The Shack should be read guardedly.  Few things or people are wholly good or bad.  This is one book that needs some sifting.

Don't let anyone try to deflect serious discussion of this book by saying its  a work of fiction.  Using a dialogue between fictional characters as a means to convey a treatise on philosophy or some other subject of academic study is an age-old format.  Plato, Aquinas and Abelard all used it.  The Shack deserves to be treated seriously.

In the end the Shack is a great book to challenge modern readers to check if the concepts conveyed in the Shack are authenticated by the Bible and open up a new way for Christians to engage with one another in discussion and debate.

Prov 18.17

Discussion and Debate

Recently I was drawn into a discussion about the merits of studying more than one version of the bible. The idea was put forward that all biblical study should be limited to the King James Version (KJV) bible for the following reasons:

1. Reading more than one translation only leads to different perspectives, which allows more doctrinal variation and therefore more chance of error.
2. KJV is the most accurate anyway, so using any other translation is to use an inferior translation, leading to further error.
3. KJV is somehow more inspired than any other translation.

The discussion drifted into the ethics of allowing discussion and debate, reading widely and allowing people to come to their own views based on weighing the available evidence to establish what is "true".

One KJV-only advocate put his argument for keeping one translation and prohibiting open discussion and debate, like so [spelling, capitalization etc are all his]:

one thing i have seen throughout my life, is that people say things like open your mind to this or that, if i were to do this on a broad scale, i would go crazy because i wouldnt know where i stood on anything.

how then can we make a stand if everything is open to interpetation, and we open our minds to just about anything and everything?

will divorced and remaried people with living former spouces enter into the Kingdom of God or not?

will women who teach and preach enter into the Kingdom of God or not?

am i to allow the devil a chance to sway me doctrinally by opening my mind to his attacks?

in these last days i often want to throw up my hands and exclaim with Pilot, "what is truth"

opening her mind and listening to the serpant, is what got Eve in trouble and caused sin to enter into a world that was perfect before hand.

where and when do you draw the line between good and false doctrine?

in the 70's my generation opened their minds to "free sex" the occult, drugs and rebelous [sic] music, and the same old lie of satan was used back then about keeping an open mind, thats how the little foxes spoil the vine.

i heard a new phrase to me recentlyly about being so open minded that my brains would fall out.

if i stand for nothing wont i be in danger of falling for anything?

shall we allow the enemy of our soul the oppertunity to try and shoot holes in our faith, "the Truth" will stand on its own after we are dead and gone.

having an open mind, is what has allowed for gay clergy to minister the grace of God that has no heart breaking meaning for them. having an open mind is what allows many who call themselves christians to side with pro choice.

opening my mind to other possibilities, is as good as the enemy of my soul would have it, in his efforts to seduce me away from the truth and simplicity that is in Christ.

If Jesus had been open minded during His temptation in the wilderness, would he have passed His tests or comprimised with the devil?

How many new agers are saying that christians need to be open minded? should we be open minded about abortion? what about gay clergy should we be open minded about that? what about using aborted fetus'es for stem cell research or useing aborted baby collogen in make up products?

is there a line that we should not cross, and if so, how is that being open minded, and what of doctrine? should i open myself to catholic doctrine being a protestant? if i open my mind, am i not making an allowence that the new information could change my doctrinal stance?

for me, being open minded is what will pave the way for the one world church, that will embrace all religons including the occult and all of the eastern religons as well.

will calvinists and arminians reconcile their differences, concluding that both are right?

i just cant wrap my mind around all of this, sometimes i just wish i had died as a child before the age of accountability, so that i would be with Jesus and not had to deal with such confusion and conflicting ideologies.

our way is the truth, no our way is right your way is wrong, no listen to me i know the real truth, sometimes i wish i had never been born, i cant even find a church that still practises the old ways without all this new fangled music and serve god anyway you want to, cause its all good.

would to God i had died as a young christian, then i would be at peace not knowing the war that rages over what is truth and what is lie.

One feature that we have noticed about Jewish biblical study is their openness to discussion and debate. I once brought a Jewish friend along to my church and afterward he asked me how we worshipped in spirit and truth? Huh? What about the prayers, hymns and singing? I might give you that, he said but what about worshipping in truth? The minister preached for more than 45 minutes, what about that? That is only one person's opinion, he said, where was the discussion?

His point is that we only begin to approach the truth when we open it up to discussion and debate, allowing various perspectives to be put forward and their merits promoted and weighed against each other. Another person has said that a traditional synagogue is designed as a round with the presenter in the middle, so that it is more expedient for debating.

As long as the ground rules for discussion and debate listed by Zwirn are observed, there are many advantages to such a participative learning style. How would you have answered the statements and questions posed above by the KJV-Only advocate?

Educating Children in the Scriptures

In our church our Children's Sunday School is little more than a baby sitting organisation. The children know very little of what is in the scriptures. They mostly play games and do arts and crafts work while the adults attend the church service in the main auditorium.

There are no (age appropriate) learning objectives, assessment or certification. In the West if we think something is important each of these elements of education one not only included, they are demanded. Why are they not required when it comes to the education of our children of the scriptures?

I have noticed that such education of our children is abrogated by Christian Parents who either do nothing or if it can be afforded, send then children to Christian schools.

I came across Isidor Zwirn's biography "The Rabbi from Burbank". He describes a similar malaise amongst some synagogues he attended. His story is invaluable for the many insights he brings to me as a Christian of a lifestyle centred in Torah Study and how it has an impact on worldview, family life, community and society.

After reading his story I am challenged to

• Study the scripture in their original languages
• Review the Weekly Parasha reading with my son.

He goes on to list several scripture study principals which I have thought useful for noting here:

• Respect another person's point of view: argue one's point with the goal of gaining understanding rather than acceptance.
• If several of you disagree on a matter of exegesis or biblical interpretation, we will record them all. Then every student will investigate each one of them. After you have done so, then every one of you is to select the one that best fits your own need, and take it as your own.
• Whenever two major views seem to contradict each other, you must temporarily set them aside, and hope that a third view will eventually be found that will harmonise the two.
• Whether truth comes from a male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white, or even from the mouth of babes we are to accept it (see Deuteronomy 1.17, Psalm 8.2 or 8.3).
• Research (doresh) with integrity results in knowledge and insight (1 Chr 16.11, Isaiah 55.6, Psa 9.11, 34.5, 34.11, 69.33).
• Knowledge and insight, plus obedience results in God's rich rewards (Deu 28.13, Isa 29.9).