Charity and giving extends the Kingdom of God

Julian the Apostate, the Emperor of Rome

Free markets, individual enterprise, personal responsibility are all good things. Capitalism is a great system that has served mankind well. We owe a considerable amount of our progress to its ability to allocate resources efficiently. In God's economy, there is a fail-safe against Capitalism's principal systemic weakness: wealth tends to concentrate amongst an elite minority. That failsafe is giving. When we give and lend to others in need, with no judgement  attached (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35) then we bless our neighbours and its power reveals an aspect of the kingdom of God and indeed an aspect of his heart that Capitalism cannot. Mercy has a magnetic quality that draws people to God.

Psalm 116:5–7 (NKJV)
Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; Yes, our God is merciful.
The LORD preserves the simple; I was brought low, and He saved me.
Return to your rest, O my soul, For the LORD has dealt bountifully with you.

When it applied to those yet to profess their allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,  it was a major influence on Roman society as it encountered the Early church at a time when it was indistinguishable from Judaism:

The impact of this ministry of mercy upon pagans is revealed in the observation of one of Christianity’s worst enemies, the apostate Emperor Julian (332–63). In his day Julian was finding it more difficult than he had expected to put new life into the traditional Roman religion. He wanted to set aside Christianity and bring back the ancient faith, but he saw clearly the drawing power of Christian love in practice: “Atheism (i.e. Christian faith) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them.”

Shelley, B. L. (1995). Church history in plain language (Updated 2nd ed.) (35–36). Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub.

Logos 4 on a XP Tablet PC

I've started using Logos 4  Bible Study software on a Tablet PC. Its an impressive way to interact with the program. The stylus works essentially in two modes.

Outside of the Tablet Input Panel, the stylus works as a mouse. Tapping on something is the same as a left mouse click. Dragging the stylus across text highlight it. Holding the stylus down for a moment  until a graphic is activated is the equivalent of a night mouse click. , lifting the mouse.

The Tablet Input Panel

Inside the Tablet Input Panel, the stylus becomes a writing instrument. Somehow the Tablet is able to sense that the stylus is near the surface of the screen. The nib retracts a little when pressed. When the two events coincide the Tablet registers a contact.The nib effect together with just the right amount of friction between the stylus and the screen gives a feeling of writing on high quality paper resting on a leather top desk. Nice.

The HWR accuracy is impressively good. I was able to achieve around 99.5% accuracy and around 20 words per minute with no pauses to make corrections.

If you have a touch tablet Logos 4 allows all the screen elements to be expanded. Just tap Tools ->Program Settings-> Accessibility -> Program Scaling. I've got it set to 140%. If the fonts are too large then you can adjust that separately without changing anything else.

This afternoon I did our home bible study on Galatians 4.3-4. I found using the Command input line easier to open specific resources."Open Dunn" and Dunn's commentary on Galatians started right up. OK, so what does Stern have to say? "Open NTJC" Hmmm.... His thinking heavily depends on his interpretation of "upo nomou".  Lets start doing a word study on this... How have others looked at this phrase? Hmmm....

The whole experience seems so much more natural.

Baptism and the Priesthood

Last week I had coffee with an Egyptian Copt and the conversation turned toward the differences between Coptic Christianity and Protestant Christianity.  One of the differences he pointed out was that Protestants had lost the concept of the Priesthood.

This week whilst studying Galatians we got to talking about Baptism and how various kinds of baptism could be found in the bible, that various historical cultures prior to the First Century had also practiced ceremonial washings.

The conversation eventually turned to the meaning behind Jesus' baptism at the hands of John (Matt 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11); Luke 3:21-23).  At first John objected to carrying it out but Jesus convinced him, arguing that it would "fulfill all righteousness." (NKJV). What did he mean?

One school of thought is that Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah's Servant prophecies by identifying himself with the plight of Israel and its sin through the ritual.

Hebraically, righteousness conveyed the idea of someone who was in good standing with God.  This meant that they must have been compliant with God's teachings or Torah.

My conversation with the Copt made me think of another reason why Jesus needed to be baptised.  Perhaps baptism was a requisite part of the process for entering the office of a Priest.  In the book of Hebrews, the concept of Jesus as a High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek is set out (Hebrews 4:14-5:11).  I also note that the Levitical and Aaronic priests were required to be baptised as part of their ordination process (Exodus 40:12).  What if it was customary for all priests to be ritually washed as part of their ordination?  Could this be the "righteousness" that Jesus was referring?

If this was true, then one would expect Jesus' baptism would occurred very early in his ministry, before he had carried out anything publicly significant.  A review of Matthew, Mark and John confirm this to be true.

For Christians, most consider baptism to be a symbolic identification with Jesus' death and resurrection.  Christians therefore die to the old self and its sinful past to arise in newness of life, free to walk in the ways of God, led and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

What if there was a deeper meaning to baptism.  Peter says that the People of God are "a Royal Priesthood." (1 Peter 2:9)  What if baptism was a necessary part of the ordination of Christians as Royal Priests in the order of Melchizedek?  If so, then perhaps Christians do not enter into the fullness of their spiritual authority and responsibility until they are baptised.

The idea that all the people of God were meant to be Priests was not conceived by Peter.  According to Moses, this was intended by God as far back as Sinai (Exodus 19:6).  Prior to ascending Sinai to meet God, they were required to undergo a baptism.  Unfortunately overcome by their fear of God, Israel declined the role (Exodus 20:18-21) and asked Moses to be their intermediary instead.  An opportunity lost.

In many ways, the concept of congregational members as Priests and Priestesses in Protestant Christianity has largely been forgotten.  Today, there is a clear distinction between Clergy and Laity.  In many senses we have regressed back to the Mosaic Priesthood in our practice of Church life.

Unfortunately it also means that we, the Laity, have abrogated our duties and responsibilities as Priests,  as Priests to our families, our friends, our communities, to our societies and to our nations.  In fact, there is a case for all to be trained and qualified to carry out services, act as marriage celebrants and hold funerals.

Based on the bible, Priests had several roles to fulfill:

1. Administer the sacrifices and other ceremonies required by God.
2. Administer justice in civil and criminal cases base on the Biblical Code.
3. Administer quarantine laws in relation to infectious diseases.
4. Teach the scriptures and train people on how to carry out their duties and responsibilities under the Torah.
5. Intercede for sinners in prayer.

Evidently, the Priestly role was an integral part of how God's community was intended to function.  If the Priestly role were to regain its former meaning and prominence then Christian life might be quite different.

Since all have a Priestly role then all have the responsibility to intercede for their families, their church communities, their societies, their nations and the world.  You don't have to have a "gift of intercession" before you may intercede in prayer for others.  As Priests all are responsible for teaching others the scriptures and showing them how to walk in God's way.  You don't have to have a gift of teaching to be able to teach from the scriptures.  Each should teach to their level of competency.  As Priests we should be observing and teaching others to observe God's commandments with respect to what is spiritually clean and unclean.  As priests we should be pressing for and advocating for justice.  None of these duties and responsibilities are meant to be carried out to the exclusion of the others.  Collectively they define the role of the Priesthood.

I've just started reading Heschel's "God in Search of Man" and came across a really great discussion about rationalism and religion.  The emphasis is mine and reflect the thoughts that caused me to ponder:

It is impossible to define philosophy of religion as an attempt to support a rational basis for religion, because such a definition implicitly identifies philosophy with rationalism.  If rationalism were the sign of a philosopher, Plato, Schelling, William James, and Bergson would have to be disqualified as philosophers. Rationalism, according to Dewey, "precludes religious faith in any distinctive sense.  It allows only for a belief that is unimpeachable rational inference from what we absolutely know."

Extreme rationalism may be defined as the failure of reason to understand itself, its alogical essence, and its meta-logical objects.  We must distinguish between ignorance and the sense of mystery, between the subrational and the super-rational.  The way to truth is an act of reason; the love of truth is an act of the spirit.  Every act of reasoning has a transcendent reference to spirit.  We think thorugh reason becasue we strive for spirit.  We think through reason because we are certain of meaning.  Reason withers without spirit, without the truth about all of life.

Reason has often been identified with scientism, but science is unable to give us all the truth about all of life.  We are in need of spirit in order to know what to do with science.  Science deals with relations among things within the universe, but man is endowed with the concern of the spirit, and spirit deals with the relation between the universe and God.  Science seeks the truth about the universe; the spirit seeks the truth that is greater than the universe.  Reason's goal is the exploration of objective relations; religion's goal is the exploration and verification of ultimate personal relations.  

A challenge is not the same as a clash, and divergence does not mean a conflict.  It is part of the human condition to live in polarities.  It is an implication of our belief in one God to be certain that ultimately reason and revelation are both derived from the same source. Yet what is one in creation is not always one in our historic situation.  It is an act of redemption when it is granted to us to discover the higher unity of reason and revelation.

The widely preached equation of Judaism and rationalism is an intellectual evasion of the profound difficulties and paradoxes of Jewish faith, belief and observance.  Man's understanding of what is reasonable is subject to change.  To the Roman philosophers, it did not seem reasonable to abstain from labor, one day a week.  Nor did it seem unreasonable to certain plantation owners to import slaves from Africa into the New World.  With what stage in the development of reason should the Bible be compatible?

For all the appreciation of reason and our thankfulness for it, man's intelligence was never regarded in Jewish tradition as being self-sufficient.  "Trust in the Lord with all thy heart and do not rely on thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5).  "And thou has felt secure in thy wickedness, thou has said: no one seeth me; thy wisdom and thy knowledge led thee astray, and thou has said in thy heart:  I am, and there is no one else beside me"  (Isaiah 47:10).

Some of the basic presuppositions of Judaism cannot be completely justified in terms of human reason.  Its conception of the nature of man as having been created in the likeness of God, its conception of God and history, of the election of Israel, of prayer and even of morality, defy some of the realizations at which we have honestly arrived at the end of our analysis and scrutiny.  The demands of piety are a mystery before which man is reduced to reverence and silence.  Reverence, love, prayer, faith, go beyond the acts of shallow reasoning.

We must therefore not judge religion exclusively from the viewpoint of reason.  Religion is not within but beyond the limits of mere reason.  Its task is not to compete with reason but to aid us where reason gives only partial aid.  Its meaning must be understood in terms compatible with the sense of the ineffable.

The sense of the ineffable is an intellectual endeavor out of the depth of reason; it is a source of cognitive insight.  There is, therefore, no rivalry between religion and reason as long as we are aware of their respective tasks and areas.  The employment of reason is indispensable to the understanding and worship of God, and religion withers without it.  The insights of faith are general, vague and to the mind, integrated and brought to consistency.  Without reason faith becomes blind.  Without reason we would not know how to apply the insights of faith to the concrete issues of living.  The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence.  The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.

Herschel, A J (1955).  God in Search of Man.  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  Pages 18-20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What would you say?

This week I was asked to speak to group of young business people from a local church.  The brief said:

Basically, we are all young professionals so have many questions around entering the workplace and what it is like being a Christian at work.

After thinking about it for a bit, these were the key messages I wanted to deliver:

1. Life is short.  Eternity is a long, long time.  Make your choices with this in mind.  Work isn't everything.  But it isn't nothing.  Make your work missional.  Look for opportunities within it to ask why am I here.  How can I be salt to these people?  Keep an eye out for how God will want you to join Him in His work there.
2. We are called to be God's people.  He has revealed how we should live through His Word.  Become a student of the bible.  Study it, research it, discuss it, debate it, be guided by it, implement it.  Learn to think independently about the Word.  Research your views.  Be humble enough to accept when an initial position is proven wrong or incomplete.
3. Be faithful and diligent.  This is the story of Joseph.  Joseph learnt this in his time as Potiphar's servant and then under the prison warden's rule.   This is the story of God.  No matter what Israel did, He remained faithful and diligent in fulfilling his Promises.  When times get tough, the tough remain faithful and diligent.  Work hard.  Uphold high standards.  Don't accept that Grace means you live with shoddy workmanship.  Keep a perspective on the business you are in.  
4. Do not compromise with what God says to you.  Wait on Him and He will guide you through His word, through His body and through His Spirit.  The bible says our hearts are deceitful.  Don't go with the crowd.  Learn to think independently.  Be ready to back up your thinking with fact-based logic.  Don't jump to conclusions.  That's laziness.  Be careful with who you join up with.  They must share the same values.  All lies no matter what the colour are deal breakers.

 What would you say?

Steve Jobs saved from the Abortion Clinic

I came across this from Kerrie Woodham this morning:

"Jobs was their iDol and, from what commentators are saying, deservedly so. The boy who was born to unmarried college students and adopted by a middle-class Californian family grew into one of the most visionary entrepreneurs of the 20th century." --Source

So what would have happened if Steve Jobs' birth parents had opted for an abortion?  The world would have been so much the poorer for it.  

Hebraic Time v Greek Time

I was given a copy of a chapter from Boman's "Greek Thought and Hebraic Thought."

According to Boman in Greek thought, time stretches out on a line, with the future stretching out before you and the past extending behind you.  The point on which you stand is the present.

In Hebraic thought only the past and the present exist.  The future does not yet exist.  Anything we do is in the present and it shapes the future.

If true, how does this affect our views about predestination?