Wednesday with Michael Spencer Michael’s Final Post (2/10/10)
Friday will mark nine years since we said “’til we meet again” to our friend and mentor Michael Spencer. Here is the final post he was able to write before he succumbed to colon cancer in 2010.
• • •
A brief word from Michael
The ultimate apologetic is to a dying man.
That is what all those “Where is God?” statements in the Psalms are all about. They are, at least partially, invitations to Christians to speak up for the dying.
All the affirmations to God as creator and designer are fine, but it is as the God of the dying that the Christian has a testimony to give that absolutely no one else can give.
We need to remember that each day dying people are waiting for the word of death and RESURRECTION.
The are a lot of different kinds of Good News, but there is little good news in “My argument scored more points than you argument.” But the news that “Christ is risen!” really is Good News for one kind of person: The person who is dying.
If Christianity is not a dying word to dying men, it is not the message of the Bible that gives hope now.
What is your apologetic? Make it the full and complete announcement of the Life Giving news about Jesus.
What the Bible Actually Teaches (5) Open Mic Edition
Let’s do something a little different today. One of the main points of Pete Enns’s book is about how the Bible depicts God. in various ways according to the culturally-conditioned understandings of its ancient authors.
We will discuss that more next week, with examples from the book. But for today, I will simply put out a couple of quotes that summarize the basic argument, giving everyone a chance to ponder them and contribute reactions and thoughts.
•
The Bible does not leave us with one consistent portrait of God, but a collection of ancient and diverse portraits of how the various biblical writers understood God for their times. These biblical portraits of God are not there to test how clever we can be in making them all fit together nicely. They illustrate for us the need to accept the sacred responsibility of asking what God is like for us here and now. (p. 153)
We respect these sacred texts best not by taking them as the final word on what God is like, but by accepting them as recording for us genuine experiences of God for the Israelites and trying to understand why they would describe God as they do. God met the ancient Israelites on their terms, in their time and place, stepping into their world.
We follow the lead of these writers not by simply reproducing how they imagined God for their time, but by reimagining God for ourselves in our time, which for us (as we’ll get to later) includes taking into account the Christian story as well. In doing so, we will necessarily commune with God differently with respect to those who went before.
The ancient ways the Bible describes God drive us to work through what God is like for our own time and place. And, as I’ve been saying, that process is an act of wisdom, of asking, “What is God like? What God do we truly believe in?” (p. 144)
Even authentic outrage is influenced by implicit strategic calculations.
• Jillian Jordan & David Rand
• • •
Two psychologists have written an article at the New York Times about Virtue Signaling, a phrase used to counter some of the expressions of moral outrage that are so pervasive in our day.
Expressions of moral outrage are playing a prominent role in contemporary debates about issues like sexual assault, immigration and police brutality. In response, there have been criticisms of expressions of outrage as mere “virtue signaling” — feigned righteousness intended to make the speaker appear superior by condemning others.
Behind these critiques is a flaw in thinking, the authors say. When the question is framed in binary terms, “Is this person genuinely outraged or is he/she merely virtue signaling?” this fails to recognize a unity within our psyches that does not allow such a one or the other evaluation.
You may not realize it, but distinguishing between genuine and strategic expressions of indignation assumes a particular scientific theory: namely, that there are two separable psychological systems that shape expressions of moral outrage. One is a “genuine” system that evaluates a transgression in light of our moral values and determines what level of outrage we actually feel. The other is a “strategic” system that evaluates our social context and determines what level of outrage will look best to others. Authentic expressions of outrage involve only the first system, whereas virtue signaling involves the second system.
This theory may be intuitively compelling, but new research suggests that it is wrong. Psychological studies reveal that a person’s authentically experienced outrage is inherently interwoven with subconscious concerns about her reputation. In other words, even genuine outrage can be strategic.
Or, in other words, our motives are always mixed. Even when expressing outrage at injustice done to others, we simultaneously have an eye on looking appropriately “righteous” to those who are watching.
Jesus had a few things to say about this.
Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matt. 6:1)
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matt. 23:27-28)
Now, the authors have an important point to make, and I get it. They are looking at this question from one particular angle. The very fact that I am multitasking when exercising judgment and expressing moral outrage doesn’t mean my outrage isn’t real. A certain amount of virtue signalling does not automatically cancel out the genuineness of my appropriate condemnation of injustice or evil.
What our findings show is that asking whether outrage is “pure” is the wrong question. Even authentic outrage is influenced by implicit strategic calculations. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with evolutionary theories that hypothesize that morality arose precisely as a way of signaling one’s trustworthiness in cooperative endeavors.
But this also shouldn’t strike you as cynical. In fact, we view our findings optimistically. They suggest that if an individual is motivated by a desire to signal her virtue, that does not necessarily mean she is faking her outrage. Of course, people do sometimes fake or exaggerate their outrage to look good. Our point is that the presence of strategic motives does not itself make a moral reaction inauthentic.
That’s something to keep in mind the next time you are tempted to dismiss something as mere virtue signaling.
However, I read this article with Jesus’ words in mind and it hit me from precisely the opposite perspective.
Nothing I do, no judgments I pronounce, are free from self-interest and the desire to advance my own standing.
I suppose there are degrees of sinfulness and selfishness involved in that, and that a good share of it is relatively harmless. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that all my “righteousness” is infused with me thinking about me and how I might look to you.
It must be April Fool’s Day when it takes an article in the Times to blow my cover and help me remember that.
Then Jesus said, ‘There was a man who had two sons.
• Luke 15:11
•
father, son, and brother
so the story goes
and every time i hear it
i think i know my role
my father soft of heart
and willing to let me go
to pay my fare when i so full
of lust to sow some oats
to laugh, to spend long sleepless nights
’round campfires on the beach
in smoky haze with sun-bronzed skin
and tangled hair and endless time
long may you run…
and all the while my steadfast sibling
up at dawn and coffee made
and out the door and rolled up sleeves
and full of vim; grindstone turning, nose in place
sure, dad counts on him, trusts in him,
relies on him, and lets him run the show
god knows, he tells dad, that other useless son of yours
never did his part; i’ll make up for that stupid s.o.b.!
dad has some sad thing going on behind his eyes
i could hear it on those rare occasions when i called
but that was before i’d had enough
and knew i must go home
and there he was, mad with hugs and kisses, tears,
running down the lane embarrassing himself
and shamefaced me suddenly thrust to the head table
so, that’s me i think when someone says
“a father had two sons…”
i know my role, i know my place in the story
at least i always have, but i am older now
and i have also felt those same tears swelling up
and i have felt that same resentment toward my flesh and blood
and now i wonder if we’re all that different in the end
father, son, and brother
just trying to figure out how to be loved and to love
There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes And Jesus Christ died for nothin’ I suppose Little pitchers have big ears — don’t stop to count the years Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios Mmm….
•
One of John Prine’s saddest songs — heard with a new resonance today in the midst of our nations’ opioid crisis — is his ballad of Vietnam veteran turned junkie Sam Stone. The song, originally titled “The Great Society Conflict Veteran’s Blues,” was chosen as one of the ten saddest pop songs of all time in a Rolling Stone readers’ poll in 2013. Its unforgettable line, “There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes,” is a haunting reminder of the cost that everyone pays when drug abuse takes over.
In 1971, when this song was released, Prine was singing about a specific drug problem that grew out of the Vietnam War, the conflict which divided our nation and caused many to doubt our true commitment to its ideals. In 1965 Deputy Secretary of State George Ball answered a question asked by President Johnson about whether we could win the war with these prophetic words: “I think we have all underestimated the seriousness of this situation. Like giving cobalt treatment to a terminal cancer case. I think a long protracted war will disclose our weakness, not our strength.”
When veterans came home from Vietnam they were not always treated well and soon forgotten because of the war’s unpopularity. Many vets felt isolated from American society as though they had carried back some contagion from the front lines. Class distinctions added to the resentment many veterans felt. Most who fought were from poor and working-class backgrounds while many of the protestors were college students who had gotten deferments favoring the wealthy and well-connected. 250,000 Vietnam vets were unable to find employment when they returned home, and the government gave them a meager $200 a month.
And then, of course, there was the cost of the fighting itself. The ratio of wounded to killed was higher in Vietnam than in earlier wars. Advances had made it possible for more to survive, but that meant a great number had to live the rest of their lives with serious, crippling injuries.
The use of Agent Orange, a herbicide used to defoliate forests, led to massive exposure for civilians and soldiers and innumerable serious health problems. Since studies on the effects of Agent Orange weren’t even begun until the 1990s, we are still learning about its impact on veterans’ health and lives.
Some estimate that nearly 800,000 Vietnam vets came back suffering from PTSD, a malady that the Veterans’ Administration did not even recognize until 1979.
And many of the soldiers were introduced to easily obtained drugs in Vietnam; serious addiction problems followed many of them home. 25% of soldiers who saw combat were arrested within 10 years of returning home, most on drug-related offenses.
Some experts have suggested that the number of suicides among Vietnam veterans was at least equal to, and may in fact be double the 58,000 killed in the conflict.
War is hell. And Sam Stone gives us a small glimpse of the price we pay for going through it.
•
•
Sam Stone came home
To his wife and family
After serving in the conflict overseas
And the time that he served
Had shattered all his nerves
And left a little shrapnel in his knee
But the morphine eased the pain
And the grass grew round his brain
And gave him all the confidence he lacked
With a Purple Heart and a monkey on his back
There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes
And Jesus Christ died for nothin’ I suppose
Little pitchers have big ears — don’t stop to count the years
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios
Mmm….
Sam Stone’s welcome home
Didn’t last too long
He went to work when he’d spent his last dime
And Sammy took to stealing
When he got that empty feeling
For a hundred dollar habit without overtime
And the gold rolled through his veins
Like a thousand railroad trains
And eased his mind in the hours that he chose
While the kids ran around wearin’ other people’s clothes
There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes
And Jesus Christ died for nothin’ I suppose
Little pitchers have big ears — don’t stop to count the years
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios
Mmm….
Sam Stone was alone
When he popped his last balloon
Climbing walls while sitting in a chair
Well, he played his last request
While the room smelled just like death
With an overdose hovering in the air
But life had lost its fun
And there was nothing to be done
But trade his house that he bought on the G. I. Bill
For a flag draped casket on a local heroes’ hill
There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes
And Jesus Christ died for nothin’ I suppose
Little pitchers have big ears — don’t stop to count the years
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios
Mmm ….
In my last Quotable Quote: Women in the Church, I included the following quotation:
“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more beneficial and necessary aspects to the man, and the less important, inferior matter to the women” – Chrysostom (4th and 5th Centuries)
To which Dana Ames replied:
While cultural conditions most certainly played a large part in how women in the Church have been viewed, as Eeyore notes above, I would like to see the context of that Chrysostom quote particularly. Like Bible verses, quotations can also be cherry-picked and taken out of context. People dump on Chrysostom a lot, but there is always a context, and he was primarily a pastor and preacher, not an academic theologian. He actually urges that men and women in marriage NOT have any particular “roles”, but that they relate to one another on equal footing in the realities of living together. Sometimes women were taught not to come to church or take communion when they were having their menses; Chrysostom didn’t.. He never forbade women to come to Liturgy or partake of the Eucharist for this reason. He left it up to the conscience of each woman, according to her own sense of piety in that culture. He had a good relationship with his mother, and they were close until her death. Knowing this, and actually having read some of Chrysostom, it’s difficult for me to believe he was somehow in his heart anti-woman.
I did quite a bit of research into Chrysostom this week, and have some further thoughts that I will share later in the post. However, to kick things off, as requested, here is the full context of that first quote:
A WIFE HAS JUST ONE PURPOSE: to guard the possessions we have accumulated, to keep a close watch on the income, to take charge of the household. Indeed, this is why God gave her to you, that in these, plus all other matters, she might be a helper to you.
Our life is customarily organized into two spheres: public affairs and private matters, both of which were determined by God. To woman is assigned the presidency of the household; to man, all the business of state, the marketplace, the administration of justice, government, the military, and all other such enterprises. A woman is not able to hurl a spear or shoot an arrow, but she can grasp the distaff, weave at the loom; she correctly disposes of all such tasks that pertain to the household. She cannot express her opinion in a legislative assembly, but she can express it at home, and often she is more shrewd about household matters than her husband. She cannot handle state business well, but she can raise children correctly, and children are our principal wealth. At a glance she can detect the bad behavior of the servants and can manage them carefully. She provides complete security for her husband and frees him from all such household concerns, concerns about money, woolworking, the preparation of food and decent clothing. She takes care of all other matters of this sort, that are neither fitting for her husband’s concern nor would they be satisfactorily accomplished should he ever lay his hand to them—even if he struggled valiantly!
Indeed, this is a work of God’s love and wisdom, that he who is skilled at the greater things is downright inept and useless in the performance of the less important ones, so that the woman’s service is necessary. For if the man were adapted to undertake both sorts of activities, the female sex could easily be despised. Conversely, if the more important, most beneficial concerns were turned over to the woman, she would go quite mad. Therefore God did not apportion both duties to one sex, lest the other be displaced and be considered superfluous. Nor did God assign both to be equal in every way, lest from equality a kind of struggle and rivalry should again arise, for women in their contentiousness would deem themselves deserving of the front-row seats rather than the man! But taking precautions at one and the same time for peace and for decency, God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of human life into two parts and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matters to the woman. God’s plan was extremely desirable for us, on the one hand because of our pressing needs and, on the other, so that a woman would not rebel against her husband due to the inferiority of her service. Understanding all these things, let us strive for just one goal, virtue of soul and nobility of behavior, so that we may enjoy peace, live in concord, and maintain ourselves in love unto the end.
– John Chrysostom, “The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives”in Patrologia Graeca 51:230
You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you think the original quote was a fair representation of Chrysostom. In my research I did find quite a number of quotes that made Chrysostom look quite bad, but I also found a fair number that were clearly cherry picking.
Consider this quote:
The beauty of woman is the greatest snare.
When you combine it with a quote like the following you get quite the word picture:
The whole of her bodily beauty is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum, and the fluid of digested food
Now, typically I have found that when quotes are cherry picked citations are not given. They are how ever endlessly copied and parroted without checking for the original source. Facebook is of course notorious for that.
I also found that to be the case when interacting with Jehovah’s Witnesses materials on the deity of Christ back in the 1980s. They had a lot to say about what Church Fathers said about Jesus, but didn’t list their sources. I had to read through most of the 10 volume set of the Ante-Nicean Fathers to find the given quotations in their context. And yes, they were all cherry picked. It was a lot easier to do this week with the current topic.
Consider the first quote. Here it is in its context:
“The beauty of woman is the greatest snare. Or rather, not the beauty of woman, but unchastened gazing! For we should not accuse the objects, but ourselves, and our own carelessness. Nor should we say, Let there be no women, but Let there be no adulteries. We should not say, Let there be no beauty, but Let there be no fornication. We should not say, Let there be no belly, but let there be no gluttony; for the belly makes not the gluttony, but our negligence. We should not say, that it is because of eating and drinking that all these evils exist; for it is not because of this, but because of our carelessness and insatiableness. – Chrysostom, Homily 15 on the Priesthood
The second quote is similarly taken out of context, and is referring to the attributes of a single person.
That is not to say that Chrysostom gets a free pass. I found many other quotes by him that come off as very misogynistic. As I am always time limited I won’t be able to follow up on them. But at least I won’t make the same mistake as last time, and repeat them with out finding their context first.
As usual, your thoughts and comments are welcome.
P.S. Some totally unrelated bad news, bad news, good news, good news, and good news.
1. I lost my regular paying job a month ago.
2. Last week I experienced car, furnace, and plumbing problems.
3. Everything is now resolved and the total outlay of funds was only $260, MUCH less than expected.
4. The second job I saw advertised was the prior employer of one of my references. He has already messaged them to look out for my resume.
5. Financially I will be fine for a while, and it has freed me up to do some needed renovations.
Is There Purpose in Biology? The Cost of Existence and the God of Love. By Denis Alexander
I am going to review the book: Is There Purpose in Biology? The Cost of Existence and the God of Love. By Denis Alexander. Denis Alexander is the Emeritus Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, a molecular biologist and an author on science and religion. He is also an editor of Science and Christian Belief which is a biannual peer-reviewed academic journal published by Paternoster Press on behalf of Christians in Science and the Victoria Institute. Here is a YouTube video that summarizes the main thrust of the book quite nicely.
Denis Alexander
From the Wikipedia page: Alexander was an Open Scholar at Oxford, where he studied Biochemistry. He studied for a PhD in Neurochemistry at the Institute of Psychiatry. He spent 15 years in various university departments and laboratories outside the United Kingdom, establishing the National Unit of Human Genetics while an Associate Professor of Biochemistry American University of Beirut, Lebanon. He worked at the Imperial Cancer Research Laboratories in London and subsequently headed the Molecular Immunology Programme and the Laboratory of Lymphocyte Signalling and Development at the Babraham Institute, Cambridge. Alexander knows his biology.
Denis notes that there are three main categories of answer to the question: Is There Purpose in Biology?
Of course not. The answer given by all atheistic biologists. This is considered the “scientific” answer.
Of course there is. The answer given by anyone coming from a religious worldview. God has an overall purpose for everything, including biology.
Well, it all depends on what you mean by purpose…
The first category is summarized by the Richard Dawkins quote from River out of Eden:
“The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Alexander is trying to nuance the second category by examining the third category. He writes:
In any event, the question I wish to address in this book is this one: Is it necessarily the case, as these and other commentators are suggesting that biology in general, and the evolutionary process in particular, tells us that it has no purpose? The question is carefully worded. If I were asked the question: “Does evolutionary biology necessarily demonstrate that there must be a purpose in biology?”, then I would answer simply that I don’t think that such metaphysical conclusions, referring to questions concerning ultimate goals, can be derived so readily from the study of science. The scientific observations might make an affirmative answer more or less plausible, a point to which we will return later. But science alone is not up to the herculean task of demonstrating Purpose in any metaphysical sense. It can render certain metaphysical inferences less plausible, but trying to establish metaphysical worldviews based on science leads to problems.
Biology, unlike physics and chemistry, has always been full of teleological language ever since Aristotle. The beaver builds a dam for the purpose of protecting its home from predators. The male peacock displays its plumage for the purpose of attracting a mate. The camel has a hump for the purpose of food storage. Of course, this is purpose with a small “p”, and no biologist today would be tempted to extract any metaphysical inferences from the use of such language. And yet the modernist is ever ready to conclusively conclude that purpose with a big “P” cannot exist. Daniel Dennett boldly proclaims, “Evolution is not a process that was designed to produce us”. Evolutionary biology, so the argument goes, renders it impossible that evolutionary history, taken overall, could have any rhyme or reason. Chance rules. Our own existence is a lucky accident. Things could have turned out very differently. Biology is necessarily Purposeless. It is this metaphysical inference from the biological account that this book is to challenge.
One main issue that Denis wishes us to consider is: how would we know that a process is necessarily purposeless? Is it a random distribution of properties? But what about systems that start simple and gradually become more complex? That in itself does not demonstrate purpose, on the other hand, it might make it more difficult for us to conclude that such systems are necessarily purposeless.
What about systems that are clearly under strong physical constraints so that they can only operate or develop in a single direction. Denis uses the example of coming across two streams. The first is just winding its way down the valley in a haphazard kind of way. But the second is constrained by series of dams so that the water is directed toward some fruit trees where it is further divided into smaller streams to water the trees. The first stream would be easy to describe as without purpose, but that conclusion would be more difficult for the second stream. The reason is the physical constraints that we observe – the water could do no other than be channeled by those constraints.
According to Denis, the book has five main points:
First, as already indicated, some commentators on biology wish to claim that evolutionary history, in particular, must necessarily (“obviously”) be without Purpose.
Second, a closer look at biology (Chapters 2 & 3), coupled with an analysis of the meaning of terms such as “chance” and “random” (Chapter 4), does not in fact support the assertion that biology is necessarily Purposeless.
Third, in practice everyone imposes a Purpose upon biology by incorporating it within their particular worldview, a worldview that goes well beyond science (Chapter 5).
Fourth, the “everyone” includes Christians, who also claim that the roots of biology in general (Chapter 1) and of evolution in particular, find a natural home within their Christian understanding of creation, especially given the impact of natural theology upon Darwin’s thinking (Chapter 5).
Fifth, nevertheless there are theological challenges raised by evolution, not least by the huge scale of suffering of animals and humans. However, it may be argued that the costly price of existence is worth the price (Chapter 6).
It’s no secret I share Alexander’s viewpoint, which I have argued in posts and comments many times. My argument has been more generally metaphysical – if the “universe” has produced minds that can and do contemplate meaning and purpose, then the universe itself has meaning and purpose and is better described as a universal mind, a logos if you will, than anything else. Yes, dammit, I know that is panentheism, but I don’t stop at mere panentheism, because I am a Christian and believe that Jesus is that Eternal Logos made flesh. In Him we live and move and have our being. In Him we find our ultimate purpose and meaning. In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
It will be interesting to see how Alexander builds his case.
Today we continue blogging through Pete Enns’s new book on the Bible.
As I’ve said in our recent posts on The Bible and the Believer, one of my tasks this year will be to work on answering two questions that Pete raises regularly in his writings and podcasts:
What is the Bible?
What is the Bible for?
Last time we discussed the diversity of the Hebrew Bible, how it is like a conversation carried on over generations as God’s people interacted with their sacred past by changing, adapting, rethinking, and rewriting the stories and texts they had received to reflect their growing understanding of God and God’s ways. God, in a mysterious way, was intimately involved in this process, and we call that “inspiration.” The community of faith ultimately recognized these sacred stories and writings as God’s words to them, finding in them God’s message of wisdom, faith, hope, and love.
But it is important to see that God did not just drop his words from heaven. The First Testament represents a long, utterly human process of wrestling with what God was doing in the lives and experience of the Hebrew people. And ultimately, it is the product of scribes and religious leaders editing the final product into something that would give the Babylonian exiles wisdom for a whole new reality and hope for the future.
One example of the way this worked, pointed out by Pete Enns, is the book of Chronicles. In our English Bibles, 1-2 Chronicles is placed right after 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings and represents another look at this historical period in Israel’s history. However, in the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles is the conclusion of the whole book.
Chronicles is not a repeat of 1 Samuel through 2 Kings. It is a retelling of those books from a much later point in Jewish history. In fact, it is nothing less than an act of reimaging God.
To make a long story short, 1 Samuel through 2 Kings were probably written before and during the Babylonian exile, and the main question these books address is, “How did we get into this mess? What did we do to deserve exile?” The short answer is, “You committed apostasy by worshiping foreign gods, with your kings leading the way.” In other words, these books interpret events of history and pronounce a guilty verdict on Judah.
But 1 and 2 Chronicles were written centuries later, probably no earlier than about 400 BCE and more likely closer to 300 or even a bit later—so somewhere in the middle of the Persian period (which began in 538) and perhaps as late as the Greek period (which began with the conquest by the Greeks under Alexander the Great in 332). And these books answer a different question altogether, not “What did we do to deserve this?” but “After all this time, is God still with us?”
Once again, we revisit our theme: as times changed, the ancient Jews had to reprocess what it meant to be the chosen people—if indeed that label even meant anything anymore. (p. 108-09)
A main example Pete Enns points to is that of King Manasseh. Manasseh is the ruler in the book of Kings that is deemed responsible for causing Judah to be taken into exile. His wickedness is so epic that its consequences carry on for generations, and even the great revival and reforms under his grandson Josiah could not remedy its effects.
However, in Chronicles, the story of Manesseh is completely reimagined. Manasseh himself goes into exile, humbles himself, and is allowed to go back to Jerusalem. The people are blamed for the exile, and Manasseh ends his days as a repentant, restored, righteous ruler. As Enns says, this portrayal serves as a “symbolic retelling of Judah’s exile and return home after the captives had learned their lesson and repented of their sins” (p. 110)
The author of Chronicles, by retelling this story, wants the exiles to learn the wisdom of humbling themselves and seeking the Lord in their hard circumstances. He illustrates this by showing that even the most wicked sinner — King Manasseh! — was not beyond redemption and restoration.
That is to say, the retelling of the reign of Manasseh (and 1 and 2 Chronicles as a whole) is an act of wisdom—of reading the moment and reimagining what God is doing and, more important, what God will do in the (hopefully not too distant) future. pp. 111-112)
Note from CM: I know you’re not going to like this, but I will not be taking comments today. I’m not interested in opening up an echo chamber that agrees with me, nor do I wish to spend all day moderating the kinds of fights this type of post engenders.
In case any of you are wondering what this has to do with the purpose of the Internet Monk blog, let me say again that Christians have every duty to be involved in public life, especially in a nation of free speech and democratic principles. Following Jesus may involve calling Herod a fox as well as tending the sheep.
• • •
The Mueller Investigation
Well, the report has been handed in. And, as usual, all the partisans and pundits are screaming their loudest. One side is claiming total victory and vindication. The other side is insisting that we only know a little bit of the story and we should withhold judgment until the whole report is released.
These are the times in the news cycle that I abhor. The transparent gamesmanship of all sides is on full display, and the air is filled with white-hot noise.
What do I think?
I happen to agree with Franklin Foer at The Atlantic, who says that, given what we know, “The Mueller Probe Was an Unmitigated Success” for justice. It confirmed Russia’s nefarious interference, exposed a great deal of corruption, and sent many people to jail. Foer writes, “Even if the actual Mueller report is anything like the attorney general’s summation of its contents, Russiagate will go down as one of the biggest scandals in American political history.”
Both Trump supporters and Trump opponents, along with media of all stripes, have made the mistake all through this investigation of thinking that Robert Mueller’s investigation was about one person — Donald Trump. It never was. That wasn’t the point. Did Russia try to interfere in our presidential election, and did people associated with the Trump campaign (including, possibly, the president himself) conspire or collude with the Russians to do so? — that was the question. Russian interference was confirmed by the report. The evidence for collusion (and perhaps obstruction) was not as clear. Along the way, evidence of a huge pile of corruption and illegal activity was discovered, and a number of criminals are now paying the price.
That’s success. A lot of bad guys got caught.
But Mike, you say, given your opposition to President Trump, weren’t you rooting for proof that he stole the election and colluded with a foreign nation to do that?
Heavens, no. Why in the world would anyone want that to be the narrative? That would scare me even more than the existential dread I feel about this administration now. If the report actually fully confirms it, we should be happy and relieved that the leader of the free world did not conspire to cheat to win an election.
My opposition to President Trump has never been attached to any supposed collusion with election interference. I simply think the man is comprehensively unfit for office.
He has an public history of corruption and shady business and financial dealings.
He has a well documented (and often mocked) hunger for celebrity and being in the public spotlight.
He has exhibited no conception of commitment to public service.
He has an equally well publicized absence of moral character.
He has been an utter chameleon with regard to his political positions.
His so-called “leadership” style is abysmal.
His capacity for sustained attention and his work ethic have been reported to be virtually non-existent.
He has no experience with or respect for any of the established and proven norms of diplomacy.
He has shown that he simply does not understand, in many cases, how government or the world of international relations works.
If you listen to any of his speeches, you could be forgiven for thinking you are listening to the ravings of a madman who has no idea what he’s talking about.
And I haven’t even mentioned one of his so-called “policies.”
These are things I talked about with friends before the election of 2016 ever took place. I was slack-jawed and appalled that the Republican party would ever allow a person like this to become their candidate and to take over as he has. And how now, with a taste of what they call “winning,” they can’t muster even an ounce of moral courage to oppose him or any of his initiatives.
And don’t get me started about the evangelicals. Michael Spencer in his wildest dreams could not have imagined an evangelical collapse through capitulation to power like this.
Having said all that, I don’t think those who oppose President Trump should pursue impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and both sides of the aisle must be in agreement to go that route. Unless and until something comes out that is overwhelmingly abhorrent to Republicans as well as Democrats, the impeachment option is not a good one. Better for all to look to 2020 and hope that someone, anyone — Democrat or Republican — can set forth a challenge to Mr. Trump that will open people’s eyes to the dangerous snake-oil salesman who has mesmerized his supporters.
Of course, there are already reports that President Trump plans to “weaponize” what he sees as his “total exoneration” by the Mueller report and use it against those who oppose him, with a special eye toward the next election. This is a part of the gamesmanship and white-noise warfare that we’ll be enduring for many days to come.
I don’t want anything to do with it.
I’ve made my position clear from the beginning. A nation that chooses a president and leadership like this is in deep shit. I’m half afraid we’ll never be able to shovel out of it.
This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet. This is my Father’s world: the battle is not done: Jesus Who died shall be satisfied, And earth and Heav’n be one.
• Maltbie D. Babcock
The world into which we shall enter in the Parousia of Jesus Christ is therefore not another world; it is this world, this heaven, this earth; both, however, passed away and renewed. It is these forests, these fields, these cities, these streets, these people that will be the scene of redemption. At present they are battlefields, full of the strife and sorrow of the not yet accomplished consummation; they they will be fields of victory, fields of harvest, where out of seed that was sown with tears the everlasting sheaves will be reaped and brought home.
Long before N.T. Wright caught the attention of so many with his teachings on eschatology in Surprised by Hope, my own views were transformed by the teaching of Anthony Hoekema.
His 1979 work, The Bible and the Future, is on my personal “short list” of the books that have influenced me most in my life and ministry. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, and his book is a comprehensive treatment of the amillennial perspective on eschatology. When I first read it, my doubts about dispensationalism had been growing for some time, and Hoekema’s clear, intelligent reading of Scripture took me a long way toward abandoning it altogether. After having done so, I’ve come back to The Bible and Future time and again to solidify and refine my own thinking about our Christian hope.
Hoekema’s first and greatest contribution to my understanding of the age to come was his emphasis upon the new earth.
The doctrine of the new earth, as it is taught in Scripture, is an important one. It is important, first, for the proper understanding of the life to come. One gets the impression from certain hymns that glorified believers will spend eternity in some ethereal heaven somewhere off in space, far away from earth. . . . On the contrary, the Bible assures us that God will create a new earth on which we shall live to God’s praise in glorified, resurrected bodies. On that new earth, therefore, we hope to spend eternity, enjoying its beauties, exploring its resources, and using its treasures to the glory of God. Since God will make the new earth his dwelling place, and since where God dwells there heaven is, we shall then continue to be in heaven while we are on the new earth. For heaven and earth will then no longer be separated, as they are now, but will be one (see Rev. 21:1-3). But to leave the new earth out of consideration when we think of the final state of believers is greatly to impoverish biblical teaching about the life to come. (p. 274)
N.T. Wright has gone further and greatly enriched our conceptions of the future by locating the early Christians’ hope about the age to come firmly within Jewish expectations regarding the resurrection and the age to come and the disciples’ experience of Jesus being raised bodily from the dead. Wright’s work shows that we who have been long taught that “this world is not our home,” making a spatial division in our minds between “earth” and “heaven,” should instead think in temporal terms and consider life in a world which is our home now and life in a world which will be our home in the age to come.
What matters is eschatological duality (the present age and the age to come), not ontological dualism (an evil “earth” and a good “heaven”). (SPH, p. 95)
Wright teases this out by analyzing the “fundamental structures” of the Christian hope, finding that it:
Is rooted in the goodness of a God-given creation that God made because of love.
Recognizes that evil is not rooted in the material nature of the world nor its transience but in rebellion and idolatry. This evil has led to the consequence of “death,” which scripture describes as exile, a separation from the presence and blessing of God.
Views redemption not as wiping the slate clean and starting over, but liberating creation from its slavery through incarnate means. God chose Israel and made his dwelling among them in the Temple that they might bring his light to all nations. Then, in the wake of Israel’s failure, Jesus came to fulfill what they could not do. The One through whom God created the world became part of that world and himself suffered death. He was then raised up, conquering death so that he might be God’s steward and restore God’s original plan of blessing to the whole world (Gen. 1:26-28).
We now live, as one theologian put it, between D-Day and VE-Day. Christ accomplished the decisive act of victory, and his followers are now engaged in battles that bring us ever closer to the culmination of the war. Together, we regularly pray for the consummation of this hope when we say: “May your Kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
The key event which enabled the early Christians to believe that the age to come had begun was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:20-23)
The ultimate personal hope that following Jesus brings therefore is “the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23), not a release from our bodies into an ethereal, celestial realm of glory. As Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus is the “first-fruits” of the resurrection, guaranteeing that all those in him shall likewise be raised. “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Romans 6:5).
This personal hope fits into God’s larger scheme that involves the renewal of all creation (Ephesians 1:9-10). Whereas now we experience a sense of separation from God and “heaven” (God’s realm), in the age to come heaven will come down to earth (not us go to heaven!) and God will permanently dwell with his people in a world made new (Revelation 21:1-3).
The bottom line is that heaven is not our home, at least in the way this has been presented. We are not simply “passing through” this world on the way to somewhere different and better, away from this earth. Humans were made for this world, and this world shall be our home forever. Heaven will come to us, not vice versa. God will make his dwelling in our midst, we will not take up residence in dwelling places (much less “mansions”!) in celestial realms. Whatever it means to say that the age to come will be full of God’s glory, we will experience it with our feet planted on terra firma.
Perhaps it would be good for us to spend more time meditating on texts like this one from Isaiah, which describe the terrestrial nature of the new creation:
They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. (Isa. 65:21-22)
And perhaps, with such visions in mind, we can better define what it means to follow Jesus now, in this time when we are awaiting the consummation of that which began with his death, resurrection, ascension, and the sending of the Spirit.
Doesn’t this imply that Christians should embrace a calling to live as full human beings, fully engaged in this world; to be people of faith, hope, and love who affirm the goodness of God’s creation and the common humanity we share with our neighbors, who see being “saved by grace” not as an call to stop working but as an invitation to start participating in God’s work of making a better world?
Wednesday with Michael Spencer
What the Bible Actually Teaches (5)
, p. 281
, my own views were transformed by the teaching of 
The Internet Monk Archives 