My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the Apocrypha and False Gospels:
Q: What is the “Apocrypha,” and why isn’t it included in my Bible?
The typical Bible which you find in a book store will generally consist of two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you examine a Bible which was printed for purchase by Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians, it will contain 13-15 additional books between the Old and New Testaments, depending on how they are numbered. In general, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians consider these books as part of the Bible, while the remainder of Christian groups do not. Many Christian scholars use the term “Apocrypha, which means “something hidden,” as a title for this group of books because of the disagreement about whether they are properly considered part of the Bible.
Although most Christians outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches do not consider these books to be part of the Bible, they do still hold them in high regard. Martin Luther included these books when he translated the Bible into German, although he set them apart as an appendix, and John Calvin still approved of Christians studying the Apocrypha, even though he did not consider it Scripture. The primary reasons given for distinguishing the Apocrypha from the Bible are that it contains teachings which are not found in the rest of the Bible, and Jesus, Paul, and other New Testament authors do not quote from them or mention them as Scriptural. Christians generally consider the Apocrypha to be valuable historical information and a useful view into the religious thought during the 400+ years between the end of the Old Testament and the birth of Jesus, but the majority of churches do not consider them as part of the Bible itself.
Q: I have also heard much said recently about other books, such as “The Gospel of Mary” and “The Gospel of Thomas.” Why aren’t these included in my Bible?
So-called “gospels” and other questionable books like these have been made popular recently by news stories and books or movies such as The Da Vinci Code. Unlike the Apocrypha, which are respected as authentic books, even if not Scriptural, these other books are widely acknowledged to be inauthentic or even forgeries. While the four Gospels found in our Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are known to have been written by Jesus’ followers within decades after His resurrection, these other gospels are known to have been written at least 300-400 years later. They were usually written by people called Gnostics, who were followers of a teaching which departed from Christianity, and they often used the names of well-known Biblical figures like Peter, Thomas, Mary, or Judas in the title of their “gospels” to make them look authentic, even though those figures had died centuries before. Unlike the Apocrypha, which Christians respect in spite of excluding it from their Bibles, these Gnostic “gospels” are generally regarded as fantasy, forgery, or fraud without any value for the student of the Bible.
You may also encounter other ancient non-biblical books such as the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the letters of Polycarp, which are of a far different sort than the false “gospels.” These are pieces of literature written during New Testament times, but not included in the Bible because the author was not an Apostle of Jesus, the author was unknown, or they were written at too late a date. Christians do not consider these equal to the Bible, but unlike the Gnostic “gospels,” these writings are considered useful history and are often seen as important information about what the church was like during its earliest years.
Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Confirmation
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Confirmation:
Q: What is “confirmation”? What churches practice it and what does it mean? Does the Bible give any instructions about confirmation?
Confirmation is a church tradition practiced by many types of Christians, but there is considerable variety about its details among different churches, even between different congregations within the same denomination. Confirmation usually involves a time of instruction for the person to be confirmed, an opportunity for them to publicly state their agreement with the beliefs of their church, and a blessing by the clergy overseeing the confirmation. Confirmation is usually practiced by church denominations which baptize the infant children of their members. Because the child is not old enough to speak, sponsors (sometimes called godparents) and the congregation speak for the child at his baptism, and at confirmation, he speaks for himself that he agrees with what had been said at his baptism.
In the ancient church, as soon as new Christians were baptized, a minister would then place oil on their forehead and bless them. As it became more common for those baptized to be infants and children, this anointing and blessing were postponed until a later age and became what we know as confirmation. Some churches also see the mention of “laying on of hands” (Heb. 6:2, 1 Tim. 4:14 & 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6) in the Bible as a reference to confirmation. The words “confirmand” or “catechumen” are used to refer to those preparing for confirmation, and they may study a book called a “catechism.” Some churches require that confirmations be overseen by a Bishop or other church leaders, while in many others, confirmations are overseen by the local pastor.
Since there are no commands in the Bible concerning the specific details of confirmation, local congregations have considerable freedom, and the variety seen in this tradition is understandable. The most typical age for confirmation among churches I have encountered is approximately 14 years or eighth grade, although it is not uncommon for churches to choose an age a few of years either side of this. On some occasions, a church may evaluate students’ readiness individually, without considering age. Many churches also make a practice of confirming baptized adults who come into their church from another denomination. In some churches, confirmation is also connected with beginning to participate in the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist, Communion), but in other traditions, children begin to take part at younger ages and are confirmed several years later.
Some churches, such as Roman Catholic and Episcopal, consider confirmation to be a Sacrament, while others, such as those from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, do not. In some churches, confirmation is accompanied by anointing, which is the application of oil to the confirmand. A particularly beloved practice, especially among Lutherans, is the giving of a “confirmation verse” to each youth being confirmed. This verse is frequently used decades later as the sermon text for their funeral. Confirmation most often occurs in the spring, although the precise dates may vary. One traditional date for confirmations is Palm Sunday (The Sunday before Easter). Other popular dates include Pentecost (7 weeks after Easter), Reformation Day (October 31), and Mother’s Day. Recently, confirmation dates have often coincided more closely with the school year, taking place on a specified Sunday between late April and early June.
There are also several common misconceptions concerning confirmation. For example, it is sometimes understood that youth become members of the church when they are confirmed. This generally is true for an adult who is new to a church, but in most churches children become members at Baptism, although they might not participate in all aspects of congregational life until after confirmation. Another example of this is that confirmation is sometimes looked at like a graduation because it comes at the end of a period of more concentrated instruction. In contrast, it is actually intended as quite the opposite of a graduation. Instead of being an end to a person’s spiritual development, confirmation is intended to open the door to fuller participation in the congregation and a lifetime of continued discipleship and instruction in the faith.
In spite of the previously-mentioned differences in traditions, the common thread regarding confirmation is that a previously baptized person acknowledges their baptism, is given further instruction in the Bible and church teachings, and has an opportunity to publicly confess the faith and pledge their faithfulness to their church.
Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
Q: What is “confirmation”? What churches practice it and what does it mean? Does the Bible give any instructions about confirmation?
Confirmation is a church tradition practiced by many types of Christians, but there is considerable variety about its details among different churches, even between different congregations within the same denomination. Confirmation usually involves a time of instruction for the person to be confirmed, an opportunity for them to publicly state their agreement with the beliefs of their church, and a blessing by the clergy overseeing the confirmation. Confirmation is usually practiced by church denominations which baptize the infant children of their members. Because the child is not old enough to speak, sponsors (sometimes called godparents) and the congregation speak for the child at his baptism, and at confirmation, he speaks for himself that he agrees with what had been said at his baptism.
In the ancient church, as soon as new Christians were baptized, a minister would then place oil on their forehead and bless them. As it became more common for those baptized to be infants and children, this anointing and blessing were postponed until a later age and became what we know as confirmation. Some churches also see the mention of “laying on of hands” (Heb. 6:2, 1 Tim. 4:14 & 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6) in the Bible as a reference to confirmation. The words “confirmand” or “catechumen” are used to refer to those preparing for confirmation, and they may study a book called a “catechism.” Some churches require that confirmations be overseen by a Bishop or other church leaders, while in many others, confirmations are overseen by the local pastor.
Since there are no commands in the Bible concerning the specific details of confirmation, local congregations have considerable freedom, and the variety seen in this tradition is understandable. The most typical age for confirmation among churches I have encountered is approximately 14 years or eighth grade, although it is not uncommon for churches to choose an age a few of years either side of this. On some occasions, a church may evaluate students’ readiness individually, without considering age. Many churches also make a practice of confirming baptized adults who come into their church from another denomination. In some churches, confirmation is also connected with beginning to participate in the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist, Communion), but in other traditions, children begin to take part at younger ages and are confirmed several years later.
Some churches, such as Roman Catholic and Episcopal, consider confirmation to be a Sacrament, while others, such as those from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, do not. In some churches, confirmation is accompanied by anointing, which is the application of oil to the confirmand. A particularly beloved practice, especially among Lutherans, is the giving of a “confirmation verse” to each youth being confirmed. This verse is frequently used decades later as the sermon text for their funeral. Confirmation most often occurs in the spring, although the precise dates may vary. One traditional date for confirmations is Palm Sunday (The Sunday before Easter). Other popular dates include Pentecost (7 weeks after Easter), Reformation Day (October 31), and Mother’s Day. Recently, confirmation dates have often coincided more closely with the school year, taking place on a specified Sunday between late April and early June.
There are also several common misconceptions concerning confirmation. For example, it is sometimes understood that youth become members of the church when they are confirmed. This generally is true for an adult who is new to a church, but in most churches children become members at Baptism, although they might not participate in all aspects of congregational life until after confirmation. Another example of this is that confirmation is sometimes looked at like a graduation because it comes at the end of a period of more concentrated instruction. In contrast, it is actually intended as quite the opposite of a graduation. Instead of being an end to a person’s spiritual development, confirmation is intended to open the door to fuller participation in the congregation and a lifetime of continued discipleship and instruction in the faith.
In spite of the previously-mentioned differences in traditions, the common thread regarding confirmation is that a previously baptized person acknowledges their baptism, is given further instruction in the Bible and church teachings, and has an opportunity to publicly confess the faith and pledge their faithfulness to their church.
Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Easter
My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Easter:
Q: What is the religious meaning behind the Easter holiday, and how are symbols such as decorated eggs and the Easter Bunny related to the Christian celebration of Easter?
To state it most concisely, Easter is the yearly celebration of the day on which Jesus rose to life the third day after dying by crucifixion. This occurred in Jerusalem, approximately the year 30 A.D. Ancient Christians considered this celebration to be the highest point of their worship for the year, and they viewed every Sunday as a commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection and a smaller version of the Easter celebration. Even today, the Resurrection of Jesus is a pivotal event for Christians, because the truthfulness of the Christian faith rests entirely on its authenticity.
The word “Easter” is actually a term unique to the English language. Because of the events Easter celebrates, the hymnal on my desk calls it, “The Resurrection of our Lord.” Other times it is simply known as “Resurrection Sunday.” Ancient Christians referred to this celebration using the same word which had been used to refer to the Jewish holiday of Passover.
The great majority of Christian churches celebrate the Resurrection in some way. The simplest of these celebrations lasts only one day and may include only special music or a more festive atmosphere for the morning’s service. In other Christian traditions, the celebration encompasses a significant period of time both before and after Easter itself. In the most elaborate of celebrations, churches may observe a season of solemnity and restraint, called Lent, for approximately six weeks before Easter as well as a season of eight weeks of celebration following Resurrection Sunday.
Some Christian churches also commemorate one or more holy days during the week before Easter (called Holy Week). These include Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem riding on a Donkey on “Palm Sunday” (one week before Easter), the establishment of the Lord’s Supper on Thursday, remembering Jesus’ Crucifixion on Friday, and even an evening or all-night vigil of Scripture and prayer on Saturday night.
Commonly recognized Easter symbols in America, such as the Easter Bunny or decorated eggs, are not drawn from the traditional Christian practices surrounding Resurrection Sunday, although some have more recently used the hatching of an egg as a way of describing Jesus’ resurrection to children. It is more likely that these symbols arise out of pre-Christian springtime festivals from Western Europe. However, because these symbols emphasize the coming of new life, they could be seen as complimentary images to the Christian celebration of the Resurrection and especially useful for the instruction of children about Easter’s meaning.
Q: What religious holy days does God require Christians to celebrate?
I cannot say that the New Testament gives any commands concerning holy days which must be celebrated by Christians as a requirement. In fact, Paul says in the book of Romans, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. (Romans 14:5-6a ESV)
Some churches observe only a small number of holy days during the year, such as Christmas and Easter. Other churches have more elaborate calendars which include dozens of holy days. The most common of these follows the major events in the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, from His conception and birth through His resurrection and ascension, and even specifies certain Scripture readings to accompany the commemoration of each event.
In many of the world’s religions, it is thought that observance of certain festivals will bring blessing, good fortune, or the favor of their god/gods. Christian holy days are notably different from this because they do not exist for us to offer something to God in exchange for his blessings. Instead, they exist to help us learn about what Jesus said and did during His earthly life and to remind us of His life, death, and resurrection for us. What matters is not the number or name of the holy days, but rather the person to whom they point and about whom they teach us, namely Jesus.
Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
Q: What is the religious meaning behind the Easter holiday, and how are symbols such as decorated eggs and the Easter Bunny related to the Christian celebration of Easter?
To state it most concisely, Easter is the yearly celebration of the day on which Jesus rose to life the third day after dying by crucifixion. This occurred in Jerusalem, approximately the year 30 A.D. Ancient Christians considered this celebration to be the highest point of their worship for the year, and they viewed every Sunday as a commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection and a smaller version of the Easter celebration. Even today, the Resurrection of Jesus is a pivotal event for Christians, because the truthfulness of the Christian faith rests entirely on its authenticity.
The word “Easter” is actually a term unique to the English language. Because of the events Easter celebrates, the hymnal on my desk calls it, “The Resurrection of our Lord.” Other times it is simply known as “Resurrection Sunday.” Ancient Christians referred to this celebration using the same word which had been used to refer to the Jewish holiday of Passover.
The great majority of Christian churches celebrate the Resurrection in some way. The simplest of these celebrations lasts only one day and may include only special music or a more festive atmosphere for the morning’s service. In other Christian traditions, the celebration encompasses a significant period of time both before and after Easter itself. In the most elaborate of celebrations, churches may observe a season of solemnity and restraint, called Lent, for approximately six weeks before Easter as well as a season of eight weeks of celebration following Resurrection Sunday.
Some Christian churches also commemorate one or more holy days during the week before Easter (called Holy Week). These include Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem riding on a Donkey on “Palm Sunday” (one week before Easter), the establishment of the Lord’s Supper on Thursday, remembering Jesus’ Crucifixion on Friday, and even an evening or all-night vigil of Scripture and prayer on Saturday night.
Commonly recognized Easter symbols in America, such as the Easter Bunny or decorated eggs, are not drawn from the traditional Christian practices surrounding Resurrection Sunday, although some have more recently used the hatching of an egg as a way of describing Jesus’ resurrection to children. It is more likely that these symbols arise out of pre-Christian springtime festivals from Western Europe. However, because these symbols emphasize the coming of new life, they could be seen as complimentary images to the Christian celebration of the Resurrection and especially useful for the instruction of children about Easter’s meaning.
Q: What religious holy days does God require Christians to celebrate?
I cannot say that the New Testament gives any commands concerning holy days which must be celebrated by Christians as a requirement. In fact, Paul says in the book of Romans, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. (Romans 14:5-6a ESV)
Some churches observe only a small number of holy days during the year, such as Christmas and Easter. Other churches have more elaborate calendars which include dozens of holy days. The most common of these follows the major events in the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, from His conception and birth through His resurrection and ascension, and even specifies certain Scripture readings to accompany the commemoration of each event.
In many of the world’s religions, it is thought that observance of certain festivals will bring blessing, good fortune, or the favor of their god/gods. Christian holy days are notably different from this because they do not exist for us to offer something to God in exchange for his blessings. Instead, they exist to help us learn about what Jesus said and did during His earthly life and to remind us of His life, death, and resurrection for us. What matters is not the number or name of the holy days, but rather the person to whom they point and about whom they teach us, namely Jesus.
Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues. According to your preference, you may include your first name or submit questions anonymously, and I will do my best to answer your questions as my knowledge and research allow and according to their suitability for publication. You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Book Review - The Shack
There has been much talk recently about a book called The Shack. As of the time this is being written, it is the #3 book on Amazon.com and #1 in paperback fiction on the New York Times Bestsellers List. I doubt there are many of you who haven’t heard of it. If you haven’t read it, you probably know someone who has.
It’s easy to see why the book is so appealing. In spite of the dark events underlying the book’s story, it has a sort of feel-good quality to it. It addresses questions which people everywhere are asking today: Who is God? Why does He allow tragedies and suffering? Where was He when…? The subject of the book is observably religious, but is it Christian? Who is the “god” of The Shack?
For those of you who haven’t read the book, let me give you the basics. Mack, a man who has experienced the brutal murder of his daughter, is the main character of the book. His wife and children appear in the book, but do not play a large part in the plot, and his friend Willie turns out to be the ghost-writer of the book. The other three main characters are meant to represent the Trinity. Papa (God the Father) is a large African-American woman. Jesus is a 30-some year old Middle-eastern man, and Sarayu (The Holy Spirit) is a small Asian woman. After receiving a note in his mailbox from “Papa,” Mack returns to the shack where his daughter was murdered and encounters “God” as he is portrayed by the author.
I will start out by pointing out a few areas the book handles well: It actually addresses the question of God’s identity—an often-overlooked topic in recent times. It does describe God in terms of the Trinity—a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that Jesus is the center of everything. It even recognizes our inability to please God by our good deeds or behavior.
In order to touch on the most important elements of how the book portrays God, I will move quickly past a few obvious things. There is difficulty with the way in which God communicates with Mack in the book (notes and people in a shack), but I will just assume that as a fictional element necessary to create the plot. It is obvious from the character descriptions above that any Christian should have immediate questions about the way the author portrays God the Father and the Holy Spirit. The author acknowledges that his portrayal of God in the book is metaphorical rather than literal, but it still seems unwise and dangerous to portray God in images which are different, if not opposite from the way He has revealed Himself in the Bible. (For the sake of keeping this analysis to 2 pages, I will move quickly to the most important difficulties with the book for a Christian. I am considering publishing a booklet of the full 20-30 page review for sale in light of the upcoming movie release, though. So those seeking further details may have an outlet to read more there.
Mack makes a few off-target statements about God in the book, but we can dismiss them as being just the opinion of the character. On the other hand, when the character making the errant statements about God is God, we can be sure that the author intends us to receive this statement as true. As Christians, we have the ability to know certain things about God. When He has told us something about Himself in Scripture, we can know it is a fact. However, when He has been silent about something in Scripture, we are just as obligated to also remain silent. This is the primary way The Shack falls short on describing God..
The author does get a couple of facts correct: There are three persons, yet one God. Jesus is fully God and fully human. However, the “God” characters in the book go on to explain the Trinity in ways which are clearly contrary to Scripture. First, Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu all bear the marks of crucifixion on their bodies, when Scripture clearly teaches that only Jesus died at the cross. Papa (and the others) say “We became fully human.” when Scripture clearly teaches that only Jesus, the Son, took on human nature. Additionally, the author confuses several important facts about Jesus by having Papa say that Jesus never acted out of His authority as God and that He is still limited in using His divine power by His human nature.
There is a recurring pattern in the book where Mack confronts one of the God characters with a Scriptural truth, only to have God respond by saying that the Bible’s words aren’t what He really meant. Not only does this devalue the Bible, it also seeks to inspire doubt about important Biblical teachings. The most obvious example of this is when Papa and Mack discuss the crucifixion. Mack asks about God the Father forsaking Jesus, and Papa responds that He did not actually forsake Jesus, but that Jesus just felt forsaken even though it was not reality. I think the most relevant contradiction in the book is when Mack and Jesus discuss salvation. The Jesus character states that there are people from all of the world’s religions who love Him, and that He does not desire that they become Christians. This clearly contradicts the Bible’s claims that there is no way to salvation except for Jesus and the commandment against having any other gods.
So, you’re probably asking, “Should I read this book?” (or “Should I have read it?”) If you are a mature Christian who is strongly rooted in the Bible’s teachings, reading this book is not going to harm you, providing you read it with the careful understanding that you are not encountering a true portrayal of God. In fact, since so many of your neighbors are reading it already, it might even be beneficial for you to be knowledgeable enough about its contents that you can help guide them around its pitfalls. On the other hand, for children, most teenagers, new Christians, or those who do not have a precise understanding of the Bible’s teachings, this book should most certainly not be on your reading list. It will only serve to obscure God’s identity for you rather than reveal it, and it could lead you to great spiritual harm. However, do consider reading my full review on the web so you can be well-informed when discussions arise with friends or neighbors about this book.
The Shack attempts to answer humanity’s questions about God’s presence in suffering, but we have much more to offer the world about this topic when we have the right God as the foundation for our answers. If you have questions about God’s place in sorrow and tragedies, I would recommend the book I reviewed in our January Messenger: Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel.
It’s easy to see why the book is so appealing. In spite of the dark events underlying the book’s story, it has a sort of feel-good quality to it. It addresses questions which people everywhere are asking today: Who is God? Why does He allow tragedies and suffering? Where was He when…? The subject of the book is observably religious, but is it Christian? Who is the “god” of The Shack?
For those of you who haven’t read the book, let me give you the basics. Mack, a man who has experienced the brutal murder of his daughter, is the main character of the book. His wife and children appear in the book, but do not play a large part in the plot, and his friend Willie turns out to be the ghost-writer of the book. The other three main characters are meant to represent the Trinity. Papa (God the Father) is a large African-American woman. Jesus is a 30-some year old Middle-eastern man, and Sarayu (The Holy Spirit) is a small Asian woman. After receiving a note in his mailbox from “Papa,” Mack returns to the shack where his daughter was murdered and encounters “God” as he is portrayed by the author.
I will start out by pointing out a few areas the book handles well: It actually addresses the question of God’s identity—an often-overlooked topic in recent times. It does describe God in terms of the Trinity—a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that Jesus is the center of everything. It even recognizes our inability to please God by our good deeds or behavior.
In order to touch on the most important elements of how the book portrays God, I will move quickly past a few obvious things. There is difficulty with the way in which God communicates with Mack in the book (notes and people in a shack), but I will just assume that as a fictional element necessary to create the plot. It is obvious from the character descriptions above that any Christian should have immediate questions about the way the author portrays God the Father and the Holy Spirit. The author acknowledges that his portrayal of God in the book is metaphorical rather than literal, but it still seems unwise and dangerous to portray God in images which are different, if not opposite from the way He has revealed Himself in the Bible. (For the sake of keeping this analysis to 2 pages, I will move quickly to the most important difficulties with the book for a Christian. I am considering publishing a booklet of the full 20-30 page review for sale in light of the upcoming movie release, though. So those seeking further details may have an outlet to read more there.
Mack makes a few off-target statements about God in the book, but we can dismiss them as being just the opinion of the character. On the other hand, when the character making the errant statements about God is God, we can be sure that the author intends us to receive this statement as true. As Christians, we have the ability to know certain things about God. When He has told us something about Himself in Scripture, we can know it is a fact. However, when He has been silent about something in Scripture, we are just as obligated to also remain silent. This is the primary way The Shack falls short on describing God..
The author does get a couple of facts correct: There are three persons, yet one God. Jesus is fully God and fully human. However, the “God” characters in the book go on to explain the Trinity in ways which are clearly contrary to Scripture. First, Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu all bear the marks of crucifixion on their bodies, when Scripture clearly teaches that only Jesus died at the cross. Papa (and the others) say “We became fully human.” when Scripture clearly teaches that only Jesus, the Son, took on human nature. Additionally, the author confuses several important facts about Jesus by having Papa say that Jesus never acted out of His authority as God and that He is still limited in using His divine power by His human nature.
There is a recurring pattern in the book where Mack confronts one of the God characters with a Scriptural truth, only to have God respond by saying that the Bible’s words aren’t what He really meant. Not only does this devalue the Bible, it also seeks to inspire doubt about important Biblical teachings. The most obvious example of this is when Papa and Mack discuss the crucifixion. Mack asks about God the Father forsaking Jesus, and Papa responds that He did not actually forsake Jesus, but that Jesus just felt forsaken even though it was not reality. I think the most relevant contradiction in the book is when Mack and Jesus discuss salvation. The Jesus character states that there are people from all of the world’s religions who love Him, and that He does not desire that they become Christians. This clearly contradicts the Bible’s claims that there is no way to salvation except for Jesus and the commandment against having any other gods.
So, you’re probably asking, “Should I read this book?” (or “Should I have read it?”) If you are a mature Christian who is strongly rooted in the Bible’s teachings, reading this book is not going to harm you, providing you read it with the careful understanding that you are not encountering a true portrayal of God. In fact, since so many of your neighbors are reading it already, it might even be beneficial for you to be knowledgeable enough about its contents that you can help guide them around its pitfalls. On the other hand, for children, most teenagers, new Christians, or those who do not have a precise understanding of the Bible’s teachings, this book should most certainly not be on your reading list. It will only serve to obscure God’s identity for you rather than reveal it, and it could lead you to great spiritual harm. However, do consider reading my full review on the web so you can be well-informed when discussions arise with friends or neighbors about this book.
The Shack attempts to answer humanity’s questions about God’s presence in suffering, but we have much more to offer the world about this topic when we have the right God as the foundation for our answers. If you have questions about God’s place in sorrow and tragedies, I would recommend the book I reviewed in our January Messenger: Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Missouri's Golden Age
Regarding the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, a synodical leader said several years ago that, "This is not your grandfather's Synod." Since then, countless pastors and laypersons have responded by saying, "We want our grandfather's synod back," but I wonder, has our grandfather's synod become a sort of idol for us?
Do I think that some of the recent changes in many of our synod's congregations regarding worship style and pastoral practice have been the best choices? No. I don't. But, do I want my grandfather's synod back either? Certainly not!
Too often, we act like there is a Golden age of the Missouri Synod to which we need to return. We act as if we could just return to the way it was in Walther's time, everything would be better, or that the synod was perfect the day TLH was published in 1941, and has been going downhill ever since. I believe one of my seminary professors said it best when he told us in no uncertain terms, "There is no golden age!"
My grandfather's synod was plagued by all manner of pietism, by Romaphobia, and by a widespread disregard for the liturgy and sacraments. A few examples:
Do I think that some of the recent changes in many of our synod's congregations regarding worship style and pastoral practice have been the best choices? No. I don't. But, do I want my grandfather's synod back either? Certainly not!
Too often, we act like there is a Golden age of the Missouri Synod to which we need to return. We act as if we could just return to the way it was in Walther's time, everything would be better, or that the synod was perfect the day TLH was published in 1941, and has been going downhill ever since. I believe one of my seminary professors said it best when he told us in no uncertain terms, "There is no golden age!"
My grandfather's synod was plagued by all manner of pietism, by Romaphobia, and by a widespread disregard for the liturgy and sacraments. A few examples:
- The synod of Walther's era believed it was sinful to purchase life insurance because it showed a lack of trust in God to provide.
- Weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper has never been the norm for the Missouri Synod, and at certain times and places was as little as monthly or quarterly. Even the Baptists who believe it is no more than mere bread and wine receive the Supper monthly. How should we not receive it much more often than that?
- As late as the 1960's, pastors who were divorced by no fault of their own, but because of adultery or desertion on the part of their wives, were either forced out of the ministry or relegated to desk jobs at synodical institutions.
- Well into the mid-20th century, men were required to enter and graduate seminary single, but faced a cultural expectation to be married when they entered the parish.
- Throughout Missouri's history, large numbers have rejected as "Romish" or "Catholic," many liturgical practices retained by the Reformers, such as chanting, vestments, the crucifix, the sign of the cross, and many others. The rejection of these practices has impaired the ability to pass down the faith to later generations.
- Uniformity in practice was all too often enforced by means of the law, rather than encouraged for the sake of the Gospel, even in areas of adiaphora.
These are just the things that came to the top of my head in the course of 5 minutes. If I took the time to pull out my church history notes or especially to read copies of synod publications from Missouri's first century, the list could probably grow to dissertation-sized proportions. All the while, Missouri retained the right doctrine, but persistently contradicted it by her practice.
While I don't think we are any better off today, I know we were certainly not any better off then. It has been noted by many observers that each generation of humans believe things are worse in their generation than they have ever been before. It is also noted that they are generally wrong. The sky is not falling, nor is Missouri's house. Each generation of Christians and Lutherans has corrected some of the errors of its fathers and grandfathers, while also generating plenty of their own along the way. Longing for the repristination of our flawed past will do nothing to help us today. It will only distract us from the Church's mission of reaching sinners to deliver through Word and Sacrament the forgiveness won for them by our Lord. If we are going to look foolish to the world, let it be because of the cross, and not because of the bizarre Missouri synod culture which our past has forced upon us with all of its disputes and other oddities. Rather than looking with longing eyes to the past, we would be better off to look after our own house today and use the wisdom God gave us to chart a course for the future.Friday, February 6, 2009
Evangelically Fixated vs. Theologically Preoccupied
In his column for the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of Outreach Magazine, Ed Stetzer observed two errant tendencies in the church. He described the first as "Theologically Preoccupied," and the other as "Evangelically Fixated." He noted how each particular post on his blog draws critical responses from one side or the other.
It seems that these two tendencies are both alive and well within my church body, the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, as well. This is not to say that the majority of our pastors could be placed in either camp, but sometimes it can feel otherwise, when those at either extreme happen to be some of our most prolific at distributing their opinions. While I realize the majority of our pastors and congregations are doing their best to maintain this equilibrium, we have to admit that there are some who are guilty either of compromising elements of our theology for the sake of growing their church or have become so preoccupied with theological introspection that they never engage or interact with unbelievers, much less participate in evangelism.
I do not intend to say that theological precision is a fault or undesirable--quite the opposite. It is absolutely necessary, but when theological precision is sought to the neglect of evangelistic fervor, it is misplaced. Likewise, Evangelism is not an unnecessary task, and I do not intend to criticize those who have a passion for it. But, when evangelism is pursued at the expense or neglect of theological precision, this is also objectionable.
A Christian should be neither "Evangelically Fixated" nor "Theologically preoccupied." Instead, the church should always find itself Evangelistically Theological and Theologically Evangelistic. These two extremes provide a suitable test for the rest of us. If you find yourself criticized by one of these extremes or the other, perhaps it is time to take a moment to examine your equilibrium. If you find yourself alternately criticized by both extremes, you have probably achieved the appropriate symmetry.
It seems that these two tendencies are both alive and well within my church body, the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, as well. This is not to say that the majority of our pastors could be placed in either camp, but sometimes it can feel otherwise, when those at either extreme happen to be some of our most prolific at distributing their opinions. While I realize the majority of our pastors and congregations are doing their best to maintain this equilibrium, we have to admit that there are some who are guilty either of compromising elements of our theology for the sake of growing their church or have become so preoccupied with theological introspection that they never engage or interact with unbelievers, much less participate in evangelism.
I do not intend to say that theological precision is a fault or undesirable--quite the opposite. It is absolutely necessary, but when theological precision is sought to the neglect of evangelistic fervor, it is misplaced. Likewise, Evangelism is not an unnecessary task, and I do not intend to criticize those who have a passion for it. But, when evangelism is pursued at the expense or neglect of theological precision, this is also objectionable.
A Christian should be neither "Evangelically Fixated" nor "Theologically preoccupied." Instead, the church should always find itself Evangelistically Theological and Theologically Evangelistic. These two extremes provide a suitable test for the rest of us. If you find yourself criticized by one of these extremes or the other, perhaps it is time to take a moment to examine your equilibrium. If you find yourself alternately criticized by both extremes, you have probably achieved the appropriate symmetry.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Sacrificing pure doctrine?
In another forum, I recently saw it said regarding changes made in congregations by the pastor, "sometimes we have to sacrifice our pure doctine (in letter) to embrace and live it [in] spirit."
Now, I have known guys entering their first call to the parish, who have made the mistake of hastily moving liturgical furniture or forcing changes on a congregation with negative results for the church as a whole. I myself did ask my congregation to modify a celebrant's chair when I arrived, but it was because I couldn't fit my 330 lb. frame between its arms, so I don't think that is part of this category, and nobody seemed to be offended.
However, it doesn't seem to me that a pastor should avoid guiding his congregation toward change. It seems it would be inadvisable to ever "sacrifice" pure doctrine, especially in light of the many admonitions in the pastoral epistles against doing so. It seems a dangerous framework to place pure doctrine and life in the Spirit in opposition to one another. However, there is certainly something to be said for wisdom and patience when promoting change.
Live where the people live. Get to know them, their church, their culture. Understand why they have the practice they currently have. Learn the history. Go to people's homes. Meet them for coffee. Ask them questions. Show them respect. Spend time brushing up on the topics that they care deeply about. Inspire them. Show them they can trust you as a man and as a pastor. Teach them the Word. Know the difference between a practice which detracts from Jesus versus one that is just eccentric. Talk to them about what you see, "not lording it over them," but as a fellow Christian. Then, the desired changes will come by consensus rather than conflict.
It's not a sacrifice of doctrine, but a sacrifice of the arrogance and selfish pride that expects people to change just because the pastor said so, even though they haven't a clue about why he objects. If we neglect to lead our people toward purer understanding and a practice which clearly reflects pure doctrine, we have failed to do our full duty as pastors. On the other hand, if we recklessly drive them like cattle rather than carefully shepherding them, we will learn that sheep too can stampede!
"Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is within you, but do so with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) It's not spirit or doctrine, it's spirit and doctrine; not mission versus purity, but a mission which prolaims purely and a purity which inspires mission. Our task as pastors is not to tilt the scales toward one or the other, but to lead and be an example to our people in fully embracing both.
Now, I have known guys entering their first call to the parish, who have made the mistake of hastily moving liturgical furniture or forcing changes on a congregation with negative results for the church as a whole. I myself did ask my congregation to modify a celebrant's chair when I arrived, but it was because I couldn't fit my 330 lb. frame between its arms, so I don't think that is part of this category, and nobody seemed to be offended.
However, it doesn't seem to me that a pastor should avoid guiding his congregation toward change. It seems it would be inadvisable to ever "sacrifice" pure doctrine, especially in light of the many admonitions in the pastoral epistles against doing so. It seems a dangerous framework to place pure doctrine and life in the Spirit in opposition to one another. However, there is certainly something to be said for wisdom and patience when promoting change.
Live where the people live. Get to know them, their church, their culture. Understand why they have the practice they currently have. Learn the history. Go to people's homes. Meet them for coffee. Ask them questions. Show them respect. Spend time brushing up on the topics that they care deeply about. Inspire them. Show them they can trust you as a man and as a pastor. Teach them the Word. Know the difference between a practice which detracts from Jesus versus one that is just eccentric. Talk to them about what you see, "not lording it over them," but as a fellow Christian. Then, the desired changes will come by consensus rather than conflict.
It's not a sacrifice of doctrine, but a sacrifice of the arrogance and selfish pride that expects people to change just because the pastor said so, even though they haven't a clue about why he objects. If we neglect to lead our people toward purer understanding and a practice which clearly reflects pure doctrine, we have failed to do our full duty as pastors. On the other hand, if we recklessly drive them like cattle rather than carefully shepherding them, we will learn that sheep too can stampede!
"Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is within you, but do so with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) It's not spirit or doctrine, it's spirit and doctrine; not mission versus purity, but a mission which prolaims purely and a purity which inspires mission. Our task as pastors is not to tilt the scales toward one or the other, but to lead and be an example to our people in fully embracing both.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Lutheran Study Bible
The first sneak pre-preview is out! Lutherans will finally have a study bible with LUTHERAN notes instead of warmed-over Zondervan! Praise the Lord!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Lutheran Reformission
What, then, is a Lutheran Reformission? Why would a Lutheran want to adopt this term?
First, Lutherans are the originators and true heirs of the Reformation. I had been searching and contemplating for over 2 years on a new blog title, and early in 2008 this word, "Reformission," came on to my radar. From the first time I heard it, I knew it was the perfect term for what I had envisioned. Add to that my new task of being chairman of Iowa District West's Personal Missions Committee, and it becomes even more appropriate to use this title.
Even though there have been notable lapses, Lutherans, especially of the Missouri Synod variety, have long been known for doctrinal faithfulness. We have also done a fairly commendable job at sending professional missionaries for the task of foreign missions, as evidenced by the fact that there are now significantly more Lutherans today in Africa than in North America. However, whether deserved or not, we have had a notoriously poor reputation for the task of personal missions--that is, engaging in evangelism ourselves among our friends, family, and neighbors. (Future posts will address this idea in greater detail.)
In today's Missouri Synod, there has sometimes been the perception that doctrinal faithfulness and an enthusiasm for mission are conflicting priorities. Although this dichotomy is not officially enshrined in Lutheran doctrine or Missouri Synod positions, it has been a practical reality more often than we would like to admit. We have too often been under the impression that we must choose between ignoring (if not outright compromising) doctrine for the sake of missional effectiveness or turning our focus inward to purify doctrine at the expense of engaging in mission.
A "Lutheran Reformission" is appropriate because it embraces both doctrinal faithfulness and a passion for missions, resulting in missional doctrine and doctrinal mission.
Even though the term itself has roots outside our denominational fellowship, the concept is applicable regardless of the specifics of confession. Doctrine and Mission work together in the life of the Church.
First, Lutherans are the originators and true heirs of the Reformation. I had been searching and contemplating for over 2 years on a new blog title, and early in 2008 this word, "Reformission," came on to my radar. From the first time I heard it, I knew it was the perfect term for what I had envisioned. Add to that my new task of being chairman of Iowa District West's Personal Missions Committee, and it becomes even more appropriate to use this title.
Even though there have been notable lapses, Lutherans, especially of the Missouri Synod variety, have long been known for doctrinal faithfulness. We have also done a fairly commendable job at sending professional missionaries for the task of foreign missions, as evidenced by the fact that there are now significantly more Lutherans today in Africa than in North America. However, whether deserved or not, we have had a notoriously poor reputation for the task of personal missions--that is, engaging in evangelism ourselves among our friends, family, and neighbors. (Future posts will address this idea in greater detail.)
In today's Missouri Synod, there has sometimes been the perception that doctrinal faithfulness and an enthusiasm for mission are conflicting priorities. Although this dichotomy is not officially enshrined in Lutheran doctrine or Missouri Synod positions, it has been a practical reality more often than we would like to admit. We have too often been under the impression that we must choose between ignoring (if not outright compromising) doctrine for the sake of missional effectiveness or turning our focus inward to purify doctrine at the expense of engaging in mission.
A "Lutheran Reformission" is appropriate because it embraces both doctrinal faithfulness and a passion for missions, resulting in missional doctrine and doctrinal mission.
Even though the term itself has roots outside our denominational fellowship, the concept is applicable regardless of the specifics of confession. Doctrine and Mission work together in the life of the Church.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Reformission History
What is the origin of this word, "Reformission"? Where did it come from?
You will not find it defined in any dictionary. The word is a conflation of "Reformation" and "Mission." It is inteded to refer to both the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century as well as the continual reform (that is repentance from our errors) of the present-day Church, and to connect these with the task of a Mission which is local and personal. The earliest usage of the word that I have been able to find in my research has been by Mark Driscoll in his books Radical Reformission" (2004) and Confessions of a Reformission Rev. (2006).
Because of his early involvement with figures such as Dan Kimball and Brian McLaren, and because of his church, Mars Hill, holds a similar method of cultural engagement, some have considered Driscoll part of the "Emerging Church" movement. If one were to consider him part of this movement, however, it must be understood that the "Emerging Church" is not a well-defined movement, but a term broadly used to cover a variety of expressions. Some, using the term "Emergent" have tended toward a modern repackaging classic liberal Christianity. Others, who Driscoll refers to as "Emerging Reformers," have combined a strong doctrinal emphasis (most often Calvinist) with an aptitude for cultural engagement. It is this second expression of the "Emerging" movement which has tended to embrace the term "Reformission".
In Radical Reformission, Driscoll defines "Reformission" as "a radical call to reform the church's traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out only in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his church." He goes on to explain reformission in terms of faithfulness to the Gospel, commitment to the Church, and engagement of the Culture.
In light of this history, I would define "Reformission" as an expression of Christianity which is doctrinally faithful, fervently missional, and culturally aware.
You will not find it defined in any dictionary. The word is a conflation of "Reformation" and "Mission." It is inteded to refer to both the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century as well as the continual reform (that is repentance from our errors) of the present-day Church, and to connect these with the task of a Mission which is local and personal. The earliest usage of the word that I have been able to find in my research has been by Mark Driscoll in his books Radical Reformission" (2004) and Confessions of a Reformission Rev. (2006).
Because of his early involvement with figures such as Dan Kimball and Brian McLaren, and because of his church, Mars Hill, holds a similar method of cultural engagement, some have considered Driscoll part of the "Emerging Church" movement. If one were to consider him part of this movement, however, it must be understood that the "Emerging Church" is not a well-defined movement, but a term broadly used to cover a variety of expressions. Some, using the term "Emergent" have tended toward a modern repackaging classic liberal Christianity. Others, who Driscoll refers to as "Emerging Reformers," have combined a strong doctrinal emphasis (most often Calvinist) with an aptitude for cultural engagement. It is this second expression of the "Emerging" movement which has tended to embrace the term "Reformission".
In Radical Reformission, Driscoll defines "Reformission" as "a radical call to reform the church's traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out only in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his church." He goes on to explain reformission in terms of faithfulness to the Gospel, commitment to the Church, and engagement of the Culture.
In light of this history, I would define "Reformission" as an expression of Christianity which is doctrinally faithful, fervently missional, and culturally aware.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Who takes the first step in salvation?
The question has been raised in several venues recently whether when a person comes to church, if they are taking the first step in coming to God. Similarly, it has been asked that if God is taking the first step, then is He not working outside of the Means of Grace? Since Lutherans teach that God has only promised to work salvation through the Means of Grace, and by grace alone, the interplay of answers to these two questions becomes complex.
1. Does God work apart from the Word and Sacrament? Certainly He does, but only according to His Law! According to His grace, He has only promised to work through Word and Sacrament, but according to His Law, he is at work in all things. This is why they're called the "Means of Grace." God has only given specific promises regarding how he will work according to grace, not according to Law. Look at the Old Testament. God is given the credit for numerous events in the history of Israel and the world without doing so through Word and Sacrament, but He is not doing any of it according to His grace. It is much like natural and special revelation. Can we see that there is a god through nature and that he is powerful? Yes, but we cannot know anything about His identity or His grace apart from the Scriptures. Similarly, God is certainly present everywhere and in control over all things, but only present to work according to His Grace through the Word and Sacraments.
2. In addition to being driven by Law to a church through tragic events or through realizing his sinfulness, a person would not know to go to the church unless he had heard some word of Gospel, no matter how simple, or else why would He look to the church? Certainly this is not saving faith, for that cannot be unless the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross is articulated, but certainly whatever promise or hope the man heard from his neighbor, even if only a vague summary, such as that the Church has the answers to his problems or the fulfillment of his needs, is drawing Him to the Church to hear the preaching of Christ. If he will be saved, He must then hear of the forgiveness of sins through the Word of the Gospel and receive that Word made visible in Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
In all things, God gets credit for salvation. He works according to His Law to drive men away from security in their sin and toward Himself, and He works according to His Grace through the Word and Sacraments to forgive sins and give eternal life and salvation.
1. Does God work apart from the Word and Sacrament? Certainly He does, but only according to His Law! According to His grace, He has only promised to work through Word and Sacrament, but according to His Law, he is at work in all things. This is why they're called the "Means of Grace." God has only given specific promises regarding how he will work according to grace, not according to Law. Look at the Old Testament. God is given the credit for numerous events in the history of Israel and the world without doing so through Word and Sacrament, but He is not doing any of it according to His grace. It is much like natural and special revelation. Can we see that there is a god through nature and that he is powerful? Yes, but we cannot know anything about His identity or His grace apart from the Scriptures. Similarly, God is certainly present everywhere and in control over all things, but only present to work according to His Grace through the Word and Sacraments.
2. In addition to being driven by Law to a church through tragic events or through realizing his sinfulness, a person would not know to go to the church unless he had heard some word of Gospel, no matter how simple, or else why would He look to the church? Certainly this is not saving faith, for that cannot be unless the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross is articulated, but certainly whatever promise or hope the man heard from his neighbor, even if only a vague summary, such as that the Church has the answers to his problems or the fulfillment of his needs, is drawing Him to the Church to hear the preaching of Christ. If he will be saved, He must then hear of the forgiveness of sins through the Word of the Gospel and receive that Word made visible in Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
In all things, God gets credit for salvation. He works according to His Law to drive men away from security in their sin and toward Himself, and He works according to His Grace through the Word and Sacraments to forgive sins and give eternal life and salvation.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Is God the author of evil?
A rough translation of Isaiah 45:7 could be that "[God] forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates evil." For one who was seeking to ask whether God is responsible for moral evil in the world, such a translation could result in a resounding "yes." Those with less pure motives might even use such a verse to accuse the God of the scriptures of being imperfect, evil, or false. Before we let such a conclusion stand, let us examine the verse more closely.
"Evil" meaning moral evil, sin, etc. is actually a very rare definition of the Hebrew word "ra." (ranging between definition 3rd and 10th in various lexicons) I would disagree with libronix and other parsing tools identification of the word in this verse as a substantive adjective, and rather classify it as a masculine noun. (The forms for adjective and masculine noun are identical for this word.) The primary meaning of "ra" when used as a noun is "evil, disstress, adversity." When one asks philosophical questions such as, "is God the author of evil?" it refers to moral evil. Evil in the primary use of "ra" as well as in this verse refers to evil circumstances, such as come upon one in a natural disaster or the aftermath of a military defeat. As a result, I would translate the verse as, "who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates distress. I am the Lord, who does all these." Several translations render "ra" in this verse as "calamity" also, which is in keeping with this definition of the word.
This is a poetic section of Isaiah, so examination of the parallelism of the text is important as to its meaning. Each of the first two lines of the verse consists of a pair of opposites, and the two pairs are compared to one another through a synonymous parallelism. Therefore, Just as God "forms light and creates darkness" so also He "makes peace and creates distress." This assertion that each pair of opposites is a synonym for the other is further strengthened by the fact that the second verb in each pair is identical.
Furthermore, within its pair of opposites, "ra" is not compared with "tov" (good), but instead with "shalom" (peace). If God was said to make good and create evil, interpretation of "ra" as moral evil would be justified, but just as light and dark are opposites, so must be "shalom" and "ra." Therefore, evil in this verse must be the oppoiste of peace rather than of good, thus the translation of "distress" (or adversity, calamity.)
Looking at the context of this verse, we see it is Isaiah's prophesy concerning Cyrus (who did not know God [v. 4-5]) who will allow the captive Jews to return to their land. God is about to give "peace" by returning His people to the land, just as He also brought the "evil" of their downfall and captivity to Babylon. The Old Testament speaks frequently about God fighting against His own people when they have been unfaithful. So, here, he is about to use an unbelieving pagan ruler to return the people to the land, just as he used an unbelieving pagan ruler to exile them in the first place. Even the actions of pagans and evil men serve to accomplish God's will.
Several commentaries also propose that this shows God to be greater than the Persian gods. The Persian religious system was dualistic. There were separate good and evil gods. One created light and was responsible for all good; the other created darkness and was responsible for all evil. This serves to show Cyrus and those who witness the events of scripture that unlike the dualistic Persian god, YHWH is in control of all things with no rival, making Him far greater.
Why would God work "evil" or distress, calamity, and adversity? God's will comes down to one thing. Salvation. (See Luther's Catechisms) God uses peace and adversity as He wills to achieve the final outcome of salvation. This is done both individually and corporately. He preserved the remnant of Israel in the Old Testament to provide for the incarnation of Christ to make atonement, and He individually uses all elements at His disposal to attain the goal of the salvation of individuals as their circumstances drive them to give thanks to God for blessing (peace) or drive them to despair of their own works and rely on God to save them (distress, adversity). This theme of scripture can be seen in this chapter of Isaiah as in v. 6, Isaiah lays out the purpose of God's activity, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no other besides Me." After a poetic section on God's power and majesty, chapter 45 finally ends with a declaration of God as the only savior, in whom alone is righteousness and strength, to whom all will one day bow and the admonition to turn to Him. (v. 21-25).
Kretzman's commentary summarizes this verse by saying, "Both good fortune and misfortune are sent by [God]."
All of God's works, whether they appear good or evil in the sight of man, serve His one purpose, which is salvation. This is the point of thse verses. God is working through all events of history to bring people to "be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)
(I expand on this idea that God uses tragedy to accomplish His will in a previous post at http://lutheranreformission.blogspot.com/2006/03/thy-will-be-done-role-of-tragic-events.html)
"Evil" meaning moral evil, sin, etc. is actually a very rare definition of the Hebrew word "ra." (ranging between definition 3rd and 10th in various lexicons) I would disagree with libronix and other parsing tools identification of the word in this verse as a substantive adjective, and rather classify it as a masculine noun. (The forms for adjective and masculine noun are identical for this word.) The primary meaning of "ra" when used as a noun is "evil, disstress, adversity." When one asks philosophical questions such as, "is God the author of evil?" it refers to moral evil. Evil in the primary use of "ra" as well as in this verse refers to evil circumstances, such as come upon one in a natural disaster or the aftermath of a military defeat. As a result, I would translate the verse as, "who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates distress. I am the Lord, who does all these." Several translations render "ra" in this verse as "calamity" also, which is in keeping with this definition of the word.
This is a poetic section of Isaiah, so examination of the parallelism of the text is important as to its meaning. Each of the first two lines of the verse consists of a pair of opposites, and the two pairs are compared to one another through a synonymous parallelism. Therefore, Just as God "forms light and creates darkness" so also He "makes peace and creates distress." This assertion that each pair of opposites is a synonym for the other is further strengthened by the fact that the second verb in each pair is identical.
Furthermore, within its pair of opposites, "ra" is not compared with "tov" (good), but instead with "shalom" (peace). If God was said to make good and create evil, interpretation of "ra" as moral evil would be justified, but just as light and dark are opposites, so must be "shalom" and "ra." Therefore, evil in this verse must be the oppoiste of peace rather than of good, thus the translation of "distress" (or adversity, calamity.)
Looking at the context of this verse, we see it is Isaiah's prophesy concerning Cyrus (who did not know God [v. 4-5]) who will allow the captive Jews to return to their land. God is about to give "peace" by returning His people to the land, just as He also brought the "evil" of their downfall and captivity to Babylon. The Old Testament speaks frequently about God fighting against His own people when they have been unfaithful. So, here, he is about to use an unbelieving pagan ruler to return the people to the land, just as he used an unbelieving pagan ruler to exile them in the first place. Even the actions of pagans and evil men serve to accomplish God's will.
Several commentaries also propose that this shows God to be greater than the Persian gods. The Persian religious system was dualistic. There were separate good and evil gods. One created light and was responsible for all good; the other created darkness and was responsible for all evil. This serves to show Cyrus and those who witness the events of scripture that unlike the dualistic Persian god, YHWH is in control of all things with no rival, making Him far greater.
Why would God work "evil" or distress, calamity, and adversity? God's will comes down to one thing. Salvation. (See Luther's Catechisms) God uses peace and adversity as He wills to achieve the final outcome of salvation. This is done both individually and corporately. He preserved the remnant of Israel in the Old Testament to provide for the incarnation of Christ to make atonement, and He individually uses all elements at His disposal to attain the goal of the salvation of individuals as their circumstances drive them to give thanks to God for blessing (peace) or drive them to despair of their own works and rely on God to save them (distress, adversity). This theme of scripture can be seen in this chapter of Isaiah as in v. 6, Isaiah lays out the purpose of God's activity, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no other besides Me." After a poetic section on God's power and majesty, chapter 45 finally ends with a declaration of God as the only savior, in whom alone is righteousness and strength, to whom all will one day bow and the admonition to turn to Him. (v. 21-25).
Kretzman's commentary summarizes this verse by saying, "Both good fortune and misfortune are sent by [God]."
All of God's works, whether they appear good or evil in the sight of man, serve His one purpose, which is salvation. This is the point of thse verses. God is working through all events of history to bring people to "be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)
(I expand on this idea that God uses tragedy to accomplish His will in a previous post at http://lutheranreformission.blogspot.com/2006/03/thy-will-be-done-role-of-tragic-events.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)