Filed under: scripture
Between earth and heaven there is but a thin partition. Heaven is much nearer than we think. I question if “the land that is very far off” is a good name for heaven. Was it not an extended kingdom on earth that was intended by the prophet rather than the celestial home? Heaven is by no means the far country, for it is the Father’s house. Are we not taught to say, ” Our Father which art in heaven?” Where the Father is, the true spirit of adoption counts itself near. Our Lord would have us mingle heaven with earth by naming it twice in this short prayer. See how He makes us familiar with heaven by mentioning it next to our usual food, making the next petition to be “give us this day our daily bread.” This does not look as if it should be thought of as a remote region. Heaven is, at any rate, so near that in a moment we can speak with Him who is King of the place and He will answer our call. Yes, before the clock ticks again, you and I may be there. Can that be a far-off that we can reach so soon? We are within hearing of the shining ones; we are nearly home. A little while and we shalle see our Lord. Perhaps another day’s march will bring us within the city gate. And what if another fifty years of life on earth should remain, what is it but the twinkling of an eye?
NT Wright on Nightline (click here)
A Short Discussion Between One of My Best Friends Matthew Josten and Myself About the Interview
A Brief Bio: Matthew and I met at Taylor University by living together on the same floor, sharing the same major, and doing ministry together at Exit 59 Church. In the spring of 2007, Matthew and I skipped classes to attend Wheaton’s theological conference on the Church Fathers. Many of the papers that were presented there were over our heads, but we still learned alot. In the fall of 2007, we skipped classes again and drove down to Asbury Seminary to hear New Testament scholar and Bishop NT Wright speak. We both found his presentations very fascinating and inspiring. Matthew and I have had many memories and alot of awesome conversations together. We always seem to learn something from one another. Matthew is actually the one who sent me this video and wanted to know my reaction to it. What is recorded hear is an unrehearsed discussion we had on ‘IM’. I thought many of you would enjoy reading our discussion, and might want to participate yourselves.
THE DISCUSSION
me: i think NT Wright just articulates restoration of all things in his own imagnitive way
but I agree with most things that he says
josten: ya.. idk if I buy into his whole heaven view (at least how he expressed it on tv…)
josten: but I guess we will find out when we get there
me: oh, what parts did you disagree with?
nightline did edit his stuff way down and I dont think they were totally fair to him.
josten: I guess I would have to look at it some more (it is hard to get very deep in a 5 min interview) but I am not sure if I totally buy into the idea that heaven is the “inbetween state”
me: well it depends how the word heaven is used in the NT
josten: explain
me: well i need to do a word study on it.
but when I think of heaven– i think of both the intermediate state and the renewed earth of Rev. 21
i think of heaven as when we are with Christ
josten: right…
me: but I agree with NT Wright in that the thrust of the New Testament is on the renewed earth part.
the resurrection of the dead happens on earth and those people stay on earth after it happens,
but I think NT Wright is fine to contrast pop view of heaven and the restored earth version.
me: i think the restored earth will be the springboard from which a new humanity will seek to explore a renewed universe and continue discover the marvelous works of God again
and we will be in perfect community, have glorified bodies, experience true worship, and live with Jesus here on earth.
josten: I guess when you explain it that way it makes sense… just something didn’t quite click when I was listening to the interviews of NT
me: yeah, well i didnt like the way it was presented and sometimes Wright can use reactionary language.
he likes to contrast himself from the doom and gloom judgement day stuff.
I think he hurts himself when he does that,
because its part of the gospel message and the New Testament.
josten: right…
me: like in 2 Peter 3
“7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”
earlier Peter compares this judgement of fire with the flood.
the interesting thing about the flood is that it didn’t destroy the earth completely.
it destroyed most people but not the earth.
i think it will be the same with the fire.
josten: interesting point.. In never thought of that
me: the text also says ‘the earth will be laid bare’
more like its been exposed for what it really is, than blown up
i think the fire will be a renewing fire
it destroys the ungoldy and the evil world-systems, but it preserves what is good
for example Rev. 21:24
“24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
the kings and nations will bring their glory and honor into the City.
the culture of the nations that is not impure will be kept and brought into the city as if God intended people to create diverse culture all along.
this isnt really a modern interpretation either, because the ancient Jewish worldview was this.
me: the earth would be restored. The lion would lay down with the lamb. the nations would turn their weapons into gardening tools as its says in Micah, essentially world peace after the ungodly have been judged.
josten: so you are saying this is what the ancient Jews believed?
me: well not about the specifics as revealed in Revelation
josten: right
me: but concerning the resurrection of the dead and the renewed land and the coming of the new jerusalem
yes, because thats what the prophets said,
and the early church emerged from that worldview and put Jesus at the center of it.
josten: tru…
josten: I am going to make something to eat
it was good talking with you
have a good evening!
me: yeah, take care brother
think about heaven!
its so good
Filed under: Theology
I read this today and was so impacted by the reading that I had to share it with someone. It is a selection from Oswald Chamber’s devotional classic “My Utmost for His Highest” (Feb. 10th reading).
“The people of God in Isaiah’s day had starved their imagination by looking on the face of idols, and Isaiah made them look at the heavens, that is he made them begin to use their imagination aright. Nature to a saint is sacramental. If we are children of God, we have a tremendous treasure in Nature. In every wind that blows, in every night and day of the year, in every sign in the sky, in every blossoming and in every withering of the earth, there is a real coming of God to us if we will simply use our starved imagination to realize it.
The test of spiritual concentration is bringing the imgaination into captivity. Is your imagination looking on the face of an idol? Is the idol yourself? Your work? Your conception of what a worker should be? Your experience of salvation and sanctification? Then your imagination of God is starved, and when you are up against difficulties you have no power, you can only endure in darkness. If your imagination is starved, do not look back to your own experience; it is God Whom you need. Go right out of yourself, away from the face of idols, away from everything that has been starving your imagination. Rouse yourself, take the gibe that Isaiah gave the people, and deliberately turn your imagination to God.”
I believe when we share the gospel with another person, the Holy Spirit leads us how to ‘package’ it for that person. I am not speaking of a water-downed version of the gospel or of another gospel than what is presented in scripture, but I am speaking of the different kinds of words and metaphors in scripture that we should use to present the gospel. In the past, the gospel has often been presented as a three-point formula or as a one-size fits all message. Though the gospel is meant for all people, we must use language that people can understand and relate to. If we are quick to look to the scriptures concerning gospel presentation, we will see that the gospel is presented in many different packages. Tim Keller explains this phenomenon and how it has changed the way he presents the gospel:
1. I don’t put all the gospel points into any one gospel presentation. I find it instructive that the New Testament writers themselves seldom, if ever, pack all of the aspects of the gospel equally in any one gospel address. When studying Paul’s gospel speeches in the book of Acts, it is striking how much is always left out.
He always leads with some points rather than others in an effort to connect with the baseline cultural narratives of his listeners. It is almost impossible to cover all the bases of the gospel with a non-believing listener without that person’s eyes glazing over.
Some parts simply engage her more than others, and, to begin with, a communicator should go with those. Eventually, of course, you have to get to all the aspects of the full gospel in any process of evangelism and discipleship. But you don’t have to say everything every time.
2. I use both a gospel for the “circumcised” and for the “uncircumcised.” Just as Paul spoke about a gospel for the more religious (the “circumcised”) and for the pagan, so I’ve found that my audience in Manhattan contains both those with moralist, religious backgrounds as well as those with postmodern, pluralistic worldviews.
There are people from other religions (Judaism, Islam), people with strong Catholic backgrounds, as well as those raised in conservative Protestant churches. People with a religious upbringing can grasp the idea of sin as the violation of God’s moral law. That law can be explained in such a way that they realize they fall short of it. In that context, Christ and his salvation can be presented as the only hope of pardon for guilt. This, the traditional evangelical gospel of the last generation, is a “gospel for the circumcised.”
However, Manhattan is also filled with postmodern listeners who consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed. If you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, “You have your standards, and I have mine.” If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced. Of course, postmodern people must at some point be challenged about their mushy views of truth, but there is a way to make a credible and convicting gospel presentation to them even before you get into such apologetic issues.
I take a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and define sin as building your identity—your self-worth and happiness—on anything other than God. That is, I use the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on “doing bad things” but on “making good things into ultimate things.”
Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my “gospel for the uncircumcised.”
3. I use both a “kingdom” and an “eternal life” gospel. I find that many of my younger listeners are struggling to make choices in a world of endless consumer options and are confused about their own identities in a culture of self-creation and self-promotion. These are the people who are engaged well by the more individually-focused presentation of the gospel as free grace not works. This is a lot like the “eternal life gospel” of John. However, I have found many highly secular people over the age of 40 are not reached very well with any emphasis on personal problems. Many of them think they are doing very well, thank you. They are much more concerned about the problems of the world—war, racism, poverty, and injustice. And they respond well to a synoptic-like “kingdom gospel.”
Instead of going into, say, one of the epistles and speaking of the gospel in terms of God, sin, Christ, and faith, I point out the story-arc of the Bible and speak of the gospel in terms of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. We once had the world we all wanted—a world of peace and justice, without death, disease, or conflict. But by turning from God we lost that world. Our sin unleashed forces of evil and destruction so that now “things fall apart” and everything is characterized by physical, social, and personal disintegration. Jesus Christ, however, came into the world, died as a victim of injustice and as our substitute, bearing the penalty of our evil and sin on himself. This will enable him to some day judge the world and destroy all death and evil without destroying us.
4. I use them all and let each group overhear me preaching to the others. No one form of the gospel gives all the various aspects of the full gospel the same emphasis. If, then, you only preach one form, you are in great danger of giving your people an unbalanced diet of gospel-truth. What is the alternative? Don’t preach just one gospel form. That’s not true to the various texts of the Bible anyway. If you are preaching expositionally, different passages will convey different forms of the one gospel. Preach different texts and your people will hear all the points.
Won’t this confuse people? No, it stretches them. When one group—say, the postmodern—hears a penetrating presentation of sin as idolatry, it opens them up to the concept of sin as grieving and offending God. Sin as a personal affront to a perfect, holy God begins to make more sense, and when they hear this presented in another gospel form, it has credibility.
When more traditional people with a developed understanding of moral guilt learn about the substitutionary atonement and forensic justification, they are comforted. But these classic doctrines have profound implications for race relations and love for the poor, since they destroy all pride and self-justification.
When more liberal people hear about the kingdom of God for the restoration of the world, it opens them up to Christ’s kingship demanding obedience from them in their personal lives. In short, every gospel form, once it hits home, opens a person to the other points of the gospel made more vividly in other forms.
Today there are many who doubt that there is just one gospel. That gives them the warrant to ignore the gospel of atonement and justification. There are others who don’t like to admit that there are different forms to that one gospel. That smacks too much of “contextualization,” a term they dislike. They cling to a single presentation that is often one-dimensional. Neither of these approaches is as true to the biblical material, nor as effective in actual ministry, as that which understands that the Bible presents one gospel in several forms.
Filed under: scripture
“It is common to preach the gospel with the concept that Jesus died for our sins. This is accurate (1 Cor 15:3–5) but incomplete. The gospel is not about avoiding something or simply having sins forgiven. All that does is set the stage for what is really the good news, namely, that God has taken the initiative to restore a broken relationship with Him that we cannot fix on our own.” Darrel Bock
Its one thing to say that the Bible doesn’t endorse homosexuality (Rom 1), but its quite another thing concerning how Christians should approach the issue of homsexuality in the public domain. Here are some questions to ponder. I would love your feedback.
How should politians legislate the lifestyle? Should civil unions give gay couples all of the legal benefits that married couples recieve? If yes, Why don’t we just let gay couples get married since we are only talking about different lingo concerning the legal contracts? Lastly, why does government get to legislate marriage in the first place? Why do they have any say at all?
Should responsible, loving, non-abusive gay couples be allowed to adopt children? And why?
How should churches deal with homosexual couples/families attending their services? Should they not allow them to attend at all, or should they allow them to attend, but not become members? Or should they be allowed to do more in church life?
How should Christians present the gospel to couples who are practicing this brand of sexuality? How does a Christian make the focus become Jesus when sharing His message, instead of just this particular issue? Should you invite the couple to church? What if they accept Jesus, but the couple does not feel led to end their relationship? What kind of call to disicpleship are we asking of these people especially if children are involved?
ELLEN WITH MCCAIN AND HILLARY (Its interesting, because both Mccain and Hillary have the exact same stance–both believe states should decide whether to support gay marriage or civil unions even though they themselves endorse civil unions.)
Filed under: Church
Filed under: 1
“Study is worship.” ~ An ancient Jewish adage from the time of Christ.
Filed under: Culture
Apparently, food costs around the world are soaring and the poorest of the poor are being severely affected by these rises. One website has called it the ‘Silent Tsunami.’ It states, “In three years, prices for the basic staples that feed the world—wheat, rice and corn—have risen by a staggering 83%. For people in the developing world, affording enough food to eat is becoming a daily struggle for survival. The New York Times is reporting that in Haiti, people are eating cakes made of mud mixed with a little sugar and oil to try and beat the hunger pangs. Without action to stop the upward spiral of food prices, 100 million people around the world will face deeper poverty and hunger, and hundreds of thousands will confront famine and starvation.”
Please educate yourself concerning this very present crisis so you can pray accordingly, inform others accurately, and so we can act quickly and appropriately. American Christians are the richest Christians that have ever lived, and therefore God has expected us to be the most generous Christians that have also lived as well. The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it. We are its stewards, and we must learn how to allocate its resources. To whom much has been given, much is required…
one: the campaign to make poverty history (very informative)
