Let Your Conscience Be your Guide? Not Exactly

I am in the process of working on a commentary on the Pastorals and the Johannine Epistles both in one volume. While dealing with the latter I was looking at 1 Jn. 3.19-20 today -- "This is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence, whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and God knows everything."

I came across a wonderful passage in a commentary by William Loader on the Johannine Epistles (pp. 43-44) on this text where he stresses that the writer of 1 John....

"assumes conscience [or heart] may deceive in much the same way as feelings may deceive. Faith means trusting in God’s love and making ourselves available for its action despite what we may feel. Faith cannot be based on feelings. Nor should its criterion of authenticity be absence of struggle. A troubled conscience or mind may coexist with a life of faith. By shifting the basis for confidence from human feelings and inner harmony to hard faith facts about God and behaviour, the author is boycotting a common religious trend, then and now, to make inner human experiences the criteria of spirituality…. It would [also] be wrong to read this passage as devaluing conscience or our thoughts and feelings altogether. They may be a guide, but their quality as guide will be determined by the quality of person who is being guided. The author is not operating with an idealistic notion of conscience as somehow representing the voice of God within….He operates rather with the notion that our thoughts and feelings are part of our own system of awareness which may be misinformed and misguided. There is also a touch of realism in the author’s obvious appreciation that Christians may well at times have to struggle with unresolved tensions within their personalities which have their origin somewhere other than God. There is a profound comfort in the assurance that God is greater than our conscience and knows all (3.20), because this God is the God of love and compassion and may be trusted."

This passage has many insights to be contemplated but I will share just three: 1) a troubled conscience may at times be a good thing (a sign that one is deeply concerned about an injustice), it may at times be a bad thing (a sign of something done wrong), but it is not an infallible thing. The Bible never suggests--- "let your conscience be your guide" or "to your own heart be true". The problem with this sort of advice is that our hearts or minds or consciences are just as fallen and prone to error as our feelings. 2) There are times when persons struggle with being sure they are Christians. They wrestle with feelings of not being good enough, and the like. This text should be a great comfort. God has the trump card--- he can over-rule your feelings or tender conscience and reassure you that you are in right relationship with God even if it does not feel that way; 3)the quality of the conscience depends on the character of the person in whom it resides, and just how sanctified that person truly is. Sometimes mass murderers sleep just fine at night, with no qualms of conscience. Sometimes some Christians have a weak conscience, and find offense in any little thing. Notice how Paul says that the overly scrupulous person in 1 Cor. 8-10 is the Christian who is weak in faith. In either case the conscience is not a good barometer of the truth or what is right. This is why at the end of the day the author of 1 John stresses that we must trust God and place our trust in the Gospel message, not trust ourselves as the last arbiters of truth, right, "and the godly way" and finally 4) the Pauline rule, whatever is not of faith, is sin for you, is a good one, when one is wrestling with one's conscience. As faulty as the conscience may be, it is sometimes a good nagging voice that approves or disapproves what you are contemplating doing. You should listen to the voice, but not give it the final say. That belongs to God and God's Word.

The Durham Tradition and its Exegetes-- an Encomium

We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, especially when we are dealing with the life of the mind. And of course there have been many great schools of Christian thought and of Christian scholarship, but when it comes to Biblical Interpretation there are few if any institutions from the 19th century until now that can claim to have had a grander series of exegetes of the New Testament than the University of Durham, the resting place of the Venerable Bede and Cuthbert and many after them.

My own personal interest in the Durham exegetes began in the 1970s when I was doing my divinity degree in Massachusetts and kept running into the works of various of these scholars over and over again, scholars that my teachers kept referring to as the authorities on this or that or the other NT subject. It was one of the things that led me to study at Durham where I had the privilege of studying under C.K. Barrett, C.E.B. Cranfield, John Rogerson, T.H.L. Parker, Stephen Sykes and others. But before any of these scholars of the 1950s-1980s darkened the doors of Durham, there was B.F. Wescott, there was the amazing J.B. Lightfoot, there was Alfred Plummer, there was H.E.W Turner, and after my time at Durham there has been J.D.G. Dunn and now John Barclay in the Lightfoot Chair in the theology department. There are other names I could gladly mention as well. My point is this-- Good exegetes are not born, they are made and molded, and the process is more helpful and less painful if you are learning from the best.

If it is true that you become what you admire, then there can be little doubt of the great debt I owe to all of these persons whom I have named, and whose works I continue to read with profit long after my time in Durham, and long after many of these men have retired or died. There is a living legacy of scholarship nurtured over generations in the same place which like a clear stream which continues to have it specific places where fish can best be caught, continues to be a place to which I return again and again with profit to get clear answers, intellectual stimulus, spiritual succour, and food for thought.

Hail to Durham whose Norman Cathderal will reach its second millennium birthday perhaps in my son's lifetime, and hail to its new bishop-- my friend Tom Wright who himself now carries forward the wonderful rich tradition of Durham exegetes. To all of us who stand in this tradition I bring reminder of the words of J. Bengel, whom Wesley was wont to quote in his own notable Notes on the NT--- "apply the whole of the text to yourself, apply the whole of yourself to the text." I am proud to be a Durhamite.

The Validity of Religious Experience

How many times have we heard the phrase "I cannot deny my experience"? This is all the more the cry when it comes to religious experience. But in fact the issue is not the reality or the clarity of the experience, the issue is the source, the content and trajectory of the experience. What distinguishes a good from a bad religious experience in part depends on whether it has come from the one true God, or from some other source. It also depends on what that experience leads, impells, or prompts you to do. 'You shall know the tree by the fruit it bears...." And according to the author of 1 John, there are even specific criteria by which we may be able to tell whether a particular religious experience is from God or comports with the Christian faith.

In his classic commentary on the Johannine Epistles, C.H. Dodd says this about the validity of religious experience:

"We may have the feeling of awareness of God, of union with Him, but how shall we know that such experience corresponds to reality? It is clear that no amount of clearness or strength in the experience itself can guarantee its validity, any more than the extreme vividness of a dream leads us to suppose that it is anything but a dream. If, however, we accept the revelation of God in Christ, then we must believe that any experience of God which is valid has an ethical quality defined by what we know of Christ. It will require with it a renewed fidelity to His teaching and example. The writer does not mean that only those who perfectly obey Christ and follow His example can be said to have the experience of God. That would be to affirm the sinlessness of Christians in a sense which he has repudiated [see 1 Jn. 1]. But unless the experience includes a setting of the affections and will in the direction of the moral principles of the Gospel, it is no true experience of God, in any Christian sense."

In 1 John 2 the Beloved Disciple suggests a series of moral tests to see if one's experience is of God, for example-- does it produce behavior like the behavior of Jesus? Does it lead one to love God with one's whole heart and one's neighbor as self, or is it narcissistic in character? Does it lead to holy living or does it lead to questionable beliefs and behavior? Does it lead to moving on faith, or does it lead to fear-based practices, since the experience of the real love of God casts out all fear? Does it lead to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh, as the Johannine Epistles put it, or to some sort of heterodox belief about Jesus?

At the end of the day what the author of the Johannine Epistles is suggesting is that there are some external tests, tests grounded in what God's Word says and what Christ's character manifests by which we may and should evaluate our experiences including even very genuine religious experiences. As it turns out, the way to tell the difference between heart burn and a heart strangely warmed, both genuine experiences, is by evaluating it by using external and objective criteria. In an affective age, this is all the more crucial because feelings are often deception and a notably bad guide to truth or the goodness of something.

Save Colossae

Having spent parts of the last two summers in Turkey, one of the dismaying things is seeing the Biblical sites which desperately need to be excavated but are untouched. One such site which has never been dug is Colossae. The city was destroyed by earthquake in the mid 60s A.D. and has lain pretty much untouched since then. It is a small but manageable sized mound and would not take years and years to uncover. You can see the outlines of an Odeon on one side of the tel, and farmers are still planting wheat on the other side of the tel. It is pristine and crying out for excavation. Something needs to be done and soon, because recently someone has tried to dig a trench or hole in the site to find antiquities and pilfer them. The site is fortunately now guarded at least part of the time, but the only way to really protect this precious site is to excavate it and bring it under the protection of the antiquities authorities in Turkey.

The Turkish government is happy to have a proper foreign team dig the site though they require quite naturally the supervision of a Turkish archaeologist, they charge a $50,000 for permission to dig, and of course the artifacts need to go to Turkish museums. I am wondering if there is someone or someones out there in cyberspace who would be willing to underwrite one season's worth of digging, to see what we can find and whether it is worth pursuing for a longer period of time. If there are such folks, I have the contacts in Turkey, and would be glad to help facilitate this. I would love to take a team from Asbury and elsewhere over there for a dig, and we have many students who would go and dig as long as they had sustenance to help with this project by providing cheap labor. If anyone is interested, contact me via my email address--- benw333@hotmail.com. This is a project worth doing for sure, and who knows what lies beneath the surface of that mound? It could be, as Paul says in Colossians, a revelation.

Fantastic Four--Tripping the Light Fantastic

What can one expect from light summer movie faire--- only fast food of mind? Well, yes and no. Growing up, the Fantastic Four was my 'other' favorite comic book (my favorite being Spiderman of course). Therefore, I went into this movie expecting very little. One might say my attitude fell under the rubric--"Blessed are those who expect little, for they shall not be disappointed". However, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. This movie was well put together and time was taken for character development. It wasn't all shoot 'em up bang, bang. In fact the action was limited to the sequences where it needed to happen, and there was no gratuitous sex or violence.

What sets the Fantastic Four apart from most comic books, except for Spiderman perhaps, is there are actually characters who generate some pathos--- in this case Ben Grimm, 'the Thing'. If ever there was a reluctant super hero who is not comfortable in his own skin, this is the man (and what a skin it is, like something out of the mudflats of the Mahavi). He has lost his fiancee and his former life when he is transformed, and unlike the other three of the Fantastic Four, he is unable to change back into a normal form. What is especially fascinating about the Thing's character is that he is a walking critique of our culture's attitude that "image is everything" or that "beauty is only skin deep". In fact he is a walking critique of the other three of the Four, who are all amongst the 'beautiful people'. Grimm may often be grim, but he is a poignant person, and turns out to be loved by the perfect woman--- a blind lady named Alicia. This is not the sort of story one is used to finding in comic books, and it is one of the things that set Stan Lee's characters apart from some of the those at rival DC comics.

Reed Richards is likewise a vulnerable figure-- a geek or genius who is not good at all at acting on how he feels, but his character falls flat compared to Grimm's. More interesting is Victor Von Doom whose resemblance to Darth Vader, in terms of career trajectory is striking, as striking as the resemblance in costume. One wonders if George Lucas based his character on Stan Lee's. Von Doom wants power, but of course like all power junkies, he can never get enough of it, and it is his fatal flaw. What is especially interesting is that it takes all of the Fantastic Four to handle one Von Doom. Each of the four has a specific power or ability, but it is the team work which insures that good triumphs over evil. In other words, evil is too powerful for even one robust super hero to handle.

Marvel Comics have now generated enough of a movie track record (X Men, Spider Men, Daredevil, Electra, and now Fantastic Four) to evaluate them as a genre of movies, and as such they provide some interesting and occasionally thought provoking faire for families, while always remaining entertaining. All of them remind us that even if we had super powers, this would definitely not solve all of our problems--- indeed they would create a whole new set of problems. Perhaps the lesson for us is that after all what is really needed is not juiced up humans, but an incarnational deity to handle the Evil problem.

The Disease of the Gospel of Conspicuous Consumption

It was an odd experience all around. I had just come from a large worship service in Moscow, and my host Sasha Tsoutserov was telling me about this prosperity Gospel preacher in Moscow claiming that Jesus and the disciples were all rich and that God intended for all who had enough faith to be rich. What was especially odd to me about this Gospel is that it is so clearly an American Gospel, one that has been born and nurtured in America where our cultural desires and our religion regularly get confused and fused. It was alarming to see this Gospel being transplanted to Russia in so flagrant a way.

So perhaps a few words about money and lifestyle and the basic of what the Bible says about these matters is in order. In the first place lets deal with historical facts--- it is simply not true that Jesus and most of his followers were well to do. No doubt some were, but they were in the minority and they were expected to provide the houses and hospitality for Jesus' followers so they could meet. To whom more is given, more is expected. And furthermore, there is no subject about which Jesus has more warnings than the dangers of wealth, and Paul is not far behind him.

For example, of course there is the famous story of the rich young man whom Jesus tells to sell everything, give to the poor and come and follow him (Mk. 10.17-31). When the man fails to follow Jesus instructions Jesus then serves up the famous aphorism about how it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God. The reason for this is simple--- you cannot serve two masters--- God and money. God alone needs to be lord in the Christian's life whether they are rich or poor.

And in any case the proper place to start a conversation like this is to point out that as the psalmist says "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof". Put bluntly this means that human beings do not own anything, they are only stewards of God's property. There is no such thing as an affirmation of private property in the Bible. Indeed, we are often warned about the dangers of much possessions (see Lk. 12 the parable of the rich fool or Lk. 16 and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus). Jesus even says Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom (Lk. 6.20).

This hardly comports with a Gospel of conspicuous consumption, or even the assumption that if one is wealthy it must necessarily be a blessing of God and proof one has true faith. While sometimes wealth is a gift from God the real issue is what one does with it, and what one does with money reveals a lot about one's character. Paul made clear it was a matter of character and heart when he stressed that the "love of money is a root of all sorts of evil" (1. Tim. 6.10). In that same context Paul stresses that godliness with contentment should be our attitude, not the avaricious desire for more and more.

Since it is the case that Americans make up less than 15% of the world's population and yet we consume over 60% of the world's resources, and having things like obesity and heart disease caused by obesity as leading causes of death, what preachers in our country really ought to be stressing instead of a prosperity Gospel is a Gospel of simplifying one's lifestyle, as Jesus' early followers did, and generous giving to others, taking care of the least, last and the lost. What a country does with its most vulnerable and weakest members of its society most reveals that nation's character.

In my own faith tradition John Wesley took this matter very seriously. I would urge every Christian to read his famous sermon "On the Use of Money". It has three main points: 1) make all you can by moral means (not engaging in non-Christian ways of making money such as gambling, selling harmful products like cigrarettes etc.); 2) save all you can; and 3) give all you can. Wesley says if you do the first two but not the third, you may be a living person but you are a dead Christian. He would be urging us to de-enculturate ourselves from the values of our society when it comes to wealth and conspicuous consumption.

It is hard for me to imagine Jesus encouraging anyone to live in luxury while there are people starving right in our own nation. How is this a good witness to the world? I can't imagine any real Christian rationale for luxury cars, SUVs, luxry houses, luxury clothes etc. The basic Christian principle is simple--- another person's necessities should take priority over my luxuries.

For those looking for a good book that has often helped Christians work through this important issue I would urge reading Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger-- a classic treatment.

The Fireworks of the War of the Worlds

The 4th of July is an appropriate time for fireworks, and there are certainly plenty of those to be found in the new War of the Worlds movie. This movie is not for the faint of heart nor for small children, though the female lead is a child, and she steals the show (as she did in her duet with Denzel Washington in Man on Fire). War of the Worlds is in the true sense of the word a horrow movie with very realistic special effects, and even a good cameo appearance by Tim Robbins.

Of course we could debate how faithful to H.G. Well's original novel, Steven Spielberg's adaptation for the 21rst century movie audience is. We could also compare the impact of Orson Welles original radio broadcast of the story a sa newscast which caused considerable hysteria during the Depression, and even some suicides. By comparison with the original and its radio broadcast the react to Spielberg's show has been mild, if enthusiastic.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movie is its presentation of malevolent blood-sucking aliens which stand at the other end of spectrum from Spielberg's earlier classics ET and Close Encounters of the First Kind.

Science Fiction has always dabbled with the idea that aliens would be super powerful, indeed there have even been those prone to read parts of the Bible as dealing with aliens instead of angels (see e.g. the throne chariot vision of Ezekiel in Ezek. 1). But it is equally possible that if there is life on other planets in some other galaxy it maybe far more primitive in form than what we find on earth, and may not even involve what we call sentient beings.

The question this movie provokes is--- why is apparently so much easier for modern persons to suspend their disbelief when it comes to the possible existence of super powerful aliens, all the while maintaining considerable skepticism about the supernatural in general, especially the concept of an all powerful God? Is this another example of those who will not stand for something are likely to fall for anything? Are human beings just selectively gullible? Or should we rather see the 'War of the Worlds' and its current appeal as more evidence that there is a very strong and deep seated desire humans have to believe there is more to existence than earthly life as we know it? I think the latter is definitely in play.

Of course 'War of the Worlds' in its modern movie version reassures us in the end that human beings can even overcome or outlast aliens, with a little help from amoeba and the like. But the truth is that Tom Cruise in this movie and his children survive so many potential disasters, that it is less a stretch to see him as an example of having benefited from extreme divine providence rather than human ingenuity or pluck and luck. He and his loved ones should have been dead at least five times in this movie, if secular science fiction's premises are accurate.

If the test of a good movie is that it raises more profound questions than it answers, then this Tom Cruise adventure is one of his better efforts. And in the end, the final quotation from H.G. Wells himself at the close of the movie (with voice over by Morgan Freeman) in fact suggests that the universe is as God has designed it for a reason--- and no aliens had better mess with the creation order, or they too will pay the price. Perhaps we should all sit down now and read Gen. 6.1-4 and ask--- 'what is that text really all about?'

To Be, rather than to Seem

Esse Quam Videre--- To Be, rather than to Seem

Take me to the just side of justice
And the right side of righteousness,
Not the vindictive side of vindication,
for otherwise--- I do not wish to go.

Lead me to the passionate side of compassion,
And the gracious side of grace,
Not the condescending side of mercy
for otherwise I remain remote--- for pity’s sake.

Push me past the truant side of trouble
And the pleasant side of pain
Not allowing me to wallow in it---
Lest I marvel at my martyrdom


Carry me to the service side of serving
And the sacrificial side of sacrifice
Not the calculating side of caring
for otherwise, my generosity remains too frugal.

Put me outside my selfish Eden
And beyond my creature comforts
Without raising Cain in my life
for I desire to be a remarkable, not a marked man.


Fill me with an inextinguishable blaze
A peerless and fearless love,
Not a faltering flame or a fumbling forgiveness
for I desire to be christened with real Christ-likeness.

May the Spirit make me spiritual
And the Son shine in my life
And the Father find me faithful,
Lest I miss the Kingdom’s goal.


JULY 4TH 2005

Star Wars III-- Very Dark Vader

The cycle of Star Wars films which began in the late 70s is now complete, and it ends on a truly dark and down note. The Revenge of the Sith, which is the name of this particular episode is indeed all about the apparent triumph of evil. While this would have been fine if, as with the Lord of the Rings, we finish where the cycle properly ends, this is not the case with this film. It is the last of the three prequels and the little children who go to see this film will leave with foreboding images in their heads, having not seen the previous films, particularly not the first three which came out so very long ago. This is not a case of all's well that ends well.

The film is well put together, the plot makes sense, and the stuggle between good and evil goes on, but my concern is with the portrayal of evil in this film. Towards the end of the film there is a tell-tale remark--- "Only the Sith believe in absolutes". The 'good guys'as it turns out, are relativists. After Anakin Skywalker busily slaughters the Jedi innocents, we still hear his girl friend/wife urging-- "there is good in him". Not really in fact-- he even puts the choke hold on her at one point and accusers her of collaborating with his betrayers. He is a very Dark Darth Vader indeed by the time this movie is over.

But even the good guys believe in a continuum of good and evil. In fact they don't believe in dualism of any sort. There is simply the one force which has a dark side and a good side, and one can be lured or attracted to either side of the force. From a Christian point of view, this is not a philosophy that we should be blithely endorsing. For one thing it involves a denial not only of absolutes but also of an absolutely good God. The philosophy is rather like ancient pantheistic Stoicism that believed some impersonal power or force was really running the universe, and that there was a bit of it in everyone. Now when you have a force running a universe you may be able to feel it, or get in touch with it, but you can't have a personal relationship with it, and of course this is a movie without any praying persons. It is a very secular vision of good and evil, and good and evil are always being exercised by sentient beings-- there are not even any angels or demons, only mortals of one sort or another.

And as for the resident philosopher Yoda, he serves up the following message "death is just a natural part of life. You should not grieve or mourn the loss of loved ones." Its all a natural part of this great big impersonal life cycle in the universe. This could hardly be less like a Christian approach to death or mourning for that matter. There is nothing natural about human death. As Paul reminds us in 1 Cor. 15, death is the wages of sin.

I have no problems with sciene fiction, and I have enjoyed much these imaginative Star Wars films have to offer, but Christians should not be beguiled into thinking that these films are value neutral. They are not, and so should be critically sifted. This is all the more important in a post-modern culture where we imbibe and even come to inhabit and imitate the stories we admire. As one wise man, not named Yoda, once said--- "You become, what you admire."

From Cinderella Man to Batman

Two very different but highly regarded movies are currently in the theaters whioch critics say will garner some Oscar nominations, so some reflections on these films are in order. In the first place both of these films are well crafted and their cinematography is excellent, especially in the case of Cinderella Man. Furthermore the acting is excellent in both these movies, especially the performances of Russell Crowe, Rene Zellwegger and Paul Giamatti in the former film, and Michael Cane in the latter one.

Cinderella Man has been called the human equivalent to Sea Biscuit which is a fair comparison in some respects since both are underdog becomes topdog films. Americans are especially apt to cheer for underdogs. Even for those not especially partial to boxing films, this one is exceptional, easily out classing even good recent films like Million Dollar Baby.

What is especially impressive about these films is that they do not pander to the audiences. There is no merely gratuitous sex, violence, or bad language in either film really. In fact there is no sex or violence in either film at all-- a rarity these days. It shows that at least some directors know that these elements do not need to be included to attract a good sized audience. If for no other reason than this Christians should support these films.

But there are other good reasons why Christians should see these films. In the case of Cinderella man you get to see a marital couple who genuinely love each other and their children and struggle hard to keep their life situation afloat in the midst of the depression. They are Irish Catholic and this becomes apparent at several points in the film, but the film is also honest for example when Jimmy tells Mae he is all prayed out when the Depression deepens and he still finds it almost impossible to find adequate work. The sheer dignity of this couple in coping with long odds is inspiring on many levels. It makes you want to be a better husband and father, and to keep going even when life deals you difficult blows.

As for Batman the movie begins in somewhat choppy fashion (there is not enough done with the childhood of Bruce Wayne and we are never quite sure why in the world he ended up in Tibet). At one juncture it appeared there was a danger that a kung fu movie was about to breakout. But once Wayne becomes an adult the story becomes much more viable and vital, and Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman are especially appealing in their secondary roles. The struggle between good and evil is reasonably clearcut in this movie with the exception of the case of Liam Neeson's character, and it is interesting to see a fantasy like this have some depth in character development, when Wayne learns how to face his fears, particularly of bats! The action sequences are well developed and the gadgetry is fun to watch without overwhelming the film. We can hope for a sequel to this well done film.

But what these films share in common is the near universal longing for the good to win out in the end, and for justice to be done at the same time. In fact the tension between justice and compassion receives some good interplay in the Batman movie. These movies in the end are both morality plays of a sort and as I would stress once more-- they are films Christians should see, support, and reflect on. One last thing. Both films suggest that violence is necessary for good to triumph. This sits rather uneasily with the Gospel theme in Cinderella Man, and it would be well then if we ask whether our own culture has come to the conclusion that violence and even killing is indeed a legitimate means to good ends.

Back in the USSR

Since I am teaching away once more here in Moscow I thought it would be a good time to reflect on what is happening to Protestant Christianity in this country--- namely that it is spreading like kudzu in all directions. It is especially gratifying to see so many of my students over here leading the charge. I have time to speak of only one example.

In 1995 Alexander Tsouserov and his wife Natasha came to Asbury Seminary to study and prepare to go be an important teacher and now the dean of Moscow Biblical Seminary. He was converted in a remarkable fashion in 1992 having been a former KGB agent here in Russia. He was an exceptional student at Asbury and I along with others persuaded him that he needed to do doctoral work in NT. We sent him to St. Andrews in Scotland where he did a top drawer degree, graduating last summer in 2004. He is now deaning and training many for minister here in Moscow, and his wife is leading the charitable arm of the seminary. It is amazing to see the transformation of Moscow and the church here, formerly dominated by the Orthodox Church with all its political connections and long coattails.
You will be interested to know that many, indeed almost half the students at this seminary are women--- some becoming teachers, some becoming preachers, some becoming chaplains, some becoming missionaries, some becoming Christian ed directors, some becoming co-laborers in the Gospel with their husbands. This is very remarkable since most of them come out of a contect (Russian Baptist) which has previously forbidden women to take some of these roles. In some ways it is like watching the Book of Acts unfold all over again with a new generation of Priscillas and Phoebes helping to lead the way. The Holy Spirit is only getting warmed up in Russia, and we must pray for a peaceful political situation so this can continue.

The other interesting thing to report is my discovery of so much remarkable Russian Christian Art--- no not icons. I am talking about the art of 19th century and early 20th century Russian painters like Ge, Ivanov, Pollenov, and Kramskoi. There paintings of Jesus and the Gospel scenes rival anything in Western art, but their work is hardly known in North America. I would commend their work and recommend the large book on Three Centuries of Russian Art--- which is in English/ The rest of the good books on these artists are in Russian.

Historical Fiction of Merit

There is a surfeit at present of Christian fiction on the market, and not much of it is of any enduring or endearing value. Some of it even serves up the Christian equivalent of Harlequin romances, or even worse, bad theology written up as bad fiction (I am referring to the incredibly successful Left Behind series). In this set of circumstances perhaps a guide to the bemused and perplexed is in order. If one asks is there any good fiction out there which actually deals with the Biblical period or even some part of Christian history felicitously the answer is yes.

If one is into who-dunnits or sleuthing ala Sherlock Holmes two series dealing with the Biblical era stand out--- the novels by Stephen Saylor about Gordianus the Finder and the novels by Lindsey Davis. Saylor actually has training in Greek and Roman classics and it shows in his novels. He has also done his homework as well about the first century B.C. and first century A.D. His novels are decidedly more high brow than those of Davis, which are often hilarious and meant more to entertain than inform. The hero of Davis' novels is Marcus Didius Falco and sometimes he is a sleuth more on the order of Peter Sellers than Sherlock Holmes but in the end he gets his man. Davis' novels are fun, and tred lightly when it comes to the historical substance of the period, but still she knows a good deal about the reign of Vespasian and his successors and so about the last third of the first century A.D. Her novels go down easily and do not make major historical gaffs. One could say that neither of these authors is writing Christian fiction, but it is indeed fiction of interest for Christians since it deals with the key period.

Of a whole different and more substantive ilk are the large novels of Colleen McCullough which end with the story of Julius Caesar and beginning with the origins of Rome itself. Her writing deals in depth with the rise of the Roman world, and it has been carefully cross checked by classics scholars. It has enormous indexes to deal with unfamiliar terms, customs, ideas laws, persons. These novels are veritable cornucopiae, offering all kinds of information of relevance to understanding the Biblical period, especially the NT era and what led up to it. These are certainly not Christian novels, indeed some Christians will think parts of them are naughty, but they are honest reflections and even insightful revelations about the period and peoples of the early Christians.

If Kingdom of Heaven has whetted your appetite for all things medieval, then you will find the novels of Ellis Peters and her sleuth Brother Cadfael just wonderful. Of the novels I have mentioned in this blog, Peters' (whose real name was Edith Pargeter) have the most literary appeal and quality. They are often beautifully even elegantly written. There is in addition the fact that Peters was a Christian and so are various of her characters in the Shrewsbury monastery. You will get quite a different view of the crusades and crusaders in these novels than what you find in Ridley Scott's movie. Highly Recommended.

A Lawyer's View of Pentecost

THE BARRISTER’S BRIEF BRIEF ON PENTECOST


The filigree flame of fire fell on the fellowship
Pursuant to the prayer and praise and paeans of the plaintiffs
Such that there was no room in the upper room,
And they fled like men fleeing a burning building.
But even the Temple courts could not contain the ebullience and effervescence
And so they were deemed drunk, tipplers before their time.
Yet all that they had imbibed was Spirit,
Which was so like fire in their bones that their wayward words
Leaked out in languages unknown to the speakers,
As if the babble of Babel had been set in reverse,
To unite a divided Empire that pretended Pax Romana.

Who knew the cost of Pentecost then or there,
Or the momentousness of the movement set in motion?
Who could have guessed the Guest who had inhabited them that day?
If possession is nine tenths of the law, then this magnificent possession
Became a magnificent obsession to lay down the Law and take up the Gospel,
And so tip the world upside down such that peace came from grace and truth,
Not law and order,
And testimony was borne not to a crime but to a crisis
Not to progress but to rescue,
Not to an Emperor, but to a Savior,
Not merely to the end of the old age,
But to the dawn of the new one.

As for me it appeared that at Golgotha,
Court was adjourned once and for all,
For the sentence had been executed,
The price paid,
And no appeals, summons, pleadings, stays or briefs
Could now change that outcome.
No de facto or de jure actions could in anyway retrieve the prior state of affairs.
But oddly with this outcome it is now the Law and all those under it
Who ever since have been on trial.

As if it were not enough that a ‘criminal’ had become King of Kings
Now on top of all else, all those who live in the Domain he has laid claim to
Are told that new occasions call for new duties,
For there is a new pact called new covenant governing the way the wheels of justice turn.
They grind slowly no longer, for they have ground to a halt until he returns.



And what interim rules he left!!--- ‘no oaths’ ‘no violence’ ‘no depositions’ ‘no suits’
Only testimonies on His behalf, only confessions of his lordship, only mandates to love One and all, as if it were ‘all for one’ instead of free-for-all.
Thank goodness he did not demand we like our enemies!

Yes, of course I have perused the Deposit, the nomina sacra, the ancient words,
Fully of odd stories, ad hoc letters, rhetorical discourses, even apocalypse of sorts
I must say—it hardly reads much like lex nova, more like sage sayings, and prescient promises.
So what’s left for a lawyer to do?

Consider this my last will and testament—
I have laid down the law, and determining I have a stake in this matter, I have taken up a cross. While dying daily is painful, it beats facing the music and the musings of the messiah, when he sits on the bema seat on judgment day. I trust my day in court then will go better than his did in A.D. 30 although as it turned out, he was vindicated by a surprising reversal, ex post facto, for it appears that the Spirit was as good at revivifying bodies as inspiring proclamations at Pentecost.

How to Have a Cellphone and still remain a Christian

Cellphones are ubiquitous now, spreading like Kudzu throughout the land. And unfortunately it plays right into and exacerbates the inherent narcissicism or self-centeredness of our culture. We have people having private phone conversations in planes, elevators, in class (!),during worship services, and in a host of other inappropriate places. They don't seem to care. Everyone loves to get mail, and everyone loves to be called, and that takes precedent over all else, including civility, and being considerate of others. In light of this blight on the land, I offer a few non-negotiable rules Christians should live by when it comes to cellphones lest they violate their Christian witness and certain minor commandments like "Each should look not to your own interests, but rather the interests of others. Have the same mind in yourself that was in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2.4-5).

I offer here the 10 commandments of cellphone use!

1) Under no circumstances except an actual and extreme emergency should you ever drive a car and talk on a handheld cellphone. This is incredibly dangerous and has already cost many people their lives. Just ask your insurance agent. There are reasons why whole states are banning this self-centered and dangerous activity.

2) Let private phone conversations be private. Don't have them in a public place. Place your phone on vibrate, and unless you are expecting an urgent call, do not answer it during: 1) another conversation with a live person; 2) another conversation with someone on a phone; 3) during a public event like a class or a worship service.

3) Turn off the cellphone unless you are in a place and at a time where it is appropriate to have a private chat. This means no cellphones on in concerts, movies, lectures, etc. You get the picture.

4) Stop wasting time and money on frivilous phone calls, sending useless pictures etc. This is bad stewardship of your money. I do not say there is never a time to use it in these ways (e.g. on a birthday to send a picture or a special message) but it should be a special occasion.

5) A cellphone, except when you are in an emergency stranded because your car died or the like is a luxury item, not a necessity. This being so, you should treat it like other luxury items. It should not become a way of life for you or your children. If you are using only a cellphone to do all your calling, then use it like a phone with a land line except in emergencies. Don't use it as an excuse to make unnecessary phone calls from anywhere anytime just because you can. That's pure narcissism and is hardly a Christian practice.

6) Don't buy a lot of useless or unnecessary extra features or package items in your cellphone plan. This is just a gimmick to get you to spend more money.

7) Stop checking your messages incessantly. This is obsessive compulsive behavior, and it prevents you from spending time with others, focusing on your current tasks etc.

8) In general don't use your cellphone to send messages. Take the time to write a proper note via email or snail mail, unless there is some good reason to send someone a brief note.

9) You are not so desperate that you need to watch TV on your cellphone. The picture is absurdly small, hurting your vision.

10) Too much use of your cellphone is actually a health risk because of the shortwave frequencies. Do without your cellphone except when you actually need to make a call.

Kingdom of Heaven

Ridley Scott's beautifully filmed anti-war war movie is now out in the theaters, and it is thought provoking in so many ways. The story is grounded reasonably well in history telling the story of the hiatus between the 2nd and 3rd Crusades when Saladin's forces surrounded the Holy Land and there was an uneasy peace with a leper king Baldwin, a Christian ruler in Jerusalem. The peace was preserved through tolerance and allowing persons of all monotheistic faiths who have a stake in Jerusalem to have free access to the city to live, and work and pray.

The film is laden with ironies of various sorts not the least of which is the portray of both Moslems and Christians fervently shouting and believing that it was God's will that they murder the infidels on the other side, only to discover that in fact God thwarted both sides' efforts from time to time.

The film is called Kingdom of Heaven and Jerusalem is seen as it's epicenter, which is the ultimate irony since it is the site of so much unheavenly plotting, treachery, immorality, and murder, but then such is the very nature of war.

Scott intends to force the audience to realize the inherent contradictions involves in fighting for the Kingdom of Heaven, a Kingdom Jesus said would be established by love, even love of enemies, by turning the other check, and by refusing to retaliate when harmed. It is a Kingdom worth living and dying for, but its very nature is violated by killing for it.

It is not a surprise that Orlando Bloom, who plays the role of Balian the central character in the movie (a blacksmith become knight on crusade), becomes agnostic in the face of the machinations that go on in the name of God, both on the Christian and Moslem side of the ledger. Yet the leper King Baldwin is a wise King and there are reminders along the way in his life and in the lives of others of real Christian values such as goodness and kindness, even to one's enemies, and holiness, and always being prepared to tell the truth. In the end Balian resolves to defend the people of Jerusalem but not the bricks and mortar.

This is a wonderfully thought provoking movie for people of all faiths and no faith, and it raises the question once more whether Christian crusades can be holy wars any more than Moslem jihads. Or is it in fact the case that there are no just wars, only wars that seem more and less justifiable to us, more and less injust to human beings who have an infinite capacity for self-justification and protecting their own turf? Scott's movie throws down the gauntlet in a way his earlier effort in Gladiator does not, forcing us to realize both the limitations and the great cost of violating one of the fundamental Biblical commandments recognized and accepted by all three monotheistic religions--- Thou shalt not murder.

LB's

Since country music is the repository of all truth in this part of the country, I offer this country tune, with apologies to the Beatles (their famous chorus was just too good not to use).


LB’S


It sweepin cross America,
The plague of pulchritude
Its gripped the whole nation
The bare facts are quite rude,
We’ve put on pounds around our waist
That we cannot divest
And when we weren’t a lookin
We got a sunken chest

Sometimes they say Dunlop disease
Is what we call it now,
When you’re spare tire hangs out that far
Don’t need a belt no how
My waist has wasted more and more
Can’t see the scales today
And while my jeans burst at the seams
I’ve got the guts to say……


CHORUS (ala Beatles)
Boy, you gotta carry that weight
carry that weight a long time
Girl you gotta carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time.


They say its love handles,
Or ‘your full figured now’,
Or ‘you are so pleasingly plump’
Or ‘you’ve filled out somehow’
It is a weighty matter,
When you can’t wear your shorts
Your navel’s horizontal
And you feel out of sorts


Those calories on the lips
They say can devastate
Ten tons on the hips
You learn this all too late.
They call it now middle aged
I never knew just why
Its cause my middle now has aged
And it’s too late to cry…

CHORUS

Chest of drawers disease is here
Spreading through the land
That’s when your chest falls in your drawers
and you fill out your can
Oh where is Jenny Craig just now
Or what can Atkins teach
Through Jazzercise I’ll soon arrive
Upon that old South Beach


I’m watchin all my weight just now
I’ve got it out in front,
I float much better in the pool,
My problem I’ll confront
From carbs to calories to sweets
I ‘ve got my just desserts
I gave up diets back in Lent
Cause starving always hurts.

CHORUS

Hitchhiker's Guide

Well friends it only took thirty years but we now have the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy out on film, and an entertaining film it is, full of adventure and whimsy, and also the odd comment on origins and religion. I do mean odd. We have a particularly peculiar scene on a foreign planet where noses and sneezing are part of a religious ritual--- apparently religion is something to sneeze at. And then of course there is the larger lurking theory in the movie that the earth was eliminated quite by accident (the mistake of the President) in order to make way for a galactic superhighway.

But perhaps we should go sit at the cafe at the end of the universe and have a think about how satirical views of Christianity or other monotheistic religions get slipped into a comedy like this. Is this just farce played out on the big screen or should we see this as serious comment? Should we lighten up and laugh at all this, or should we be concerned? From a rhetorical point of view, one of the things in a culture based on entertainment that most shapes worldviews is comedy. Humor causes people to drop their defenses and let all kinds of ideas into their cerebral cortex, and if the humor is effective enough it can lead to joining in the ridicule of things one may have previously treated with respect.

It is an interesting exercise to go to a movie and see which bits make people laugh. Almost no scene in Hitchhiker's Guide got more laughs than the worship scene. Perhaps Christians do need to lighten up, but perhaps as well this is a telltale sign that our culture is drifting further and further away from its ultimate source of being.