Supercessionism, Dispensationalism, and the Present Middle East Crisis-- A Christian Stand

In my current work on a commentary on Hebrews, I have been struck by how forcefully the book of Hebrews completely undercuts a Dispensational approach to the reading of Scripture, and while we are at it, to a blind and unconditional support of the present secular nation-state of Israel regardless of its military practices and policies. This is not to say that we do not need to be equally critical of the inhuman practices of Hamas and Hezebollah, as well. We do. But here are some of my reflections.

Let us broach the question once more of whether and in what sense Hebrews should be seen as a supercessionist document. On the one hand, it is apt to point out that there were a variety of forms of early Judaism, and various of them were highly sectarian. By this I mean that, for example, the Qumran community did not think that the form of Jewish religion practiced in the Temple of Jerusalem was just as legitimate as its own practices and beliefs. Indeed, it thought that Herod’s temple was hopelessly corrupt and would be destroyed, just as Jesus himself appears to have thought. It is not then, just the Christian form of early Judaism that could and did make a case for the obsolescence of the existing cultus in Jerusalem. However, the Qumran community, though a highly eschatological group, did not take the more radical step of suggesting that the Mosaic covenant and its practices in general were outmoded. This more revolutionary notion is found only in the Christian form of early Judaism, and in particular it is found in both Hebrews and in Paul’s letters, and in some respects seems to go back to Jesus himself.

In short, I do not think it is possible to avoid the scandal of particularity when it comes to the Christian form of Judaism. There was an inevitability to the parting of the ways between Christian and non-Christian Jews however long it took in different places, and the parting was only accelerated by the Pauline Gentile mission and its success.

Andrew Lincoln sums up well what is going on in Hebrews—“its writer holds that, while the Scripture is still the authoritative vehicle of God’s self-disclosure, the sacrificial system, the law and the Sinaitic covenant, of which Scripture speaks, have been surpassed by God’s new and decisive word in Christ, and so in terms of present Christian experience are no longer appropriate. The law, its symbols and institutions remain crucial for interpreting the fulfillment of God’s purposes in Christ but do not determine Christian practice. Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice does away with the need for the sacrificial system (cf. 10.4-18) and indeed the covenant with Moses can be described as obsolete (8.13). It is in this sense that Hebrews can be appropriately called a ‘supercessionist’ document.”(Hebrews. A Guide, p. 114).

To this I would add the caution that the author no doubt would have argued that he was talking about the completion of the Jewish heritage in Jesus. He would have stressed, had he lived until today, that it is totally anachronistic to talk about the replacement of Judaism as a religion with Christianity as a religion. Our author is not talking about Christianity as some separate religion from Judaism. He is talking about what he sees as the true completion of all the Jewish religion was meant to point to and prepare for and be the basis of. Of course what he says in Hebrews would inevitably be viewed as supercessionist by those Jews who had not and did not see Jesus as the completion of God’s plans for them or the fulfillment of earlier covenants.

Sometimes, in order to escape the notion of supercessionist both conservative and liberal Christians have tried to cut the Gordian knot of this problem by suggesting there are two covenants in operation at once—- one for Jews and one for Gentiles, or one for Jews and one for Christians. Surprisingly enough we find this approach both in ultra conservative Dispensationalism and also in more liberal approaches to Paul and Hebrews. There is a problem, a very serious problem with both of these two tract models. They involve the renouncing of the claims of the NT authors about Jesus as the savior of the world, and also about the true people of God being ‘Jew and Gentile united in Christ’. It also involves applying a very different hermeneutic to the OT than we see being applied in Hebrews.

Here again Lincoln helps us: “Without the conviction that Christ was the surpassing fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant, there would have been no reason in the first place for Jews to have become Christians or to remain Christians under pressure (the issue for Hebrews) or for Gentiles to have become Christians rather than proselytes or God-fearers. Without the conviction that Jesus Christ is the decisive revelation of God for all human beings, however the implications of that conviction are spelled out, Christianity is no longer recognizably in continuity with its Scriptural foundation. The suggestion, sometimes made today, that Christians should think in terms of two covenants, one for Jews, based on Moses, and one for Gentiles, based on Jesus, does not allow Jesus to be the decisive revelation for the people to whom this revelation was given in the first place.” (Hebrews. A Guide, p. 118).

Just so. We must resist the temptation to whittle off the hard edges of this and other NT texts just to make life easier for ourselves. The scandal of particularity cannot be escaped by exegetical gymnastics or hermeneutical legerdemain.

Let me say however what this does not mean. In the first place it does not mean that Jews today are guilty of practicing a false religion, a false faith. This is not how either the author of Hebrews or Paul would have viewed the matter. Even when he painfully discusses the fact that many Jews have rejected Jesus (Rom. 11) and so he says that they have been temporarily broken off from the tree that makes up the people of God, he still envisions a time when they can and in some cases will be grafted back into that people. This is a completionist not a replacement theology, and Christians today must be always reminded that the NT is a Jewish book almost entirely written by Jews, and in the case of Hebrews for Jews. We must be very mindful and wary of how this book has been misused by later Gentile believers to justify all sorts of anti-Semitic acts.

And this brings me to the most important point. Both Paul and our author see salvation as a work in progress that will not be completed until Christ returns and the dead are raised. Only then will there be full conformity of anyone to the image of Christ, and only then will we finally and fully know who is saved and who is not. Between now and then the lost can be saved, and the saved can commit apostasy, and even when Jesus returns there will still be some saving yet to be done it would appear.

This means that Christians must live with the eschatological tension of already and not yet, live with the fact that they are in the midst of salvation history not at its end, and live with the tension that they themselves are not eternally secure until they are securely in eternity. This being the case, humility and not triumphalism is in order. As Jesus warned, many will come from the east and west and replace many of those we expect to sit at the messianic banqueting table. This in turn means that ‘the church’ has not replaced ‘the synagogue’. God is not finished with any of us yet, and God certainly finds reprehensible anti-Semitism in any form, much less in the form it took in Nazi Germany during WW II. If indeed Jesus died for the sins of the world, then he died not just for the sins of his present followers, but even for those who rejected and do reject him, at least in his role as world Savior.

My suggestion would then be that we follow the author of Hebrews’ word in Heb. 12.14 where we are called to pursue peace with everyone and also the holiness without which none of us will see the Lord. We should view every human being as someone whom God loves and for whom Jesus died. We should do our best to love everyone and be more concerned about our own Christ-likeness than other’s perceived lack thereof. We should get our own house in order.

This does not mean that we should neglect a prophetic critique of ungodly behavior whether by Christians or anyone else. For example, Christians have no business blindly supporting Zionistic Israeli policies that lead to the killing of hundreds of innocent men, women, and children, any more than we should support the hate-filled practices of Hamas or Hezbollah or Iraqi Sunni and Shiite bombers. Such support violates the very heart or essence of what Jesus himself called his followers to believe and to be. We need to repeatedly ask what would Jesus do? What did he do when confronted by violence? What did he urge his followers to do in Mt. 5-7? Think on these things.

Humor for Tired Parents and their Offspring

"Mary" said the teacher, "I'd like you to come up to the map and point out the Falklands." Mary dutifully came forward and did so. Then the teacher said "Very good, now Alexander, can you tell us who discovered the Falklands?"
Alexander quickly responded: "Mary did sir!"

A father lamented the fact that all three of his children were attending college. He kept complaining he was getting poorer by degrees!

Father to Son: "Do you know what Abraham Lincoln was doing at your age?"
Son to Father: No, I dont, but I know he was President at your age."

And in the kids say the darnedest things department I offer the following actual quotes:

"No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you are stuck with."
Kirsten-- aged 10

How can a stranger tell if two people are married?
Demick age 8 says "You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids."

What are Dates for?
Lynette aged 8 says "Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough."

And lastly the Homer Simpson quote for today--- "Don't keep blaming yourself. Just do it once and then move on!"

CRAVEN IMAGE

When idol becomes icon
The image turns grave
With darkest deception
Convex turns concave.

Windows on heaven
The icon’s true aim
If means becomes end
It’s not quite the same.

But breaking the making
Iconoclasm’s wrath
Is equally misguided
A mischosen path.

See through the icon
The larger design
Wineskins best function
To convey wine.

Sacred cows gilded
Become golden calves
We worship the image
Of things that we have.

Beauty without truth
The glass becomes stained
Discoloration
Verity strained.

Like art that is tainted
Like thoughts quite insane
Showers of blessings
Become Noah’s rain

July 31 2006

Friday Night In Jerusalem---Fear and Faith, Devils and Dust

It was a warm June evening, and shabbat had just begun. I was leading some of my tour group through the Damascus Gate, down the Cardo Maximus, and to the Wailing Wall so they could see what was happening. The Cardo was packed with both Jews and Moslems and tourists milling around. The Orthodox and Hasidic Jews were mostly coming to and from the wall with their families. The Palestinians were out for a night of celebration now that their holy day had come and gone.

The Cardo gets increasingly narrower as you get further into the city and closer to the entrance to the plaza where the Wailing Wall was. It is lined with shops of all sorts, coffee shops, fruit stands, lingerie shops, you name it. At one juncture we could hear ahead of us rhythmic chanting and suddenly we were pressed up against the shop walls as a parade of young Palestinians went buy with their soccer jerseys on and their soccer balls in hand. They were simply having fun, but the young orthodox Jewish teenager squashed up against the wall next to me was afraid-- very afraid of the loud jubilant Palestinians, even though they were not bothering or antagonizing anyone. Taking off his wide-brimmed hat the young man with his long curls and all black attire put his hat over his face to hide his Jewishness, and then finally turned and faced the wall. I could almost smell the fear coming off of him.

Fear of course is a primal instinct or emotion. The fear can be rational and warranted or irrational and inexplicable. Whatever its source, it often leads to irrational behavior. Fear based practices are precisely what get major wars started. Our current Vice President is famous for enunciating the 1% doctrine. It goes like this. If there is even a 1% chance that someone could drop a major bomb on us, then we are warranted in engaging in pre-emptive strikes and taking them out. These of course are not the rules of engagement of the Geneva Convention, much less a rational policy. It represents a fear-based practice based in the 'get them before they get you' mentality. We see these sort of practices constantly played out in Israel by both the Israelis and the more radical Moslems. And it never solves anything. It just leads to more carnage, more acts of retaliation, and certainly does not fulfill any Biblical prophecies whatsoever, except the adage that we will reap whatsoever we sow.

I understand why that young man was afraid. He probably didn't know any Arabic and couldn't tell what the Palestinian lads were chanting. He probably had never had a Moslem friend in his life. Both sides are too busy anathematizing each other and protecting their children, in the form of preventing them from ever knowing children of other faiths, to make such personal knowledge or experience possible. Ignorance leads to prejudice which leads to fear which leads to violence--- over and over again. If your only images of the 'other' is casual contact or what you see on TV, you never do learn what makes them tick, what is important to them, or even why Jesus died for them as well as for us. And it is becoming harder for cross-- religious friendships to happen in Israel, especially now that the huge wall has been erected around Bethelehem.

The other day Roger Waters of Pink Floyd who was in Israel to do a concert in Tel Aviv (it was later moved to a town where both Jews and Moslems and Christians could all attend), was at the wall. You may or may not remember it was Roger who wrote the classic Pink Floyd song 'Another Brick in the Wall'. Well he signed the Bethlehem Wall with an epithet from that song. It is ironic that a secular rock musician is the only person I know of who this summer managed to bring young people of all faiths together for a concert and a fun evening. It is precisely these sorts of events where one gets to meet, and even gets to know 'the Other'. Notice it is not the religious leaders of any of these three monotheistic faiths who are sponsoring events which might lead to dialogue, understanding, and even friendship. Religion in this case is used to further polarize the situation by stigmatizing one another as 'infidels'. Whatever else one can say, this is not the use of religion Jesus intended when he commanded his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. There is no exegesis of those commands that could warrant the cynical conclusion that Jesus meant we should 'love them to death at the point of a gun'.

Instead of the 1% doctrine, I would like to propose the 100% doctrine. It goes like this. If anyone would come after, follow the example of, or even be a follower of Jesus, he or she must take up their crosses and follow him to Golgotha and beyond. This if course requires many steps of faith. But it also requires a renouncing of fear based practices as well. The only sacrifice Jesus calls us to is not the sacrifice of our intellects, but of our fears and ultimately of ourselves. You will notice he does not call us to offer our enemies as a sacrifice to God. Quite the contrary.

I wanted to take a moment and speak with that young Jewish boy, but there was not time enough for he fled before I could do so, and in any case my modern Israeli Hebrew is not that good. For all I know he might have been just as afraid of me as of the Palestinians. Religion in the hands of people who are chiefly motivated by fear, is indeed a fearsome thing, and is rightly to be feared. But there is a greater thing in this world than fear. Remember the words "Greater is he who is in us, than any of these forces in the world"?

The real issue is not whether we will live or die. Unless Jesus comes soon, we will all die. The real issue for Christians is--- will Jesus find us emulating him, will he find us faithful or fearful when he returns? Maybe Jesus was right to ask at the end of his famous parable of the persistent widow--"but when the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on earth?" I wonder. Most of the faith I see in action is either overwhelmed or overruled by fears, cultural prejudices, and sheer ignorance.

I recently was listening to Bruce Springsteen's fine album 'Devils and Dust' Here is one of the verses and chorus from the title cut.

"I got my finger on the trigger
But I don't know who to trust
When I look into your eyes
There's just devils and dust.
We're a long long way from home Bobbie
Home's a long long way from us
I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust.

I got God on my side
And I'm just trying to survive
What if what I do to survive
Kills the things You love?
Fear's a powerful thing
It can turn your heart black you can trust
It'll take your God-filled soul
And fill it with devils and dust."

AMEN to that.

VICE VERSUS VIRTUE---FROM METROPOLIS TO MIAMI

We seem to like our myths about the battle between good and evil relatively clear cut, but we also like our heroes vulnerable, sometimes even indulging in various sorts of guilty pleasures, while supposedly being ‘at heart good persons’. ‘Superman Returns’ is a quite interesting and lovingly crafted update of the Superman saga. Superman in this telling has been away for a while looking for the remains of his home planet, only to discover there really wasn’t anything left. He returns to earth once more, to encounter a much aged Mom Kent (played quite fetchingly by an over 80 Eva Marie Saint no less), and a world which has moved on beyond Superman. Superman’s sometime girl friend Lois Lane has even won a Pulitzer for her story on ‘Why the World no longer Needs Superman’, but methinks she protesteth too much (trying to exorcise the demon of her love for the man marvel). Brandon Routh does a marvelous job walking into the shoes of Christopher Reeve, even to the point of recreating the crooked smile of Clark Kent, and much of the apparel of the characters in this movie seem to have been brought out of mothballs from an impossibly old Goodwill store. However, crime has not been sleeping or become obsolescent, for Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor has every up to the minute techno gadget one could want at the cusp of the 21rst century. It is this juxtaposition of old and new which makes this movie both comforting and unsettling in different ways.
Superman of course is super once more, and up to his old tricks of fighting crime, rescuing damsels in distress, and even taking on his old arch-enemy Lex, who in this incarnation of the tale almost does in Superman by attacking him with shards of Kryptonite. What makes this telling of the tale interesting is that even Superman needs rescuing once in a while, and unlike Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane who could not get his friends to watch with him in his darkest hour, Superman is actually rescued by Lois and her boyfriend through various acts of daring do. And oh yes, there is a little Superboy as well in tow. Seems Superman had not been entirely successful before running off to his home planet in keeping his Super-knickers up. But then Lois always was quite the girl. America increasingly likes their heroes flawed. It makes them more approachable, brings them down to earth a bit, which takes some doing in Superman’s case. Maybe this is why in a sin-riddled era so many people find it hard to find Jesus even approachable much less identify with him. He is just too good to emulate, too good to be ‘you’ (or me for that matter). The cry now seems to be not merely for a believable savior, but one who behaves more like us—even marrying a Mrs. Jesus perhaps.
If ‘Superman Returns’ is quaint, fun, and raises only a few ethical dilemmas, what then should we make of Michael Mann’s recreation of his TV blockbuster--- Miami Vice? First one has to say, that the cinematography in this movie is stunning, and much like some of the best episodes of the TV show, although we are spared the art deco tacky side of Miami culture. Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Tubbs (Jamie Fox) in this incarnation dress in basic black and white. Once again we are placed in the seamy and unseemly world of under-cover cop work against the drug lords, and are asked to ponder the question whether it is o.k. for cops to do wrong in order to serve the greater good of preventing major crime. The movie reminds one of the script of perhaps the most famous of the television episodes which also starred Glen Frey (yes the Eagle) getting involved in a Columbian drug bust. Missing in action from the movie is a soundtrack like the one the TV show used to have. Rock and roll has been replaced in the opening scenes with some hip hop, rap, and club music, betokening the change in the music culture and industry since the time the TV show aired. Clearly Rock and Roll isn’t what it once was, in terms of being a creative force and dominant music form in American culture. Rock and Roll may not be dead, but it is on life-support when the only rock tune in this movie is a retred version of ‘In the Air Tonight’ in the trailer, especially when rock and roll created so much of the ambiance of the TV show.
While Farrell and Fox both play their parts well enough the discrepancy in acting ability becomes all too clear when these two are juxtaposed. Fox is expressive and brings life to his character. Farrell is mostly deadpan, and while looking the part of a vice cop, seems like someone sleepwalking through the part. Both men have difficulties with their women of differing sorts. The supporting cast in this movie is strong, but for those of us who love the AFLAC duck commercials, it is hard to erase the image of those commercials from one’s mind when the lead Fed in this movie is the African American man who plays the lead in those commercials!
Not that this movie could not have used some comic relief. The action is taut, there is no filler in this drama, but there are also few, if any, memorable lines either. The bad guys are thoroughly believable, and the good guys have only a modicum of redeeming features—one of which is the loyalty of Crockett and Tubbs to each other and to their difficult tasks. There is not only an effective graininess to the film texture. This is also the case with the lives being portrayed. But the question remains about these cops--- do the ends really justify these kinds of means, including getting in bed with the crime lords in order to expose them--- so to speak? Perhaps we should take the title ‘Miami Vice’ as a double entendre. Who better to dabble in vice, then a vice squad which is so familiar with its practices?
And in the end, the thing these two movies have in common is that the good guys seem to win, for a time, but in the case of Miami Vice, not without the heroes sullying themselves in the process. And with them the audience--- it was rather chilling when the audience in the theater here actually laughed when one of the bad guys got blown to bits by an uber-gun. Have we really become so inured to violence that we can laugh when human life is brutally destroyed or exult, for instance, over the revenge taking of Israel which involves destroying so many innocent lives?
The subtext of a movie like Miami Vice is of course that in violent times one must fight violence with violence ‘by any means necessary’. But if we do this, do not we become what we despise? ‘Superman Returns’ cosmetizes the violence and makes it palatable. ‘Miami Vice’ doesn’t and yet the audience seems to get vicarious thrills in watching the bad guys ‘get what they deserve’. As it turns out, it is not just public discourse that has become coarse in our culture. So has our entertainment, and unfortunately that tells us a great deal about the direction our culture is listing towards. It was an inspired writer who warned that ‘those who sow the wind, will reap the whirlwind’. I fear that the storm warnings for our culture are all too evident--- especially when it even surfaces in our summer blockbusters.

The Conquest of Faith and the Climax of History

The Conquest of Faith and the Climax of History-- Heb. 12. 1-4, 18-29
Delivered at St. Salvator’s Church St. Andrews Scotland July 21 2006 for the Hebrews Conference

In 1993 I managed to run the Boston Marathon--- yes all 26 miles of it. I had trained for it, but nothing could ever prepare you for that sort of life experience. I knew that the only way I would ever see the ‘archegos’ the trailblazer out in front of the pack, was if I went up to the starting line before the race began and looked at the Kenyans and Nigerians with their huge upper legs and otherwise lanky and diminutive frames. They would run the race in just over two hours. It would take me about five. But there were many things I learned along the way. For one thing I learned that I needed to follow the leader and go exactly the same path he had trod. Going off the course would disqualify me. Nor was I to follow the pseudo-runners, like the man wearing a rainbow afro wig and zigzag across the couse for a few miles with a T-shirt on which read ‘Kiss Me, I’m Jesus’. No he was not my trailblazer either. For another thing, while I could take encouragement from the cheering of the great cloud of witnesses lining the race course which wound through numerous small Massachusetts towns like Ashland before arriving in town, still I would have to run the race myself. They could not do it for me. I took inspiration from a man running while pushing his quadrapelegic son the whole 26 miles down the course, and from a 74 year old lady who urged me to run with her up heartbreak hill. When I entered the city exhausted, as it was very hot that April Patriot’s Day, I was roused to new life by the cheering Harvard and BU students riding the above ground tram as I headed for the Prudential center. And when I turned the final bend and saw the finish mile I kept repeating to myself the title of one of my favorite old books--- Are you running with me Jesus?’ Finally I fell into the arms of one of my best friends, who took my picture crossing the finish line. Suddenly I was wrapped in a NASA foil blanket and give fruit juices and I collapses in a happy heap. I had finish the course.
The great encomium of faith we find in Heb.11 begins with the following stirring phrase--- “Now faith is the substance/assurance of things hoped for, the proof/conviction of things not seen. About these things the ancients bore witness.” On this showing faith is not about looking back in longing or in dread or in belief, it is about looking forward towards our hope with conviction and assurance, for the very existence of the miracle of forward looking faith is called a proof of things not seen. But this stirring beginning to the ‘hall of faith’ chapter in Hebrews has an equally stirring climax, only its not in Hebrews 11, it is in Heb. 12.1-4 which has been read as part of our lesson for today.

Unfortunately Stephen Langton (1150-1228) the one time Archbishop of Canterbury, did not serve us well when he provided us with the still current division of the Bible into chapters and verses, which divisions I keep having to remind my students are not inspired, and indeed sometimes are not even very inspiring. Especially unfortunate is the separation of Heb. 12.1-4 from the material in Hebrews 11, for in fact Christ is the climactic exemplum of faith, as we shall see, the paradigm and paragon of true forward looking faith and faithfulness in this sermon called Hebrews.

Famously Jesus is said to be the pioneer and perfector, or trailblazer and finisher of faith. You will notice that I did not say “of our faith”. There is no word ‘our’ either hinted at or explicit in the Greek text. Our author is telling us that while in the marathon race to the finish line of life we are surrounded by many forward looking folk, a great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us, never the less we are meant to cast off our leg irons and arm weights and focus entirely on Jesus, the leader of the pack, the trailblazer of our path into the heavenly sanctuary, the pioneer of true forward looking faith and faithfulness. Our author goes on to make VERY clear he is saying Christ is our ultimate example of faith and faithfulness for he goes on to add “Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.”
Heb. 11-12 brings to mind the words of the naturalist John Muir who said, ‘we look at life from the backside of the tapestry. What we normally see is loose ends, tangled threads, frayed chords. But occasionally light shines through the tapestry and we get a glimpse of the larger design. Heb. 11-12 is giving us that big picture glimpse.

Our author is worried about the level of morale amongst the Jewish Christians in Rome in the 60s, who have already seen Peter and Paul go down for the count, and while they themselves have not yet suffered to the point of bloodshed, they have had property confiscated and they have seen their leaders martyred. The temptation to go native, or to turn back to a safer more licit form of religion must indeed have been great. Our author, who provides stern warnings against apostasy throughout his epideictic discourse (see e.g. Heb. 6) is certainly one of those who believes that the Christian believer is not eternally secure until they are securely in eternity.

Thus he exhorts the audience, with real concern about their breaking or abandoning faith, to follow the example of and keep their eyes on the trailblazer Jesus, to endure the same sort of shame he did, to die if need be, and to sit down with him in glory. Thus far our author sounds rather like an ancient version of those who promise pie in the sky, by and by and we must indeed seriously ask has our author exchanged eschatological afterlife thinking for ethereal other world thinking? Many have thought so, and have drawn analogies with Philo, or the neo-Platonists. I am unconvinced however, for our author is not at the end of the day a Platonist who sees this world as but a pale shadow of eternity, he is an early and thoroughly eschatological Jewish Christian, as my old mentor C.K. Barrett long ago pointed out, commenting on the eschatological character of Hebrews. In fact, as it turns out, our author is much like the author of Revelation affirming both a vibrant afterlife and a glorious other world as lying in the future of true believers. In different places in his discourse he places different stresses on one or the other, but at no point has he simply exchanged his eschatological birth rite for pie in the sky by and by.

This becomes especially clear not only when we consider our author quoting Hab. 2.3-4 in Heb. 10.37—“he who is coming will come and will not delay” or Heb. 10.25 where we hear about “the Day” of judgment and redemption that is coming, or Heb. 9.28 where we hear that Christ will appear a second time not to bear sin but to bring salvation. Or Heb. 13.14 where the heavenly city ‘to come’ is to be entered not merely by dying but by resurrection from the dead, and we could go on. What is surprising in this epideictic discourse is not the focus on what is true now in heaven, for the time focus of such rhetoric is the present time, what is surprising is the future references we do have in a piece of rhetoric which is not deliberative in character and is not arguing for an adoption of some new course of behavior or action in the near future. Instead he is arguing for persevering in the beliefs and behaviors the audience had already embraced long ago. And this brings us to the remarkable theophanic language used in the peroration in Heb. 12.18-29, the truly stirring and emotive climax meant at once to thrill and send a chill down the spine of the audience as final judgment and final salvation is vividly depicted.

Here we have a tale not so much of two cities as of two theophanies. God comes down on Sinai mountain and the people cannot bear the numinous presence and the trumpet blast and the final words of doom and gloom on a sinful people who had been building golden calves while Moses was visiting with God up the hill. No, says our author, if you will preserve in true faith, a better fate awaits the present audience he addresses. Rather, he says you have come to the very edges of a very different mountain--- Mount Zion rather than Mount Sinai. Our author has perhaps learned this contrast from Paul (see Galatians). It’s the heavenly city, the better country that Abraham saw from a far, that they have now drawn near to. Is our author envisioning his audience being raptured into heaven, into the presence of the angels and the living God or simply dying and going to heaven?

In fact he is not. Like the author of Revelation he envisions a corporate merger of heaven and earth, or perhaps better said, a replacement of this current world, both heavens and earth, that is wasting away, with an eternal form of heaven and earth, which when Jesus returns and the dead are raised will become heaven on earth. Our author says we who are still earthbound are receiving a kingdom (12.28), the very one devoutly to be wished and long prayed for—“thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven”. And so it is that our author envisions the second coming as a second theophany, a coming down of the heavenly city to earth, a final judgment and redemption in space and time, not an escape into the bodiless existence of a purely spiritual heaven without a final resolution of the matters of justice and redemption. John Chrysostom ably summed up things in his homily on this very text, and I am paraphrasing him here-- At the former theophany the people stood far off. At the final one they are said to have drawn near and are beckoned to stay close. At the former theophany they are in the wilderness, at the latter they are at the gates of the new Jerusalem, the ultimate symbol of true human civilization. At the former theophany there was gloom and darkness at the latter a festal celebration complete with partying angels. At the former theophany the people begged God to speak through Moses and not directly, at the latter they are urged to listen directly to God. At the former theophany even Moses the mediator trembled and no one dared to touch the holy mountain, but at the latter Jesus the mediator will be present and God’s people are beckoned to enter in at his return. At the former theophany sinful Israel is present, at the latter the spirits of just persons made perfect. At the former theophany there is blood from violence and judgment on sin, but at the latter theophany there is only the sprinkled blood of Jesus which preaches peace and enables mercy. At the former theophany worship amounts to fear and trembling before God, at the latter worship involves awe and wonder and thankfulness and acceptable worship of God.

This brings us back to the opening definition of faith. It is not just about faith in things in heaven not currently seen. It is also about things hoped for in space and time that are coming to a theater near us when Jesus comes back. In his recent scintillating Freitas lectures at Asbury Mark Allan Powell spoke about the difference between Christian faith’s great expectations and the resort to calculations or prognostications. The early church earnestly expected Christ to return, but that expectation was not trivialized into calculation. Expectations, even great expectations are not dogma or doctrine, they are things devoutly to be wished and earnestly desired. They are based on the promises of God, but they do not try to resolve the tension between the already and the not yet by giving way to predictions.

The earliest Christians, including the author of Hebrews knew that God has revealed enough of the future to give us hope, but not so much that we do not need to live by faith. Indeed, our author insists that we must live by faith just as all those who have come before us, including Jesus, the ultimate model of faith and faithfulness, have done. We have assurance of what is hoped for, but this is in no way the same as having knowledge of when faith will become sight, and hope will be realized. When faith degenerates into speculation, or even worse into pretended knowledge that “the end is at hand” then it ceases to be the hopeful forward-looking, trusting of God about which our author speaks.

It is ironic to me that both Albert Schweitzer and modern Dispensationalists are wrong about the eschatology of Jesus, Paul and other NT writers in the very same way. Schweitzer thought that Jesus and his followers believed and predicted that the end was definitely at hand, and acted accordingly, though bless their hearts, they were wrong. Modern Dispensationalists think the end is now at hand and think they can prove it with multi-colored charts, Left Behind novels, and escapist theology. One has to say, that bad theology came out of that revival in Glasgow in the 1820s which Darby attended and which got the rapture theology rolling for the Plymouth Brethren, then for D.L. Moody, then for C.I. Scofield and on and on.
And what is interesting about this comparison of two bad misreadings of the early Christian hope is not just the misreading of the NT evidence, but the fact that in both cases expectation was wrongly assumed to equal prognostication or prediction, which is not the case. Indeed, to predict the timing of Christ’s return with accuracy would make unnecessary the very sort of trust in God, and assurance about the future hope that our author says we should embrace and insists is essential for a Christian as they look forward into the future. Great Expectations when coupled with true faith and trust, should never degenerate into paltry prognostications of whatever sort. That is just human beings getting an itchy trigger finger and not being able to leave matters in God’s hands. I want to leave you with two stories of forward looking faith.

Adoniram Judson was a remarkable missionary to Burma, remarkable not least because he seemed to have no success, no converts for well over a decade yet he stuck to it. Indeed the tribes he was ministering to had become impatient and hostile towards him. There came a day of confrontation when the chief of one tribe was ready to throw Judson to the flames and had him tied up. He came and eyeballed Judson and said “what do you think now of your God, now that you are about to die?” Judson stared right back at him and said in memorable words “the future is a bright as the promises of God”. Famously, it was the tribal chief who blinked, untied Judson, and said he would hear more of this God. This was the day Christianity took root in Burma. Notice Judson did not say “the future is as bright as the predictions of human beings.” He knew the difference between trusting in God’s promises, and reducing expectations to calculations.

I was privileged enough to study in seminary with Elizabeth Elliot, the wife of Jim Elliot, the subject of the recent movie “The End of the Spear”. It is a stirring and true tale of young Christian couples working with the violent Waodani Indians in South America. On furlough, and shortly before he was martyred, Jim Elliot was asked by a reporter why he was so hopeful in his work with such resistant and violent people. He replied “He is no fool, who gives up what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose.” Shortly thereafter, Jim was killed by one of the Waodani. Only a couple of years ago at Franklin Graham crusade in Florida, the man who killed Jim Elliot came and gave his testimony. He said: “Formerly, I lived badly badly. But when Jim Elliot came and helped me to see Jesus, and then gave up his life for me, I knew I must respond in faith.” Indeed so. The great cloud of witnesses referred to in Hebrews did not cease to march the trail into glory in the first century. It has continued on into the present.

The question for us is—will we embrace this faith in God’s promises, will we live as the church expectant, not the church triumphalistic? Will we fix our eyes on Jesus and follow his model of trust in God and faithfulness unto death? If we will, then indeed there is assurance of things hoped for, and even internal proof of things not seen.

AMEN

Bonny St. Andrews

The third oldest university in the United Kingdom is St. Andrews University, with 5,000 undergrads today and numerous grad students. The town itself is a little seaside village on the west coast of Scotland, and let me tell you--- the water is very cold in the North Sea. I went swimming yesterday and it was the hottest day on record in St. Andrews. It didn't matter--- the water was still about 50F max. The town has a long religious history, with a ruined abbey and a castle keep where John Knox was imprisoned among its other intereting sites to visit. Of course today it is most famous for its golf course, the Old Course, which has hosted many a British Open. I played it on Friday-- 2 pars, one bird, and though the cost was very pricey (think hundreds of dollars) the experience was priceless. Hope to post some pictures when I get home, including one of me on the famous 18th hole bridge. St. Andrews, without question, is one of the best places in the world to study theology with a world class faculty, to which has just been added Marcus Boeckmuhl from Cambridge. I have had a wonderful time with my old friends Richard Bauckham (who is soon retiring) and Bruce Longenecker. Now we are beginning an important conference on the book of Hebrews with papers by Richard Hays, Morna Hooker, Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, yours truly and lots of others. It promises to be grand. More anon.

The Life of the Mind--Fragile but Fertile

The life of the mind is fragile. I have been constantly reminded of this from my time in academia. I have seen one academic after another fall prey to chronic fatique, and I learned only the other day from a brain expert that for academics, one can spend up to 75% of ones latent energy in brain work. This is why a person can completely tire out after only sitting in a chair and reading and thinking most of the day. Another aspect of this is that the mind is subject to the affective side of our lives, such that if there is a lot of emotional turmoil it become difficult not only to concentrate or focus but even just to think coherently. We are psychosomatic wholes, and we think too little about the effect of the mind on the body and vice versa. There is something to the saying 'as a person thinks, so they are' though this has degenerated into nonsense about thinking one's health issues away or 'the power of positive thinking' as if it were a panacea that culd cure all ills. It is the height of irony that Mary Baker Eddy who was one of the most unwell religious figures I know of of, touted the nonsense of mind over matter, or even illness is a mental illusion that we hear in American culture from time to time.

But there is another side to this-- namely that God has put eternity in our minds, so we will not be content with the temporal. Several small things seem to point to this. Have you noticed how when you havent seen a person for a long time and then see them again you are surprised to find them different or aged or both? Your mental image of them has not changed, even though you know rationally they have aged. Why? Or again the siren song of the brain tells us we can do things that we actually could only do when much younger. I call this the mind writing checks the body can no longer cash. It happens to me when I try to play sports, say basketball for instance. Afterwards, when I am sore and tired my body reminds my brain that I was way over optimistic about what I could manage.

The mind is something far greater than just the brain hardware, and it is truly amazing to study how the mind can rewire itself and restribute the work load when some of it has been damaged by stroke or disease. There is a sort of mental compensation faculty built in. And it is clear from Alzheimer studies that memory and remembering is a key to being a normal function person, or even to have a personality.

The ancient Egyptians were smart about many things, but not about the mind. They thought the grey matter of the brain was detritus and could be sucked out of the skull and thrown away while the internal organs were a key to the afterlife and needed to be mummified and preserved in canopic jars. The Hebrews thought that mind and the heart were intertwined. Sometimes they spoke of the thoughts of the heart, sometimes the thoughts of the mind, but the heart was seen as the control center of the personality, whereas we now know the mind is. Yet there is wisdom in what Carson McCullers used to say that the heart has 'reasons that reason knows not of'.

And finally what exactly did Paul have in mind when he exhorted us to have the mind of Christ? Its worth pondering.

Durham Days

From 1977-80 my wife and I lived in Durham and our daughter Christy was born here. It is nice to be back in beautiful Durham (google Durham Cathedral and oggle the pictures). I have had a glorious day with members of the Divinity Department (Loren Stukenbroeck, John Barclay) and spent some good time with my former mentor C.K. Barrett and his wonderful wife Margaret. Kingsley is now almost 90 but his mind is still quite keen, and he still loves to teach the Greek NT. My visit with him was followed by dinner with my good friends Bishop Tom Wright and his wife Maggie. It has all too seldom been noticed in the U.S. that the epicenter of excellent, and I might add mostly orthodox NT scholarship has been Durham England (not somewhere in the U.S.) for the last 150 years--- the following names should be very familiar to those who read NT literature--- B.F. Westcott, J.B. Lightfoot, Alfred Plummer, C.K. Barrett, C.E.B. Cranfield, James Dunn, and now John Barclay and Tom Wright. To this we could add other Durhamites like Morna Hooker, John Painter, and last but not least yours truly. There is hardly any place better on earth to study the NT than here, in the shadow of the world famous Norman Cathedral. But that is not all for you see Durham has been a living center of Christianity since the time of the Venerable Bede, who single-handedly helped save the church from the Dark Ages and wrote one of the first full commentaries on James and Jude. It is a rich heritage, and a tough one to live up to.

When I went into the Bishop Aukland palace where Tom Wright lives I was stunned by all the pictures of the great scholars and bishops who passed through here going all the way back to St. Cuthbert. Equally impressive were the huge number of bookshelves in this palace. You see Durham bred scholarly bishops like Lightfoot and now Wright. They believed in a learned clergy, not just learned scholars. I do as well. Clergy should be the Bible experts for their people. But there is another wonderful dimension to Durham as well--- it is a center for Wesleyan studies as well as it is a Methodist stronghold.

It is a blessing to be back in Durham, one of my spiritual homes.

The Red Mist

Seeing red, a red sea
fogs up the brain
Acting irrationally
Bordering on insane.

The red mist permeates
The facets of the mind
Acting on impulse
Wits left behind.

Shots fired in anger
Impulses expressed
Leaves us walking wounded
Depressed and distressed.

Be angry, but sin not
Thus says the Word
Or pay the price for petulance
The cost remains absurd.

When sun sets on angry
It seethes in the brain
Permeating one’s thinking
A form of mental rain.

While there is righteous anger
It’s seldom the case
This is the motivator
Of acts done in haste.

Anger leads to violence
More often than not
Stealing what righteousness
A fallen person’s got.

Part the red sea in your brain
With the Spirit’s aid
Or leave a trail of victims
From choices you have made.

BW3
July 10 2006

Rob Bell Hits the Rock Venue Circuit

I am providing here a link to a New York Times article about Rob Bell's summer tour, which does not rely on multi-media pyrotechnics yet is appealing to many young folks around the land. Read the article and give me your reaction. I personally like what he is doing, having meaningful conversations with a Christian orientation to audiences in secular venues. Here is the link. The original article is in Saturday's paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/08/us/08minister.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Pirates of the Carribean II--- Yo Ho Ho....

It is usually the case that the second part of a trilogy is less satisfactory or satisfying than either the first, which sucks you in, or the final one which resolves the loose ends and tidies up the plot. Clearly enough, 'Dead Man's Chest' the second of the Depp 'Pirates' sagas falls into this classification, rather like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It is two and a half hours long and it is rather dark to say the least-- featuring the Machiavellian Davy Jones who shows up to tell Jack Sparrow his time is up. There are plenty of ghoulies in this movie like in the first, only more so, and I wouldn't really recommend this movie for children. It is too dark, despite its humor, sight gags, and yet another enjoyable performance by Johnny Depp.

However even Depps swagger, humor, and wonderful facial expressions can not entirely lighten the mood of this movie, which at junctures turns into something of an allegory about how Sparrow has no moral compass, and needs to grow a conscience. There are also some hilarious reflections on life and death by two members of Sparrow's crew, with the one eyed man being something of a philosopher. This is only just a little more surprising than the portrayal of Davy Jones as a maniacal organist.

Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley both reprise their roles admirably and well, but in the end the movie stands or falls with Depp, and we really needed more in depth Depp in this movie than we got. Then too, even for an action film, there was too many totally impossible actions scenes for one to willingly suspend one's disbelief in every case. Something should have been learned from the overkill of this sort of stuff in the King Kong remake. Hopefully there are still some better summer movies than this yet in store, but this one has enough redeeming features to make it worth watching. Part three which has already been filmed (made at the same time as part 2), will hopefully put the fun and swash back in the buckle of this series of films.

Reflections on Growing Old

The following are comments by men and women over 50 on their creeping decrepitude. As my English Prof at Carolina once said--- 'there are days after 40 when you realize your body is your mortal enemy.'

The nice thing about growing senility is you can hide your own Easter eggs, and you can also pray the senility prayer---

'Lord grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.'

'My memory's not as sharp as it used to be. Also my memory's not as sharp as it used to be.'

'Don't let aging get you down. It's too hard to get up again.'

'Don't think of it as hot flashes, think of it as your inner child playing with matches.'

'Its scary when your stomnach starts making the same noises as your coffee maker.'

'The elderly widow was approached by the undertaker with the question: 'How old was your husband when he died?' She replied 'He was 98, two years older than me.' She then paused and added :' Its hardly worth my going home now is it?'

The elderly gentleman said--- 'I have had bypass surgery, am largely deaf, and have both prostate issues and old age diabetes, and take about 40 different medicines that give me dizzy spells, but thank God I still have my driver's license!'

'These days about half the stuff in my grocery cart says 'For fast relief.'

An elderly widower asked the preacher to arrange to have him be cremated when he died, and have his ashes scattered over Walmart. When the preacher asked why the reply was 'This way I know my offspring will visit me twice a week.'

A news reporter interviewed an 104 year old lady about what was the best thing about being 104. Her reply was 'There's no peer pressure.'

The Guy's Rules

I pass these along as they are from a Canadian friend who gave them to me. These are the things some men wish women knew, but usually are too cowardly to tell them. Please note that these are numbered and placed in a certain order on purpose. Please also note that I don't necessarily agree with them all.

1) Men are not mind readers.

2) Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If its up, put it down. You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down though we need it up usually.

3) Watching sports on Sunday after church. Its like the full moon or the changing tides. Its inevitable--- let it be.

4)Shopping is not a sport, and no we will never think of it that way. And please stop telling us how much you saved by buying something.

5) Crying is emotional blackmail. Yes, we know it works sometimes.

6) Subtle hints do not work for most of us. Strong hints don't usually work. |Just tell us what you want, and assume we are thick as a post.

7) Yes and no are perfectly acceptable answers to most questions. We are not being coy.

8)Come to us with a problem if you want help solving it. If you only want sympathy, that's what your girlfriends are for.

9) A headache that lasts for 10 months is a problem. See a doctor.

10) Anything a guy said in an argument 10 months ago is inadmissable in a current argument. In fact all comments become null and void after seven days. They have a shelf life.

11) If you think you're fat, please do not ask us our opinion. There are no right answers to such a question.

12) If something we've said can be interpreted in two ways, and one of them makes you mad or sad, then of course we meant it the other way.

13) You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done, not both. If you already know the best way to do it, then perhaps you should do it yourself.

14) Whenever possible, if you have something important to say during a sports match or movie on the TV, please wait until the commercials.

15) Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

16) If it itches it will be scratched. Men do that--- yes even in public.


17) All men see in only 16 colors, like a Windows default setting. Peach for example is a fruit, not a color. We have no idea what mauve is. Also, men only smell certain things-- things like hamburgers cooking.

18) If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you'd rather not hear.

19) You have enough shoes and too many clothes.

20) If we ask what's wrong and you say 'nothing' we will assume you are telling the truth. Don't be shocked if we don't ask again in five minutes.

21)I am in shape. Round is a shape!

More of Omar's Story

Last summer my older cousin Ali was able to come in from Ohio to be at our wedding. I think it was really good for my dad to have someone from back home who was able to be there, and he filled in as my grandmother’s escort, sitting with her on the front row.

Ali was forced to serve in the Iraqi Army in the first Gulf War. Other cousins were also conscripted, stationed on the front lines and in Kuwait City. Some of them were rounded up in the mass-surrenders after the ground war began, and they all made it home. But Ali had a different story. He was a field surgeon on the front lines with the Republican Guard. Sadaam thought that if he placed the medical units close enough to the rest of the soldiers then the Americans wouldn’t bomb and shell them. He was wrong.

Somehow the Iraqis knew when the American ground troops would be coming over the dunes, and so they were given a five-day pass to go home to Baghdad and say their goodbyes. Ali knew it would be a meat-grinder, and he knew that under Sadaam desertion meant death and trouble for your family. So while he was in Baghdad he had another surgeon friend take out his perfectly good appendix. While he was in the hospital, his entire unit was annihilated.

Around that same time a Marine friend of mine named Nelson had been part of an artillery outfit that was shelling Iraqi positions inside Kuwait. Suddenly an Iraqi artillery shell slammed into the hood of the truck Nelson was standing next to, but it was a dud and didn’t go off. He lived to come home and tell me that story.

Also at our wedding, only four rows back from Ali, was my friend Joe, who is an Army Ranger veteran. On the other side of the isle from Ali was one of my two mother in laws, whose stepbrother was part of the Army forces that moved through the same area of Kuwait where Ali had been. On another pew was my friend Johanna, whose husband has served in Afghanistan and is now training for Special Forces duty in the Middle East.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The best phrase came from a taxi driver in Cairo, right after the invasion of Iraq three years ago, who upon finding out that my brother was half Iraqi and half American said, “Ahhh… is funny. Your country is attacking your country.”


I have often become frustrated when I have heard people in my church make statements like, “Remember who we’re fighting here,” before they lead prayers for our military victory. A professor here once said that the only two choices we have is to either “convert them or keep them from hurting us.”

Well… first of all you can’t fight and win a “war on terror.” Terrorism is a method, not a country or ideology. I once heard it said that fighting a war on terror is like having the flu and declaring a war on sneezing: you’re only attacking the symptoms. As long as there have been people, there has been terrorism.

But what frightens me is the mindset in this country, and in the church, that seems to think terrorism was born and raised in the Middle East, and if we can take out the Muslim Arabs then the world will be a safer place. Put this idea up against the ideas in large parts of the Arab world that America has, in a sense, been a terror herself with her policies toward the Middle East. So you get what we had last week. The cycle continues, and we have “become a monster to defeat a monster.”

So who is the enemy? I believe that on this side of the Cross, according to the Scriptures, that “we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12)

If you track through the entire story of Scripture, you see that while God may have fought battles on Israel’s behalf in the Old Testament, the trajectory was always towards the Cross, which redeemed the Creation intent. Jesus set for us an example of living and witnessing that intent through loving, serving and forgiving our enemies. The way of Christ was not to kill and destory those who had abused and killed Him. But for some reason we still say, “in God we trust” while we drop the bombs (just in case God doesn't come through, I suppose).

Imagine what would have happened if the entire mass community of Christians who prayed so fervently for our troops to “defeat the enemy” would have instead prayed against the real Enemy and for peace between humanity.

So who is the enemy? Well, I have Iraqi Army veteran family and U.S. Army veteran friends. I have been raised by Southern Methodists and Shiite Muslims. I cannot abdicate the gospel message of Christ to a bomb, but can only bear the Cross, the ultimate battlefield victory over the Enemy.

Omar

Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem

We are coming to an end today of our week in Israel, and as usual it has been a wonderful, pognant, and painful experience. The plight of the Palestinian Christians is more evident every day. As most of you may know two weeks ago several innocent women and children were killed on a Gaza beach by the Israelis while these persons were minding their own business. And of course there are also various Palestinian women and children in jail here, simply because they are under suspicion and have no rights as citizens to fair treatment. They are not allowed to be citizens of Israel. My tour guide Mike, born and raised in Jerusalem, has lived under a Jordanian passport his whole life and he is nothing but a friend of Christians and leads tours of the Holy Land. He has a ministry of tourism. The pain he and his family experience from being separated from their friends by the wall put up around Bethelehem and the west bank is palpable, and it is unjust. The Palestinian Christians are being starved out of Bethelehem and they are moving to the U.S. in droves. Soon there will be few if any indigenous Christians in this land. And now of course Hamas has taken prisoner an Israeli soldier (not a civilian) in hopes of exchanging him for some of their family members. Israeli tanks are massing on the border of Gaza. We could degenerate into another stupid war in which all will lose and none will win.

I would ask you to pray for the peace of this place as the Psalmist urged us to do. It is what our Lord asked of us, for as he said "blessed are the peacemakers". We are off to Turkey this afternoon-- thanks be to God.

Conversations Heard at the Water Cooler at work

"So hey what have you been up to lately."

"We'll believe it or not I am into reading."

"Really? Reading what?"

"Well, I am growing my spirituality."

"So, what are you reading?"

"Well I am reading the Bible. And let me tell you, that guy can write!"

James the Sage

I will be off to Israel on Monday and off the blog for a while, as I serve as tour guide through Israel and Turkey, and then I am on to England and Scotland for three weeks, from which venue I plan to return to the blogosphere. Here below you will find a small excerpt from my forthcoming commentary on Hebrews, James, and Jude for Inter Varsity Press.

A CLOSER LOOK: JAMES—SAPIENTIAL SCRIBE OR CREATIVE SAGE?

In early Judaism of the time of Jesus and James there had already long since been a cross-fertilization of the wisdom and prophetic traditions, including the apocalyptic traditions in Judaism. This is hardly a surprise since there was such Biblical precedent. Daniel for example is a sage and court counselor who also has apocalyptic visions and foresees eschatological scenarios. In other studies I have shown that there were differences between scribes and sages and prophetic figures in early Judaism. Any of these figures could be teachers, including teachers of the law, but in Lk. 5.17-21 it is interesting that there is an equation between scribes and teachers of the law, a combination also seen in the person of Gamaliel (Acts 5.34). But in Matthew’s Gospel we have a clear distinction between scribes, sages or wise men, and prophets (Mt. 23.34). This is not surprising because the First Evangelist is himself a sapiential scribe, carefully recording and editing his source material in a sapiential and eschatological manner.
Our discussion of what James was can be honed and refined by thinking about how the First Evangelist, another Jewish Christian writer deeply influenced by the Wisdom tradition should be characterized. What especially prompts this discussion is that first person verbs are quite rare in James, and apart from hypothetical questions (1.13; 2.18; 4.13,15) occur only here in this homily and once at James 5.11. What stands out about that latter reference is it involves a beatitude—one of the most familiar forms of sapiential speech which Jesus used. But here James self-identifies as a teacher, and since he does not refer to himself as an apostle or prophet this seems quite significant. Apostles are missionaries, and James stayed put in Jerusalem. Prophets are oracles, quoting God, but James does not do this. But sages are another matter altogether, and they seem to have made up the bulk of teachers in Jesus’ and James’ era (cf. Acts 13.1; Ephes. 4.11). Brosend helpfully reminds “teachers are known by the content of their teaching. This may be exactly what James intended, claiming a significant role that nonetheless turned attention away from himself to his message while accepting the responsibility that comes with presuming to instruct others.” But some distinctions are necessary to understand James’ role and the ethos and nature of his teaching.
The term grammateus itself has a range of meanings, but all of them presuppose a person who is literate, one who can read and write, and so a person who, educationally, is in the upper echelons of society, since only 10% of all ancients could read and write. There was considerable power in being a scribe in those sorts of social circumstances. But was a Jewish scribe simply a copier of documents? Was James a sapiential scribe like the First Evangelist, or would it be better to call him a creative sage in his own right?
James’ homily is written in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic, and it reflects the traditions of Jewish writers who wrote in Greek, and not only so, he reflects Jewish writers who knew rhetoric as well. As we have already had occasion to note, James reflects the Jewish sapiential tradition in that era, and so we need to look more closely at sapiential scribes and sages such as Qohelet and later Ben Sira and even the author of Wisdom of Solomon. Fortunately, in Sirach we have some quite clear evidence about the way Jewish scribes worked in the intertestamental period and continuing on into the NT era.

Sirach 39.1-11 speaks of the ideal Jewish sapiential scribe:

He who devotes himself to the study of the Law of the Most High
Will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients,
And will be concerned with prophecies,
He will preserve the discourse of notable men
And penetrate the subtleties of parables;
He will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs,
And be at home with the obscurities of parables.
He will serve among great men and appear before rulers...
If the great Lord is willing, he will be filled with the spirit of understanding;
He will pour forth words of wisdom
And give thanks to the Lord in prayer.
He will direct his counsel and knowledge aright,
And meditate on his secrets,
He will reveal instruction in his teaching,
And will glory in the Law of the Lord’s covenant,
Many will praise his understanding,
And it will never be blotted out;
His memory will not disappear,
and his name will live through all generations,
Nations will declare his wisdom,
And the congregation will proclaim his praise...

There are many things that could be remarked on in this passage but most importantly note that the Law is talked about in a context in which Law, prophecy, parable, proverbs and the like are all viewed from a sapiential point of view, which is to say as one or another sort of divine wisdom meant to give guidance to God’s people. It is after all Ben Sira who first clearly identifies Torah with Wisdom, indeed suggests that Wisdom became incarnate, so to speak in Torah. I would submit that the First Evangelist sees himself in the light of this sort of description of a Jewish scribe, and so sees his task as interpreting and presenting the life and teachings of Jesus as revelatory wisdom from God. Indeed he will argue that Jesus himself, rather than Torah, is the incarnation of God’s wisdom, and that it is therefore Jesus’ own wise teaching which provides the hermeneutical key to understanding Law, proverb, prophecy, parable and other things. But is this the agenda and modus operandi of James? My answer to this question must be no. He is more like the person whom the First Evangelist writes about--- Jesus who was indeed a sage, a creator of parables, aphorisms, riddles and the like.
Of course it must be remembered that the First Evangelist, who ought more appropriately to be called the First (Christian) Scribe, saw Jesus as an eschatological and royal sage, not just another wise man. But the issue here is not the content of Jesus’ teaching but its form. In form, Jesus’ teaching is overwhelmingly sapiential in character, even when the content may involve eschatology, and we must remind ourselves again that at least from the time of Daniel, if not before there had been this sort of cross-fertilization of wisdom, prophecy, and apocalyptic. Furthermore, such literature which reflected this cross-fertilization had become enormously popular and influential, and may even have helped spawn or at least spur on a whole series of ‘wise men’ or sages in the era just prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus (cf. e,g, Hanina ben Dosa, Honi the circle drawer), including that unique figure--- the visionary sage, which both Jesus and James fit into the mold of.
In a revealing comment in his recent study on sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism John J. Collins makes these telling remarks: “Comparison of Enoch and Daniel, on the one hand and 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch on the other shows there are significant variations in the ideal of the visionary sage in the apocalyptic literature….There are some consistent features of apocalyptic wisdom that distinguish it from traditional Hebrew wisdom. Most fundamental of these is the claim to have, and reliance upon, a supernatural revelation. Even a sage like Ezra who disavows heavenly ascents, still relies on dreams and visions…the apocalyptic sage is not at a loss, as Qoheleth was, to know what God had done from beginning to end (Qoh. 3.11), because he claims to have access to the recesses of wisdom in the heavens….One finds then in the sages of the apocalypses a denial of earthly wisdom, but also a claim to a higher, superior wisdom.” Several things about this quote are interesting for our purposes. While James does not at all renounce wisdom derived from the analysis of nature and human nature, nevertheless his most crucial insights about life he attributes to the wisdom that comes down from above, revelatory wisdom. In this respect he is very much like Jesus who was an apocalyptic sage who drew on both sorts of wisdom traditions.
I have differed with D. E. Orton’s characterization of the First Evangelist as being an apocalyptic scribe more in the line of the authors of some of the Enochian literature than in line with Ben Sira. To the contrary, the description we find in Mt. 13.52, which most scholars think provides a clue to help us understand the First Evangelist points us in the direction of Ben Sira not Enoch. It states: “Therefore every teacher of the Torah who has been instructed about the Kingdom of Heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” Notice that the person in question is: 1) a teacher; 2) knows the Law and teaches it; and 3) has been instructed about the Kingdom of heaven (a, if not the major subject of Jesus’ parables and other teachings). I would submit that the ‘new’ has to do with what the teacher has recently been instructed about (the Kingdom), whereas the old refers to Torah. This teacher in other words does not limit himself to the Torah, but also deals in new treasures as well, namely the various teachings of Jesus. In this regard it is understandable why the author of this Gospel is such a strong critic of Pharisees and their scribes. It is not the noble task of a scribe that he objects to, he is one. It is the Pharisaic scribes who dwell on Torah and its amplification and refuse to recognize the teaching of Jesus and his perspectives on earlier Jewish wisdom including the Law that our author has issues with. Our author is operating in a profoundly Jewish milieu where the teachings of the Pharisees rival the teachings that the First Evangelist seeks to offer.
Another helpful clue to the modus operandi of the First Evangelist is found in Eccles. 12.9-10. The sapiential scribe is one who is to weigh or assess, study, and arrange or set in order the meshalim, the parables, proverbs, aphorisms, riddles of the wisdom tradition. This description reflects the three stages of literary composition—experimenting with, refining and shaping, and then arranging in a collection. The scribe is not merely to record but to enhance the wisdom examined by arrangement and elegance of expression, though always expressing himself with care. Wisdom is meant to be both a guide and goad in life, both a handhold and something which helps one get a grip on life (Ec.12.11). The scribe is an inspired interpreter and editor of his sources, but he is self-effacing and points to others as the sages or teachers whose material he is refining, restoring and presenting. If we were to characterize the First Evangelist we would have to say that he is remarkably like the description of the sapiential scribe we find in Sirach. And of course we have seen in James how very indebted he is to the same sort of Jewish wisdom sources--- Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. But James operates quite differently than the First Evangelist in various respects. In the first place James is offering his own wisdom, not merely redacting the wisdom of the past. Nowhere is this clearer than in the way he handles the Jesus tradition as opposed to the way the First Evangelist handles it. The latter quotes Jesus and attributes the material to Jesus. James on the other hand draws on the Jesus tradition without attribution and modifies it to suit his own purposes, melding it together with his own wisdom—sometimes revelatory and counter-order wisdom, sometimes conventional wisdom. There is a reason James, like Paul, calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, and not his secretary or scribe ( grammateus). He too has received revelation, and he too has insights to share, and new perspectives on previous wisdom teaching including that of his brother. Notice that James does not feel it necessary to quote Torah often to give authority to his discourse, and notice as well that unlike what his brother manifested he is perfectly at home with using Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques to address with maximum possible impact Jewish Christians in the Diaspora, which is to say living in a rhetoric saturated Greco-Roman environment.
Of course we will never know whether Jesus was capable of wielding rhetoric in the way James does, and since he never really addresses foreigners in any lengthy Greek discourse we cannot guess. But whatever else we may say, James proves to be a multi-faceted and multi-talented sage in his own right, able to address audiences outside of his own setting in persuasive ways, while still manifesting the same Jewish Gestalt with that mixture of wisdom and eschatological fervor and content that we find in the teachings of Jesus. Like his brother he is a creative generator of new traditions, new wisdom as well as a reframer of old wisdom, and so he certainly does not merely fall into the category of creative scribe like the First Evangelist, which is to say a person whose skill is just in editing and assembling data whether old or new. In fact, if we may call the First Evangelist the first Christian scribe in the Christian era, we may call James the first Jewish Christian sage in that era. And like his brother, James is prepared to offer a new law, a royal and eschatological and perfect law which combines some elements from the Mosaic covenant (like “love thy neighbor…..”) with other things. Law is seen as but one form of wise teaching and it is handled in a sapiential way. It is truly unfortunate that James was ever caricatured as someone who had not really captured Jesus’ vision of things, but rather merely rehearsed older Jewish wisdom teachings.
But there is a problem seldom noticed here. Jesus in Mt. 23.8-10 warned his disciples that they were not to be called rabbis or teachers, because they had one teacher—Jesus himself. Now James’ caution about not many becoming teachers may fall in line with Jesus’ warning, and Jesus’ warning may be said to be against the honorific side of things as it involved early Jewish teachers—in other words whoever was a teacher was not to seek the status and praise for doing so. Rather they were to follow Jesus’ own more humble example. Probably, this is how James will have understood this saying of Jesus.
Furthermore, as we see in James 3, while James follows the Jewish practice of identifying the proper teacher with the sage he models for these teachers something that goes well beyond scribal activities or job descriptions. In other words, while he does not want many to follow in his footsteps and become teachers/sages (cf. Heb. 5.12), he is certainly assuming and hoping a few will do so to guide the Jewish Christians in the Diaspora, some who are perhaps already the elders in those places. The criteria for being such a teacher involves of course criteria of character which is emphasized in James 3, but also criteria of knowing earlier wisdom and being open to new revelatory wisdom as well, and having the ability to articulate it persuasively. One need not be a scribe to be a sage, nor become a scribe in preparation for being a sage. Good character, knowledge of the Word, and openness to new insight from God would suffice. One need not necessarily even be literate to do this, though James certainly was. As R. Bauckham stresses James was such a creative sage that he even felt free to rephrase his brother’s own teaching as well as the OT. In commenting on James 3.11-12 he notes “James is not quoting or alluding to the saying of Jesus [Mt. 7.16], but in the manner of a wisdom sage, he is re-expressing the insight he has learned from Jesus’ teaching (Lk. 6.43-45; Matt. 12.33-35; 7.16-18)…Just as Ben Sira, even when he repeats the thought of Proverbs, deliberately refrains from repeating the words, so James creates an aphorism of his own, indebted to but no mere reproduction of the words of Jesus.”
To judge from the subsequent history of Christianity after the apostolic age, both prophetic and sapiential figures who claimed independent authority and revelation gradually came under an increasing cloud of suspicion, as we already see in the Didache 11-13. The church tended to marginalize such figures, and of course has continued to do so throughout church history. Thus we may be thankful that the writing of a figure like James the sage became enshrined in the canon of the NT, despite the bumpy ride it took to get there. It reminds us that our roots look rather different than most of the current limbs we could inspect which now grow from the tree. It reminds us that early Christianity was a movement not just of the faithful reiteration of older traditions but of fresh revelation, fresh wisdom from and about Christ, who came to be called the very Wisdom of God, the ultimate revelation of the mind and character of God.

"Cars"-- Auto Eroticism in America

"Cars" (the movie, not the old rock group with Ric Ocasek) has barnstormed up the movie charts and according to many pundits its a great movie, some even say, an instant classic. There is no doubting that 20 years into their creative arc,Pixar Entertainment is the leader in the field when it comes to this sort of computer generated animation. And interestingly enough, 'children's' movies (I use the term loosely) during that same period of time have not only become much bigger business, but are attracting a galaxy of stars to do the voices, and of musical stars to do the sound track (this one is scored by Randy Newman and has James Taylor, John Mayer, Sheryl Crow, Rascal Flats, and others).

I must say however that this particular animated feature is in fact mostly for adults. In the first place it has themes like 'nostalgia' for the good old days (n.b. children are not old enough to think that way), or selfish opportunism in the pursuit of one's career path vs. self-sacrifical behavior (again the way this is pitched in this movie is over young children's heads), or romance between 'young' cars (again not a children's theme).

Unlike some children's movies that have a few jokes for the adults, this movie seems more oriented towards adults. You can also see this in the level of action in the movie-- apart from the NASCAR like races at the beginning and end of the movie this movie is very slow paced, and its centerpiece is life on ole Route 66 in the town that time forgot--- Radiator Springs. Unlike "Ice Age-- the Melt Down" this movie has some real slow spots for children, though I thoroughly enjoyed it. A fast-paced comic thriller this is not, but it has some classic scenes e.g. when Lightning McQueen (voice by Owen Wilson) the youngbuck race car, and Mater the tow truck go 'tractor tipping' out in the fields outside town one night, or in the brief scenes where Cheech Marin is playing the pimped up low rider car which is pretty hysterical.

The animation in itself is worth seeing this movie for, as it is truly amazing whether we are talking about the cars or the towns, or the breathtaking scenery of the west near Grand Canyon. And there is a not so subliminal message for adults in this movie as well which hooks them because of their love of vintage cars and perhaps there love of travel.

And the message is this--- we need to rethink our cultural trends which lead to going everywhere fast but getting nowhere fast when it comes to the things that really matter. At one juncture in the movie there is a critique of the building of Interstate 40 across America which caused many small towns through which Route 66 went to become ghost towns. Instead of conforming to the contours of the land, says the commentator, we now run roughshod over it, and miss all the interesting things along the way-- a sort of there is joy in the journey, and things to learn from the past kind of message. But it is also reminiscent of the recent decisions taken in New Hampshire and Vermont to ban Walmart from town lest it lead to the closing down of all the downtown mom and pop businesses.

But of course this movie is also about auto eroticism--- America's great love for its cars, the ultimate symbol of its mobility and freedom. This movie plays up that theme in various ways. We have the dream cars (the female lead is a Porsche in this movie!), the race cars, the junk cars, the vintage restored cars, the funky Italian cars (Guido and Luigi no less) and at the end a hilarious segment where SUVs are sent to boot camp to learn how to actually do off roading.

Instead of people are like the cars they drive, we have the reverse theme-- cars are like different kinds of people. My personal favorite is the old VW Mini-van from the 60s still painted in psychedelic colors, who sits watching a blinking yellow light and comments "You know man every third blink is like slower", to which his buddy the panel van replies "The 60s weren't good to you were they?" We are what we drive it would seem, in America, or at least we see our cars as an extension and expression of our personalities. No wonder public transportation is such a non-starter in much of this country. Whoever envisioned themselves as a subway car or a Greyhound bus?

The Pixar company is to be commended for quality work over the last two decades, but this movie is not a classic like Toy Story or Bug's Life and some of their other big hits. It is however, as the saying goes, a fun ride while it lasts (a bit less than two hours), which is only appropriate for a movie about cars.

Ten Commandments for the Internet Age

Thou shalt not have any other Providers before me.

Thou shalt not make for thyself a sacrilegious image using Photoshop or Powerpoint.

Thou shalt not bow down and worship thy technology for I am a jealous God punishing the third and fourth generation of computer programs with bugs and viruses and the blue screen of death.

Thou shalt not misuse the name of the Lord using emoticons, symbols, java scripts or other flippant forms of expression.

Remember the Shut Down time and do not Restart during it. Six days ye shall compute and do all your email and word processing but on the seventh day cease, to make room for the Word Perfect.

Honor your parents' computer illiteracy and answer their snail mail so you may live long in the land.

Thou shalt not murder thy computer just because Microsoft Works is an oxymoron.

Thou shalt not commit adultery by means of cyber porn.

Thou shalt not steal another’s data, identity, nor illegally download or copy things.

Thou shalt not give false testimony on a blog against thy neighbor whilst hiding behind a pseudonymous blog name.

Thou shalt not covet thy sister’s laptop, nor her printer, nor her Ipod, nor her cellphone, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.

BW3

China Bans Da Vinci Code Movie

In the category of closing the barn door after the cow has escaped, we now have the banning of the Da Vinci Code movie after it has had a 22 day run there and has exceeded all expectations in ticket sales. Here is the link--

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/world/asia/10china.html?th&emc=th


This seems to have been the response of the Chinese government trying to appease the Catholic Patriot League, but also responding to the 'social unrest' and various protests the movie had caused in the last few weeks there. Of course this tactic only makes those Catholics look like obscurantists and censors unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is an irony that the Communist government in China has been more sensitive to Christian feelings on this matter than all the Western governments put together! It also shows, that at least some governmental officials understand that this movie is definitely not "much ado about nothing".

A Prairie Home Companion-- A Eulogy to Things Dying from the Heartland

With an all star cast (Kevin Kline, Meryl Strep, Lilly Tomlin, Woody Harrelson, Virginia Masden Lindsey Lohan, John C. Reily, Tommy Lee Jones etc.), and the ole boy himself, Garrison Keillor, and a reenactment of an episode of the Prairie Home Companion in the offing, the heavy odds would be on this being a lot of fun. And indeed it is. Just watching Meryl Streep and Lilly Tomlin play country singing sisters, and Kevin Kline as Guy Noir the bumbling security guard was worth the price of admission. It is too bad the moguls have decided on only a limited release for this movie.

What you didn't figure on in this movie was a long meditation of death. But in fact that is precisely what you get in this movie. Virginia Masden plays quite literally the angel of death. But had she come to help ring down the curtain on the Prairie Home Companion?

The plot is quite simple-- the Fitzgerald theater in St. Paul is about to be imploded, putting an end to the venue for the long running radio show. It has been bought by a born again Texas axe man, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who thinks the show needs to end and another parking lot should be put up (you can sing the chorus of Joni Mitchell's classic 'Big Yellow Taxi' here--- "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot...')

So it is no surprise that the cast, and Garrison are in a melancholy and reflective mood. Nevertheless they must make merry, and do so by singing everything from bluegrass, to country, to spirituals to old Gospel classics, to western cowboy songs. Indeed most of the movie involves singing, and we discover that most of these big name stars can sing, and so can Keillor as well, who plays himself of course. For somewhat under two hours we watch them perform, follow the behind the scenes high jinks, and generally have a good time.

Keillor, in good Lake Wobegon fashion reminds us of how Keillor sees the nature of the upper midwest. People expect it to be cold, they expect death, and if joy breaks out for too long they feel like something is wrong and this too will pass. In short they range from Stoics to fatalists to glass is half empty folks, and even the young, portrayed by Lindsey Lohan are busy writing poems about suicide and death.

Yet they enjoy fiddling as Lake Woebegon freezes, and if this is a death spiral dance, it sure is entertaining to watch. "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow..." seems to be the theme here. It is interesting though that when a cast member actually dies back stage during the show, Keillor insists the show must go on, and he refuses to do a live eulogy to ole Claude Akers the cowboy singer. It seems that some cope with death by avoidance of the subject, others by obsessing about it.

There is a bit of baudy humor in this movie served up by Harrelson and Reilly (e.g.--- "News bulletin, a large shipment of Viagra has been stolen"; Harrelson asks--- 'Who do they suspect?' Answer--- "hardened criminals!") so you probably don't want to take the kids to this one, but there are many good laughs in the movie, even as death is being mused on.

What one can learn from this movie is a good deal about the heartland of America, far from beautiful weather, and gorgeous oceans. The movie has all the charm of an earlier era when people actually mainly listened to the live radio shows, rather than turning on XM radio or shock jock radio talk shows. What one learns immediately is that we have mostly lost the art of musing over a leisurely hour about topics like death--- and of course Grandma's Powdermilk biscuits, interspersed with some corny jokes.

In fact the show's humor reminded me of a fellow Charlottean's humorous comic strip--- Kudzu. In it there is a character named the Rev. Will B. Dunn. In one strip he is speaking to the church's ladies circle, and he says "Personally I have no problems with women and their roles in the church." And then patting his paunch he adds-- "its women and their biscuits that I have problems with." You catch my drift....

I really loved this movie on so many levels, and it made me wistful for a time when we took time to really listen for an hour to others singing from the heart, speaking with wit, tongue firmly in cheek, and of course doing the American thing-- advertising everything on the planet from biscuits to laxatives.

It reminded me of why country music really does speak to so many people in the heartland-- they are living those songs, and they are painfully true, whether you are singing "Red River Valley" or Frankie and Johnny" or "Softly and Tenderly Jesus is Calling". This is the music that speaks to everyday life, and gives it a spiritual or humorous twist, with a little moralizing thrown in for good measure. I can recommend this movie for adults, but be prepared to smile and grin and tap your toes. If you're too Stoic for that, then you belong at Lake Woebegon.

Rick Warren as 'A Model of Faith'

I have to admit that I have problems with mega-churches, and many of their pastors. And it is also the case that I have been critical of Rick Warren's mega-selling "The Purpose Driven Life" as being too individualistic and other-worldly in some aspects of its theological underpinnings. But you can tell a lot about a man from the way he responds to prosperity, and Rick Warren has responded in truly Christian fashion and deserves to be commended for it in the wake of his enormous success in publishing.

In a recent article in U.S. Today (June 5th edition) Tom Krattenmaker chronicles the recent campaigns of Warren against AIDS and poverty especially in Africa and against global warming as well. Though one might think Bush-backing Warren and liberal Christian Bono make strange partners in such campaigns, in fact they are in agreement about the need for the church to respond to these globalizing crises that threaten to destroy a whole continent, and take down other continents as well in the process.

Warren recently told the Philiadelphia Inquirer "The New Testament says the church is the body of Christ, but for the last 100 years, the hands and feet have been amputated, and the church has just been a mouth. And mostly, its been known for what it's against... I'm so tired of Christians being known for what they're against." Amen to that brother. Warren is also tired of partisan spirit that really is a sort of party spirit that does not honor the particularism of the Gospel or its message. As Krattenmaker points out, Warren stresses that he's not for the right wing or the left wing but for the whole bird. Amen to that as well. Just need to make sure the bird one is holistically endorsing is the Gospel bird, and not a turkey.

Warren provides us with a prophetic model that is not politically driven but rather issues driven. Warren does not do political endorsements or jump on party bandwagons. Good for him. He stays focused on the issues and the implications of what he takes to be the NT teaching. This means on the one hand, that in regard to the issues listed above he may seem like a liberal Democrat to some, that is until you hear him talk about abortion, stem cell research and same sex intercourse or marriage. Warren clearly believes in the social Gospel and this leads him to take positions on varying issues on a issue by issue basis, not on the basis of some party loyalty platform or ideology. Good for him.

Warren has always believed that salvation only comes through Christ, but he believes that there needs to be a graciousness in the presenting of the Good News to all. The way I like to put is this--- all are welcome to come to Jesus and his community as they are. The church should be a hospital for sick sinners, not a museum for saints. But no one is welcome to stay as they are, whatever their particular sins. Nor should they expect the church to baptize their sins and call them good.

In his ecumenicity making common cause with people on an issue by issue basis, and in his stress on both the spiritual and the social Gospel, Warren reminds me of that earlier figure of catholic (i.e. uiniversal) spirit--- John Wesley. Wesley use to say, in his letter to a devout Catholic-- "if your heart is as my heart on this issue, give me your hand." I quite agree with this approach. Warren seeks to be broad where the Bible is broad and inclusive and narrow where the Bible is narrow and exclusivistic-- particularly in regard to salvation only coming through Jesus.

Of course this sort of approach will not appeal to all conservative Christians. It will not seem partisan and apologetically driven enough. I however think that Warren has the balance and implications of the Gospel right in this regard. And he deserves to be commended for it. He understands that being obnoxious for Jesus is not what we are called to, however stridently we may oppose the various flaws and sins of our culture. So I say to Rick "Well done good and faithful servant-- carry on in season and out. And don't be discouraged by your cultured and not so cultured detractors. Jesus had the same problem, and responded in the same ways."

What to Do on a 19 Hour Plane Ride?

I took the longest commercial flight in the world these past two days--- Singapore to Newark N.J. non-stop. Its supposed to take a mere 18 and a half hours. Ours went a bit longer. Singapore Airlines is justly famous for its comfort and service and so I was well cared for. But what to do with the huge amount of time. Rest of course, but there was plenty of time to read and watch movies as well. I finished Wendell Berry's sleepy southern novel about a sleepy mythical Kentucky river town called Port William. It is beautifully written and well reflects Southern life in a small town and farming area during WWII. Berry stands in the tradition of southern writers like Walker Percy and Flannery O' Connor, not to mention Ferrell Sams, Doris Betts and Thomas Wolfe. He is well worth the time to read. The novel I am referring to is "A Place on Earth."

I also watched three movies-- Matchpoint, the recent much praised Woody Allen film (which is, unlike most of his previous movies not an exercise in comedy or whimsy), The Matador (think Pierce Brosnan as aging hit man who is losing his edge and needing a friend), and Crash, the multiply Oscar nominated film. While all three of these films have their pluses, and all share a common subject matter of violence, Crash is the film I would most commend for all Christians to view due to its serious and at times profound probing of the issue of ethnic prejudice in America. The film is noteworthy for showing prejudice in various forms-- whites vs. blacks as well as blacks vs. whites. Whites or blacks vs. new immigrant groups, and new immigrant groups vs. other minorities. It shows what an endemic and pandemic problem this is in our society. Matt Dillon and an all star cast put in some memorable performances. One of the major themes in the film is the role that fear and sheer ignorance plays in producing ethnic prejudice of this sort. We might want to add human falleness and sin as well. One could speak at length as well about the big difference between tolerance and actually learning to love one's neighbor who is different from us. The movie shows the futility of using violence to resolve ethnic disputes.

Recently, in a long over due court decision, it was decided in regard to my mother's home town of Wilmington N.C. that the descendents of the victims of the race riots of 1898 should be compensated for their familial losses. Some have of course asked whether the statute of limitations should not have run out on such crimes a long time ago. This is the wrong question.

We should have asked, should there ever be a time limit put on the need to atone for sin? Of course we cannot atone for it-- only Jesus can and did. Reparations are not the same as atonement, even though they are needful for healing. But imagine if Jesus had said--- "well, I don't need to atone for the sin of Adam, because that was so long ago. We should just forgive and forget."

You will notice that that is not how God deals with sin. Instead of just forgetting it even if it was long in the past, he atones for it. I suspect this is how Jesus would have us to act as well. "If your brother has something against you, and you are going to lay a gift on the altar, first go and be reconciled to your brother......"

I would suggest that the reason that racial resentment simmers and boils over with regularity in America is precisely because we fail to do the hard work of reconciliation and the actual seeking of forgiveness. At least in South Africa there has been a truth and reconciliation commission that has persued a just and fair resolution of the damage the apartheid system did to both black and white south Africans. We in the U.S. settle at best for reparations and general cries for forgiving and forgetting. But this is forgetting that forgiveness must be sought out, not assumed, and it must be freely offered by the offended party-- and it is a sign of recalcitrance when the wounded have to seek legal means to force offenders or their descendents to do what they ought to have done in the first place. Crash, is at least a good conversation starter on this subject for Americans. But it has miles to go, and does not even raise the issue of grace and forgiveness in any meaningful way. But we as Christians must talk about these things. One good resource to start such discussions is Miroslav Wolff's powerful award winning book "Exclusion and Embrace."

Singing Singapore's Praises

I have just finished the better part of the week lecturing in Singapore, a city/state of 4 million people living on an island of 250 square miles, just north of the equator (think hot and humid). It was of course at one time a part of the British Empire but now perhaps has 2% British population and is very much its own master, including having the busiest port in the world.

When John Calvin envisioned the ideal city state, I think he had something close to Singapore in mind in some respects. It is certainly the cleanest, most gleaming big city I have ever visited. The people are mostly of Chinese descent though there is a huge Malay, Indonesian, and Indian population as well. Its form of government is like the British a Parliamentary system with a Prime Minister.

This nation has 14% that claim to be Christian of some variety, with a large Moslem and Buddhist population as well. It is truly a cosmopolitan place, in an Oriental sort of way. Singapore has compulsory military service for all able bodied males (2 years and a bit) and it also has no tax exemption for church, nor tax deduction for giving to churches. Giving then is done on a truly charitable basis to the church, knowing it is not tax exempt. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. The largest denominational presence in Singapore is Methodists (I was pleased to discover) but not due to British Methodist influence. Rather this is a success story of American Methodism. There are many good sized and lively Methodist Churches and boy do these folks sing vigorously as all good Methodists should. If only they drove on the same side of the road as American Methodists, but everything is right hand drive here, as in the U.K.

I was here to give the usual Da Vinci Code seminar lectures and speak to pastors about the cultural factors that have led to this being such a popular book and movie. We had lots of good and deep discussion. I had enough time to tour the city, sample the wonderful Chinese cuisine (especially Sezhuan), visit their world class zoo, see their celestial shopping malls (including a five story technology emporium with every techno gadget known to man) and enjoy warm fellowship with new friends. I was especially honored to make the acquaintance of Bishop Daniel of the Coptic Church visiting his little flock of 20 persons here in Singapore. He confirmed what I already thought about claims that the Coptic of the Gospel of Judas is translation Coptic just because it has Greek loan words. This is false. He also confirmed that 'koinonos' means companion-- it is not the word for spouse or wife! So much for the Gospel of Philip suggesting Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

What especially impressed me was the cooperation of various of the churches here-- the Anglicans hosted the event in St. Andrews Cathedral in cooperation with Methodists, Presbyterians and others. It was an ecumenical venture co-ordinated by Bishop Solomon (a wise man indeed :) of the Methodist Church and K.T. Lim of the National Council of Churches-- these folks are all conservative Christians, so don't think liberal thoughts about this arm of the World Council of Churches. Christianity is alive and well here, and doing better than in its neighboring country Austrailia where only 2 % go to church.

Most Singaporians live in apartments, most of which as government built or maintained. Not surprisingly land is very sparse and precious on this island and few can afford to own a home. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and with its excellent public transportation and facilities everyone can have a reasonable standard of living. I set foot in the South China Sea yesterday and it was like a warm bath tub--- no waves to speak of unfortunately. Otherwise this was a perfect visit. God bless Singapore the island jewel of the Orient.