The Hebrew language and hence the Hebrew mind is not quite like our English language.  Hebrew has a somewhat limited diction, which makes for a less precise language.  In order to extract a diversity of meaning from fewer words means that context and relation play a bigger role.  For example the hebrew ‘yahm’ which we would translate ‘sea’. Can mean any body of water from a cup to the golden basin in front of the temple to the Red Sea.  We might bristle at the lack of specificity, but they gloried in the connections.  The basin in front of the temple is related to the red sea, context would easily make clear what you were talking about.  And the related meaning carries a sense of poetry embeded in the language which our modern English can lack.  So their words were more like what and English professor might call ‘themes’.  It is a loaded or pregnant term.

One such theme is the idea of water as a baptizing, cleansing force which leads to new birth.  The creation account begins in Genesis 1:2 to introduce the idea of water in this way.  The image is almost a birth of all creation from God hovering over the face of the waters.    The theme is repeated in the flood account in Genesis 6-8.  The earth is cleansed of its wicked flesh by the flood.  But this is not only a destruction, it is a remaking of the world, it is a rebirth of the earth by water, a baptism even.  These are the connections Peter is making in II Peter 3:4-6.  People think the earth has always been this way, but they are wrong, there was a different earth before the flood.  Now after the flood God put his bow in the sky as a covenant with Noah and all his offspring that he would never again destroy, cleanse, the world by water.  We have the term rainbow indicating the rain which produces it. It did not always rain.  Creation scientist have fun attempting to determine just what the world was like before the flood.  At any rate we know it was different.

Filippo Palizzi, After The Flood

So, here we are, the world is still messed up.  Look around, evil is rampant.  Is this supposed to be the kingdom of God? God can’t use water to fix things this time.  Peter makes it clear next time it will be fire.  The theme of fire is meant to make connections just as the theme of water did.  We like to think of the fire as a series of explosions at the end of an action movie that destroy all the bad guys and their fancy cars, while the good guy escapes to the beach somewhere.  We think of this destruction as the end of earth, and we will happily float away to a cloud in heaven to play harps for eternity.  This is not the idea at all.  This has more to do with Platonic philosophy than anything we might find in scripture. In scripture fire is an insturment of cleansing just like water.  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with “brimstone and fire from the Lord” Genesis 19:24.  But I think a more common theme connected with fire is that of refining or testing.  Proverbs 17:3 says “The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests the hearts.”  It is a theme repeated in the prophets. Zechariah 13:9 says “And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call upon my name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’” “.  The idea in these passages is not an outright destruction, but a testing to reveal what is enduring and precious and what is garbage.  In fact the valley of Gehenna outside the City of David became the greek word translated ‘hell’ in our New Testament.  Hell is where the garbage is burned.

Albrecht Durer, Lot Fleeing with his Daughters from Sodom, c.1498

Paul expounds on this idea of testing, and what is tested? Our works.  I Corinthians 3:9-15 details this theme.  Paul tells us he was given the task of building the foundations, and we are to build on top of it with our work.  We might build with gold, silver or precious stones or wood, hay and straw. Only the fire at the end will make it clear what we built with.  If we build with wood, hay and straw our work will be consumed. We might be saved like the action movie but our work will not.  If we build with gold, silver and precious stones our work will endure.  Endure, this means that it will make it past the fire at the end.  It will make it past this earth and continue into the new heaven and new earth. Remember the fire is a remaking of the earth a cleansing like the waters of the flood.  We modern evangelicals almost run wholeheartedly to build with hay and straw or play with dirt as C. S. Lewis remarks.  We think this world is going to burn up so, who cares.  But this is not it at all.  Paul here and Peter in II Peter 3:10 is about works.  It is telling us to do the work that is real because we don’t want it all to burn up.    And he is not just talking about some narrow idea of evangelism.  II Peter 3:11 tells us in light of the coming fire to live lives of holiness and godliness.  These works will endure.  Romans 8:22 tells us that all of creation groans with labor pains.  The earth desires to be remade, not wiped out.  Jesus tells us a parable in Matthew 25:14-30 about a master who gives his servants some money while he is away.  The servants who make use of the money and produce an increase are blessed.  Their work is gold, they will be given a position in the kingdom.  The one who does not is thrown into the fire.  This earth is a testing ground for our place in the new earth.

John Martin, Sodom and Gomorrah, c. 1852

We get a further idea about the new earth by Christ’s death and resurrection.  He refers to his death and by association our deaths as a seed being planted in the ground.  We can see it with his body, which was planted in the ground for 3 days, it brought forth a new body which was like the old but glorified.  I think this is the idea of what will happened to the whole earth as it is refined by fire at the end.  C. S. Lewis taps into this idea with his creation account of Narnia.  Pieces from the old world are thrown into the ground and they sprout up to their full potential in Narnia.  This is the climax of II Peter 3, verse 13 ends with the picture of a sinless new heaven and new earth.  I think we will be surprised at how similar the new earth is to this one.  All the hours we wasted browsing the internt will not be there.  All the time we spent entertaining ourselves will not be there.  All our fame and fortune will not be there.  But, the character we developed here will be there.  The skills we learned will be there.  The justice we brought will be there.  The loving acts of kindness will be there.  The pieces of earth we redeemd for his glory will be there.  For we not only pray “for his will on earth as it is in heaven,” we are called to do it, right now.

My motivation for this topic is a little overdue but hopefully the ideas are timeless.  I don’t really think II Peter 3:8 and 9 are primarily directed to the issue of free will vs. predestination, more on that later, but it was brought up.  We were presented with the notion of two things which seem to contradict but in fact are both true.  The term used was antinomy, but I like the word paradox.  Antinomy has the idea of two lines of reasoning that contradict.  But I think paradox is a lot more fun and alive.  It has with it the notion that two things contradict in a logical sense, yet in a poetic sense they are both necessary.  In fact crashing them together can bring out meaning and truth which neither aspect has in and of itself.  The tension and the relationship between these two things is the way it was meant to be, it is the way God created it to be.

 

Paradox is the fabric of the Universe, it won’t unravel it, silly Doctor.

Paradox underlies much of creation.  When we encounter them in scripture we often freak out like the Doc. Or we lament the fact that we can’t take one extreme and make a rule that would be simple to follow.  Instead we are given this tension and we have to work it out. As sub-creators bearing the image of God we must be creative, in our resolutions to these tension. As an example of how fundamental these are, lets look at the creation account from Genesis 1.  Most false religions err on one side of a tension or the other.  They try to make the world many or one.  But the trinitarian God is both.  The entire creation account is one of divided unity coming back to relate to itself in a richer way.  “God divided the light from the darkness” vs. 4  “and divided the waters which were under the firmament from he waters above the firmament” vs. 6.  Even the creation of woman was a division of the man.  “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman.” Genesis 2:22.  And so in marriage they come back together to become one, it is a mystery. This is perhaps the best idea of a paradox.  Men and women are totally different, yet they are told to become one in marriage.  It doesn’t make much sense if you deconstruct it and mix in a little sin, and so the world concludes that homosexual is just as good or better. You don’t make it all male or make it all female you crash them together and they become one. The nature of the world is paradox, and marriage is such a beautiful picture of it.

M. C. Escher, Drawing Hands

The book of Proverbs is also full of paradox.  Lets say a pastor quoted Proverbs 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” without quoting verse 5 “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. And then went on to talk about the importance of believing free will and predestination.  It might seem like he has created a paradox, really he is just a hypocrite.  Because, these are the same thing, he is holding one standard for himself and another for everyone else.  Sometimes contradiction is just contradiction. But, these seemingly contradictory proverbs are a paradox.  Those are two valid responses.  We can’t just make one of them into a command that we must abide by and let the other one float away.  We have to hold them both in our minds as we act.  Sometimes answering a fool will make you a fool, not necessarily a bad thing maybe you need a lesson.  On the other hand sometimes answering a fool will prevent him from becoming established in his folly.  This brings to mind the Jewish mind, so beautifully illustrated in The Fiddler on the Roof.  “On the one hand. . . but on the other hand”.  This is the way of proverbs, because it is the way of the God’s world, this is paradox.

M. C. Escher, Relativity

Wisdom can get you a long way in your life, it can give you general principles that can inform your decision, but you still have to decide.  In the real world you must choose, and that decision will inform future decisions, success or failure. Wisdom is an applied science, it is a skill, not a mere theory.  With a paradox it is ok to have both, but situations  might call for one side being addressed at the expense of the other.  That is what is going on here with II Peter.  He is not interested in the doctrine of predestination et al.  He is explaining that God’s seeming slowness, is further love.  God is making more opportunities for people to be saved.  He loves us so much that he just waits for as many as he can get.  The freewill vs predestination debate often degrades into some sort of an argument about  whether God looked ahead and saw our decision, etc.  This is foolishness. Peter makes it clear in vs. 8, God is outside of time, he does not measure time as we do.  The ‘when’ does not matter.  This idea was discussed by Boethius in his Consolation of Philosophy.  Written in 524 and followed up by C. S. Lewis and others, yet is does not seem nearly prevalent enough.  It really cuts out a lot of the silliness.

I must end with an extended piece of Chesterton, Master of Paradox.  They flow so freely in his writing, he uses them as subject and as large and small scale literary device.

It [Christianity] separated the two ideas and then exaggerated them both.  In one way Man was to be haughtier than he had ever been before; in another way he was to be humbler than he had ever been before.  In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures.  In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners. All humility that had meant pessimism, that had meant man taking a vague or mean view of his whole destiny– all that was to go.  We were to hear no more the wail of Ecclesiastes that humanity had no pre-eminence over the brute, or the awful cry of Homer that man was only the saddest of all the beasts of the field.  Man was a statue of God walking about the garden. Man had pre-eminence over all the brutes; man was only sad because he was not a beast, but a broken god.  The Greek had spoken of men creeping on the earth, as if clinging to it.  Now Man was to tread on the earth as if to subdue it.  Christianity thus held a thought of the dignity of man that could only be expressed in crowns rayed like the sun and fans of peacock plumage.  Yet at the same time it could hold a thought about the abject smallness of man that could only be expressed in fasting and fantastic submission, in the gray ashes of St. Dominic and the white snows of St. Bernard.  When one came to think of ONE’S SELF, there was vista and void enough for any amount of bleak abnegation and bitter truth.  There the realistic gentleman could let himself go–as long as he let himself go at himself.  There was an open playground for the happy pessimist.  Let him say anything against himself short of blaspheming the original aim of his being; let him call himself a fool and even a damned fool (though that is Calvinistic); but he must not say that fools are not worth saving.  He must not say that a man, QUA man, can be valueless.  Here, again in short, Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites, by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious.  The Church was positive on both points.  One can hardly think too little of one’s self.  One can hardly think too much of one’s soul.

-G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Further Reading: The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius;  Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton

Well this is a red letter date on the Church Calendar.  I know you are all wondering if I mean the Eastern or Western Church, some of you no doubt may be more partial to the Anglican, I know.  In two of these today is the celebration of John the Baptist’s beheading.  But I’m not talking about that.  No one knows about that these days.  I’m talking about the beginning of College Football.  Gosh, get with the picture, that’s what’s really important.  Not on the Church calendar you might say?  I don’t celebrate a Church calendar you might say.  I beg to differ.

Romans 14:5,6 speaks of holy days.  Basically saying it is ok for some people who want to have special days, and ok for people who don’t consider one day any more special than another.  But what about people who make special days that are not about the Church?  Because today that is certainly what we have.  And don’t think I am confusing ‘religion’ with ‘entertainment’ or sports.  The fact is that we build religious worship around all of these things.  We have a posture, a liturgy and even meditation surrounding college football.  We study every athlete and all their stats, to a degree only the most pious would study the Bible. It consumes many lives, and is one of the few cultural addendums welcome at the Grace pulpit.

Just a thought.

Beheading of John the Baptist,

And the Lord said to him, “Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. And when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria. And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place.  And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” – I Kings 19:15-18

There was a question last week about this verse.  Something like “what gives a prophet of Israel the right to anoint kings from other nations?”.  I believe that most of Christendom would have been surprised that anyone would ask this question.  It’s no wonder the commentators are silent, modern comentators don’t pay this much attention to the Old Testament and those from the past would have instantly understood it.

Whether you acknowledge the one true God or not, doesn’t really matter, he is in heaven ruling.  Romans 13 makes it clear God appoints ruler, over all nations.  They are his ministers to stop evil. In our fragmented age, we like to divide everything into neat little categories.  There are the church things and the state things.  There is this nation and that nation.  You have your god and I have mine, who are you to tell me anything?  Well that’s just buying into the world’s philosophy of humanism.  We like to think we are in control of most of our lives and that we give God some time here and there.  But in reality it is all his.  Setting aside a day for him, is like a firsfruits offering, just a statement that it is all his.  God set up his kingly line in David, it was established under Solomon.  The kings of the nations came to Solomon to pay homage to him.  One notable example was the queen of Sheba, I Kings 10. They submitted to him.  This was a picture of what is really going on.  Every knee shall bow.

The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon, Edward John Poynter

There are many instances of God’s prophets speaking to other nations.  Often predicting destruction if there was no repentance.  The story of Jonah is the most obvious. After refusing Jonah was finally sent and the people of that nation were saved.  Just as saved as those who believe by faith today.  Just as saved as those faithful Jews. Isaiah 13-23 contains oracles to many nations.  I think part of the confusion has to do with authority, we can get a picture from Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt.  A problem would arise and the ‘authorities’ were consulted.  They had the positions as counsel to the king, they were ‘sorcerers’ or ‘wise men’ but when it came down to it they had no authority.  They couldn’t get the job done, they were impotent.  Authority comes from God, it was given to Joseph and to Daniel.  And so they were really efficacious.  They really could interpret the dreams, or explain strange phoenomena.  Now the world is in darkness, it is difficult for them to tell the difference between real God-given authority and those just parading.  But we as the Church have the Light of the World, we should be able to sort it out.

I think there is also some confusion about the role of God’s people in the Old Testament.  Their job was not to have an elite club in the middle of the world showing off a God that no one else could have.  Their purpose was to minister to the world.  This is why Jesus was so angry as he overturned the tables set up in the court of the Gentiles.  The people had failed at their mission to take the grace of God to all the nations.  They often had to be forced as with Jonah.  Though, as usual, he did use them to accomplish this purpose anyway.  They preserved the scriptures for us.  Jesus was a Jew who saved his people in this by saving the whole world.  The verses are countless here are a few; “And in thy [Abraham] seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;” Genesis 22:18 “Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” Deuteronomy 4:6 “That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations.” Psalm 67:2 “The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and allthe ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” Isaiah 52:10 and on and on it goes.

In addition there is a literary reason in these verses.  Things in the Old Testament are often grouped in threes.  These are understood as definitive or ultimate.  Here you have a group of three appointed instrument of God’s wrath; Hazael, Jehu and Elisha.  At the beginning it mentions the word ‘wilderness’.  This is an image very common the the people of Israel.  They were taken to Egypt, passed through the water of the Red Sea, wandered in the wilderness 40 years, and then conquered the land.  This image was repeated with Christ, he fled to egypt, was baptized by John, went to the wilderness of Judea and then came back and started turning over tables. Here you have the same idea.  The prophet was to go to the wilderness, then the prophets of Baal in the land would all be conquered. But, as always there would be a remnant, a complete remnant, as the number 7 reminds us.  It is generally used as a symbol of completeness.

Further Study:  N.T. Wright Lectures

No, it’s not about chocolate.  Though this will explain the logo of a certain company.  It seems there is a bit of chatter going on about the issue of head coverings.  There is a website that apparently goes to a movement, that is trying to bring back the idea that women should have their heads covered.  I suppose there is no harm in this.  Sure let’s follow all the outright commands as well as those that can be shady from the New Testament.  Why not? I don’t really see the harm,  I suppose at some point it could be a hardship or offend a brother but that should be worked out as Paul works out the meat sacrificed to idols later in I Corinthians. But what is Paul saying in I Corinthians 11?    I think it is important to think it out, as with anything.

First of all, Paul is clearly addressing the issue of head covering in a congregational worship setting.  Which means, first that we should have congregational worship settings, second that there should be rules for them, and third that the rules are different for women and men.  The next thing that is clear from history is that this was a response to a cultural issue.  The temple prostitutes of the day had shaved heads.  So, you wouldn’t want to associate yourself with them.  But just how did prostitution become connected with a shaved head?  Is that an unnatural connection?  I don’t think so, more on that later.  Another issue is, concerning the nature of the covering.  Is it just hair or something additional?  I believe it is hair.  It makes sense in the form of the argument from vs. 6; if you are going to chop off your hair you might as well chop it all the way off.  This reminds me of another chopping passage, with a similar argument, something to do with circumcision, but I digress.  Later he appeals to nature, and speaks of hair as a covering given by God.  Of course for women to have long hair in a worship service they must have it all the time.

So, what about us today.  Well any arguments to nature still apply.  All cultures and all people are under nature.  Which brings us to Lady Godiva.  The myth, tells us a story about a woman who felt compassion for the servants that were under her husband’s authority.  She begged him to release them from the heavy taxes.  He sarcastically said “If you take off all your clothes and ride naked down the street then I will.”  So she did.  She instructed all the people to stay inside and close their doors and windows.  Then she rode, covered only by her hair.  The image is striking.  It brings to mind the idiom of “to uncover her nakedness” from the Old Testament.  It was an idiom for ravishment or rape or even incest.  It is a serious thing and so nature an nature’s God has seen fit to cover her with long hair.

Lady Godiva by John Collier

The appeal to nature is strong even today.  I feel it, do you feel it?  We understand it when it comes to children, little girls almost always have hair.  The great tragedy is the little girl with cancer and no hair.  But we grow older and must be sophisticated and practical.  What of the function of a covering?  Models get it. Artists get it.

Today we also have a culture.  I think it is fair to say that in our culture long hair is feminine and short hair is masculine.  Of course there are exceptions, but they are usually burned out pot heads or ski bums with long hair, or homosexual women with buzz cuts.  Hmm I wonder if there is any connection to temple prostitutes here?  God is very clear, men and women are different and so they should look different. Deuteronomy 22:5 I have studied the history of our particular church a little bit as well.  Every older woman I have talked to about the the history of Grace has made a point to tell me that no woman would dare go to church without a hat.  A few of them still do, but they are passing away.  What made this change happen?  Did we have a church meeting and decide that scripture had been misunderstood all these years and that we should phase out the hat wearing?  I think not.  We followed the fashion of the world.  Hats went away, even veils, skirts got shorter, women swim in their underwear and when they get  over 30 they chop off their beautiful locks. I need another picture to get that foul image out of my head. . . ahh that’s the stuff, now we see why he is so struck.

Frank Dicksee-La Belle Dame Sans Merci

Further Reading:  Doug Wilson’s Blog

I wonder what would happen in a typical evangelical church if the pastor suddenly showed up wearing robes and the liturgy was directed by the Book of Common Prayer (even though, you might have to look this up to be offended).  No doubt the majority of the congregation would be up in arms, if it happened again most would leave.  This is a progression towards more traditional.  But the opposite does happen, that is more–um–worldly, or if you like, less traditional.  And few seem to care.  Maybe it’s because it’s subtle and no one notices, but I doubt it.  So, why is this?  Why is one allowed and the other a crime?

It just so happens that this is the direction the world has been going.  Dress is less formal, the elderly are not respected, tradition is discarded for being tradition.  History is written off as unscientific lies that we can do without. Popular writing is more simplistic, and music is louder and less complex.  “Get with the times”. “This is 2013”.  The ‘new’ is cool the ‘old’ is out because it’s old. This is disposable pop culture.  The whole idea of ‘pop’ culture is that of settling for cut rate.  Those who aspire to more are labeled ‘elitist’ or ‘legalist’, and so the racket is protected.  I don’t think this thinking has any place in the church.

I believe the principles of worship should come from scripture into the church and then into the culture.  But we have gone the other way.  We are immersed in the culture of the world and we borrow from it and take it back to the church and then use the scripture to justify our use of it, of enlightened, non-legalistic, freedom (come on, say it like William Wallace).

Rather than following the world down I believe the church should be leading  the way up as it has for so many centuries.  I think a helpful way to think about aspects of worship as a language.  Whether it be the songs you sing, or the architecture of the church, or the clothes you wear think of it in terms of language. Languages change and evolve over time, the changes are usually subtle and generally accepted by everyone. This will dismiss the old timers who want everything to stay the same, that’s not how it works.

The great rush to modernism cut off everything from the past, or at least pretended to.  What if you did this with language?  “Ok tomorrow we are starting a new language everyone, so get ready.”  “We are throwing out these words, because they are too old”. This was basically attempted with Esperanto, and it didn’t work at all.  Language requires tradition, in fact, it could be defined as a distillation of tradition.   We are fortunate to have a tradition in our language heavily based in scripture. In a very real way the King James Bible was the most influential source of English. It gave us countless idioms today as well as defining many words which makes Biblical ideas very natural to us.  But these are passing away, this is the way of language, the problem is that we don’t write new ones.  And we let the world use even biblical idioms incorrectly “don’t judge” “Jesus is Love”, or even define words. What will our children think ‘marriage’ means?  What does ‘gay’ mean. What does a rainbow mean?  And we cross back over to the aspects of worship. How will people view the metaphor of Christ and his bride in light of our redefining marriage? Who is developing the tradition of worship that our children will follow?  What does the decor of our church mean?  What does the dress of the pastor mean?  Are they primarily driven by an attempt to cut us off from tradition?  Are we driven by an attempt to not look like the Catholic Church? Or do we try to further the richness of language in light of scripture?

Language is cumulative.  New words are derived from some relationship between existing words. This is the job of the poet.  He uses existing words which have one connotation and gives them a different connotation to expand our understanding and revive ideas that have been lost.  He mixes two colors to create a new color.  And if the metaphor or new connotation is powerful enough the old understanding will be lost and the new overpower it.  ‘Shocked’ came to our language as the result of experience with electricity.  Someone used it as a term of surprise and now surprise is the more common connotation.  Are we doing this in our worship?  Are we taking music from the past and mixing the metaphors in an attempt to create more meaning or express deeper truths from scripture?  I don’t think so.  Instead Christian musical ‘artist’ are trying to express themselves, or worship leaders try to build ‘tools'(ewe those modern metaphors, I’m not a machine, I’m a person, so why do I want to think about tools working on me?  Persons operate in story. Mmm, story.) to elicit worship reactions.  Are we adapting clothing from the past and attempting to create clothing that is modest, respects a sense of community and displays biblical principles?  Or are we trying to express our selves?  Are we building elements of worship that respect our elders? Do we take what they gave us and try to make it more true, more good, and more beautiful?

Perhaps we think we are, but I beleive we need to do more thinking, as our ancestors did.

The body of Christ and our body lost a great champion last week.  There is no question that he has gone home–without us.  His obituary can be found here.  And that is one story, but I have another, and that is no antithesis, for the more stories the better.  I knew Dr. Cheever a little, we were missionaries, tourists and outdoorsmen together as well as neighbors and churchmen. There is certainly something more real about an event once it is reminisced.  I had some opportunity to do this with the good doctor before he passed.  We moderns don’t appreciate story as the old timers do, we want plot and scientifically verifiable fact, but they sought joy.  They sucked the marrow out of life and made the losses into stories of companionship and the victories into myths of sinful men made great.

Dr. Donald H. Cheever, in Albania.

I grew up across the alley from Dr. Cheever, causing trouble which did not go unnoticed.  I remember him chasing me out of his bushes on a number of occasions.  He would get angry, but it was warm old man anger. To me he has always been old.  I thought that was just how God made him.  I was recently surprised to find that he had had a childhood.  This is the way of children, we have limited perspective.  We never consider the difficulty of maintaining, we never consider all the hard work that makes one old man warm while another is  cold and scary.  Chesterton said “The aim of life is appreciation; there is no sense in not appreciating things”  When you are young this is easy, everything is a new gift.  But it becomes more difficult as we grow older.  But Dr. Cheever, made it to the end still appreciating.

We next encountered each other as we toured the Holy Land in a group from Grace.  I was baptized on that trip and he was the first to congratulate me, with that glow on his face and a warm handshake. Later I watched him sacrifice certain plot points on our tour, as he stayed in the hotel to care for his wife.  He knew how to see the narrative that really matters.

Less than a year later we were both part of a small group that was sent to Albania to minister to refugees fleeing from Milosevic.  It was last minute, I was only 18 and I didn’t know anyone going except for Dr. Cheever.  But I knew that would be enough to make any trip enjoyable and profitable.  We worked hard and lived in tight quarters.  There were conflicts within and without, we were pushed to the edge.  We waged an unfortunate passive aggressive war with our fellow missionaries from Ireland.  But as I sat with the doctor a few weeks ago we had a good laugh at my copying of their accent, letting pass any strife that characterized the moment, years ago.  That’s how the heart of a saint works the pain is all distilled into joy.

We shared a couple nights in a forest service cabin, after we had skied a few miles in.  He kept the evenings warm with his stories, and poems.  And he stoked the fire every morning before anyone else stirred.

Last summer I spent a week replacing his roof.  I knew it gave him joy to take care of the nagging problem it had been.  He was catching light breeze of his age, and considering that his time was short.  But that didn’t slow him down a bit.  He continued his work at the Church and celebrated his 50th wedding anniversary with a camping trip to Yellowstone.  I will never forget working that day when they returned.  Tired and travel weary he displayed nothing but joy.  He couldn’t help but tell me how wonderful marriage was and that he recommended it to anyone.  It was wonderful because that’s what he made it.  All the hard work and sacrifice, was forgotten.

The last I saw him he suddenly began recounting the poem of Bessie’s Boil. As he recounted the hilarious story I was trying to figure out why he had begun.  Oh yeah, he had a boil on his bottom.  Which might be the end for someone trying to complain about why God gives us hardships, why good men suffer and all that, but instead he wrote a better story. As the three of us sat laughing, he began to drift to sleep, and I never saw him again.

It is only tragic because I wonder who will replace him.  Of course he was one of a kind, but we have a shortage of old men with the faith of a child.  We moderns get the story all wrong.  In our rush to the plot points we forget what is really important, it’s Bessie’s Boil, dang it.

Says I to my Missis: “Ba goom, lass! you’ve something I see, on your mind.”
Says she: “You are right, Sam, I’ve something.  It ‘appens it’s on me be’ind.
A Boil as ‘ud make Job jealous. It ‘urts me no end when I sit.”
Says I: “Go to ‘ospittel, Missis. They might ‘ave to coot it a bit.”
Says she: “I just ‘ate to be showin’ the part of me person it’s at.”
Says I: “Don’t be fussy; them doctors see sights more ‘orrid than that.”

So Misses goes off togged up tasty, and there at the ‘ospittel door
They tells ‘er to see the ‘ouse Doctor, ‘oose office is Room Thirty-four.
So she ‘unts up and down till she finds it, and knocks and a voice says: “Come in,”
And there is a ‘andsome young feller, in white from ‘is ‘eels to ‘is chin.
“I’ve got a big boil,” says my Missis. “It ‘urts me for fair when I sit,
And Sam (that’s me ‘usband) ‘as asked me to ask you to coot it a bit.”
Then blushin’ she plucks up her courage, and bravely she shows ‘im the place,
And ‘e gives it a proper inspection, wi’ a ‘eap o’ surprise on ‘is face.
Then ‘e says wi’ an accent o’ Scotland: “Whit ye hae is a bile, Ah can feel,
But ye’d better consult the heid Dockter; they caw him Professor O’Niel.
He’s special for biles and carbuncles. Ye’ll find him in Room Sixty-three.
No charge, Ma’am. It’s been a rare pleasure. Jist tell him ye’re comin’ from me.”

So Misses she thanks ‘im politely, and ‘unts up and down as before,
Till she comes to a big ‘andsome room with “Professor O’Neil” on the door.
Then once more she plucks up her courage, and knocks, and a voice says: “All right.”
So she enters, and sees a fat feller wi’ whiskers, all togged up in white.
“I’ve got a big boil,” says my Missis, “and if ye will kindly permit,
I’d like for to ‘ave you inspect it; it ‘urts me like all when I sit.”
So blushin’ as red as a beet-root she ‘astens to show ‘im the spot,
And ‘e says wi’ a look o’ amazement: “Sure, Ma’am, it must hurt ye a lot.”
Then ‘e puts on ‘is specs to regard it, and finally says wi’ a frown:
“I’ll bet it’s as sore as the divvle, especially whin ye sit down.
I think it’s a case for the Surgeon; ye’d better consult Doctor Hoyle.
I’ve no hisitation in sayin’ yer boil is a hill of a boil.”

So Misses she thanks ‘im for sayin’ her boil is a hill of a boil,
And ‘unts all around till she comes on a door that is marked: “Doctor Hoyle.”
But by now she ‘as fair got the wind up, and trembles in every limb;
But she thinks: “After all, ‘e’s a Doctor. Ah moosn’t be bashful wi’ ‘im.”
She’s made o’ good stuff is the Missis, so she knocks and a voice says: “Oos there?”
“It’s me,” says ma Bessie, an’ enters a room which is spacious and bare.
And a wise-lookin’ old feller greets ‘er, and ‘e too is togged up in white.
“It’s the room where they coot ye,” thinks Bessie; and shakes like a jelly wi’ fright.

“Ah got a big boil,” begins Missis, “and if ye are sure you don’t mind,
I’d like ye to see it a moment. It ‘urts me, because it’s be’ind.”
So thinkin’ she’d best get it over, she ‘astens to show ‘im the place,
And ‘e stares at ‘er kindo surprised like, an’ gets very red in the face.
But ‘e looks at it most conscientious, from every angle of view,
Then ‘e says wi’ a shrug o’ ‘is shoulders: “Pore Lydy, I’m sorry for you.
It wants to be cut, but you should ‘ave a medical bloke to do that.
Sye, why don’t yer go to the ‘orsespittel, where all the Doctors is at?
Ye see, Ma’am, this part o’ the buildin’ is closed on account o’ repairs;
Us fellers is only the pynters, a-pyntin’ the ‘alls and the stairs.”
— Robert Service 

Further Reading: The Autobiography of G. K. Chesterton

So, worship at Grace this week was a bit of an assault on the senses.  It was a little like being on the set of TRON, with inspirational banners and praise music designed to go down like soma.  Which is fine if you are trying to convey a message about the inevitable future of evolution in which humanity spawns an autonomous digital consciousness, with which we wage war.  It seemed like an attempt to integrate as many such circuits into the performance as we could.  Oh, I call it a performance because everyone claps afterwards.  I have every confidence that certain members of Grace’s leadership have a love for the creation of all things digital.  But, do we want our church to resemble mammon driven Times Square?  I have my doubts, but I am certain that the discussion has not been had.  There was no conversation with the congregation about how the indepth study of the scripture has directed leadership to believe that this is the best way to serve God in worship.

Now in this age, any criticism of anything is swiftly met with “who are you to say?”  And Culture has a few answers which trump all others “I’m an expert”, “I have a degree” or “I am famous”.  Well it is rarely stated that bluntly but we still seek authority in the institutions of man, which is modernism.  Or more recently in postmodern any one preference is invalid because everyone is their own authority.(A good remedy to this type of thinking  is C.S. Lewis’, An Experiment in Criticism)  Either way, the worship service is not about us, it is about God.  It is about conforming our person to his.  It is about training our tastes to his.  This is the type of thing that happens whether we acknowledge it or not.  The church has been directing us, we have become that which we worship. Unfortunately the church has been directed by these worldly ideas. So we think it’s all a matter of ‘taste’ as if our ‘taste’ was trained by God himself, rather than the reality that it was trained by the world.  I think leadership can fall into this sin of making the service about the people in subtle ways.  They might phrase it thus, “I know the service was God honoring because many people told me they were blessed”.  Well that could just be code for “I made the crowd feel good”, ‘blessed’ could simply be another way of saying “it was what I like”.  So they direct the worship in ways that brings in those sorts of compliments.  Worship is about God.

God did not regard Cain’s sacrifice.

Worship of God is a serious thing.  The first recorded offering to God reiterates this point.  In Genesis 4 Cain and Able both make offerings to the Lord.  Cain brought an offering of his work which was of the fruit of the ground and Able brought an offering from his work which were sheep from his flock.(These are the 3rd and 4th humans, where are the hunter gatherers?  They only exist in the minds of evolutionist and on earth today.  They are those who have left God and gone backward. Genesis 4:14  The Bible is clear in the beginning were farmer and shepherds.)  God rejected Cains’ offering.  That’s about all we get. Cain did not violate any command that we know of.  The fruit of the ground was acceptable sacrifice to the Lord later Leviticus 2 .  God says “If you do well, will you not be accepted?”

Uzzah steadies the ark.

We are not told all the reasons why God rejected Cain.  We have to think hard about it.  How do we ‘do well’?   In light of the New Testament we tend to think all God cares about is the heart.  But the well know verse “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” Hoseah 6:6, is from the Old Testament. There are other such verses in the Old Testament like Isaiah 1:11.  God always wanted the heart, but there is something else in the Old Testament, God did require sacrifice.  Not only that he required very specific sacrifices and even enforced these rules.  2 Samuel 6:6 tells the story of the well intentioned Uzzah who was killed for trying to steady the Ark. Worship is careful obedience.

But that was just the Old Testament right?  We are under grace, the New Covenant, Christian Liberty, I can do whatever I want.  Well, not exactly.  The New Testament is full of principles that should guide our heart as well as specifics that should guide our outward worship.  It requires hard work and diligence.  The evangelical church these days tends to shy away from ‘religion’, it has become a dirty word. But God did not create us wandering spirits, he gave us bodies and prescribed certain ways to behave with those bodies.  He gave us the bread and the wine, which is repetitive,is based on a body of Passover tradition, is pregnant with complex metaphor, and both do real actions to us Luke 22:14-23.  He instituted baptism which is real water contacting our skin, it really does cleanse and is full of just as much metaphor, it is religious  Matthew 28:19.  Worship is ordered ritual.

Leonardo Da Vinci, The Last Supper

 This is in no way intended to be the whole discussion, it is only the beginning.  But we can get a long way in borrowing from wisdom of the past(Oh no here he goes again with the past.  Try to think of it as the tested.  What is so great about novelty?  The problems of the world are all new.  The quickest way to be irrelevant is to catch a trend, for it is instantly irrelevant.  The church is generally just following the world 20 years behind.  Not only do we follow novelty but we follow old novelty. This is the ridiculousness of the TRON cubes).  We are not alone, having to reinvent everything from the wheel up, in a world of computers.  The church has left a rich legacy of applying Christian faith to every area of life. The sermon last week exhorted us to be so satisfied with the spiritual food of Christ so that we don’t go looking for food in the evils of the world. I think part of our inability to see this rich food is because we limit the effective work of Christ to church time, or religious things.  Our time in church at worship is not God time and the rest is our time.  It is a first fruits offering Leviticus 23:9-14 or a tithe, indicating that it is all God’s time.  Christ is Lord over every area of our lives, not just churchy stuff, everything.  I believe the medievals realized this.  And tasting of their rich culture makes the TRON scene seem completely inadequate.  Walking into one of their cathedrals forces you to sit down in awe.  You can actually feel the presence of God.  Your little problems and your puny music preferences fade away.  You realize you are nothing before a holy God.  I don’t know exactly how to pull this off today, I’m sure it can take on many forms.  But I know illuminated geometric shapes in a tope enclosure, are not it.  And what they do express, the god they point to, is disturbing.  So, think more, converse more and maybe we can conform ourselves and our leaders and our worship more and more to Christ.

Salisbury Cathedral, UK

Further Reading: http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Kirk-Essays-Church-Life/dp/1885767722/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375311423&sr=8-1&keywords=mother+kirk

“What I say isn’t that important, but what, the Bible says is important”  says the pastor.

“OK, I’m leaving” says I, “I can read it myself at home”.

What is going on here?  Why are we gathered together if what you say is not important?  James says “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness”. James 3:1  Christ says “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.” Luke 6:40  The Ethiopian Eunuch says “How can I [understand] unless someone guides me?” Acts 8:30,31

Of course what you say is important.  James warns because, teachers have been given a high charge of shaping and influencing others.  It should not be taken lightly but it should not be simply written off as if you have no responsibility.  This phrase makes it sound like you have been placed in the pulpit by a god holding a gun to your back, and if you make one false move, Bang!  It sounds like the wicked servant in Matthew 25:14-30.  He didn’t want to take any responsibility by risking the gift of his master so he went and hid it in the ground.  How foolish, God want’s us to take what he has given us and do something with it, risk it.  Boldly proclaim the word, find some new metaphors or take some metaphors from the Old Testament and show them in the light of Christ.  Rewrite the Psalms with the mystery of Christ revealed, as was the wont of the early hymn writers.  Don’t timidly hide behind a disclaimer.  It would be nice if we all could walk around in Galilee with Jesus but we can’t, but He gave us the Holy Spirit, He gave us pastors, he gave us you. You are a representative of Christ, you are ultimately his disciple, but you are also a leader discipling others.  Sure you could screw up, but that’s why there is repentance, you can’t give up the fight before it’s even begun. “Don’t you know that you will judge the angels?”  I Corinthians 6

I believe this type of statement is driven by a sort of we-don’t-want-to-accidentally-be-Catholic-ISM.   It’s like George Costanza who was always afraid that something would prove he was gay.  He was so insecure, he feared he was just one random event away from finding himself playing for the other team.  Evangelicals do the same thing when they try to pretend they don’t have any liturgy, tradition,leaders, history, rituals, or religion of any sort.  “Not me I’m sola scriptura all the way nothing to see here, he he”.  “I’m not a, Catholic–honest”.  Coming out of the confessional is not at all like coming out of the closet.

Every church has a liturgy whether they want to admit it or not, the question is whether you have a God honoring liturgy or not.  Every church has a tradition.   At Grace we have a tradition.  The church was started by a group of people discontent with the authority of their denominational churches who decided to have a bible study in the home of one Dr. Heetderks Sr..

Pastor Hoff and Dr. Heetderks @ Grace Gospel Tabernacle, Bozeman,MT

They believed that the denominational churches were straying from the bible so they left.  It is in a sense a tradition of throwing off authority, in the spirit of the Reformation and perhaps even the American spirit of our War for Independence.  Maybe that’s why we are so quick to throw away the glorious riches passed down to us from the medieval Christian.   This is our tradition and it does affect us even today. So, we need to stop pretending that we are above all this or more holy or closer to Jesus and the 1st century, whatever that means.  We have tradition.

We have pushed sola scriptura to insane limits. “All I need is my bible”.  “Well can I at least teach you to read?” “no education is a political issue and I’m just gonna sit here in a field with my bible, I sleep on it and is soaks into my head”. Like Steve Martin in his bathrobe in The Jerk: “this idol, my B-I-B-L-E, that’s all I need for me”.   This is foolishness.  And pretending that teachers don’t teach or exercise authority is merely to guarantee that the world directs these events.  I’m glad Philip didn’t tell the Ethiopian, who already had the scripture, that he had all that he needed. Instead he gave him the good news.  And the Ethiopian understood and asked to be baptized.  This is how God works, he uses human agents.  It was human agents who preserved the scripture all these years.  They carried it across 2000 years of history and thousands of miles of land and every culture under the sun.  It was they who fought battles for orthodoxy.  It was they who sought to apply Old and New Testament to every aspect of life and culture.  It was WE who threw it all away with silly notions of Cathlophobia.

So, pastors teach without apology.  Mine the riches of tradition and become part of it as you lend your creations to the great conversation that is orthodox theology.  Or we might start believing that what you say isn’t important, and just walk away.

TOON TOWN, CA

I think this clip sums up how most people view recent history. Which is no surprise, they have been students of Hollywood for a century now. The fact is that, whether you realize it or not, the silver screen has been the source of much of our thinking. And since the days of Reagan and McCarthy, Hollywood has pushed Marxist themes in most of its movies.

Here decades of history are condensed into the maniacal workings of an evil toon genius. An earth worshiping elitist has become disenchanted with the modern concrete world of interstates and gas stations, and so he invents a narrative of a top down evil business, oriented towards destroying the utopian Toon Town, which is more or less a metaphor for a romantic days-gone-by ideal. It might be considered a joke if it were not the most common narrative in the movies these days. 3:10 to Yuma astonishingly transforms the life blood of the west, the railroad, into an evil corporation seizing land. Harrison Ford’s version of Sabrina, transforms an older version’s CEO from a responsible steward of the shareholders’ money into a greedy profit seeking soulless machine.

In reality the Interstate Highway System was the result of the post-war can-do American spirit. I will grant that it was driven by a sort of modern humanism and a certain we’re #1 bravado. Worship of man’s achievements is the worship of a false god, and America worshiped whole heartedly. But the fact remains that the automobile was an attainable mark of freedom. And, America wanted roads to drive them on. Millions of little decisions, people voting with their wallets, lead to the creation of this system.

Further, this thinking is not limited to highways. It is the way most people view many staples of our modern world. Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Medicine, Big Pharmaceutical, and even Big Government are viewed the same way. But the fact is that the American people got what they wanted. None of these institutions would have amounted to anything, had they not provided goods or services that the people wanted, better than competitors. But, because we don’t like some of the fruits of fanatical modernism, we have to go back and change the history to attack those we don’t happen to like today. And Hollywood had been successful in doing just that.

We foolishly think that because we read it on a blog, that we came up with it ourselves. But we have been trained and are continually trained by our government schools, liberal media, and liberal Hollywood, in very deep ways. We need to take every thought captive. We need to be as discerning as serpents. Movies are not just entertainment, they affect the core of our thinking. And most seek to do it for the worse. So next time you go to the movies take your brain think hard about what you are being taught.

https://www.ndturner.com/evil%20big%20business/evil.m4vEvil Capitalism