Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Lesson in Waiting


Anticipation.

As the adage goes, good things come to those who wait. The real question, though, is how long you should have to wait for something good to happen. Think about how hard it is to wait for, say, a child to be born, or your upcoming wedding. We can wait a little while for these good things but, mostly, we humans are not very good at waiting. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we are constantly aware of the relative shortness of our life span and do not want to waste our little block of time. Some studies have shown that if you live to be 70, you will have spent a full three years of that life simply waiting for something to happen — waiting in traffic, waiting in waiting rooms, waiting on hold, waiting at the airport. We spend a lot of time anticipating, and we get more than a little frustrated if we have to wait too long for what we want or need. 

One person relates that when he was in the Boy Scouts, he had the opportunity to go to Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. For 10 days, the platoon hiked through the mountains and valleys of this beautiful place. He points out that their food was dehydrated, so access to water on the trail and at the various camping sites was important. One day as they passed other platoons on the trail, they heard that their next campsite was dry and no water was available. Looking at their map, they decided to hike an extra three miles to another camp where they heard there was a natural spring. When they arrived at the camp, others told them that the spring was yielding about a quart of water every two hours. Platoons would have a two-hour time slot to collect the water (which would not be sufficient for their needs). He remembers how their entire platoon sat by that spring, watching each miniscule drip fall into their small collection pot. The time between each drip seemed like an eternity, during a two-hour period that seemed to last forever. In that time, they learned not only about patience but also how they had spent their lives taking for granted the simple necessities of life.[1]

Part of the problem is that the chronos time of the ticking clock governs us, but we often forget that the rest of creation tends to work on a different timetable. We are watching minutes and seconds, while the earth is marking time in epochs. While we are frantic to get things done, creation is a lot more patient.

Take, for example, an experiment begun in 1927 by Professor Thomas Parnell of the University of Queensland in Australia. Parnell wanted to demonstrate to his students that some substances that appear to be solid are actually liquid, so he heated some pitch — a petroleum-based substance known for its stickiness and high viscosity (this is the stuff Noah used to waterproof the ark, if you recall) — and sealed it in a funnel-shaped glass tube. After three years, the pitch had coagulated, and Parnell unsealed the tube to see how long it would take for the now solidified mass of pitch to drain out. The “Pitch Drop Experiment” was born.

The result? Well, let us put it this way: By the time the first drop began to form two years later, most of Parnell’s students had graduated. By the time the first drop actually fell, those same students had likely forgotten Parnell and the experiment altogether. It took eight years for that first drip to drop. It took another eight years for the second drop to fall. Professor Parnell died in 1948, which means he saw only two drips (now there is an exciting life!), but the experiment keeps going. As of 2009, only eight drops have fallen, while a ninth has formed and could drop at any time. A Web cam is set up at the University of Brisbane so the world can watch it, assuming you have nothing better to do while you’re waiting for, say, paint to dry. The experiment is so slow that the Guinness Book of World Records lists it as the longest-running experiment in history — a record that should not be broken any time soon. Scientists estimate there’s enough pitch in the funnel that it will take more than 100 years to drain out, outliving all of us, too!

After the eighth drip, scientists calculated that the viscosity (“stickiness” to us liberal-arts majors) of pitch is roughly 230 billion times more than that of water. Comparison to the viscosity of Heinz Ketchup is unknown, but our guess is that the eight years it would take to pour a drop of pitch on a burger would not be worth the wait anyway. 

Is there a reflection on some spiritual healing here?

 

When I cannot understand my Father’s leading,

And it seems to be but hard and cruel fate,

Still I hear that gentle whisper ever pleading,

God is working, God is faithful, ONLY WAIT.

—L.B. Cowman, Streams in the Desert.

 

A waiting person is a patient person. The word patience means the willingness to stay where we are and live the situation out to the full in the belief that something hidden there will manifest itself to us. —Henri Nouwen, Eternal Seasons, p. 48.

 

Above all, trust in the slow work of God.
We are, quite naturally, impatient in everything to reach the end without delay. We should like to skip the intermediate stages.
We are impatient of being on the way to something unknown, something new.
And yet it is the law of all progress that it is made bypassing through some stages of instability — and that it may take a very long time.
And so I think it is with you.
Your ideas mature slowly — let them grow, let them shape themselves, without undue haste.
Don’t try to force them, as though you could be today what time (that is grace and circumstances acting upon your own good will) will make you tomorrow.
Only God could say what this new spirit gradually forming within you will be. Give your Lord the benefit of believing that his hand is leading you, and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself in suspense and incomplete.
— Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, priest and scientist, The Making of the Mind

 



[1] —G. Andrew Engelhart III, in e-mail correspondence with Homiletics.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

John 3:1-17


John 3:1-17 (NRSV)

 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

11 “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

 

John 3:1-21 is the discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus in Jerusalem, the first of the discourses in this gospel. In Chapter 2, Jesus was one who turned water into wine at a wedding and one who appeared in the courts of the temple to cleanse it. Now, we see Jesus as a patient and learned teacher. The story is unique to this gospel. It begins with a Pharisee, Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. In Tal Bab Taanith 20a we find a reference to a Nicodemus who was wealthy before 70AD and living in Jerusalem. Some do not consider it the same as the person in this text. He will appear again in 7:45-52 and 19:38-42. He seems to represent a Jewish leader and teacher who slowly came to discipleship. We then learn that he came to Jesus by night. In the context of John, this might mean he simply wanted to do so secretly. However, with the contrast between light and darkness in this gospel, it may hint at a deeper meaning. He is one emerging from the darkness of the world and into the light provided by Jesus. Another way of looking at this is that the rabbis recommended the study of the Torah at night, with rabbis often found prolonging their discussions well into the night. Nicodemus begins affirming that we know Jesus is a teacher who has come from God, a strong confessional statement. The reason is that no one can do the signs (such persons do not merit trust from Jesus in 2:23-25) that he does apart from the presence of God. At this point, he sees in Jesus a distinguished rabbi. The response of Jesus is to say that he truly tells him that no one can see the kingdom of God (used only twice in John, both in this discourse) without being born from above. To find access to the rule of God is of the very essence of salvation, says Pannenberg. The salvation he mediates consists of fellowship with God and the related life, which also embraces a renewal of fellowship with others.[1] In Greek, this term means both "from above" and "again, anew." Jesus is discussing the possibility of new life - being born anothen, which translates as both "anew" and "above." This rebirth is both into a new time (“anew”) and into a new place ("above"). By discussing the kingdom of God here, Jesus offers yet another symbol of a new time (the age of God's reign) and a new place (the kingdom as God's domain). While most translations choose one of these meanings and then relegate the second meaning to a footnote, it is more theologically correct to maintain this double meaning. Nicodemus respond with the question of how one can be born after having grown old. He wonders, sarcastically, whether one can enter into the womb of the mother again. He stumbles on the notion of begetting. Yet, the notion of eschatological children of God was present Judaism. He had opportunities, for which see Isaiah 32:15, Joel 2:28-29, Ezekiel 36:25-26, Jubilee 1:23-25, IQS iv 19-21. He seems obtuse at this point, but in this gospel, such a response is typical. People do not immediately understand the reference to spiritual matters. This obtuseness or lack of understanding may also suggest the darkness out of which Nicodemus has come, symbolizing the darkness of his Jewish heritage. Jesus responds that he very truly tells him that no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. We find the specific coupling of water and Spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-26 and Isaiah 44:3. For John and for the early church, the reference to water suggests baptism. The verse does raise some interesting theological issues. Pannenberg points out that in Logos Christology, alienation from the logos is something God overcomes by the incarnation of the Logos. We do not receive the Logos unless we are born anew of the Spirit of God.[2] In a theological fine point, Pannenberg stresses that the gift of the Spirit and regeneration occur together, as this passage suggests.[3] He notes the close connection of regeneration as a work of the Holy Spirit in baptism. He notes that John does not mention conversion, but rather, an essential regeneration that occurs by water and the Spirit. [4] As Jesus continues, he says that what is born of flesh (weak and mortal, not sinful) is flesh. What is born of the Spirit (divine life and power) is spirit. Given this essential difference, humanity cannot attain the kingdom on its own. The contrast is between the transitory existence of human life and the inviolable power of the Spirit of God. Tertullian used the contrast of flesh and spirit here as suggesting two substances united in Christ.[5] As Jesus continues, he should not have astonishment that he refers to birth from above. After all, the wind blows where it chooses. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. Everyone born of the Spirit is the same way. Ruah in Hebrew is a mysteriously invisible natural force that declares itself especially in the movement of the wind. This notion forms the background of the use of pneuma here. If God is Spirit, the sound fills creation and the power gives life to all creatures.[6]

Beginning in verse 9, Nicodemus now wonders how these things can be. Jesus seems puzzled that a teacher of Israel does not understand these things. Jesus truly says to him that we (the plural suggests the community of John more than just Jesus) speak of what we know and testify (legal terminology) to what we have seen. Yet, Nicodemus and Jewish leaders did not receive our (the community of John) testimony. At this point, Nicodemus as a person recedes into the background, and what he represents, Jewish leadership, comes to the fore. In addition, it becomes possible that the narrator is telling of his experience with Jewish leadership. As Jesus continues, if Jesus had spoken to him of earth things, and he did not believe, how could he believe if he told Nicodemus of heavenly things? Yet, this observation does not mean that Jesus stops trying. Now, in direct answer the question of how these things can be, Jesus says that no one ascended into heaven, except the one who descended from heaven, that is, the Son of Man or the Human One. Moses (Numbers 21:4-9) lifted up the serpent in the wilderness to heal the people in the camp from snakebites. In the same way, the Son of Man must (divine necessity, the plan of God) be lifted up in offering his life as a sacrifice, so that the sacrificial offering makes possible a new reality for others. Whoever believes in him may have eternal life, the first occurrence of this phrase in John. John is referring to Jesus, of course. Begetting, birth from above, is possible through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. As Pannenberg points out, John can call the crucifixion the exaltation of the Son only in the light of the resurrection and the return to the Father.[7] The certainty of his work of salvation is founded on God’s plan, the goal of which is the giving of life to believers. In a discussion of the metaphorical language involved in the resurrection of Jesus, Pannenberg stresses that it refers to a real event. The new eschatological life, eternal life, is life in the full sense of the term, in comparison with each earthly life is such only with reservation.[8]

Beginning in verse 16, we read, famously and memorably, that God loved the world so much that God gave the Beloved Son, the only-begotten and uniquely loved Son, intimately united to the Father and supremely loved, so that everyone who believes in the Son may not perish (snatching the world from destruction), but will rather have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world. Rather, God sent the Son into the world to save the world through the Son. In the classical doctrine of the Trinity, a careful distinction to make is that between the processions and the sending, whether of the Son, as here, or the Spirit.[9] Pannenberg will point out that rarely does the New Testament look at Jesus as judge. In fact, this passage states that Jesus came into the world to save it, not condemn it. Jesus will not personally condemn anyone, because he has come into the world to save it. Yet, his word and person are the standard by which the future judgment takes place.[10] The background of this passage may well be the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in Genesis 22:2, 12. Assuming Jesus is still the teacher, he has distilled the gospel into a simple statement. The complexity of the heavenly and earthly identity of the Son combines with the simplicity and power of divine love. He has summed up the Christian message of redemption. The plan of the cross has its root in the immeasurable love of God for the world. The Son is the most cherished gift God had to give. John makes known the greatness of the act of God in the Incarnation and in the mission of bridging the chasm between God and world.  God has revealed this love in the historical mission of the Son, to the extent of the cross. The purpose of this giving of the Son is life for others. God bridges the gap caused by human alienation and sin, bringing reconciliation. In a discussion of the divine essence and existence, Pannenberg finds here that the Son reveals the existence of the Father, and by the sending of the Son, the Father reveals the divine essence, that is, divine love.[11] The sending of the Son into the world, that we might live through him, declares the love of God for us.[12] As Pannenberg interprets the infinity and holiness of God, he sees the sending of the Son to save the world aiming at the bringing of the world into the sphere of the divine holiness.[13] In contrast to Barth, Pannenberg will stress that the creation of the world is an expression of the love of God. The love with which God loved the world in the sending of the Son does not differ in kind from the fatherly love the Creator for the creatures God made.[14] As Pannenberg sees it, the whole earthly path of the Son was from the outset a path to the crucifixion of Jesus according to the providence of God, which we can see here, even if it simply says that God “gave” the Son out of love for the world so that those who believe should have eternal life. Bultmann would limit the giving here to “gave up to death,” but he thinks we can take it more broadly as a reference to the sending of the Son to the cosmos, though with the special nuance that God “gifted” the Son to the world.[15] When we combine verses 16-17, he wants to stress that the saving work of the Son was the purpose of the Father sending the Son.[16] He will stress that the sending of the son for incarnation in the one man Jesus had concern for others as well. God sent the Son into the world to save it. Thus, the goal of the sending of the Son is one we find in others.[17]
In discussions of the Trinity in the early church, the East followed the terminology of John closely, distinguishing between the “generation” of the Son here and the “procession” of the Spirit in John 15:26.[18] The notion of sending here refers to the passion and death of Jesus, not to his birth.[19] We should also note that such notions of sending presuppose the pre-existence of the Son.[20]


[1] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 398.
[2] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 295.
[3] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 225-6.
[4] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 233, 246.
[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 382.
[6] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 427.
[7] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 365.
[8] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 347.
[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 305.
[10] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 614.
[11] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 358.
[12] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 183.
[13] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 399.
[14] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 144.
[15] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 397, 438, 444.
[16] Systematic Theology volume 2, 441.
[17] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 320.
[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 305.
[19] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 301.
[20] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 369.

Romans 4:1-5, 13-17


Romans 4:1-5, 13-17 (NRSV)

 What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”[Genesis 15:6] 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.

13 For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.

16 For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations” [Genesis 17:5])—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

 

            Chapter 4 shows that justification by faith is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by using Abraham as the example. It becomes an illustration of what he said in 3:21-31. It becomes the basis for the universalistic thrust of the preaching of Paul, for faith rather than Law, which only came centuries later, justified Abraham. In that sense, the Gentile mission of Paul has its root in the Israelite covenant. Paul will have to persuade his Jewish interlocutor at this point, or he will remain unconvinced. Paul offers a Midrash on Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Abraham experienced rightness with God through faith, and not through either Law or circumcision. Barth will point out again that the wealth of religion is its danger, for instead of viewing itself as a sign that points beyond itself to the God who establishes humanity, it erects a great pyramid at which it hopes people will gaze. This passage will make one go to the letter of James in the New Testament and wrestle with the quite differing ways in which these two letters refer to Abraham. The point Paul is making is that the faith of Abraham, rather than circumcision or his anticipatory fulfillment of the Law, was the basis of his rightness before God. In the passage we again see that father Abraham giving up his son is a reminder that in the cross the Father acted to reconcile the world. The Father was at work in this event in order to direct divinely the course of human history. Faith makes us righteous before God only because it appropriates the saving work of God in Christ, and especially the forgiveness of sins based on his atoning death, just as once Abraham accepted in faith the promise that God had given him.[1]

            What Paul is doing is showing that righteousness by faith is not alien to the Jewish tradition. He refers to the example of Abraham, whose faith in the promise of God is reckoned to him as righteousness. In verses 1-5, Paul wonders what Abraham gained. If he gained justification through works, he could boast before people, but not before God. According to the witness of Genesis 15:6, Abraham believed God, and God counted it (in the books that God keeps) as righteousness. We should note that this passage is paradigmatic for the close relation between faith and hope is the description of the faith of Abraham. The point Paul makes is that if one works, one receives the wages due. However, if one trusts God, who justifies the ungodly, then such reckoning or counting as righteousness is a gift. Faith in God is more important for our righteousness before God than works of the law. The circumcision of Abraham comes later. For Paul, the true children of Abraham are those who live by faith.[2] This righteousness (dikaiosunh) God grants through faith, not self-righteousness that one earns through works. This is to say that, again, God’s gracious initiative is at the heart of the matter. Authentic human righteousness can only come from God, who alone is completely righteous. Barth[3] will say that Abraham, in receiving justification before he became a Jew, verifies the point Paul is making. To take one’s stand under the Law of Israel means to stand in the sphere of the divine wrath. Law means transgression of the law. Where one has no Law, one has no condemnation.

Beginning in verse 6, Paul refers to a Psalm that speaks of the blessedness of those who to whom God reckons or counts righteousness apart from works, a psalm that stresses forgiveness. Paul then asks if such blessedness is only for the circumcised. How did God reckon or count the faith of Abraham as righteousness? He reminds us that this reckoning occurred before his physical circumcision. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith and while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose of the reckoning was that he would become the ancestor of all who believe while still uncircumcised, as well as the ancestor of the circumcised who believe. As Barth[4] sees it, the Bible cuts the root of all the later conceptions that tried to attribute to the faith of humanity a merit for the attainment of justification or co-operation in its fulfillment, or to identify faith with justification. The pardon of humanity is the work of God. It was not long until baptism had become the Christian seal of faith.  For Barth,[5] the true reality of all impressions of revelation consists in their being signs, witnesses, types, recollections, and sign-posts to the revelation itself, which lies beyond actual reality. Abraham participated also in this typical concrete world, in circumcision, church and in religion. The church is the canalization in history of that divine transaction in people that can never become a matter of history. The wealth of religion has its own peculiar danger, for its proper function may be misunderstood. Instead of pointing beyond itself, one may erect it, like some great pyramid, as an immense stone. True religion is a seal, reminding people that God has established them. It reminds them of their dissolution and of their redemption.

Then, beginning in verse 13, Paul begins a discussion of the promise, faith, and hope. Paul stresses that the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham through the Torah, but through the righteousness of faith. If the heirs of the promise were such through Torah, then faith is null and the promise void. The reason is that Torah brings wrath (see 1:18-3:20), since without it one can have no violation. Barth[6] says that whenever people suppose themselves conscious of the emotion of nearness to God, whenever they speak and write of divine things, whenever sermon-making and temple-building are thought of as an ultimate human occupation, whenever people are aware of divine appointment and of being entrusted with a divine mission, sin abounds. Being an heir of the promise, then, must depend on faith, so that the promise rests on grace toward those who share the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all, even as the promise finds its fulfillment. The God in whom he believed gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In a sense, the essence of God is not available to us apart from this revelation, that God raised Jesus from the dead.[7] Here is an area in which neither individuals nor communities can co-operate. Giving life to the dead is an act of God alone. Paul, as Pannenberg[8] sees it, puts the resurrection of the dead alongside creation out of nothing. The Easter event and the resurrection on which Christina hope is set are no less limitless than creation. Only the Creator can awaken the dead, and resurrection from the dead shows what it means to be Creator. The act of creation finds consummation in the resurrection. Resurrection is the supreme enactment of the will of the Creator that wills the existence of creatures. Indeed, by using this imagery, Paul makes a connection between God overcoming the childlessness of Abraham and Sarah (“gives life to the dead”) with creation (“calls into existence the things that do not exist”). The Eighteen Benedictions have this theme as well, a prayer Paul likely had memorized. The dynamic of God’s grace and Abraham’s faith operating in 4:16-17 helps substantiate what goes before in the passage. In simplest terms, Paul is telling his audience that when it comes to God’s promises it is not what we do to earn them, but what God does graciously to bestow them. This is reinforced by at least three ways that Paul uses language to develop his argument.

Then, beginning in verse 18, Paul stresses that hoping against hope that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Yet, becoming an example to us all, the faith of Abraham did not weaken when he did not consider his own 100-year-old body when he received the promise of an heir. He did not distrust or waver concerning the promise of God. Rather, he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, being fully convinced that God was able to do what God had promised. Therefore, God reckoned or counted his faith as righteousness. The promise to reckon or count was not just for him, but was also for us. Pannenberg[9] says that confession of Jesus as Lord gives hope of deliverance in connection with belief in the apostolic proclamation that God has raised him from the dead, and by this faith, we are righteous before God. This implies a personal relation of individuals to Jesus Christ, as well as membership in the church founded by the apostolic missionary proclamation and adherence to its common confession of the apostolic faith.  As Paul continues, God will reckon our faith as righteousness when we believe in the God who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. God handed him over to death for our trespasses, and God raised him for our justification. Pannenberg[10] thinks that this suggests expiation. Further, the Father giving up the Son reminds us that in the death of Jesus, God the Father acted to reconcile the world. God the Father was at work in this event according to divine providential directing of the course of history. The sending of the Son by the Father aims at the vicarious expiatory death on the cross.  dia, the Greek Fathers understood the resurrection of Christ as the cause of justification.  Many Latin Fathers attempted to integrate the two ideas, death and resurrection, but this attempt unfortunately minimized the causality of the resurrection, for it came to be regarded only as an appendage or even as an exemplary confirmation of Jesus’ death, which they considered to be the real cause of the forgiveness of sins and justification.
The only difference between hope and believing trust in the God who promises is that the relation to the self that is implicit in this trust in God is made a theme in the case of hope. It is oriented to the content of the promise as the future of salvation that concerns believers themselves. Based on faith it is essential that this should happen, for faith itself depends on the promise of God and becomes saving faith only as believers accept the promise as pertaining to themselves. In the act of faith, we first see this relation to the self as the expression of the promise as the word of God addressing and reaching the self, and then it becomes a theme in hope as hope looks to the saving blessing that God promised. Hence, Christian hope rests on faith. Further, the example of Abraham points to an important aspect of hope. The promise of God to him for a son corresponds to the desire he had for a long time. His example shows that the divine promise is not always contrary to human desire. The promise of God runs contrary to the hopes that we set on life here. The promise carries our human tendency, which is open and has no definite goal, beyond the incomplete present to the future actualization. The promise of God, who from the very first is our Creator, actualizes the tendency and gives precision to its object, reorienting it but not outdating our nullifying it. An appeal to the promises of God would deprive them of any meaning if they did not respond to our deepest wants and needs. Yet, we cannot accomplish on our own and by our own action our salvation, the wholeness and fulfillment of our existence, its identity with its destiny to be truly itself. No more can we rationally expect the changes and chances of life to do this for us. The hope of fulfillment, of salvation, transcends all that is possible by what we do or in the ordinary course of things. To that extent, we have here a hope against all hope that normal who gives to life to the dead and being to what is not. Paul found this promise expressed in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, for the significance of this event puts the situation the situation of all of us in a new light. In contrast, one could found the promises in what is attainable in the course of things and by human action.[11]


[1] Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, 72; Systematic Theology, Volume III, 225.
[2] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume III, 63.
[3] Church Dogmatics, II.2 [34.2], 215-16.
[4] Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4], 614-15.
[5] Romans, 129.
[6] Romans, 136.
[7] Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, 130.
[8] Systematic Theology Volume I, 417.
[9] Systematic Theology Volume III, 232.
[10] Systematic Theology Volume II, 418, 438.
[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume III, 173-74, 176-77.

Challenge of Authenticity

Here is an article published in the local paper under the Parson to Person byline.
 
Authenticity seems highly valued today, but it remains a challenge.

I have my degrees on my wall in the office. Some people call it a pride wall. I have a degree from Marion College (Indiana Wesleyan) for my Bachelor’s Degree, Asbury Theological Seminary for a Master of Divinity, and McCormick Theological Seminary for a Doctor of Ministry. I also have my ordination documents on my wall. I value the education I received at each place. Of course, life experience since then I value as well. These documents represent work and plenty of prayer that took me from age 18 to 31 to earn.

Recently, I came across some old notes I had taken about Harrington University, a diploma mill that went under other names as well. One need take no classes. One can “earn” a PhD in 27 days, crediting your life experiences. It will cost a couple thousand dollars. Well, given it took 13 years to receive my degrees and around fifteen years to pay off the debt, so I can appreciate the appeal.

But still.

By 2002, some 70,000 Harrington degrees had been “granted” to online applicants, which made the operator more than $100 million. Much of this is relatively harmless, although it can become a matter of life or death, especially in the medical profession.

Authenticity is not so easy when we want others to think we are better than we are and want to receive honors that we do not deserve. Humanity is broken.

In the sphere of religion, we think we can earn the religion diploma through how good we are. We cannot fake it with God. Yet, what ails humanity is so deep and broad that we will try.

Eugene O’Neill (The Great God Brown), said humanity is born broken, lives by mending, and the grace of God is the glue.

C.  S. Lewis (The Four Loves) said that in all of us is a tendency to exaggerate our depth of character while treating our flaws leniently. The Bible calls this tendency hypocrisy. We tend to put forward a better image of ourselves than really exists.

Justification by faith is the theme in Romans 4. Please read this passage. Properly understood, Paul moves us toward genuineness in our relation to God and others. We need to admit that we cannot justify ourselves with God through anything we do. We are sinners in more ways than we can count.

Frederich Buechner in Wishful Thinking, used the image in printing that to justify means to set type in such a way that all full lines are of equal length and flush both left and right. The printed lines are in right relation to each other. He points out that the religious use of the word “to justify” is similar. Justification is about God making right what we could not, turning our lives toward what God has done in Jesus Christ, and living our lives out of that relationship.
 
           Authenticity like that will never go out of style.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Health of Mind, Body, and Spirit



I think I have followed a cultural trend as a baby-boomer. I have had a long concern for my physical health. I liked sports in my youth, more playing than watching. When I was around 18, just starting college, I started running as a physical discipline. My weight, like most people, has seen its climb and its decline. I will eat well for a while, and then, not so much. Eventually, I got some weights and a Total Gym. Now, I am even part of Anytime Fitness to keep fit during the winter. Many in our culture seem quite interested in our physical health. Churches will seek some common ground here through their sports ministries.
In the process, I have also taken my share of diet type pills.
Witness the pharmaceutical culture we live in. We cannot turn on the TV without discovering that there is a new syndrome or disease or ache or ailment out there to avoid or be aware.
You are watching television and you see all these ads featuring happy and attractive people walking in the woods, mountain biking, sitting in bathtubs and throwing footballs through tires because they took a pill that made it all possible. Do you want to lose weight, get more sleep, get stronger, or deal with an embarrassing social disease? Just ask your doctor, pop the pill, and relax. Call it “better living through chemistry.”
It is certainly true that many of these advances in medical science have made a difference in the quality of life for people. Pills that treat and prevent disease are a godsend, like the drug varenicline that doctors have used to help patients curb their smoking addictions. Recent evidence has shown that it may also help curb other addictions as well.
Nevertheless, as good as these pills are, they are not strong enough to do the job alone. Taking cholesterol medication while continuing to eat bacon fried in lard, for example, probably negates any good benefit the drug offers. One pill just won’t do it.
However, that does not stop people from relying on them. Of all the pharmaceutical ads popping up everywhere, the ones targeting America’s rapidly expanding waistline seem to get the most response. After all, if you could really lose 10 pounds while still sitting on the couch eating cheese puffs, would you not want to make that happen? Diet pills have been around for decades featuring before-and-after photos of folks who have gone from flab to fab without diet or exercise. Sales of these pills have swelled in the last few years along with the bellies of consumers. Every year brings new diets or a new remedy that claims we can have it all and still look good, too.
One of the bigger pharmaceutical splashes this past summer was the advent of a new diet pill called “Alli” (pronounced like “ally”), which is the first over-the-counter weight-loss pill to have full FDA approval. Alli claims to be an anti-obesity pill that “eats fat” by absorbing up to a quarter of the fat the user eats. Americans, looking for the ultimate solution to a lifetime of overeating, have been buying up this new wonder pill despite its relatively high cost of about $50 for a 20-day supply. As Alli’s Web site says, this price is “roughly what one might expect to pay for a bag of chips and a can of soda every day — the equivalent of an afternoon snack.”
In other words, put down the chips and you can afford to pop the pill.
Nevertheless, that raises an interesting question. If I have the willpower to put down the chips in the first place, do I really need the pill? Read the fine print and it becomes clear that Alli only works to chew up fat you already have. If you continue to honk down extra value meals every day, Alli will not work for you. In fact, a nasty side effect called the “Alli oops” may kick in. “It forces you to eat a lower-fat diet — if you do not, you are violently penalized for not doing so,” says David Sarwer, the director of clinical services at the Center for Weight Loss and Eating Disorders at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “When they eat a little too much fat, they’ll learn not to do it again.” To put it delicately, eating too much fat while on the pill can cause one to have sudden — well, never mind.
Bottom line? Alli only works effectively if you eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly — stuff you should have been doing in the first place. Truth is that most people do not need the pill; they just need the will to get out and do what is right for their bodies.
All of this suggests that health of body is not something we can separate from a healthy mind and spirit. As wonderful as science may be in producing helpful pills, they must work together with developing a healthier approach to the way you think and behave in life. Body, mind, and spirit must work together.
Coming to this recognition, however, will mean you will need to move against a culture that wants you to remain focused on physical, material, and even political matters. If we can say that a cultural trend is obsession with physical health, I think we can also say that our culture is not obsessed with spiritual health. Of course, the culture will go through phases of an interest in angels or the supernatural, but to focus on personal spiritual health is to beg for someone to say something like, “Ok, next subject.”
Psalm 32 opens with the words regarding spiritual health: “Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered” and those “in whose spirit there is no deceit” (vv. 1-2). It might be worth some time to reflect prayerfully upon this psalm. It might be a guide to your health of mind, body, and spirit.