BOTH JOINTS & MARROW

THE ROAD OF MYRRH

2012-01-07T19:28:00.004-05:00

The Magi too did dream. I heard them speak
Of being warned to go some other way
Back to their own country and not to Herod,
Who will reckon now without their counsel;
He seems determined now to slay all boys
The same age as my son. (He is
My son, you know - he was given
To me, the husband of his mother Mary,
and I shall be his father until his Father takes me.

The Magi had been delighted to find this child
Given to me to protect and raise and teach.
Gifts they brought will certainly be some help
To carry out my holy obligation from on high,
Although those precious three are just burdens now
On the donkey Mary rides with Jesus
As we flee from Herod's fury;
For he was fooled by wiser men
Who wisely failed to follow that darkly false command.

The Magi were just gone from the house which sheltered us
When again I dreamed of Gabriel appearing.
Though miles and days away from Bethlehem,
My blood still rises to recall that urgent word;
The angel of the LORD told me to get on up,
To take my boy and Mary away from there
And flee that very night to Egypt.
So have we fled, up Hebron's hills and down
Across the Brook of Egypt into the Wilderness of Shur.

The Magi spoke of the mad king's conversation,
How perturbed he was that wise men came
To do homage to some rival and yet infant king.
They remarked how careful Herod was to ask
About the precise time the eastern star appeared.
Herod desired to go also to pay homage,
Or so he wanted them to believe.
Thus did the angel bid me stay in Egypt until told,
For Herod sought to kill and not to worship Christ.

The Magi took their caravans away
Returning home to mystery lands there in the East
Where frankincense and gold is found, and myrrh
To lure the living and bury the dead.
This tiny caravan I lead travels roads another Joseph trod
When he, too, was compelled to leave that promised land
On myrrh-bearing beasts. His brothers, too, despised him
And sought to do away with whom they would not worship.
His mother, Rachel, says the prophet, weeps
Because her children are no more.

The Magi did worship, though, and it is well
that I should imitate their humble wisdom,
For though I now may be my small boy's haven,
And though we fly to find refuge now in Egypt,
I marvelled then when Simeon spoke and do realize now
That this little one of mine is destined to save me.

- Craig R. Tavani, Epiphany 1991
(Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, The Flight with Obelisk at the Left , from the series "Picturesque Ideas on the Flight Into Egypt", 1753, Etching)

THE INTRACTABLE DUALITY OF THE INCARNATION

2012-01-06T21:28:00.005-05:00

A Musical Mystery for Christmas

What profound truth is found here? *

This bit of Bach canon represents, in musical language, the dual nature of the Messiah, the top line his divinity, the bottom line his humanity. Together they show how the unique Godman, Jesus, is truly God and truly man. Let us briefly explore the realms of culture, nature and scripture to discover how each might reveal something of this mystery, this Christ of Christmas.

CULTURE
Bach expresses emotion – such as joy or sorrow – and theological concepts, such as the Trinity (1), by using various musical motifs (2) in his many works which he composed Soli Dei Gloria(for the glory of God alone). Here we examine just the duality we celebrate at Christmastime when “God became flesh and dwelt among us”. For Bach, the “Fifth Evangelist”, the music was the message, the words and notes being inextricably intertwined, not unlike the “two natures” of Christ Himself.

Bach’s Christmas Oratorio contains, in the first chorale, a subtle reminder that Christ, God’s promised Messiah, was born to die in that this melody was linked to the Passion in the ears of the listeners.
We find even more in Cantata 23 which “is interesting in that it uses two vocal solos and two oboes in the first movement as a musical representation of Christ’s dual nature: human and divine. The cantata also incorporates the chorale (hymn) tune for the “German Agnus Dei,” the traditional threefold petition to the Lamb of God.” The lyrics draw from this text:

Jer 23:5 5Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

The concept of the Godman Jesus as part of the Triune Godhead is given complex expression by Bach as well by using something known as the Trias Harmonica (not the instrument but rather the idea):
BWV 1072: Trias Harmonica

“The triad, often called triunitas in the Lutheran tradition, stood for the triunity of God - three in one and one in three. The major and minor forms of the triad represented, moreover, the dual nature of Christ as both God and man. Bach's contemporary, Weckmeister, developed a musical theory in accord with such allegory, and Bach's own Trias Harmonica was undoubtedly intended to be heard as a musical representation of Deity.”

Realize Canon

“It is revealing that when Bach set the foregoing words to music in the Creed of his Mass in B Minor (interesting YouTube), he utilized canonic processes. While not technically a canon, the movement is very canon-like, but with pitch and time intervals continuously mutating. These mutations bring to mind the Trinitarian doctrine...three in one and one in three...in much the same manner as the third canon of the Variations on Vom Himmel hoch portrays heaven and earth by its mutating consonant and dissonant intervals separating leader and follower. Underlying both movements is the Christian doctrine of the dual nature of Christ incarnate, one with God, yet fully human. As sign of this duality, Bach does not allow the canonic followers to engage in unthinking mimicry but gives them independence. Yet, in its independence of time and pitch interval, the follower (Christ) is audibly generated by the leader (the Father), and always doing the Father's will.”

The duality upon which Bach was reflecting shows up in lots of places besides theology – although I would say that the Messiah who is both Son of God and Son of David (which we discuss later on) constitutes a unique duality unto Himself comprehension of which only allegory can approach. This is why it remains, along with the Trinity and Redemption itself, among the most profound of mysteries. Yet, through allegory and analogy, we can appreciate far more about our Savior than rote creedal recitation at first allows and there discover much for infinite awesome reflection.

NATURE
Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Having looked at the art of music, let us now turn to the science of physics where dualities abound. (see List below). Wikipedia lists dozens of dualities from math, science and philosophy. One must come to acknowledge them, believe, if you will, in their existence for any hope of progress in understanding the nature of reality. To ignore or doubt them is to deny the very world in which we live. None is perhaps more popular than the well-known “wave/particle” nature of light. Looked at one way, light is a wave; looked at another, it is a particle. While they appear to be mutually exclusive, neither dominates the other and light exists as both, simultaneously, manifesting itself according to how we choose to observe it. So the mystery must be that of our mental limitations rather than of reality itself. No matter what we think, Nature happens anyway. For an entertaining demonstration of how a particle must be a wave, and visa versa, see this short video from Dr. Quantum:
(For a brief explanation from world renowned physicist Dr. Feynman, see

HISTORY
Is it then any wonder that Jesus should declare Himself the “Light of the World” and that the Bible says “God is Light”. Or that his confused impatient listeners should try to stone him for it! Just who Jesus really is stirs up controversy to this day with the problem going back at least several thousand years to the ancient heresies threatening the early Christian church. Let’s take a look at some church history summarized for us by an Orthodox author (David Bentley Hart in The Story Of Christianity, Illustrated):

“The great debate of the fourth century concerned the divinity of Christ; the great debate of the fifth century (and after) concerned his humanity. Or, rather, it concerned the unity of his Person, and the relation of the divine to the human within that unity. And this, as it happened, would prove to be the most contentious doctrinal dispute in Christian history prior to the Reformation, and the most divisive.

All the Christians of the time, of course, believed that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God; and all faithful members of the Nicene church believed the divine Son to be co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But in what sense then had he become man? Had he merely assumed human flesh? Or had he assumed also a human soul, a human mind, a human will? If Christ was both God and man, did this mean that he was somehow a composite of the two, producing some sort of ‘third genus’? Or did his divinity ‘swallow up’ his humanity? Or was he a kind of harmonious alliance within one body between two distinct personalities, one divine and one human?

The ‘Christological crisis’ began in Constantinople n 428, though its initial cause was adispute not over Christ – at least, not directly – but over his mother.“

(For details about Nestorius and the Theotokos controversy, see references.)

Over-emphasis of one over the other, or novel assertions or denials, could be dangerous. For instance, the Monothelite (belief Christ had but one nature) Maximus the Confessor (c580) had his tongue torn out, his hands hacked off, and his person banished for opposing imperial policy. Holding to wrong doctrines at the wrong times could cost you your life. (And teaching “doctrines of demons”, for instance, carries with it a stern warning in scripture; see 1 Timothy 4:1) A summary of the Christological controversies can be summed up by the heresies often named for those who taught them. (Here is one list ) However, some Christian traditions (such as the Oriental Churches who resented imperial power and rejected the Council of Chalcedon’s defining Christ as bearing “two natures” while still holding to his full divinity and full humanity ) might stop short of labeling one or another as heretics, instead invoking cultural and language barriers as explaining the differences.

“There are three major heresies regarding the Lord Jesus Christ:
(1) The denial of Christ's Divinity - which lead to the heresies known as Ebonism, Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses), Nestorianism, Socinianism, Liberalism, Humanism, Unitarianism.
(2) The denial of Christ's two natures -- which created heretical groups such as Monophysitism, Eutychianism, Monothelitism. These all confuse the two natures of Christ; i.e., absorbed one of His natures into the other.
(3) The denial of Christ's humanity -- which gave rise to Docetism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Apollinarianism, Monarchianism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism.

All of these heresies in some way ended up by "dividing" the theanthropic (God-Man) Jesus Christ!” – according to this author anyway.

The Council of Chalcedon responded to several heresies at once by simply stating that Christ’s divinity and humanity are not to be confused, changed, separated or divided. (This brings to mind the physical and mathematical constraints used to narrow the search for the Higgs boson, for example, by graphing as out of bounds all energy levels where it cannot exist…or, as Michelangelo purportedly said, when asked how to carve an elephant, “sculpt away everything that doesn’t look like one.” The Apostle Paul uses this same “via negativa” approach in 2 Cor 13 when he describes love by what it is not. “Love is not envious…” While it may leave healthy “elbow room” for various ways of understanding who Jesus is, it erects clear barriers concerning who he is not. If you bump up against one, you’ve gone too far in that direction.

SCRIPTURE
Having looked at examples of duality from culture and nature we now turn to Scripture where we behold the greatest of all dual manifestations: the incarnation of God as a newborn human baby who lives, and dies, a singularly human life. There are many deep mysteries here such as the angelic announcement, the virgin birth, the nativity events and the pre-existence of the Logos, but we focus on just one – how the Bible reveals the Godman in clear and simple language which, while extending our understanding and adding to our knowledge, nonetheless, profoundly preserves the great mystery of the Godhead beyond our human comprehension.

Come to the manger…
First we see, in this particular baby, that we are no longer in the realm of intellect or imagination alone but in the very real and smelly world of animals – our world of gold and straw. Next we see it’s not just physical reality but a human one – life itself presenting biophysical wonders of great complexity, compounded by consciousness! None of these animate things is fully understood by anyone – believer or skeptic – and, were we to delve into the subject, we would discover yet more mysteries, more dualities popping up all over the place. The more we learn, the less we know - such are the questions raised by every new discovery. Yet this doesn’t stop scientists from making models they believe will work or prevent philosophers from philosophizing or hinder artists from expressing emergent beauty. These things are intrinsic to nature, manifest in culture every day. Neither does it fluster the Bible’s human authors who choose their words carefully when describing Jesus.

Matthew opens his Gospel like this, emphasizing his humanity:

"This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham …" Matthew 1:1

Mark opens his Gospel like this, emphasizing his divinity:

"The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in
Isaiah the prophet…" Mark 1:1-2 NIV

Luke opens his Gospel like this, providing historical context:

"In the time of Herod of Judea…" Luke 1: 5

John opens his Gospel like this, expressing both his divinity and his humanity:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh…” John 1: 1, 14

Then John records this confrontation:

" 'Very truly I tell you,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM.' At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8: 58-59

Paul deepens the duality when he writes:

"Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Philippians 2: 6-7

So, when considering Jesus, heed the angel’s directive to “Fear not”. Do not stop thinking about Jesus or asking searching questions about his Person. Embrace all He is and, most of all, allow Him to embrace you in a personal encounter. His Spirit at work in you will quiet doubt, stir you to act in love and lead to that peace which passes understanding even as the Spirit leads us into ever deeper truth about this Prince of Peace.

- Dr. Nick Tavani, Christmas Day 2011

* When I distributed this “musical mystery” passage to my family this Christmas, they struggled to solve it by studying the notes, singing through the lines and examining the music. The solution only became evident when the composer – Bach himself – was taken into account and the piece looked at in the context of his life work as the “Fifth Evangelist”. This might be analogous to the need for considering the observer in quantum physics. Or the intelligent humans designing origin of life experiments. Whether in theology, physics or biology (or any other “objective” discipline”, a person - or Person – is involved.

List of Dualities (retrieved from Wikopedia)
Science:
Physics
Complementarity
Dual resonance model
Duality (electricity and magnetism)
Englert–Greenberger duality relation
Holographic duality
Kramers–Wannier duality
Mirror symmetry
Montonen–Olive duality
Mysterious duality
String duality

Mathematics
In mathematics, a duality, generally speaking, translates concepts, theorems or mathematical structures
into other concepts, theorems or structures, in a one-to-one fashion, often (but not always) by means of aninvolution operation: if the dual of A is B, then the dual of B is A.

Alexander duality
Alvis–Curtis duality
Araki duality
S-duality
T-duality
U-duality
Beta-dual space
Coherent duality
De Groot dual
Dual abelian variety
Dual basis in a field extension
Dual bundle
Dual curve
Dual (category theory)
Dual graph
Dual group
Dual object
Dual pair
Dual polygon
Dual polyhedron
Dual problem
Dual representation
Dual q-Hahn polynomials
Dual q-Krawtchouk polynomials
Dual space
Dual topology
Dual wavelet
Duality (order theory)
Duality (projective geometry)
Duality theory for distributive lattices
Dualizing complex
Dualizing sheaf
Eckmann–Hilton duality
Esakia duality
Fenchel's duality theorem
Haag duality
Hodge dual
Jónsson–Tarski duality
Lagrange duality
Langlands dual
Lefschetz duality
Local Tate duality
Opposite category
Poincaré duality
Twisted Poincaré duality
Poitou–Tate duality
Pontryagin duality
S-duality (homotopy theory)
Schur–Weyl duality
Serre duality
Spanier–Whitehead duality
Stone's duality
Tannaka–Krein duality
Verdier duality

Philosophy
Dualism (philosophy of mind)

Engineering
Duality (electrical circuits)
Duality (mechanical engineering)

Examples Art

Bach’s Christmas Oratorio:
highly recommended listening for physical and spiritual content (yet another duality – that of body and soul).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3sBCuK1CIQ

Movie:
“Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, in its broadest sense, transposes the gospel narrative. Through three stories that together cover creation, fall and redemption — specifically via Jesus Christ as a didactic church scene suggests — the film ultimately states that humankind can only find hope and life in a reconciled relationship with creator God.Within the metanarrative, though, live countless themes and ideas which enhance and flesh out the greater story being told. The concept of suffering and the significance of family may be the most prominent of these elements.”

The doyen of death dies.

2011-06-03T21:03:00.003-04:00

The headline reads: "Jack Kevorkian Dead: Assisted Suicide Advocate Dies At Age 83"
Such a sad chapter in medical history. His "healthcare" was not "help" but homicide.

This comment caused one correspondent to comment, "Only if you view end of life decisions in a simplistic, black and white way. It isn't."

My reply:
Simplistic? Black and white? I don't think so. I consider life to be complex and colorful, comprehending decisions about death within that context.

The problem of euthanasia [eu (good) + thanatos (death)] is the problem of all ethics: what is good? That which one considers to be good gives definition to everything that one chooses to do. If good is simply what accords with one's own wishing, then the word "good" is meaningless. Good goes beyond what any one person wills to be so. So it is with suffering and so it is with death. Living for the greater good gives meaning to even the most grievous death.

My correspondent wrote:
"Simplistic, in that you sit in your world of theoretical ethics, translating Greek, and pronouncing all euthanasia evil no matter what. Only in a childish world of black and white is anything that clear cut and devoid of context. I am grateful that you nor anyone who thinks like you has any say over my life or the life of anyone I love, so that you can't condemn us to a horrific, meaningless death simply to serve some 'greater good' that you have no proof even exists."

My reply:
Uh ... I did not mention evil nor did condemnation come into my conversation. The greater good of which I write begins beyond the boundaries of whatever constitutes one's self. One does not make up one's own meaning - that would be nonsense. To serve some greater good is to acknowledge more than what one wills oneself. Any person other than oneself is proof enough that some greater good does exist.

My correspondent:
"You called euthanasia 'homicide,' which I took as something you would consider evil. What was your point in calling it 'homicide' if not to condemn his actions? Stop playing word games. You have determined that euthanasia, in every possible circumstance, is homicide since it is a purely selfish act only serving yourself. The universe does not lend itself to global moral pronouncements. The 'greater good' is not served in the same way in every circumstance. To claim so is to greatly simplify the complexity of life in this universe. Life is not a board game with rules written in the lid of the box, even if you label that lid 'scripture.' "

My reply:
I was questioning what the "good" in "good death" (euthanasia) means. I am not playing word games. I am asking questions.

My correspondent:
" 'Good' used as a relative term and not as an absolute can easily be applied to death. In asking the question in this context, you are, in fact, implying that euthanasia is not a good death, so your question seems somewhat rhetorical, which is why I didn't bother to answer it."

My reply:
What Kevorkian did was homicide, not suicide. My understanding of his method of operation leaves me with the opinion that there was not much good about what he was doing.

The word "euthanasia" is too often merely a euphemism for ending life in whatever manner one wills. The question of what is good is not really considered, but rather what is convenient or comfortable or cost-efficient.

The end of life must be considered in the context of life itself. What is a good life? This matters most for understanding what a good death may be. Since suffering is so much a concern when euthanasia is the subject of conversation, perhaps it would be helpful to consider how one is supposed to cope well with suffering in life so that one may be better able to cope with suffering in death. The question then is, "how is one to suffer?"

Trying to connect to www.familyradio.com

2011-05-21T23:52:00.002-04:00

Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.familyradio.com
Try reloading: www.familyradio.com

http://www.familyradio.com/

www.familyradio.com

Where is the promised parousia?

2011-05-21T13:19:00.001-04:00

Scoffers in their scoffing have come in these last days

- worldly people,

driven by deep distorted desire, divisive, devoid of the Spirit.

Jesus said

“You are not permitted to know the times or periods

that the Father has set by his own authority.

But you will receive power

when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,

and you will be my witnesses ...

to the farthest parts of the earth.”

After this,
he was lifted up while they were watching,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were still staring into the sky while he was going,
when suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them
and said,

"Men of Galilee,

why do you stand here looking up into the sky?

This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven

will come back …"

It seems many people are being caught up in this Camping craze (see what I did there - "rapture" means "caught up"). If not Raptured, people will find their phony faith ruptured.

In regard to Harold Camping's prediction of the Parousia (predicated on his piss-poor hermeneutical approach): it takes wisdom to critize without mocking. Come Sunday, my criticism shall turn to ridicule (for Camping's ridiculous hermeneutics are deserving of just that!), but for now I do not want to appear in agreement with those scoffers who are using this fiasco for the purpose of denigrating the promise of Christ's parousia.

More discussion on Rob Bell

2011-04-25T13:24:00.006-04:00

Time magazine article not worth reading, so don't waste your time.

Is Hell Dead?

www.time.com

Rogue pastor Rob Bell's argument about salvation and judgment has Evangelicals in a fury and a young generation rethinking Jesus ...

However, Rob Bell's book is worth reading. I recommend that you read the whole book to discover for yourself what the hype is all about.

Jeff
Pass - I have grasped his view since Velvet Elvis......not much has changed

Bonnie
My understanding is that Jesus does not change

Craig
Jeff, I have not read VELVET ELVIS, so I cannot dispute your opinion that "not much has changed." However, I did read LOVE WINS, and found myself thinking, "Rob Bell is trying to communicate a theological truth to his generation." One thing it seems "his generation" (whoever that is) seems to think is that the Gospel has not been presented in a way that emphasizes very well the overwhelming love of God. Word and action have not been congruent with one another in those who claim to be preaching the Gospel. God's love has been distorted in the process of delivering the message which was to tell of God's love. I am willing to give Rob Bell the benefit of the doubt regarding his Christian orthodoxy.

Jeff
Craig, having read much of Rob Bell, including interviews where he espouses his views, your willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his orthodoxy is somewhat misplaced. Bell takes a low view of Scripture and sees it as a "human product" rather than a product of "divine fiat" - his words He points to Brian McLaren's book "A New Kind of Christian" as being the sole factor in how he now views the Bible. Obviously I can't give you a full picture of McLaren's book in this comment, but I would recommend taking a look at it in order to better understand Bell's underpinnings. One reviewer put it this way and is pretty accurate in his assessment; "The message of McLarenism is pretty simple: God is love and wants everyone to be kind and inclusive and care for the poor and the environment… In McLarenism there is no original sin, no wrath, no hell, no creation-fall-redemption, no definite future, no second coming that I can see, no clear statement on the deity of Christ, no mention of vicarious substitution or God’s holiness or divine sovereignty, no ethical demands except as they relate to being kind to others, no God-offendedness, no doctrine of justification, no unchanging apostolic deposit of truth, no absolute submission to the word of God, nary a mention of faith and worship, no doctrine of regeneration, no evangelistic impulse to save the lost, and nothing about God’s passion for his glory." I agree that too often Christians are out front preaching what we are against rather than speaking the plain truth of the gospel and the love of God. However, Mr. Bell is not a voice calling us back to Biblical balance - but rather one that seeks to repackage and reshape it into a Postmodern and Syncretistic model.

Nick
Jeff's insights resonate with my own.

Bonnie
Mine too but I do take Craig's point to heart...new theologies scare me, when I know God's message does not change. I do agree that we often preach negatively about do's and dont's rather than starting with the love of God who saves me and causes me by His Holy Spirit to respond by wanting to change my behaviour to conform to His will and not my own.

Craig
As I said, my opinion is based mostly on my reading of LOVE WINS. Given my own high view of Scripture, I find what Jeff writes disturbing - if Bell is so influenced by Bruce McLaren, he is a young fool. However, this does not diminish the worth of Bell's book because he has written truely at least about one thing - being with God (the essence of Heaven) begins here and now in how we respond to the love of God in Christ. Do we love God? Do we love one another? If yes - heaven; if no; hell. All theology must form itself around the firm fact of God's love.

Bonnie
I did not think heaven was conditional for those who are saved..did I misunderstand you? You are such a fantastic writer and thinker.

Craig
Salvation simply means our destiny is not determined by OUR deeds but by what CHRIST did through the Cross. God delivers us from death to life, just as the children of Israel were delivered from slavery in Egypt to freedom of following Moses to the Promised Land. The question is - will we continue to follow until the end or will we fall away?

Must God force us to follow or are we free to fail? God can keep us from falling; are we willing to be kept from doing so? The controversy seems to be about the assurance of salvation - how is Hell a possibility if Heaven is a guarantee?

Bonnie
Heaven is not guaranteed for all..only those who want it and place their faith in Jesus..hell is certainly a possibility..non Christians always think I am arrogant to be assured of my salvation

Craig
Relationship with one another is both a blessing and a bother. The other person is always an "other." As soon as one resists "otherness" to insist on "sameness," one's insistence gets in the way of the Gospel message. We who follow Christ must co-operate with the Spirit in overcoming the distinctions between "us" and "them." However, it is only IN CHRIST that such distinctions are overcome - that is non-negotiable. Outside of Christ, any effort to overcome the distinction between "us" and "them" can only APPEAR to be working; such appearance may give a false sense of unity that is deceptive and deadly. We become satisfied with merely social communitas when we should be praying for spiritual koinonia. Humans yearn for intimacy with one another, but will find themselves estranged from one another without first yearning for intimacy with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Hoping to be in Heaven, one has to be in Christ. Outside of Christ is Hell.

Bonnie
I totally agree..how does that work itself out in families?

Craig
Families exemplify how self becomes related to other. Two become one (husband and wife) ... one bears another (mother and child) ... the other discovers the difference between oneself and another (maturing child with nurturing parents) ... others come to consider themselves as one family (siblings and parents and other relatives). The reality of self and other is significantly essential to human being.

It is interesting to consider this question of "self and other" while reading John 13-17. For example, Jesus promised to ask the Father to send "another Paraclete" so that His followers (now called "friends") can be one with God and one another. Jesus speaks to "each one" while including "all" who will believe. The whole philosophical dilemma of "the one and the many" is resolved in Christ.

Bonnie
... and then one has to allow their children to make their own choices and pray

Craig
http://adampowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/god-abounding-in-love-punishing-the-guilty/

A special session at this years Gospel Coalition conference convened in light of Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. The panel, moderated by Kevin DeYoung, included D. A. Carson, Tim Keller, Crawford Loritts, and Stephen Um. Below is a summarized transcript of their discussion. It is worth your time reading through.
Carson framed the discussion giving a brief and clarifying overview on universalism:
Be clear about definition of universalism, don’t muddle what it is.
Universalism is built out of several different assertions: a) everyone is savingly loved by God and is reconciled to God already; b) because of the wideness of God’s mercy, people of other religions will somehow find their way to heaven; c) initially, the only lost people are those who reject God’s love; d) despite their rejection of his love, these people are still loved by God.This set of beliefs invariably teaches other things that are often not articulated. It affects your view of atonement, impoverishes the love of God by disconnecting it from his holiness, and it assumes that Scripture always speaks the same way about God’s love.
Despite different claims to the contrary, universalism is a later development. It has never been accepted in confessional Christianity.
A few notes on biblical texts thought to defend and justify universalism:
2 Corinthians 5:19—“world” is not everyone without exception, but everyone without distinction.
Romans 5:18—“all” does not refer to the same locus of people. The broader context deals with two humanity, one in Adam and one in Christ. There is a contrast to these two different humanities.
John 12:32—“draw all people to himself,” in the context we see that Gentiles try to approach Jesus understands this as precipitated the cross. They do not come on the basis of past covenants, but on a new covenant rooted in the cross.
Revelation 21:25—”its gates will never be shut.” The symbolism of the gates open is not about whether people can get in day or night. Gates were shut for defense, but in the new heavens and new earth there is no more threat for violence.
Carson pastorally asserted that universalism’s handling of the atonement itself is deeply manipulative—even blasphemous. We must not talk flippantly about the cross of Christ, explaining that penal substitutionary atonement is not built on a proof text but is woven through the entire biblical narrative.
Panel Discussion (led by Kevin DeYoung)
To Keller — Is our response to this subject worth it?
Yes. It’s sort of like the bird in the ecosystem who if goes extinct throws off everything. Anything other than endless punishment lessens sin and the God who has been sinned against. If you take away the infinity of punishment, everything diminishes.
To Keller — There is one thread that says Bell is saying the same thing as C. S. Lewis. How do you respond?
Lewis was rebelling against the spirit of the age, which said that Hell is bad. His whole project was to tweak his contemporary scene and show that Hell and judgment make sense. It appears that Bell does just the opposite and acutally sympathizes with the spirit of the age.
To Carson — In John 10:16, does the phrase “many sheep are not of this fold” refer to other religions?
Although there are more recent readings that try to take it this way, the context is clear that “fold” refers to the Jewish people. “Not of the this fold” refers to Gentiles who are outside of the old covenant. It is about becoming one new people, Jew and Gentiles, as the church.
To Carson — What do you think this reemergence of universalism may or may not signify about underlying shifts in Christianity in North America?
This is not new. The early twentieth century and the rise of liberalism started the project of trying to defend Christianity by jettisoning everything the age considers unreasonable.
Evangelicalism is so broad and diverse, and also thinner. The newer generation is making choices: many who want to be more acceptable to this age and others who are embracing the gospel, wanting it to be heard as it is. There is a big division taking place and Bell’s book is a marker to this.
To Um — Respond to Bell’s statement that the position saying only a certain number will be saved is “misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts Jesus’ message of love.”
There are several assumptions that need to be addressed. One assumption is that God is obliged to show favor to a sinful humanity. We should remember that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anything else. Rejecting Hell has serious implications for what we think about Jesus, undermining his entire ministry. I understand the heart: no one delights in seeing people in eternal conscious torment.
To Loritts — What would you say to someone who has cut their teeth on Bell? They are not committed to this view, but are sympathetic to it.
We all need to be careful when we talk about these things not to overcorrect. We are to love unbelievers and we are to preach the love of God. I would encourage this person, not only to pursue right exegesis on this issue, but to the study of the nature of God altogether. Look at the wholeness of who God is. Secondly, look at how we really view Scripture. Thirdly, we need to understand that God does not need a PR agent or marketing firm. The whole idea of wanting to have a Jesus who the world can embrace is wrong.
DeYoung — ”God does not need a publicist, he calls preachers.”
Teachers will be judged more strictly(James 3:1). Questions are one thing, let’s talk about them all. Allow people to ask them, ask them yourself. But we must stay in the realm of mystery. If you are a teacher, at some point you need to let clarity be king.
To Keller — In light of your commitment to the gospel, how did Bell’s book make you feel?
The first thing that disappointed me was not the content so much as the attitude. There is an immediate ridicule of apparent “close-minded” people. A conversation about conflict cannot begin with ridicule.
We should not pit the doctrines of God against one another. At the cross, the love and holiness of God both win.
To Carson — What advice can you give about receiving criticism? Does disagreeing immediately make you the bad guy? Where does the younger generation need tweaking here?
First, I worry about ministries that focus just on correcting everyone. What I hope to do in all my writing is to promote the truth and proclaim it positively. When we correct, we do it because we think that the glory of God is being diminished.
Part of a positive faithfulness to proclaiming the truth involves refutation. Our articulation of right doctrine also involves saying what it is not. And all our correction should be done thoughtfully and humbly.
Concluding words:
Um asserted that universalism is unhelpful for sinners in need of atonement. Universalism subverts the work of Jesus on the cross. This whole situation is a wonderful opportunity for correction, for us to understand the finished work of Christ.
Loritts encouraged those considering universalism to write down all the issues their struggling with and go to the word of God. We should ask the Spirit to illumine our minds. We have listened to too many other voice. Go to the source.
Keller agreed with with Loritts and DeYoung and closed in prayer.

A thread of discussion with MARROW & friends concerning Rob Bell's book, LOVE WINS

2011-04-25T12:00:00.009-04:00

Alright. Let's stop quoting what others have to say about Rob Bell; everyone has their own agenda for writing as they do. What do YOU say? How do YOU read it? READ THE BOOK and comment on what is written therein given the context of THE WHOLE BOOK. Picking and choosing just the provocative parts is to take intellectual cheapshots. The thing that gets me upset is that just quoting articles can merely be provocative without being productive. I really wonder how many of Bell's critics have real relationships with others different from themselves, others who do not share their worldview, others who challenge how they think.

Let me be very clear - I am not a Rob Bell fan and will agree that his way of communicating sure does appear to contradict traditional evangelicalism, even going so far as to seem unorthodox concerning Biblical Christianity itself. BUT READ THE BOOK and see for yourself how he gets it right. Then you can criticize where he goes wrong in what he writes. THAT would be worth a MARROW discussion, rather than these second-hand musings by writers with who-knows-what agendas. I will be glad to submit everything I have written concerning the Rob Bell book, LOVE WINS, to MARROW for criticism. BUT AT LEAST I HAVE READ THE BOOK!

The following has a collection of my comments excerpted from just one thread of discussion on FACEBOOK:

I was not so sure I wanted to spend my time on Rob Bell, mostly because I did not like the hipper than thou vibes I got from the products put out by him. A friend, however, asked me to join a group of others to take a look at his book, LOVE WINS, and participate in a theological discussion. After reading the his book, I thought that perhaps Rob Bell was trying to emphasize that God's love is boundless and that it is us who set boundary markers which God Himself proves to be graciously willing to move beyond. We have become too much conformed to this world and our minds have thus failed to become renewed by transformative cooperation with the Holy Spirit and others in the Body of Christ. We forget that who gets to heaven is God's call rather than ours. We are to represent God's love, yet it is a wonder that any "glimpse" of the Kingdom can be seen in our dysfunctional relationships with others. This makes Heaven Hellish.

There is a great quote on p182: “Let's be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer. This is crucial for our peace …” Bell, decrying “the gospel of the goats” that shrivels one's imagination, goes on to write, “We shape our God, and then our God shapes us. A distorted understanding of God, clung to with white knuckles and fierce determination, can leave a person outside the party, mad about a goat that was never gotten, without the thriving life Jesus insists is right here, all around us, all the time.” This brings to mind the concept of “God-image,” that way we imagine God to be that drives our theology.

God has willed that we be His Body, presenting His Loving Truth to the world. We have at our disposal for this divine representation our own human bodies as the means we manage to communicate with others, be it verbally or otherwise. Through this bodily communication we create relationships, hoping we are cooperating with the Holy Spirit in doing so, depending on God's intervening grace to compensate for our shortcomings. By the revealed Word of God do we calibrate our communicative skills. God's revelation and our communication act in collaboration to make God present to others.

Each of us is accountable for the relationships that we create in living with others. Even children are held accountable according to their maturity – if Suzy slaps Sammy, then Suzy's mommy holds Suzy accountable for that slap, teaching Suzy in the process about right relationship so to mitigate the possible consequences of the slap. One would hope that Suzy's mommy is wise enough to be loving in her correction (choosing not, for example, to immediately behead Suzy for her transgression). Thus does Suzy learn how humans are to live in right relationship with one another and by extension, with God.

One of the most compelling things in Bell's book is on on p169-70: "Hell is being at the party. That's what makes it so hellish. It's not an image of separation, but one of integration." God that “only He knows the heart of a person.” His knowledge is absolute and His judgment is sure – if the desire of one's heart is to be with God, then God will act to make it so. However, if one desires otherwise, how does God to act to redirect one's wayward desire? God woos us with the love He manifests in Christ Jesus. Our response to His wooing determines whether our destination will be Heaven or Hell. What seems to disturb a number of us is that God is so promiscuous in His wooing – Rob Bell seems to be making this point in chapter 6. God really wants everyone to respond, to want Him as much as He wants us.

There is no too much with God. “The Spirit is given without measure” according to Acts (I think). We cannot comprehend how much God loves us and what He is willing to do to win our hearts to Him. I do not mean, in using “promiscuous,” to highlight the sexual wantonness associated with promiscuity, but rather the non-selectiveness in regard to any single class or person: indiscriminate – not marked by fine distinctions. The use is intended to be positive, not negative; consider God as the one who chooses not to say “No!” (cue music from the musical OKLAHOMA! “I’m just the God who won't say no ...”) According to 2 Corinthans 1:19-20 – “For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, ... was not yes and no, but is yes in Him. For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.”

In Acts 15;10 we read: “He made no distinction between us and them.” It is we who are the ones who make that distinction, seemingly so ready to divide "us" from "them." We are the ones who say, “No!” We rashly judge others without first wisely considering how God judges us with justice AND mercy. We write people off using our own version of “the book of deeds” (see Revelation 20:11-15) without ever referring to the hope proffered by the “Book of Life.” Would that we rather imitate Christ Jesus in how He confronted the woman caught in adultery (John 8:10-11) – Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” Consider Romans 8:1 – “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Let that be the Gospel we preach, holding out the hope of Heaven rather than hollering about the horror of Hell.

Yet another thread of discussion follows (initiated by my brother on his FACEBOOK page):Nick

‎"And it is by His authority and His Word I choose to stake my life; not that of Rob Bell, who in the end -- despite undoubtedly earning earthly wealth and fame for doing so -- has accomplished nothing more than adding the latest chapter to the sorry text of humanism.."

Rob Bell goes off the deep end (OneNewsNow.com)

www.onenewsnow.com

A few years ago I overheard some friends talking about a new minister named Rob Bell. They were watching some of his videos online and when I asked what they were doing, they told me...before following it up with, "But we don't think you'd probably care for him too much."

Carol
We have been using the videos to spark discussions, and were really disappointed he went universalist.

Jeff
He didn't go Universalist recently.

Chris
According to Rob Bell's theology, Good Friday and Easter are meaningless. To take a universalist position includes many implications that Bell and his type do not come out and state (in fact they will state the opposite) but their position and style insinuate. For example, if there is an opportunity for salvation outside of this life, then what is the point of the Cross and Resurrection? Bell's theology has all of the hallmarks of a false teacher, that being the eventual denial of the Cross. Even Satan quoted scripture in a manipulative manner when he tempted Jesus in the desert. Bell's theology and approach to this subject are exactly like Satan's. It is meant to create doubt about the very essence of our faith, which is the Cross and Resurrection. I could write a book about this, so I better stop.

Hebrews 9:26-27

Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment...

Craig
Have any of you actually read Rob Bell's book? I am not trying be an apologist for Bell, but I do think that he would deny your accusations against his orthodoxy. I've commented elsewhere about this, but let me repeat the gist of what I wrote reflecting on what I think Bell intended: The Gospel is good news for the living and our presentation of the Gospel too often dwells on death rather than life (especially our triumphalist "us" vs. "them" attitude), making God's love look like doom rather than delight. The way we've made the Gospel sound too often sounds something like this: "God loves you. Go to Hell."

The death of Christ on the Cross opened the way for all of us to live with Him in Resurrection power. The just God is merciful and always ready to forgive NOW (the only time we have). If we do not communicate that overwhelming love, we are not speaking/living the truth. We must be wise in what we say and do in the world lest our our words and actions contradict the way God's Spirit chooses to work among us through His Word.

Heaven is the realm of God - none of us have a say in how He reigns in His own realm. However, we have the priviledge, because of the Cross of Christ, to interceed on behalf of others, praying for their salvation. How do we spend our time instead? Howling for their condemnation! Hmmm ... rather than imitating the Advocate we have in Heaven, it appears that we are emulating the Accuser in Hell, doing the work of Satan rather letting the Spirit work through us to love others as Christ loved us.

Evangelicals who act as though the verdict is theirs to pronounce should rather identify themselves as dysangelical, for it is not good news but bad. Only God in Christ gets to make the Last Judgment on anyone!

Chris
This is from TIME.

"When we get to what happens when we die, we don't have any video footage," says Bell. "So let's at least be honest that we are speculating, because we are." He is quick to note, though, that his own speculation, while unconventional, is not unprecedented. "At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church," Bell writes, "have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html#ixzz1KI2JmliH

Is Hell forever? Are we only to speak of parts of the Bible? Are you suggesting you agree that since we have no videotape that we can't tell for sure if "Love Wins" after death, and therefore it is possible to go to Heaven outside of believing in Jesus in this life? I also completely disagree with your suggestions that to call out false teaching for what it is, means that those people are judgmental finger wagging condemnation spewing emulators of Satan. No one that I am aware of in this conversation is passing judgment (meaning heaven and hell) on anyone. That judgment is entrusted to Jesus. But that judgment does exist. Hell does exist. To just "ask questions" and create doubt about subjects that the Bible clearly addresses, creates issues of credibility for the entire Bible, including Christ on the Cross. The issue here is not "getting" to pass judgment and spew fire and brimstone, but the veracity and infallibility of the Word.

Jeff
Personally, I am trying to live out Paul's admonition to Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16 where he says,

"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."

because I believe we are living in the times Paul talks about in 1 Tim 4:3,4. It is not a lack of love to point out false teaching - we are instructed to do so, to confront, correct it, and hopefully win that person back to the truth as Paul did Peter.

Chris
Agree completely with Jeff. However we must always be careful to be not to be come the Church in Ephesus as addressed here (Craig, I think this is what you are intending to address, those that are only making various judgment but are without love)

Revelation 2:

2 I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

Sam
This statement by Bell speaks volumes:

I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian. Something new is in the air.

God's definition of a Christian has not changed since Christ first said "“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." Luke 9:23 Of course when the spirit of antichrist that envelopes the earth at the end of the age is present, as now is upon us, the definition changes not because God changed it but because those not led by the Holy Spirit will gladly listen to doctrines of devils. Also if Ron is right, Christ's warnings about plucking eyes out and cutting off limbs to avoid Hell Fire were more than extreme!

Nick
We take heart attacks more seriously than Hell. Can you imagine stopping traffic to perform spiritual CPR?

Okay, Mr. Bell. I take it you are married? Imagine presenting your proposal of marriage to your future wife the way you present Jesus' proposal of eternal life to others?

Jeff
John 3:17 is just as true as John 3:16 and it is not unloving to share both of these truths.

Craig
Jeff informed me, by way of comment on my own FACEBOOK wall, that Rob Bell is deeply influenced by Bruce McLaren's "emergent" approach to theology and hermeneutics. This I find troubling as that approach, it seems to me, so readily accepts worldly assumptions about Scripture and the Church which I believe are unacceptable. This is why I do not mean to defend Rob Bell; however, I do want to defend the title of his book, LOVE WINS, because it is true. The question to be discussed is, "How is it true that LOVE WINS?" Reading through the whole book is something everyone on this thread should do - not just to pick out the parts where Bell is wrong, but to benefit from the many places in which what Bell writes gets it right.

"Is Hell forever?"
How do you read it? I've been taught to understand Hell as a place of eternal damnation, of everlasting punishment, of being cast out of the presence of God forever. I have yet to come to a full understanding of what this means.

"Are we only to speak of parts of the Bible?"
The problem is that we can ONLY speak of parts of the Bible. Biblical theology [according to what I learned at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary] is contained within the framework of Christ, Canon, and Community; much lies within that frame that no human system of thought can comprehend (thus the challenge of Systematic Theology).

"Are you suggesting you agree that since we have no videotape that we can't tell for sure if 'Love Wins' after death, and therefore it is possible to go to Heaven outside of believing in Jesus in this life?"
I am not suggesting that I agree for I think this is a stupid way to argue. I am suggesting that we need to be more careful in communicating what is meant by "going to Heaven" and by "believing in Jesus" and other religious phrases that mean nothing to many who are just confused about what Scripture actually has to teach. The problem is that communication is just what we are not doing - if it was, then that communication would create relationships in which further communication can take place as we interact with one another. Rather than communicating, we often are merely talking past one another, reporting rather than responding, trying to win an argument rather than hoping to find agreement.

We are called to live at peace with all people, if possible. Without the Spirit of Truth leading us, such peace is impossible. While we are in the world, let us love those interacting in the world with us, creating right relationships through Christlike communication, forming friendships when enmity was formerly expected. Jesus did it and we are to follow his example.

Rick
I take it that some of you think the teaching of the good Mr. Bell cannot be safely ignored? I have no interest in reading his book or entertaining the idea of no Heaven or Hell anymore than entertaining the idea of no Resurrection. Those things are quite real for me - if a man's Faith means anything. Some will say this makes me closed-minded, too dogmatic. But certain things in our Faith are settled - quite, and we cannot go back without undoing everything. It seems oxymoronic but it is not - dogma is most freeing.

Nick
Bell poses absolutely no threat to my beliefs so I am with Rick on that score.
My concern is his influence especially upon Christians within the church - that so many would even be following him to begin with, let alone about this book's topic, astounds me! They barely spend time studying their own copy of God's Word let alone the amazing discoveries in God's world supporting it. It is this popular aspect that leads me to suspect Bell as much as anything he says. They should first engage the great questions before tackling some transient upstart trying to repackage old heresies settled long long ago.

Sam ‎
"Love Wins" only if the "Love" we are talking about is the Love of Jesus! The Love 'of money,' the love of 'unrighteousness,' the love of fame and loving the list of bad things enumerated in Galatians 5:19-21 Will NOT win! On the other hand 2 Peter 1:5-11 gives a list that when done “Love Wins” always as 2 Peter 1:10(NLT) assures “Do these things, and you will never fall away.”

Chris
I do wonder if the supporters of Bell or the "open minded" readers would read a book called "Judgment Wins." It seems to me the real issue at hand here is the struggle of many to reconcile the many attributes of Jesus; the primary attributes in question being his love versus his sovereign nature and just judgment. You could absolutely write a book exactly like Bell's and inverse the premise. Instead of arguing how Love Wins, and questioning how God "flips a switch," at death and becomes harsh and unloving, why not make the argument that judgment wins, manipulating scripture through selective admission, and making the case that love fails, and judgment wins? I am pretty sure the people complaining about others crying heresy, would freak out.

My point is that to embrace one part of Jesus' nature and to claim Biblical clarity about it, that being love, and then to question another part of his nature, that being just and sovereign, and then state Biblical confusion, is an inconsistent, prideful, and dishonest approach. The honest approach would be a confession of attempting to define Jesus to a point that we are comfortable, and not receiving who He fully is. This is not easy and is a constant challenge. It ultimately involves the complete submission of all we are to Him. The prideful approach is something to humbly repent of. So many people think that the God of OT (think Joshua) is totally different than Jesus, and therefore can’t receive Him. Once we understand God’s just nature, and the depth of our depravity, it in turn gives so much more depth to our understanding of His love. The apostles and Jesus were crystal clear that rejection of Jesus, was to choose his wrath. Jesus spared me the wrath I was due as I was dead in my sins, the wrath he himself will carry out by his judgment.

I would point you all to what Paul writes in Romans 9:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

All of us in our pride and sin do not enjoy ideas like correction, rebuke, and repentance for us, and the judgment of those we have loved or love, but have rejected Jesus. It is a heartbreaking thing to consider a loved one is in Hell. But I would challenge you to embrace this aspect of God as a revealing component of HIS LOVE and greatness. I am just now learning to DESIRE His correction and rebuke. I am just now getting to a point where I am truly open to the call of repentance, and thank the Holy Spirit for conviction. That is just another way he shows his love for me. As for Hell, and everlasting punishment of those that reject Jesus, they are without excuse. We must be reverent in our questioning. I would point all of you to read God’s response to Job.

The root of this issue is not Rob Bell, and it is not even his false teaching, it is people choosing the Woodstock Jesus, instead of the Biblical Jesus. Jesus’ love is deeper than the deepest sea, and His judgment is a part of that love. Because his ways are higher and better than ours, and we struggle with understanding His nature, do we then have the right to demand an explanation from Him or else we will pick and choose what attributes He will posses in our understanding? Peter thought he understood better than Jesus and even rebuked him. Anyone remember what Jesus said to him?

Love to all, and Happy Easter. Although we disagree on some things, we all agree on Jesus is Alive!

Craig
TRYING to repackage old heresies? That's rough, Nick. To call a teaching heretical is one thing, but to attribute heretical intent to the teacher is another thing altogether. This crosses the line. It is frustrating, I agree, that Bell will not make an explicit statement about Hell; for example, the following is typical of how Bell writes:

Will everybody be saved,
or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?

Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them ore answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires.

Hmmmm .... Such irresolution is bad hermeneutics, but is it heresy?

As for me (who some of you may fear is in danger of heresy), let me confess here my own position:
I do not delight in the dangers of Hell but the promise of Heaven. Does God who is Holy want us unholy humans with Him? Yes (amazing grace!), which is why the Gospel proclaims that God's love became Incarnate in Christ Jesus to make friends with those who were otherwise His enemies. Do we want to be with God? That question is significant because I think it determines how we respond to the wooing of God's Spirit - hard-heartedness will pave our way to Hell. If the desire of my heart is to be with God, than that desire will be fulfilled as the Spirit works in me to will and to do God's good pleasure - beginning with repentance at the foot of the Cross and continuing in obedience as I follow the way of Christ Jesus. Intersecting my path will be many others to whom I am called to communicate the good news that there is one true way to life, inviting them to go along that way with me. In this living with others I learn what God's love is all about and others can learn how God is love. The relationships I create with others (the One Other who is God in Christ and the many others with whom I interact) take place as a performance to be reviewed by God as recorded in the Book of Rememberance, that Book which shall be opened on the Last Day when our eternal destiny will be justly determined. If my name is written in that Book of Life, than eternal life in the glorious Presence of God is mine; if not (my name having been blotted out), then I am doomed to death in Hell, the place for all that is unholy. Heaven holds a place only for the holiness.

Jeff
Has anyone ever been "intentionally" heretical? Just wondering.......

I will say, Craig, that Bell does lean on Origen a great deal to give historical foundation to his views - but I don't think genus being intentionally heretical - it's just a natural byproduct if his view of Scripture

Bob
Great thread of discussion...it is so simple for me. I follow Jesus...I follow the One who went into hell and who spoke His infallible words concerning hell. That's it, period. We need to pray for those who have wondered away....Happy Easter....Jesus Is Indeed Alive!

By the way, I wrote a personal letter to Rob Bell and have yet to hear back from him.

Craig
Bob is doing it right! I pray that your letter will provoke a personal response from Rob Bell - such considerate communication is much more Christ-like than the gossipy sniping to which many others have reverted in "discussing" Bell's admittedly controversial book. Without communication, community is impossible. The Body of Christ must be committed to communicating the love of Christ to one another lest we devolve into divisive factions of "us" and "them."

Jeff
Craig - I am not sure I understand your underlying point at all. It is clear to me that you don't agree with Bell and are trying to relate his thoughts to how you see the Christian walk. I understand your concern that we not separate ourselves from non-believers and make it, at best, an adversarial relationship. However, when it comes to standing against false teachers who claim to be of the faith - we have no choice but to oppose them. In fact, 1 John 2:19 puts it exactly in an us versus them context. Love is not simply an absence of conflict, but it is iron sharpening iron in love. When it comes to sharing the gospel - it is not an absence of the concept of God as love that keep many from yielding their lives to Christ. It is because they have no concept that they are a slave to sin and are in need of a Savior who can free them from eternal death. All through the New Testament we see the call to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Peter's cry at the day of Pentecost when he said, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation" still resonates today - but so many preachers have abandoned this truth. We would never say to someone like Peter said to Simon the Sorcerer - "For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." You can read the web sites of New Age churches, black magic groups, cults, and many others and see that they believe God is love. What they don't believe is in the reality of sin and that God's love can only be entered into through the cross of Christ (which I know you believe). There is indeed an "us" and a "them". We are alive - solely through his grace and mercy. Those who have not surrendered to his grace remain objects of his wrath - it is our duty to Christ to tell them how to escape this wrath isn't it? I don't mean in a way that makes it seem we are superior - Ephesians 2 makes it clear we have nothing about which to boast. So.....all that to say that I am confused about your underlying point.

Nick
Gossipy sniping?! As a physician I feel obliged to warn my patients if they are buying somebody's snakeoil cure for or misdiagnosis of their dread disease. How much more then do I feel the urge to call 'em like I see 'em in matters spiritual. And I seriously doubt Mr Bell would agree with your view, which you so well expressed. In fact, that is the very message he is trying to wriggle away from.

Craig
The nut to be cracked in Bell's argument about Hell is his understanding of the Hebrew word "olam" (found on pp. 92-93 of LOVE WINS) :

But "forever" is not really a category the biblical writers used.

The closest the Hebrew writers come to a word for "forever" is the word olam. ... It's a versatile, pliable word, in most occurrences referring to a particular period of time.

So when we read "eternal punishment," it's important that we don't read categories and concepts into a phrase that aren't there. Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think of forever. Jesus may be talking about something else, which has all sorts of implications for our understandings of what happens after we die ...

To summarize, then, we need a loaded, volatile, adequately violent, dramatic, serious word to describe when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us. We need a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God's world God's way.

And for that, the word "hell" works quite well. Let's keep it.

Jeff
Well put - hard to do thoroughly with Bell though because, as you pointed out, ge exhibits a certain slipperiness to some of his positions - a trait of some postmodern theologians.

Craig
It may be slanderous gossip to speak of Bell as a heretic if it is merely our misunderstanding that provokes such an accusation. Consider the Latin theologians misunderstanding of how Greek theologians used the word "prosopon" - the Son is merely a "mask" of God rather than a "person" at one with God - this misunderstanding leading to charges of "Heresy!" Rather than resorting to calling another person, who confesses to be a Christian, a "heretic," would it not be more fruitful to pinpoint where the teaching seems to differ, then continue the conversation from that point?

As for what I mean about "us" and "them" - it is imperative that we remember that all humanity is "us" (unless you are hyper-calvinist and believe radically in an elect "us" that are the chosen sheep distinct from a cursed "them" who are goats unworthy of inclusion in God's fold). All of "us" are born into the world that God loved so much. Those in heaven are "they" who can look on the face of God and live. The Word became flesh to recreate "us" in order to join "them" in being present with God. We then live as both "us" and "them" in the here and now, the kingdom already-not-yet come, in the world yet not of it. Because of the work of the Spirit through Christ Jesus, God makes no distinction between "us" and "them" as He is willing to pour out His Spirit on ALL flesh!

Nick
God prepared a place for Lucifer and his fallen rebel angels and it here to which all reference to Hell and those who choose to reject Christ must ultimately refer. Hiding behind post-modern labels doesn't work as real scholarship nor for common(sense) people. Besides, I think Bell is reacting against a strawman (the kind of preaching he despises faded from the scene years ago, for instance - which why a lot of his audience may be hearing about Hell for the first time - other than as a cusrew word

Craig
Strawman? The vitriol being spewed out by "brethren" such as the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church (almost a parody of itself) can be readily found in many other places, even in discussions regarding Bell's book. Let's not fall into that sort of foolishness (I confess that I have been foolish like this myself with my overuse of the word "hate" and with my intensity of expression when describing that which displeases me).

Consider 1John 2:9-11

The one who says he is in the light but still hates his fellow Christian is still in the darkness. The one who loves his fellow Christian resides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his fellow Christian is in the darkness, walks in the darkness,and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

As for "the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels" - let's look more closely at that Scripture (Matthew 25:31- 46):

Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’
Then he will answer them,‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The accursed are those who do not DO what the Lord wills to be done. Reading Bell's book, one is continually challenged to consider this very thing.

The question, of course, is whether the reader is led to realize that it is only what Christ has done that justifies us before God, that Christ alone is our righteousness, that we are dead without His resurrection power to give us life. Bell would not deny the crucial position of Christ in saving us, but he seems to want to expand our understanding of Christ in such a way as to make Him less than unique. Consider this passage from the book,

As obvious as it is, then, Jesus is bigger than any one religion.

He didn't come to start a new religion, and he continually disrupted whatever conventions or systems or establishments that existed in his day. He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain and name him, especially the one called "Christianity."

Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody. ...

Jesus is supracultural. He is present within all cultures, and yet outside all cultures. He is for all people, and yet he refuses to be co-opted or owned by any one culture.

That includes any Christian culture. Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system. We can point to him, name him, follow him, discuss him, honor him, and believe in him - but we cannot claim him to be ours any more than he's anyone else's.

Bell writes more, but this gives you the idea. I am somewhat sympathetic to what Bell has written here, but I believe Bell is mistaken if he is dismissing the significance of culture in comprehending Christ.

Culture is created from how humans communicate with one another, the product of cultivated human relationships over time. The Spirit of Christ intervenes at a certain time in the process of creating culture, and from that time begins to transform that culture being created. Christians, led by the Spirit, are called to be agents of cultural change. How can we know that the culture being created conforms to the character of Christ? It is by the Word of God found in Scripture. Thus is one's hermeneutical approach to Scripture so important, for without the wisdom of God's word, we will create a crooked culture that distorts the image of Christ.

Nick
Hey, Bell made it into the Easter sermon.
Wonder how many other mentions he got today.

Christ is truly Risen - FANTASTIC!

2011-04-25T11:23:00.005-04:00

In his guest editorial, "An Easter Meditation" at An Easter Meditation: A Guest Editorial
www.faithandaction.org, Nick Olsen writes:

Generally speaking, theological conservatives understand the necessity of boundaries because they understand man’s propensity to make a mess of things. And they emphasize what Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection accomplishes for the individual’s soul because they understand the extent to which he or she is lost, and, thus, incapable of saving his or her self.

Generally speaking, theological liberals emphasize a different kind of grace. Taking Christ’s life as a model, they seek to love others by providing for the lowliest and becoming low with them. They see the beauty in creation, and desire to preserve it with care. In other words, they see momentary glimpses of the New Earth here on this broken one, and wish to be agents of grace and reconciliation here and now – in preparation for and in anticipation of that New Earth.

Olsen goes on to quote Timothy Keller's comment about "secondary belief" as argued by J.R.R. Tolkien:

... one compelling argument that J. R. R. Tolkien used to lead C. S. Lewis to faith in Christ. It had to do with Tolkien’s notion of “secondary belief.” When a story that is fictional and yet is so compelling and well told that it generates the feelings in us as if it were true, it is producing secondary belief. In other words, stories about victory, sacrificial love, escaping death, and the like are myths that speak to deep human longings. And, thus, Tolkien believed that these secondary stories which speak to something in us all actually point to a primary story. God’s narrative of Creation, Fall, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Redemption, and Glorification is the actual underlying reality that brings about our greatest stories.

My friend, Randy O'Bannon, reminded me that

Tolkien helped Lewis recognize the the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as "true myth" -- a real event with meanings/implicationis/impact on many levels beyond just the surface happenings (yet in which the "surface events" were still essential and real.

My response in consideration of Randy's reminder set me thinking about this. What follows is the fruit of that consideration. Tolkien's notion about "true myth" is explained well by Joseph Pearce at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0107.html:

Myths, Lewis told Tolkien, were "lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."

"No," Tolkien replied. "They are not lies." Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, Tolkien argued, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil.

"In expounding this belief in the inherent truth of mythology," wrote Tolkien's biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, "Tolkien had laid bare the center of his philosophy as a writer, the creed that is at the heart of The Silmarillion." It is also the creed at the heart of all his other work. His short novel, Tree and Leaf, is essentially an allegory on the concept of true myth, and his poem, "Mythopoeia," is an exposition in verse of the same concept.

Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Such a revelation changed Lewis' whole conception of Christianity, precipitating his conversion.

As for "secondary belief," this is how it is explained at http://www.festivalintheshire.com/journal5hts/5tolkienprofessor.html :

Tolkien was dissatisfied with some of the vocabulary that people often use to talk about both the writing and the reading of stories. The common term used to describe a reader’s engagement with a story, for instance, is “willing suspension of disbelief.” This concept suggests that when we read a story, we are aware of the unreality of what we read, but that we make the conscious choice to set that recognition aside and go along with the story. Tolkien thought this was a very insufficient description of the experience of reading a good story. If we are consciously suppressing skepticism when we read, Tolkien asserts, then the story has plainly failed to draw us in: “The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed”.

What really happens, Tolkien explains, is that a good story-teller “makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world”. A good story draws us imaginatively out of the Primary World, the “real” world that surrounds us, and into its own Secondary world, enabling us to invest in it. Tolkien calls this investment “secondary belief.” Willing suspension of disbelief is simply the means by which we tolerate a poor performance; a successful story-teller will usher us into the world of the story. Such a story-teller, the maker of a Secondary world, Tolkien calls a sub-creator.

The writer of the article goes on:

Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and clearer is the reason, the better the fantasy will it make.

Not only is fantasy not in conflict with reality, Tolkien insists, but it is dependent upon it: “For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it”. If you are willing to let go of the dogmatic insistence on realism, you will find that your relationship with reality is not weakened, but enriched. You will be enabled to be Nature’s “lover, and not her slave”).

The article concludes as follows:

Fantasy and fairy-stories can give of that higher Truth. This is Consolation, specifically the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Tolkien could not find a word that expressed this idea of the happy ending which is the exact opposite of Tragedy, so he invented one: eucatastrophe. This “good catastrophe” is “the sudden joyous ‘turn,’” at the end of a fairy tale, a “sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur”. A eucatastrophe is not “fugitive” or “escapist,” for it does not “deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure.” Rather, a eucatastrophe denies “the universal final defeat,” giving to readers “a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief”. If it opens for readers a window into Truth, Fanstasy is genuinely “derived from Reality” in a way which may be transformative for writer and reader alike, for it is an “echo of evangelium,” the good news.

These final contemplations lead Tolkien, in his Epilogue, to one of the most open discussions of his Christian beliefs that that he undertook in any of his published writings. The Christian Story is, in a sense, a fairy-story, a Fantasy story which points perfectly to that higher Reality and which, through the Primary Art of the Creator, is embodied in the Primary World itself. In the Gospel, according to Tolkien’s famous words to C.S. Lewis, Myth became Fact.

Tolkien’s emphasis in the Epilogue is not just a declaration of his Christian beliefs, but an explanation of the final significance that he believes sub-creation and Fantasy may have. Tolkien suggests that “God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature”, giving the final affirmation to the sub-creating impulse. Since “Redeemed Man is still man,” then “story, fantasy, still go on”. In the end, the Fantasy of human sub-creators, Tolkien hints, may through God’s grace be made actually to assist in the “multiple enrichment of creation”.

Interesting quote:

Fantasy literature is human exploration and creativity pushed to their literary limits. It is true that good works of fantasy create worlds “as rigid as realism,” but it is equally true that those good works grant possibility to the impossible. Fantasy speaks to the human desire for more than the empirical world of the familiar ...

This quote is taken from an article exploring Peter Beagle's THE LAST UNICORN; http://www.csustan.edu/honors/documents/journals/elements/Kamp.pdf

The following is excerpted from Tolkien's own essay "On Fairy Stories" (the whole of which may be read on-line at http://www.pathguy.com/ofs.htm). I found especially interesting what Tolkien wrote about Drama:

Fantasy, of course, starts out with an advantage: arresting strangeness. But that advantage has been turned against it, and has contributed to its disrepute. Many people dislike being “arrested.” They dislike any meddling with the Primary World, or such small glimpses of it as are familiar to them. They, therefore, stupidly and even maliciously confound Fantasy with Dreaming, in which there is no Art; and with mental disorders, in which there is not even control: with delusion and hallucination.

But the error or malice, engendered by disquiet and consequent dislike, is not the only cause of this confusion. Fantasy has also an essential drawback: it is difficult to achieve. Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative; but at any rate it is found in practice that “the inner consistency of reality” is more difficult to produce, the more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary World. It is easier to produce this kind of “reality” with more “sober” material. Fantasy thus, too often, remains undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely “fanciful.” Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough—though it may already be a more potent thing than many a “thumbnail sketch” or “transcript of life” that receives literary praise.

To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode.

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or “imagination” that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy. This is, I think, well illustrated by the failure of the bastard form, pantomime. The nearer it is to “dramatized fairy-story” the worse it is. It is only tolerable when the plot and its fantasy are reduced to a mere vestigiary framework for farce, and no “belief” of any kind in any part of the performance is required or expected of anybody. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the producers of drama have to, or try to, work with mechanism to represent either Fantasy or Magic. I once saw a so-called “children's pantomime,” the straight story of Puss-in-Boots, with even the metamorphosis of the ogre into a mouse. Had this been mechanically successful it would either have terrified the spectators or else have been just a turn of high-class conjuring. As it was, though done with some ingenuity of lighting, disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered.

In Macbeth, when it is read, I find the witches tolerable: they have a narrative function and some hint of dark significance; though they are vulgarized, poor things of their kind. They are almost intolerable in the play. They would be quite intolerable, if I were not fortified by some memory of them as they are in the story as read. I am told that I should feel differently if I had the mind of the period, with its witch-hunts and witch-trials. But that is to say: if I regarded the witches as possible, indeed likely, in the Primary World; in other words, if they ceased to be “Fantasy.” That argument concedes the point. To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare. Macbeth is indeed a work by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience for that art.

A reason, more important, I think, than the inadequacy of stage-effects, is this: Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasi-magical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much. To make such a thing may not be impossible. I have never seen it done with success. But at least it cannot be claimed as the proper mode of Drama, in which walking and talking people have been found to be the natural instruments of Art and illusion.

For this precise reason—that the characters, and even the scenes, are in Drama not imagined but actually beheld—Drama is, even though it uses a similar material (words, verse, plot), an art fundamentally different from narrative art. Thus, if you prefer Drama to Literature (as many literary critics plainly do), or form your critical theories primarily from dramatic critics, or even from Drama, you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play.

One wonders what Tokien would have thought of the movie trilogy made from his book? Or, for that matter, what God thought of Mel Gibson's version of THE PASSION OF CHRIST?

I wonder how much a reader/viewer must guard one's mind when engaging any fictional world. The serpent in the Garden slyly contrived to make Eve re-imagine God's certain Word - "Did God really say ...?" C.S. Lewis often wrote of the "Real" as something good, that which is rightly ordered to God. For example, in THE GREAT DIVORCE, the constantly falling rain is real, putting the lie to all the falsely fantastic constructions of that hellish town in which the book's beginning is set. False fantasy cannot withstand confrontation with what is real - truth ruthlessly destroys all lies.

MAKING SENSE OF MARRIAGE:

2011-03-06T23:45:00.002-05:00

DEFENDING D.O.M.A. IS NOT DUMB

(as revised in consideration of comments from an on-going conversation)

Craig R. Tavani, March 2011

Many people in our society struggle in their relationships with others and I mean to come alongside them, as much as it is possible, in their struggle to help them find true resolution. It makes me mad that civil law is sometimes not so civil, nor legality congruent with morality. My hope is that clear communication will create more cooperative community in which we all can love and live. I am not arguing theology here, even though there are theological implications. All I want to establish is that the word "marriage" must be better defined in public discussion. I am disgusted with the damage divorce causes in society. Considering that 100% of divorces begin with marriage, one would think that we would want to come to a better understanding of marriage in order to address the problem of divorce! It seems that many agree that the marriage relationship is a good thing, therefore it would be good to come to some common understanding about what marriage means.

My father spent most of his life counseling people to help them in their own particular relationships – most of my understanding of relationships has been formed by what my father taught me. I have found his teaching to be true in that I have been able to apply it to my own marriage as well as in what I have tried to teach my own children. Perhaps others who have not fared so well can benefit from my personal experience. Perhaps I can benefit also from continuing to be in conversation with those whose experience may radically differ from my own. I am passionate about right relationship and am willing to risk much (including reputation) for the sake of right relationship. It does me no good to "win" arguments if such a "victory" settles nothing. I would rather live the truth in love and let my life be apology enough for what I believe. However, I play only to an audience of one – God; everyone else is on stage with me, working out what we believe in what we do together, no one superior nor inferior in whatever role each may play.

I care that couples in relationship with one another relate well enough to be healthy and happy and helpful to the larger community which forms the environment for their relationship. We may disagree on what is healthy and what constitutes happiness and to what degree some relationship may be helpful, but let us agree to hope for some agreement. Community comes about through communicating that which those creating community have in common. The culture of a community provides the context for comprehending and evaluating what is being communicated. Laws codify cultural values, common agreement that objectifies subjective understanding; morals modify individual behavior to adjust to living in relationship with others. Both law and morality serve right relationship which always has first priority. Humanity is wholly a matter of relationship, not law nor morality.

Relationship happens between the two persons having that relationship with one another. A right relationship is when one is communicating with another person while giving full consideration to the good of the other while trusting the other one to be doing the same for oneself. The problem comes about when those two demand that others recognize their particular relationship to be marriage. On what grounds do they make their demand? How is one to apply any one definition to one's own relationship so that one fully benefits from that relationship if it is indeed a marriage?

What changes when a couple becomes married? Think of marriage as a covenant rather then a contract – in marriage a man and a woman who have been in some relationship prior to marriage, commit their whole lives to one another uniquely and exclusively so that one's life is fully focused on the whole good of the other's life.This relationship cannot be re-negotiated and ends only at death.(Divorce, disruptive as death, is an evil abomination.)

All law is founded on right relationship, without which no law could last. Right relationship happens only when those in relationship freely act in regard to one another. This is why there is a difference between submission and subjection; individuals entering into a relationship with one another submit "me" and "you" to "us." Too often, however, one or the other makes demands that transgress relationship by attempting to subject the other to oneself. Rather than the mutuality of "us," the relationship devolves to either "me" or "you." Mutual submission to one another makes for a much more peaceful relationship that selfish subjection cannot accomplish.

No law is superior to right relationship. Relationship is prior to any law, which is why the law is so concerned about defining relationships so that those in society can properly recognize those in relationships. Changing the law does not change the relationship, but merely redefines how those relationships will be recognized throughout society. Society is made up of individuals living in communities. Community is created through communication. Communication is possible only when individuals can come to hold meaning in common. Contradictory meanings cause communication to breakdown and can have as a consequence a fracture in community. Society cannot long last in such a situation.

A social contract cannot account for how relationships continue beyond the terms of contract. The problem with any contract, social or otherwise, is that it must be periodically re-negotiated.What standard of conduct determines proper behavior during such re-negotiation? Those living in the communities that constitute society must take full responsibility for negotiating the terms of the social contract. This is why it is important that we practice communicating well with one another so that the negotiation can be peaceful rather than violent. What makes an contract binding is that individuals enter into it through their own free will; without freedom, any contract would be null and void. A social contract may assume freedom but its constitution does not comprehend it.

The following understanding of love forms the foundation for my own concept of marriage. I am expressing it as precisely as I can using Greek terms for love - eros, philos, storge and agape - to describe what I mean. The mature man or woman is fully aware of oneself as either male or female. Such mature self-awareness figures prominently in how one loves another. It is immature to ignore one's own being male or female for in doing so one runs the risk of doing other than good to one's beloved. Here is how my father defined marriage:

"A usual, normal marriage is one in which a man and a woman exchange verbal and behavioral commitment to each other, who meet the requirements of their culture, and who share sexual relations with one another. Elements of this dyad may be missing, deviant, or otherwise different due to cultural diversity. However, we still have a marriage. It may be fractured, yes, but still a marriage. With this established, the marital dyad can be assessed as whole, or, if deteriorating, as fractured, and with continued deterioration, as disintegrated."

This definition is found in my father’s essay, “FROM FRACTURE TO FULFILLMENT: A Clinically Proven and Therapeutically Practical Concept of Marriage.” The essay really gives hope to couples struggling in their marriage.

“Marriage,” according to one correspondent, “relates to the unification of plurality.” I think it is worth discussing the notion of plurality in understanding what happens in marriage. This is common ground for considering how we might best define marriage as being a unique relationship between two people. In my view, part of the plurality to be unified is the plurality of male and female. It seems that a number of people want society to validate same-sex relationships. This issue has been conflated with the issue of how marriage is to be defined. I separate the two issues so that conflation does not lead to confusion.

One may recognize that two people of the same sex are in a relationship. However, if one recognizes marriage as being a relationship only between a man and a woman, then a relationship between two persons of the same sex is not recognizable as marriage, but something else, whatever that may be. This is most problematic if one is a judge and the two want to enjoy the privileges that come with marriage, but cannot have access to them unless the judge recognizes their relationship to be marriage. On what basis will the judge decide whether or not to grant recognition? It is on the basis of law.

Relationship is prior to law, as is freedom. Legal definitions serve to clarify what is covered under the law, including how relationships are to be understood so that judgment can be made with consistency throughout society. The law may provide consequences for irresponsibility but no law can carry out the relationship itself; it is the persons who are in those relationships who are responsible for the relationships. Societal structure should support right relationships but the relationships themselves are something only individual persons can create and continue to carry on responsibly.No society can survive an irresponsible citizenry. Although legal definitions may help clarify understanding so that communication and judgment make take place, marriage is more than a legal matter. If two persons who want to be married are unable to take responsibility for that marriage, no law can make them married and certainly cannot keep them married.

Rights accrue to the individual person who is then responsible for each relationship which one creates with another person. Any law should be designed to justly mediate recognition of the individual's rights. Defining marriage legally is an effort to facilitate judgment concerning how to recognize a certain type of relationship in order to determine the status of persons in that relationship under law.The rights of a married person accrue to those who are in a marriage relationship. These rights may or may not be exclusive to marriage; rather than demand a redefinition of marriage merely to gain access to certain rights, it may be more productive to analyze which of these rights need not be exclusive to married persons. This requires careful discernment and demands the cooperation of everyone in community.

The phrase "loving, stable relationship" describes what every human relationship should be. Every marriage should be a loving, stable relationship, but not every loving, stable relationship can be called a marriage. If marriage is understood to be a relationship between a man and a woman, then some other coupling of persons cannot be called a marriage. It is this point of contention that must be considered and given the highest priority in coming to commonly understand how the law should define marriage. Everything else follows from this.

I suspect that sexual attraction is too often the reason why coupling takes place to begin with. Such attraction, however, does not justify the consummation of that coupling. The couple would be wiser to develop a relationship that can be sustained beyond the act of consummation. It is irresponsible to engage in a sexual relationship with another person without being willing to sustain that relationship beyond sex. Such responsibility is associated with maturity. Recreational sex is immature in that it is self-centered and pleasure-oriented. The marriage relationship is more than a cover for recreational sex. A mature man and woman may or may not engage in sexual activity (the process during which procreation may happen) and still be married.Marriage is much more than sex.

Humans, as sexual beings, are capable of responding to erotic experience. However, the responsibility of such capability evolves with maturity. As humans mature, they come to learn how to express themselves erotically in fuller consideration of another person's erotic experience rather than just their own. Thus does eros (experienced love) yield to philos (mutual love) and storgos (learned love). Agape (expressed love) is love that wholly considers the good of the other to the extent of sacrificing oneself for the other. Maturity matters more in marriage than in any other human relationship. In marriage can be found the fullest expression of human love, approaching even the love of God. Every human is born capable of erotic love, but only with maturity can a person learn to love beyond one's own erotic experience. The most mature love is agape, most perfectly realized in the love of God. Marriage makes most sense as a mutual means for a man and a woman to become fully mature with one another. I believe that humans are created in the image of God and maturity makes manifest that image. This image is male and female. Marriage therefore makes a man and a woman together more like the image of God than either of them can be separate from one another. This is a mystery that is known only because it is revealed through the Word of God. To argue the point further apart from speaking of Scripture would only be frustrating if not fruitless.

Contemporary society has come to a place in history where social norms have become so scattered that there seems to be no common standard of community by which to mediate disputes between individuals. If every person does what is right in one's own eyes, than community cannot continue. Without norms, abnormality rules. I find it significant that what seems to bother certain people most is that normal marriage is limited to a relationship between only a man and a woman. Redefinition will, in their minds, legitimate their deviance from that norm. If such deviance derives from something deeper down inside those persons, then mere re-definition will not alleviate the pain of abnormality. Law is like a bandage that can only dress a wound but cannot heal it. To resort to re-defining marriage is a revolutionary idea. It overthrows the norm by which right relationship can be recognized. Apart from the normal definition in which marriage is understood to be a relationship between only a man and a woman, to call some relationship "marriage" is nonsense.

At this moment in American history the law is defined in the Defense of Marriage Act, specifically confining marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman. DOMA codifies a definition of marriage into law. To call DOMA "nothing more than lip-glossed bigotry" is not putting forth an argument. To go on to call the argument of others bigotry and racism is not putting forth argument. To continue ranting rhetorically is not putting forth an argument.Rather than insult those who cite DOMA as a valid legal definition, some other citation should be offered that gives a definition specifically for marriage.

Some may demand that the law be revised, but others may demand that the law remain as it stands. Therefore, those in society must work to come to some agreement – this is the work that goes into productively creating community. Insulting those who are not in agreement with one’s own position is counter-productive. Imposing on them an opinion they have not expressed is counter-productive. Going on rhetorical rants rife with mixed metaphors is counter-productive. Too many on all sides of the issue of how to define marriage are guilty of all these things and more. I do not mean to be one of them. There are two kinds of judgment – discernment that one uses to make distinctions, and decision that brings events to some conclusion. The latter kind of judgment passes a verdict which, when accomplished at the supreme level, cannot be gainsaid. It is this supreme judgment that one cannot reserve for oneself as a mere human individual. Each of us, however, must practice wise discernment. Right relationship is a matter of life and death. Let us choose life.

POSTSCRIPT

In this essay I have been careful about conflating my discussion of marriage with discussion of same-sex relationships. I did so because it confuses the issue. However, my brother, Dr. Nicholas Tavani, wrote the following which addresses the gender issue in terms of genetics:

Let's talk genetics for a moment. XX and XY are distinctly different, and normal, findings defining genetic female and male. (I am well aware of gender determinants beyond this level but let's keep it here for a moment.) Rare variants, such as XXY, etc, exist and are always pathological. Now, since everybody's got a genome, it seems like this distinction would play a role in everyone's definition of marriage. Marriage, then, was established by God, and describes the unique relationship between a couple - one a human with XX and another with XY chromosomes, genetically speaking.

I want to emphasize that one should expect any conversation about marriage to consider the genetic fact that human persons have either an xy-chromosone or and xx-chromosone pairing. Overlooking this ignores what could very well be significant implications for marriage.

Humans were designed so that a man and a woman can come together to reproduce themselves. This is the natural basis for normal marriage to be a unique relationship only between a man and a woman. Any other definition of marriage would be abnormal.As my brother Nick has written,

“There is, literally, no future progeny for anything but a man and a woman reproducing themselves as nature (and nature's God) intended and exquisitely, specifically, and inexplicably by natural mechanisms alone, designed human bodies for. This is an irrefutable fact of nature and the natural basis for traditional marriage, with millennia of successful experience and history. The world has been populated this way, and this way alone. Alternatives, then, must be assumed to mean, ultimately, death to the human race, the ecology we are part of, and the planet. Thus it is, and brings with it - even as a miniscule minority - a culture of death prevalent today.

“While families vary widely across and within cultures and history, none have been or are sustained by the suggested alternatives. On the contrary, these alternatives survive (I hesitate to say thrive for a subgroup which, as a subpopulation, shows more pathology – including suicide, etc. – than an equivalent general population cohort) 'within the household", as it were, of a much larger parenting population allowing, and supporting, them as parents would a child – out of respect for, and love of, all human life as made in the image of the Creator. This simply, works!”

Is abnormality the consequence of genetic predisposition toward an unhealthy condition in combination with certain kinds of environmental stress? Both nature and nurture seem to be involved. How then is one to be responsible for one’s own maturity? What my brother wrote pushes the discussion from abnormality into the realm of deviancy. To be abnormal may be consequent to some natural condition, but it is a question of deviancy when one considers certain ways of overcoming abnormality. Redefining marriage is socially deviant in that it is an attempt to re-norm the created order. How much are others to be held responsible for one’s abnormality? What is the proper way to meet the challenges of abnormality? All such questions come into play in the discussion of marriage.

Abnormality makes sense only in reference to a norm. So it is with deviancy. It may be said that deviant abnormality produces evil perversion when the norm is blatantly disregarded in favor of some contradictory standard. How we are to define the norm is the critical issue here. The norm of humanity is the image of God. Maturity means growing in perfection in order to fully express that image. I freely admit that I fall short of that norm – we all do. The challenge for those who fall into some abnormal category, whatever it may be, is to learn how to live so that one may become mature. Since all humanity is called to live in community with one another, it behooves all of us to work with one another to help meet and overcome the challenges of abnormality. The challenge is best met in pursuing right relationship with one another.

It is a daunting task that is admittedly impossible without God's gracious cooperation. There are those who do not consider such divine cooperation to be a real possibility, but who nonetheless refuse to give up hope that the challenge of abnormality can be overcome. It is inconvenient to have to work so hard to create community. The rebel would rather resort to radical revolution and rip apart the fabric of civil society; such demanding debauchery only denudes the citizenry, leaving them nothing with which to cover right relationship with one another. On my part, it is my hope that my faith in God is true and can move me in love to discover how my own cooperation can contribute to the greater good of the whole community in which I live.

The confession of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the express image of God. All humanity – men and women alike, created male and female in the image of God – is called to come together in Christ Jesus as the Bride of Christ – thus is marriage explicitly a metaphor for God's desired relationship with humanity. Tolerating difference does not mean accepting what is unacceptable. Given that all of us deviate from the perfect standard of God in Christ, no one can call someone else deviant without confessing one's own deviance as well. True community is normed by love. Perfect love has been made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ. That love reaches out even to those who refuse to acknowledge the love of God in Christ. That love reaches out to the most extreme deviance imaginable. This is the gospel of grace that overcomes any challenge to the norm set by God. This is the light that no darkness can overcome. This is the truth that sets us free.

See http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/07/from-fracture-to-fulfillment.html.

For further discussion of my father’s paradigm for love, go to http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/08/paradigm-foundational-to-understanding.html;

FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN:

MARRY FOR THIS REASON

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking,

“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning

MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON

A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE,

AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to

GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND HER AWAY?”

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart

Moses permitted you to divorce your wives;

but from the beginning it has not been this way.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality,

and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man to his wife is like this,

is it better not to marry?”

But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement,

but only those to whom it has been given.

For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb;

and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;

and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Matthew 19:3-12

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep,

and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

…

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

and let them rule … over all the earth … .”

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them male and female.

...

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone;

I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every living creature,

and brought them to the man to see what he would call them;

and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

The man gave names to all living creatures,

but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept;

then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,

and brought her to the man.

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife,

and they shall become one flesh.

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

…

When the woman saw that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes,

and that the tree was desirable to make one wise,

she took from its fruit and ate;

and she gave also to her husband with her,

and he ate.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked;

and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,

and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden,

and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”

And the LORD God said, “Who told you that you were naked?

Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Genesis 1:1-4, 26-27; 2:18-25; 3:6-11

… you do not know which day your Lord is coming.

But be sure of this … you … must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood

they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until that day that Noah entered the ark,

and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away;

so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Matthew 24: 42, 44 and 37-39

… they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh …”

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth,

and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

…

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and … offered burnt offerings on the altar.

The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself,

“I will never again curse the ground on account of man,

for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth;

and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter,

And day and night Shall not cease.”

Genesis 6:2-3, 5; 8:20:-22

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,

but to them it has not been granted.

For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance;

but whoever doe not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because

while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, not do they understand.

In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;

YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;

FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,

WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,

OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,

AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,

AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.”

Matthew 13:10-15

UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Those who want to enter into marriage with one another ought to know what marriage is. Ignorance concerning the nature of that relationship can be harmful to that relationship. The marriage relationship is much more than what it is called. I have clearly spelled out what I believe marriage is. I believe many if not most marriages fail because those entering into the relationship they are calling marriage fail to do the work necessary to sustain that relationship. Such failure may be due to some inadequacy of either person in the relationship, and often stems from ignorance rather than malice. However, it is malicious to promote as marriage what is not marriage - this is to let a lie be the basis for a law. Justice cannot be served without truth.

My quotation of Scripture is for others to understand how my understanding of marriage has some basis beyond my own erotic or neurotic or despotic opinion. Words mean something. It is NOT ridiculous to question what the word "marriage" means. It IS ridiculous to dismiss truth as mere religious opinion without offering some counter-argument that gives grounds for legal rights. What does ground law? If not truth, than all law is nonsense.

A man and a woman become husband and wife in fully knowing one another physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. From such fullness is derived our definitive understanding of the marriage relationship. Failure to achieve fulfillment does not in any way detract from this definition which determines marriage. This norm remains the standard by which to measure what is normal and what deviates from the norm. To name some deviant relationship as normal is devious indeed.

Neither intimacy between two persons nor sexual interaction between persons of the same sex is the issue (I hope I need not explain that intimacy is not the same as sexual interaction). Marriage is the issue. What of persons of the same sex who want to be intimate with one another while also engaging in mutual sexual activity? I do not know what one is to call such a relationship. I do know that I cannot call it marriage.Anatomical design seems to designate what goes where and why. Some openings are designed to be entered, other openings are designed as exits. Why is this so hard to understand? True sexual union takes place when a man enters a woman, not when some other act is substituted. Why must what is "weird" overrule what is otherwise, that is, what is normal?

The standard of marriage has been set by nature - male physiology fits quite nicely with female physiology (let's simply say that tab A is designed to fit into slot B ... use your imagination). The union that makes the marriage relationship unique is more than mere metaphor. It should be obvious that the sexual union which consummates marriage is impossible when the two persons claiming to be in a marriage relationship are of the same sex. Whatever two people of the same sex might do with one another, it isn't truly sexual union. Any definition of marriage which does not take this into consideration is deficient.

It is not a question of being "allowed" to marry! It is ridiculous to act like one is married if one is neither a husband to a wife nor a wife to a husband. Such an act is an imposture! It is a lie! It sets up the relationship for failure. My father developed his definition of marriage to overcome failure in relationship. Consider this from his essay:

The dissolution of a relationship does not include being relieved from the responsibility that goes with the privilege of exercising the power to establish the relationship in the first place. For example, with the privilege of creating a friendship comes the responsibility that makes it impossible to ignore the other's person without consequently fracturing that friendship. Fractures are characteristic of, not the exception to, all human systems. Theoretically, all fractures in these human social systems can be healed. In practice, this rarely occurs. Some continue to worsen until the system no longer holds together and the relationships no longer continue to contribute to the cohesion of the group. This process of "ungluing" is the reverse of that which brought the relationship together. It accounts for a human condition that does not occur suddenly but is instead drawn out over time.

It is possible, and preferable, that a couple stay together and work out their problems together. Coming upon hard times is no ground to say a marriage is fractured beyond repair. Despite that such circumstances are often bitter and frustrating as well as emotionally and intellectually exhausting, a fractured marriage is still a valid marriage. A valid marriage constrains the pair to maintain their responsibilities towards one another so that each may derive the privileges therefrom. A spouse who is committed to the marriage relationship imagines, thinks, and behaves in a covenantal way. Relationships are created and maintained by two persons. It is doubtful that there are very many marital problems in which one party is totally innocent, that is, one did not contribute in any way to the delinquency of the mate. If both parties "will to do the will" of the laws involved in creating productive relationships, disintegration of a union may be stopped and reversed.

The focus of my father’s essay is the the question, “What is marriage?”

There really is no definitive agreement on the nature of marriage. We simply assume that, since we all use the term "marriage," there exists a common meaning. As long as we are not confronted by problems related to its meaning, these remain confused and confounding issues. The consequences are severe. If the validity of a marriage cannot clearly be articulated, there will be both uncertainty and disagreement about what divorce is and how the dissolution of a marriage actually comes about. How can any clear guidelines be provided for the role of persons bogged down in such a quagmire?

A simple conceptual definition is inadequate. In order to identify a valid marriage, we must progress to an operational definition to describe the composite reality we call "marriage." This beginning point is what is to be established. An operational definition is necessary for marriage so that we can measure the components of this phenomenon which we treat as a single entity. This will help us in determining the time when a marriage indeed exists, as well as the factors which can disintegrate the marital relationship.

The model developed embodies what is asserted to be universally characteristic of marriage in both recorded human history and myriad cultural settings. Identified in this model are three components - coitus, commitment and culture. These components are in dynamic relation to each other through their paired elements: in coitus are the elements of procreation and pleasure; the elements of commitment are word and work; and in the cultural component we have elements that are regulatory and religious.

BIOLOGICAL: Coitus (procreation & pleasure)

interfaces with Culture & Commitment

PSYCHOLOGICAL: Commitment (word & work)

interfaces with Coitus & Culture

SOCIAL: Culture (regulatory & religious)

interfaces with Commitment & Coitus

Flowing from this model is the operational definition which establishes a basis for determining a valid marriage. A usual, normal marriage is one in which a man and a woman exchange verbal and behavioral commitment to each other, who meet the requirements of their culture, and who share sexual relations with one another. Elements of this dyad may be missing, deviant, or otherwise different due to cultural diversity. However, we still have a marriage. It may be fractured, yes, but still a marriage. With this established, the marital dyad can be assessed as whole, or, if deteriorating, as fractured, and with continued deterioration, as disintegrated.

It should be self-evident that we are all born strangers. We hold the power to modify that initial relationship through communication. From stranger, we may go on to acquaintance to casual friend and on to close friend. Out of nothing we create a unique relationship. Just as we can create and nurture our social relationships, we also can act to dissolve those very same relationships. After creating a close friend relationship, we can use our decision-making capability to modify it, and, instead of cultivating the friendship, cause it to deteriorate, even going on to change the relationship to enemy. But we can never be a stranger to that other one ever again.

My father concludes his essay with these wise words:

In being committed to maintaining their marriage, a husband and wife must continually seek how they may enrich, encourage, enjoy and enhance one another. While it only takes one spouse to ruin the marriage, it takes both to maintain a healthy and holy marital relationship. This model has proven to be a practical clinical tool for diagnosing a developing, healthy or troubled relationship. Especially helpful is its usefulness for developing a comprehensive therapy to maintain ro restore an adequate and successful marriage. Marriage vows are sacred to self and society. Using this conceptual model of marriage may help husbands and wives facing struggle, strain and separation to keep honoring their vows together.

In Christianity, Christ destroys sin.

2011-03-06T22:27:00.002-05:00

Sin brings death, but its debt was paid with Christ in his death. We can be sure that our death has been overcome because Christ overcame death, as attested by his resurrection. Are we barred from participation in that victory without faith? That is a question only faith can ask, and faith will not need to ask the question.

The message of life that Jesus preached is inextricably tied to his death and resurrection. He prophesied that he would be killed, and that in three days he would return to life. His death has metaphysical significance in stamping out sin, but his resurrection acts as proof that his word is true.

The problem of faith is difficult enough to handle when the object is only the incarnation. It gets a lot harder when we have to talk about a central article of that faith being the way our sin somehow was overcome by an act occurring outside our knowledge or comprehension. Our task in this journey (or perhaps only a step) from untruth to truth is to learn truth from the god’s descent. To do so, the god must give us the condition. The urge to question how is not important, at least to this discussion. One doesn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

The paradox of Christ is not the only paradox. In fact, there is no other reason to believe this paradox than any other: they are all absurd and abhorrent to reason. To come to believe this paradox, one must have a condition called faith, which itself is paradoxical. Faith’s willingness to suspend the understanding for the paradox of Christ does not seem, to the betrayed and miffed understanding, any more worthwhile than to do so for any other paradox. The only difference is that Christ is truth; yet the understanding does not validate this claim any more than it does the truth of the earth resting on the turtles’ backs.

excerpt from Vincent Tavani's Senior Paper NO ONE POURS NEW WINE

presented at St. John's College on February 24

FAITH IS FUNDAMENTALLY RELATIONAL

2011-03-06T22:21:00.001-05:00

Ultimately faith relies on what is outside of us. ... You cannot know by yourself how one can receive faith, and ... faith depends, in its origin and in its enduring substance, on someone outside of you. There is someone other than you, someone else on whom you rely to say, 'I AM.'

Faith is fundamentally relational. One cannot answer questions about faith (or which faith demands, or answers) from outside faith. If the understanding could answer the questions of faith, then faith is made useless. But as there truths beyond our understanding with which we can none the less interact, we must often judge to suspend our understanding for the sake of interaction. If faith is needed to answer a question, then the understanding cannot answer it. The most one outside of faith can do is to recognize that the questions cannot be answered without faith.

Philosophical Fragments is the effort to come to terms with the intrinsic otherness that evolves faith. It simultaneously cautions against the self-reliance that relies on one’s certification of the object of faith, either before or after the moment. The end is that we cannot complete ourselves. We need a word from outside. How do we come by faith? We don’t. We rely on the love God has for us and respond.

excerpt from Vincent Tavani's Senior Paper NO ONE POURS NEW WINE

presented at St. John's College on February 24

MOVING BEYOND TOLERANCE

2011-03-06T22:17:00.000-05:00

Death is merely delayed in pluralistic society. Such is the benefit of tolerance as we share many points of view with one another. However, demands of others tend to overwhelm one's own capacity for tolerance unless one is made capable to move beyond tolerance into acts of love. Thus is death swallowed up in life as love reigns supreme.

Submitting to the dominion of God gives one a way of seeing things that is impossible otherwise. Thus is Christianity summed up in one's confession that "Jesus is Lord." To be a Christian is to be enlightened by the Lordship of Jesus Christ so that one may see light in the light of God Almighty. Love lets one know the light is on.

WHAT GOD WANTS

2011-03-06T22:13:00.000-05:00

God wants to be with everyone whom He has created.
Heaven is where God has a place for everyone who wants to be with Him.
Hell is for those who don't want to be with God.
Any questions?

BOOK REVIEW – “A FRESH LOOK AT WHO JESUS IS”

2011-03-06T22:09:00.002-05:00

by Nicholas J. Tavani, MD, PhD 12/2/10

Book Reviewed: WHO IS JESUS: The Central Issue of Space and Time by Charles Nestor II

SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE

Here is a rewarding look at the Gospel account and words of Jesus woven with Old Testament narrative, and interspersed with interesting facts, many of which will be new to most readers and useful to preachers who wish to enliven their sermons with fresh insights and attention grabbing nuggets. A core theme is Nestor’s scholarly analysis of the tabernacle structure, contents , functions, sacrificial system, feasts, and more. His integration of scientific knowledge with biblical insights is quite commendable and I hope it starts a trend. Broadly speaking, this book works for both casual perusal and deeper study, for those new to the Bible as well as seasoned scripture scholars. I am going to use this book in a Bible Study class series in the coming year.
I find this kind of in depth and scholarly Bible study personally enriching in many ways: increase in one’s factual knowledge base; review of neglected but crucial scriptures such as the Temple worship of ancient Israel; the deep roots of the New Testament in Old Testament history; prophetic words and symbolism are clearly seen; Christ is seen as central to Old Testment as well as all of history and, indeed, the cosmos – “space and time”; enhances worship as shown by Psalms which draw on nature, such as “the heavens are telling” the glory of our God; grounds Christian belief in more than subjective statements or feelings, making the case for evidence-based faith that much harder for skeptics to discount; challenges Christian believers to think – to use the mind and reason as God intended and expects; to read their Bible more than devotionally but on many other fruitful levels for a lifetime of study and worship; makes a convincing case for unbelievers.

GOD IN THE DETAILS

He writes “the majesty of the story is in the nuance of the text” (p. 17) Such nuance is too ofen avoided by Christians enamoured more with esoteric (i.e., numerology and Bible codes) or popularized (i.e., discovering a cross-shaped protein laminin in the human body) factoids which are little more than entertaining confections; Nestor’s nuanced nuggets nourish the mind and refresh the spirit like a healthy meal builds up the body. It’s good stuff that lasts long after the book is finished and will “pop out” of the text each time you read the Bible. Yes, it’s THAT GOOD.
Here are some examples. On human nature: “Men and women have confidence in the most ridiculous lies, and when the truth is presented in clarity and power with fully qualified credentials, they regard it with extreme skepticism and often reject it out of hand.” (p.21) About God’s instructions to Moses concerning the Tabernacle: “it is precise, exacting” (p.45) – which is just what we see in nature, making the case for creation apologetics all the more compelling for 21st century.
In building his excellent case for Jesus’ role as Creator, he sometimes puts the cart before the horse as when he discusses the meaning of “twinkling of an eye” in terms of Planck time ; this does support the idea of “the least time possible” however his explanation describes the time it takes a proton to travel from the optic nerve to the retina; but the photon’s path would hit the retina first; the photon strikes the protein rhodopsin changing it’s configuration which triggers the optic nerve impulse; also Planck scale is many orders of magnitude smaller than any protein. But the point is well made nonetheless. It is admirable to see Christian writers and pastors desirous of demonstrating the strong concordance between science and scripture, that is, showing how general revelation points to and does not contradict special revelation. I would encourage this trend to continue in both books and sermons and it is refreshing to see him boldly show how it can be done. Perhaps a science consultant as conversant and familiar in the relevant science field as the author is in theology and biblical studies would be an added asset. He is to be commended for adding such material in a theologically oriented book.

ARTISTRY UNEXPECTEDLY EMERGES

The author loves to give the reader brief but pithy word studies which leads him in one instance to take you to one of my favorite places – Panera Bread. I will leave it for you to discover why he does this. Perhaps, next time you are in Florida, you can take him to lunch and feed both body and soul. (p. 52) He even tells us about the thread in great detail which makes you aware that, if that much effort was put into the tabernacle fabric, (p.60) and science shows incredible design on every scale of creation from the cosmos to the cell to the tiniest measure possible (Planck space), how much more must His hand be in every fiber of our body and His Spirit in the very fabric of our being! Our God is truly awesome. If you wonder why, then, don’t skeptics see all this – well, just read about goat’s hair (that’s Chapter 2). God’s beautiful artistry woven into the curtains and built into the architecture by Spirit-gifted skilled craftsmen likewise goes for the musicians who ministered in worship later as well. And this also applies to the artisans and architects who crafted things like the enormous metallic water bowl. He writes “The bronze laver is the one piece of tabernacle furniture that we have no dimensions for.” (p.78). Yet skeptics love to use this very object – the round, or circle shaped, large bronze washbasin- in their attempt to undermine the inerrancy of scripture by pointing out a supposed mathematical error: the number “pi” can be arrived at by using the information given in the text to calculate ratios which give the number “3”. They complain that pi actually equals 3.14… But they fail to point out that all measurements – even those by the most sophisticated of physics instruments such as the Planck probe recently launched to measure the age, size and other pararmeters of the very early universe – have error bars too. These skeptics fail to see that the Bible is indeed accurate by ancient standards with excellent agreement indeed. Not 2, not 4 or 5 but 3 – right on the money. The author, however, is content with the brief statement noted above.
This book made me think – maybe too much, but here goes. How do you know when the Bible is speaking metaphorically? For instance, how do we know that Rev 4:6 “a sea of glass like crystal before God’s throne” (p. 79) is just symbolic imagery yet, in Rev 15:2, Nestor says “we see God’s saints in front of God’s throne standing on a crystal sea; they are standing on the Word of God…The Word of God is literally an inexhaustible ocean of wisdom and that is what you want to be standing on.” Well, two things confound me here: first, how do we know when to take what the Bible writer says as metaphor or as actual (or both?); ie, is the “throne” real? Nestor claims it is “the universe’s headquarters” (p.103) – I don’t have a problem with that, as all the astrophysical evidence such as the cosmic microwave background, and mathematical reasoning such as the Space-Time Theorems of Stephen Hawking is pointing to a transcendent Causal Agent outside of our physical universe which is super-natural. Indeed this alone would make Jesus Christ central to space and time. Yet is the “sea” then metaphorical, which is “like crystal”? Is there something real there before the throne? If so, then later the saints are actually standing on a real crystal sea (now the terms are combined) yet Nestor is telling us they are standing on “the Word of God’ – is it actually then a huge Bible (I doubt that!) or an actual “sea” (whatever that may be – a crystalline floor of some kind?) which symbolized the Word of God? But Nestor then states it is a literal “inexhaustible ocean” and exhorts us believers to stand on it! You get the idea. I am quibbling not about the obvious truth being taught here – that what we are reading is the Word of God. But I am pointing out the challenges to amateurs like me of interpreting scripture text.

ENCOURAGING WORDS

Fulfilled prophecy fascinates me and provides some of the more compelling evidence for the veracity of the Bible. The foreshadowing in the Old Testament priesthood of Jesus, our High Priest, is masterfully explained in this fact-packed chapter. As is, this chapter could easily be a power packed little book unto itself. For instance, guiding us along another hermeneutical adventure, Nestor quotes a verse which, for some reason, only now impacts me with the full force of what Paul is saying in Hebrews3:1. He names Christ Jesus as “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.” Jesus, an Apostle? I guess I never really thought about that; it sends me scurrying on an adventure of my own to find out just what is meant by an apostle, and why Paul links that with Jesus being High Priest. This is a book somebody needs to write (or, likely, somebody has). See what I mean? The author’s father, Charles B. Nestor, had the same effect on me as I sat under his pulpit ministry years ago – if you are going to mess with a Nestor, you better have at least one good concordance and several solid Biblical studies references at hand, as well as an intact brain. Yes, it will do your heart good too because these men (both Nestors) preach and teach truth in love – a powerful tonic for ailing souls everywhere.
Okay, so as not to scare you off, there is plenty of wit thrown in for good measure. Take this subtitle for instance on page 99: “an Ephod, not an iPod”. Now, that’s good. And if you don’t know what in iPod is yet, don’t worry about it. But you really need to learn all about the Ephod – and the rest of the High Priest’s garments. Nestor takes you there and back again. He relates the meaning behind the connection between the gemstones woven onto the priestly garment with the meaning of the names of the tribes of Israel – the conclusion will surprise and amaze you, I’m sure, as it did me and actually gave me pause for a moment of simply praising our awesome Savior. This insightful gem about the gems of the priest shows the true power of excellent scholarship in contemporary Christian writing. And, our author tells us, “Each tribe was a gem. You are a gem to God. That is how He sees you.” Can there be better counsel, pastoral or otherwise, than this for the beat-up, put-down, stressed-out, done-in persons of our anxiety-ridden society: YOU ARE A GEM TO GOD! Take that and wear it. It takes the concept of the priesthood of the believer to a whole new affirming level. He says “Symbolically, we are included on the engraved stones above His heart. You are a gem to God. He loves you.”
Ah, those Urim and Thummim – the two stones used for discerning and decision-making. Nestor clears up some of the mystery for me quite well but stops short of describing how they actually worked. Yes, I am quite interested in this as it touches on the issue of chance and determination, and how God interacts with His creation – a very hot topic among cosmologists and biologists today. Perhaps, in his next book…..

A HARD TRUTH

Chapter Four is hard to read – by this I do not mean the text is poorly written. To the contrary, the writing is clear, concise and revealing. It is hard to read if you give yourself to the content of this precious truth: without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Reading about the blood-spattered altar, the ritual slaughter of oxen and sheep, the twisting off of dove’s heads, and more – one might feel like we are suddenly immersed in a horror movie. Indeed we are – few today appreciate the terrible toll sin has taken on the human race, and the world at large, and the terrible cost of repairing the damage. On the other hand, the details of the offerings can be as mouth-watering as a Memorial Day Barbeque.The fat cooking on the fire, the sweet aroma of specially compounded incense, the finely sifted flour and other ingredients ; the oil, the bread, the drink offerings, and the precise instructions for making and offering them all – each yields insight into how God deals with sin and points clearly to the Jesus, the Lamb of God Who, as both Priest and Sacrifice, brings the entire ancient history with it’s centuries of sacrifices and rituals, to a satisfying and glorious culmination and fulfillment by the inglorious and gory death of Christ Himself upon the Cross. This chapter will make even more sense of both the Easter/Passover season and Communion/Eucharist/Lord’s Supper, each time you celebrate it. If you were to choose just one chapter to read then Chapter Four – A Sacrifice, would be it.

A LOVE STORY

Chapter Five is simply beautiful as our author describes the metaphor of Marriage in great detail and takes us into the (not far distant, I believe) future Marriage Supper of the Lamb. We experience the Jewish wedding – a tradition which is full of joy, significance and intrinsic meaning which only the Bridegroom Jesus can fulfill. This part took me back to my own “huppah” – marriage ceremony – a quarter century ago and to what we called “the marriage supper” ( wedding reception) afterward in which a Messianic Jewish music group helped us celebrate with joyful songs and dances. At one point we were hoisted into the air, my bride and me, and carried around the room to much celebration and merriment. I can’t help but think of the Rapture, and how we will be “caught up”, as author Nestor explains it. But before discussing eschatology, he takes us through all seven Feasts of Israel, a topic of inexhaustible interest to me as it includes not just the biblical descriptions but also astronomical/geophysical (seasons, years, etc.), agricultural, historical, sociological, anthropolical, theological and prophetic components. Anyone who has an overly-sober view of Christianity, really needs to read this section. It can be summed up in the word “JOY!”. It will infuse deeper meaning into Christmas and the events surrounding Jesus’ birth and family life as well as, hopefully, inspire a celebratory expectancy among those who gather weekly in churches around the globe. It reveals the great Love Story that is the Bible – with the happiest ending, ever, for those who are called “The Bride of Christ”. But just who are they? And how will ii end? Nestor deftly delves into these questions, and, in doing so, raises some interesting points along the way. Such as Rom.11:25 – the “fullness of the Gentiles”. He says “In other words, when the total number of Gentiles has come into God’s kingdom, the church will be complete, fulfilled, and the the Lord will come for His church.” Then again later he says “But, when the exact number of people to accept Jesus as Lord have come into the Kingdom, then Jesus will send out the archangel to sound the trumpet to signify the Feast of Trumpets”. The question of election looms large over this statement and would make for some very lively discussion – but not here. All I can say comes from the ol’ spiritual “Lord, I want to be in that number…”
For those who read this book seeking to answer the question, WHO IS JESUS?, the answer is amply and stunningly displayed. It transcends the universe. Ironically, the bigger question is posed by the author in his final section which is where we too will close: WHAT SAY YOU? – N. Tavani 12/2/10

HIS FACE SHONE ...

2011-03-06T21:58:00.001-05:00

Jesus led them up on a high mountain by themselves.
And He was transfigured before them;
and His face shone like the sun,
and His garments became as white as light.
And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
... a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold,
a voice out of the cloud said,
“This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”
When the disciples heard this,
they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.
And Jesus came to them and touched them
and said, “Get up, and do not be afraid.”
And lifting up their eyes,
they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Matthew 17:1-6

The following statement is a provocative consideration of the light that shone forth in the Transfiguration of Jesus:

God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God's splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light. ... [T]hose who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. ... It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God ... But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed!

(St. Isaac of Syria, MYSTIC TREATISES)

TRUE THEORY

2011-03-06T21:57:00.000-05:00

The eye is the lamp of the body;
so then
if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.
But
if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.
If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

Matthew 5:22-23

True theory is insight into being and becoming through faith in God. The theological mystery of God is revealed through His economic communication of life to us. As God discloses himself in His actions, the better we know God, and the better we understand God’s actions. The work of God reveals who He is in himself; our understanding of all his works becomes enlightened as the mystery of God's inmost being is revealed ... in Jesus Christ.

Is it dumb to disbelieve in God?

2011-03-06T21:43:00.004-05:00

I would wager that people who do not believe in God simply do not want to believe in God. They may make up what they consider reasons for why they do not believe, often citing something they imagine about God that they do not like. Do they not see that such denial has less to do with belief than with personal preference?

Disbelief does nothing to diminish truth; it diminishes only the stature of the one who is in denial that God is and has created all that is. The disbelieving one may whine about wanting one's own way, but one's own will ultimately is subject to the will of God, whose final judgment definitely decides what is truly to be believed.

Is it dumb to disbelieve in God? That depends what one means by dumb. Dumb animals do what they have been created to do. Dumb humans do otherwise.

Giving Attention to Reading: The Lector as Minister

2010-07-03T19:59:00.001-04:00

The lector is one who ministers to the congregation through the reading of Scripture. At one point in church history, the lector, or reader, was considered one of the minor orders in which persons were formally acknowledged for the exercise of gifts, or charismata, they possessed. Although reading is nowhere explicitly cited as one of the charismata, its exercise is as significant as preaching and teaching; we read in 1 Timothy 4:13: “Give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhorting, to teaching.”

Reading the Word of God aloud can bring blessing to the one who reads and to those who hear. How is such blessing brought about? It is first of all a gift of grace. Reading is a charismatic act when done in the context of true worship – that is, when words are read aloud in spirit and truth. A worshipful act of reading is no mere playback of recorded inspiration; prophetic reading breathes again the truth present in the text being read. This representation is a poetic act of mimesis which resounds with the breath of life. The Bible does not speak for itself; God has chosen to speak through the reading of His Word. God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh; so does the Church continue by the Spirit of Christ to be the Body of Christ to the world as each Christian in his or own person presents the Word of God uniquely, whether individually or with other Christians.

The reader becomes the letter of Christ written with the Spirit of the Living God when words of prophetic proclamation are processed through the whole person. The Great Commandment, to love the Lord God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind, and to love others as oneself, is to be applied to reading as much as to all things in life. Anything less than reading with one’s whole person, in loving submission to God and others, strangles the Spirit’s flow.

Competent charismatic reading prophesies life to those ready to hear the Word of the Lord. The Christian reader is a minister of the new covenant, not of letter but of spirit. The Spirit gives life – this then is the criterion by which prophetic reading is judged. Lifeless reading is a mocking impersonation of presenting the Gospel – still born words sound monotonously ineffective and reflect gloomingly off veiled and captive minds of hardened hearers. However, reading full of the Spirit is transformative – the image of God, figured in reading the Word of God, is set in one’s imagination as an example to be followed with others as faithful disciples of Christ.

Faith come from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. Blessed is the one who reads aloud words of prophecy and blessed are those who hear.

BE STILL

2010-06-15T16:44:00.003-04:00

Be still,

know that I am God;
I will be exalted

…

Psalm 46:10 (see also Psalm 4)

When I call to you, O my righteous God, answer me.

I am still. In your mercy hear my prayer.

You have filled my heart with abounding joy.

I dwell in peace. Let your face, O LORD, now shine upon us.

BE STILL MY SOUL

Words: Katharina A. von Schlegel, in Neue Sammlung Geistlicher Lieder, 1752 (Stille, meine Wille, dein Jesus hilft siegen);

translated from German to English by Jane L. Borthwick in Hymns from the Land of Luther, 1855.

Music: Finlandia, Jean Sibelius, 1899

Be still, my soul: the Lord is on thy side.

Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.

Leave to thy God to order and provide;

In every change, He faithful will remain.

Be still, my soul: thy best, thy heavenly Friend

Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Be still, my soul: thy God doth undertake

To guide the future, as He has the past.

Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;

All now mysterious shall be bright at last.

Be still, my soul: the waves and winds still know

His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.

Be still, my soul: when dearest friends depart,

And all is darkened in the vale of tears,

Then shalt thou better know His love, His heart,

Who comes to soothe thy sorrow and thy fears.

Be still, my soul: thy Jesus can repay

From His own fullness all He takes away.

Be still, my soul: the hour is hastening on

When we shall be forever with the Lord.

When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,

Sorrow forgot, love’s purest joys restored.

Be still, my soul: when change and tears are past

All safe and blessèd we shall meet at last.

Be still, my soul: begin the song of praise

On earth, believing, to Thy Lord on high;

Acknowledge Him in all thy words and ways,

So shall He view thee with a well pleased eye.

Be still, my soul: the Sun of life divine

Through passing clouds shall but more brightly shine.

HOW GOD ACTS ON AND IN THIS WORLD

2010-05-03T09:28:00.003-04:00

The God-ness of God is beyond our human comprehension. How God acts is Godly and it thus behooves one who wishes to fully understand any act of God to somehow share in that Godliness as well. God, according to His own Counsel, does or does not reveal Himself as the Actor behind the action.

Consider this - Saul/Paul, upon hearing the voice of the Lord on the road to Damascus, had to ask for further revelation beyond whatever he heard initially. God remained sovereign in limiting what sense could be made of the sound Saul and his companions heard - Saul comprehended what his companions could not. The Bible explicitly tells us what God's voice sounds like - thunder. The sound made sense only to whomever God directed what He had to say; others who heard could not make sense of what they heard. You can find it in many places in Scripture, OT and NT; use any Bible concordance to look up examples of this. It seems we must "have ears to hear what the Spirit has to say."

Is this not what Scripture teaches in regard to the Spirit and the flesh? Faith fills in the details where fleshly perception falls short. Holy mystery must be so aggravating for faith-deficient scientists. Then again, the logic of scientific discovery (as Karl Popper puts it) often frustrates those who are more mystically-minded. Theology once was called the Queen of sciences, informing and illuminating all other branches of knowledge. King to this queen is the One whom all knowers yearn to know in each of their particular pursuits of knowledge. To deny God is to divorce logic from any likelihood of leading one to Truth. Science needs God in order for scientific discovery to make any sense; theology is the way such sense is understood and communicated.

God, wholly Other, is fully capable of acting as He wills in the world and freely interacting with those in the world. Each scientist is responsible before this Sovereign God to focus the perception of oneself through spiritual eyes of faith rather than fleshly eyes of folly. Scripture plainly teaches that sin darkens one's understanding. Science done with deficient theology is no better than blind faith.

Needing the Bible ... Reading the Bible ... Heeding the Bible

2010-04-29T23:51:00.001-04:00

It concerns me that the Bible goes unheeded in contemporary society. Is it any wonder when so few actually read the Bible? Perhaps too many have become convinced that they do not need the Bible. If we consider the Bible to be the Word of God, then we must commit ourselves to letting others know their need for the Bible, to teach them to read the Bible, and to come alongside them in helping them heed the Bible

THE MYSTERY OF HOLY SABBATH DAY

2010-04-03T11:43:00.001-04:00

The day between death and resurrection
(after Friday, before Sunday)

God’s great Sabbath rest is revealed
in the mystery of this Holy Sabbath Day.
The mystery of the tomb is stated
in the crucial death of Jesus Christ.
As his body remained lying in the tomb,
Christ himself, between death and life,
having fulfilled our salvation on the cross,
descended into hell, his very death
bringing life to the cosmic whole.
Death met life
in the perfect person of Jesus Christ.

Our own baptism let us be buried with Him.
How has it been that some of us remain entombed,
wandering about in the shades of hell?
Did Christ go down into the depth of death in vain?
Did not the dead all hear the voice of God’s Son?
Would not those who heard then live?
The Author of Life, holding the keys of death,
by dying, destroyed that wicked one who failed
to keep his usurped hold on the power of death!
With death destroyed , we have been delivered,
delighted to live free from lifelong bondage.

Great silence reigns this Holy Sabbath Day,
a sacred stillness signifying our Savior’s sleep.
We wait and pray, listening for Him to speak again.
Set free from sorrow, we see great light,
far from death’s dark shadow,
up from the grave-pit of sin’s captivity.
“Awake, O sleeper!” The call has come!
Would that we have ears to hear God’s Son.

MOTHER'S SON

2010-04-03T00:16:00.002-04:00

a meditation for Good Friday, 20210

I stood by the cross.

There were others there, but only one with me,

the one my son loved.

I heard my son speak

(how could he even breathe, let alone say a word?)

“Woman, behold, your son.”

And again he spoke,

this time to the one he loved,

“Behold, your mother.”

How may I be another’s mother

when the son who is my very own

will die?

Simeon had blessed me with my husband when he found us in the temple long ago. The words he spoke revealed so much, to hear his words amazed us! He took our son into his arms and, blessing God, spoke aloud with joy, “Now, Master, may you let your servant go in peace, according to your Word, For my eyes have seen salvation that is come from you, a sight prepared to be seen by so many others here in Israel, if only they weren’t blind; even others beyond our borders can be enlightened by the glory of your son.”

My son still in his arms, Simeon turned to me to say one final word of prophecy, “Behold this child,” Simeon stared right at me with my son held high, “his destiny lies with the fall and rise of many in Israel and …” (he then spoke a word to me) “so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,you yourself a sword will pierce” (that word resounded time and time again, up ‘til today as it thunders loudly like the storm I see about to break).

“Son, why have you done this to us?” This I said to him way back when he had seemed to wander off, and made me and his father greatly anxious. When that once we found him among teachers in the temple, my son said simply, “Why were you looking for me?” He asked us why, as though it should have been obvious to us, (even though it never was), “Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?”

We did not understand what he said to us, not then, nor do I now, except I have continually kept these things, everything my son has said, and I keep pondering all of them in my sword-pierced heart.

“Do not be afraid,” the angel said, to me and to my husband, and to the shepherds, who were blessed to hear the message of my son. “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.” All who heard this message of great joy were greatly amazed, and me as much as them! This message of my son was meant to bring great joy, and all this time I have kept these things, pondering them, reflecting on them in my heart.

Some people demand some proof on which to firmly fix their faith. For me it was the proof that made demands, proof so passionate it could not be denied. My body bore this very proof, now here I am in the process of being proven myself.

My son, my son, my own amazing joy!

What place can ever be home

without you there?

All I have left

is to devote myself to prayer.

CROSS TALK

2010-04-02T12:46:00.003-04:00

... the other answered,

" ...we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds;

but this man has done nothing wrong.

.... Jesus, remember me

when You come in Your kingdom!"

CROSS TALK

[Two players, enter, cross UC, and stand facing cross hanging on back wall of stage. After 5 beats, both cross downstage to their respective places, one on the right of the cross. the other on the left.

(see EPILOGUE below)]

DEXTER: Can you see the Garden from here? [Pause.]
LEFTY: What?
DEXTER: Can you see the Garden
LEFTY: I see nothing.
DEXTER: I thought I would be able to see it from here.
LEFTY: If you saw it, how would you know it was the Garden?
DEXTER: I’m sure I would recognize the Tree in the middle.
LEFTY: Which one? There were two, weren’t there?
DEXTER: I don’t know.
LEFTY: In fact, there were more than two.
DEXTER: How many?
LEFTY: I don’t know – many more!
DEXTER: All I care about is the one in the middle.
LEFTY: All I care about is the one on which I hang.
DEXTER: Right.
LEFTY: What else is left?
DEXTER: What else?
LEFTY: Nothing.
DEXTER: Right.
LEFTY: Damn right. [Pause.]
DEXTER: How long will it be?
LEFTY: Too damn long.
DEXTER: Not long enough. [Pause.]
LEFTY: Is anything else going to happen?
DEXTER: I don’t know. [Pause.]
LEFTY: What do you see?
DEXTER: They’re doing something.
LEFTY: What?
DEXTER: I don’t know. [Pause.]
LEFTY: I hate this.
DEXTER: So do I. [Pause.]
LEFTY: What do you care about the Garden?
DEXTER: What do you mean?
LEFTY: Why is the Garden so important?
DEXTER: I don’t remember.
LEFTY: I never listened.
DEXTER: You should have.
LEFTY: All lies.
DEXTER: How do you know?
LEFTY: You live, then you die.
DEXTER: So?
LEFTY: That’s life. That’s it.
DEXTER: Maybe.
LEFTY: That’s the truth.
DEXTER: What do you know?
LEFTY: I know lies.
DEXTER: No argument there.
LEFTY: No tree growing in any Garden gives life.
DEXTER: How do you know?
LEFTY: I can tell the difference.
DEXTER: What?
LEFTY: Shut up.
DEXTER: You shut up.
LEFTY: Idiot!
DEXTER: Fool! [Pause.]
LEFTY: I hate this cursed tree.
DEXTER: Do you not even fear God?
LEFTY: We are being crucified!
DEXTER: We are being crucified with Christ …
LEFTY: Jesus …
DEXTER: Is that not enough?
LEFTY: I no longer live.
DEXTER: But Christ lives …
LEFTY: You fool! Who bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus is being crucified!
DEXTER: Have we suffered for nothing – if it really was for nothing?
LEFTY: It is written, is it not? Whoever hangs on a tree is cursed! [Pause.]
DEXTER: We might have received what was promised.
LEFTY: What was promised?
DEXTER: I don’t know. [Pause.]
LEFTY: This whole world is in prison.
DEXTER: The Law has us all locked up.
LEFTY: The Law led us straight here.
DEXTER: Yes.
LEFTY: To be crucified with Christ.
DEXTER: Right.
LEFTY: What is left?
DEXTER: We might be justified.
LEFTY: What? [Pause.]
DEXTER: I am still alive.
LEFTY: You are about to die.
DEXTER: We will die.
LEFTY: He will die.
DEXTER: He lives. [Pause.]
LEFTY: You immerse yourself in what you imagine to be true.
DEXTER: You are blind to what is portrayed before you.
LEFTY: You were locked up like the rest of us and then led here to die.
DEXTER: I see that.
LEFTY: You see nothing.
DEXTER: I see you are blind. I see He is still alive. [Pause.]
LEFTY: You hang there suffering.
DEXTER: Right.
LEFTY: All is lost. All you have left is to die.
DEXTER: Right.
LEFTY: What gain is there in sharing in His suffering?
DEXTER: I don’t know. [Pause.]
LEFTY: I consider it all rubbish.
DEXTER: I want to know what is right.
LEFTY: What is wrong with you? Everything is lost!
DEXTER: I want to know …
LEFTY: Rubbish!
DEXTER: Somehow, if I press on …
LEFTY: You have forgotten what is left behind.
DEXTER: I am straining toward what is ahead.
LEFTY: What is ahead? Consider that.
DEXTER: He is here and we are about to die. [Pause.]
LEFTY: He is supposed to be the promised one? HA! It is crazy to think that
this crucified Christ can come down from the cross himself, let alone save us!
DEXTER: If he did, we may see and believe. [Pause.]
LEFTY: Are you not the Christ? [Pause.] Save yourself and us! [Pause.]
DEXTER: We are justly condemned.
LEFTY: We are being punished.
DEXTER: Right. We are just getting what our deeds deserve.
LEFTY: Damn it! Shut up, will you?
DEXTER: But this man …
LEFTY: Shut up!
DEXTER: … this man has done nothing wrong.
LEFTY: I said shut UP!
DEXTER: Jesus …
LEFTY: Shut up!
DEXTER: Jesus …
LEFTY: Do you know what you are doing?
DEXTER: Jesus, when you come into your kingdom …
LEFTY: What kingdom?
DEXTER: Remember me …
LEFTY: Tell the truth – today you will die.
DEXTER: He tells the truth – I believe Him.
LEFTY: I believe you are crazy. [Pause.]
DEXTER: I believe I see the Garden now. [Pause.]
LEFTY: He commits Himself to death.
DEXTER: He gave up His last breath. [Pause.]
LEFTY: I guess this “Son of God” can now find out what His Father’s face looks like!
DEXTER: I see so much more … [Pause.]
LEFTY: I see soldiers standing by to stab us, ready to break our legs …
DEXTER: Right.
LEFTY: What is left is for us to die. [Pause.]
DEXTER: I see the Garden now. [Pause.] I recognize the Tree.

CURTAIN.

READER 1: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

READER 2: You fools! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

READER 1: Have you suffered for nothing – if it really was for nothing? Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law
by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

READER 2: He redeemed us in order that … by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

READER 1: The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised,
being given by faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

READER 2: Before this faith came, we were held prisoners of the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. To the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified through faith.

READER 1: You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ,

READER 2: for all you being baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

PLAYER A: CROSS TALK explores both the explicit narrative descriptions and the implicit assumptive speculations
regarding the Christ’s crucifixion.

PLAYER B: During the course of playing out this living portrait, traditional prejudiced perspectives are overturned

PLAYER A: (dexterity is not a moral virtue, for example, nor is being on the left sinister).

PLAYER B: Imagine the two criminals who were literally “crucified with Christ” meeting in the middle to find true character revealed in relation to the centrality of the Savior, whose presence overwhelms the petty persona each actor put on prior to participating with one another in presenting the singular story of God reconciling Himself to us
in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

READER 1: Folks, join with others in following my example, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. Whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

READER 2: I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings,
becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

READER 1: Folks, I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do:
Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

READER 2: All of us who are mature should take such a view of things.

READER 1: And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

READER 2: Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

EPILOGUE

READER 1: There they crucified Him. And with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.

PLAYER A: What new perspective might one have if one looks at the Passion of Jesus through the eyes of those two chance companions of Christ’s crucifixion?

PLAYER B: With Jesus at his crucifixion were two men, both criminals, each suffering execution on crosses of their own.

PLAYER A: The scene is depicted imaginatively on the altar triptych in Hannover’s Marktkirche. Whereas other artistic renderings of the crucifixion have the two visually overwhelmed by strong focus on the deservedly central figure of Jesus Christ, the Marktkirche artist chose to emphasize as well the two who hung alongside Jesus, their positions on their respective crosses portrayed with detailed care:

PLAYER B: While the dying Jesus is shown nailed to his cross in accordance with all the Gospels, the other two hang from each of their crosses merely by their arms draped back over the tau-shaped cross-pieces – the thief on the left looks down contemptuously at all those gathered around the cross, but the one on the right of Jesus, his head tilted toward heaven, directs his attention to Christ himself.

PLAYER A: One gazing at the scene is provoked to creatively reconsider the event as recorded in the words of the four Gospel writers.

PLAYER B: The possibility of exploring the whole event in a dramatic presentation performed during the Paschal season is worth the attempt to do so.

[Players exit.]

Further FOLLY with WISDOM on the side from FACEBOOK

2010-04-02T01:02:00.004-04:00

Craig Tavani ... wise enough to play the fool?

April 1st at 12:25am

Craig Tavani

I turned my mind to understand, to investigate, to search out wisdom and the scheme of things. I turned my mind to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly. Applying myself to the understanding of wisdom as well as of madness and folly, I learned that this is a chasing after the wind.

Today at 12:26am ·

Nick Tavani

The fool hath said in his heart "There is no God".

11 hours ago ·

Craig Tavani

I am a fool for Christ; whose fool are you?

11 hours ago ·

Nick Tavani

"Do not answer a fool according to his follly"

11 hours ago ·

Craig Tavani

ME: You may think I am a fool and so I am. I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness.
YOU: But, we are already doing that.
ME: You, however, are looking only on the surface of things.
YOU: Some here are saying, as wordy as you are, you really are unimpressive in person;even if you are Lazarus, all your talk doesn’t amount to much.
ME: I may not be a trained speaker, but I do know what is what. Don’t deceive yourselves: If anyone of you think you are wise,by what standard are you making such judgment?
If by the standards of this age, then you, too, should become a “fool” so that you may become wise! The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.
YOU: So what are you doing here? It surely looks like some boastful masquerade.
ME: What I am doing here is not intended to be some boastful masquerade. I make no deceitful claims; this is no mere act. Let no one take me for a fool.
YOU: It’s way too later for that.
ME: But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool,
so that I may do a little boasting myself.
YOU: You’re starting to sound a bit worldly as well as wordy.
ME: Since so many out there are boasting in the way the world does, I’ll boast, too.
YOU: You expect us to put up with that?
ME: You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!
In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that I am too weak for that!
YOU: Point well taken.
ME: Yet, what anyone else dares to boast about – I am speaking as a fool –
I also dare to boast about.
YOU: Do you know what you are up against?
ME: Whatever they say they are, I am more.
YOU: You’re out of your mind!
ME: I am out of my mind to talk like this.
YOU: But look what they have going for them.
ME: Are they servants of Christ? Are they “Christ’s ambassadors”? I am.
[breaking into song.]
We are Christ’s ambassadors, and our colors we will unfurl.
We all wear a spotless robe, clean and righteous before the world. We know we’ve been cleansed from sin, and that Jesus dwells within. Proving duly that we’re truly, Christ’s ambassadors! Proving duly (slap knees, snap fingers, clap hands) that we’re truly (repeat slap, snap, clap), Christ’s ambassa -, Christ’s ambassa-, Chri-i-i-i-st’s am-bas-sa-do-o-o-o-rs! [Pause for applause … or not.]
YOU: So, what else can we expect from a true ambassador of Christ?
ME: You can expect me to be BOLD, … especially toward those people who think it’s fine to live by the standards of this world.
YOU: Don’t forget that you still live in this world.
ME: However, just because I live in this world, I don’t go about waging war as the world does. No, the “weapons” with which I fight are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, I have the power to demolish strongholds! I demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God; I take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
[Pause]
In this self-confident boasting, I know I don’t sound like one following the true way …
YOU: You sound like a fool.
ME: If I sound like a fool, so be it. And do you know why?
YOU: Because you are a fool?
ME: No! Because of the Gospel message! The message of the cross!
YOU: So that’s your excuse?
ME: The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. God was pleased through the foolishness of the gospel to save those who believe, since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom cannot know him.
YOU: You are beginning to sound a bit ant-intellectual.
ME: Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Did not God say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent will I frustrate”?
YOU: What about those who came here expecting to be shown something?
ME: Some of you may demand something spectacular, some demand a witty show of wise words. But what I have to say is simply this: death is overcome through Jesus Christ.
YOU: That sounds simple enough.
ME: This simple message is a stumbling block to those demanding miracles,
foolishness to those wanting wisdom.
YOU: But what is it to us?
ME: To those of us whom God has called, just as Jesus called me from the grave,
Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
YOU: That’s not fooling around!
ME: Indeed – for the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
YOU: So we go around looking like weak fools and that’s supposed to be good news?
ME: It is good news, because in our weakness God is strong.
YOU: And we end up troubled on every side!
ME: Yet not distressed.
YOU: We become perplexed!
ME: But not in despair.
YOU: We’ll be persecuted!
ME: But not forsaken.
YOU: Cast down!
ME: But not destroyed.
No, while we live we can expect to always face death for Jesus’ sake,so that the life of Jesus might be manifested in our own mortality.
I know that, just as the Lord Jesus raised me from the dead,
God raised Jesus after dying on the cross, and so shall all who receive His Spirit be raised up in the Resurrection.
YOU: So folly and death becomes a daily part of life?
ME: It already has. Now, however, because of the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of expecting deadly folly,everyone of us can fully experience His Resurrection as a Way of Life.
[singing]
I am the resurrection and the life.
He that believeth in me though he were dead,
Yet shall he live, yet shall he live;
For whosoever liveth and believeth in me
Shall never, never die!

[Pause.]
Do you believe this?
[exit.]

PAUL [1 Corinthians 1:18-31]:
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. … Consider your calling, brothers and sisters, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen,the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,so that no man may boast before God.
But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,so that, just as it is written,
"LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

10 hours ago ·

WISDOM & FOLLY from FACEBOOK

2010-04-01T23:12:00.005-04:00

Craig Tavani ... went out. And it was night.

Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified,
"I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."
His disciples stared at one another,
at a loss to know which of them he meant.
One of them,
the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.
Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said,
"Ask him which one he means."
Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him,
"Lord, who is it?"
Jesus answered,
"It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread
when I have dipped it in the dish."
Then, dipping the piece of bread,
he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.
As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
"What you are about to do, do quickly,"
Jesus told him,
but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him.
Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought
Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast,
or to give something to the poor.
As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out.
And it was night.

about an hour ago ·

Craig Tavani

"Surely not I, Lord?"

about an hour ago ·

Now …
when evening came,
Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
As they were eating, He said,
"Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him,
"Surely not I, Lord?"

What a strange form of question!
A negative answer seems not only hopefully expected,
but fervently requested.
The disciples each appear to plea,
“Please, Lord, assure me of my faithfulness!”
Such sad disbelief!
The deep sense of vulnerability surrounding this question
was tragically exposed as true in the last hours of Jesus’ life.
No disciple of Jesus was much of a model for faithfulness.
Each disciple failed in some way to follow faithfully.
Judas betrayed Jesus.
Peter, having boldly boasted with such bravado
about his fervent faithfulness,
denied knowing his Lord three times.
Not one of the Twelve even attended to Jesus’ body
after the crucifixion!
All of them had fled from the Garden of Gethsamane,
finding out just how foolish it was to base their faith
on the false foundation of their own fickle fortitude.
These fallen followers had yet to realize their utter need
for the fullness of the Spirit.

"Surely not I?"
Was this a faithful question … or a foolish boast?

“Surely God is my salvation;
I will trust and not be afraid.”
Amen.

Nick Tavani

A most thoughful and provocative commentary worthy of this night.

Craig Tavani

This was written as the beginning of a presentation I wrote for the theatre troupe, DRAMATICA, to be performed at the Church of the Good Samaritan during the Maundy Thursday service this evening, which happened to fall on April 1st of 2010 – April Fool’s Day!
(go to http://symethics.blogspot.com/2010/03/surely-not-i.html for the whole proposed presentation)

Much more comes between the question, "Was this a faithful question or a foolish boast" and "Surely God is my salvation." In fact, most of it appears as the dialogue I posted to the thread of my previous status as though between ME and YOU. The lines for ME in the MAUNDY THURSDAY presentation belonged to a CLOWN character who claims to be Lazarus, the same person raised from the dead by Jesus.

Prior to his death recorded in the Bible, Lazarus may well have been quite a serious person. After being raised, however, might his perspective have been greatly tempered by a hilarious sense of humor? Though he seriously reveres the truth of what he proclaims, the hilarity of his proclamation may seem irreverent to those who hear and see him.

Imagine that, after Jesus called him out of the grave, Lazarus never died, but lived on and on through century after century. Adjusting to changing times, Laz’s way of survival may have been to play the part of the fool, associating with other clowns, jesters, and troupes of traveling actors in every period of history since the time of Christ. This would imitate the reputation Jesus had himself, who was said to eat with publicans and sinners, just the type of folk reputed to fool around in theatre!

For another take on LAZARUS after Jesus raised him from the dead, see Eugene O'Neill's very interesting play, LAZARUS LAUGHED. Here is an excerpt from the first scene in which a guest is telling what he saw at the tomb:

"I helped pry away the stone so I was right beside him. I found myself kneeling, but between my fingers I watched Jesus and Lazarus. Jesus looked into his face for what seemed a long time and suddenly Lazarus said 'Yes' as if he were answering a question in Jesus' eyes. ... Then Jesus smiled sadly but with tenderness, as one who from a distance of years of sorrow remembers happiness. And then Lazarus knelt and kissed Jesus' feet and both of them smiled and Jesus blessed him and called him 'My Brother' and went away; and Lazarus, looking after Him, began to laugh softly like a man in love with God. Such a laugh I never heard! It made my ears drunk! It was like wine! And though I was half-dead with fright I found myself laughing, too!"

Fool of Wisdom

2010-04-01T00:20:00.001-04:00

MOROSOPHIA

(foolosophy: foolish wisdom of God)

This fellow's wise enough

to play the fool.

TWELFTH NIGHT, IIIi:61

I turned my mind to understand,

to investigate,
to search out
wisdom

and the scheme of things.

I turned my mind to understand
the stupidity of wickedness and
the madness of folly.

Applying myself to the understanding of wisdom

as well as of madness and folly,

I learned that
this is a chasing after the wind.

My mind still guiding me with "wisdom,"
I tried cheering myself with wine,
and embracing folly.
Loose laughter, however, is foolish.
What does such pleasure accomplish?

wisdom.

OUTWEIGHS

A little folly

Was ever one wiser than one's own weak wit?

Why would one ever dare to think, "Try it?"

When one's world is found empty,
God's word proves itself full.

Was one ever so wise to not fail as a fool?

There is more hope for a fool

than one wise in one's own eyes.

A proverb in the mouth of a fool

hangs limp.

Answer not a fool according to his folly

lest you become

like a fool yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly

lest, in his own eyes,

he become wise.

Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning

and

even among fools

she lets herself be known.

Folly is loud

undisciplined

without knowledge.

Sitting at the highest point in the city,

Folly calls out to those who pass by:

"Let all who are simple come here! "

To all who lack judgment,

Folly says,

"Stolen water is sweet;

food eaten in secret is delicious!"

But little do they know

that the dead are there;

the guests of Folly

are in the depths of the grave.

The wise in heart accept commands,

but a chattering fool

comes to ruin.

The wise store up knowledge,

but the mouth of a fool

invites ruin.

Whoever conceals one's hatred

has lying lips,

and whoever spreads slander

is a fool.

The lips of the righteous nourish many,

but fools die for lack of judgment.

The one who brings trouble on one's family

will inherit the wind,

and the fool will be servant to the wise.

The way of a fool

seems right to him,

but a wise man listens to advice.

A fool shows his annoyance at once,

but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself,

but the hearts of fools blurt out folly.

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge,

but a fool exposes his folly.

A longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul,

but fools detest turning from evil.

He who walks with the wise grows wise,

but a companion of fools suffers harm.

The wise woman builds her house,

but with her own hands

the foolish one tears her house down.

A fool's talk brings a rod to his back,

but the lips of the wise protect them.

Stay away from a foolish man,

for you will not find knowledge

on his lips.

The wisdom of the prudent

is to give thought to their ways,

but the folly of fools is deception.

Fools mock at making amends for sin,

but good will is found among the upright.

Even in laughter the heart may ache

and joy may end in grief.

A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil,

but a fool is hotheaded and reckless.

The simple inherit folly,

but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

The wealth of the wise is their crown,

but

the folly of fools yields folly.

A patient man has great understanding,

but a quick-tempered man displays folly.

A fool spurns his father's discipline,

but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.

The lips of the wise spread knowledge;

not so the hearts of fools.

Death and Destruction lie open to the LORD

- how much more the hearts of men!

The discerning heart seeks knowledge,

but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Folly delights one who lacks judgment,

but a man of understanding keeps a straight course.

Understanding is a fountain of life

to those who have it,

but folly brings punishment to fools.

For a fool

HONOR

is unfitting.

A longing fulfilled

is sweet to the soul,

yet the fool is determined

to return to his folly.

DEEP DESIRE RIGHTLY ORDERED TO GOD

2010-03-10T10:07:00.003-05:00

Disordered desire becomes the seed of sin. It is when by one’s own deep desire [epithumia] one is carried away and enticed, that one is then tempted (see James 1:14-15). The deep desire is not the sin; even Jesus had such desire. We read in Luke 22:14-20, "With desire I have desired [epithumia epithumāsa] to eat this Passover with you before I suffer ..." Jesus was not, however, driven by such desire; he, the ever-obedient Son, rather ordered his desire toward doing the will of God the Father.

This right ordering of desire is put in particular perspective in Luke 22:39-46, where we read:
Jesus …proceeded as was His custom to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples also followed Him.
When He arrived at the place, He said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation."
And He withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."
...And being in agony He was praying very fervently ... .
When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow,and said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation."

Jesus gives us the perfect example of "One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). We read in Hebrews 5:7-8, "In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered."

Fervent Prayer was the life-long practice of piety by which Jesus became able to suffer temptation without yielding to temptation. Essentially what Jesus simply said was this, "Father in Heaven, not my will, but Yours be done."

CONFORMED TO THE PATTERN

2010-02-15T22:14:00.001-05:00

“Be not conformed to the pattern of this world,

but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”

The main character in the movie, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, was obsessive in how his mind found patterns. One wonders how this may be like any of us cope with the world as we find it - patterns emerge or are imposed in such a way as to mediate our encounter with reality. Some patterns are merely ideal with little or no correspondence with the real. Others correspond so well that we ascribe to them TRUTH.

Conscience keeps us connected to what is real - or should do so if it is well-formed and clear. Conscience that has poor correspondence between the ideal and real can make folly seem to be wise. Thus have many become fools.

COVENANTAL CREATION

2010-02-11T18:24:00.001-05:00

Covenant is relationship between Creator & creation: the Creator proves responsibility by promising to sustain all creation and enabling creatures with the freedom to respond as well; the creature is free to respond by doing that which is consistent with the purposes of the Creator .

God initiated the relationship by creating all that is, forming the earth itself in such a way as to support life.
God created mankind in his own image; each human is created to carry the character of the Creator’s image.
God planted a garden as the place where the creature carrying God’s character could live.
God lay on this human creature the responsibility to care for the well-being of all other created things.
God lightened life for the lone man by creating as well a woman to be a help meet for him.
God created man and woman with the command to continue creation through their mutual physical relations.
God, being a Divine Community in Himself, commanded humans to create community as well.
God, in His Divine Community as Father and Son and Spirit,
created man so that he could become father to sons and daughters through the woman
and created woman so that she could become mother of those daughters and sons,
making the family foundational for community
God’s face/favor
God found all that He created to be good and called His creation, “Good.” This favor God showed His creation continued especially in the creation of the man and woman, created in God’s own image. To see the face of one another was to see the face of God.

The man and woman looked upon their nakedness without shame; they did not turn their faces away at first. Then came the command of God regarding one of two trees planted in the middle of the Garden where they lived. The fruit of this particular tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, was forbidden to the man & woman. Then came the clever serpent, by way of devious word, to distract the woman from attending to God’s command: “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?”

Rather than recognizing the devilish doubt darkening the glorious truth of God’s own Word, the woman considered the contradiction without alarm, poorly remembering what God actually said. The serpent, hearing how she deviated from God’s Word, drove deeper his wicked wedge and said, “ You will not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The Forbidden Fruit then took on an appearance devilishly different than the other trees in one devious way: Like the other trees, the tree on which the woman found the Forbidden Fruit was good for food and a delight to the eyes, but it was as well desirable to make one wise. Not only did the woman take and eat from the fruit of this Forbidden Tree, but she also gave some to her husband.

While this was happening, the man whom God created had been with the woman whom God created for him. Not only did he fail to recognize the deception, he deliberately chose to eat as well what God had forbidden him to eat. The consequence of contradicting God’s command came immediately. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened …” They now knew that they were naked, a new kind of knowing that caused them shame. Now knowing this new thing, this bad thing, so different from knowing only what is good, they covered themselves, or at least attempted to do so by making loin covering with sewn-together fig leaves.

The LORD God found them just like that, shivering shamefully in the crazy costumes they had made themselves. The sound of God’s coming caused the two to try to hide from the presence of the LORD God. However, their hiding place, among the trees of the Garden where God walked in the cool of the day, hideously failed to keep them from having face the LORD.

The human creature found himself fallen out of favor with his own Creator. For the first time ever, Creator God turned his face away from His creation. Hope remained in the covenantal promise of God to overcome the curse Himself someday in the woman’s seed.

BELIEVE GOD IS

2010-02-04T19:15:00.004-05:00

Believe God is – this first,
faith then will become operative
in assuring one of what follows from that.
The first responsibility of any person
is to believe in God,
that is, be faithful to God
– faith, by definition, is believing what is true;
if what one believes is not true, one is unfaithful.
To not believe God is
will mar anything else a person may believe:
"without faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to God must believe that He is
and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him"
(Hebrews 11:6).

Belief functions in humans before reason does.
This priority of belief is a matter of maturity
– "when I was a child, I reasoned as a child ...."
What is childish reasoning like?
It is thinking one's beliefs
rightly describes reality as it appears to be.
Reason accepts the possibility that
what is apparent may be other than what is real.
This is what I like
about the philosophical approach of phenomenology
– it takes seriously the appearance of things
but is willing to put that appearance to question.

There is no such person as a "non-believer."
Every person believes something.
A reasonable person will desire
to believe what is true
– to believe otherwise is not reasonable.
Grace and truth are realized through Jesus Christ.
I believe that God graciously takes responsibility
for revealing the truth He wants us to know.
We must pattern what we believe
after that which God has revealed
– God is perfectly revealed in Christ Jesus.
Born in sin, our belief system begins out of whack.
We begin our lives
capable of believing only one thing properly
(this is how I understand what Romans 12:3 describes
as each person's "measure of faith" )
– that we need God to reveal how we ought to believe.
Responsible belief is continually on the lookout
for whatever God reveals.
Humans are born
ready to respond to what God reveals
– sin works to distort that revelation
and alter our response.
It is the grace of God that works
against the distorting influence of sin;
by grace we are able to respond rightly to God's revelation,
if we are willing,
that is, if we believe.
Belief is what we are willing to do.

Belief always takes place in the context of relationship.
That is why witnessing is more than mere reasoned presentation
of the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ
– it is a reasoning together:
this often involves a challenge to beliefs,
iron sharpening iron, as it were.
Let this conversation take place
in love, grace and truth in action.
When one of the persons reasoning together is God Himself,
the other discovers a cleansing transformation taking place
– sin, that source of bad belief,
no longer separates oneself from God.
God is right there to be worshipped
– confession, repentance, praise, intercessory prayer,
proclamation of his mighty works, and on and on.

All praise be to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
who has opened the way for us,
through the power of the Holy Spirit,
to faithfully believe what pleases our Father in Heaven,
the LORD God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

THE YOKE OF CHRIST, NOT "CHRISTIANITY"

2010-02-04T19:07:00.003-05:00

Christianity is too much identified by way of institutions

rather than the person of Jesus Christ.

Although I may be "a man under authority,"

that authority is not an institution but a person!

I will not serve an institution

- I serve only God and serve with servants of God.

If my service to God puts me in submission to some servant of God,
then I will become obedient to that servant,

remaining always responsible for my own obedience to God,

trusting the Holy Spirit to guide me in choosing well whom to obey.

If I discern some abuse of authority,

I am free to reject the authority of the abuser,

even if doing so mars the reputation of institutionalized Christianity.

In doing so, however,

I remain responsible for being obedient to Christ,

for I bear the yoke of Christ, not Christianity.

THE CALL TO THEOLOGY

2010-02-04T18:50:00.011-05:00

I find very interesting the following excerpt from DONUM VERITATIS :

Among the vocations awakened

... by the Spirit in the Church

is that of the theologian.

His role is to pursue in a particular way

an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God

found in the inspired Scriptures

and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church.

The theologian must … be attentive

to the epistemological requirements of his discipline,

to the demands of rigorous critical standards,

and thus

to a rational verification of each stage of his research.

The obligation to be critical, however,

should not be identified with the critical spirit

which is born of feeling or prejudice.

The theologian must discern in himself

the origin of and motivation for his critical attitude

and allow his gaze to be purified by faith.

The commitment to theology requires a spiritual effort

to grow in virtue and holiness.

FORMED BY FORGIVENESS

2010-02-04T14:02:00.002-05:00

God gives life, forming each person in the womb of one's mother. Each person, however, is born in sin, deformed from the failure of our first father, Adam. Reformed by baptism in the name of the crucified Christ who rose to live again, we can begin to become mature as Christ is formed in us by faithfully following his Way of Truth through life. Moving on in maturity from the experienced love of eros on to the shared love of philos and the learned love of storgos, we die to self to become alive in Christ so that we can love like Christ Himself loved us, fully expressing the love of God in his ultimate act of agape, death on the cross. Secure now in being loved oneself by God, we live by the resurrection power of Christ to love others as we have been loved ourselves. Always intending to act justly, we continually love mercy in imitating the forgiveness of God before whom we humbly walk. Doing the truth in love, we find justice fulfilled in forgiveness.

Each choice we make follows from this absolute commitment to being like Christ, ordering all we do towards God. Every relationship with every person we encounter is an opportunity to make manifest the love of God. Being bound by the bodily reality of concupiscence, we find we fail in our following, our conscience standing as witness to such failure.

Yet God's grace does not fail, being given freely as we repent, renewing our baptismal commitment to be faithful followers of the Way. No longer in hiding because of our failure, we are ready to reveal who we are to others, unashamed of what our lives may show. By God's grace, every aspect of our lives makes known to others the loving truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

CREATING CULTURE

2010-01-21T20:56:00.000-05:00

Creating culture is what human beings do. Cultivation is what we have been called to do since the beginning: "The LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it" (Genesis 2:15, NASB). The Church of Christ cannot not be confined by the deforming norms of worldly culture. As a community of committed Christians each becoming conformed to the character of Christ Jesus by the renewal of the Holy Spirit, we can create culture anew through our loving fellowship with one another and our reasonable worship of God that motivates us to move beyond the cultural boundaries of Christian community and become witnesses of God's glory in the chaotic cultures of the world at large. Apologetics is the way we witness to how Logos overcomes Chaos, the Lordship of Jesus Christ wisely dominating the weakness of the flesh.

Let our Church be like the Garden of Eden where we can cultivate what God has planted there and graciously grows for our good (Amen to Pastor Nestor's comment regarding how not to "grow the church" through our own efforts). Let the Tree of Life sustain us in the Body and Blood of the One crucified on another tree. Let our knowledge of Good and Evil come from our wise obedience to the Desire of all cultures (Hosea 2:7) rather than be a consequence of desiring the wicked wisdom proposed in the deceitful scheming of the Ancient Enemy of God's people, "the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan." Let the culture of our community be good, pleasing and perfectly conformed to the will of God. Let us live in true hope that through the Spirit of Christ, we really can change the culture in which we live as we await the soon coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

What do I know about God and the purpose of life?

2009-11-01T11:05:00.002-05:00

The following was written in the trenches of the First World War, part of it on the Carpathian Front. It was recorded (dated 5.7.16) in the war-time diaries of Ludwig Wittgenstein, then attached to a garrison artillery regiment of the Austrian Army.

What do I know about God and the purpose of life?

I know that this world exists.

That I am placed in it like my eye in its visual field.

That something about it is problematic, which we call its meaning.

That this meaning does not lie in it but outside it.

That life is the world.

That my will penetrates the world.

That my will is good or evil.

Therefore

that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world.

The meaning of life, i.e. the meaning of the world, we can call God.

And connect with this the comparison of God to a father.

To pray is to think about the meaning of life ...

2009-08-27T10:06:00.001-04:00

PHYSICS OF THE FALL

2009-07-12T14:23:00.002-04:00

Physics of the Fall: PART 1 [Randy]

The following 7-part essay conflates a number of posts written by three correspondents.

What was Eden like and what changed, biologically, in Adam, when he and Eve experienced sin's curse? This question seeks to clarify the nature of the transformation in Adam. There was spiritual death, yes, but could have the pre-Fall Adam indeed physically died? What about him, what about Eden, was different before and after the Fall?

Physics of the Fall: PART 2 [Nick]

Adam may have been capable of physical death but kept alive by the Tree of Life as well as the lack of stupid things brought on by sin which rob our health and lead to accidental or intentional trauma and/or death. In other words, "immortality" means "moment to moment dependence" on God's sustenance, much like caring for an infant or child – nurturing, protecting and guiding them – rather than some kind of Superman-like invincibility. There is biblical basis for this view of God's constant care for creation and life expressed several places in scripture.

If this be the case, then the biology pre-fall was pretty much like it is now, with respect to the natural processes and cycles driving it (providentially designed and maintained, as now), except for the degradative effect of sin on lifestyle which shortens life considerably. Affluent America is a prime example as degenerative and other chronic conditions brought on by our lifestyles gnaw away at our life expectancies.

God may very well have meant for this creation to mature to the point where it would be replaced by the new creation, presumably one where the law of entropy was not in effect. Why, then, didn't God do this from the start?

Many Christians have projected this final "new creation" back on the original creation or Edenic "paradise" and claim that the Fall changed it into the groaning mess we now live in. However, what is to be made of the fact that Eden was but a small part of a large planet and of an even much larger cosmos?

Perhaps this space/time/energy/matter realm is a "proving ground" or a kind of "incubator" preparing free-will creatures for a permanent eternal state; a kind of necessary stage requirement [purgatory?]. Certain Scriptures do support this supposition; there is also plenty of material (the cosmos) that reveals what God actually chose to do, rather than what we speculate He could have done. In the course of exploring these things, this combination of special and general revelation needs to be kept in mind.

Physics of the Fall: PART 3 [Craig]

Our knowledge of the world before the Fall is drawn mostly from the two accounts of Creation. How significant is it that one Scriptural account of Creation (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3) seems to entail the whole earth, while the second account (Genesis 2:4-25) focuses narrowly on Eden? Given that the Creator Himself first cultivated the Garden of Eden, might there be some special science involved in that cultivation that differed from the science beyond the borders of the Garden? Might Eden be considered as an experimental laboratory designed for scientific discovery?

It is quite significant that Eden was merely a part of the greater world. By definition, a garden is a particular place prepared especially to be cultivated according to the will of the gardener. It is a fallacy to speak of all Creation as though it was this particular place called "Eden." The possibility of maturing toward becoming a new creation is an intriguing idea. This is the proper understanding of death even now – death does not end life but becomes the gateway to new life begun by being baptized into Christ.

Perhaps we should take Christ's word on the cross as a hermeneutical key to understanding Eden; Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be with Him in "paradise." This "place prepared" for followers of Christ may help us understand the place God prepared to put the man He created:

"The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. ... the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."

Surely Man did more than mere taxonomic research! In addition to naming all the animals, might Adam have discovered more within those special boundaries of the Garden? Did he later share those discoveries with Cain, who then wandered off, bloody-handed, with that knowledge to pass it on to his own progeny? Consider Jabal's agricultural program or Jubal's musical accomplishment or Tubal-cain's implementation of bronze and iron tools.

All these innovations had to begin somewhere and where better than a prepared place protected from chaotic nature?

The cultivated environment of Eden was probably perfect for developing ways to live in this world without struggling just to survive. If it hadn't been for the blessed existence of Eden, mankind would have been hard-pressed to be fruitful and multiply enough to fill the earth, let alone subdue it. Mankind would instead be subject to the struggle to survive. But God was gracious; rather than making man find his own way in the wild world, God "planted a garden" where "He placed the man."

The text shows us a God causing and forming, quite involved in what went on in the Garden –

"Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food ..... Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called the living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field ..."

Now that is some scientific enterprise!

So man studied the natural sciences and, eventually, went on to do coursework in behavioral sciences as well. Enter his lab partner, Eve. You know the rest of that experiment.

It is interesting to note the environmental differences with which man had to contend after the Fall. Before, Man operated with God's blessing. He even had a ready source of water which watered the Garden in which grew what was readily available to eat. Following his Fall, Man had to contend with cursed ground, toiling against thorns and thistles growing in fields where he had to find plants he could eat (incidentally, did Man sweat as he cultivated the Garden? Or was that particular place temperate enough to work comfortably otherwise?). No longer allowed in the lush Garden, Man fearfully faced the dusty domains of the rest of Creation. Although God remained gracious by not letting Man go out naked into the world, He made sure that Man could not reach the Tree of Life from the Garden anymore, driving Man away to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. How did this ground of exile differ from the ground in the Garden?

Another question is, how was Man's new knowledge of good and evil related to his ability to "to stretch out his hand" to "take from the tree of life" so that, eating, he would "live forever"? Could the phrase "stretch out his hand" be applied significantly to other goals other than the tree of life? For example, later in the Genesis narrative, the story of the Tower of Babel mentions how "nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." Might "the tree of life" be the ultimate goal toward which Man stretches his hand? Constantly grasping but getting nothing to eat would surely be frustrating. Rather than continue to act faithfully, trusting in God's promise revealed in the words spoken to Eve regarding future redemption in her seed, Man acted from frustration, grasping for goals other than those leading to life. Focusing on the wrong goals, Man wandered farther and farther away from the Garden.

The thread of this discussion regards the "roots of violence." Violence is force wrongly applied (it is anthropomorphic to call what happens in nature "violent"; like calling the lion a "murderer" for killing the lamb).

The roots of violence are not in Creation itself, but in Man's frustrated response to his struggle for survival following the Fall. Finding ourselves outside of the Garden, unable to get in, we have knowledge of good and evil but lack the wisdom to discern the difference. We ignore God's grace that helps us survive, and grasp to get what we imagine we need to have, applying our efforts toward getting what we want and subjecting others to yield to our will.

God obviously intended that Man would have the opportunity to live forever, but that way remains guarded by His angel, swinging sword in hand. However, that angel also carries a message of Good News – the way is now open through Christ Jesus.

Physics of the Fall: PART 4 [Nick]

I have often wondered what God and Adam talked about "in the cool of the evening."

On such evenings, I often walk the paths in our woods and reflect on what is going on all around me – the budding trees, the green leaves, the insects, the soil, the clouds, the fractal forest, the ecological niches, the biochemical processes underlying and geologic cycles driving it all – and the sheer beauty of the every detail and grandness of the whole scheme. And I feel a strong sense of the Lord 'directing" my gaze, guiding my thought patterns, bringing to mind scriptures and things I learned, opening new insights (sometimes I stop to take notes right on the spot).

Beethoven and Bach both drew inspiration from nature for their music for God's glory.

I have often taken the boys along on such walks and enjoy watching them discover (ant hills, bird's nests, animal tracks, mushrooms) and listening to their explanations and questions. If a post-fall sinner like me (and "father, being evil") has such an experience, is it that hard to imagine Adam's Heavenly Father strolling with Adam and later Eve, detailing for them the wonders of His creation just to see their looks of wonder and expressions of awesome praise for such a goodly world; as well as for their knowledge in "subduing the earth and being fruitful" ... as well as basic body stuff like how not to cut open a cantaloupe and where the best place for a latrine would be, etc.

The thesis of "Eden as Lab" (as well as Theatre and Studio and Kitchen and Basic Training School) – makes sense to me. How much was lost and how much got passed on (probably distorted in some Darwinian way, perhaps) we don't know. But the skills which did beget human culture are strong evidence to me that God was quite the Teacher on those Edenic afternoons long ago. Archaeological and fossil evidence bear this out in showing that, of all animals (including hominids) only Man developed culture beyond mere survival – we find with his (sophisticated) tools ancient (less than 50,000 years) artifacts of instruments (exquisite flutes for instance), decorative jewelry, ritual relics, etc. And it appears suddenly rather than gradually – so suddenly that, like the Cambrian and Avalon explosions of lifeforms ("biology's big bang" - seriously undermining Darwin), it is sometimes called the "Cultural Big Bang".

Amazing isn't it? That God didn't "take back" the stuff He shared with Adam (maybe he even knew about DNA – why not?) but, saddened, God watched man run off with it to use for his own selfish purposes, distorting it all with each generation. (Like Elvis whose talents were nurtured in an Assemblies of God church when he was young - but look at his end; like Michael Jackson – the one bloated, the other bizarre beyond recognition). Noah's family might have preserved a lot; and we know that Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Daniel and others received the best courtly education in the greatest empires the world has ever seen; or, perhaps, were they actually sharing the knowledge passed on to them with their masters (or attempting to) which is why they were so sought after; I am sure it was a two way street, with these patriarchs and prophets taking from these ancient cultures necessary know-how which helped form the durable Jewish people, right up to the present day.

Thanks to the insights from Genesis voiced in the previous post, perhaps we have a clearer path to identifying the original Source of such knowledge back to the Creator Himself!

Physics of the Fall: PART 5 [Randy]

What was different, biologically, in Adam, after the fall, so that he was then subject to death? The things said about God's actively cultivating the garden are most interesting to me, along with the idea of Adam and his kin taking divine knowledge with them on their exit from the garden. I think we consider too little how much we lost from sin.

Physics of the Fall: PART 6 [Nick]

The true effect of sin is something to contemplate. How much the locust have eaten! But how much the Spirit restores with salvation! That is why I am careful with factoring in the "noetic effect of sin" which is a popular way some try to get around why we can't trust secular science today.

As for Adam's biology, why should it have been different if, as I pointed out, God was taking care of him anyway – just like now. In other words, had he not providential protection, no kind of biology would be invincible. It is a fearful thing to consider how vulnerable we carbon-based creatures are, made up as we are of 63% water packaged in little cells that need constant links to the cosmic cycles, all maintained and sustainted (as well as designed and created) by God Himself. (So much for deistic thinking.)

As for how sin affected Adam's biology directly (apart from the "doing stupid things" or "not doing healthy things" effect), we know that, with each replication cycle, something is lost; in other words, the DNA / RNA / protein mechanism, as efficient and accurate as they are (it's been constantly at work for thousands of years – I'll just leave how many thousands at that for now), there is a demonstrable degradation which has occurred, and is occurring (perhaps at an accelerating rate, just like the expansion of the universe albeit for different reasons). This "built-in obsolescence" spells temporal doom for humanity – and in fact, any species. For a fuller treatment of this, I could suggest some references which actually calculate the outside parameters. Suffice it to say, we wear out far sooner than say, the earth or sun, making biblical prophecies of humanity's end quite reasonable to contemporary minds who comprehend the true nature of Nature.

Whether this process was begun or accelerated at the Fall, and whether God originally programmed humans for a longer tenure, is hard to say. From the declining biblical life-spans, we can get some general feel for what I am talking about here. Adam surely was not some kind of mythical superhero or superhuman, but was Adam perfect? What does “perfect” mean? Protein metabolism is not "perfect" but it is optimal, for instance. To be "perfect" would drain all the energy of the universe just fighting the entropy which drives it – so, in one sense, perhaps God had a new creation in mind from the start.

This, of course, is merely speculation, very much subject to further consideration.

Physics of the Fall: PART 7 [Craig]

Man's relationship with God changed when Eve, then Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We know this for sure from the text. Let's look to see what hints the text may have regarding not the obvious relational difference but what physical differences there were.

Note that there seems to have been no difference between that tree and any of the other trees in the Garden, except for the status of being off-limits. "Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow EVERY tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; and the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ... [T]he women saw that the tree was good for food, and it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise ..." "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From ANY tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.' "

This is almost all we know about that fateful tree and its fruit. The only physical description we have, that it seemed to have been located in the midst of the garden near the tree of life (of which very little is said), and that it was good for food. Other descriptive language focuses on non-physical aspects of the tree, one might say metaphysical – the look of it was delightfully pleasing and something about it aroused in Eve the desire to be made wise. It is somewhat confusing to read that Eve saw that the tree was good for food, but God said that in the day the man (can one rightly assume that God meant the woman as well) ate from it, he would surely die. Was the goodness that Eve saw a deception? I don't think so, but the fact that we only have a description the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of Eve may be significant.

Given my understanding of goodness as being inextricably related to God, I posit that our understanding should be founded on the verb not the noun - the fruit of the tree was not evil (and, from Eve's perspective looked good for food), but EATING of that fruit was undoubtedly evil because God forbid it. We can only wonder what might have been if Adam, instead of taking of the fruit as well, would have instead paused, then gone to God to seek counsel on what to do next. After all, according to the text, the command had been given directly to him, not the woman.

Of course, he did take the fruit his wife gave to him and ate. The next thing the text tells us is that "the eyes of both of them were opened." This describes a physical act transitively; one wonders, were their eyes closed before? Did they close their eyes somewhere in the process after seeing the tree? What is the significance that their eyes were opened rather than them opening their eyes? It is interesting to read that then "they knew that they were naked." The text says nothing of them being dead. Hmmmm. How are we to understand the relation between the two phrases: "you shall surely die" and "they knew that they were naked"? Previously the text told us that "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." The language leads one to connect nakedness, shame and death. Before the Fall, no coverings seemed to be needed, but after the Fall, the shamed couple, knowing now that they were naked, made coverings for themselves - loin coverings to hide their genitalia. Hmmmm. This recalls the first command, "Be fruitful and multiply." Covering themselves as they did, they placed an obstacle in the way of being able to obey God. Then they "hear the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." Their physical senses still operate just fine - they can taste, see and hear; however, such sensation now serve much more selfish ends than those guiding them prior to the Fall. Before the Fall, Man used his senses to discover what might be revealed in God's Creation; after the Fall, the senses alerted the man and wife so that they "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

I have tried to read the text closely to understand the physics of the Fall. Further study is necessary, but my conclusion so far is that the text supports the notion that no physical change resulted immediately from the Fall. My father insisted that of the four components of love, eros, the only one which is wholly physical, was unchanged; in contrast, the most radically changed was agape - in fact, agape became impossible for Man on his own (review my father's paradigm for love at http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/08/paradigm-foundational-to-understanding.html). I wonder, then, if the primary consequence of sin is not to be found in the physical realm.

I admit there remains the question of how to understand what God meant when he warned the man, "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Perhaps a hint is hidden in the possible consequences of eating from the tree of life: "he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." What does God mean to "live forever"? Is this the same as the "eternal life" promised in the Gospel? If so, then it is possible to understand all this as one understands the "old age" and "new age" - the phrase "already-not-yet-here" comes to mind. The Fall ushered in "the old age." Prior to the Fall may or may not have been like what was ushered in by Christ, "the new age." The old shall pass away, the new shall remain. For now, however, we exist in in both.

THE IDEA OF AMERICA

2009-07-01T08:52:00.001-04:00

America is an idea, even a good idea. That idea is expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. The idea of America is more than some mere "-ism" (capitalism, socialism, etc.). The American idea is symbolized by the "Stars and Stripes" waving in the wind. American soldiers and statesmen swear to defend that idea, even at the cost of their lives. American allies and enemies both recognize the power of that idea. Politicians must act to appear aligned with that idea. Many may mock America, but the idea of America remains untarnished. Citizens of America form communities holding on to the hope of that idea. Children are raised to realize the truth of the American idea, learning how they, too, may participate in making that idea prosper. It is a durable dream that drives Americans to realize freedom as their birthright and thus to live free in the face of all other apparent realities.

I am unapologetically American. It grieves me how this great idea has been reduced to facile political sloganeering plastered on bumpers and flaunted in photo-ops and bandied about on blogs. Let's work to re-imagine the idea that is America, willing the best that can be, rather than the worst that might be. We are blessed to be Americans. Let us not be ashamed to always pray, "God bless America!"

STATEMENT OF FAITH (under constant reconsideration)

2009-06-17T12:57:00.006-04:00

I believe in God.
My belief is provoked by God’s love for me, which is an act of grace.
God’s grace also has provided me with a measure of faith

by which I am able to believe.

My first experience of God’s love

was through the loving nurture of my family.

Having been conceived in the nuptial embrace

of my father and mother,

I was born into this world a helpless human being

wholly dependent on others.

My whole experience of love in the beginning was erotic.
As I matured, I discovered more mutual ways of loving

and began to love others less self-interestedly.

Through my family I came to accept the Bible as the Word of God.
Because of my family, I found myself in a community of people

who gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I matured in this community, I came to an understanding
that
I must make a personal decision concerning reconciliation to God

given that my relationship to God is not right

apart from accepting Jesus Christ as the way to be reconciled to God.

I trusted my family and the Christian community to which I belonged,

believing them to be truthful in teaching me these things.

Given my understanding of God,

especially how God is holy

and how we too should live holy lives,

I often found myself at odds with my profession of faith,

finding resolution

in confession and repentance,

but not enduring in my resolve

to live in such a way as to be found holy in all I thought, said or did.

I developed secretive habits that became part of my lifestyle

that provoked much awareness
for the need of confession and repentance,

yet miserably persisted.

I believe the grace of God kept me in spite of my persistent sin.
It is my hope

that the character of Christ Jesus is forming in me

by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thank God for his lavish goodness.

Begin here in God and God will take you there.

2009-06-17T11:11:00.005-04:00

God is God, beyond comprehension.
God provides, by His Spirit alongside/within/all about us,

what we require to think of Him,

but we must not think that our thoughts can wholly comprehend Him.

We have the Word of God

to which we must go to measure our musings against His awesome Majesty.

In doing so, we will inevitably end up like Job, who confessed,

"I have uttered what I did not understand.

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

... I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you.

Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

We might learn also from Elijah's experience,

who, in beholding the LORD's passing by, realized where the LORD was not.

This recalls the via negativa

to which theo-philosophical discussion must usually resort.

Transcendence is troubling to those trying to take God's measure.
Immanence is God's solution,

and that is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

Begin here in Him and He will take you there.

BOTH JOINTS & MARROW

THE ROAD OF MYRRH

THE INTRACTABLE DUALITY OF THE INCARNATION

The doyen of death dies.

Trying to connect to www.familyradio.com

Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.familyradio.comTry reloading: www.­familyradio.­com

Where is the promised parousia?

More discussion on Rob Bell

A thread of discussion with MARROW & friends concerning Rob Bell's book, LOVE WINS

Christ is truly Risen - FANTASTIC!

MAKING SENSE OF MARRIAGE:

DEFENDING D.O.M.A. IS NOT DUMB

In Christianity, Christ destroys sin.

FAITH IS FUNDAMENTALLY RELATIONAL

MOVING BEYOND TOLERANCE

WHAT GOD WANTS

BOOK REVIEW – “A FRESH LOOK AT WHO JESUS IS”

HIS FACE SHONE ...

TRUE THEORY

Is it dumb to disbelieve in God?

Giving Attention to Reading: The Lector as Minister

BE STILL

HOW GOD ACTS ON AND IN THIS WORLD

Needing the Bible ... Reading the Bible ... Heeding the Bible

THE MYSTERY OF HOLY SABBATH DAY

MOTHER'S SON

CROSS TALK

Further FOLLY with WISDOM on the side from FACEBOOK

Craig Tavani ... wise enough to play the fool?

WISDOM & FOLLY from FACEBOOK

Craig Tavani ... went out. And it was night.

Fool of Wisdom

DEEP DESIRE RIGHTLY ORDERED TO GOD

CONFORMED TO THE PATTERN

COVENANTAL CREATION

BELIEVE GOD IS

THE YOKE OF CHRIST, NOT "CHRISTIANITY"

THE CALL TO THEOLOGY

FORMED BY FORGIVENESS

CREATING CULTURE

What do I know about God and the purpose of life?

PHYSICS OF THE FALL

THE IDEA OF AMERICA

STATEMENT OF FAITH (under constant reconsideration)

Begin here in God and God will take you there.

Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.familyradio.com
Try reloading: www.familyradio.com