Exiles in Babylon: Isolation or Assimilation?

Hi friends,

Happy New Year! I know it’s been over two months since I last posted a blog, but with a new year comes new commitment. This is the second post in a four-part series entitled “Exiles in Babylon.” If you need a refresher, or haven’t read it yet, read the first post here.

I’d like to continue by tracing two patterns of response common among the Israelites exiled in Babylon, both of which can be easily recognized in the church today. The first and most common way the Israelites responded to their captivity was to isolate themselves from the Babylonians. Israel believed itself to be a distinct nation, above all the other nations of the earth, and they sought to preserve this by refusing to interact with Babylonian culture. This trend was directly addressed by God in the first couple verses of our passage, and his response is staggering: the Israelites were to build houses, plant gardens, and pray for the peace and prosperity of Babylon (vv. 5, 7). God is telling the Israelites to get comfortable in their exile, they were going to be there for at least a generation (v. 10). While they were there, God didn’t want them to act like nomads and aliens. They were to settle down in a permanent way while praying for the betterment of the nation that took them into captivity.

In the very same way, we the church are in exile from our home land, the kingdom. While here, we can be tempted to isolate ourselves from the world. Those who seek the isolation of the church are more often than not focused on the rules because they think the rules are what separate us from the world. While it is true that we are not at home here, we would do well to remember that “I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.’” We are here in exile as a part of God’s plan. Therefore, we should put down roots and get comfortable. God’s plan is for us to be in exile, and if we isolate ourselves, we cannot fulfill our role as salt and light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16). We should pray for the peace and prosperity of the world, increasing and not decreasing in number (vv. 6-7).

At this point, the Israelites might have been tempted to go the to the other end of the spectrum, a place we’ll call “assimilation.” If they were not supposed to isolate themselves from Babylon, then perhaps they were to let the Babylonian culture in. This also would be the wrong response to exile. To allow Babylon into Israel would indeed make for an easier existence, but this was equally lacking in God’s plan for Israel during their exile.

This is the direction the church is moving today. We have isolated ourselves, which continues to happen for sure, but in an attempt to regain some sort of pull in the community, we have made all sorts of compromises in the name of “relevance.” In some circles, morality is little more than a word, and an unpopular one at that. The irony is that in the assimilation camp the church ceases to exist as a people distinct from this world, which drives the isolationists to further distance themselves.

And the world wants nothing to do with either.

So what, then, are we to do? That is the topic I will leave for the next post. Until then, grace and peace to you all, and a very happy New Year.

Exiles in Babylon: Introduction

Hi friends,

Certain verses seem to find their way to prominence in our memories. One such verse is Jeremiah 29:11, which reads, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" More often then not, this verse is removed from its context and used as counsel for troubled times, and certainly this is part of the sentiment expressed here. However, when the verse is put back in its original context, a far more profound truth emerges:

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too might have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper... Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them," declares the LORD. "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place (Jerusalem). For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Jeremiah 29:4-11, NIV

This passage is absolutely fascinating, giving us a great insight into the will of God for a people in exile. While there certainly is an element of God promising to deliver people from their suffering, as 29:11 is usually taken to mean, the context suggests that God's plans also have an immediate contingency. To Israel, King Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians had carried them away into exile, but in this passage we see God claiming twice that He is responsible for their exile (vv. 4, 7). This statement is stunning to the Israelite who believes that God's dominance is asserted by Israel's rule in this world. God's plans are different than Israel's plans.

Here is the point where this passage applies to the church in a much more profound way than traditionally understood. We too are in exile. This world is not our home (1 Peter 2:11-12), and our citizenship lies elsewhere (Philippians 3:20). God, through Christ, has begun a work to rescue us from our exile, but here in Babylon we remain, at least for now. On this topic I'd like to dwell for a couple posts. How should we exist as exiles in a foreign land? What exactly are the plans of Jeremiah 29:11 that God has for the church? We'll take a look at these questions as I proceed.

For now, I'll point you to a couple resources. John Ortberg preached a sermon entitled "Good News in Bad Places," which inspired writing on this topic. He used Timothy Keller's book The Gospel in Life, which I cannot wait to read, as the main source for the sermon. Both of these resources will shed tremendous light on a topic that I can only skim here. As I go forward, when I use the term "Babylon" in a metaphorical sense, as it applies to us, I am referring to the world. As kingdom citizens, we are in exile in this world, because the world is under Satan's rule (John 12:31, John 16:11, 1 John 5:19, etc.). I am not referring to any single country or political system within the world, and to read these posts in such a way would be greatly missing the point.

I hope this sufficiently introduces the issue. The following posts will be focussing on the two ways exiles tend to respond while in Babylon as well as offer the third response, which Jeremiah 29:4-11 offers as God's plan for the exiles.

Until next time, grace and peace to you all.

Concluding Remarks: The Inclusive Kindom

Hi friends.

I want to offer some concluding remarks on my recent mini-series of posts on systematic theology. I'm going to start with a joke that I heard in a sermon that I podcasted recently because I think it perfectly illustrates the reason why systematic theology can become so dangerous in the body of Christ.

One day, John found himself walking across a bridge. About halfway across, he noticed another man who was about to jump. John rushed over to the man and said, "Don't jump, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?" responded the jumper.

"Well, are you religious?" asked John.

"Yes."

"Me too! Are you Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist?"

"I'm a Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant."

"Protestant," mumbled the jumper.

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, or Baptist?"

"I'm a Baptist."

"Me too! Are you Southern Baptist, General Baptist, Northern Baptist, or Separatist Baptist?"

"Separatist Baptist."

"Me too! Are you Original Separatist Baptist or Reformed Separatist Baptist?"

"I'm Reformed Separatist Baptist."

"Wow, me too! Are you Reformed Separatist Baptist Reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Separatist Baptist Reformation of 1915?"

"I'm Reformed Separatist Baptist Reformation of 1915," the jumper responded.

"Die, you heretic scumbag!" John bellowed as he pushed the jumper off the bridge.

This joke makes the point better than I ever could. One of the main reasons I have been on such a bent against systematic theology lately is that the system one creates too easily becomes the grid through which one judges all others. When we force the Bible to answer our questions, rather than respond to the questions it asks of us, we believe that what we come up with is inspired truth (after all, it is biblical!), and anyone who disagrees is therefore a second-rate Christian at best. To be included in the holy club, we must agree with the prevailing theology of that club!

The solution to the problem is found on Jesus' interaction with the thief on the cross. The thief simply expresses a heart that is oriented towards God when he asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus enters the kingdom (Lk 23:42). Jesus responds by saying, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise (v. 43). Notice what Jesus didn't ask him: anything. Jesus wasn't concerned about the thief's Christology or his understanding of the nature of God's providence. Jesus simply recognized the thief's heart and said, "You're in."

Friends, this is the kingdom. We are called to mirror Christ in all areas of our lives, chief of which is the area in which we relate to the lost. We are to welcome anyone whose heart is oriented towards God into our community, regardless of their past and, maybe more importantly, regardless of their theological stances. May we be a community so overflowing with the love shown us on the cross that the world flocks to Christ, asking only that He remember them. And remember them He will.

A disclaimer: I don't think systematic theology is inherently wrong. In fact, many good things have come from it! Rather, I'm suggesting that we keep a proper distinction between systematic theology and one's place in the kingdom. You don't have to have all the right understandings of inspiration, providence, and the like; you need simply to ask Jesus to remember you in the kingdom.

I'd like to mention at this point that the vast majority of this post, including the joke, was found in a terrific sermon given by Greg Boyd entitled "Church of the Scumbags." You can download the sermon here.

Grace and peace to you all.

Mike

"Experiential" Theology?

Hi Friends.

A couple conversations that took place in the wake of my last post (“Systematic” Theology?) have lead me to write a follow-up. As we continue to experience this cultural shift from modernism to postmodernism, a key debate, if not the key debate, is the one concerning the nature of truth. In my last post, I asserted my distaste for a “systematic” view of truth, which for the purposes of this post, I’ll refer to the right side of the truth spectrum. Here’s what I had to say:

“I'm not rejecting the absolute nature of truth; rather, its systematic nature is being called into question here. For the last 500 years or so, we've lived in a culture that values science above all else. Something possesses the quality of being "true" if it is measurable, observable, and able to be put into formula.”

Basically, I argued that truth can and does exist outside of the observable, measurable, formulaic bounds of science. My mom, who so often plays the role of theological anchor for me, offered the loving response that I might be misunderstood as suggesting the opposite extreme in this debate, and to that point I write this post. The temptation, once one begins to stray from a strictly systematic view of truth, is to move to the far left end of the spectrum, to the land of “experience” and “relative” truth.

It might be useful to track the development of a cancerous trend in humanity which relates very closely to the idea of relative truth: independence. At the fall, Adam and Eve chose independence from God over dependence on him. Since the Enlightenment, we have seen the rise of individualism, in which the individual chooses independence from the community. In postmodernism, we begin to see so much importance placed on the individual that the individual determines truth.

Here’s how this might flesh out: in my experience, no one has ever been raised from the dead, therefore the resurrection narratives in the Gospels must be allegory, because my experience dictates that resurrection is neither possible nor true. If another has experienced resurrection, then that person might affirm the historicity of the resurrection narratives, and I can’t question that, because I can’t question another’s experience. The truth of resurrection is relative to the individual, based solely on the individual's experience.

As I stated in my first post, the fallacy of the systematic view of truth is that it does not allow for any truth outside the limits of the observable, the measurable, and the formulaic. On the left end of the spectrum, the fallacy is that truth is found in experience, and anything not experienced to be true cannot therefore be true. This is why truth has to be relative for one on the left, because one has to allow for differing experiences while at the same time affirming one’s own experience as the sole indicator of truth.

The problem here is that we begin to apply the Bible to our own experience, shifting and molding it so that it might fit into the “truth grid” of our experience. Rather, we should seek to find our place in the story God has written in Scripture and continues to write today. We know that God is truth, so we must not define truth first and then allow that to define God. We must allow God to define truth, and then defend that truth with our lives.

I’ll finish with re-affirming the absolute nature of truth. As finite creatures, we have differing perspectives on what is true, but the truth itself remains unchanged. Infinite truth cannot be contained by either our finite systems of logic or our finite experience. God is writing a grand narrative across history, and he has graciously chosen to include us in that narrative. We should accept this with the humility it brings, rather than be arrogant enough to believe ours is the central story in history.

Hope this helps clear things up. Until next time, grace and peace to you all.

"Systematic" Theology?

Hi Friends,

My apologies for having been so long between posts. I promised for a while to post on a topic that has blossomed into something more than even 3 or 4 posts can contain. For that reason, I'm going to continue to explore the concepts of "Systematic Transformation" on my own for the time being. Rest assured, I will be posting on the topic as soon as I feel prepared to do so.

In the meantime, I wanted to reflect briefly in this post on a conversation I had recently with a friend. We were discussing some theological topics, like the nature and function of inspiration, historical and genre criticism, and the like (I know, all very riveting topics). We began to discuss what has become a the trending topic in my experience here at Trinity: the nature and scope of God's sovereignty and providence. After bringing him up to speed on similar conversation I had just finished having with another friend, I brought the question to him:

"I don't mean to put you in a box, theologically speaking, but where do you fall on the Calvinism-Arminianism-Open Theism spectrum?"

"I don't," he replied. "I think all of those stances are a result of forcing the text to answer a question which it never asked of itself."

A thought-provoking response, to say the least. I have long argued that "a text can not mean what it never meant" (in the tradition of Fee and Stuart), but I don't think I've ever let that truth actually take hold of my theology. The basic implication on Systematic Theology is the loss of the starting point. Any theologian who responsibly does Systematic Theology, as far as is possible, will tell you this process:

1) Exegesis: We must first seek to understand what the text meant in its original context. In other words, we must find what the author meant when he wrote.

2) Biblical Theology: Once exegesis has taken hold, we must now evaluate prevailing themes, such as Kingdom, Salvation, God, Man, Sin, etc. The whole of the references for each individual theme must be taken into account in order to understand set theme.

3) Systematic Theology: Based on our findings in Biblical Theology, we can begin to order our findings in a "system" that describes God, Creation, and the interplay thereof.

There is a glaring flaw in this process that must be addressed: What if God doesn't interact with creation in a "systematic" way? In other words, what if we actually can't put a formula to God's providence? What if God's will comes about in a variety of ways on Earth?

Don't burn me at the stake for being postmodern just yet. I'm not rejecting the absolute nature of truth; rather, its systematic nature is being called into question here. For the last 500 years or so, we've lived in a culture that values science above all else. Something possesses the quality of being "true" if it is measurable, observable, and able to be put into formula. Gravity, as an example, is true because it is measurable (the force of Gravity=9.81 m/s/s in Earth's atmosphere), observable (try jumping off a second-story balcony if you disagree), and able to be put into formulae.

Theology is not immune to culture's influence here. For instance, if one were to ask you why a given prayer of his/hers was not answered, how would you respond? We are inclined to try and answer in some formulaic way. Perhaps it wasn't God's will, or perhaps he/she didn't have enough faith. Is our world really that simple? No, of course not.

All I'm thus suggesting is for a re-focus when it comes to reading Scripture. If you're reading the Bible for the purpose of systematizing the state of things, you're missing out on so, so much! Certainly, there are truths we can surmise from the Bible, as God is truth and chooses to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and, to us, through Scripture. All I'm suggesting is that God cannot be bound by our systems of logic, advanced as they might be, at the cost of the transformative power found in his revelation.

I will leave this topic for the time being after one analogy. Growing up, I loved putting together lego sets. To this day, Santa still puts a set in my stocking every Christmas. I would open the box, and no matter how big the set was, I couldn't walk away until it was finished. The great frustration, obviously, came when I thought I had completed the set, only to find a small piece or two still in the box. Ever have this happen to you? You're putting together that bike for your child late on Christmas Eve, and when you think you've finished, you find a nut and bolt laying next to you?

I find that much Systematic Theology is done to this end. One spends an immense amount of time in research, construction of an argument, and defense of the conclusion only to find a nut and bolt left in the box that doesn't seem to fit. At this point, more often then not, I find the prevailing practice to be the disposal of the nut and bolt rather than the deconstruction of the bike to make sure, for the safety of its rider, that it is then completed.

When you push any theological system to its limit, you will find the proverbial piece that doesn't seem to fit. Our logic, although a gift from God for the pursuit of him, is never perfect, because we are finite creatures. At one point in history, everyone "knew" that the Earth was the center of the universe, and at another, everyone "knew" that the Earth was flat. The brightest and most educated minds of the given times came to these conclusions! I'm not saying that we should immediately cease and desist all practice of theology. I am, however, suggesting we consider the questions the text asks of us before we begin forcing our questions back on the text.

My prayer is that you and I would be so overwhelmed by the love found in the person of Jesus Christ that we would have no choice but to be transformed, to look only how to love God better and others with the whole of our selves. May God's love and grace captivate you as you approach the Word from this point forward. God is so much bigger than our logic anyways.

A big "thank you" to my good friend Elliott Siu for the discussion that sparked all this thought. And now, here's to hoping the chasm between posts is bridged more quickly this time. Until then, grace and peace to you all.

Classes Are Underway

Whew, finding time to blog is going to be tough! I've spent the afternoon trying to be proactive as far as homework goes. Some sort of "set the tone for the semester" thing going on, I guess. My first class was this morning. We talked about the nature of Scripture, Inspiration, Inerrancy vs. Infallibility, and Canonicity (all in a days work). I wanted to offer a few reflections based on that class and some conversations I've been having with friends.

First, I could go into a huge discourse on Inerrancy vs. Infallibility, talk about inconsistencies in text, the nature of inspiration, etc., but I don't think this is the venue. Scripture is authoritative in my life. It bears witness to our Savior and His teachings. It clearly states that the Christian life is one of "agape" love, as defined by the cross. I'm told therein of a God who loved me and the rest of His creation enough to become a man, die, descend to hell, and rise again on the third day in order to redeem that creation, which includes me, to Himself.

Second, the authors of the Bible never sat down to write with theological intentions in mind. What I mean is Paul didn't devote a portion of his letter to the Romans (chapter 9) or to the Ephesians (chapter 1) with the intent of clearing up any rogue theisms in either of those churches. He didn't write in order to weigh in on the Reformed View, or the Arminian View, or the Open View, or any nuance thereof. He wrote to teach and admonish his church plants in love. Jesus didn't tell his followers they were to be known by their profession of dispensationalism, but by their love (John 13:35). Therefore, my first and most common response to Scripture should be the realization of my brokenness, my need for a Savior, and my desire to live and to live like Him. This cannot get lost amidst my practice of theology.

By the way of a disclaimer, I will echo and affirm Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15. (I know, how noble of me to affirm Scripture). If Christ didn't actually die for our sins and actually resurrect on the third day, "then our preaching is in vain and [our] faith is in vain" (1Cor 15:14, ESV). The historicity of these events, the existence of this Man, we must hold to as the foundation of our faith, lest it all be in vain.

There it is, my rant is done. If every class session for the rest of my degree here is this stimulating, I count myself chief among the blessed in this world. I'll leave with a top 3 reading list from this summer.

3. A Million Miles in a Thousand Years by Donald Miller. I started the summer with this book. It is an inspiring read on story and how I am writing mine. Not Miller's best work, but very good nonetheless.

2. Prodigal God by Timothy Keller. For anyone who ever struggles in the identity we have as God's adopted children, read this book. Over and over again. The imagery is unbelievable; I tear up every time I picture God running to me.

1. Sex God by Rob Bell. This book has deeply satisfied what I have observed is a glaring lack in conversation about sexuality in the church. Rob takes an honest biblical look at the concept of sexuality and its godly expression. Must read.

"Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." (1Cor 15:58)

Grace and Peace to you all,

Mike

All Moved In!

Hey everyone, and welcome to my first grad school post. I just finished moving in to my room. As you can see, it's a little small, but I'm in a suite with a common living area, which helps. The door in the picture leads out to a balcony which overlooks the football field. I'm pretty excited about that.

I'm really looking forward to getting started with classes next week. I've got a pretty full load. I'll be taking Elementary Hebrew, Theology and Methodology of Preaching, Biblical Theology and Interpretation, and Advanced Greek Exegesis (pending a passing grade on the Greek Proficiency Exam). More than this, however, I am excited for the spiritual development floor I am living on this year. God has provided me a way to grow spiritually while I'm gaining knowledge in the classroom. I can't wait to see what God has in store for us this year.

Not much else to say for this, the first blog of grad school. My plan is to write regularly on experiences I will have here, reflect on the Christian response to current events, give book recommendations, and generally keep you all updated on my life. Feel free to weigh in as we go along.

So, in the words of Pat Hughes just before Carlos Marmol takes the mound, "Fasten your seat belts, here we go!"

Grace and Peace,

Mike