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.