He is risen indeed!

Happy Easter.

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” – The Gospel According to St. Luke, chapter 24, verses 1 through 7

Devotion to God–there is no substitute for this in the preacher’s character and conduct. Devotion to a church, to opinions, to an organization, to orthodoxy–these are paltry, misleading, and vain when they become the source of inspiration. God must be the mainspring of the preacher’s efforts, the fountain and crown of his toil. The name and honor of Jesus Christ, the advance of His cause, must be all in all. The preacher must have no inspiration but the name of Jesus Christ, no ambition but to have Him glorified, not toil but for Him. Then prayer will be the source of his illuminations, the means of perpetual advancement, the gauge of his success. The continual aim, the only ambition the preacher can cherish, is to have God with him. – E. M. Bounds, Power Through Prayer, chapter 8

Recently on Fresh Air Terry Gross did back to back shows where she interviewed the famous atheist Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project and a believer in Jesus Christ. I’ve downloaded the podcasts but haven’t had a chance to listen to them yet.

This morning I was poking around CNN and found Collins’ commentary on how and why he became a believer. There are some good points and some that bother me a bit. I really appreciated this comment:

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” “Why am I here?” “Why does mathematics work, anyway?” “If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” “Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” “Why do humans have a moral sense?” “What happens after we die?”

Science can do many and great things for humanity, but ultimately it can only answer “how?” and that only to a certain degree. Science can never answer “why.” Collins ran into that wall and went searching. Was belief in God rationally possible? Somehow he came across C. S. Lewis and found the answer to be a resounding yes.

I do side with Collins on the issue of faith and reason:

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

But I am uneasy about this “leap of faith” business. I’m not so sure it is a leap as much as an appropriate application of reason. Anselm’s idea of “faith seeking understanding” is more appealing to me. Otherwise, if we start with reason which has been distorted by the fall we are likely to allow that distortion to affect our faith. This is true even in a heart that has been renewed by the Holy Spirit.

So I am a concerned when Collins says something like this:

True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

This is where we must ask about the relationship between general revelation (what can be learned by studying creation) and special revelation (the Bible). This most often comes up in light of Darwinism and Genesis 1.

I believe it is wisest to start with the Biblical account and move out from there. I do not think an “ultra-literal” interpretation of Genesis 1 is demanded from the text. Genesis 1 appears to be Hebrew poetry and we shouldn’t take poetry literally. But notice that this discussion starts with hermeneutics not genetics. Beyond that, there are other texts of the Bible which seem to rely on six days of creation and one day of rest. I’m not sure if that means that the universe had to be created in six 24-hour days but what is being expressed in the poetry is an important pattern or cycle that is not included in Collins’ synthesis of science and Scripture.

So the struggle goes on. The reconciling of general revelation with special revelation struggles forward. I think Collins will be helpful in that movement but the work must be done not only by scientist but also by theologians and all of it in faith and under the headship of Jesus Christ.

P.S. The link at CNN that took me to this commentary read “Why one scientist believes in God” so I thought it was fascinating that Collins refers to “he 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.” CNN’s comment could be taken to imply (though not necessarily so) that there is only one scientist who believes in God.

Derek Webb has a new CD coming out. This one is more rock than his previous CDs were. If you preorder (no, I haven’t yet but am considering it) you get a 96-page graphic novel and you can download the CD before it is release. When I get the CD I’ll post some comments. The previews are encouraging.

We have a monumental challenge if we are going to contextualize the gospel and live as missional communities of faith throughout suburban America. We cannot flee. We cannot get out of here. This is where we live. This is where God has called us. And this “God-forsaken place” that we have been called to desperately needs the Church to stand up and be the Church. We need to be a Church that truly exists for the sake of others. We need a Church that gives up luxury so that others may have necessity. We need a Church that rejects the lone ranger mentality and lives in sacrificial and compassionate community. We need a Church that views money as a resource of God’s Kingdom and not an object to be consumed. We need a Church that trusts the Spirit and takes risks for the sake of the Gospel. We need a Church that comes together to care for the poor in their backyards as well as those in the city.

Perhaps, if we are careful to listen to the voice of the Spirit’s leading, we will see the power of the cross and the Resurrection can transform a place as cold and hard to the gospel as suburban America.

Todd Hiestand

About a year after my wife and I left the Roman Catholic Church and joined an evangelical church we started getting the itch to leave. The desire to roam just kind of showed up. Our church wasn’t bad we just kind of felt like we’d plateaued spiritually there. I don’t remember how it came up, probably in a sermon, but before we even began to look around our pastor said that before you leave a church you should try serving in it first. Well we did and we stayed. The church wasn’t to blame for our spiritual plateau, we were.

So this morning when I read the results of a survey on why people leave, I was saddened. Consider this excerpt:

Fifty-eight percent of respondents in a LifeWay Research study said the greatest impact on their decision to move to another church was “my need/desire to leave my previous church.” The rest (42 percent) said they switched because of the desire to join their current church.

More specifically, 28 percent of churchgoers who choose to leave their previous church do so because the “church was not helping me to develop spiritually,” the study revealed. And 20 percent of respondents leave because they “did not feel engaged or involved in meaningful church work.”

So those twitchy feet my wife and I had were not that uncommon. As I reflect on this many different thoughts come to mind. I don’t think there is a single reason for these numbers and here are a few that I think might exist:

Church Growth – Not all church growth stuff is bad but a lot of it is. They have a huge push to win converts and that is laudable. But what do you do with them then? You ground them and then… No clue. I was at a conference and heard one church growth guru say “If you’ve been a Christian for ten years the last thing you need is another Sunday school class.” His point was that there is a danger of being educated beyond our level of obedience and that is a point we should pay attention to. But what was his answer? What were these “senior” saints supposed to do? Be greeters, work the coffee bar, be ushers, be parking attendants, etc. Blah. They’re so stuck in their initial premise (get ’em in the front door) that they can’t conceive of what to do with them after that. What about teaching and serving the poor and short-term evangelistic missions and long-term missions and church planting? Real discipleship not just more labor to win people into the maze of growth. Personally, I can see how that endless loop would get old after a while.

Church Growth II – I’m picking on them I know. And again, not all of it is bad but a lot of it is. When the prevailing paradigm in the church is to do nothing more than win converts to Christ, the preaching doesn’t go much beyond that. Sermons tend to be topical and only lightly touch the scriptures. Pastors and Sunday school teachers never get very deep into theology because that might make people leave and we want bigger numbers. The preaching and teaching in those circles can be pretty weak. When the saints are fed only milk and not solid meat for too long they will leave. In some cases, departure may be part of the plan for all I know!

Easy Evangelicalism – Tragically those charges are not limited to only the church growth oriented portion of the evangelical church in America. The culture is pervaded with “easy” churches where the bar is set low, the music is turned up and discipleship is voluntary. The social aspect of the church culture gets stressed to the exclusion of the hard part. You don’t grow spiritually when you sit in leisure. If you do no more than occupy a pew on Sunday it is easy to walk. You get fidgety when you sit still too long. We need to be challenged to take risks and grow. If you are so preoccupied with your family that you won’t risk them for the sake of Christ (Matthew 10:34-39) it is too easy to walk away.

Emergent Church – The newest trend may be drawing away the younger folks. If it is new it must be better. Churches who are being more ‘edgy’ might seem to be more engaging and involved but frankly what I’ve seen from Brian McLaren and his ilk is more of the same with weird settings. Add candles, incense, artists paint in the aisles and music from U2 to the weak-kneed preaching and teaching and you’re emergent. Again, since it is new and trendy it may be more appealing.

Worship wars – Music styles rule. If you haven’t got a rock band we’re outta here. Or if you do have a rock band we’re outta here. People can feel “not fed” when the music doesn’t make them raise their hands or when “those people” keep raising their hands. I’m sure this is probably part of the reason people leave but they attach a pious sounding reason to it.

One of the reasons that didn’t show up that I would have expected was children’s programs. “AWANAS is on the wrong night and conflicts with t-ball.” “My kids don’t like the children’s programs. They get board.” I would have expected this kind of thing to be a reason. Maybe it was included in that broad category of “church was not helping me to develop spiritually.”

LifeWay Vice President Brad Waggoner found the study results encouraging.

“The fact that the majority of church switchers express a desire to grow spiritually and become active in service should strike a chord of optimism for leaders.”

Wow, he’s optimistic. I don’t know how it can be considered a good thing with people leave your church because your ministry is not helping them grow spiritually. But Waggoner did make a good point:

He said that the study “indicates that most people are looking for truth, doctrine and engaging preaching and teaching.” Thus, it is essential for churches to design a process – that includes a clear and thorough explanation of the gospel – of orienting and discipling new members.

It sounds like the people are looking for more and ministers are not getting that message. Good for the people! But shame on the ministers. Theology has a place in the church. If we preach sermons that are only practical we’re not feeding the flock. If we preaching sermons that are only theology we’re not directing the flock. We have to do both. Theology should apply and application cannot be divorced from theology.

In the end, it is a great relief that Jesus is the head of the church and not us.

[HT: Herr Luther]

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, – Luke 1:32 (ESV)

There is a lot packed into that one statement. Jesus is born of a virgin so technically he doesn’t have a father. But he will be called Son of the Most High and so God is his father. But Gabriel tells Mary that David is Jesus’ father. We don’t know Mary’s lineage but just a few verses previous Luke tells us that Joseph is of the house of David.

So how do we process all this? Who is Jesus’ father? What you have to keep in mind is that Luke isn’t interested in a simple genealogy like we are. We’re used to fairly static family relationships. Father & son, step-father & step-son, adoptive father & adopted son, foster father & foster child. But in Luke’s time father and son went beyond mere genes. There was an identity that went beyond genetics. A father and son were identified because they were alike. The son did what the father did. This is what Jesus is driving at in John 5:19 “For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.”

So now lets unpack that brief statement. Since Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, he is the Son of God. ¹Of course there is a lot more to that simple statement. Jesus is the eternally begotten son. But let’s stick with the text at hand for now. This is what he meant in the John passage I just cited. Later Jesus pits the fact that the Messiah is supposed to be David’s son against the fact that he’s the Son of God when he cites Psalm 110 ²Look at how that phrase is used throughout the New Testament. Man, is that confusing! It is like a text doesn’t have just one, obvious meaning or something. and asks “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” in Matthew 22:45, Mark 12:37, and Luke 20:44.

Jesus’ point isn’t that he isn’t David’s son, his point is that the promised son of David, the Anointed one ³‘Messiah’ is a term denoting the king. It means ‘anointed’ and David referred to Saul as God’s anointed repeatedly in 1 Samuel. Also, when the elders of Israel haul Jesus before Pilate the accusation is sedition and they say that Jesus says of himself “that he himself is Christ, a king.” (Lk 23:2) , the Messiah, the Christ would be more than only David’s son. Even in the establishment of David’s covenant this truth was articulated. God promised “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” (2Sa 7:14a)

The significance is that if the Messiah were only David’s son then he could not be exalted to the highest place. The author of Hebrews appeals to the Messiah’s divine sonship to prove that he is greater than the angels in Hebrews 1:4-14. The Messiah was always intended to be more than an earthly ruler, he was to be the cosmic ruler.

So then where does that leave poor Joseph? It leaves him in an important position. Mary was betrothed to Joseph and that means more than simply “intended to marry.” For Joseph to break the betrothal would mean that he would have to divorce Mary not just ask for the ring back (cf Matt 1:19). As mentioned above, Joseph was of the house of David and since Jesus was to be born of a virgin (the Son of God part) there had to be some connection to David’s house. That is where Joseph comes in. Yes, Jesus was not physically his son but Jesus was born into his household and therefore was of his lineage. By not putting Mary away Joseph ensured that the promise of the Davidic covenant would be fulfilled!

It is amazing how God works in the lives and affairs of men to accomplish his purposes.

Consider the following translations of the same verse, Psalm 92:4:

NLT – You thrill me, Lord, with all you have done for me!
I sing for joy because of what you have done.

ESV – For you, O Lord, have made me glad by your work;
at the works of your hands I sing for joy.

In Hebrew Exegesis Dr. Magary made us cite various other translations as we translated our passage. The one translation that always got a laugh out of me was the New Living Translation. It seemed like nearly every verse was infused with a particular theological position before it was translated. The example above is the kind of thing I saw. Literally, the verse reads: “Because you cause me to rejoice LORD in your work in works of your hand I sing for joy.” Notice that there is no first person pronoun connected to God’s work in this passage. The Psalmist is simply thrilled with the work God has done, whether it be for him or not. The NLT presupposes that the Psalmist would rejoice only because God did something for him and so they insert the personal pronoun.

This isn’t an example of someone who studied Hebrew for a few years critiquing a bunch of scholars who really know better than him. Well, it is but I don’t think I’m guilty of zeal without knowledge on this point. As I consider other translations I don’t see any others making the same translation choices the NLT has. From the more literal (NASB or ESV) to the more paraphrastic (NIV or The Message) no one else makes the choices the NLT does.

Folks, the NLT is “readable” but frankly it is a poor translation. I would recommend staying away from it. You’re not getting the Bible, you’re getting a particular slant on the Bible and not always a good one. Again, the example above slants the verse towards a more “me centered” reason for worshiping God. It is what he has done for us. But the Psalmist had a broader view. It was simply the works that God has performed that elicit praise from him. Yes, later in the Psalm he will praise God for defeating his enemies (11) but even there it is only because they are God’s enemies (9). I fear that using this translation even for devotional purposes may make us Americans more narcissistic than we already are. We need an unblunted sword edge to pierce to the division of spirit and soul and to lay bear our hearts. The NLT’s edge has been dulled.

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him – Job 13:15a KJV
God might kill me, but I have no other hope. – Job 13:15a NLT

I just downloaded this game for the TrÄ“o and it is pretty neat! The game overlays a shoot ’em up over a live image from your TrÄ“o’s camera. You have to move to aim. It tracks the real world pretty well but it works best if there is a lot of randomness in the image. I tried it in the restroom at work and the tracking was poor. When I first tried it I had my bookshelf as the background. Worked great there.

The Hebrew root of the word ‘Sabbath’ is shvt. In the verb form it often means to cease or cut off or rest. The root appears only five times in the book of Psalms; in 8:2, 46:9, 89:44, 119:119 and in the title of Psalm 92. Interestingly enough only once in each of the five books of the Psalms. In nearly every instance it is a cutting off of something bad. In 8:2 it is God’s foes. In 46:9 it is war. In 119:119 it is the wicked. The places that are not cutting off bad things is 89:44 where David is cut off and the title of 92 where it is explicitly the Sabbath day.

When I get my income tax refund I’m buying a desk. I’ve been using one of those little compressed wood “computer desk’s” for about 10 years (probably more) and the wood is finally coming apart. There is a big crack in the top right where the mouse goes. I’m getting a solid wood one this time.

Gordon Smith’s book Beginning Well has a very interesting premise. How a person is converted to Christ sets the tone for their spiritual life. A similar thought got kicked around at Mike Shea’s blog. I wish I had remembered Smith’s book when that topic was still hot. By the way, it is an interesting book. Worth a peek.

This whole US Attorney firing thing in Congress really has me miffed. Those attorneys work at the President’s pleasure. That means he can fire them for whatever reason he wants. So the Democrats who have spent the last 8 years (or however long it was) getting kicked to the Congregational curb by the Republicans are now investigating what was not a crime. That’s stupid. Then Alberto Gonzales gets hauled in to testify before Congress for not doing anything wrong and he apparently lied! Does no one in our government have a spine? Or a brain stem? I am fed up to the ear lobes with hearing about this.

Speaking of Congress, I am also really cheesed that they stuck a timetable for pulling out of Iraq in the budget. They don’t get to play Commander In Chief just because they want to and they did NOT get a “clear mandate” from the people by getting voted in. Americans were upset with the war but were also upset with the corruption that the Republicans were regularly found guilty of. I want us out and I (now) think we should have never gone in and I think Bush is not doing even a decent job in Iraq but putting a timetable on our withdrawal is stupid.

MagiCal is an excellent little Mac add on. I turned off the system date and time display in the Menu Bar and replaced it with MagiCal. It gives you a little calendar when you click it and has a cool little iCal kind of icon for the date.

I downloaded and installed Quicksilver last night on my PowerBook. Oh. My. Word. I pointed Benjamin to it and he said that he now lacks a head because Quicksilver blew it off. :) I’ve heard people ranting but never paid much attention till I saw a write up on Lifehacker.

I’m addicted after about 5 minutes of use. The installer is about the coolest installer you’ve ever seen. After that is done the application is so helpful and intuitive that I kept thinking, “Well duh, this is nothing! Its too obvious and simple!” ¹ Mr. Jabez Wilson started up in his chair, with his forefinger upon the paper, but his eyes upon my companion.

“How, in the name of good-fortune, did you know all that, Mr. Holmes?” he asked. “How did you know, for example, that I did manual labour? It’s as true as gospel, for I began as a ship’s carpenter.”

“Your hands, my dear sir. Your right hand is quite a size larger than your left. You have worked with it, and the muscles are more developed.”

“Well, the snuff, then, and the Freemasonry?”

“I won’t insult your intelligence by telling you how I read that, especially as, rather against the strict rules of your order, you use an arc-and-compass breastpin.”

“Ah, of course, I forgot that. But the writing?”

“What else can be indicated by that right cuff so very shiny for five inches, and the left one with the smooth patch near the elbow where you rest it upon the desk?”

“Well, but China?”

“The fish that you have tattooed immediately above your right wrist could only have been done in China. I have made a small study of tattoo marks and have even contributed to the literature of the subject. That trick of staining the fishes’ scales of a delicate pink is quite peculiar to China. When, in addition, I see a Chinese coin hanging from your watch-chain, the matter becomes even more simple.”

Mr. Jabez Wilson laughed heavily. “Well, I never!” said he. “I thought at first that you had done something clever, but I see that there was nothing in it, after all.”

“I begin to think, Watson,” said Holmes, “that I make a mistake in explaining. ‘Omne ignotum pro magnifico,’ you know, and my poor little reputation, such as it is, will suffer shipwreck if I am so candid. Can you not find the advertisement, Mr.Wilson?” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes, The Red-Headed League. This is the sign of a well executed idea. In fact it is so cool and so helpful we can look for Apple to rip it off and include it in latter versions of the Mac OS, a la Konfabulator and Dashboard.

What is Quicksilver? Simply stated, it is an application launcher on Spotlight growth hormones. The default keyboard shortcut is ctrl-space. Quicksilver then pops up in the middle of the screen. Next, you start typing the thing you’re looking for. An application, a file, a website, whatever. In the first panel the thing you’re looking for shows up. Tab to the next panel and you select what you want to do with it. Open it, open it with a specific program, etc. That’s as far as I have gotten so far but there are a number of things that can happen at that point.

The search function is better than Spotlight’s. As of late Spotlight is getting sluggish on both the iMac and PowerBook. I had it reindex the hard drive ²You tell it to ignore your hard drive, wait a moment and then tell it to include the hard drive in the search and it rebuilds the index and that only marginally improved the response time. That may be because my machines are getting a little long in the tooth but still Quicksilver is much faster.

I use Windows XP at work all day and I have to say that the two Mac only apps that Windows desperately needs are Exposé and Quicksilver. I haven’t played with Vista yet and it looks like they’re getting some of the Exposé functionality in there but someone needs to port Quicksilver. It really helps the OS stay out of your way and Windows really needs that.