By Farther Steps

Reformed and Reforming, semper reformanda to Christ's glory.

Not Was but Who?

There is no witness like a hostile witness. When it comes to Christianity, Bert Ehrman is pretty hostile but he is a historian and he makes a pretty good case for the historical existence of Jesus (whatever you make of Him):

I don’t agree with how Ehrman processes the evidence (obviously); there are solid reasons for differences in the gospels and other things he mentions. I had to smile at the way the interviewer pushes back because Erhman is using the same approach apologists do. As if that in itself makes the facts wrong. The interviewer tries to resort to the same old “yeahbuts” but Ehrman is honest enough to point out that that particular emperor will be ill-attired for the coming winter months. He’s naked. Which is to say, those arguments play well to the sympathetic crowd but they don’t really work.

In the end Ehrman makes the point that you can’t look at the historical facts and say Jesus didn’t exist. So you’re not left with “Was he?” but rather “Who was he?” Once the point that Jesus existed is established there is a case to be made about who he is.

The Beauty of Hebrew Writing

Nehemiah 9 is a lengthy read but it is really an excellent prayer. Before I point out what is really cool about the prayer, we need some background. Israel has returned to the land after 70 years of exile in Babylon to find Jerusalem in rubble and themselves surrounded by their enemies. They begin rebuilding the temple and the wall. In the middle of this work, they stop to have a holy convocation. The prophet Ezra stands on a dais and reads and explains the Law to the people. They weep and confess their sins and then their leaders lead them in prayer. Having just heard redemptive history read to them, it naturally seeps into and informs their prayer.

The prayer breaks down into three movements: Creation to Abraham (6-8), The Exodus (9-21), The Promised Land (22-31) and then there is a response in 32-37 and an application in 38. In each movement, there is a statement about God. It is fascinating how Hebrew writing works these in this text. The first movement (6-8) it is about how God called Abraham out of Ur so the statement about God comes at the end as if it had been “called out” of the section. The second section (9-21) is about God’s covenant name and his commitment to his people to provide for them and dwell in their midst in the pillar of cloud and fire and in the tabernacle. This time the statement about God (a paraphrased of Exodus 34) comes in verse 17, right in the middle of the section just like the tabernacle in the middle of the camp. The final section (22-31) is about God’s repeated mercy to his people after their repeated failure of faithfulness. This time, the statement about God’s mercy is sprinkled throughout at many spots in the narrative, verses 27, 28, and 31. His mercy is repeated over and over again.

It is beautiful the way the text itself illustrates the meaning. The words state the truth, of course, but also the structure of the words is carefully done in order to illustrate the point as well. This shows the beauty of Hebrew poetry and the care they took in writing. The fact that it is poetry doesn’t diminish the truth, it decorates it so as to draw not only your attention but also your affection and appreciation for it.

Logical Gerrymandering

I’m not a fan of Rick Perry and am not posting this in order to defend him in any way. What irked me about the above article is not what it says about Perry, but what it says about our poor grasp of basic logic. If you find this article a compelling indictment of Perry’s hypocrisy or feel it is an embarrassing mistake on the part Perry’s campaign handles, think again. You’re missing the import of a single word: “but”.

I don’t doubt that Perry is opposed to homosexuals serving in the military and that he is for prayer in public schools but this article makes some glaring mistakes in order to make the buffoon look more buffoonish and in turn shows its own buffoonery. As I just mentioned, the word “but” is critical in the quote. The way it stands, it could mean that if gays are allowed the freedom to serve in the military, then school children should be allowed the freedom to pray in schools. In the quote provided Perry is not saying anything anti-gay; he is simply addressing an inequality of freedoms. The word “but” is offering a comparison, essentially “this is allowed but this isn’t” in an effort to point out an inequality, it doesn’t necessarily condemn either position.

But the poor logic doesn’t end at a conjunction, it goes deeper. Apparently they used some music from Aaron Copeland in Perry’s ad. Aaron Copeland was one of the best American composers. His Fanfare for the Common Man and Appalachian Spring are breathtakingly beautiful. He was also gay. The author of the cited article seems to think, and want us to think, that this somehow makes Perry a hypocrite. But stop for a moment. Perry may be saying that it is wrong for gays to serve in the military but that says nothing about it being right or wrong for gays to compose music. Perry’s ad isn’t saying that everything every gay person ever did is wrong but that is the way it is presented. I could be opposed to Islam and yet still appreciate and use Arabic numerals and algebra and not be a hypocrite.

One last twist to wrap the whole mess up in a nice bow. The person who posted the screen shot above has a screen name of “atheism-“. If it is wrong for Rick Perry to use Aaron Copeland’s music because Perry is (presumably) anti-gay and therefore must believe that anything originating form a homosexual is wrong, then the atheist must abandon science. Isaac Newton is, in many ways, the father of modern physics yet he wrote more Christian theology than he did physics. So if being religious means that you’re mentally deficient, and we apply the logical fallacy employed above, then our friend “atheism-” is equally as hypocritical if he or she embraces atheism for scientific reasons.

If you don’t like Rick Perry or his politics, nail him on where he’s wrong. There’s plenty of material there. But don’t launch into logical gerrymandering to make him look foolish. It backfires badly.

THE Space Pen

In the 1960s, the story goes, NASA realized that astronauts would need a special pen for recording data, instrument readings etc. when in space. This pen would have to be capable of writing upside-down, in zero gravity, and in extremely high and low temperatures.

NASA enlisted some of the finest minds in the country and set them to work. After much trial and error, years of work, and the expenditure of 1.5 million dollars, they finally succeeded in developing a space pen. And the Russians? The Russians used pencils.

(From BBC History Magazine)

Offering Hope

I came across a fascinating bit of history recently about the Berlin Airlift. I know about the airlift, I won a speech award in NCO Leadership School for a speech on it. But this short article put a human face on what was for me a political event. Here’s an excerpt that get’s to the point:

In July 1948, 27-year-old Air Force lieutenant Gail Halvorsen was flying food and supplies into West Berlin, which was blockaded by the Soviet Union. One night he encountered a group of hungry children who had gathered near the runway to watch the planes land…Over the next three days he dropped candy to growing crowds of West German children…

In 1998, when Halvorsen returned to Berlin, a “dignified, well-dressed man of 60 years” approached him. He said, “Fifty years ago I was a boy of 10 on my way to school…The chocolate was wonderful but it wasn’t the chocolate that was most important. What it meant was that someone in America knew I was here, in trouble and needed help. Someone in America cared. That parachute was something more important than candy. It represented hope. Hope that some day we would be free.”

This is significant. Helping someone can do more than relieve material needs, it can instill hope. Jesus said, “Whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward” (Matt. 10:42). He wasn’t advocating the “social gospel” where it is only physical relief nor was he using water as a metaphor for preaching the gospel. It was both. The water is offered in his name but it is water that is offered. To provide for people is an important place to start, it shows that you care, that someone cares. There is still something to be said for Christian food pantries and soup kitchens.

How to Understand a Parable

1. Don’t treat parables like allegory.

An allegory is most often completely filled with symbolic meaning. Every detail means something that can be traced to the overriding principle that is being illuminated. Parables usually have one basic, central meaning. Trying to oversymbolize them can have the effect of tearing them apart. A person doesn’t understand the beauty of a flower by disassembling it. Like a blossom, a parable is best understood by seeing it in its simple and profound entirety.

2. The Rule of Three.

Like all good storytelling, parables usually follow the Rule of Three. Do you remember the stories you heard as a child—such as “The Three Little Pigs” and “The Three Bears”? Both of these stories are filled with more “threes”: three wolves, three beds, three bowls of porridge. Jesus did this often in the telling of the parables. And is it any wonder that many parables deliver three important truths or that most sermons rest on three important points?

3. The Rule of Two.

Parable characters often follow the Rule of Two. There were usually two people who experienced tension between righteousness and sin, good and evil. When you look for these two elements you will find an important part of the development of the parable.

4. Code words and phrases.

Jesus’ parables used certain phrases and code words that communicated in subtly powerful ways to His audiences. For instance, “How much more” is used to build a bridge from temporal things to spiritual realities. “He who has ears to hear” calls people to critically important issues of spiritual life and death. “Verily, verily, I say to you,” means that Jesus is speaking with earnest intensity; don’t miss it. Look for these phrases and understand where they’re leading you.
Excerpt from What’s in the Bible?, R. C. Sproul (2011, Thomas Nelson).

Some resting flower of yesterday’s delight.

A Tuft of Flowers
by Robert Frost

I went to turn the grass once after one
Who mowed it in the dew before the sun.

The dew was gone that made his blade so keen
Before I came to view the leveled scene.

I looked for him behind an isle of trees;
I listened for his whetstone on the breeze.

But he had gone his way, the grass all mown,
And I must be, as he had been,–alone,

‘As all must be,’ I said within my heart,
‘Whether they work together or apart.’

But as I said it, swift there passed me by
On noiseless wing a ‘wildered butterfly,

Seeking with memories grown dim o’er night
Some resting flower of yesterday’s delight.

And once I marked his flight go round and round,
As where some flower lay withering on the ground.

And then he flew as far as eye could see,
And then on tremulous wing came back to me.

I thought of questions that have no reply,
And would have turned to toss the grass to dry;

But he turned first, and led my eye to look
At a tall tuft of flowers beside a brook,

A leaping tongue of bloom the scythe had spared
Beside a reedy brook the scythe had bared.

I left my place to know them by their name,
Finding them butterfly weed when I came.

The mower in the dew had loved them thus,
By leaving them to flourish, not for us,

Nor yet to draw one thought of ours to him.
But from sheer morning gladness at the brim.

The butterfly and I had lit upon,
Nevertheless, a message from the dawn,

That made me hear the wakening birds around,
And hear his long scythe whispering to the ground,

And feel a spirit kindred to my own;
So that henceforth I worked no more alone;

But glad with him, I worked as with his aid,
And weary, sought at noon with him the shade;

And dreaming, as it were, held brotherly speech
With one whose thought I had not hoped to reach.

‘Men work together,’ I told him from the heart,
‘Whether they work together or apart.’

Presuppositions have Implications

“Once you grant that the world works this way, anyone who comes bustling up to you with stories about men who came back from the dead is a prima facie nutjob. Simple. But you need to look at your closed-system-universe again and look more closely at the price tag this time. Not only is this vast concourse of atoms spared the spectacle of a Jewish carpenter coming back from the grave, it is also spared all forms of immaterial realities. This would include, unfortunately, your arguments and thoughts. They are as immaterial as Farley’s ghost. Show me your arguments for atheism under a microscope. Then I will think about believing them. What color are they? How much do they weigh? What are they made of?” (Doug Wilson, Letters From a Christian Citizen, pp. 80-81).