Below is a passage from one of my favorite works of deuterocanonical literature.
Ειπεν δε αυτω ο αγγελος ου μεμνησαι των λογων ων ενετειλατο σοι ο πατηρ σου υπερ του λαβειν σε γυναικα εκ του γενους σου και νυν ακουσον μου αδελφε διοτι σοι εσται εις γυναικα και του δαιμονιου μηδενα λογον εχε οτι την νυκτα ταυτην δοθησεται σοι αυτη εις γυναικα. και εαν εισελθης εις τον νυμφωνα λημψη τεφραν θυμιαματων και επιθησεις απο της καρδιας και ηπατος του ιχθυος και καπνισεις και οσφρανθησεται το δαιμονιον και φευξεται και ουκ επανελευσεται τον αιωνα του αιωνος. οταν δε προσπορευη αυτη εγερθητε αμφοτεροι και βοησατε προς τον ελεημονα θεον και σωσει υμας και ελεησει μη φοβου óτι σοι αυτη ητοιμασμενη ην απο του αιωνος και συ αυτην σωσεις και πορευσεται μετα σου και υπολαμβανω óτι σοι εσται εξ αυτης παιδια. και ως ηκουσεν Τωβιας ταυτα εΦιλησεν αυτην και η ψυχη αυτου εκολληθη αυτη σφοδρα.
By the time I was born, the Great Depression was only a memory. It was an extremely vivid memory, though, for the adults in my extended family. Their ongoing sense of uncertainty, rooted in their experience of economic disaster, was given expression regularly in a sentence that was typically appended to any serious comment they would utter about financial matters: “But, of course, you never know!” That sentence had the status of a kind of liturgical response in ordinary conversations. My grandmother would tell her neighbor that my grandfather might be getting an hourly wage hike at the factory where he worked—“but, of course, you never know,” she would quickly add. Business at my two uncles’ auto repair shop seemed to be picking up—“but, of course, you never know.” Maybe, just maybe, my parents would say, our family would have enough money saved up to take a week’s vacation in the Adirondacks next summer—“but, of course, you never know.”
That sentence did not manage to get embedded in my own financial discourse, nor have I heard it much from others who came after my parents’ generation. But I have no doubt that it, or some equivalent expression, is coming back. We have been learning the “you never know” lesson in a dramatic fashion in recent months. And this learning experience has been a traumatic one.
I once wrote an essay in which I was mildly critical of what I called “pious agnosticism.” This is an attitude that makes so much of God’s mysterious workings in human history that believers decide not to try to influence the course of events—especially when it comes to working for justice and peace. We may think that some apparent social practice is so evil that we must work to change things, but it may be that God is using that practice for his own mysterious providential purposes to bring about some good—“you never know.”
I still think that that kind of pious agnosticism is often a serious defect. But I am becoming a little more of a pious agnostic myself, in at least two ways. One is that I am now aware that when it comes to economic history, I have been too uncritical in accepting the myth of progress. From here on in, if and when we experience some better days in the financial markets, I will remind myself often that “you never know.” But I will also try to nurture the faith that there might even be some providential good in what has been happening. It looks like we are in for some bad times financially—but you never know, maybe the Lord will use this for some greater good. It may even be that we are being given an opportunity to think more deeply about what human flourishing is all about. It may also be that we are being taught something about what it means to trust more deeply in God’s mysterious purposes. At least all of that is a possibility. You never know.
The physical presence of other Christians is a source of incomparable joy and strength to the believer. With great yearning the imprisoned apostle Paul calls his “beloved son in the faith,” Timothy, to come to him in prison in the last days of his life (1 Tim. 1:2). He wants to see him again and have him near. Paul has not forgotten the tears Timothy shed during their final parting (2 Tim. 1:4). Thinking of the congregation in Thessalonica, Paul prays “night and day…most earnestly that we may see you face to face” (1 Thess. 3:10). The aged John knows his joy in his own people will only be complete when he can come to them and speak to them face to face instead of using paper and ink (2 John 12). The believer need not feel any shame when yearning for the physical presence of other Christians, as if one were still living too much in the flesh. A human being is created as a body; the Son of God appeared on earth in the body for our sake and was raised in the body. In the sacrament the believer receives the Lord Christ in the body, and the resurrection of the dead will bring about the perfected community of God’s spiritual-physical creatures Therefore, the believer praises the Creator, the Reconciler, and the Redeemer, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for the bodily presence of the other Christian.
1 Timothy 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all– this was attested at the right time. For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Below is a good and short article to read, written by Sarah Pulliam of christianitytoday.com
Joel Hunter Prays with Obama Before Acceptance Speech
Evangelical pastor Joel Hunter prayed with president-elect Barack Obama on the phone before Obama gave his acceptance speech last night.
Hunter declined to go into details, but said he prayed with Obama and Otis Moss Jr., retired pastor of Olivet church in Cleveland.
“It was a very sweet time. It was just a very meaningful time that you could tell meant a lot to him. Sen. Obama has done a great job with keeping us in consistent conversation and it really is a good signal that he wants us to be a part of the conversation.”
After Hunter prayed at the Democratic National Convention, he declined to give media interviews until after the election. I spoke with him this morning, and he said, “Between the convention and the election, it’s just raw politics, so any moral points you try to make are taken as partisan. That’s why I go quiet.”
Hunter is hopeful that evangelicals will have a voice in the Obama administration.
“I think we’re going to be invited into many conversations. He is a consensus-oriented type of leader. We need to be able to respond to those invitations to those given. Part of our role is to speak truth to power. That certainly is part of our role. The most effective way of doing that is not to be so narrow and combative. It’s to be part of the conversation. It’s not to back down on any moral convictions that we have. By the same token, we’ve got to understand that we can be much more effective in getting our point across and realizing our goals if that prophetic language comes with a degree of understanding and respect.”
Hunter pastors a church in Florida, where a gay-marriage ban passed last night.
“The moral agenda is not going to change. The outcome is a firm statement, at least from the folks in Florida, that we want to protect marriage as between a man and a woman. By the same token, we have to be careful that we can still treat with respect and some sympathy those who want to build a legal relationship.”
Considering our current political climate, I thought Mouw’s perspective on leadership (below) was insightful. I think people get way too caught up in politics, almost to the point of making politics into an idol and worshipping it, so to speak. I remember a long time ago, when I was only a little kid, that Bill Clinton had won the election. At that time, I remember one of my family member’s saying that the end of the world was coming—and this particular person was being serious! Anyway, I think that people need to look up in times like these and remember that God has his hand on the whole situation. As a result, we need not worry if our particular party doesn’t win, and neither should we play pin-the-tail on the Antichrist in the same situation. Instead, we may look to leadership within the church to make good decisions, give good advice, disseminate godly wisdom, and also preach the everlasting gospel. I think that’s a tad bit more important than worrying about Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama.
But be that as it may, remember that the faith we place in objects, whether it be politics, political figures, religious figures, theology, social justice, or imagine this, GOD; remember, faith is only as good as the object we place it in. I place my faith in Jesus the Christ. Who, or what, do you place your faith in? That said, it’s ok to be political, but just don’t make it an idol, and don’t use it to make personal attacks on half the country’s population (yes, I’m thinking about that horrible “letter from the blue states to the red”). Instead, follow God with all of your being and love one another and He will direct your path. Ok, I’ve said too much, but read below for Mouw’s blog…
In an interview the other day I was asked where some of the “unknown” leaders are right now—folks whose leadership is thus far a well-kept secret, but are people who the rest of the Christian world should know about.
Instead of naming names, I talked in general terms about a whole generation of presently “unknowns.” While I spend most of my time at Fuller, I also make many visits to college and university campuses, as well as to other seminaries, both in North America and elsewhere. I am extremely optimistic about what the emerging generation of Christian students are going to bring to the global church. They are creating a new agenda. They are enthusiastic about worship. They care deeply about the issues of justice, peace, and the care of creation. They are passionate about leading people to Christ. They have deep convictions, while also having a strong commitment to engaging in dialogue with folks from other faith communities. We are soon going to see a new spirit of leadership in the Christian community as these emerging leaders take over!
But we also need to wait for another kind of “unknown” leader to show up. I was once asked by a magazine what I thought was the most important religious event of the previous year. I gave the kind of example they wanted, but I also added a further thought. It may be, I said, that the most important religious event of the previous year occurred in a bedroom at three o’clock in the morning in an inner-city apartment, when a young black woman, struggling with complex issues in her life, got down on her knees and yielded her will to Jesus Christ—and in doing so set herself on a course that would bring about amazing things for the cause of the gospel.
I am excited by the new generation of soon-to-be leaders in the Christian community. But I am even more excited by the thought that the Spirit is raising up leaders right now who are unknown to any of us but who are being prepared for leadership by the One who is at work also—and perhaps even especially—in the secret places.
C.S. Lewis, in The Weight of Glory said the following:
There are three ways of taking the command to turn the other cheek. One is the Pacifist interpretation; it means what it says and imposes a duty nonresistance on all men in all circumstances. Another is the minimising interpretation; it does not mean what it says but is merely an orientally hyperbolical way of saying that you should put up with a lot and be placable. Both you and I agree in rejecting this view. The conflict is therefore between the Pacifist interpretation and a third one which I am now going to propound. I think the text means exactly what it says, but with an understood reservation in favour of those obviously exceptional cases which every hearer would naturally assume to be exceptions without being told….That is, insofar as the only relevant factors in the case are an injury to me by my neighbour and a desire on my part to retaliate, then I hold that Christianity commands the absolute mortification of that desire. No quarter whatever is given to the voice within us which says, “He’s done it to me, so I’ll do the same to him.”
“See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” Eph 5:15-16
Time is very precious because, when it is past, it cannot be recovered. There are many things that people possess, which if they part with they can obtain again. If a man has parted with something he had, not knowing the worth of it or the need he might have of it, he often can regain it—-at least with effort and cost. But it is not so with respect to time. Once time is gone, it is gone forever; no pains, no cost will recover it. Although we repent ever so much that we let it pass, and did not use it well while we had it, it will mean nothing. Every part of time is successively offered to us, that we may choose whether or not we will make it our own. But there is no delay. It will not wait on us to see whether or not we will comply with the offer. But if we refuse, it is immediately taken away, and never offered again. As to that part of time that is gone, however we have neglected to use it well, it is out of our possession and out of our reach.
—Jonathan Edwards
There is coming a day when all will wonder what they could have done better with the time that was given them; the people they could have said “I love you” to, or the ones they could have said “I forgive you” to. Take JE’s perspective on time seriously. If you have anyone you need to reconcile a relationship with, then don’t wait, don’t waist anymore time. Go and reconcile the relationship and forgive that person, or perhaps accept their forgiveness. If you have any goals that you’ve been putting off, then don’t wait, but go out and do them.
It’s kind of cliche, but life is indeed short. The analogical example is limited but consider that a person in their right mind would never throw money in the trash or invest in fools gold. Why then would we treat our time any different? At least one can make money; but, they can’t make time!
The Post below is from Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, Jamie Smith. I thought it was pretty good.
If anyone would like a peek into the inanities we have to endure here in West Michigan, just consider a recent guest commentary in the Religion section of our local paper, The Grand Rapids Press. In it the author excoriates the “compulsory income redistribution” that he believes stands in contrast to “true Christian charity.” (As further evidence of the ludicrosity (?) we have to live with in West Michigan: the same paper endorsed McCain for President.)
I just sent off the following to the Press for consideration to be published next Saturday, but I’m not sanguine it will be published, so I’ll post it here:
Just Charity
By James K.A. Smith
Some very important things can be lost in translation. Paul Rhoda’s recent commentary on Christian “charity” is a clear reminder of this. Having filtered the notion of “charity” through the libertarianism of Lord Acton (with a little help, I suspect, from his ideological heirs at the Acton Institute), Rhoda ends up with a very strange version of the Bible. Let’s call it the PRV, the Paul Rhoda Version.
If his commentary is any indicator, the PRV is a peculiar book. It’s not even really a translation; it’s an anthology—a Reader’s Digest compression with some heavy edits and omissions. The result is a different book.
Let’s consider just one of his claims: according to Rhoda, “Christian compassion is voluntary.” But such language of “voluntariness” is a modern invention. Our notion of something being “voluntary” implies that it is optional and un-coerced. In fact, we might even deserve some praise for doing what’s only “voluntary,” as if this was going above and beyond the call of duty.
But did the early church see compassion and charity as “voluntary?” Or, to take up Rhoda’s specific case, did the early church see “income redistribution” as “voluntary?”
The short and easy answer is, “No.” We can note at least three reasons.
First, such a conception of “voluntary” charity assumes a notion of freedom and autonomy that would have been utterly foreign to the Hebrews and to first-century Christians. According to the biblical picture, to be “free” is not to be autonomous or un-coerced. We are free when we are empowered to do the good. The strangeness of the biblical picture is that true freedom comes in subjection to the risen Lord. It is slaves of Christ who are truly free.
Second, the biblical narrative makes no dichotomy between love and justice. The biblical word sometimes translated as “charity”—the Greek word agape—does not refer to something that is optional for Christians. If it were, how could it be commanded throughout the New Testament?
Finally, the PRV seems to just leave out those cases that contradict Rhoda’s claims. For instance, Ananias and Sapphira seemed to have worked with something like Rhoda’s conception of “charity.” According to Acts 5, they were generous and charitable. Having sold a piece of property, they came to the apostles and made a big show of their charitable “donation.” What was the result? Peter renounced the couple’s selfishness! They were holding back. In fact, they both immediately died under judgment (Acts 5:1-11). Is this any way to treat charitable donors? What was the problem?
Well, they must have been reading the PRV. They mistakenly assumed that the redistribution of their income was a “voluntary” matter. But the early church had a clear and established practice of compulsory property redistribution. They sold what they had, pooled their resources, and had all things in common (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-37). The church was living out an alternative economy—one compelled by gratitude and constrained by love. This wasn’t optional or voluntary, but was the reflection of a people serving a gift-giving King.
The following is an entry from Bonhoeffer’s Ethics. He makes some very interesting points about the nature of the “West” and how it has and is continuing to forget its history. Further, the church within the context of the West is losing sight of its responsibility in the world. On the one hand, there are those who want “the end” to come so badly that they are willing to play “pin the tail on the Antichrist” at every occasion where they feel politically uncomfortable, while on the other hand there are those who might be so socially minded that they forget the reality of a real judgment day and indeed eschaton. Bonhoeffer’s comments remain relevant today. The church needs to remain faithful and remain on task. I don’t pretend to know all the answers for this task, but I do know that I’m willing to humbly listen to persons like Bonhoeffer, who actually lived out their philosophical and theological talk during the Nazi oppression of Europe. Because of what he believed and acted on as a Christian, namely trying to unseat Hitler (i.e., kill him), Bonhoeffer paid the price by dying as a Christian in a concentration camp. He was hung naked until he died. On the other hand, however, there were those like Bishop Ludwig Mueller (see picture!) who compromised their faith and integrity.
The West is about to repudiate its historical heritage. It is becoming hostile to Christ. This is the unique situation of our time, and it is actual decay. The Christian churches stand in the middle of the dissolution of all that exists, as protectors of the heritage of the Middle Ages and the Reformation, but above all as witnesses to the miracle of God in Jesus Christ “yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:18). Next to the churches, however, stands “the restraining power,” the remnant of ordering power, that still effectively resists decay. The church has a unique task. The corpuschristianum has broken apart. The corpus Christi stands over against a hostile world. The church must bear witness to Jesus Christ as living lord, and it must do so in a world that has turned away from Christ after knowing him. As bearer of a historical heritage, the church, while waiting for Judgment Day, has an obligation to the historical future. Its vision of the end of all things must not paralyze its historical responsibility. The church must leave the end to God as well as the possibility that history will continue. Both remain its concern.
