Let’s change plans. Juan’s questions, Bob’s observation, and e-mailers’ inquiries reveal people have questions about “The Last Days” Let me make a few short observations in hopes you will respond with your ideas.
Juan asks how we discern the “prophetic” aspect in Revelation and the rest of the Bible. I obviously reject the methods of those who treat the issue as an intellectual puzzle solved by pulling together verses, reading their opinions into them, and coming up with “predictions” which profit them in some way. It is far more honest to do what the Bible tells us to do.
For instance, the first 3 verses of Revelation tell us John is speaking about what is going to happen “very soon”. He says we can discern what that is by reading his auditory “prophecy” out loud in a group and letting it bless us. His title, “Apocalypse” reveals this will remove the veil covering reality, so we can know what is really going on.
If we follow his directions with a little help from studying what the words meant to his first century listeners, we come up with this story. When the veil is removed, we find Satan is behind the Roman Empire. That mighty power can not fulfill its promises to make eternal peace, because it says evil is good and good is evil. Its vast navy brings the earth’s resources to Rome, making her rich and all other nations poor. We then hear Rome will be destroyed very soon by her own lies and greed as the rest of the nations turn on her. However, the church need not despair, because when the veil is lifted, you also see God, not Rome rules the universe. He shall care for his people, giving them a new life without suffering and tears.
It seems to me Revelation’s “prophecy” is not so much specific “predictions” about particular events but rather general “promises” that give continual hope. It is like Jeremiah promising God would bring his people home to Jerusalem in 70 years. God did it, but in 50 years. Jeremiah’s “prediction” was wrong but his “promise” was fulfilled. So, too, John’s promise was fulfilled as Rome collapsed, and the Church remains to this day.
I think Juan is right that Revelation’s “prophecy” still speaks to our situation. We, too, discern its message by following John’s instructions. We should read it out loud in a group, listening as if God is speaking directly to us. Then we should share our responses.
That is not to say everyone will hear this “prophecy” in the same way. I have found young people just about always respond, “That’s us. That’s a picture of the Empire the United States has built.” Adults have seldom heard this. They hear a more general promise that evil will bring its own demise while good will triumph, because God brings justice when Christ rules. Well, to be honest, sometimes adults hear the “prophecy” demonizing our enemies and endorsing our own government. I find that twists scripture to rationalize our own sins in the manner of Dick Cheney’s Christmas card few years back which read “If a sparrow can not fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? “
Pure intellect might respond to “prophecy” in fear. Faith responds in a hope that continues loving in spite of the situation around us. Does this make sense?
Tags: Apocalypse, Hope, Last Days, Promise, Revelation
I am simply going to use the discussions of our high school reading group during January and February. Once a month my wife, our youth minister, and I meet with 25 to 30 ninth to twelfth graders. We begin with a fine dinner and proceed to a discussion based on a topic they chose the previous meeting. I send out a two page essay as preparation.
We three leaders believe the Church should be a place where young people can honestly explore their ideas. We begin each year establishing only one rule, “No put downs”. We make clear the only time we shall object to anything is if they say they are stupid. Often the young people will remark along the way, “Why can’t we talk this way about these kinds of things at other places?”
Last November a sophomore suggested we talk about the end of the world using the movie 2012 and the book of Revelation. I sent out the following essay.
The Last Days
What’s going on with the movie 1012? Is the world really going to end on December 21, 2012? Do we only have three more years? Will only 400,000 be saved on gigantic arks to build a new civilization? Is the movie really based on the ancient Mayan calendar? Did this ancient culture which flourished in Guatemala between 300 and 900 AD really know more than we do 1100 years later? Is this related to and maybe supported by the biblical book Revelation?
Well, the Indians who still live as Mayans and the scholars who have studied it answer “No!” to every one of these questions. They say the ancient calendar like most ancient ones thought events went through repeated cycles. The Year 2012 was simply the end of one of these cycles, which would be followed by another Year 1. In fact, the idea was not that this would be a catastrophic ending but a joyous rebirth offering all kinds of hope. Obviously Hollywood decided they could make a lot of money with sensational scenes that play on people’s anxiety about the future.
But is that all? Even though there may be nothing to the 2012 prediction, should Christians be afraid of the world ending soon? Will God bring great destruction that will cause people to suffer terrible things? Does the book of Revelation predict what will happen? Why do so many Christians think Revelation predicts events that will happen very soon?
Well, first this is nothing new. There have always been some people who have predicted the end of the world coming soon. They get people to follow them in troubled times, such as our current financial crisis. Over and over they have predicted specific dates, and guess what- every time they have been wrong. All such efforts have been failures 100% of the time.
So why does it happen over again? People who do this are just like Hollywood. They can get people to listen to them and make money. There is a televangelist who says God has told him to prepare people for bad times ahead by selling survival kits. Sounds like a money maker to me. There are others who describe terrible catastrophes ahead which people can avoid only by becoming Christians, preferably by joining their church. Obviously, this is using fear to make disciples. Jesus used love, not fear. In John 3: 16 he proclaimed God loves the world so he sent Jesus to save us.
The book of Revelation is not about the end of the world at all. It is about God bringing the fall of the Roman Empire which was persecuting the Christians. When the author gives a date, he says it will take place in 3 and half years. He is talking about what God is doing right then and there to make a better world.
There are other biblical passages where God promised to make all right in the future. Like the Mayan idea this was not to frighten people but to give them hope. They were to remain strong, even standing up to persecution until God established his peaceable kingdom. .
And never is a date predicted. Jesus himself said in Mark 13 “About that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.” Until then we are not to fear but to love one another. I’m going to stick with Jesus rather than Hollywood or fear- mongering preachers.
I began the discussion asking those who saw the movie to summarize it for the others. Everyone seemed to understand it was silly to base anything on the Mayan calendar or any other ancient prediction. The kids talked about groups they knew who were always talking about the world ending. They mentioned class mates from a large fundamentalist church who were always trying to scare them with hell. I jumped in to observe that for the most part the Bible uses hope not fear, love not hate.
I then asked why so many people get excited about the world ending. I probably said the most at this point, mentioning it seems to be a way to handle suffering they can not control. God’s people were always being oppressed by oppressive empires. They spoke of the Day of the Lord when God would make all right by finally bringing justice and peace. I mentioned I had taught Revelation at the seminary and found John was really talking about the fall of Roman Empire not events in our time. That led the kids to begin a long discussion about what they regarded as bad religion, for instance fire and brimstone preachers. They clearly wanted to test their ideas about what good religion should be.
I made some remark about always being careful when people, especially politicians and preachers, try to make you afraid, observing they usually want to control you or take your vote and money. We ended talking about whether you change people significantly by scaring or loving them.
How do you read the kids wanting to talk about the end of the world? Or better yet, what do you think about people always worrying about the Last Days?
An epiphany is an appearance of God. If the biblical creation is not so much the origin of a cosmos as the start of a history we share with God, you would expect to find a number of these manifestations in the scriptures. You would, also, assume they would convey an insight into who God is.
Even though his people understand God is a spirit like the wind, unseen but experienced, they still record some amazing manifestations. Remember the three angels who visit Abraham, the dreams of Joseph, the mighty wrestler who dislocates Jacob’s hip, the unconsumed burning bush that draws Moses’ attention, the volcano-like mountain top at Sinai, the mercy seat between the cherubim’s wings on the Ark of the Covenant that resides in the Tabernacle and then the Temple, the whirlwind that confronts Job, and the incense-filled temple experience calling Isaiah..
None of these were regarded as direct appearances. It was assumed to see God face to face would kill you. That makes the personal appearances granted Moses (Exodus 33: 17- 34: 9) and Elijah (I Kings 19: 11-18) of special significance. Both of these are described as special gifts granted the two mightiest heroes in our Old Testament.
I have always enjoyed the appearance given Moses as especially good for conveying the Bible’s humor and the human situation. God takes some necessary precautions to assure Moses’ safety. He places our hero in a cleft of the rock on Sinai, covers the hole with his hand, passes over him in a great storm, and then lifts his hand, so Moses can take peek at his rear end. Even this awkward view causes Moses’ face to shine so much he must wear a veil to protect his friends.
Elijah always wants to outdo Moses, so his appearance is more dignified. He is again on Sinai and again protected inside a cave as a great wind, earthquake, and fire pass by. The Bible reports God is not in these storms. Elijah comes out of the cave into the “sheer silence” that follows. It is in this silence that God is found.
In both cases the physical appearances are down played in favor of the words that follow. It is always understood God is known best in his Words. And, of course, our New Testament picks that up when it proclaims the Word is made human and dwells among us in Jesus of Nazareth, the perfect epiphany of God. We see this in the Transfiguration where the two mighty heroes, Moses and Elijah, finally see God face to face as they converse with Jesus.
The implication is all of Jesus disciples see God face to face without the need of a veil for protection (II Corinthians 3: 12-18). They do not fully understand what is given them as God is never quite what we expect. The Wise Men go seeking him at king’s palace only to find God eventually among the poor.
We present-day disciples are constantly looking for God among us. We know he can be found any where, but sometimes it is difficult to spot him in the White House, Wall Street, or the University. Look first where the Wise Men found him, among the poor. And train yourself by regularly sharing the manifestation that takes place each Sunday when the believing community gathers around Jesus’ Super.
Tags: Among Poor, Elijah, Epiphany, Moses, Sheer Silence, Transfiguration, Wise Men
Christmas forces us to repent, to rethink all our assumptions about God. We naturally think a god must be completely separate from and absolutely superior to us in all ways. A god is to be a perfect being, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. But incarnation proclaims Immanuel, God as human dwelling among us. (John 1: 14) Luther claims to understand this we must start with the baby Jesus held by his mother Mary. “Let us then meditate upon the nativity just as we see it happening in our own babes. I would not have you contemplate the deity of Christ, the majesty of Christ, but rather his flesh. Look upon the baby Jesus. Divinity may terrify man. Inexpressible majesty will crush him. That is why Christ took on our humanity, save for sin, that he should not terrify us but rather that with love and favor he should console and confirm… He was a true Baby with flesh, blood, hands, and legs. He slept, cried, and did everything else that a baby does only without sin.”
The divine is found in the human. Outrageous! But this is where we begin: The Eastern Orthodox Church builds their faith on the Incarnation. In a sense, you can summarize their theology as “the divine become human, so the human can become divine” Western Christianity builds its faith on the Crucifixion and Resurrection. In a sense you can summarize our theology as “God dies in Jesus so the human and the divine can be one” (atonement). They say much the same thing from different angles.
All three of our creeds clearly are trying to proclaim and explain how God can be born, suffer, and die. The Athanasian presents the final formula: Jesus exists fully as God and fully as man. We can not break him into parts such as saying his soul is divine but his body human or that at one time in his life he is divine, for instance doing miracles, and at other he is human, such as not knowing when the Last Judgment comes. We also can not regard Jesus as God incognita, able to throw off his disguise at any moment. God truly emptied himself. (Philippians 2: 5-11) becoming like us in every respect (Hebrews 2:17) He is fully divine and fully human. He is born, grows, and learns as true man and true God, he works as a carpenter and rabbi, teaching and healing as true man and true god, he is rejected, tortured, suffers, and dies as true man and true God, he is resurrected as true God and true man.
What does this mean for us today? First, as Colossians 2: 8-10 says if the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ then we meet God in him, not in some philosophical concept. Our relationship with God is always personal, not academic. When we want to know about God or about true humanity we look to the words and actions of the man Jesus.
Second, in order to understand the story of Jesus it is necessary to understand the story of his people, the Jews. The God we worship participates in our history. He is the God who came to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Isaiah, and all the others.
And third, Christmas reminds us that God continues to participate in our story now and in the future. He still dwells among us in the Church, the Body of Christ gathered around Word and Eucharist, and we find him in even the least of our brothers and sisters.
Tags: Athanasian Creed, Body of Christ, Christmas, Fully God, Fully Human, Immanuel, Incarnation, Least of These
One of the face-to-face classes discussed “Is stem cell research a sin?” thinking it might be less emotionally loaded than the other life issues, such as abortion, in vitro fertilization, contraception, genetic engineering, and euthanasia. People obviously find it easier to speak about using some of the 100,000 or so embryos left over from in vitro fertilization that will be destroyed anyway. The hope was to get beyond bumper sticker slogans and name calling to the really tough issues.
The problem has developed, because a great deal of past religious, moral, political, and medical wisdom believed each person is sacred and of equal worth so that none should ever be treated as a means or instrument.
Those on the right believe personhood is conferred by God at conception so that the embryo, fetus, and newborn must always be treated as a person, always an end, and never a means. Any exception leads to a slippery slope.
For instance, it extends to the self-centered individual and unaccountable group the license to kill which has previously been reserved for the state in cases of war and capital punishment. They also claim it returns to the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries, because it is willing to dispose of some life form evaluated as inferior. We often forget this was a very sophisticated program in the USA as well as Nazi Germany. Many Christian leaders advocated, among other things, sterilizing people on welfare. The right points out this resembles agricultural insemination of animals and plants, because it involves throwing away the inferior product.
Many on the right claim to do this is to “play God”. To make personhood a social construct or to use utilitarian norms in all ethical decisions inevitably leads to the accommodation of selfish human goals. We are not prepared or even inclined to set up significant indifferent oversight. Profit remains the determining factor. For instance, government studies always include “experts” who will profit from the research.
The primary argument from the left is that the research offers new ways to overcome human suffering, especially in its promise for new more efficient ways to overcome disease and injury. They ask how we can deny these benefits to people in need.
Their argument focuses on the dramatic changes in our situation. We are faced with critical problems such as overpopulation, which raise questions our forbearers could not foresee. Technology has made obsolete old concepts of what is “natural”. Medicine is constantly intervening in areas once regarded beyond human control. Everyone knows people close to them who have been helped. The left might acknowledge we are destroying some form of human life, but they do not believe this equates with the murder of a living person already engaged in social relationships
They insist ethical action always calls for the courage to do the best we can in the present situation. Having already given vast new powers to individuals and independent groups, we should be setting up methods for accountability. Not being able to foresee all the consequences of our actions, we should insure the correction of the bad ones. But beyond all that, we should be devoting our energies to the needs of persons living and suffering right now, rather than expending so much on arguments which are primarily academic.
Those who want a clear statement of the position from the right can turn to the Ramsey Colloquium’s response to the NIH. I find Gene Outka’s “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research” (I’ll attach to the “Just in Case” e-mail) to be a very thorough and thoughtful presentation of all the arguments. I tend to agree with Outka that Christians can assume human beings are morally capable and accountable, but must also acknowledge they inevitably exalt themselves, flaunt God, and manipulate others. Still he believes we can take a “nothing is lost” position in this issue, because the innocent will die in any case and other innocent life will be saved. He still expresses great discomfort at the lack of oversight, the role of the profit motive, the government’s tendency of allowing too many decisions to be made by default, the question of affordability, and the prevalence of insurance company reasoning.
In some sense, the conclusion sidesteps the issues, because it deals with forms of life already slated for destruction. Still we have examined the basic arguments used in all the life issues. There is no doubt that we are going to be continually confronted with the challenges of the new technologies. And there is no doubt that we are not going to find a consensus about how to proceed. It is another area where we must proceed with faith in uncertain territory, being willing to “sin bravely” as we try to serve other people and relieve suffering. As much as we value the wisdom of the past we can not let it stand in the way of ministering to the situation in the present.
Tags: Eugenics, Nothing is Lost, Personhood, Play God, Stem Cell Research, Technology
Remember we are using” Is it a sin?” as a gimmick for examining what is good for self, others, and society. I was surprised that both the face-to-face classes wanted to discuss giving up church attendance and again how they handled it. Usually people make the decision based on “Do I need it?” or ‘Am I getting anything out it?” However, the classes spoke primarily about how going to church benefits other people and society.
The history of Sabbath observance in the Bible included the same three themes. It began as simply rest or stopping work; moved to caring for others as servants, foreigners, animals, and even the land; and culminated in the society enforcing the worship of God as a means to maintain its tradition.
Jesus claimed doing good, saving life, and rescuing the needy should take precedence over resting (Mark 2, 3; John 5). The early Christians followed his counsel by making their worship a communal activity to equip the saints for continuing his ministry to others and society. Acts 2 says it included fellowship, sharing a meal, praying, and remembering the tradition by hearing the apostles’ report of their experiences with Jesus.
So what about our present situation? If we are saved by God’s grace, going to church is not necessary for fulfilling an obligation. It might be healthy for us, but it also benefits others. We gather to hear God’s Word and share the sacraments; we take a day off to regain perspective by rethinking our values; we establish a rhythm so that Christ’s Way becomes a habit of our hearts; and we worship God. The golf course might offer a general appreciation of God’s creation, but it falls far short of anything else.
The classes were very aware our own health is to benefit others. In fact, it is often at Church where we learn who is in need and sometimes minister to them right on the spot. We go to share talents and money for larger projects of mercy as well as to provide a witness for neighbors and other worshippers. The institution provides a means for passing on our tradition and its values. Class members could no think of any other place where this happens in our secular society. In fact, the grandparents focused a lot of the discussion on their concern that children receive the benefits of that teaching.
At times we wondered if modern civilization is hanging on to a residue of Jewish- Christian values while not providing a way to continue them. In this sense, observance of the Sabbath might be the most important way not only to save the Church but also to offer society the traditions and values necessary for its survival and success.
As a pastor I was always confronting people about church attendance. The most frequent response was, “It is the only day I have to sleep in”. We seem to be returning to the first stage, making the Sabbath a day of rest for the individual. The demands of the job seem to be preventing us from doing good and maintaining tradition. Because most of us work to have the “good life” rather than put food on the table, we should be asking some probing questions: Has our affluence diverted us from remembering who we are? Is our lack of worship a sign that we “have turned in on ourselves”, Luther’s definition of sin? Is there any other way to sustain our tradition and values?
Tags: Church Attendance, Day of Rest, Equip the Saints, Sabbath, Tradition, Worship
It is easy to define sin as not doing God’s will or being separated from God, but what does that mean? If you turn to the Bible you can find rigid laws but also flexible love. You still have what Bob calls “the perennial problem of rigid rules that are generally but not always correct versus flexible rules that accommodate to the circumstances but require an intellectual and ethical honesty that are not always present”.
But I think it goes beyond that in our time. In a society that practices radical freedom without the benefits of tradition and community, the definition of sin becomes an internal struggle within the individual conscience. One reaction is to pretend religion is a private matter between the individual and God, making sin a question of whether I have killed or stolen from anyone. Another is to define sin as simply hurting other people, a take off on the medical “no harm done” ethic.
Neither of these seems adequate for those who acknowledge Christian tradition. Yet they still ask what those ancient rules even mean after 2,000 years? 1) If technology offers safety from reproduction, why can’t consenting adults engage in sex without making promises of faithfulness? (Do not commit adultery), 2) In a free and affluent society, how do I balance the demands of job, family, church, and personal pleasure? (Observe the Sabbath, Honor father and mother), 3) If the economy depends on spending, why should I regard myself gluttonous and greedy when buying all the latest electronic merchandise? (Do not covet), 4) If a large international corporation engages in practices on the other side of the globe that are regarded as crimes in this country, should I buy their products? (Do not steal), 5) If I contribute to global warming and pollution and if I do not help feed the starving, am I complicit in the deaths of millions?(Do not kill), 6) If names do not have the power the ancients attributed to them, why should I worry about swearing in God’s name ? (Do not take God’s name in vain), 7) If I lie online or stretch the truth in advertising, have I really hurt anyone? (Do not bear false witness), 
If technology seems to offer repair for any damage, why should I consider the next generation in my decisions? (Do not steal, kill, and covet).
When I contemplate such questions I always end up praying the Agnus Dei: “Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us”. It is the same response I have when hearing Jesus say, “Others say do not kill, I say do not be angry; others say love your neighbor, I say love your enemy; others say do not commit adultery, I say do not even look with lust; others say be fair, I say forgive”. “Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.”
I think next week I’ll report the face-to- face classes’ discussion on either “Is it a sin not to go to church?” or “Is it a sin to view pornography in public places?”
Tags: Agnus Dei, Do No Harm, freedom, Sin, Technology and Religion
Not everyone agrees, but I think a terribly significant change takes place with Paul. He transforms the common story when he moves from a Hebraic to a universal vision. Previously it was the Exodus which remembered the Jews were slaves whom God rescued. Now it became the Cross when we all were helpless, sinners, and even enemies whom God in Christ saved (Romans 5: 6-11). He also altered the response from actions which care for those who are presently in need to faith active in love for all people, including our enemies. And, of course, in doing all this he changed the way we look at sin.
He not only captures the spirit of the entire history of salvation which proclaims God’s love rescues us from the suffering caused by humanity’s sin; he also paints a response which enables our faith to address situations millennia later. He describes it as being so caught up in Christ’s Spirit that we can not help ourselves. It is like falling in love. God so overwhelms us that we who were once slaves to sin are now slaves to righteousness (Romans 6: 20-23). Just as God’s Word gave life in creation, so the words of the Gospel make us new people. We are freed, nothing is unclean, all is lawful, although not everything is beneficial (I Corinthians 10: 23-30).
Paul calls the Spirit love. He writes, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given us” (Romans 5:5). Love is to imitate Christ, always returning good for evil. In the Christian community this means working for the common good by sharing the gifts God has granted and not always insisting on our own ways (Philippians 2: 1-15, I Corinthians 13). Paul believes this means constantly compensating for weaker members (Romans 14: 13-15:1).
Sin then is refusing God’s love for ourselves or placing stumbling blocks in the way of others receiving it (Romans 14: 13). It is also failure to love other people. Paul emphasizes this aspect by changing the Great Commandment. In the Old Testament it was to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Jesus added “and love your neighbor as yourself”. Now Paul reduces it to simply “love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5: 13,14, Romans 13: 8-10).
Christ’s life has become the standard for judging ones life. Because all fall short of his glory (Romans 3: 23), Christian individuals experience internal conflict that culminates in a confession acknowledging they do not do the good they want, but the evil they do not want (Romans 7: 14-24).
Paul’s fundamental message is helpful in defining modern sin. However, I find it disingenuous, if not dishonest, to pretend his definitions of particular 1st century sins can be totally applied to our 21st situation. That is to ignore the historical development which the Bible continually reports. It refuses to follow the Spirit into new understandings of love. You can appreciate the problem when modern science turns Paul’s argument against homosexuality against itself by showing it can involve a genetic condition. If that is so, neither Paul nor we can claim it is obviously against nature. (Romans 1: 18- 32).
Here are the questions Paul leaves me: 1) Is sin simply our confession that we have not done enough in Christianity’s continuing revolution against oppression? Does that become especially evident when we remember Christ Jesus’ life? 2) How far can we go in claiming “everything is lawful”? Does Paul really mean the old law is useless except for convicting us of sin?
Recent Comments