XC: Recantation of Political Participation

If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:12).

For some time I have defended the Christian's ability to vote and to thus participate in the political domain as a liberty-- taking concrete action to promote peace and tranquility for the Kingdom (1 Timothy 2:1-2). I have also established that the choice to vote for a particular political candidate is also a matter of liberty, based on the individual believer's sober judgment in regards to a given politician and their belief as to whether he or she would best uphold peace and tranquility for the Kingdom (1 Timothy 2:1-2). I, myself, have participated in such processes.

Nevertheless, on the basis of further study and examination of the current political climate, the ways in which Christians are participating in the political realm, and the impact of all such things on the health and promotion of the Kingdom, I feel compelled to now recant of my participation in the political processes of the United States and to eschew any such future participation for the sake of promoting God's Kingdom, and I would like for my fellow believers to soberly consider their own participation in this process and its implications and consequences.

As it is written,

Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1).

Participation in the political realm easily turns into, if nothing else, a "weight," and can also turn into "sin," and all too often hinders our effectiveness in promoting God's Kingdom because of dual loyalties.

As Jesus indicated in regards to God and Mammon in Matthew 6:24, "no man can serve two masters." This is no less true in the political realm. It is easy to get passionately involved in politics and voting and find oneself in morally hazardous terrain.

I feel compelled to establish first and foremost that politicians and the political systems boast of greater power and effectiveness than they can deliver, and Christians should not be fooled into believing their claims. There is no effective deliverance or salvation from evil on account of political action. God has made it very clear how people are saved:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).

For a time in human history, God worked through a particular physical nation, Israel. The new covenant in Christ, however, stands as a clear repudiation of the idea that one particular earthly nation can be "God's nation," for God has people who belong to Him from many nations (John 18:36, Galatians 3:28). In the new covenant, salvation and deliverance does not come through acts of legislation or government mandates-- it can only come through the promotion and acceptance of the Gospel of Christ!

A country could theoretically have God's laws enshrined as their own laws, but such is never a guarantee that people are following those laws. Furthermore, how can there be any guarantee that legislation leads people to the knowledge of God in Christ? What would be gained if all the laws of the land were made to conform to God's laws, but not a soul was converted in the process? It would all be to no avail!

There are no commands, examples, or inferences in the New Testament that would lead us to believe that God saves anyone through the political process. There are no guidelines in the New Testament for establishing a "Christian nation." Furthermore, there is no evidence from the New Testament that any of the believers of the day-- Jesus, the Apostles, or anyone else-- depended upon or worked through the political system to advance God's purposes. The closest example we have is Paul using his Roman citizenship to avoid beatings and to be granted an audience with Caesar, a moment he intended to use to promote the Gospel (cf. Acts 22:25-29, 23:11, 25:10-11).

Therefore, any belief that God's purposes are going to be best served by devoting our efforts and resources to the political sphere are misguided. Politics are part of this world that is declared vanity by the Preacher (Ecclesiastes 1:2), and politics are indeed vanity. Should we devote our time, energy, and resources to vanity and striving after wind or after the spiritual treasures which will not perish (cf. Matthew 6:19-20)?

Most will declare that the Kingdom should come first, of course, but then that there is no difficulty also doing what one can in the political realm to advance God's purposes.

But we must ask the question-- can God's purposes ever be really advanced in the political realm, and is it really profitable to throw oneself into the political sphere?

Politics is a dirty endeavor, full of compromises and moral hazards. And when people with great moral integrity who seek to stand for God's values begin to enmesh themselves with politics, the darkness far too often proves too strong for the light!

Politics is not for the truly principled, and participation in the political realm as is invites moral compromise. Most recognize that voting ends up being choosing the "lesser of two evils," but notice that means that we are choosing an evil!

And herein is the inconsistency in political participation. There are a few people who stand by their integrity and participate in politics: they will only vote for candidates who have a fully Biblical stance on morality. But if you vote for anyone from the two major parties, you are by necessity compromising moral stances, because neither political party upholds God's system of morality.

The most damaging element of politics that I fear is causing great pain for the Kingdom involves party ideology. Too many Christians seem more than willing to align themselves with a given political party and to defend and justify whatever that party happens to do while excoriating and lambasting the other party no matter what they may do.

If a candidate of the opposing party has public moral failings, those are highlighted and condemned. But if a candidate from the "acceptable" party has public moral failings, such is ignored, minimized, or blunted with talk of forgiveness and the like.

If the time is convenient to push regarding a "moral" argument, any candidate who does not accept the truth regarding that "moral" argument is accursed. But if there are other, more pressing political issues, even a candidate from the "acceptable" party who does not hold to that particular "moral" argument can be justified. Furthermore, if one were to vote for a candidate from the "other" party who does not accept the truth regarding that "moral" argument, such is a sin, but if one votes for a candidate from the "acceptable" party who also does not accept the truth regarding that "moral" argument, it is understood that one voted for their other positions and not for their position on that "moral" argument.

Whatever political shenanigans the "other" party engages in shows how corrupt, evil, and debased they are, but the political shenanigans of the "acceptable" party are always justifiable.

Nothing evil can be said about candidates from the "acceptable" party, but it is always open season on the "other" party.

The people in the "other" party are always out for the destruction of everything we hold dear, while the people in the "acceptable" party always act sincerely in what they believe to be the best interest of this nation.

These types of attitudes and actions are hypocritical to the extreme and shameful. They indicate just how far politics can go in dividing people and alienating people. I am ashamed to say that I myself have participated at times in such arguments and have at times spoken improperly to my fellow brethren regarding such profitless and worthless disputations, and for that I have repented and continue to repent.

Consider what the New Testament says in contrast to what happens today.

Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men (Romans 12:17).

Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king (1 Peter 2:17).

God says that we should take thought for what is honorable in the sight of all and that we should honor all men. If we engage in partisan character attacks and speak evilly of people with whom we disagree politically, are we acting in honorable ways? Do we show that we honor all men, even those with political opinions with which we differ, through such discussions and statements?

Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward all men (Titus 3:1-2).

Putting away therefore all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings (1 Peter 2:1).

God also makes evident that we are to not speak evil of anyone, and yet it seems to be par for the course to assume that the people in power with whom we disagree clearly have evil intentions. The same benefit of the doubt that are given to one group are never given to others.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (Philippians 4:8).

Paul here emphasizes the importance of devoting our minds to the things that are good and pleasing. He indicates that we must take thought as to what we take into ourselves in terms of information and where we obtain that information. There are many venues of information out there whose purpose is to promote a certain worldview and to alienate and malign any other perspective. All kinds of form of manipulation are used to distort reality in order to conform to the narrative of choice. This is done from both sides of the political spectrum, but as Christians, we should say enough, and no longer allow ourselves to be filled with messages that divide, alienate, and do not lead to peace!

Are we entirely ignorant of what the great push toward political participation has done to the Kingdom? Do we not see how our conduct among the Gentiles has been less than honorable because we have allowed ourselves to be wrapped into this pointless, futile contest of wills?

Regardless of where you live in America, odds are that between 45-65% of the population does not agree with your political preference, if you have gone along with one of the two major parties. If we push political messages, however consciously or unconsciously, are we not hindering our effectiveness in reaching 45-65% of those around us with the message that is really important?

What if the intense political participation that is manifest in Bible class discussions, stray comments from the pulpit, bulletin articles, Facebook statuses, blog posts, and the like, were responsible for pushing some people away from the Gospel message? How should we feel if we are allowing something as trivial and as unimportant as politics to get in the way from them learning of the truth of God?

I am sure that if such comments were made in regards to passion regarding sports teams or food preferences or some other such thing, we would all recognize how damaging that would be. How is politics any different?

If the political climate presents constant temptation to demonize my fellow man because of his different political beliefs, how is that going to help me break down barriers and to show him the love of Christ?

If I am pushing a particular political agenda, and the person with whom I am trying to show the Gospel already has a preconceived notion of the way Christians are based on that political agenda, is that political agenda going to assist or hinder my work?

If all the energy, time, money, and other resources that Christians expend in the political arena were redirected toward the promotion of the Gospel of Christ and the demonstration of love and compassion for our fellow man, how much further could Christ's cause be advanced?

I want to be clear: I am not condemning anyone for participating in the political process if they so choose. That remains a liberty even if I no longer practice it. This does not mean that I will cease from ever speaking about politics, especially when it comes to the intersection of politics and the Kingdom. I also recognize that many are able to keep their political views and their religious views separate, do not make a big deal about their political views, and certainly do not make their political views tests of fellowship, and for such brethren I am thankful.

Nevertheless, I have some questions that I believe merit consideration.

Has any soul been saved because of Christian participation in the political realm?

How, in any measurable spiritual way, has the Kingdom of God been advanced by Christian participation in the political realm?

How much damage has been done to the Kingdom by Christians participating in the political realm and getting caught up in evil surmisings, dishonorable words and actions, and antagonism toward people of a different political persuasion?

How many souls have been alienated from the commonwealth of Christ on account of the forceful presentation of the political opinions of Christians?

How has politics built up and encouraged the Lord's Body? In how many ways have politics instead torn down and distressed the Lord's Body?

If there is so much lost because of political participation, and so little gained, how can it ever be considered profitable for Christians to engage in it?

I have considered these questions and I cannot help but decide that political participation is not profitable when it comes to advancing the agenda of the Lord of all. Our fight is not with Democrats or Republicans or Independents or even with al-Qaeda or Iraq or terrorists or homosexuals or atheists-- Paul makes it clear that our fight is not with flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12). Instead, our fight is with " the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). And those powers of darkness are well-served by Christians expending their energy fighting the futile fight of politics and losing ground in the good, necessary, and eternally consequent fight.

ELDV

LXXXIX: Advancing the Kingdom in San Bernardino, California

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20).

Ever since the first century the call has gone out to go into the world and proclaim the Gospel of Christ. Jesus did not say to obtain buildings and expect people to come to you-- He said to go out and make disciples.

In an attempt to do this very thing, the elders of the Mountain View church of Christ in San Bernardino, California, agreed to an evangelism initiative for 2010 to take the Gospel message out into their community. They would have four one-week intensive campaigns for which they would bring in five preachers each week to promote the Gospel in San Bernardino in the first weeks of January, March, May, and July. The preachers for January were Carlos Gordilla, Frederic Grey, Ethan Longhenry, Dick Tidwell, and Ross Triplett. The preachers would work with Royce Bell, the evangelist for the Mountain View church, along with the elders and many of the members of the congregation.

The evangelism campaign in January 2010 went extremely well. The church had previously bought hundreds of New American Standard Bibles and stuffed them with tracts on the plan of salvation, the church of Christ, and on how the sinner's prayer is a lie. The church also printed a large number of cards advertising the church to disperse within the community. We then went out to various public areas-- the post office, the courthouse, the hall of records, the bus depot, a 7-Eleven, CSU-San Bernardino, and a city street-- conversing with the people of the town, handing out Bibles, and requesting the people to sit down for a one-time, one hour study at their convenience.

The 7-Eleven, city street, and courthouse proved to be the most fruitful locations. The majority of our 125+ contacts came from those three locations.

While at the courthouse a former member came across the table and contact was re-established with her. Such was a benefit of being out in the community-- had we not set up a table there, that connection could not have been made.

Since this was the first time that the congregation had engaged in anything of this magnitude there were a few glitches and difficulties. Nevertheless, the work continued. Many of the members of the congregation actively participated in the promotion of the Gospel in the city. Others helped more behind the scenes with transportation, meals, assistance in Bible studies, and in other ways. Above all, the congregation was active in prayer, asking for God's blessings upon the work.

Resistance was minimal. Many people were indifferent to what we were doing; many praised the endeavor. Many businesses were kindly disposed toward allowing the church cards to be present in their places of operation. We did run into a situation in the hall of records where we were asked to leave despite having the right to be there-- after a few phone calls to county authorities, the situation was cleared up, and our ability to use the county property was firmly established.

The response to these efforts went beyond everyone's expectations. We were able to make well over 100 contacts. People were willing to talk with us for a few minutes regarding spiritual matters and were willing to sit down and discuss them further. So far over 30 appointments have been made for the one-time, one-shot studies.

The studies most often feature the one-hour study of spiritual things that Dick Tidwell condensed for that purpose. The material features the reading of Scriptures regarding Christ's authority, the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures, the sinfulness of mankind, and the plan of salvation, with yes or no questions regarding those Scriptures.

While many of the phone numbers were bogus or unavailable and a few appointments were no-shows, great progress has been made. As of now, four people have put on Christ in baptism through these efforts!

All of the activities have born fruit. We have engaged in a few studies from people taking the free Bible and allowing us to come and speak regarding the Bible, and one person has been baptized on account of it. Long conversations were held with people hanging around the courthouse, and one study and baptism came from that. Two people discovered literature on the ground-- the card of the church, another type of card, and the tract regarding the sinner's prayer-- and from that two studies and one baptism have come as a result.

This campaign disproves the notion that people are not interested in spiritual matters. People are looking for God and His truth and are famishing from a lack of reapers in the fields. There is great wisdom in Jesus' method-- going out and finding the perishing can work in the twenty-first century just as it worked in the first!

This evangelism campaign is just what was needed in San Bernardino, California, and the practice can be modified to work in many other places. It is not the only way to evangelize-- but it led to the message going out into the community. Let us find ways of going out into our communities and to spread the Gospel!

For more information about the evangelism campaign and the Mountain View church of Christ in San Bernardino, California, check out their website and Twitter feed.

ELDV

LXXXVIII: Obama and Psalm 109:8

A slogan has recently become popularized by many in the world of "Christendom," no doubt from conservative Evangelicals: "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8." Many have re-posted this statement or have spoken approvingly of this statement-- even some within the church.

This is a dangerous trend for many reasons. Regardless of your opinion of President Obama and his policies, we have no right supporting this statement or the insinuations of this statement based in its context.

This is the verse in question:

Let his days be few; And let another take his office (Psalm 109:8).

To many, this seems like a harmless statement indicating disapproval: they do not like Obama, and they would like to see him lose in the next election.

But this statement is anything but harmless, especially when considered in context. This is the full context of that verse:

Set thou a wicked man over him; And let an adversary stand at his right hand. When he is judged, let him come forth guilty; And let his prayer be turned into sin. Let his days be few; And let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, And his wife a widow. Let his children be vagabonds, and beg; And let them seek their bread out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; And let strangers make spoil of his labor. Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; Neither let there be any to have pity on his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; In the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the LORD continually, That he may cut off the memory of them from the earth (Psalm 109:6-15, emphasis mine).

This psalm is an imprecatory psalm of David in which David petitions God for the destruction, desolation, and death of the wicked and deceitful people who have conspired against him. The Apostle Peter teaches us that this is also a prophecy of Judas Iscariot, his wicked deeds, and his end, and serves as the justification for casting lots to fill the position of Apostle that he vacated (cf. Acts 1:15-26).

Therefore, in context, Psalm 109:8 refers to a ruler who is "wicked" and who deserves to be killed and made desolate for what he has done. The call goes out in verse 9 to let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

There is no sense in trying to argue the relative "righteousness" or "wickedness" of Obama or his predecessors since so many believers seem to be content to justify the actions of the presidents on "their" side and excoriate the presidents on the "other" side-- it should be enough to note that all of our presidents have had their strengths and weaknesses, moments of success and failure, and are sinful men like the rest of us (Romans 3:23).

Yet regardless of how you feel about Obama, there is never any justification for making any sort of appeal that could be interpreted to demand or desire his death. There is no Biblical way to associate such an attitude with the clear demands of the Christian toward the governing authorities:

Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God...Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1, 7).

Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king (1 Peter 2:13-17).

We cannot respect and honor authority figures and at the same time cite Bible verses that, in context, demand their execution and desecration. There have already been enough threats against the life of our President, and Christians have no business fanning that flame, however consciously or unconsciously they do so.

I hasten to add that this is not a "liberal" issue or a "conservative" issue. It would have been just as wrong and inappropriate to have said in 2001-2009,"Pray for Bush. Psalm 109:8." It is never appropriate to connect any ruler of our people with this passage!

It is appropriate and necessary to pray for Obama, but that is based in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, not Psalm 109:8:

I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

President Barack Obama is our lawfully elected ruler, and whether we like it or not, we must respect him and his office, just as Bush deserved respect along with his office in the past. As Christians, we ought not say anything that can be interpreted as encouraging or approving the death of our ruler. Our focus should instead be on how to promote the Gospel and to further the Kingdom in the midst of these difficult times for our country!

ELDV

LXXXVII: The Paranormal and Sorcery

We in the twenty-first century still live in the shadow of the Enlightenment. For better or for worse, the Enlightenment has become one of the most significant lines of demarcation of history. Before the Enlightenment, or so the story goes, people lived in "ignorance" and "superstition"; ever since, we have "broken free" from such fetters and can think "rationally" and "sensibly."

What is the Enlightenment? Wikipedia's definition is as good as any: "a time in Western philosophy and cultural life, centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority." Yet many participants in the Enlightenment went much further than just extolling reason: they began critically questioning any and every form of inherited authority, including religion, Christianity, and other such things, and many found them quite wanting. Some of the most blistering criticism of Christianity came from the pen of the French Enlightenment philosophers.

It is not going too far to declare the Enlightenment to be the foundation of the modern elevation of science as the means by which we discover truth and the basis for atheism and agnosticism in its modern forms. Its focus on reason and rationalism explains the generally ambivalent to hostile attitudes of many sections of society toward all things supernatural, especially among the intelligentsia. Why has Christianity been under constant assault from many scientists, atheists, and even "Biblical scholars" for the past few generations? The Enlightenment obsession on reason and rationality.

On the other hand, American Christianity in general, and especially the Restoration Movement, can be rightly seen as the brainchild of the Enlightenment. On what basis could it be believed that the common man could pick up the Bible and use his own "common sense" to figure out its meaning? How could it be that after generations of trusting tradition and ecclesiastical systems, a large movement of Christians eschewed such things to understand the Bible on their own based on its original intent? Without the "democratization" of humanity that flowed from the political writings of the Enlightenment, and the "commonsense moral reasoning" of the Scottish Enlightenment, the Restoration Movement would not have turned out as it did.

From this we should see that we should be somewhat ambivalent about the claims of "rational" and "reasonable" thinking. There is no doubt that man was made with the ability to reason and think rationally, but the heart of Christianity involves the existence of a supernatural Creator God who has acted in supernatural ways throughout time, concepts generally abhorrent to Enlightenment thinking.

In terms of the supernatural, many Christians have attempted to preserve as much of the Enlightenment thinking as possible. They will make exceptions for God and Jesus when it comes to "antisupernaturalism," but everything else is right out. Black arts, magic, demons-- all such things must be fraudulent and deceptions. These are the "superstitions" of the "ignorant common folk" before our "enlightened age." Today we "know better" than they did.

We must be very skeptical and suspicious of this type of argument. After all, many firm believers in the Enlightenment would say the same thing about a belief in God: it is a "superstition" of the "ignorant common folk" that existed before our "enlightened age," and today we should "know better"!

If we are to believe in the supernatural, we must believe in the supernatural. We must recognize that it is beyond the natural sphere and therefore we may not understand everything that takes place within it. The flaw of the Enlightenment argument against supernaturalism is that it presumes what it cannot know: how can the finite perceive what is infinite, or the physical perceive the spiritual? If we believe in God, we must believe that there are places-- and powers-- beyond our perception.

Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that there is not just spiritual power in God-- there is spiritual power in darkness.

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12).

And he [the dragon, or Satan] stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns, and seven heads, and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority (Revelation 13:1-2).

And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like unto a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the authority of the first beast in his sight. And he maketh the earth and them dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose death-stroke was healed. And he doeth great signs, that he should even make fire to come down out of heaven upon the earth in the sight of men (Revelation 13:11-13).

These passages make it evident that (a) Satan exists, (b) he is part of the impressive array of spiritual powers of darkness in the heavenly places, (c) he has authority that can stand behind political entities or can be used to deceive through signs, and (d) at least in the time of these writings, was quite active with these powers in the world.

The Bible often speaks of people who use the forces of darkness for various spiritual ends: diviners, wizards, witches, necromancers, spiritists, mediums, and the like. They used magic and black arts to conjure the dead, cast spells, attempt to tell the future, and other such things. Throughout the Scriptures, they are condemned for their sorcery (cf. Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Galatians 5:19-21). But notice that the Scriptures never say that these are always fraudulent. God's people are told to avoid these practices but are never assured that there really is no power behind them.

An instructive parallel is idolatry. As with sorcery, God tells His people constantly to avoid serving other gods (Exodus 20:3-5, Galatians 5:19-21). Yet, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4, there is really no such thing as the "god" behind the idol: it is just a piece of wood or stone or whatever (cf. Isaiah 44). No such parallel statement exists regarding the black arts and magic!

When we put these two strands together, we see why. There are spiritual forces of darkness out there. They are behind the black arts and magic. They do actually exist, as opposed to the idols that do not really exist.

This whole issue invariably boils down to 1 Samuel 28. I have heard it said many times that the medium of En-dor was really a con and a sham. When she conjures up Samuel, it is not really because of her black arts, for it is God who actually paves the way for it to happen.

I cannot help but believe that this is an example of eisegesis: people reading their post-Enlightenment bias into the text without any basis. One cannot read the text itself and come to these conclusions!

Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land. And the Philistines gathered themselves together, and came and encamped in Shunem: and Saul gathered all Israel together, and they encamped in Gilboa. And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, "Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at En-dor" (1 Samuel 28:3-7).

Let us make note of a couple of things: Samuel was dead. Saul had banished all those who worked in the black arts from the land. At a critical moment, the LORD does not communicate with Saul. Again I say: the LORD does not communicate with Saul. Saul, who throughout his life has been stubborn and disobedient, does not get the hint. Because he is not getting any answer through approved channels, he decides to go through a disapproved channel, one that he has personally condemned. He knows that it is not according to the will of God, but he clearly here does not share the belief that all sorcery is fraudulent. He clearly believes that he can get the answer he seeks from those using black arts since the LORD is not speaking with him!

And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, "Divine unto me, I pray thee, by the familiar spirit, and bring me up whomsoever I shall name unto thee." And the woman said unto him, "Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?" And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, "As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing." Then said the woman, "Whom shall I bring up unto thee?" And he said, "Bring me up Samuel." And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice; and the woman spake to Saul, saying, "Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul" (1 Samuel 28:8-12).

Again, a few notes. Saul specifically asks the medium to "divine" by her "familiar spirit." She is reticent on account of the decree of Saul, but he insists, and even swears protection.

Verse 12 is most often brought up as a justification for the belief that the medium of En-dor is a fraud. The argument goes that she cries out because she is stunned that her sorcery worked. But what does the text say? I am a big believer in letting the Bible interpret itself whenever possible-- why make up an explanation or interpretation when there is a ready explanation/interpretation present? The medium speaks after she cries out, and her declaration is not wonderment at her action-- her cry is a cry of fear since she perceives that the man before her is Saul, the very one who has made the decree to cast her kind out of the land! How can she know whether or not this has all been a trap? She is justifiably afraid for her life! The best and most consistent explanation for the medium's cry is that the man is Saul, not that her conjuring worked.

And the king said unto her, "Be not afraid: for what seest thou?" And the woman said unto Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth." And he said unto her, "What form is he of?" And she said, "An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a robe." And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance. And Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" And Saul answered, "I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do." And Samuel said, "Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine adversary? And the LORD hath done unto thee, as he spake by me: and the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thy hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David. Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, and didst not execute his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the LORD will deliver Israel also with thee into the hand of the Philistines; and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the LORD will deliver the host of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines (1 Samuel 28:13-19).

I quote this just to show another facet of the text: Samuel is dead and remains dead throughout the narrative. He is never brought back to physical life in any way, shape, or form. As he says in verse 19: the next day, Saul and his sons will be "with him," and we know from 1 Samuel 31 that Saul and his sons are killed the next day. They are all part of Hades, the spirit world.

The text is rather unambiguous about what happened: Samuel died, Saul wanted to inquire of God regarding the Philistines, God did not answer, Saul turned to the black arts of the medium of En-dor, the medium of En-dor conjured up the spirit of Samuel using her black arts, and Saul learned regarding his condemnation from Samuel. The Chronicler is likewise unambiguous about what this all meant for Saul:

So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD, which he kept not; and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire thereby, and inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse (1 Chronicles 10:13-14).

Saul is thoroughly condemned for consulting the medium; her sin is accounted to him since he instigated the matter. And notice how the Chronicler makes it clear that Saul did not consult the LORD but the medium: if the LORD is the power behind the medium, how could such a statement stand?

It is true: there are a lot of exegetical acrobatics going on in order to escape what the text says. We should always allow the text to inform our worldview and philosophy, and not allow the prevailing worldviews and philosophies of the world, including the Enlightenment, to color the text (cf. Colossians 2:8).

There are other matters that 1 Samuel 28 brings out. Samuel is a spirit, as we indicated, and always remained that way. And yet he is sentient: he is able to communicate to Saul and is aware not only of Saul's current condition but also regarding what the LORD intends to do. This would seem to be fairly strong evidence that there are such things as spirits, and who knows? They might manifest themselves at times in the physical dimension as ghosts.

If we believe in the existence of a supernatural God and a spiritual location known as heaven, we ought to at least be open to the possibility of the supernatural being all around us. Yes, the Bible does speak of spiritual locations like heaven as being "above" us and hell and the underworld as being "below" us, but Paul speaks of how in God we live and move and have our being, and that He is "not far" from any of us (cf. Acts 17:27-28). We have gazed deeply into the heavens and dug into the earth and have not found "heaven" or "hell."

From what the Bible reveals to us, it would seem that the spiritual is something akin to a dimension out of the perception of man yet always around man. Sometimes the physical and spiritual dimensions can both be apparent, as can be perceived with Balaam and his donkey and Elisha with his servant.

And God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the LORD placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD, and she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD, and she lay down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with his staff. And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" And Balaam said unto the ass, "Because thou hast mocked me, I would there were a sword in my hand, for now I had killed thee." And the ass said unto Balaam, "Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden all thy life long unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee?" and he said, "Nay" (Numbers 22:22-30).

Beyond the evident comedy of this scene is another truth: the donkey is granted to see something that Balaam does not. And then...

Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face (Numbers 22:31).

In a flash, everything changed for Balaam. He could now clearly perceive why the donkey had been so stubborn. Yet, in reality, nothing had changed. As the donkey knew quite well, the angel was always there, even when Balaam did not perceive him.

And then there is Elisha and his servant. The king of Aram is none too pleased with Elisha revealing his plans to the king of Israel, and sends his army against him.

Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, a host with horses and chariots was round about the city. And his servant said unto him, "Alas, my master! how shall we do?" And he answered, "Fear not; for they that are with us are more than they that are with them" (2 Kings 6:14-16).

Imagine that you are the servant here. You know that Elisha is pretty special, but for crying out loud, it's the Aramean army! It may not be the strongest force out there, but it's a lot stronger than what the servant sees around Elisha. You can certainly understand if the servant is a bit incredulous: what do you mean that there are more for us than there are with them? They have lots of horses, chariots, and spears, and you're a prophet with a servant!

And yet...

And Elisha prayed, and said, "LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see." And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha (2 Kings 6:17).

Everything changed! Horses and chariots of fire! The Arameans did not stand a chance!

Yet nothing really changed. The horses and chariots were always there. They were just beyond the perception of the servant.

Can you imagine what would happen if the LORD suddenly opened your eyes or my eyes so that we could see the spiritual in our midst? In the flash of an eye, everything would change for us. Nothing would ever be the same!

And yet, of course, nothing would change. It was always there. It was just beyond our perception.

Before I became a Christian I read many books regarding paranormal activity. I was struck by the inner consistency of the experiences even though the people experiencing them were separated by time, oceans, cultures, and many other factors. Were some of them wishful thinking? Probably. Were some people sincerely deluded? Most likely. But can all of them be written off with a broad brush? Absolutely not. By whatever standard we would use against this paranormal activity our own belief in God would be refuted!

I want to make a few things clear:

1. Many people who participate in black arts and magic are fraudulent.
2. Everyone who participates in black arts and magic are sinning and ought to desist immediately (Galatians 5:19-21).
3. Dabbling in the paranormal is not very profitable for the Christian. The vast majority of its associations are with the dark side.

Nevertheless, I cannot find any Biblical evidence to write off all paranormal activity as being fraudulent. In fact, the Bible seems to affirm the existence of paranormal phenomena. The Bible confesses that there are spiritual powers of darkness, and while they might be tempting, we are to stand against them and avoid them. Horoscopes, astrology, tarot cards, psychic behaviors, seances, and other such things involve black arts, are sinful, and involve actual powers that we must avoid and encourage others to avoid.

Finally we come to another contentious matter: the power that Satan has today. As we have seen, in the past, Satan has used his power to prop up governments hostile to God. The demons subject to his power afflicted people in the times of Christ.

But what about such things today? I must confess that this issue makes me uneasy. It has become fashionable to read almost any kind of supernatural activity into 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 even though Paul only identifies speaking in tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. There is no passage that tells us that miracles have ceased, for example. This does not mean that God is actively inspiring a given individual to heal people as He did in the first century, but it does mean that God reserves the right to intervene in the physical realm in supernatural ways, and praise Him for that (cf. James 5:16-18)!

But what about demons and the like? I am not persuaded by the claims that demonology can be entirely explained through psychiatric and/or physiological conditions. It seems certain that some demonic possession either caused such phenomena or was that phenomena (cf. Matthew 17:15-20), but the New Testament does differentiate between Jesus "healing the sick," "casting out demons," and helping "epileptics" (Matthew 4:24). Furthermore, there are the "doctrines of demons" in 1 Timothy 4:1, a passage often cited to refer to modern-day heresies as much as matters coming out of the first century.

If there are "doctrines of demons" around today, along with "spiritual forces of darkness," and no passage showing that such have ceased, it would seem that they would be as active now as they were in the first century. I struggle with that-- perhaps partly based on my own Enlightenment-type biases, but also in the utter silence regarding what to do about such things. If someone today was possessed by a demon, by what means would we cast it out? We have no direct instruction, and only a few examples, based at least partly in apostolic authority (cf. Acts 16:18, 19:11-16). Demons listened to Paul, but would they listen to us? And would we find ourselves in a situation where a demon has control over us and we have no means of exorcising it?

There is one intriguing possibility that may explain why it is that we read about demons and Satan's power over governments in the first century but less demonic activity later, but it adds another layer of controversy: the millennium.

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years should be finished: after this he must be loosed for a little time. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: over these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-6).

If one subscribes to the more "spiritual" view of Revelation-- John as writing to the Christians in Asia Minor about the spiritual conflict going on around them, Satan as behind the Roman authority, Rome's eventual downfall, and finally the ultimate day of Judgment yet to take place-- it would seem that the "millennium," rightly understood to be an indefinite yet long period of time, would be right now, encompassing the period from the fall of Rome (312 CE religiously, 476 CE if you mean the West alone politically; 1453 CE if one really considers the Byzantine empire to be the "Eastern Roman Empire") until the day of Judgment. The big challenge to this view, of course, is how to explain how Satan is "bound" for that "millennium" while recognizing that plenty of people are under Satan's grip today.

Perhaps the controversies can help explain each other. The Bible makes it clear that there remain spiritual forces of darkness against whom we are fighting (Ephesians 6:10-18, esp. v. 12). Satan, at least in the days of the Roman Empire, had the authority to empower his demons to possess people and to stand behind the Roman power and religion, but has been denied those powers during the present "millennium." That would be why even though people can be tempted by him, Satan has no power to indwell, compel, or coerce today.

In such matters there is little justification for dogmatism, for we are speaking regarding matters for which little is explicitly revealed, and there is much beyond our understanding. That should teach us not to dogmatically assert that such things cannot exist, but instead to be open to the existence and power of the supernatural. That openness should not lead us to dabble in such things but instead to respect their power and to have little to nothing to do with them! Let us trust in God and His Son Jesus Christ, who will have the ultimate victory, and resist the powers of darkness!

ELDV

LXXXVI: The Septuagint

In the course of discussion regarding the Old Testament, the Septuagint is often brought up and discussed, and yet many people are unfamiliar with what it is. The Septuagint is the "catch-all" term to describe the "original" Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament along with apocryphal books of both Hebrew and Greek origin (books written by uninspired authors that provide historical descriptions or attempt to teach lessons through story or wisdom).

The term "Septuagint" comes from the Latin for "seventy" (hence the abbreviation LXX), underscoring the belief that the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), were translated by seventy-two Jewish scholars (which is near seventy) commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Macedonian king of Egypt, in the third century BCE. That was the "original" Septuagint. Over the next two hundred years, the rest of the Old Testament was translated into Greek-- by whom and precisely when and where we do not know. The "Septuagint" as we know it was codified sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Yet one should not believe in the idea of a truly unified and coherent "Septuagint," as if it were the work of one man or a group of men at one time. It is believed that the current "Septuagint" involves an Old Greek text (OG), the "original" Septuagint, if you will, along with different later recensions, or adaptations, of the text. One that has recently been identified is called the kaige recension, based on the consistent translation of the Hebrew gam by kai ge. There is also believed to be a "Lucianic" recension/revision, believed to be the work of one Lucian. Later recensions are called by the ones making the revisions-- Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. The recensions tend to bring the Greek text more in line with the by then commonly received Hebrew text, called the Masoretic Text (MT). Finally, in around 235 CE, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, came out with the Hexapla, a book of six columns comparing the Hebrew text, the Hebrew transliterated into Greek, the Septuagint text (with editing marks), and the three main recensions. Origen's "fifth column," the LXX text, would eventually come to be the preferred text for the Christian community.

The Septuagint is a marvelous work. Few works in the ancient world were translated; most books were left in their original language since the work of translation involves so much necessary change from the source language to the target language. On the other hand, there was a sizable Jewish community, especially in Alexandria in Egypt, who were much more proficient at Greek than they were in Hebrew. The OT was translated both for their benefit and also to assist the Gentile world in understanding-- and perhaps converting to-- early Judaism.

The Septuagint gained great prominence in the first century CE when it began to be used by the new Christian community. While it seems evident that Jesus of Nazareth spoke mostly Aramaic, the Apostles wrote in Greek, as did the Gospel writers. While some New Testament authors will occasionally make their own translations of the Hebrew MT, most of the citations of the Old Testament in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. Since the Septuagint was the Old Testament for the early Christians, it remained authoritative for many Christians, and is still used as the "official" Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox church. When Jerome prepared his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, and used the Hebrew MT as the base text for the OT, and not the LXX, many derided him for doing so, since the LXX was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles!

As the Septuagint gained prominence among the Christians, it lost importance within the Jewish community. Since many of the arguments used by the Christians involved variations between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX, the Jews believed their MT to be superior and considered the LXX to be quite inferior. The LXX was preserved by the Christians, while the MT was preserved by the Jews.

The differences between the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) are many, and the reasons are many. We have to remember that the Greek translators did not have the benefit of textual studies, dictionaries, and grammars like we have today. Furthermore, the original Hebrew texts from which they were translating, called the Vorlage, did not have spaces between words, and many letters looked like other letters (and that goes for both the Phoenician script and the Aramaic square script, the two different scripts used to write Hebrew in the latter centuries BCE). Many of the differences between the MT and the LXX, therefore, are based in translator error: he misread the manuscript, skipped a line or repeated a line, confused letters, did not understand what the Hebrew word meant, and so on and so forth. Sometimes, however, the differences (called variants) are based in the fact that the Hebrew texts that the Greek translators were using-- that Vorlage-- were not exactly the same as the MT. Therefore, it is highly likely that the LXX preserves a reading of a text that may be more ancient and accurate than the MT at times.

The value of the LXX is a highly disputed issue. There are some, especially among the Greek Orthodox, who believe that the LXX is the superior and thus more accurate rendering of the Old Testament than the MT. The Jewish view, and the prevailing view among scholars for many years, was the opposite: the LXX was quite inferior to the MT, and the MT should always be trusted over the LXX.

It cannot be doubted that the Septuagint is, in many places, a highly flawed translation. The many mistakes in translation make it quite difficult to argue that the translators were inspired in their translation. The readings that the New Testament preserve we can recognize to be inspired on the basis of their use by the Apostles who are directed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1-2) and not on the basis of the Septuagint itself.

Yet, as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran have demonstrated, the Septuagint does have value as a reflection of its Vorlage. We must explain the history of the Old Testament text in order to make sense of these matters.

Many are familiar with at least the general story of the New Testament texts: we have discovered thousands of copies of portions of the New Testament in Greek and many copies of the greater part or even the whole of the New Testament, with some fragments dating as far back as 175 CE. Since all evidence points to the New Testament having been originally composed in Greek, this Greek evidence is held as primary. But we also do have many copies of early translations of the New Testament into Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, and Latin, among other languages, and the evidence from those translations is also cited in the critical editions of the New Testament.

The story of the Old Testament, however, is much more complicated. The Old Testament was written between 1450 and 420 BCE. As we indicated earlier, the OT was translated into Greek some time between 300 and 0 BCE. The first Syriac and Latin translations of the Old Testament were made in the second through fourth centuries CE, and those translations were standardized in the the Syriac Peshitta in the second century CE and the Latin Vulgate in the late fourth century CE.

For a long time, the oldest Hebrew copies we had in existence dated to the 10th century CE. That is almost 1400 years after the Old Testament was completed! On the other hand, we had copies of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin translations that were older than those Hebrew texts!

That changed when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent the books maintained by a sectarian group that lived from around the late second century BCE to around 70 CE. The texts dated from that period, and many of them were copies of various books of the Old Testament.

It had already been postulated that the original Hebrew text(s) from which the Septuagint was translated-- the Vorlage of the Septuagint-- were different from the Hebrew MT in many places, and that the Vorlage of the Septuagint was likely more faithful to the original in many of those instances than the MT. The Syriac Peshitta's Vorlage seemed to be extremely similar to the MT but differing in some points. The MT seems to be behind most of the Latin Vulgate, but the Old Latin Psalter, translated long before Jerome, seemed to preserve some variants that indicated that its Vorlage differed in many points from the MT in Psalms.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven the theory that the Vorlage of the Septuagint was different-- and superior-- to the MT in many places, since the DSS agreed with the LXX against the MT in many places (it should also be noted that the DSS agree with the MT against the LXX in many places, also). The Septuagint gained prominence very quickly in the general scholastic community on the basis of these findings.

Nevertheless, it remains very difficult to ascertain when the LXX is (a) really preserving a variant Hebrew reading, since the difference could be due to the translator making a mistake, intentionally smoothing out or clarifying the text, or engaging in some other translation technique, and then (b) that the variant Hebrew reading makes better sense and is more authentic to the original Hebrew than the MT. Many times scholars will make likely retroversions of the LXX back into what is believed to be the "original" Hebrew-- some of these, no doubt, do represent improvements to the text, but others may be misdirected. Regardless, when you see notes in your Old Testament that the Gk/LXX (Greek/Septuagint), Lat/Vulg (Latin/Vulgate), and/or Syr (Syriac Peshitta) read one way, and the MT (Hebrew) reads another way, these are times when the variants preserved in the translations are used by the translators either as notes for you to know the differences or to explain why their translation is diverging from the MT.

The Septuagint, therefore, is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is used as an ancient witness to the Old Testament text, and at many points preserves readings that are likely more accurate to the original text than the MT. It was the Old Testament used by the early Christians, and is often quoted in the New Testament. Nevertheless, the Septuagint has many mistakes and additions based in the ignorance or style of the translators, and there is little confidence to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the translation as a whole. For those engaging in deep study of the Old Testament, it is profitable to consider the Septuagint while recognizing its limitations. We hope that this has helped you to better understand the Septuagint and its place in Biblical studies!

LXXXV: A Theology Regarding Climate Change

For some time now, scientists have been sounding the alarm regarding climate change. A large number of scientists and scientific institutions are making dire predictions about the future of mankind on account of the levels of carbon dioxide that human activity is pumping into the atmosphere.

Many conservative Christians, among others, strongly contest these claims. Part of their ideological differences derive from suspicion regarding science: many of the arguments that the scientists make involve claims regarding temperature fluctuations over millions of years, and most conservative Christians do not believe that the earth has been around that long. Furthermore, the same scientific establishment that includes many who actively deny God and which promotes Darwinist evolutionary theory is now promoting this idea of global warming.

Nevertheless, the majority of the difference comes on the basis of the interpretation of Scripture. Many such conservative Christians do not believe that human action can so dramatically impact God's creation. Appeals are made to Genesis 8:22 that declares that as long as the earth exists there will be seasons, and, therefore, earth will not experience constant summer. Many also speak of 2 Peter 3:10-12, among other passages, to show that human activity will not destroy the earth, but that it will remain until Jesus returns.

It is true that scientists have come out with many radically apocalyptic pictures of the future, and that these pictures do contradict what the Scriptures have said regarding how the earth and mankind will end. Nevertheless, one does not have to accept such futuristic claims to recognize that human activity can cause significant environmental impact, and that it is very possible that the Western world's consumptive nature is causing environmental degradation. I would like to present an alternative theology that is firmly Biblical and yet takes these possibilities seriously.

I confess without hesitation that I am not a scientist and do not claim to understand everything involved with the scientific arguments. I have no desire to defend Darwinist evolutionary theology, nor do I have any confidence in the idea that the earth is millions or billions of years old. I also cannot answer as to whether the current global warming trends are based only in natural processes or in both natural processes and human activity. I believe, however, that certain principles in Scripture need to be brought forth in terms of the discussion that are currently lacking.

There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what climate change/global warming entails. From what I understand, scientists do not claim that global warming will always lead to hotter seasons or the eradication of seasons-- instead, the cycle of nature becomes more extreme. Seasons exist, but they become more extreme. Summers get colder, hotter, wetter, or drier, based on where you live. The same is true for other seasons. Storms become more powerful. Flooding and drought become more severe and prolonged.

Do I believe that humans can end life as we know it? No, I do not. On the other hand, please note that while the Scriptures do say that the earth and seasons will remain, no comment is ever made about the level of comfort that will exist. There's no statement in Scripture that says that humans cannot make life miserable for themselves on Earth based on their decisions.

In fact, there are plenty of Scriptures that prove the contrary: human beings, in fact, make life miserable on earth because of their sinful decisions!

Consider the connections between human sin and environmental degradation in Scripture.

And unto Adam [God] said, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it:' cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Genesis 3:17-19, emphasis mine).

Paul later explains that the creation was subjected to decay and futility (Romans 8:20-22), and it is hard to see how that subjection took place before Adam's sin. As far as we can tell, all the elements of life that lead to decay and corruption are due to Adam's sin. Earth has been continually scarred because of the sin of humanity!

And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
And God said unto Noah, "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth...And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die" (Genesis 6:12-13, 17, emphasis mine).

The Scriptures nowhere indicate that animals can sin. Therefore, when God speaks of "all flesh," he refers to all of humanity. Notice that as part of the punishment against mankind, God also kills all the animals too. Humans sin, and the Earth suffers.

Perhaps the most stark demonstration of this is found in Hosea:

Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel; for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of God in the land. There is nought but swearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood. Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away (Hosea 4:1-3, emphasis mine).

The people are sinful, and who suffers? The land, the sea, and all the creatures within them.

In the face of all this evidence, how can any declare so confidently that human activity cannot impact our planet in any significant way? According to the Bible's own testimony, the very reason that there is corruption and decay on earth is mankind and its sin. When humans multiply in sin, the Earth suffers.

This, of course, leads to an important question: what is the sin for which the earth is suffering? To answer this question, we must consider an important principle in Scripture:

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Galatians 6:7).

We reap what we sow. If you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. In terms of the way we live on the earth and use its resources, there is a great lesson here for us.

There are many, even within "Christendom," who believe that our dominion over the earth means that we have the ability to exploit it for all it is worth. There is no indication that such is the case, especially when we consider the virtues of the faith. Search for yourself in Galatians 5:22-24: do you find excess consumption there or self-control? Where do we get the impression, according to the ethical standards within the New Testament, that we have the obligation or even the right to live as excessive consumers of the world's goods?

This is a difficult message for us who live in the West and enjoy the nice lifestyle that modern progress and technology have allowed. Nevertheless, the message must be said. Our lifestyles are not sustainable. There would need to be at least three earths to contain the resources necessary to provide the rest of the world with the type of lifestyle that we enjoy. As it is, we are hearing more and more warnings regarding peak oil, the finite amount of fossil fuel resources in general, overfishing, and plenty of other signs that the planet cannot sustain our rates of consumption. This does not even begin to take into account how we might be poisoning ourselves with the chemicals that are present within our water and food sources!

What happens if we turn to the popular adage, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus presents for us an even more uncomfortable truth: Jesus did not live like us. Instead, Jesus' existence was much more like the way that a large number of people live in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. Our excess of consumption is more like the great feasting and wastefulness of the Roman nobility!

If we sow this great excess of consumption of the world's resources in an unsustainable way, what, do you imagine, will we reap? Can we not understand the current climate change as the beginning of our reaping what we have sown? God's creation shows a wonderful balance, as the Preacher indicates in Ecclesiastes 1:5-7. If human beings pump tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that was not originally there, disturbing the balance of the planet, on what basis do we believe that there will be no consequences?

The Bible indicates that humans will reap what they sow. The Bible indicates that the earth suffers because of man's sin. By what Biblical principle do we justify our current lifestyles of such vast consumption? In what other arena of life can we live in excess and imbalance and yet expect no consequences for our actions?

Perhaps the changing of our climate is designed to be a warning sign for us, just as the threatened holocaust of locusts was a warning sign for Israel (Joel 1). Let us not be deceived into thinking that our current lifestyle of such excessive consumption is sustainable and not open for negotiation. Let us realize that while it is true that there will be seasons as long as the earth remains, and that the Lord will return before all flesh is destroyed, that the earth can and does suffer because of the transgressions of mankind, and God has indicated that we can make our lives miserable on the earth because of our choices. It is high time for us to consider our lifestyles, to find more sustainable ways to live, and develop self-discipline in the way we live!

ELDV

LXXXIV: Prophesying Uncomfortable Truth

It is difficult to ever say that one "takes comfort" in Jeremiah. Jeremiah's message, after all, is extremely distressing and disconcerting. He is the epitome of the "doom and gloom" prophet.

On the other hand, there is a reason why he must be the "doom and gloom" prophet. He is given the unenviable task of prophesying the most uncomfortable truth, a truth that the people do not even want to consider.

Some of the best insights from the book of Jeremiah have less to do with what Jeremiah and more with the people of Israel around him. After all, as we read Scripture and understand the historical events, it is easy for us to wonder why it is that no one ever seems to listen to the prophets. Did they not understand? Did they not consider the message?

When we see the "one side" of the story-- the presentation of the true prophets of God-- these questions are difficult to answer. Yet, when we see the perspectives set forth in Jeremiah, it is more easily understood.

What we set forth must be understood in context, and we cannot allow our understanding of what will take place to slant our perspective. The disaster of 586 BCE is still in the future for these people; they do not know, as we know, what exactly will take place. These are the Israelites, the people of God. Sure, God exiled the northern tribes, but they were clearly in sin because they served the golden calves in Dan and Bethel (cf. 1 Kings 12, 2 Kings 17). They lived in Judah. The Temple of YHWH was in their midst. The mighty Assyrian empire came a century earlier, and, indeed, devastated the region, but God struck them so that they could not take Jerusalem (2 Kings 18-19). Isaiah had indicated that such would take place.

Yes, there was the new menace of Babylon, but was Babylon really any stronger than Assyria? After all, YHWH is the God of Israel. YHWH would not allow His holy Temple to be defiled by the Babylonians.

In this context, the "prophecy" of Hananiah makes complete sense:

And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah the son of Azzur, the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spake unto me in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying,
"Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, 'I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD's house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried to Babylon: and I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went to Babylon,' saith the LORD; 'for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon'" (Jeremiah 28:1-4).

And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying,
"Thus saith the LORD: 'Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon within two full years from off the neck of all the nations'" (Jeremiah 28:11).

Let us revisit the question: why do the people not listen to the prophets? Hananiah really provides the answer: the people do listen to prophets. They just listen to the prophets who speak the message that is consistent with their perspective and their expectations.

Jeremiah stands up and dares to assert that YHWH will hand over His city, His Temple, and His people Israel to the pagan Babylonians, and that all nations will have to submit to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, since YHWH has handed all things over to him (cf. Jeremiah 27). Meanwhile, Hananiah says that YHWH will destroy Nebuchadnezzar and restore the fortunes of Judah. Which message do people really want to hear? Which message is consistent with their expectations?

We can understand this further from some of the words of the enemies of Jeremiah:

Then said they, "Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words" (Jeremiah 18:18).

These enemies do not like Jeremiah, in part, because he dares to challenge their fundamental worldview. He prophesies what is "impossible." After all, God said in the Law that the priests would always set forth the Law to the people. There had been prophets speaking the word of YHWH since Moses.

Thus, one of Jeremiah's great hindrances is that he dares to prophesy uncomfortable truths-- truths that thoroughly disturb the people of Judah to their very core. Yes, it is true that in reality the people have misplaced their confidence: they should trust in YHWH and seek to do His will, and not rely on the idea of YHWH's Temple or His priests or prophets. Nevertheless, it was easier to continue to believe the lie than to face the uncomfortable reality, even after the uncomfortable reality came to pass.

Hananiah was dead wrong. Jeremiah, unfortunately, was right. Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians. The king's sons were killed, and the king was blinded and imprisoned. The city and Temple were thoroughly burned and plundered. A large proportion of the population was exiled. Some remained. Difficulties ensued, and the people consider moving to Egypt (Jeremiah 39-41). Before they go, they want Jeremiah to ask YHWH whether they should stay or go. He does, and YHWH's message is clear: stay in the land (Jeremiah 42).

If ever there were more justification to listen to Jeremiah, this would have been the time. What he spoke happened without fail.

And it came to pass that, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking unto all the people all the words of the LORD their God, wherewith the LORD their God had sent him to them, even all these words, then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men, saying unto Jeremiah,
"Thou speakest falsely: the LORD our God hath not sent thee to say, 'Ye shall not go into Egypt to sojourn there;' but Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on against us, to deliver us into the hand of the Chaldeans, that they may put us to death, and carry us away captive to Babylon."
So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, and all the people, obeyed not the voice of Jehovah, to dwell in the land of Judah (Jeremiah 43:1-4).

What indignity! After everything that happened, after all that Jeremiah personally suffered because of his prophesying, his motives are now questioned! Even after all the devastation, despite all the distress, people still rebel against the word of YHWH. They still refuse to trust in YHWH and not in their own reasoning. Jeremiah 44 indicates that many of the Jews did not even trust in YHWH, but returned to making offerings to the "queen of heaven, " believing that their distress was caused because they stopped making offerings to her!

For many such Jews, the disaster did not bring them back to repentance; it merely solidified their previously existing beliefs. But it did chasten many others. Many Jews would return to the land and not commit the same sins as before. Yet they were still wedded to their particular worldview.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, "If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
They answered unto him, "We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, 'Ye shall be made free?'" (John 8:31-33).

When they were not taking pride in the Temple, the Jews took pride in being the "children of Abraham" and therefore "entitled" to the privileges of covenant. When Jesus dares to assert that, in truth, they have become children of Satan because they sin without repentance, the Jews who believe in Him turn against Him, ready even to stone Him (John 8:34-59)! Uncomfortable truth still did not sit well with people.

Today we do not have inspired prophets speaking forth the word of YHWH as before (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). Nevertheless, I believe that those who believe in Jesus Christ and seek to serve Him do have a burden to speak the prophetic word. It may not be directly inspired, but it is to be based in the message of the prophets of old and the message of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this prophetic message is going to involve the same types of uncomfortable truths as in days of old.

We are living in very trying times economically. There are many "prophets" out there who are trying to make people feel better and promote a message that is satisfying to them. "The economy will recover soon." "Job growth will happen." "Everything will be back to the way it was soon." These messages are popular-- they comfort, and they appeal to people's expectations.

This is not limited to the economy. It is also true about climate change, healthcare, violence, and a host of other issues. Plenty of "prophets" stand up and say what people want to hear. They will make statements that satisfy people's expectations.

On the other hand, what if the economy will not recover soon? What if this economic downturn really is exposing major faults in the way that we view the world? What if the challenges we are suffering with the economy, climate change, healthcare, and other matters really reflects fundmental worldview problems that need to be addressed?

The uncomfortable truth for Americans is that we are reaping what we have sown. We have lived on credit and the bill is coming due. Things will not really get better until we scale back our expectations and our lifestyles. We must return to the virtues of self-discipline and sober-mindedness (1 Peter 4:7). We must return to God's intention for finances: work an honest job, making honest money, having enough for one's needs, and having something to give to those in need (Ephesians 4:28). If we scale back in our consumption and work to exist sustainably on the earth, we will be also addressing some of the root problems of climate change. If we return to a more holistic and proper diet, we might even reduce healthcare costs over the long term!

Why is this message not being shouted on the rooftops? The same reason why Hananiah's messaeg was more popular than Jeremiah's. Sacrifice is not easy, especially when society has presenting the message of self-gratification for years. Long-term gains come only at the cost of short-term sacrifices and challenges, and humans rarely have the stomach to suffer in the short-term for the benefits of the long-term. It is quite telling when presidents of this country boldly affirm that the standard of life that Americans have come to enjoy is not negotiable. Such a statement evokes the "confidence" of the Jews of Jeremiah's day: "the law will not perish from the priests, nor the word from the prophet." We shall certainly see!

But the challenge of "prophesying" uncomfortable truth is not just present on the societal level. It is also quite true in the church.

While many would focus on the "distinctive issues," and declare that speaking about them is "uncomfortable" for many, such is not really the truly uncomfortable truths that bedevil the church. While some in the church may have some discomfort in terms of the "distinctives," most people in the pews entirely agree regarding the "distinctive issues." It has come to the point where preaching on the distinctives constantly is, essentially, "soft preaching." It is unoffensive to the people who sit in the pews, since they are already in agreement, and everybody walks out the door afterward feeling as if the Gospel has been preached and their worldviews validated.

The "uncomfortable truth" is whenever our mentalities or worldviews clash with revealed truth. The Scriptures speak a lot of "uncomfortable truth" about the role of women and how they are to "submit to their husbands" and be "workers at home" (Ephesians 5:22-24, Titus 2:4-5). There's "uncomfortable truth" about being as diligent to do good things as we are in avoiding evil (Romans 12:9, James 4:17). Other topics include matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, association with those who practice adultery on account of their views of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, women and the assembly, involvement in the political realm, and a host of other challenges that have faced the church for years.

But a lot of "uncomfortable truth" that does not get said or realized is the sad state of affairs in the area of congregational growth.

There is a natural tendency to appreciate "comfort" in religion. People seek stability and comfort from their religious beliefs. To a point, that is well and good, as Paul indicates in 2 Corinthians 1. On the other hand, Christianity was never meant to be static or "comfortable." Jesus demands change; after all, that's what repentance means (Acts 2:38). We are called upon to be transformed to reflect the image of Christ, and that process is neither easy nor comfortable (Matthew 10:37-39, Romans 12:1-2, Galatians 2:20).

Furthermore, we are called to be lights in the world for Christ, constantly seeking to build up the Kingdom (Ephesians 4-5). If all things work properly, growth is the result.

Most everyone will agree with much of what is said. The difficulty, however, that is a challenge to face is that we're not really growing.

When anyone starts talking about why we are not successfully reaching people with the Gospel, talk immediately begins to shift toward "the other." People are just not interested anymore, many will say. People aren't willing to change, say others. Christians who fall away? They should just "know better."

All of these are the "easy" answers. They are comfortable in our worldview because they absolve us of any challenge.

But here's the rather uncomfortable truth: part of the reason why we are not more successful in our evangelistic endeavors involves ourselves and our habits.

Are believers active in reflecting Christ's love and speaking to others about the truth of God? How well does the church climate welcome those who are not of the fold? When those who are outside see the association of believers, do they see anything different about them, or do they see the same type of worldliness they see everywhere else? Are there unspoken yet strongly present prejudices that hinder effective encouragement of the lost soul? Are the members of the congregation rather welcoming? Are they honest and open with one another, living out authentic Christian lives? Or, quite frankly, is the church acting like a holy country club that is full of a bunch of people who are putting on pretenses?

That sounds harsh and is doubtless not true about many, at least according to their intentions. On the other hand, uncomfortable truth is no more easily swallowed today than it was in the days of Jeremiah. Sure, it is true that even if our efforts were everything they were supposed to be, many would not heed the call. Many in the world are attracted to that which pleases them according to their own perspective and expectations, and in twenty-first century America, there is no lack of religious organizations that try to accommodate those expectations. Nevertheless, the situation is likely not nearly as grim as it is often portrayed.

It's just easier to always blame "the other" and not ourselves. If we have a share in the responsibility, that challenges not only our actions but our perspective, and that may lead to some discomfort. Yet, in truth, spiritual growth only comes through discomfort (James 1:2-3).

At many points in life, a prophetic message of uncomfortable truth is exactly what the Great Physician orders. We can either choose to swallow hard, accept the hard truth, change, and grow, or we can refuse to accept that message and choose to continue to look at things the way we always have. We just need to remember that we can hold off hard reality for only so long. The day of reckoning will come.

ELDV