Oftentimes, our first impulse when confronting evil in the world is to resort to the world’s tactics. It can seem more expedient to respond to evil with physical force or displays of anger – and there are occasions when such responses are justified – but wisdom is called for. We need to remember that our real enemy is not our “flesh and blood” fellow image-bearer but the forces of darkness. We also need to discern between when it is time for God to act and for us to act.
After David was anointed to be the future king, he had to wait several years during which period King Saul pursued David intending to kill him. Even though there were a couple of occasions when David could have killed Saul, he did not think it was his to take – he waited for the kingship to be given to him. Ever since Moses, Israel had been waiting for “one like Moses”. But David’s refusal to “take” the kingship is likely part of the reason that David was called a “man after God’s own heart,” because unlike those who came before him, he did not (at least in this case) succumb to the impulse to “see, desire, take.”
God has established government to keep the peace. What is our role if the government carries out its duty, what action should we take in support of it? What is our role if the government abuses its duty, what action should we take in opposition to it? The apostles defied the authority of the Sanhedrin and the Roman government, with God even releasing Peter from prison on one occasion and Paul in another. But on another occasion, Paul submitted to the Roman government as a means to get to Rome to continue his work there. Is there ever cause for a Christian to participate in violence? There is a debate in the Christian community about these questions that calls us to seek wisdom in our different situations.
Observe
Read Ephesians 6:11-13. How might “putting on the armor of God” help us determine when to take action or to wait for God?
It is not just that the world is immensely complex, but it seems to contain unexplainable attributes like Beauty and Truth – and something about us seems designed to need to find a reason for our being and a sense of morality. The tools of philosophy and science have been very helpful in understanding our world – but those tools are limited. Philosophers are constrained by our limits to comprehend our world through using reason alone.
After surveying the significant problems we confront in trying to make sense of this world, [John] Lock remarked: “From all which it is easy to perceive what a darkness we are involved in, how little it is of Being, and the things that are, that we are capable to know.” … [Alexander] Pope concedes that this universe appears to be incoherent and ambiguous. Yet Pope insists that we have to acknowledge the frailty and fallibility of human moral and intellectual capacities in reaching this judgement. … [John Banville] . “I saw a certain kind of pathetic beauty in the obsessive search for a way to be in the world, in the existentialist search for something that would be authentic.” … was forced to deal with the irreducible fragility and provisionality of human knowledge. … The hope of finding the Enlightenment’s Holy Grail, the crystalline clarity of rationalist certainties, gradually gave way to a reluctant realisation of the irreducible complexity of the world, which simply could not be expressed in terms of the clear and necessary ideas that the Enlightenment expected and demanded.[1]
Scientists are equally constrained by our limits to comprehend our world through measurement and experiment alone.
Those who invoke the political nostrum “follow the science” need reminding it is an activity that’s never free of value judgement … scientific findings are empirically-based descriptions of the patterns and regularities that we find in the world around us. They are not the be all and end all of explanation. . They are local explanations of aspects of the world around us, that are provisional in nature…. Science does not say anything about the ‘meaning of life’, the nature of causation, the origins of the universe, whether there is ‘free will’, etc., until its findings are combined with additional premises in an argument. Arguments, being made as they are in human language, are strictly speaking, philosophical in nature … Scientific reasoning can never prove the truth or falsity of its own assumptions (which are values), nor can it have much to say at all about normative questions, only indirectly. A scientific argument can be used to support a premise used in a philosophical argument about some conclusion, but it cannot constitute the argument.[2]
When we look to find meanings in the context of Biblical cultures, we find differences between the Hebrew and Greek cultures. While each culture has its strengths, as we talked about in “Limits of theology” (p.161), the different languages can shape our thinking by focusing on different priorities. The following table presents some of those different focus points.
Hebrew culture
Greek culture
nephesh refers to whole being (soul and body are integrated
not just a soul that exists apart from the body,
shema = listen and obey
Akouo – listen, hear
objects described in terms of function
Objects describe in terms of physical description
supernatural and natural worlds are integrated
supernatural and natural worlds are separate
historical narrative is about meaning
historical narrative is about chronological sequences
material goods measure God’s blessings
material goods measure personal achievement
value is on what we do
value is on what we think
knowledge is about ethics and moral practices
knowledge is about intellectual categories
worship was a function of service, what we do in the body
worship was a function of service what we think
The Hebrew language has fewer words and focuses on creating stories and not creating descriptions. The fewer words that are used can have a wider range of meanings which the Hebrew writers of scripture use to create stories with intentional ambiguities and is sparse in details and descriptions. The Hebrew worldview assumes a world where the natural and supernatural are intertwined and there is an actively involved God. Hebrew ethics are focused on what is done than what is thought.
The Greek language is amenable to creating complex words and is amenable to developing philosophical and scientific thought. Greek story telling is full of details and descriptions and exact definitions. The Greek worldview separates the spiritual world and the physical world, where the spiritual world is considered the most important and that the activity of the gods does not necessarily affect events in the physical realm. Greek ethics are focused more on what is thought than what is done.
The church has been affected by the Greek way of thinking.[3] One idea, called Gnosticism, held that salvation could be obtained through secret knowledge; leading to the development of “secret” societies like the Rosicrucian’s where only those within the society have that knowledge. Another idea was dualism, where spiritual things are considered to be good and material things are considered to be bad. The consequences of that thinking have led to heretical teachings about the nature of Jesus, severe asceticism, unhealthy thinking about sexuality, neglecting our stewardship of creation, rejection of the arts, etc.
One reaction in the church against the Greek philosophies led to a type of anti-intellectualism called fideism,[4] which intended to focus exclusively on a type of faith that ignored the use of reason
The ideas of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, would resurface later during the Renaissance led to the development of modern science. However, the church hindered the development of astronomy for a while when it stubbornly clung to Aristotle’s geocentric view of the universe.
The church was involved various attempts to reclaim the glories of the past and to elevate the human condition in what used to be called the dark ages.[6] The discovery and rediscovery of the writings of Greek, Latin and Muslim philosophers and scholars enriched the thinking within the Roman empire. The sum of all these eventually led to the period of “Enlightenment.”
9th Century Renaissance.[7] Monasteries were involved in the laborious process of preserving manuscripts by hand-copying them. However, for many years, some of the Latin and Greek classic writers were neglected in favor of Christian works. Charlemagne, the king of the Holy Roman Empire, was interested in giving everyone an education that included the Roman and Greek classic writings (such as the writings of Plato and Cicero). The main impact of this renaissance was on the development of literature.
12th Century Renaissance.[8] Christians escaping the spread the Muslim empire brought new Greek and Arabic writings to the West. These included the writings of Aristotle about logic and Arabic writings about natural philosophy and Latin works about law. This renaissance led to advances in social organization, the law, technology, intellectual pursuits and attempts to make Christianity more human which led a general spirit of optimism and desires for a more personal and intense religious experience.
14th century Renaissance.[9] The continued introduction of Greek texts from Christians fleeing the Ottoman Empire combined with the advent of the printing press made possible the wide publication of Greek ideas, particularly from Plato, whose ideas that some thought were more compatible with Christianity. These discoveries combined with discontent with the church led to the development of humanism, which elevated the capacity of humans. At first, humanism was very much a Christian topic but over time, humanism became an antithesis to Christianity.
18th century Enlightenment.[10] The invention of the printing press in AD 1439 further supported the spread of science as well as humanism and would also be central to the Protestant revolution in the 1500s. During the same period, developments in shipbuilding and technology enabled the development of European empire building and the success of that contributed to the age of Enlightenment (AD 1714-1789) with the emphasis on liberty, progress and reason having priority over theology. The Enlightenment version of humanism, (different than the Christian version of humanism) stated that people are essentially good and do not need God to progressively improve over time. This version impacts even our modern-day culture and sometimes the culture within the church.
Advances in knowledge is a good thing, but knowledge constrained by human pride does not lead to wisdom. The “Enlightenment” was the name given by people who were proud of the age where God was cast off and where human knowledge replaced the wisdom of God.
[Bible references: Matthew 5:6; 7:14; 11:29-30; Luke 17:10; John 6:35; Romans 3:28; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 2:10; James 2:24]
Paradox: A seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which, when investigated, may prove to be well founded or true. (The Oxford Dictionary). A situation or statement that seems impossible or is difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics: (Cambridge Dictionary)
Religious truth often pivots on paradox … full truth about Jesus outruns the ability of human reason … all of the core truths of Christianity are twin realities, delicate paradoxes …it is dangerous to insist on flat yes-or-no answers to the big and perennial questions of life … we live in a fast-moving and rootless time when numerous theologians are trying to restate the Christian faith in relative and fluid terms that reflect the mood of our times more than biblical foundations (Callen, Barry L. Caught between Truths: The Central Paradoxes of Christian Faith, Emeth Press, 2007)
Embodying the gospel is … more than individualism. God is a social reality (trinity), faith should be a social reality, the best way to witness on behalf of the church is to be the church … More than rationalism. We are more than rational animals; rationality has its place but there is mystery that only faith can approach. Spiritual experience and interpretive concepts are reciprocally related. Doctrine is important but primacy is given to the transforming personal and community encounter with God in Jesus Christ … More than dualism. We are whole persons. Sin is both personal and systemic … More than knowledge. Knowledge, even biblical knowledge is not good in and of itself. Orthodoxy includes orthopraxy (Callen, Barry L. Caught between Truths: The Central Paradoxes of Christian Faith, Emeth Press, 2007)
The Bible is not written as a textbook that presents a list of topics and propositions. The views and values of the Bible are presented in the context of a story – a story of God and his image-bearers. The Bible’s focus is on relationships, and its views and values are found in the context of the stories of those relationships. Those stories sometimes reveal paradoxes.
One dimension of those paradoxes is revealed in how the values of the Bible are upside down compared to the views of the surrounding cultures. For instance, the Bible presents one God instead of many. The Bible presents a world of order which has a particular end in mind instead of repeated cycles of disorder with no end point in view.
Another dimension of those paradoxes are statements in the Bible which seem to contradict one another. Some examples are:[12]
• “We are worthless servants.” (Luke 17:10) “We are his workmanship.” (Ephesians 2:10)
• “Blessed are those who hunger.” (Matthew 5:6) “No one who comes to me will ever be hungry.” (John 6:35)
• “Take up my yoke and learn from me.” (Matthew 11:29) “Don’t submit again to a yoke.” (Galatians 5:1)
• “A person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28) “A person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)
• “My yoke is easy.” (Matthew 11:30) “How difficult the road that leads to life.” (Matthew 7:14)
Presenting values by means of paradoxes forces one to more completely understand those values by exploring them in different dimensions.
Dancing In the Kingdom – Part 2 – The Kingdom Revealed –Chapter 11 – The Kingdom Enters
The Darkness
[Bible references: Matthew 17:11; 27:45-46; Luke 23:43; John 16; 19:25-27; 23:44-46; Romans 1-3]
Jesus’ trials were performed in the dark of night, physically and spiritually. He was condemned by the Jewish rulers who were spiritually blind and then allowed to be crucified by the equally blind Roman rulers and even deserted by the disciples he spent three years training. He was condemned by a world who did not deserve him; the whole world was guilty of turning away from him. The world he loved, and for which he would suffer and die, was not deserving of his mercy and grace. The world itself and all the creatures who bore the image of God were corrupted by sin and truly separated from the one who never stopped loving them all. The Creator literally put his life on the line to break the hold of sin in the world so that the world and image-bearing creatures could be restored to what he had intended from the beginning.
The darkness that hung over the world at that moment was a darkness that Jesus had come to defeat. The darkness would only last for a while more. So, with that in mind, even as he was hanging on the cross, Jesus was fixed on the future. He assigned one of his disciples to take care of his mother, Mary. When one of the criminals who were crucified with him, recognized Jesus as God and confessed his guilt, Jesus assured that man, “Today you shall be with me in paradise.” Jesus had chosen to be born the same way as his image-bearing creatures so that he might come to this moment of suffering and dying on our behalf; for this was the way to defeat the hold of sin and death, not only over our lives but over all of creation as well.
Observe
Read John 16. As John is writing about these events, he is careful to detail how the events correspond to the prophecies in Scripture. What is important about making that kind of connection?
Since the time of Adam and Eve a war has been underway. God’s Kingdom has found itself in a war with Kingdom of darkness, battling over the souls of God’s image-bearers. We cannot directly see the clash of spiritual kingdoms, but we see it indirectly, sometimes in clashes between image-bearers and sometimes within ourselves. The apostle Paul reminds us, though, that our struggle is not against “flesh and blood” but rather the “spiritual forces of evil.”
Even so, the spiritual war is played out in the human realm where we brokenly pursue love apart from God, hoping to find love somewhere else, whether in power, traditions, possessions, other people, etc. We then find that when we look for love other places than God, we are then confronted by fears which inevitably result in clashes, especially in times of change.
A great time of change was about to occur as the time approached for Jesus’ incarnation. There were clashes between empires that overran the Promised Land, clashes between groups of people in that land, and clashes of values between and within those groups.
As the time of Jesus’ incarnation approached, the residents of the Promised Land, begin to speak Aramaic instead of the Bible’s language of Hebrew. When the Greek empire moved in it tried to supplant all the local languages and cultures, resulting in an effort to the translate all the Hebrew writings into Greek, producing among many things, the Greek version of the Hebrew scripture called the Septuagint. The Septuagint became a major reference not only for the non-Hebrew speaking Jews but also for the church, particularly as the church became more Gentile. This change accelerated the loss of the Hebrew understandings of Scripture.
When the Roman empire overtook the Greek Empire, it initially allowed the use of Greek as the international language but would set up a clash later when the empire would replace Greek with Latin as its preferred language. The changes in languages and cultures became part of the clash over which writings should be considered as part of what will be called the Old Testament scriptures.
The Greek Church maintained the use of the Septuagint as it’s Old Testament, while the Latin speaking Roman-Catholic Church used only parts of the Septuagint. Later on, the Protestants rejected the Septuagint and only used the Hebrew writings that were approved by Jews in the early centuries A.D.[1]
The books used by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches but not used by the Protestants are sometimes referred to as the Apocrypha (hidden) or the Deuterocanonical (second canon) books. Although the Protestants may disagree about whether those books are inspired, there is useful information in those books that help explain the culture of the world that Jesus was born into.
Read Ephesians 6:10-20. What difference does it make if you are aware that the conflicts present in the world around us are manifestations of spiritual warfare?
Dancing In The Kingdom 