By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute
You could shake all of the contents of the entire series of books into its corners with room to spare: children, fauns, dwarfs, friendly giants, the White Witch, even the great lion. I’m telling you, it is huge!
I refinish furniture for relaxation when I’m not working at the seminary. One of my previous projects was an old walnut wardrobe that could accommodate all of Narnia…literally. One week the wardrobe almost got the best of me. Alone for hours, up to my elbows in skin-blistering stripper, filthy dirty, the thought actually crossed my mind: Why am I doing this? I could be upstairs reading Narnia rather than down here finding it a new home.
I won’t bore you with the results of such ruminations (brought on by stripper fumes no doubt), except to say that, like perhaps many of you with your methods of relaxation, part of my satisfaction in restoring furniture I attribute to my tendency toward distraction.
To restore furniture—to be a really good furniture refinisher—you have to be a really good daydreamer. You have to let your mind wander back to see the piece of furniture for what it was at one time, the glory days of the piece when it wore its newness so naturally. I wonder about the original creator of the wardrobe. What tools did he use; what obstacles did he have to overcome; what purposes drove him to make such a fine piece?
To see the piece for what it was at one time is key in seeing the piece of furniture for what it could be again. What potential is there in an old beat up wardrobe? Look at it again. Scrape off the blistered old finish, glue back the free edges of veneer, replace the broken hardware and you will see its past, and in seeing its past, you will give it a whole new life.
What I am speaking about, of course, is the act of re-creating something, an act that begs reflection on our human, divinely ordained mandate in Genesis 2. The reader can do this for him or herself while I reflect one more time on my re-created wardrobe. Even when refinished, that old piece bears the marks of its past. I have yet to restore a piece of furniture to its original condition. The beauty of my wardrobe is in the newly applied stain that only partially covers the conspicuous missing chips of veneer. It’s newly found beauty is partially in comparing its past with its new present.
This isn’t a handyman column, so why do I bring up my wardrobe? I bring it up because the very same act of re-creation goes on with pastors in their own churches. Without ignoring the wonderful things God is doing with the church planting processes throughout the country, most of us—most of our graduates who leave us—are dealing with old furniture when we consider the churches and other places of ministry we serve. Who of us doesn’t live with years of old varnish and bleached stain when we enter our sanctuaries on Sundays, interact with our leadership, administrate our threadbare programs, or counsel weak and battered members within our church?
What should our expectations be as we seek, through the Spirit, to restore old churches back to usefulness? One of the things we see with some of our students who leave us after their years of study here are well-intended church re-creators who put their newly acquired tools to the task of reshaping old ministry contexts. Their desires to polish these old churches back to new luster are very good. In their tool chest, they may often pull out a newly sharpened church model that, on the surface, would seem to be just the thing to bring new life to these old places.
Then why don’t these old churches polish up? Too often, I am afraid, they—we—who dream about new life in our churches—new programs, new leadership, new potential— seek to change these antiques after our own image without seeing them for what they are, wonderful old places with rich histories of God’s faithfulness. They may have gone astray. They often are filled with old, entrenched leadership. They don’t move very fast. Dump them on the table and you will find tired old programs rolling aimlessly around the edges. We want to change all this and the sooner the better.
But, to be a good daydreamer of these old churches, is there not something to be said for first accepting them for what they are in all their uniqueness, in the context of their rich histories, and with appreciation for what has brought them to their present condition? It seems to me, to be a good restorer of old churches begins first with letting our minds wander back to their glory days. How did they start? Why did they start? In what context were they placed? How has that context changed? What kind of leaders have led these unique churches in the past and how do they represent leadership needs in the present? What kinds of programs worked earlier? Is there a relationship between these kinds of programs and what could be offered, in new ways, in the present?
I wouldn’t trade my house full of old furniture for all the furniture stores full of new furniture in the world. I love old things. I love to re-create old things. To be a re-creator of churches, I think, too, requires that we love, we truly love, old things.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Resurrection: Not a New Concept?
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Time magazine recently published a short article under the title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?” (To read the article, click here.) Written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk it discusses a “first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave.” The hyped drama here is based on the idea that, if the proposed reconstruction is correct, “Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.” The authors suggest this reconstruction “undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?”
Funny thing is, I have to confess I don’t recall ever hearing or using that argument before. Only now, am I discovering it is supposedly one of our strongest arguments to support the historicity of the resurrection and it is being undermined.
The authors think it provocative and shocking to suggest that when they proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ “maybe the Christians had a model to work from.” Israel Knohl (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) points out that “for the first time, we have proof” that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah “was there before Jesus." This, he thinks, “should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."
OK, I guess I should be panicking. But wait…. Thankfully (to the authors’ credit) they do check with Ben Witherington (Gordon-Conwell graduate and Asbury Seminary professor). His reported responses are (as usual) right on point. Among other things he points out that the verb Knohl wants to translate from the tablet as "rise!" could as easily mean "there arose," as in “showed up on the scene“ (cf. Matt. 11:11; 12:42; 24:11; Mark 13:22; Luke 7:16; 11:31; John 7:52). Oh yes, and “Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.”’ But according to the main thrust of the article this last possibility is supposed to be undermining one of our most important arguments for the resurrection!
This last of Witherington’s points highlights the silliest part of the article’s hype. Matthew 14:2 indicates Herod thought the reports about Jesus suggested that he was actually John the Baptist, risen from the dead. Here again the New Testament itself suggests Jewish people of his day considered the possibility that God might vindicate a righteous man by raising him from the dead. According to the gospels Jesus himself indicated that his followers should have known ahead of time, based on the Scriptures, that he, as the Messiah would die and then be vindicated by being raised by God from the dead. Luke 18:31-33 says Jesus told his disciples that “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again" (NRSV). After the resurrection we are told that Jesus told the disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke says Jesus then “opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem‘“ (Luke 24:44-47 NRSV). Mark and Matthew both record Jesus referring to his upcoming death in the words “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; emphasis added).
Paul also indicates that Jesus and the rest of the early church had a scriptural model to work from. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says,
“I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (NRSV).
Here again it is understood that Christ’s death and resurrection took place “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures.” This was not thought to be a new idea. Just exactly which Scriptures Jesus, Paul and other early Christians might have had in mind is debatable. Certainly Daniel 12:2-3, Hosea 6:1-2 and Ezekiel 37 must be included in the mix. For a full discussion of the resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). He provides a fine discussion of the Old Testament background on pages 108-28. Part of the key turns out to be that God had done for Jesus, in the middle of time what he had been expected to do for Israel at the end of time [raise them from the dead after suffering oppression at the hands of pagans]: “In and through Jesus Israel’s hope had been realized. He had been raised from the dead after suffering and dying at the hands of the pagans” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 127).
Christians do not base the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the uniqueness of the idea or because we can’t imagine anyone making the story up. We believe it because of the testimony of those who saw him (see again 1 Cor. 15:3-8 above) and gave their lives for the sake of that message and because of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection life demonstrated in and through his disciples down through history and into our own time and our own lives. It is not part of the Christian message to say Jesus had such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that no one else could have understood it before hand. Jesus himself said his disciples should have understood the Scriptures to teach that the Messiah must experience Israel’s destiny: He must die and rise again.
I am not suggesting that Knohl’s interpretation of the tablet will turn out to be correct. That may be unlikely. What I am suggesting is that believers do not have a horse in this race. Clearly most Jews did not expect the Messiah to die and rise again, but Jesus and the authors of the New Testament suggest they should have. If we ever find (or have just found) an ancient Jewish text suggesting the/a Messiah would rise from the dead, it will make clear whether or not others had come to understand that as well as Jesus and the other early Christians. That would be an interesting discovery. But undeserving of the “this completely undermines the Christian faith” hype that publishers hope to work up about such things. If there is any hype to be made about the tablet being discussed, perhaps it should go more like this: News from Jerusalem! Perhaps Jesus was right! His disciples should have understood that he needed to die and then rise again!
Associate Professor of New Testament
Time magazine recently published a short article under the title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?” (To read the article, click here.) Written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk it discusses a “first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave.” The hyped drama here is based on the idea that, if the proposed reconstruction is correct, “Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.” The authors suggest this reconstruction “undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?”
Funny thing is, I have to confess I don’t recall ever hearing or using that argument before. Only now, am I discovering it is supposedly one of our strongest arguments to support the historicity of the resurrection and it is being undermined.
The authors think it provocative and shocking to suggest that when they proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ “maybe the Christians had a model to work from.” Israel Knohl (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) points out that “for the first time, we have proof” that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah “was there before Jesus." This, he thinks, “should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."
OK, I guess I should be panicking. But wait…. Thankfully (to the authors’ credit) they do check with Ben Witherington (Gordon-Conwell graduate and Asbury Seminary professor). His reported responses are (as usual) right on point. Among other things he points out that the verb Knohl wants to translate from the tablet as "rise!" could as easily mean "there arose," as in “showed up on the scene“ (cf. Matt. 11:11; 12:42; 24:11; Mark 13:22; Luke 7:16; 11:31; John 7:52). Oh yes, and “Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate.”’ But according to the main thrust of the article this last possibility is supposed to be undermining one of our most important arguments for the resurrection!
This last of Witherington’s points highlights the silliest part of the article’s hype. Matthew 14:2 indicates Herod thought the reports about Jesus suggested that he was actually John the Baptist, risen from the dead. Here again the New Testament itself suggests Jewish people of his day considered the possibility that God might vindicate a righteous man by raising him from the dead. According to the gospels Jesus himself indicated that his followers should have known ahead of time, based on the Scriptures, that he, as the Messiah would die and then be vindicated by being raised by God from the dead. Luke 18:31-33 says Jesus told his disciples that “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again" (NRSV). After the resurrection we are told that Jesus told the disciples, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke says Jesus then “opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem‘“ (Luke 24:44-47 NRSV). Mark and Matthew both record Jesus referring to his upcoming death in the words “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; emphasis added).
Paul also indicates that Jesus and the rest of the early church had a scriptural model to work from. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says,
“I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (NRSV).
Here again it is understood that Christ’s death and resurrection took place “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures.” This was not thought to be a new idea. Just exactly which Scriptures Jesus, Paul and other early Christians might have had in mind is debatable. Certainly Daniel 12:2-3, Hosea 6:1-2 and Ezekiel 37 must be included in the mix. For a full discussion of the resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). He provides a fine discussion of the Old Testament background on pages 108-28. Part of the key turns out to be that God had done for Jesus, in the middle of time what he had been expected to do for Israel at the end of time [raise them from the dead after suffering oppression at the hands of pagans]: “In and through Jesus Israel’s hope had been realized. He had been raised from the dead after suffering and dying at the hands of the pagans” (N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 127).
Christians do not base the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the uniqueness of the idea or because we can’t imagine anyone making the story up. We believe it because of the testimony of those who saw him (see again 1 Cor. 15:3-8 above) and gave their lives for the sake of that message and because of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection life demonstrated in and through his disciples down through history and into our own time and our own lives. It is not part of the Christian message to say Jesus had such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that no one else could have understood it before hand. Jesus himself said his disciples should have understood the Scriptures to teach that the Messiah must experience Israel’s destiny: He must die and rise again.
I am not suggesting that Knohl’s interpretation of the tablet will turn out to be correct. That may be unlikely. What I am suggesting is that believers do not have a horse in this race. Clearly most Jews did not expect the Messiah to die and rise again, but Jesus and the authors of the New Testament suggest they should have. If we ever find (or have just found) an ancient Jewish text suggesting the/a Messiah would rise from the dead, it will make clear whether or not others had come to understand that as well as Jesus and the other early Christians. That would be an interesting discovery. But undeserving of the “this completely undermines the Christian faith” hype that publishers hope to work up about such things. If there is any hype to be made about the tablet being discussed, perhaps it should go more like this: News from Jerusalem! Perhaps Jesus was right! His disciples should have understood that he needed to die and then rise again!
Monday, July 7, 2008
All Together Now...
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
I just returned from a week teaching at a family camp sponsored by PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International). In the past, organizers of family camp divided the attendees into age groups for teaching times. We decided, however, to do things differently. We asked that, except for the youngest children, the families attend the teaching periods together. Thus, we had the pleasure and challenge of teaching people aged 10 to 60+ in ways that were relevant and engaging to them all.
We taught a series on building strong families, based on Ephesians 6:10-18. In this passage, Paul tells us to stand strong against the evil one by putting on the full armor of God and by persevering in prayer. Paul, under house arrest, was reminded of the armor, no doubt, by the constant presence of the Roman guard to whom he was chained. The pieces of armor include the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. As I studied in preparation for this week, I was struck by how the image of the Roman soldier and his armor led me to consider the corporate nature of our faith. Most commentators I read discussed the critical importance of the Roman soldiers' coordinated formations, standing firm in a united front which both afforded protection from the enemy and created an imposing front for assault.
During the course of the week, as we presented lessons on each piece of armor, we drew out this emphasis on the individual family and the family of God, the Body of Christ. Yes, we are each individually saved by faith in Christ, but we are born into the family. God's intention for us is to live and grow into the person he intended us to be in the context of that family, the Body of Christ, the Church. God does not want solo Christians. We need each other. Even the soldier's armor, which seems at first glance to be designed for one person, needs others to be most effective. The large Roman shield, for example, was made to interlock with the shields of other soldiers. When the soldiers did this, they could create an impenetrable defense against the enemy's flaming arrows. What a wonderful image of the Body of Christ, united against the schemes of the devil!
We also had plenty of time, during the week, after the morning teaching for fun and fellowship before evening services. I found myself sought out repeatedly by one man who kept telling me about lots of people he knew who had been hurt by churches in the past and now refused to be a part of any church. We discussed the teachings on the armor and the implications for Christians remaining in fellowship to accomplish the work of the Kingdom. I encouraged him that he could be an important mediator of God's truth to these people about the need for fellowship with other believers. The church, composed of fallen, redeemed human beings, is not perfect. But it is God's chosen instrument for the living out and proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are told to not give up on coming together (Hebrews 10:25). This is the only way we can build up, encourage, and support one another as we seek to grow into the people God wants us to be and proclaim the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.
On the final morning of family camp, we set aside some time for “debriefing,” giving attendees the opportunity to share whatever they would like about their experience of the week. This man stood up and spoke, with tears, about how he now finally understood that God wants us to be together, not alone, and that it is important for him to be part of a church. The woman sitting next to me, who apparently knew this man quite well, raised her eyes to heaven in thanksgiving for his words. She had known that he was one of those people he kept talking with me about who have been hurt and were intent on staying away from any church.
Many churches have the practice, as was true of previous times at this family camp, of separating people by age. For teaching children, I can understand this, as their cognitive abilities are developing over time and what a 3 year old is capable of understanding is quite different from a 13 year old. But most churches take this much further and separate 20 somethings from 30 or 40 somethings, singles from couples, young marrieds from empty nesters. But I think this cheats us of the advantage of the family of God sharing experience and wisdom across the generations. Some people at family camp commented on how much they appreciated being together, old and young and everything in between. It had indeed been a delight during the week to see teenagers praying for their elders as well as vice versa, each encouraging the other and bringing to each other the perspectives unique to their age and life status. It does take some additional effort to make the teaching relevant and meaningful across the age ranges. But I find the value of the generations sharing their experiences to be well worth the effort.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus
I just returned from a week teaching at a family camp sponsored by PRMI (Presbyterian Reformed Ministries International). In the past, organizers of family camp divided the attendees into age groups for teaching times. We decided, however, to do things differently. We asked that, except for the youngest children, the families attend the teaching periods together. Thus, we had the pleasure and challenge of teaching people aged 10 to 60+ in ways that were relevant and engaging to them all.
We taught a series on building strong families, based on Ephesians 6:10-18. In this passage, Paul tells us to stand strong against the evil one by putting on the full armor of God and by persevering in prayer. Paul, under house arrest, was reminded of the armor, no doubt, by the constant presence of the Roman guard to whom he was chained. The pieces of armor include the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. As I studied in preparation for this week, I was struck by how the image of the Roman soldier and his armor led me to consider the corporate nature of our faith. Most commentators I read discussed the critical importance of the Roman soldiers' coordinated formations, standing firm in a united front which both afforded protection from the enemy and created an imposing front for assault.
During the course of the week, as we presented lessons on each piece of armor, we drew out this emphasis on the individual family and the family of God, the Body of Christ. Yes, we are each individually saved by faith in Christ, but we are born into the family. God's intention for us is to live and grow into the person he intended us to be in the context of that family, the Body of Christ, the Church. God does not want solo Christians. We need each other. Even the soldier's armor, which seems at first glance to be designed for one person, needs others to be most effective. The large Roman shield, for example, was made to interlock with the shields of other soldiers. When the soldiers did this, they could create an impenetrable defense against the enemy's flaming arrows. What a wonderful image of the Body of Christ, united against the schemes of the devil!
We also had plenty of time, during the week, after the morning teaching for fun and fellowship before evening services. I found myself sought out repeatedly by one man who kept telling me about lots of people he knew who had been hurt by churches in the past and now refused to be a part of any church. We discussed the teachings on the armor and the implications for Christians remaining in fellowship to accomplish the work of the Kingdom. I encouraged him that he could be an important mediator of God's truth to these people about the need for fellowship with other believers. The church, composed of fallen, redeemed human beings, is not perfect. But it is God's chosen instrument for the living out and proclamation of the gospel. That is why we are told to not give up on coming together (Hebrews 10:25). This is the only way we can build up, encourage, and support one another as we seek to grow into the people God wants us to be and proclaim the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.
On the final morning of family camp, we set aside some time for “debriefing,” giving attendees the opportunity to share whatever they would like about their experience of the week. This man stood up and spoke, with tears, about how he now finally understood that God wants us to be together, not alone, and that it is important for him to be part of a church. The woman sitting next to me, who apparently knew this man quite well, raised her eyes to heaven in thanksgiving for his words. She had known that he was one of those people he kept talking with me about who have been hurt and were intent on staying away from any church.
Many churches have the practice, as was true of previous times at this family camp, of separating people by age. For teaching children, I can understand this, as their cognitive abilities are developing over time and what a 3 year old is capable of understanding is quite different from a 13 year old. But most churches take this much further and separate 20 somethings from 30 or 40 somethings, singles from couples, young marrieds from empty nesters. But I think this cheats us of the advantage of the family of God sharing experience and wisdom across the generations. Some people at family camp commented on how much they appreciated being together, old and young and everything in between. It had indeed been a delight during the week to see teenagers praying for their elders as well as vice versa, each encouraging the other and bringing to each other the perspectives unique to their age and life status. It does take some additional effort to make the teaching relevant and meaningful across the age ranges. But I find the value of the generations sharing their experiences to be well worth the effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)