I started thinking about this post last Sunday while flying back from New Hampshire. That day was momentous for several reasons; perhaps most insignificantly, it marked four years since I graduated from Dartmouth (and thus the fourth birthday of this blog). More exciting was getting to watch Ellen receive her doctoral diploma at Dartmouth's Commencement earlier in the day. Even though she completed her degree last summer, Dartmouth only holds one ceremony a year and so Ellen had to wait until this June to receive her cap, hood, and diploma itself. It was quite a thrill to watch! Ellen got to spend the following week in New Hampshire, too, culminating in her
five-year reunion this weekend. Unfortunately, I had to return on account of work after only two days (for some reason they don't let paramedics telecommute).
Every year it seems like I know fewer and fewer people going through the (somewhat pompously named) "Commencement Exercises." This year, though, while I knew only a handful of undergrads receiving their diplomas, I did have a couple grad student friends who were completing their studies. It was exciting to cheer for them a second time for a second degree. Some are off to use their degrees right away; others have more schooling looming through the windshield. In both cases I am delighted and proud to see what they have accomplished so far.
It was wonderful being back in New Hampshire, however briefly. We had the chance to catch up with a number of friends, visit our old stomping grounds in Enfield, and get pretty close to a pair of loons. Perhaps the most striking thing, though, was how similar it was to the way we remembered it. People were a little bit older--and children seemed to have grown like weeds--but it was pretty much the same place we left. It felt like home.
About Me
- Robert
- I'm a 2009 graduate of Dartmouth College who loves Jesus, my wife and all things Northeast.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Whence wisdom?
This is my final post from my second week on the Valley Church Bible blog. I'll be pinch-hitting on the blog next Sunday-Wednesday, and I'll be back at it again the week of June 30. Enjoy, and make sure to check out the blog between now and then too!
Job 31-32
Elihu, alone of Job's four friends, is not condemned by God for his bad advice. We will have to read on to see the full measure of what he has to say, but he certainly gets off to a good start in Chapter 32. He decries the prevailing notion--to which he himself had subscribed--that age and wisdom go hand in hand. This is not to say that they cannot do so, but there is no automatic, direct correlation thus. Rather, "It is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding" (Job 32:8).
Elihu is upset with Job for what he sees as Job's self-justifying, and not God-justifying, ways. But he is also angry that Job's friends have not been able to show him the error of his ways. Elihu's premise is flawed--Job has not sinned against God and does not need to be rebuked--but he nevertheless raises some worthwhile points throughout his soliloquy. That you do not necessarily have to be aged in order to be wise, merely in relationship with God ... this is an encouraging thought!
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10).
Job 31-32
Elihu, alone of Job's four friends, is not condemned by God for his bad advice. We will have to read on to see the full measure of what he has to say, but he certainly gets off to a good start in Chapter 32. He decries the prevailing notion--to which he himself had subscribed--that age and wisdom go hand in hand. This is not to say that they cannot do so, but there is no automatic, direct correlation thus. Rather, "It is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding" (Job 32:8).
Elihu is upset with Job for what he sees as Job's self-justifying, and not God-justifying, ways. But he is also angry that Job's friends have not been able to show him the error of his ways. Elihu's premise is flawed--Job has not sinned against God and does not need to be rebuked--but he nevertheless raises some worthwhile points throughout his soliloquy. That you do not necessarily have to be aged in order to be wise, merely in relationship with God ... this is an encouraging thought!
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10).
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
An anonymous wedding song
Psalm 45-47
As far as I am aware, no one is sure exactly which king is getting married in Psalm 45. Rather than detract from the song, though, this anonymity amplifies the emotion that drips from every word. If we knew whose nuptials were being celebrated, we'd be irresistibly tempted to read biographical and historical context into this expression of unadulterated joy. As it is, we can allow ourselves to be swept up and carried away by the exuberance.
What more joyful refrain could there be than "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" (Psalm 45:6)? God, who is Alpha and Omega, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). And weddings are celebrations of earthly unions that resonate into eternity, and as we learn later in the Bible, they have specific, supernatural significance (Ephesians 5) too. Here that significance is prefigured; though the king was a historical person, he anticipates Jesus the King as well. "The nations will praise you for ever and ever" (Psalm 45:17). May it always be so!
As far as I am aware, no one is sure exactly which king is getting married in Psalm 45. Rather than detract from the song, though, this anonymity amplifies the emotion that drips from every word. If we knew whose nuptials were being celebrated, we'd be irresistibly tempted to read biographical and historical context into this expression of unadulterated joy. As it is, we can allow ourselves to be swept up and carried away by the exuberance.
What more joyful refrain could there be than "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" (Psalm 45:6)? God, who is Alpha and Omega, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). And weddings are celebrations of earthly unions that resonate into eternity, and as we learn later in the Bible, they have specific, supernatural significance (Ephesians 5) too. Here that significance is prefigured; though the king was a historical person, he anticipates Jesus the King as well. "The nations will praise you for ever and ever" (Psalm 45:17). May it always be so!
Saul and the medium at Endor
1 Samuel 26-31
Saul's encounter with the medium at Endor is unsettling in many ways. The most obvious problem with Saul's visit is that God has forbidden His people to consult mediums (Leviticus 19:31). Indeed, it was for this reason that Saul himself had "expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land" (1 Sam 28:3). The more discomfiting element of this scene, at least for me, is the isolation and abject despair Saul felt that drove him to this radical step.
At the start of the chapter, Saul surveys the Philistine army arrayed against him and he fears a crushing defeat. So he does what anyone would do in a similar situation ... he turns to God for guidance. "But the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets" (1 Sam 28:6). How terrifying, how utterly alone you must feel when you seek God and are ignored.
When we read this story, though, we need to remember that unlike, say, David, Saul was not a man after God's own heart. In fact, Saul directly opposed David; "He remained [David's] enemy the rest of his days" (1 Sam 18:29). And yet even after devoting so much time and energy to opposing God, Saul could still have been reconciled to Him if true repentance and reconciliation were what he desired. But even in the end, Saul sought only his own glory and success, not God's. Is it any surprise, then, that his entreaties were viewed so unfavorably?
Saul's encounter with the medium at Endor is unsettling in many ways. The most obvious problem with Saul's visit is that God has forbidden His people to consult mediums (Leviticus 19:31). Indeed, it was for this reason that Saul himself had "expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land" (1 Sam 28:3). The more discomfiting element of this scene, at least for me, is the isolation and abject despair Saul felt that drove him to this radical step.
At the start of the chapter, Saul surveys the Philistine army arrayed against him and he fears a crushing defeat. So he does what anyone would do in a similar situation ... he turns to God for guidance. "But the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets" (1 Sam 28:6). How terrifying, how utterly alone you must feel when you seek God and are ignored.
When we read this story, though, we need to remember that unlike, say, David, Saul was not a man after God's own heart. In fact, Saul directly opposed David; "He remained [David's] enemy the rest of his days" (1 Sam 18:29). And yet even after devoting so much time and energy to opposing God, Saul could still have been reconciled to Him if true repentance and reconciliation were what he desired. But even in the end, Saul sought only his own glory and success, not God's. Is it any surprise, then, that his entreaties were viewed so unfavorably?
Monday, May 20, 2013
The hardening of Pharaoh's heart
Exodus 9-12
Before the next plague strikes, however, God tells Moses, "'Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that
you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have
dealt harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them,
that you may know that I am the Lord'”
(Exodus 10: 1-2). Here the situation is somewhat different. It seems
that God has stacked the deck against Pharaoh; He has predetermined that
Pharaoh will not grant Moses's request.
This seems somehow unfair. One could object that
God is supernaturally preventing Pharaoh from being able to repent so
that He has an excuse to hurt the people of Egypt (indeed, God says this
is exactly what He is doing [Exodus 10: 1-2]). But to stop here would
be to miss the point entirely. God is not punishing the Egyptians for
the sake of inflicting pain. He is doing this because performing these
signs brings Him glory. God's faithfulness is so great that not even the
mighty Pharaoh, not even a multi-century enslavement, can prevent Him
from redeeming His people. For the rest of time, people will be telling
of God's magnificent power and His enduring mercy.
What about the abrogation of Pharaoh's free will?
God establishes in the book of Job that human beings possess free will
(for further consideration, I encourage you to read my piece on that
subject here), but here He seems to suspend that will. I can think of
two possible explanations for this phenomenon. One is the classic C.S.
Lewis explanation, "There are two kinds of people in the end: Those who
say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end,
'Thy will be done'" (THE GREAT DIVORCE). Lewis was speaking about the
mechanism by which people ended up in Hell, but the illustration applies
equally well here; God foresees the future in which Pharaoh exercises
his free will to continue ignoring Moses's entreaties, and He simply
accelerates the process in the present. In this case, there really has
been no infringement of will.
The other explanation is that God does indeed temporarily revoke Pharaoh's free will. But what of it? God has created the natural world and all the laws that govern it. It is certainly His right to suspend or alter those laws any time He chooses. Furthermore, we have already seen that God's purpose here is to glorify Himself. Supernatural intervention in the natural world for the purpose of bringing glory to God is common throughout the Old and New Testaments. If God wishes to glorify Himself, who are we to request that He refrain from doing so?
Exodus 9-12 is one of the foundational passages of the
history of the tribe of Israel. The conclusion of their Egyptian
captivity and the institution of the Passover are watershed moments. But
there is something deeply unsettling about the way Pharaoh figures into
the story. At the conclusion of the seventh plague, Pharaoh sends for
Moses and admits his wrongdoing and begs him to ask God to call off the
hail. Yet "When Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder
had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart" (Exodus 9:27,
34). In this instance it appears that Pharaoh sinned under his own
power, as it were; that is, by his own choosing.
The other explanation is that God does indeed temporarily revoke Pharaoh's free will. But what of it? God has created the natural world and all the laws that govern it. It is certainly His right to suspend or alter those laws any time He chooses. Furthermore, we have already seen that God's purpose here is to glorify Himself. Supernatural intervention in the natural world for the purpose of bringing glory to God is common throughout the Old and New Testaments. If God wishes to glorify Himself, who are we to request that He refrain from doing so?
Why did Jesus appear after rising from the dead?
1 Corinthians 15-16
Why is it important that Jesus was seen in public after his resurrection? Paul writes, "He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born" (1 Cor 15: 4-8). Put simply, Jesus' public appearances validate the reality of his resurrection.
Later in the letter, Paul describes the importance of the resurrection to Christianity as a whole (1 Cor 15: 12-34). Or as Yale theologian Jaroslav Pelikan more succinctly stated, "If Christ is risen, then nothing else matters. If Christ is not risen, then nothing else matters." If the resurrection is of such great importance--and it is arguably the single most important tenet of Christianity--then we begin to see why Paul highlights the number of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (something other New Testament writers do also).
It is easy to dismiss Jesus' resurrection as a hoax cooked up by his disappointed followers if they are the only ones to see him after he allegedly rose from the dead. But appearing to more than five hundred people at once? That is much harder to explain away as a fabrication. What's more, many of these people were still alive at the time of Paul's writing. If anyone in Corinth disputed the veracity of Paul's claims, they could simply track down the witnesses and interview them for themselves. No one brags about having witnesses to something that didn't happen; Paul's emphasis on how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection, and how many times Jesus was seen, is compelling evidence that the resurrection is real.
(For further consideration of this topic, I highly recommend Charles Dunn's phenomenal article "The Reality of the Resurrection," available here.)
Why is it important that Jesus was seen in public after his resurrection? Paul writes, "He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born" (1 Cor 15: 4-8). Put simply, Jesus' public appearances validate the reality of his resurrection.
Later in the letter, Paul describes the importance of the resurrection to Christianity as a whole (1 Cor 15: 12-34). Or as Yale theologian Jaroslav Pelikan more succinctly stated, "If Christ is risen, then nothing else matters. If Christ is not risen, then nothing else matters." If the resurrection is of such great importance--and it is arguably the single most important tenet of Christianity--then we begin to see why Paul highlights the number of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (something other New Testament writers do also).
It is easy to dismiss Jesus' resurrection as a hoax cooked up by his disappointed followers if they are the only ones to see him after he allegedly rose from the dead. But appearing to more than five hundred people at once? That is much harder to explain away as a fabrication. What's more, many of these people were still alive at the time of Paul's writing. If anyone in Corinth disputed the veracity of Paul's claims, they could simply track down the witnesses and interview them for themselves. No one brags about having witnesses to something that didn't happen; Paul's emphasis on how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection, and how many times Jesus was seen, is compelling evidence that the resurrection is real.
(For further consideration of this topic, I highly recommend Charles Dunn's phenomenal article "The Reality of the Resurrection," available here.)
Sunday, May 19, 2013
What does it mean to do something in Jesus' name?
This is the second post I wrote on my week on the Valley Community Church Bible blog last month. It is reprinted in its entirety below. Please feel free to check out the other posts on that blog; a different church member writes about a different passage of Scripture every day!
Mark 9-10
Jesus tells his disciples, "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39). But consider the hypothetical false disciples Jesus rebukes in the Sermon on the Mount. "'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers"'" (Matthew 7: 21-23). What a disconcerting image! The central question, then, seems to be what does it mean to do something in Jesus' name?
First, let's consider what doing something in Jesus' name is not. For instance, it is possible to claim to be doing something on God's behalf when you are really seeking your own glory. The sons of Sceva, a Jewish priest, were caught doing this in Acts 19. They "tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed" (Acts 19:13) but were beaten badly by the demon-possessed man for their trouble. You see, when it comes to our heart and our motives, there is no fooling God. "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve" (Jeremiah 17:10).
Contrast their example with the woman who touched Jesus' clothes and was healed. Matthew tells us she touched the "edge" of the garment (Matthew 9:20). Remember that God long ago commanded the Israelites "To make tassels on the corners of your garments" (Numbers 15:38), and it was this part of Jesus' cloak that the sick woman touched. Why is that important? Because the woman knew Malachi 4:2, "The sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays." The word "rays," sometimes also translated "wings," is the same word rendered as "tassels" in Numbers 15:38. The woman believed that Jesus was who he said he was and this led her to claim God's promise of healing from Malachi 4:2 by touching Jesus' cloak. And healed she was; Jesus turned, sought her out from the crowd, and told her, "Take heart, daughter ... your faith has healed you" (Matthew 9:22). In this way God was glorified, that His Son was recognized and worshiped for who he really was.
When we do things in Jesus' name, therefore, we are claiming God's promises that He might be glorified. God makes promises as a way of showing His faithfulness and as a way of bringing glory to Himself. When we claim these promises, we are acknowledging and even praising Him as a faithful, trustworthy, and sovereign God.
Mark 9-10
Jesus tells his disciples, "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39). But consider the hypothetical false disciples Jesus rebukes in the Sermon on the Mount. "'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers"'" (Matthew 7: 21-23). What a disconcerting image! The central question, then, seems to be what does it mean to do something in Jesus' name?
First, let's consider what doing something in Jesus' name is not. For instance, it is possible to claim to be doing something on God's behalf when you are really seeking your own glory. The sons of Sceva, a Jewish priest, were caught doing this in Acts 19. They "tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed" (Acts 19:13) but were beaten badly by the demon-possessed man for their trouble. You see, when it comes to our heart and our motives, there is no fooling God. "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve" (Jeremiah 17:10).
Contrast their example with the woman who touched Jesus' clothes and was healed. Matthew tells us she touched the "edge" of the garment (Matthew 9:20). Remember that God long ago commanded the Israelites "To make tassels on the corners of your garments" (Numbers 15:38), and it was this part of Jesus' cloak that the sick woman touched. Why is that important? Because the woman knew Malachi 4:2, "The sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays." The word "rays," sometimes also translated "wings," is the same word rendered as "tassels" in Numbers 15:38. The woman believed that Jesus was who he said he was and this led her to claim God's promise of healing from Malachi 4:2 by touching Jesus' cloak. And healed she was; Jesus turned, sought her out from the crowd, and told her, "Take heart, daughter ... your faith has healed you" (Matthew 9:22). In this way God was glorified, that His Son was recognized and worshiped for who he really was.
When we do things in Jesus' name, therefore, we are claiming God's promises that He might be glorified. God makes promises as a way of showing His faithfulness and as a way of bringing glory to Himself. When we claim these promises, we are acknowledging and even praising Him as a faithful, trustworthy, and sovereign God.
Jeremiah and the "Health and Wealth Gospel"
I wrote the following seven posts for the Valley Community Church Bible blog during the week of April 14, 2013. I am reprinting them here in their entirety; please enjoy and leave a comment if you feel so led.
Jeremiah 12-16
Jeremiah isn't the only Old Testament figure to voice
complaints like these (see Job 21, Malachi 3). So how does God respond
to him? By telling him that things are only going to get worse (Jer 12:
5-6). It's a similar answer to the one Job receives, and a superficially
unsatisfying one at that. But when you dig deeper, it becomes clear
that God is gently helping Jeremiah to recalibrate his perspective.
God's enemies will be destroyed in the end (Jer 12: 7-17), and in the
meantime, we need to spend a little less time worrying about the worldly
balance sheet of our enemies and a little more time focusing on our own
relationship with God. And if we want to have concern about our
enemies' spiritual lives, that too is a commendable goal. Indeed, what
could be more important than the spiritual welfare of ourselves and our
(potential) brothers and sisters in Christ?
Jeremiah 12-16
Jeremiah begins this passage with a beleaguered complaint.
"Yet I would speak to you about your justice: Why does the way of the
wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease" (Jer 12:1)?
Without delay, Jeremiah brings up what might be called "The anti-health
and wealth Gospel." The health and wealth Gospel is the teaching--often
mocked and deservedly so--that God will shower you with material things
because His chief desire is that you be happy and prosperous in this
life. The anti-health and wealth Gospel, then, is the complaint that God
seems to be favoring with material success those who do not profess and
follow Him.
When you think about it, the anti-health and wealth Gospel
really isn't the opposite of the health and wealth Gospel. In fact,
there's actually no difference between the two at all. In the end,
complaining about someone else's state is nothing more than a tacit
expression of bitterness about your own. Jeremiah isn't upset that the
wicked and faithless are doing well; he's upset that they're doing
better than he is.Saturday, March 30, 2013
Job and free will
Do human beings have free will? Volumes have been written on this subject from every conceivable angle, and Christianity is no exception. Numerous Bible verses address, appear to address, or are claimed to address the question of whether or not we have free will. And yet broad consensus remains elusive (perhaps because people are all too mindful that stripped of proper context, the Bible can be made to support or oppose nearly everything; as a result they are unwilling to allow it to say anything at all). In any event, I humbly offer my view on the subject.
The book of Job offers a compelling argument in favor of free will. At the outset of the book, God praises Job to Satan as "A man who fears God and shuns evil" (Job 1:8). Satan, however, accuses God of "stacking the deck." He asserts that God protects and favors Job, so that there is no reason for Job to be anything but obedient. But take away Job's material comfort and blessings, Satan says, and Job will soon enough turn against God. And so God permits Satan to put his theory to the test.
Simply depriving Job of his many possessions proves insufficient, though, and Satan returns to God unsatisfied. "A man will give all he has for his own life," he complains. "But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face" (Job 2: 4-5). Once again, God consents to Satan testing Job, although He stipulates that Satan's torments may not extend to the deadly.
Satan's central premise is that Job's love for God is really love of self. Job loves God because God makes his, Job's, life comfortable and pleasant. If God were to withdraw the comfort, Job would turn against God. But this is only possible if Job is free to choose whether to praise or curse God. If Job did not have free will, God could simply dictate his responses, thereby invalidating the whole enterprise. Satan knows this but pushed for the contest anyway. The only conclusion, therefore, is that Satan knew that Job possessed the free will necessary to make this decision for himself.
The book of Job offers a compelling argument in favor of free will. At the outset of the book, God praises Job to Satan as "A man who fears God and shuns evil" (Job 1:8). Satan, however, accuses God of "stacking the deck." He asserts that God protects and favors Job, so that there is no reason for Job to be anything but obedient. But take away Job's material comfort and blessings, Satan says, and Job will soon enough turn against God. And so God permits Satan to put his theory to the test.
Simply depriving Job of his many possessions proves insufficient, though, and Satan returns to God unsatisfied. "A man will give all he has for his own life," he complains. "But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face" (Job 2: 4-5). Once again, God consents to Satan testing Job, although He stipulates that Satan's torments may not extend to the deadly.
Satan's central premise is that Job's love for God is really love of self. Job loves God because God makes his, Job's, life comfortable and pleasant. If God were to withdraw the comfort, Job would turn against God. But this is only possible if Job is free to choose whether to praise or curse God. If Job did not have free will, God could simply dictate his responses, thereby invalidating the whole enterprise. Satan knows this but pushed for the contest anyway. The only conclusion, therefore, is that Satan knew that Job possessed the free will necessary to make this decision for himself.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Why the new pope is good for all of Christianity
Two weeks ago Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected the 266th Pope. Bergoglio, who will be called Francis, was selected on just the second day of deliberations. More than a billion people worldwide identify themselves as Roman Catholic. That alone qualifies Francis's selection as noteworthy, but the importance of this moment transcends denominational lines. This is a pregnant moment for Christianity as a whole.
Like Easter and Christmas, the selection of a new pope offers Christianity a unique moment in the mainstream spotlight. This is a golden opportunity for an energetic discussion of all manner of subjects. Homosexuality and gay marriage, the role of women in the vocational ministry, and even the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, to name just three, are culturally relevant topics that can have eternal implications. Christians everywhere should embrace the chance to spark conversation and critical thinking about some of the biggest questions facing Christianity today.
Like Easter and Christmas, the selection of a new pope offers Christianity a unique moment in the mainstream spotlight. This is a golden opportunity for an energetic discussion of all manner of subjects. Homosexuality and gay marriage, the role of women in the vocational ministry, and even the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, to name just three, are culturally relevant topics that can have eternal implications. Christians everywhere should embrace the chance to spark conversation and critical thinking about some of the biggest questions facing Christianity today.
New honor for Dartmouth
Earlier this month the Orozco Murals at Dartmouth College were recently designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service (you can read more about it here). Officially titled "The Epic of American Civilization," the mural was completed after two years of effort by Mexican artist Jose Clemente Orozco. Located in the Reserve Reading Corridor in Baker-Berry Library, the mural has impressed and inspired (and thoroughly creeped out) students since its completion in 1934. It is a must-see for any first-time visitors to campus!
Dartmouth has commissioned a number of peculiar pieces of artwork in recent years (the large rectangles adorning the side of the Hopkins Center spring to mind). Nevertheless, it is gratifying to see a culturally and artistically significant piece of art be recognized by the National Park Service. What's more, the mural was recently renovated, so it is in impeccable condition to receive what will hopefully be even greater public and student interest.
Staying in Hanover, the Dartmouth baseball team has gotten off to a torrid start this spring. Their record is currently 11-1, which is the best twelve-game start they've ever had. Not only that but they began the season 8-0 before losing to Slippery Rock on March 20. That made them the final unbeaten team in Division I this year. Go Big Green!
Dartmouth has commissioned a number of peculiar pieces of artwork in recent years (the large rectangles adorning the side of the Hopkins Center spring to mind). Nevertheless, it is gratifying to see a culturally and artistically significant piece of art be recognized by the National Park Service. What's more, the mural was recently renovated, so it is in impeccable condition to receive what will hopefully be even greater public and student interest.
Staying in Hanover, the Dartmouth baseball team has gotten off to a torrid start this spring. Their record is currently 11-1, which is the best twelve-game start they've ever had. Not only that but they began the season 8-0 before losing to Slippery Rock on March 20. That made them the final unbeaten team in Division I this year. Go Big Green!
Saturday, March 9, 2013
The double-edged sword of evidence-based medicine
EMS has gotten swept up in the evidence-based medicine craze in recent years. This is not at all a bad thing; on the contrary, it is probably the clearest path forward for a field that is continually locked in a struggle to carve out and maintain an identity within the healthcare community. There lurks danger, though, in becoming too dependent on only one mode of analysis and progressive impetus. This danger is primarily one of methodology and not of substance, but EMS leaders would nevertheless be wise to understand the limitations of evidence-based medicine. Like any other tool at the EMS provider's disposal, its capabilities must be exploited without losing sight of its shortcomings.
Years ago, a paramedic coworker loudly declared, "There has never been a single study that demonstrated any benefit to taking people to the hospital." This individual was particularly fond of loud declarations, but in this case he was spot on. It stands to reason that you should go to the hospital if you get sick or injured. but can you use statistics to demonstrate its superiority? That is, after all, the essence of evidence-based medical practice.
A popular anecdote among EMS providers is the 1998 study that tracked the outcomes of two groups of patients, one in New Mexico and one in Malaysia, who were transported after suffering spinal injuries. The patients in New Mexico were all placed in cervical collars and secured to backboards by EMS whereas the Malaysian group was not given the benefit of such "advanced" treatment. Guess which group had a lower incidence of permanent neurological deficits?
The spinal immobilization study is very much a success story for evidence-based medicine; selective spinal immobilization protocols have since been developed and promulgated widely. In my view, and that of more than a few training officers and medical directors, this is a huge step forward for EMS providers and the patients we treat. Score one for research.
But let's get back to the fact that we transport people to the hospital at all. There will never be a study that proves the benefit of transporting patients to the hospital because there will never be a study that even considers whether or not we should transport patients. Who would volunteer for the control group? "Well, Mrs. Smith, it appears you're suffering from acute pulmonary edema secondary to a CHF exacerbation. Unfortunately, you've been placed in the 'control group,' so we're not going to take you to the hospital today. Just keep gurgling away when you inhale and maybe some air will get in there. Have a nice day!" Common sense dictates that we transport patients to the hospital, and we will continue to do so--at least for high-acuity patients--as long as there is such a thing as EMS.
So does that mean that we should rely on reason and intuition to guide treatment protocols? Of course not. Just look at the evolution of cardiac arrest protocols: I've been in EMS for the better part of a decade now, and I've already seen several sea changes in the way cardiac arrests are managed (the changes in compression-to-ventilation ratios and the introduction of prehospital therapeutically-induced hypothermia leap to mind). There are providers out there with four times my level of experience who could describe countless more steps in the evolution of cardiac arrest management. The point is that as research sheds additional light on the pathophysiology of cardiac arrest, our treatment protocols are updated to match current understanding. And rinse and repeat. There is simply no other way to advance our understanding and treatment of that condition or many others.
How do we resolve the tension between letting research guide us forward while not getting paralyzed by the obsessive need to gather research to prove the unprovable? Fortunately the answer is simple: This is not a tension that needs resolving. Use research to gather as much information about as many pathologies and treatments as possible. Embrace whatever benefit can be gleaned from such study. But don't forget a liberal application of common sense to know what can and cannot be improved through scientific research. If we get too caught up in worshiping at the altar of evidence-based medicine, we lose sight of the fact that research is supposed to serve us, not the other way around.
Years ago, a paramedic coworker loudly declared, "There has never been a single study that demonstrated any benefit to taking people to the hospital." This individual was particularly fond of loud declarations, but in this case he was spot on. It stands to reason that you should go to the hospital if you get sick or injured. but can you use statistics to demonstrate its superiority? That is, after all, the essence of evidence-based medical practice.
A popular anecdote among EMS providers is the 1998 study that tracked the outcomes of two groups of patients, one in New Mexico and one in Malaysia, who were transported after suffering spinal injuries. The patients in New Mexico were all placed in cervical collars and secured to backboards by EMS whereas the Malaysian group was not given the benefit of such "advanced" treatment. Guess which group had a lower incidence of permanent neurological deficits?
The spinal immobilization study is very much a success story for evidence-based medicine; selective spinal immobilization protocols have since been developed and promulgated widely. In my view, and that of more than a few training officers and medical directors, this is a huge step forward for EMS providers and the patients we treat. Score one for research.
But let's get back to the fact that we transport people to the hospital at all. There will never be a study that proves the benefit of transporting patients to the hospital because there will never be a study that even considers whether or not we should transport patients. Who would volunteer for the control group? "Well, Mrs. Smith, it appears you're suffering from acute pulmonary edema secondary to a CHF exacerbation. Unfortunately, you've been placed in the 'control group,' so we're not going to take you to the hospital today. Just keep gurgling away when you inhale and maybe some air will get in there. Have a nice day!" Common sense dictates that we transport patients to the hospital, and we will continue to do so--at least for high-acuity patients--as long as there is such a thing as EMS.
So does that mean that we should rely on reason and intuition to guide treatment protocols? Of course not. Just look at the evolution of cardiac arrest protocols: I've been in EMS for the better part of a decade now, and I've already seen several sea changes in the way cardiac arrests are managed (the changes in compression-to-ventilation ratios and the introduction of prehospital therapeutically-induced hypothermia leap to mind). There are providers out there with four times my level of experience who could describe countless more steps in the evolution of cardiac arrest management. The point is that as research sheds additional light on the pathophysiology of cardiac arrest, our treatment protocols are updated to match current understanding. And rinse and repeat. There is simply no other way to advance our understanding and treatment of that condition or many others.
How do we resolve the tension between letting research guide us forward while not getting paralyzed by the obsessive need to gather research to prove the unprovable? Fortunately the answer is simple: This is not a tension that needs resolving. Use research to gather as much information about as many pathologies and treatments as possible. Embrace whatever benefit can be gleaned from such study. But don't forget a liberal application of common sense to know what can and cannot be improved through scientific research. If we get too caught up in worshiping at the altar of evidence-based medicine, we lose sight of the fact that research is supposed to serve us, not the other way around.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Good books with bad endings?
A few months ago, Joan Acocella posted to The New Yorker's website a blog post lamenting the disappointing endings of otherwise (and nevertheless) classic works of literature. Notwithstanding her ludicrous assertion that "Our country's greatest novel" is Huckleberry Finn--obviously Acocella has never read The Great Gatsby--she raises an interesting question about the effect of an unworthy ending on the value of a novel as a whole. She singles out Huckleberry Finn, David Copperfield, Wuthering Heights, and Song of the Lark for particular scorn, with special focus on the first of these, averring that the endings are not worthy of the body of writing they conclude.
One of Acocella's most astute points is to distinguish between endings that are "inartistic" and those that are simply disappointing. No one wants Islands in the Stream to end the way it does, but it's hard to argue that Hemingway crafts a masterful ending for the story of Thomas Hudson. David Copperfield's happily-ever-after, at least in Acocella's opinion, induces the reader to "Die of boredom." It is the latter category of ending that incurs Acocella's wrath because she feels they are "A betrayal of what came before."
One notable weakness in Acocella's article is that she doesn't embrace the question of "What might have been." The books she names are major, even seminal works by household-name authors. They have stood the test of time, bad endings and all. If they had been given endings commensurate to their erstwhile grandeur, what then? Would there be a new category of super-book where excellent beginnings and middles are completed by excellent endings?
Thus we have the fundamental problem with Acocella's mode of analysis. It's impossible to divorce the ending of a book from the novel as a whole. The quality of a book encompasses the value of all its constituent parts. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the end of a book--or any other part for that matter--but the creation of a sub-class of novel, the Great Book With a Really Bad Ending, is going too far.
On a separate but related note, a long-overdue congratulations to Louise Erdrich '76 for winning the 2012 National Book Award for Fiction for her novel The Round House. That makes two Dartmouth alumna to be honored with a National Book Award in the last five years (Annette Gordon-Reed '81 received the Nonfiction award in 2008 for The Hemingses of Monticello, which I had the great privilege to help work on when I was an editorial intern). Way to go!
One of Acocella's most astute points is to distinguish between endings that are "inartistic" and those that are simply disappointing. No one wants Islands in the Stream to end the way it does, but it's hard to argue that Hemingway crafts a masterful ending for the story of Thomas Hudson. David Copperfield's happily-ever-after, at least in Acocella's opinion, induces the reader to "Die of boredom." It is the latter category of ending that incurs Acocella's wrath because she feels they are "A betrayal of what came before."
One notable weakness in Acocella's article is that she doesn't embrace the question of "What might have been." The books she names are major, even seminal works by household-name authors. They have stood the test of time, bad endings and all. If they had been given endings commensurate to their erstwhile grandeur, what then? Would there be a new category of super-book where excellent beginnings and middles are completed by excellent endings?
Thus we have the fundamental problem with Acocella's mode of analysis. It's impossible to divorce the ending of a book from the novel as a whole. The quality of a book encompasses the value of all its constituent parts. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the end of a book--or any other part for that matter--but the creation of a sub-class of novel, the Great Book With a Really Bad Ending, is going too far.
On a separate but related note, a long-overdue congratulations to Louise Erdrich '76 for winning the 2012 National Book Award for Fiction for her novel The Round House. That makes two Dartmouth alumna to be honored with a National Book Award in the last five years (Annette Gordon-Reed '81 received the Nonfiction award in 2008 for The Hemingses of Monticello, which I had the great privilege to help work on when I was an editorial intern). Way to go!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Hall of Fame brouhaha
The baseball Hall of Fame made headlines last month when the
selection committee declined to elect any new members (the veterans
committee did choose a few inductees, but no one the general public has
ever heard of). This was widely seen as a referendum on the so-called
"Steroids Era" of the past two decades. Many people were quick to praise
the committee's actions while others were predictably quick to
criticize. One of the more interesting reactions came from The New York Times's Bill Pennington, who wrote an article on January 8 about the unsavory
personal lives of many of the past inductees.
Pennington's point seemed to be that there are so many hooligans in the Hall of Fame--alcoholics, gamblers, racists, and the like--that what's the harm in adding to their number drug users whose on-field performance has been equally impressive? The fundamental difference, though, lies precisely in the arena in which the transgressions occurred. Misconduct off the field, however deplorable, has much less bearing on an individual's suitability for enshrinement than does malfeasance that directly impacts the game.
Steroid use undercuts the integrity of baseball. Players who use(d) illegitimate performance-enhancing substances are cheaters. And whether it's fair or not, their accomplishments will be tainted by their steroid use. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Hall of Fame takes a dim view on admitting them to their company.
Pennington's point seemed to be that there are so many hooligans in the Hall of Fame--alcoholics, gamblers, racists, and the like--that what's the harm in adding to their number drug users whose on-field performance has been equally impressive? The fundamental difference, though, lies precisely in the arena in which the transgressions occurred. Misconduct off the field, however deplorable, has much less bearing on an individual's suitability for enshrinement than does malfeasance that directly impacts the game.
Steroid use undercuts the integrity of baseball. Players who use(d) illegitimate performance-enhancing substances are cheaters. And whether it's fair or not, their accomplishments will be tainted by their steroid use. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Hall of Fame takes a dim view on admitting them to their company.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Our need for an intercessor
The final post in my first week writing for the Growing At Valley blog looks at Job 9-10 and our need for an intercessor. My next week will be in April, and I will reprint those posts here as well!
Job 9-10 finds the titular man in a sorry state indeed. He has been
deprived of every physical possession and pleasure that a man can have
taken from him, and perhaps most unsettling of all, he has no idea why
he is being subjected to this suffering (much could be said about Job's
perspective on disobedience and punishment--the converse case of the
obedience-reward dynamic explored on Thursday--but this is for another
time). "Although I am blameless, I have no concern for myself; I despise my own life" (Job 9:23). In the depths of his suffering, Job cries out to God, "Do not declare me guilty, but tell me what charges you have against me. Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while
you smile on the plans of the wicked" (Job 10: 2-3). We feel Job's
frustration and we can practically hear the desperation in his voice.
Job needs an intercessor. He needs someone who will plead before God on his behalf, for no matter how upstanding and righteous he may be, Job does not have the standing to petition God as an equal. "He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court. If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot" (Job 9:32-35).
If Job, whom God Himself describes as "Blameless and upright" (Job 1:8), needs an intercessor, then how much more do we need one too! Fortunately for us, Jesus willingly takes on that role (John 13:36, John 14: 2-3, John 14: 13, Romans 8:34, etc.). And the news gets better: In addition to God the Son pleading on our behalf, God the Spirit represents us before the Lord as well (John 14:16, Romans 8:26-27).
If God is for us, who shall be against us (Romans 8:31)?
Job 9-10
Job needs an intercessor. He needs someone who will plead before God on his behalf, for no matter how upstanding and righteous he may be, Job does not have the standing to petition God as an equal. "He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court. If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot" (Job 9:32-35).
If Job, whom God Himself describes as "Blameless and upright" (Job 1:8), needs an intercessor, then how much more do we need one too! Fortunately for us, Jesus willingly takes on that role (John 13:36, John 14: 2-3, John 14: 13, Romans 8:34, etc.). And the news gets better: In addition to God the Son pleading on our behalf, God the Spirit represents us before the Lord as well (John 14:16, Romans 8:26-27).
If God is for us, who shall be against us (Romans 8:31)?
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Guest post!
A special treat today: A guest post from my wife, Ellen, on Psalm 13 and the prayer of the distressed.
Psalms 13 - The prayer of the distressed
Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote that "The Psalter is the great school of prayer." In Psalm 13 we find a prayer that David prayed at a time of great distress. Although in most cases nothing we face today compares with David's circumstances, we can still learn a lot from his example regarding how we ought to communicate with God when we're facing trials in life.
The first thing David does in his prayer is express how he feels to God. He is very honest with God, not conjuring up falsely positive feelings. In that moment, it feels as though God has left him on his own, and he is not afraid to say this. Furthermore, when David asks God for an answer, he states his plea with great desperation ("answer me ... lest I sleep the sleep of death" (v3).
When we are struggling with difficult circumstances, there can often be a disconnect between how we know we ought to feel and how we actually feel (Rom 7:18). We know we should feel at peace and confident in God's good plan but in fact we feel worry and doubt. David's prayer reminds us that in these times, we should not try to hide these feeling from God (as if He, our Creator, doesn't know how we're feeling). Instead, we should express them to Him. It is only through God's work in our lives that we can feel joy and confidence in the midst of trials. Denying our true feelings or refusing to turn to God until we have corrected them ourselves is never going to work.
Of course it is important to note that, while sometimes we may feel that God has forsaken us, in fact He will never do so (Joshua 1:5). Remarkably, what made possible this relationship with God, on which we can rely completely, is that the Son of God took upon himself the burden of all our sins, crying out on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46)?
In this Psalm, David is able to find encouragement by reminding himself of God's love and salvation and goodness, on which he can rest assured. But it is interesting (and encouraging) to note that, although this Psalm ends on a more positive note, not all Psalms (prayers) have to (e.g., Psalms 44, 88). God always desires to hear our prayers, even if we are at a point where we only feel doubt and fear (Hosea 7:14).
Psalms 12-14
Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote that "The Psalter is the great school of prayer." In Psalm 13 we find a prayer that David prayed at a time of great distress. Although in most cases nothing we face today compares with David's circumstances, we can still learn a lot from his example regarding how we ought to communicate with God when we're facing trials in life.
The first thing David does in his prayer is express how he feels to God. He is very honest with God, not conjuring up falsely positive feelings. In that moment, it feels as though God has left him on his own, and he is not afraid to say this. Furthermore, when David asks God for an answer, he states his plea with great desperation ("answer me ... lest I sleep the sleep of death" (v3).
When we are struggling with difficult circumstances, there can often be a disconnect between how we know we ought to feel and how we actually feel (Rom 7:18). We know we should feel at peace and confident in God's good plan but in fact we feel worry and doubt. David's prayer reminds us that in these times, we should not try to hide these feeling from God (as if He, our Creator, doesn't know how we're feeling). Instead, we should express them to Him. It is only through God's work in our lives that we can feel joy and confidence in the midst of trials. Denying our true feelings or refusing to turn to God until we have corrected them ourselves is never going to work.
Of course it is important to note that, while sometimes we may feel that God has forsaken us, in fact He will never do so (Joshua 1:5). Remarkably, what made possible this relationship with God, on which we can rely completely, is that the Son of God took upon himself the burden of all our sins, crying out on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46)?
In this Psalm, David is able to find encouragement by reminding himself of God's love and salvation and goodness, on which he can rest assured. But it is interesting (and encouraging) to note that, although this Psalm ends on a more positive note, not all Psalms (prayers) have to (e.g., Psalms 44, 88). God always desires to hear our prayers, even if we are at a point where we only feel doubt and fear (Hosea 7:14).
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Obedience and reward
What is the relationship between obedience and reward? I look at that question through the lens of Joshua 21-24.
God keeps His promises. It is sufficient simply to have faith that
this is true without requiring proof of it (Deut 6:16, Hebrews 11:1),
but God knows our hearts even better than we do. He delights in
encouraging us--and glorifying Himself--by demonstrating His
faithfulness. In today's passage we see God's promises fulfilled in
totality. "Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to Israel failed;
every one was fulfilled" (Joshua 21:45).
As he calls them home in Chapter 22, Joshua praises the eastern tribes for their adherence to God's commands. Entering into the promised land is a long-awaited prize for these tribes, but is it their merit that earns them this bounty? Is God beholden to them for these parcels? Or is it an outpouring of God's grace that such restoration is even conceivable for the Israelites?
More broadly, what is the relationship between obedience and reward? Many hundreds of years after Joshua's death, Jesus tells the parable of the talents (Matthew 25: 14-30). A man charges three servants with looking after a portion of his wealth while he is away. Upon his return, as faithfully as they have carried out this mission, so does he lavish them with praise and additional responsibility. It is not difficult to see ourselves in this story, and indeed its key theme of stewardship underpins the entire Christian life.
We are given eternal life through faith in Jesus (John 3:16, John 14) and clear instructions to spread the Gospel far and wide (Matthew 28: 18-20). Far from being our fair wage (Romans 6:23 tells us we are due exactly the opposite), it is a testament to God's character that we are allowed to participate in these things. God doesn't owe us anything. We owe him. It is thanks entirely to God's surpassing grace that just as Joshua, "The servant of the Lord," was laid to rest in the promised land (Joshua 24: 29-30), so too do we anticipate the promised land of eternal life with God.
"Well done, my good and faithful servant." How my heart longs to hear those words.
Joshua 21-24
As he calls them home in Chapter 22, Joshua praises the eastern tribes for their adherence to God's commands. Entering into the promised land is a long-awaited prize for these tribes, but is it their merit that earns them this bounty? Is God beholden to them for these parcels? Or is it an outpouring of God's grace that such restoration is even conceivable for the Israelites?
More broadly, what is the relationship between obedience and reward? Many hundreds of years after Joshua's death, Jesus tells the parable of the talents (Matthew 25: 14-30). A man charges three servants with looking after a portion of his wealth while he is away. Upon his return, as faithfully as they have carried out this mission, so does he lavish them with praise and additional responsibility. It is not difficult to see ourselves in this story, and indeed its key theme of stewardship underpins the entire Christian life.
We are given eternal life through faith in Jesus (John 3:16, John 14) and clear instructions to spread the Gospel far and wide (Matthew 28: 18-20). Far from being our fair wage (Romans 6:23 tells us we are due exactly the opposite), it is a testament to God's character that we are allowed to participate in these things. God doesn't owe us anything. We owe him. It is thanks entirely to God's surpassing grace that just as Joshua, "The servant of the Lord," was laid to rest in the promised land (Joshua 24: 29-30), so too do we anticipate the promised land of eternal life with God.
"Well done, my good and faithful servant." How my heart longs to hear those words.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
What do covenants tell us about God?
In today's installment of my contribution to the Growing At Valley blog, I consider Genesis 16-19 and why God makes covenants.
Why does God make covenants? He is the Creator, making not just
something from nothing but everything from nothing (Genesis 1-2). Surely
a being with such power and majesty need not bind Himself to man by
entering into agreements with him. Indeed God does not need to do this,
but He does so anyway. Why?
God enters into covenants to reveal more of His character to us. You see, relationship is central to the Christian life. In the beginning of everything, even before time itself, the three persons of the Godhead existed in perfect, eternal relationship to one another (Athanasian Creed). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve enjoyed the presence and company of God, who when walking through the garden might call out to them if He didn't see them (Genesis 3: 8-9). And even after sin entered the world and man was cast out from the garden, we can once again have eternal life by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It's not eternity in a vacuum, however; it's eternity in relationship with God.
And so in Genesis 17, we see God enter into a covenant with Abram. Not just any covenant, either, but a sweeping bond in which God promises "I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (v. 7-8).
By so doing, God reveals more not only of the relational aspect of His character but also of His redemptive plan. God is trustworthy and always keeps His promises (Psalm 111, Psalm 145:13, John 8:26, Titus 1:2, etc.), and as we meditate on these truths, our hearts cannot help but be moved to worship.
Genesis 16-19
God enters into covenants to reveal more of His character to us. You see, relationship is central to the Christian life. In the beginning of everything, even before time itself, the three persons of the Godhead existed in perfect, eternal relationship to one another (Athanasian Creed). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve enjoyed the presence and company of God, who when walking through the garden might call out to them if He didn't see them (Genesis 3: 8-9). And even after sin entered the world and man was cast out from the garden, we can once again have eternal life by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It's not eternity in a vacuum, however; it's eternity in relationship with God.
And so in Genesis 17, we see God enter into a covenant with Abram. Not just any covenant, either, but a sweeping bond in which God promises "I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" (v. 7-8).
By so doing, God reveals more not only of the relational aspect of His character but also of His redemptive plan. God is trustworthy and always keeps His promises (Psalm 111, Psalm 145:13, John 8:26, Titus 1:2, etc.), and as we meditate on these truths, our hearts cannot help but be moved to worship.
Monday, February 11, 2013
What happened to Israel?
In this post, originally published at growingatvalley.blogspot.com, I look at Romans 9-10 and Paul's lament for Israel.
Paul begins Romans 10 with this lament, "Brothers and sisters, my
heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be
saved" (Romans 10:1). In Genesis 17, though, God establishes His
covenant with Abram. So what happened to Israel? The Old Testament is
rife with examples of Israel's disobedience to God, but would their
inability to observe the Law really keep them out of heaven?
The problem is that in a post-resurrection world, obedience to the Law isn't enough to get us into heaven in the first place. John the Baptist warns about the danger of complacent confidence in birthright salvation (Matthew 3: 7-10), too, but even that isn't the real issue at hand. Sin is the real issue. So great is the gulf between man and God, so stark the contrast between our wretched sin state and God's perfect holiness, that reconciliation is only possible through the atoning blood of Jesus (John 14:6, Romans 10: 9-10).
Our own efforts and works will always fall far short of what is required of us. That is why we cannot keep the law, why we cannot construct our own road to heaven. In Jesus, though, the work has been done that we could never do; the price has been paid that we could never pay (Matthew 5:17, Romans 10:6, 2 Cor 1:20). What an encouraging thought, that when we stand before the holy Judge--as we all will--sentence will be passed not according to our own righteousness but according to Jesus'.
If you want eternal life with God, you can have it. Hear the Gospel, repent of your sin, and put your trust in Jesus.
Romans 9-10
The problem is that in a post-resurrection world, obedience to the Law isn't enough to get us into heaven in the first place. John the Baptist warns about the danger of complacent confidence in birthright salvation (Matthew 3: 7-10), too, but even that isn't the real issue at hand. Sin is the real issue. So great is the gulf between man and God, so stark the contrast between our wretched sin state and God's perfect holiness, that reconciliation is only possible through the atoning blood of Jesus (John 14:6, Romans 10: 9-10).
Our own efforts and works will always fall far short of what is required of us. That is why we cannot keep the law, why we cannot construct our own road to heaven. In Jesus, though, the work has been done that we could never do; the price has been paid that we could never pay (Matthew 5:17, Romans 10:6, 2 Cor 1:20). What an encouraging thought, that when we stand before the holy Judge--as we all will--sentence will be passed not according to our own righteousness but according to Jesus'.
If you want eternal life with God, you can have it. Hear the Gospel, repent of your sin, and put your trust in Jesus.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Matthew 8-10
As I wrote yesterday, I am reprinting a series of blog posts I wrote for my church's read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year blog, growingatvalley.blogspot.com. This post, originally published on January 28, 2013, examines Matthew 8-10 and the importance of hearing--and believing--the Gospel.
Jesus' encounter with the centurion at Capernaum (Matthew 8: 5-13) is
a short but revealing exchange. I am struck in particular by Jesus'
frank commendation of the centurion's faith. "Truly I tell you, I have
not found anyone in Israel with such great faith ... Go! Let it be done
just as you believed it would"
(Matthew 8:10, 13). What encouraging words! Jesus could be equally
blunt when it came to the consequences of ignoring the Gospel message,
though. When he sends out the twelve, he instructs them, "If anyone will
not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and
shake the dust off your feet. Truly
I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day
of judgment than for that town" (Matthew 10: 14-15).
Jesus does not immediately elaborate as to what exactly that might entail, but he refers elsewhere to the "darkness" and "the blazing furnace," both of which will involve much "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12, 13:42). Chances are good you don't want to spend eternity in darkness or in a blazing furnace; I know I don't. If you believe what Jesus teaches, though, then the alternative is a life--indeed, an eternity--of following him.
How can you have that? As Jesus tells the parable of the sower and then explains it to his disciples (Matthew 13: 3-9 and 18-23, respectively), it becomes clear that it all begins with hearing the Gospel. And once we have heard, we have the delight and the duty to proclaim (Matthew 5:14-16, 13: 44-46, 28: 18-20). How else will others come to believe if no one tells them of the Good News (Romans 10: 15-19)? It is such joy to follow Jesus; how can we keep that to ourselves?
May we boldly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ that all may hear, understand, and believe.
Matthew 8-10
Jesus does not immediately elaborate as to what exactly that might entail, but he refers elsewhere to the "darkness" and "the blazing furnace," both of which will involve much "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12, 13:42). Chances are good you don't want to spend eternity in darkness or in a blazing furnace; I know I don't. If you believe what Jesus teaches, though, then the alternative is a life--indeed, an eternity--of following him.
How can you have that? As Jesus tells the parable of the sower and then explains it to his disciples (Matthew 13: 3-9 and 18-23, respectively), it becomes clear that it all begins with hearing the Gospel. And once we have heard, we have the delight and the duty to proclaim (Matthew 5:14-16, 13: 44-46, 28: 18-20). How else will others come to believe if no one tells them of the Good News (Romans 10: 15-19)? It is such joy to follow Jesus; how can we keep that to ourselves?
May we boldly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ that all may hear, understand, and believe.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Isaiah 18-22 and the consequences of sin
I periodically vow to resume posting here more frequently ... you can see how well I've done in the past. That said, though, I do value writing in this space, and I mean to do more of it. So to start off, I am going to reprint a series of posts I wrote recently for my church's blog, Growing At Valley. The church is doing a read-the-Bible-in-a-year program, and every day someone writes a post about the assigned reading. There are twelve writers participating, and every twelfth week each person must post daily for the entire week. If you're interested in reading along with the church, please visit the church website at http://www.valleycommunityco.org/#/resources/blogs to see the reading plan and other information about the church's online resources.
The first post I wrote was about Isaiah 18-22 and the consequences of sin. I will not reprint the entire Bible text here, but I encourage you to read it for yourself (both on its own merit and because my post will then make more sense). One place you can read the Bible online is www.biblegateway.com; I use the New International Version translation. And without further ado:
Sin has consequences. It's easy to overlook--or choose to ignore--the
ramifications of our rebellion against God, but this will neither delay
nor prevent them. Many passages of Scripture speak to God's patience,
mercy, and forgiveness, and these are indeed wonderful traits for which
God deserves praise and glory. But in the absence of judgment, grace is
cheap. It is only against the backdrop of sin and the destruction it
engenders that grace takes on any meaning at all. God, who is perfect in
holiness, cannot allow sin to dwell in His presence (the brief
audiences He grants Satan in Job 1-2 are exceptions that prove the
rule). Unfortunately for us, we are sinful creatures to a one (Romans
3:23). As a result, if you fast-forward to the end of time, only two
outcomes are possible: Either our sin is paid for and we get to spend
eternity with God, or we remain unredeemed and we are consigned to an
eternity apart from God.
The terror of this reality is that it's inescapable (renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens famously compared Christianity to a "cosmic North Korea"). In Chapters 18-22, Isaiah issues a clarion call to Cush, Egypt, Babylon, and other cities that destruction is nigh. These prophecies against ancient cities are a temporal reminder of what awaits us all if we do not have an intercessor. It doesn't matter to whom else we turn for redemption; if it is not God, then we will someday find ourselves cowering as Isaiah's words are realized. "Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you and hurl you away, you mighty man" (Isaiah 22:17).
The beauty, however, is that we do have a Savior, God's own Son (Matthew 3:17). If we turn from our sin and put our trust in Jesus, we can wrap ourselves in his imputed righteousness and so be restored to relationship with God. A firm grasp of what would otherwise be in store for us--and why we would receive such a fate--will only serve to deepen our awe at this "free gift" God has given us (Revelation 22:17). Perhaps the greatest lesson we can take away from Isaiah is what God has saved us from. By deepening our understanding of the destruction that will be visited upon those who choose to reject God, we deepen our understanding of the vast dimensions of God's mercy and grace and of His limitless worthiness of our worship.
The first post I wrote was about Isaiah 18-22 and the consequences of sin. I will not reprint the entire Bible text here, but I encourage you to read it for yourself (both on its own merit and because my post will then make more sense). One place you can read the Bible online is www.biblegateway.com; I use the New International Version translation. And without further ado:
Isaiah 18-22
The terror of this reality is that it's inescapable (renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens famously compared Christianity to a "cosmic North Korea"). In Chapters 18-22, Isaiah issues a clarion call to Cush, Egypt, Babylon, and other cities that destruction is nigh. These prophecies against ancient cities are a temporal reminder of what awaits us all if we do not have an intercessor. It doesn't matter to whom else we turn for redemption; if it is not God, then we will someday find ourselves cowering as Isaiah's words are realized. "Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you and hurl you away, you mighty man" (Isaiah 22:17).
The beauty, however, is that we do have a Savior, God's own Son (Matthew 3:17). If we turn from our sin and put our trust in Jesus, we can wrap ourselves in his imputed righteousness and so be restored to relationship with God. A firm grasp of what would otherwise be in store for us--and why we would receive such a fate--will only serve to deepen our awe at this "free gift" God has given us (Revelation 22:17). Perhaps the greatest lesson we can take away from Isaiah is what God has saved us from. By deepening our understanding of the destruction that will be visited upon those who choose to reject God, we deepen our understanding of the vast dimensions of God's mercy and grace and of His limitless worthiness of our worship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)