Eternal Perspectives

Whose Land? Whose Promise?, by author and professor Gary M. Burge, questions the legitimacy of American evangelicals’ unwavering and unexamined support of a nation he describes as secular, aggressive, and unbiblical. That nation, according to Burge, is Israel.

For his efforts Burge, who is professor of New Testament at Wheaton College & Graduate School, has been labeled anti-Semitic by Jews and Christians alike. His book, at times unclear and generally unbalanced, nevertheless makes some important points that we evangelicals ignore to our own shame.

Overall, Whose Land? Whose Promise is one chapter short of being a great book. Burge, who has spent a considerable amount of time living, visiting, and studying in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, chronicles the problems of the land with tremendous compassion and insight – for the Palestinians. His love for the Palestinian people is to be commended; his failure to empathize with Israel to the same extent is not.

There are some important observations made by Burge, and he draws attention to a variety of policies and attitudes that need to be reconsidered and viewed by evangelicals through a biblical, New Testament lens. It should be required reading for any evangelical who has an opinion about the Israeli/Palestinian struggle.

Whose Land? Whose Promise? is critical of Israel policy, politics, and practices – but rarely, if ever, critical of Palestine. Such criticism is necessary: read any of the prophets in the Old Testament and you will find language that today would be denounced as anti-Semitic. It is not necessarily that Burge says too much, but that he says too little.

As alluded to previously, however, a chapter detailing the atrocities of the Palestinians is sorely lacking. There is no mention of Palestinians terrorists’ attacks on innocent people – Jews, Muslims, and Christians – and Burge seems to want to justify Palestinian violence as retaliatory, defensive, or provoked. But in truth, neither Israeli nor Palestinian hands are clean: there may be genuine explanations for violence and injustice on both sides, but there is never a viable excuse.

It is hard to read Whose Land? Whose Promise? and not be reminded of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which is a great book. What made the latter a great book was its insightful and balanced account of the good and bad behavior by Native Americans and the pioneers and soldiers alike. Burge’s book, however, causes a thoughtful reader to be a least mildly suspicious of some of his claims and to wonder about what fuels his one-sided passion.

What is currently happening in Israel/Palestine parallels what events in North America hundreds of years ago, albeit on a smaller scale geographically. The mistakes and tragedies that mark America’s early years in dealing with the resident Native Americans are being replicated in the Middle East today – by both Israels and Palestinians.

As evangelicals, Burge pleades, we need to examine our role in the situation prayerfully and carefully.

After an important introduction, the Burge’s book is divided into three sections: a background on the land and its history, the Old Testament presentation of the land, and the New Testament perspective on the land. This review will follow Burge’s outline.

Introduction

Burge states that the path to resolution in Israel/Palestine leads through at least three hazards: Israeli need for security, return and reparations for Palestinians, and legitimate criticism of Israel. He validates the first two needs and attempts to ward off additional charges of anti-Semiticism by justifying the need for fair criticism of Israel. His criticisms are usually legitimate but, due to the absence of corresponding criticism of the Palestinians, come across as unfair most of the time.

Burge believes there are numerous factors at play that make perspective difficult for American evangelicals:

(more…)

This is the second of a two-part post reviewing Gary M. Burge’s book Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians. The first part followed the author’s exploration of the problems in the Middle East (which center on the land), the geographical and historical aspects of the struggle, and the Old Testament’s testimony about the land of Israel/Palestine and the promises made to Abraham and national Israel. This installment will discuss Burge’s handling of the New Testament arguments concerning the land and the promises, as well as the author’s suggestions for what can be done and should be done.

The New Testament and The Land

Burge begins his examination of the New Testament’s teaching by quoting a Palestinian minister, whose theological position is representative of many Christians from a variety of theological traditions.

“The church . . . has inherited the promises of Israel. The church is actually the new Israel. What Abraham was promised, Christians now possess because they are Abraham’s true spiritual children just as the New Testament teaches” (p. 67) – Father George Makhlouf, St. George’s Greek Orthodox Church in Ramallah.

Those who participated or read some of the excellent comments in the “Americanism and Its Enemies” forum at Evangelical Outpost may remember that the Puritans made similar statements as they prepared to come to the New World. Most Christian traditions do not maintain a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the church, with the result that many of the promises made in the Old Testament are claimed for and applied to the New Testament church. In order to do that, some theologians find it necessary to “spiritualize” or allegorize passages and promises. This is apparently Burge’s solution, as well.

Arguing from the silence of the New Testament regarding the land, he first seeks to demonstrate that Jesus was not interested in a physical kingdom, Jerusalem, or the temple. To some extent, he is correct: Jesus’ kingdom was to be markedly different than that for which the Jews yearned. Even after the Resurrection, his disciples questions centered on if Jesus was going to restore the physical kingdom at this time.

An explanation of the nature and timing of the kingdom is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to point out at this juncture, however, that Christ’s reply was not that there would never be such a kingdom because the church would fulfill the promises, but only that it was none of the disciples’ business when God was going to act.

Burge then moves on to spiritualize the meaning of the land itself. “Jesus himself becomes the locus of holy space. The aim of the old covenant was the land of promise; now the aim is Jesus Christ, who walked in the land” (p. 175, emphasis his). Space, the author is saying, has been redefined: it is no longer physical but holy, spiritual space. It no longer exists on earth but in the heavenlies, in the Body and Person of Jesus Christ.

Once again, according to this reviewer, Burge is partially right. The emphasis at this time is on the spiritual kingdom of God (that is, the rule of God in and through those who have believed in Jesus as the Messiah) and only secondarily on material things. But the church is an intercalation, not a replacement: the clock has stopped for Israel and for the land promises made to Abraham, not to start again until some undisclosed point in the future.

“To sum up,” Burge says, “we observe a cycle of responses to the question of land: (1) land is rejected as the aim of faith; (2) land is spiritualized as meaning something else; (3) the promise is historicized in Jesus, a man who lives in the land; (4) the promise is sacramentalized – that is, as a sacrament bears testimony to things beyond what we see and touch (without denying these properties), so too Jesus’ ‘landness’ (his physicality) is a reality, but believers are urged to push further, to find the ‘living water’ and ‘bread of life’ that he offers” (p. 177).

This is a remarkable reading and understanding of the New Testament, made all the more amazing by what follows: an argument in Israel’s defense based on Paul’s teaching in Rom 9-11.

“Finally, Paul retains a special place for unbelieving Israel even though they are ‘broken off’ from God’s people. During the present time, Israel has become ‘hardened’ (11.25), but in the future, after the Gentiles have been ‘grafted in,’ all Israel will be saved once more (11.26-27). Paul thus anticipates a future redemption in the plan of God that will include the Jewish people who originally rejected Christ. Israel might be reattached in the present era, but this can happen only through belief in Jesus (11.23). For the most part, Paul’s hope for Israel is future, at the end of time.” (p. 187).

How this is to be reconciled with his earlier arguments that Israel has lost the land, Burge does not say. Also left unexplained is whether or not, according to Rom 9-11, the Abrahamic and Palestinian Covenants are to be physically fulfilled by Israel in an earthy kingdom. One would assume that Burge’s answer would be that the church is the recipient of those promises. What that leaves redeemed Israel is hard to fathom, unless he is saying that all Israel will be subsumed in the church.

As Burge has argued previously, the land is shadow and heaven is substance. The church – which I would argue is not the New Israel – has no claim to the physical land, and neither does Israel have a biblical mandate while they continue in unbelief. In the future, ethnic Israel will again have claim to the land, but only when it has believed in Jesus as the Messiah.

Palestinian Christians

Burge’s most powerful arguments concern the neglect and abandonment of the Palestinian church by American evangelicals In this criticism, he is completely correct. For unknown reasons, evangelicals have denied either the existence or the sincerity of believers in Jesus Christ who are also Palestinian.

Like the Native Americans in America’s own history, Palestinian Christians have by and large been an ignored and invisible people. They have suffered for their faith and for their ethnicity. Their claim, mentioned in Part 1 of this review, is that they share with the 1st century church the dubious distinction of being persecuted by a Jewish majority. It is difficult to argue with that claim.

The numbers provided by Burge of persecution and maltreatment are staggering. Along with other Palestinians, these fellow believers in Jesus Christ have suffered being beaten, tortured, and murdered; the illegal seizure of land and property; deportation; interment in inhumane refugee camps for decades, and the countless indignities of being viewed and treated as subhuman by the Israeli government.

Burge, on one of his many visits to Israel/Palestine, tells the following conversation he had with a young Palestinian believer.

“’How can America, your America, that believes in freedom, support Israel when it acts like this?’ Such questions are frequent in the Middle East and easy to explain to Palestinians: The United States isn’t a perfect country. We make mistakes even among our allies. Then came the bombshell: ‘But why do American Christians support the Israelis as well? Why don’t they help us? Why not even us, the Palestinian Christians?’” (p. 259, emphasis his).

There is no acceptable answer.

What, then, are the Palestinian Christians’ concerns? Burge identifies the primary ones (pp. 196-203):

1. A plea for visibility and fellowship. “Palestinian Christians want us to embrace them as equals and invite them into fellowship. They want their Christian life to be acknowledged and respected, but they are not waiting for our acknowledgment to in some way make their faith authentic.”

2. A cry for justice. “Palestinian Christians are looking to us for support. They claim that they are reliving for the first time in history the conditions of the first-century church, in which a Christian minority is suffering under the rule of a Jewish majority . . . If one Bible passage has become pivotal to the Palestinian Christians experience, it is the story of Ahab and the vineyard of Naboth from 1 Kings 21.”

3. An historic claim to residence. Rev. Riah Abu El-Assal, an Anglican bishop, “feels that American Christians are often given the following scenario, which is one of the great myths of the Middle East: The Jews owned the land throughout the Old Testament era, were exiled by the Romans in 70 c.e., and in their absence, Arabs moved into the region sometime in the seventh century under the inspiration of Muhammad. Now the Arab interlude is over. The Jews have come home – and therefore the Arab residents with no historic tenure cannot make historic claims to land and residence.”

El-Assal goes on to make two points about the historic relationship between Arabs and Jews. “First, ‘Arab’ is a racial designation of people throughout the Middle East. And Arab ‘Jews’ were commonplace in antiquity. The people were racially Arab and yet embraced Judaism . . . When Israel was exiled in 70 c.e., Jews fled to these Arab Jewish communities in Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf. . . .” His second point is that “Arab Jews were among those converted to Christ in the earliest church. Acts 2.11 specifically includes Arabs as among those converted on Pentecost.”

(Burge argues, “If land promises come to Judaism by virtue of tenure in the land and biblical promise, Arabs who embraced Judaism gain these promises as well, and their faith in Jesus does not invalidate their claims to Jewish ancestry. If we ask, Where did the Arab Christians come from? the answer clearly begins with the Day of Pentecost.”)

4. A disappearing church. The Palestinians, due to the conditions in the land, are leaving in droves. “So many Palestinian Christian have left that towns in which Christians were once as many as 75 percent of the population now have Christian populations of 30 percent or less.”

5. Messianic Judaism. “In the last ten years, Palestinian Christian leaders (particularly Protestants) have explored new supportive relations with another group of Christians in the country, the Messianic Jews. These people are believers in Jesus – Christians – who live in Israel and preserve in their worship those Jewish cultural features common among Israelis.”

The attention given by American evangelicals to Messianic Jews is astonishing given the numbers and theology of the group. According to a 1999 study, “about six thousand believers worship in eighty-one messianic congregations in Israel . . . Because it frames its theology with reference to its Jewish context, this [messianic] movement will embrace positions that might seem surprising – and which present a hurdle to Arab Christians who have embraced the historic creeds of the church. For example, the divinity of Jesus (which leads to belief in the Trinity) is an open question for some” (pp. 196-203, emphasis mine).

Burge next turns his attention to current evangelical attitudes toward the Middle East and, indirectly, Palestinian Christians. He quotes two visible and vocal examples: Jerry Falwell and Kay Arthur.

“Claiming to speak for 70 million American evangelicals, Falwell urged that ‘the Bible belt in America was Israel’s only safety belt today.’ When President George W. Bush called for Israeli restraint against the Palestinians, Falwell successfully delivered a hundred thousand emails to the White House saying that ‘nothing will bring the wrath of the American people down on a government quicker than abandoning Israel.’ Suddenly Bush’s criticism of Israeli violence fell silent” (pp. 233-234).

He adds that Kay Arthur “likewise saw political support for Israel as a critical aspect of Christian faithfulness. But she went further. Any peacemaking with Palestinians, in her view, was a sin” (p. 234).

Burge employs Christendom’s favorite scapegoats – dispensationalism and premillennialism – to explain evangelicalism’s blind and unbalanced support for Israel. He presents a confused and old form of dispensationalism in an apparent attempt to absolve the rest of the church for being exclusively on the side of the Israelis. Dispensationalism’s firm commitment to an earthly future for ethnic Israel has tragically (to Burge) led evangelicalism down the wrong path. He does not elaborate, however, how it came to be that all other theologies remained silent while dispensationalism led the sheep astray.

Once again, however, Burge puts his finger on a critical and revealing issue that evangelicals need to consider. He ties the Israeli government with what he describes as “Christian Zionism.”

According to Colin Chapman, author of Whose Promised Land? (Baker, 2002),

“Christian Zionism is characterized by four basic assumptions:

1. “The Jews have divine right to the land because of God’s promise to Abraham;
2. “the return of the Jews to the land is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies;
3. “The creation of the state of Israel will lead to the conversion of the Jews and ultimately to the second coming of Christ; and
4. Christians should not only support the idea of a Jewish state, but support what it stands for and defend it against attack.”

Burge is particularly disturbed by the self-proclaimed International Christian Embassy [ICE] in Jerusalem, calling them a vital link in the chain between Christian Zionism and the Israeli government. This so-called Christian Embassy, Burge complains, seems to have no intent to present the gospel to the Israelis.

In all its dealings with the Jews, Burge says, “in the midst of all these efforts, no interest is apparent in carrying on a ministry to Judaism like Paul’s – a ministry that proclaims Jesus as Messiah. In fact, the embassy intentionally avoids any discussion of this ‘divisive subject’ . . . Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about the embassy is its overt antagonism toward the Palestinian people. Its leaders readily deny the validity of Palestinian Christianity and compare the spirit of the Arab resistance movement with the ‘spirit found in the Holocaust’”(p. 244).

In short, Burge says, there is no interest on the “embassy’s” part in either evangelizing the Jews or edifying the Palestinians.

Despite the presence of such organizations as the ICE, Burge does see rays of hope: Stanley Ellisen, author of Who Owns the Land? The Arab-Israeli Conflict, believes that “Israel should be treated like any other secular state in the world, giving it both security considerations and expecting from it appropriate human rights” (p. 247).

Ellison’s point is one of the more reasonable and significant statements in the book. It is this position that evangelicals need to adopt, i.e., to treat the nation of Israel will all the respect and rights due any legitimate people, but with no special privileges or favors. Israel, as a past and present ally of the United States, should be given the same status and support – but also evaluated as carefully – as England, Canada, or Australia.

Other sources of evangelical hope found by Burge include World Vision International, which provides assistance for both Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, and Christianity Today, which has sought to be an equal-opportunity critic of nations or groups that routinely violate human rights.

He also includes a strong statement from evangelical scholar John Stott. In an interview with The Link, a quarterly journal of the Americans for Middle East Understanding, Stott says, “After considerable study, I have concluded that Zionism and especially Christian Zionism are Biblically untenable” (p. 255, emphasis mine).

Burge adds, “I am now persuaded that the church cannot be entangled in a political agenda in the Middle East that destroys people and pursues injustice . . . The Palestinian is my neighbor. Many Palestinians are my Christian brothers and sisters . . . Evangelicals who stand opposed to the secular nationalism of Israel are not discriminating against Jews as a people. On the contrary, evangelical circles are expressing dissatisfaction with the behavior of a nation that ought to know better – a nation whose possession of the Scriptures ought to give it more light” (p. 258, emphasis his).

He continues:

“From the very beginning, Israel’s founders recognized three dreams, three visions, that the state wanted to embrace: Israel was to be (1) a democracy; (2) a Jewish state; (3) and the owner of the historic land of Israel, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

“David Ben-Gurion understood this vision, and he remarked that it would be impossible to hold all three of these at any one time. If Israel is to be a Jewish democracy, it could not have all the land. If Israel was to be a democracy and hold all the land with its Arab residents, it could not be exclusively Jewish. And if Israel wanted all the land and also be Jewish, then it could not be a democracy . . .

“The third option is for Israel to let go of much occupied land in the West Bank and remain a smaller Jewish state in which democracy is enjoyed by all its citizenry. This path opens the way for genuine Palestinian nationhood” (p. 265).

In closing, Burge offers his outline for creating a foundation for peace (pp. 267-268):

1. Palestinians will respect Israel’s need for security within their boundaries.
2. Israelis will attend to the needs of Palestinians who have lost their homes and villages.
3. Refugees will be allowed to return to their homes and be compensated for their losses; the sin of Ahab will stop.
4. Both sides will end human rights abuses.
5. The unlawful acquisition of land will end.
6. Jerusalem will be a multicultural city, shared by Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

As stated at the onset of this review, The New Testament and The Land

Burge begins his examination of the New Testament’s teaching concerning the land promised to Israel by quoting a Palestinian minister, whose position is representative of many Christians in a variety of theological traditions.

“The church . . . has inherited the promises of Israel. The church is actually the new Israel. What Abraham was promised, Christians now possess because they are Abraham’s true spiritual children just as the New Testament teaches” (p. 67) – Father George Makhlouf, St. George’s Greek Orthodox Church in Ramallah.

Those of you who participate in the “Americanism and Its Enemies” forum at Evangelical Outpost may remember that the Puritans made similar statements as they prepared to come to the New World. Most Christian traditions do not maintain a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the church, with the result that many of the promises made in the Old Testament are claimed by the New Testament church. In order to do that, some theologians find it necessary to “spiritualize” or allegorize passages and promises. This is apparently Burge’s solution, as well.

Arguing from the silence of the New Testament regarding the land, he first seeks to demonstrate that Jesus was not interested in a physical kingdom, Jerusalem, or the temple. To some extent, he is correct: Jesus’ kingdom was to be markedly different than that for which the Jews yearned. Even after the Resurrection, his disciples questions centered on if Jesus was going to restore the physical kingdom at this time.

An explanation of the nature and timing of the kingdom is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to point out at this juncture, however, that Christ’s reply was not that there would never be such a kingdom because the church would fulfill the promises, but only that it was none of the disciples business when God was going to act.

Burge then moves on to spiritualize the meaning of the land itself. “Jesus himself becomes the locus of holy space. The aim of the old covenant was the land of promise; now the aim is Jesus Christ, who walked in the land” (p. 175, emphasis his). Space, the author is saying, has been redefined: it is no longer physical but holy, spiritual space. It no longer exists on earth but in the heavenlies, in the Body and Person of Jesus Christ.

Once again, Burge is partially right. The emphasis at this time is on the spiritual kingdom of God (that is, the rule of God in and through those who have believed in Jesus as the Messiah) and only secondarily on material things. But the church is an intercalation, not a replacement: the clock has stopped for Israel and the land promises made to Abraham, not to start again until an unknown time in the future.

“To sum up, we observe a cycle of responses to the question of land: (1) land is rejected as the aim of faith; (2) land is spiritualized as meaning something else; (3) the promise is historicized in Jesus, a man who lives in the land; (4) the promised is sacramentalized – that is, as a sacrament bears testimony to things beyond what we see and touch (without denying these properties), so too Jesus’ ‘landness’ (his physicality) is a reality, but believers are urged to push further, to find the ‘living water’ and ‘bread of life’ that he offers” (p. 177).

This is a remarkable reading and understanding of the New Testament, made all the more amazing by what follows: an argument in Israel’s defense based on Paul’s teaching in Rom 9-11.

“Finally, Paul retains a special place for unbelieving Israel even though they are ‘broken off’ from God’s people. During the present time, Israel has become ‘hardened’ (11.25), but in the future, after the Gentiles have been ‘grafted in,’ all Israel will be saved once more (11.26-27). Paul thus anticipates a future redemption in the plan of God that will include the Jewish people who originally rejected Christ. Israel might be reattached in the present era, but this can happen only through belief in Jesus (11.23). For the most part, Paul’s hope for Israel is future, at the end of time.” (p. 187).

How this is to be reconciled with his earlier arguments that Israel has lost the land, Burge does not say. Also left unexplained is whether or not, according to Rom 9-11, the Abrahamic and Palestinian Covenants are to be physically fulfilled by Israel in an earthy kingdom. One would assume that Burge’s answer would be that the church is the recipient of those promises. What that leaves redeemed Israel is hard to fathom.

As Burge has argued previously, the land is shadow and heaven is substance. The church – which I would argue is not the New Israel – has no claim to the physical land nor does Israel have a biblical mandate while they continue in unbelief. In the future, ethnic Israel will again have claim to the land, but only when it has believed in Jesus as the Messiah.

Burge’s most powerful arguments concern the neglect and abandonment of the Palestinian church by American evangelicals: he is correct. For unknown reasons, evangelicals have denied either the existence or the sincerity of believers in Jesus Christ who are also Palestinian.

Like the Native Americans in America’s own history, Palestinian Christians have by and large been an ignored and invisible people. They have suffered for their faith and for their ethnicity. Their claim, mention in Part 1 of this review, is that they share with the 1st century church the dubious distinction of being persecuted by a Jewish majority. It is difficult to argue with that claim.

The numbers provided by Burge are staggering. Along with other Palestinians, these fellow believers in Jesus Christ have suffered being beaten, tortured, and murdered; the illegal seizure of land and property; deportation; interment in inhumane refugee camps for decades, and the countless indignities of being viewed and treated as subhuman by the Israeli government.

Burge, on one of his many visits to Israel/Palestine, tells the following conversation he had with a young Palestinian believer.

“’How can America, your America, that believes in freedom, support Israel when it acts like this?’ Such questions are frequent in the Middle East and easy to explain to Palestinians: The United States isn’t a perfect country. We make mistakes even among our allies. Then came the bombshell: ‘But why do American Christians support the Israelis as well? Why don’t they help us? Why not even us, the Palestinian Christians?’” (p. 259, emphasis his).

There is no acceptable answer.

What, then, are the Palestinian Christians’ concerns? Burge identifies the primary ones (pp. 196-203):

A plea for visibility and fellowship. “Palestinian Christians want us to embrace them as equals and invite them into fellowship. They want their Christian life to be acknowledged and respected, but they are not waiting for our acknowledgment to in some way make their faith authentic.”
A cry for justice. “Palestinian Christians are looking to us for support. They claim that they are reliving for the first time in history the conditions of the first-century church, in which a Christian minority is suffering under the rule of a Jewish majority . . . If one Bible passage has become pivotal to the Palestinian Christians experience, it is the story of Ahab and the vineyard of Naboth from 1 Kings 21.”
A historic claim to residence. Rev. Riah Abu El-Assal, an Anglican bishop, “feels that American Christians are often given the following scenario, which is one of the great myths of the Middle East: The Jews owned the land throughout the Old Testament era, were exiled by the Romans in 70 c.e., and in their absence, Arabs moved into the region sometime in the seventh century under the inspiration of Muhammad. Now the Arab interlude is over. The Jews have come home – and therefore the Arab residents with no historic tenure cannot make historic claims to land and residence.”
El-Assal goes on to make two points about the historic relationship between Arabs and Jews. “First, ‘Arab’ is a racial designation of people throughout the Middle East. And Arab ‘Jews’ were commonplace in antiquity. The people were racially Arab and yet embraced Judaism . . . When Israel was exiled in 70 c.e., Jews fled to these Arab Jewish communities in Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf. . . .” His second point is that “Arab Jews were among those converted to Christ in the earliest church. Acts 2.11 specifically includes Arabs as among those converted on Pentecost.”

(Burge argues, “If land promises come to Judaism by virtue of tenure in the land and biblical promise, Arabs who embraced Judaism gain these promises as well, and their faith in Jesus does not invalidate their claims to Jewish ancestry. If we ask, Where did the Arab Christians come from? the answer clearly begins with the Day of Pentecost.”)

A disappearing church. The Palestinians, due to the conditions in the land, are leaving in droves. 200 – “So many Palestinian Christian have left that towns in which Christians were once as many as 75 percent of the population now have Christian populations of 30 percent or less.”
Messianic Judaism. “In the last ten years, Palestinian Christian leaders (particularly Protestants) have explored new supportive relations with another group of Christians in the country, the Messianic Jews. These people are believers in Jesus – Christians – who live in Israel and preserve in their worship those Jewish cultural features common among Israelis.”

The attention given by American evangelicals to Messianic Jews is astonishing given the numbers and theology of the group. According to a 1999 study, “about six thousand believers worship in eighty-one messianic congregations in Israel . . . Because it frames its theology with reference to its Jewish context, this [messianic] movement will embrace positions that might seem surprising – and which present a hurdle to Arab Christians who have embraced the historic creeds of the church. For example, the divinity of Jesus (which leads to belief in the Trinity) is an open question for some” (emphasis mine).

Burge next turns his attention to the current evangelical attitudes toward the Middle East and, indirectly, Palestinian Christians. He quotes two visible and vocal examples: Jerry Falwell and Kay Arthur.

“Claiming to speak for 70 million American evangelicals, Falwell urged that ‘the Bible belt in America was Israel’s only safety belt today.’ When President George W. Bush called for Israeli restraint against the Palestinians, Falwell successfully delivered a hundred thousand emails to the White House saying that ‘nothing will bring the wrath of the American people down on a government quicker than abandoning Israel.’ Suddenly Bush’s criticism of Israeli violence fell silent” (pp. 233-234).

He adds that Kay Arthur “likewise saw political support for Israel as a critical aspect of Christian faithfulness. But she went further. Any peacemaking with Palestinians, in her view, was a sin” (p. 234).

Burge employs Christendom’s favorite scapegoats – dispensationalism and premillennialism – to explain evangelicalisms blind and unbalanced support for Israel. He presents a confused and old form of dispensationalism in an apparent attempt to absolve the rest of the church for being exclusively on the side of the Israelis. Dispensationalism firm commitment to an earthly future for ethnic Israel has tragically (to Burge) led evangelicalism down the wrong path. He does not elaborate, however, how it came to be that all other theologies remained silent while dispensationalism led the sheep astray.

Once again, however, Burge puts his finger on a critical and revealing issue that evangelicals need to consider. He ties the Israeli government with what he describes as “Christian Zionism.”
According to Colin Chapman, author of Whose Promised Land? (Baker, 2002),

“Christian Zionism is characterized by four basic assumptions:

The Jews have divine right to the land because of God’s promise to Abraham;
the return of the Jews to the land is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies;
The creation of the state of Israel will lead to the conversion of the Jews and ultimately to the second coming of Christ; and
Christians should not only support the idea of a Jewish state, but support what it stands for and defend it against attack.”

Burge is particularly disturbed by the self-proclaimed International Christian Embassy [ICE], calling them a vital link in the chain between Christian Zionism and the Israeli government. This so-called Christian Embassy, Burge complains, seems to have no intent to present the gospel to the Israelis.

In all its dealings with the Jews, Burge says, “in the midst of all these efforts, no interest is apparent in carrying on a ministry to Judaism like Paul’s – a ministry that proclaims Jesus as Messiah. In fact, the embassy intentionally avoids any discussion of this ‘divisive subject’ . . . Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about the embassy is its overt antagonism toward the Palestinian people. Its leads readily deny the validity of Palestinian Christianity and compare the spirit of the Arab resistance movement with the ‘spirit found in the Holocaust’”(p. 244).

In short, he says, there is no interest in either evangelizing the Jews or edifying the Palestinians.

Despite the presence of such organizations as the ICE, Burge sees rays of hope: Stanley Ellisen, author of Who Owns the Land? The Arab-Israeli Conflict, “concludes that Israel should be treated like any other secular state in the world, giving it both security considerations and expecting from it appropriate human rights” (p. 247).

Ellison’s point is one of the more reasonable and significant statements in the book. It is this position that evangelicals need to adopt: to treat the nation of Israel will all the respect and rights due any legitimate people, but with no special privileges or favors. Israel, as a past and present ally of the United States, should be given the same status and support as England, Canada, or Australia.

Other sources of evangelical hope found by Burge include World Vision International, which provides assistance for both Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, and Christianity Today, which has sought to be an equal-opportunity critic of nations or groups that routinely violate human rights.

He also includes a strong statement from evangelical scholar John Stott. In an interview with The Link, a quarterly journal of the Americans for Middle East Understand, Stott says, “After considerable study, I have concluded that Zionism and especially Christian Zionism are Biblically untenable” (p. 255).

Burge adds, “I am now persuaded that the church cannot be entangled in a political agenda in the Middle East that destroys people and pursues injustice . . . The Palestinian is my neighbor. Many Palestinians are my Christian brothers and sisters . . . Evangelicals who stand opposed to the secular nationalism of Israel are not discriminating against Jews as a people. On the contrary, evangelical circles are expressing dissatisfaction with the behavior of a nation that ought to know better – a nation whose possession of the Scriptures ought to give it more light” (p. 258, emphasis his).

He continues:

“From the very beginning, Israel’s founders recognized three dreams, three visions, that the state wanted to embrace: Israel was to be (1) a democracy; (2) a Jewish state; (3) and the owner of the historic land of Israel, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

“David Ben-Gurion understood this vision, and he remarked that it would be impossible to hold all three of these at any one time. If Israel is to be a Jewish democracy, it could not have all the land. If Israel was to be a democracy and hold all the land with its Arab residents, it could not be exclusively Jewish. And if Israel wanted all the land also be Jewish, then it could not be a democracy . . .

“The third option is for Israel to let go of much occupied land in the West Bank and remain a smaller Jewish state in which democracy is enjoyed by all its citizenry. This path opens the way for genuine Palestinian nationhood” (p. 265).

In closing, Burge offers his outline for creating a foundation for peace (pp. 267-268):

Palestinians will respect Israel’s need for security within their boundaries.
Israelis will attend to the needs of Palestinians who have lost their homes and villages.
Refugees will be allowed to return to their homes and compensated for their losses; the sin of Ahab will stop.
Both sides will end human rights abuses.
The unlawful acquisition of land will end.
Jerusalem will be a multicultural city, shared by Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

As stated at the onset of this review, Whose Land? Whose Promise? is almost a great book. Its lack of balance, however, reduces it to a polemic at times. Had a chapter been included that reported the violence and abuses of the Palestinians in the land, the author’s comments would have been more palatable and credible. Burge preaches to Jerusalem – in the spirit of Isaiah and Jeremiah – but also needs to preach to Nineveh in the spirit of Jonah and Nahum.

The path that leads to blind compassion of the Palestinians is as misguided as the path that follows blind support of a nation, be it Israel or any other. Wisdom finds a middle way. Nevertheless, Whose Land? Whose Promise?, with its flaws and shortcomings, remains an important book and must reading for evangelicals of all theological traditions.

Wolves have always held a special fascination for me, for reasons I only partially understand. Misunderstood and much-maligned, they are remarkable creations of God. Oddly, I find spiritual resolve and motivation in them.

Shortly after becoming a Christian, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine (1976) entitled “Wolf Kill” by Barry Lopez. His story is a journal of his experience trying to understand the hunting habits of wolves in Canada and Alaska.

In “Wolf Kill,” Lopez describes something he observed among wolves and their prey that he called “the conversation of death.” A wolf stalking a bull moose, for example, would silently approach the bull until it got within striking range and was able to make eye contact with the moose. What happened next is “the conversation of death.”

The wolf would continue to stare at the bull until the latter noticed him. Then, for the next sixty seconds or so, the bull moose and the wolf would hold one another with their eyes. It was during this gaze, Lopez argued, that the decision was made by the wolf (and bull) to attack and kill, to turn away, or to attack but not kill – to engage one another as “sparring partners,” honing their skills without drawing blood or cracking ribs. This happened so repeatedly that Lopez was certain it was a meaningful dialogue.

What was also intriguing, he noted, was what would happen when the wolf came across a domestic animal such as a cow. The wolf would stalk and stare, but the cow – upon seeing the wolf – would immediately break eye contact and panic. The wolf would immediately attack and kill, Lopez said, but would not eat. He killed as though enraged and as if he did not consider the kill worthy of consumption.

I seek these kinds of conversations in my relationships with other Christians. (At the risk of being Pollyannaistic, let’s call them “conversations of life.”) I find other believers that have viable-but-different theologies and engage them in questions and debate. We do not seek to destroy one another — we do not attack and kill – and we do not turn away. We engage, crossing swords in vigorous but respectful conflict, iron sharpening iron as we do so. We are strengthened as a result, but also emerge more understanding of the other’s position and, usually, more appreciative and respectful of them.

(It is tempting to say, in these contests, that I am full of the spirit of the wolf and my opponents are full of bull. But I will resist.)

Most recently, I have had these conversations of life with David at Jollyblogger, Tim at Challies, and Brad at 21st Century Reformation. Regardless of your theology, you should read these blogs regularly: these are committed, passionate, and thought-provoking Christians. We are still testing one another’s mettle at this point, but it is thoroughly edifying.

On occasion, I come across a domesticated soul. Those who panic and run are usually trolls, seeking the uninformed or younger believers in Christ to frustrate or confuse. Sometimes I encounter believers that may be domesticated, but are hungry to learn and to grow. There is always time for people like this, and the sword is put away for later. Feed the hungry before playing with the strong.

Such passionate interaction as I have found is a good thing, I think, and something that needs to happen more often than it does. Sadly, such interactions sometimes deteriorate into fruitless and futile arguments full of heat but very little light. Not too glorifying to Christ, I’m afraid. But when it works, it is invigorating and humbling at the same time.

It is the Body of Christ building up, broadening, and balancing itself. It is a privilege and thrilling to be a part of it.

If you glance through the aggregators – e.g., The Evangelical Aggregator or The Blogdom of God – you will notice a development that is not too surprising but potentially not very desirable. What I refer to is the emergence of denominationally- or doctrinally-determined associations and aggregators.

It was inevitable, I suppose, that we Godbloggers would begin to seek out others who thought and reasoned as we do, forming our own subculture in blogdom even as Christians have done in real physical space since the inception of the church. It is part of our nature – our Adamic nature, it would seem. We (myself very much included) always seem to be gathering when God wants us scattering, excluding when He wants us including.

Not all such formations are undesirable, of course. When various blogs band together for the purpose of making it easier to find resources, news, and commentary on issues such as abortion, apologetics, or cults, a valuable service is provided to the Christian community. Think of them as “para-blog” organizations. Similarly, limiting aggregators to evangelical bloggers serves the purpose of maintaining unity in the essentials of our faith.

When the clustering is to promote a particular denomination or doctrinal position, however, such division needs to be carefully considered. There are often sad and unwanted consequences not usually felt by those inside the cluster.

For one, the people in the newly split-off group frequently wind up talking to themselves more than to other people in the Body of Christ. Counterbalancing factors are lost and corrective influences are sacrificed; biases are confirmed. Growth may occur, but it is not always healthy or attractive.

Before Arnold was a Terminator or a Governor, he was Mr. Olympia (the highest achievement in professional body building) six times in a row. What set him apart from all the others was not his sheer mass (which was considerable), but the almost perfect symmetry. The size of his biceps was in proportion to the size of his calves, which was in proportion to the size of his waist, which was in proportion to the size of his deltoids . . . You get the idea.

Groups that cluster resemble body builders that focus all their energies on building up their biceps while their calves remain underdeveloped. Christians tend to be like those guys in the gym who spend all their time doing a particular exercise – bench press, curls, lat pulls, squats – and ignore the other, equally-important muscles. They also tend to hang around their favorite machines or free weights, becoming experts in that particular discipline.

We do a similar thing spiritually, both individually and corporately. We have churches, for example, with tremendous heads but with tiny, underdeveloped hearts; some churches have great hearts but empty heads. Others have a good head and a good heart, but the hands never seem to get any service done, and the feet are often unshod for the spread of the gospel.

Blogs are not exempt from such imbalance and lack of symmetry. The Blogdom of God, with its tremendous diversity, offers a channel for interaction that can enhance and edify. It is an opportunity to build bridges, not walls. Diverse and distant parts of the Body have the opportunity to hear from and interact with others whose voices they don’t normally hear and whose positions they don’t often consider.

I, for example, have had more interaction with and read more perspectives by people from the Reformed tradition in the last two months than I probably had in the previous two years. Or twelve years! It has been richly rewarding for me, as much for the spirit of the fellowship as for the information I have gained. I don’t think my experience is unique.

But when segregation occurs, we fragment and fracture fellowship and become more and more exclusive instead of inclusive. The Body of Christ is dis-arranged as a result – as well as deranged. All the eyes huddle in one little corner of the body, while all the fingers and toes hunker down in their territory. Rather than complementing one another and functioning in a healthy manner, the Body becomes unbalanced and unhealthy, a grotesque caricature of what it is meant to be. The beauty of Christ is distorted.

Those Christians on the outside looking in – who donÂ’t belong to a major denomination or whose denomination has yet to discover blogging – are left feeling like bastard children in the family of God. We belong, yes, but we are not privileged to associate with this particular sub-blog or that class of bloggers. We don’t have the right pedigree, so we don’t appear on the exclusive lists.

More importantly, it can be a sad witness to the world that Christians cannot help but be divisive and exclusive. As a whole, evangelicals are already guilty of developing their own jargon (which delineates who is “one of us” and who isn’t) and doctrinal Shibboleths to distinguish ourselves from liberal and/or non-Protestant segments of Christendom.

Again, this is not always wrong, but by further discriminating against those who are “not like us,” we display disunity and factions: “I am of Calvin!” “I am of Wesley!” “I am of Scofield!” “Ah, but I am of the Holy Spirit!” We are becoming like a first-century church: Corinth.

Does this mean that I oppose blog fellowship for Reformed or Dispensational or Lutheran believers? That we cannot talk to kindred spirits or relax in the company of like-minded people? Have a network of fellow Christians from the same tradition?

Not at all. It means that, when we develop lists or groups that exclude other members of the Body of Christ, we need to stop and ask ourselves why we are doing it. If it does not promote unity, if it does not demonstrate love, if it does not glorify God – if it is unnecessarily exclusive, then perhaps it is a wall we should not build
.
Update: Jollyblogger offers some insightful and important correctives to my post. For an example of the Body of Christ working to balance itself, read his response. Or even if you don’t need an example, read it! Now. Click the link. Go.

Old Testament

1. a
2. c
3. b
4. e
5. b
6. c

7. f
8. e
9. i
10. d
11. b
12. a

13. T
14. T
15. F
16. F
17. T
18. F
19. T
20. T

21. c
22. d
23. a
24. e
25. b

26. Psalms
27. Exodus or Deuteronomy
28. Esther
29. Ecclesiastes
30. Judges
31. Daniel
32. Exodus
33. Job
34. Malachi
35. 2 Samuel
36. Proverbs
37. Jeremiah
38. Song of Songs
39. Jonah
40. Genesis

New Testament

41. a
42. d
43. d
44. c
45. d
46. b
47. e
48. a
49. a
50. b
51. d
52. d

53. T
54. F
55. F
56. T
57. T
58. T
59. T
60. F

61. h
62. b
63. g
64. f
65. a
66. c
67. e
68. d

69. Romans
70. John
71. Acts
72. Galatians
73. John
74. Luke
75. 2 Timothy
76. 1 John
77. Revelation
78. 1 Peter
79. Romans
80. 1 Corinthians

Theology/Apologetics

81. a
82. a
83. b
84. c
85. b
86. d
87. b
88. d
89. c
90. c
91. a
92. d
93. b
94. a
95. a

96. F
97. F
98. T
99. F
100. T

(This post is a compilation of five previous posts that have been archived. I have reposted them for convenience so that they do not have to be tracked down individually.)

PART ONE

In a previous post (”Why Pray?”), I made mention of how I conceptualize the work of the Holy Spirit in the brain of the Christian during prayer. This series of posts will expand on, clarify, and further explain my view. In a tedious and unpublished blog (actually, the dissertation for my Doctor of Ministry degree), I have gone into my understanding of the integration of spirituality with our present knowledge about the dynamics of the brain; for humanitarian reasons, I am not subjecting you to it here.

This series is meant to be a more concise and narrow examination of the subject. But it will include significant portions of the dissertation – humbly entitled, “An Integration of Biblical Anthropology and Neuropsychology and Its Implications for Christian Education and Discipleship” – so be prepared. You might want to have a gallon or two of coffee nearby.

There are five important factors at play in my model of sanctification: the brain, the human spirit, the mind, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible. Each will be discussed in order and then an attempt to describe the dynamics of sanctification with be offered.

This initial post will discuss the human brain. The sources and references for much of the information are not included but may be obtained (1) by contacting me and (2) for large sums of money.

The Brain

Although not always evident in some of us and a matter of conjecture in others, everybody has a brain. It is an unimpressive-looking, three-pound mass of grayish-pink, jelly-like tissue consisting of 10 billion neurons (nerve cells); as many as 100 billion supportive, glue-like cells called neuroglia; vascular (blood-carrying) tissues, and various other tissues. It does not look good to eat, unless you have an appetite for roadkill jellyfish or squid.

From the outside, the brain appears as three distinct but connected parts: the cerebrum (the Latin word for brain) – two large, almost symmetrical hemispheres; the cerebellum (“little brain”) – two smaller hemispheres located at the back of the cerebrum; and the brain stem – a central core that gradually becomes the spinal cord.

Two other major parts of the brain, the thalamus and the hypothalamus, lie in the midline above the brain stem underneath the cerebellum. Since they are hidden in the midbrain, you can’t see the thalamus or hypothalamus unless you have access to a CAT scan or a chainsaw.

The neocortex (also referred to as the cerebral cortex or cerebrum), which accounts for 85 percent of the brain’s weight, is the outermost part of the brain and gives to it its wrinkled, walnut-like appearance. The folds in the brain, caused by growth and the limitations of the skull, hide almost two-thirds of the brain’s surface: if the neocortex were unfolded, it would cover the floor of a 16 square-foot room. (Or maybe a room 16 feet square: I’m not sure which it is. Either way, it would still be ugly.) In the various lobes of the cerebrum takes place most high-level brain functions.

The frontal lobe of the neocortex, directly behind the forehead, is vital for speech (Broca’s Area), movement, planning, and mental representations; at the back of the head, the occipital lobe is involved in vision. The olfactory bulb, which produces the sense of smell, is tucked under the frontal lobe, behind and slightly above the nose. Just above the occipital lobe is the parietal lobe, which processes signals from sensations throughout the body; on each side of the head are temporal lobes that contain processes for memory, hearing, and, on the left temporal lobe, comprehension of language (Wernicke’s Area).

As mentioned above, beneath the cerebral cortex are the thalamus and hypothalamus: the former serves as a relay station for the senses while the latter is responsible for emotions and physical sensations, as well as serving as a junction for the nervous and endocrine systems.

There are two major types of brain cells: neuroglia and neurons. The neuroglia are perhaps ten times as numerous as neurons, but neurons are responsible for all electrochemical communication in the brain. Neuronal communication occurs either electrically or chemically: when transmitting an impulse within a neuron, it is conducted electrically; when communicating between neurons, across a gap (or synapse), it is done chemically. A single neuron may make as many as 10,000 connections with other neurons in the neocortex, resulting in the possibility of one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) such connections in the brain. I personally have not counted them, but I trust the number because it’s too big to be made up. It may be off by 1 or 2 connections, but not much more.

Neurons do not exist in isolation, awaiting activation by a chemical transmission from another isolated neuron; rather, they exist in vast neural networks, columns, or schemas in the brain. A neural network is an affiliation or connection between millions of neighboring neurons that are involved in similar activities; schemas are networks or columns of networks throughout the brain which have established connections for processing information.

The more frequently a schema is activated, the stronger the connection between neurons becomes. Such schema and networks are critical for memory and, especially, learning.

The existence of schemas provides individuals with a mental system or grid through which to experience the world: if one’s experience of the world is consistent with existing schemas in the brain, then the information is assimilated (filed away in existing patterns) and the schemas are reinforced. If, however, one’s experience is not consistent with existing schemas, then accommodation takes place (a new pattern is established): the particular schema – and all schemas connected with it – is adjusted to allow for the new, previously inconsistent information. Schemas, or neural networks, are the building blocks of mental activity, as well as the foundation and key for learning

So, as you’re reading this, I’m literally messing with your brain. Too late now. Oops, there’s another new connection! Stop it!

With me so far? I recognize that this may be nothing new to many of you, very confusing to others, and quite possibly some of the driest reading since college, but it is important for what follows. If we are to understand how God may – repeat, may – be working in our brains, then we have to have a basic understanding of the brain. And when we do, then we can more actively participate in and facilitate the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

So the brain is a network of neurons that processes electrical and chemical signals. A single thought or feeling can have innumerable connections to various parts of the brain, developing a complex network supporting and facilitating the specific thought or feeling. And remember: the more often the neuropathway is activated, the stronger it becomes and the more likely it will be followed again in the future.

PART TWO

In our first episode (CotB – P1), I provided a rudimentary overview of the major parts of the brain and how thoughts and feelings are transmitted. Hopefully, the explanation was more illuminating than obfuscatory; if not, let me know and I’ll try to do a better job (i.e., I’ll go back and re-do the post). Assuming that everything is sufficiently clear, however, let’s plunge ahead to the second of the issues to be examined.

So we have a brain. Now what? Well, now the question is: what causes brain activity? The answer is threefold, but only the last one is of interest to us for the purpose of this discussion. The first two sources of brain activity are external and internal stimuli. The brain is activated by external stimuli whenever our senses detect something in the environment, i.e., in the external world. Looking at this blog is triggering your optic nerve, which in turn is setting in motion a host of dynamics in the brain that result in such things as recognition that these curious little markings are letters and that these letters form words and sentences and paragraphs that are supposed to be a coherent thought.

Brain activities outside the realm of consciousness or awareness also occur. Your eyes move back and forth across the page without you having noticed (until now) or having told them to do so. This is a result of learning, and there are some strong pathways in your brain that cause your eyes to move from left to right and up and down in order to see what the next word is going to be. At the same time, the stimulation of the optic nerve may result in other, unexpected things happening – such as yawning, or a sudden craving for coffee or something else to do besides read this.

Internal stimuli are triggers that are independent of the environment. For example, when your stomach begins to contract because it no longer has enough food – or, if not food, then something from McDonald’s – when that happens, then it sends a message to your brain (via neurons and the nervous system) to do something about it. When you do finally shove something into your mouth, other things begin happening: saliva is produced, swallowing is activated, your stomach is happy (but doesn’t stop with the signal just yet), blood is re-allocated, etc.

Your body is a busy, busy place, always doing things – like breathing – that are usually outside your awareness. And some things that are always outside your awareness (try, right now, to be aware of what your inner ear is actually doing at this very moment as it keeps you from falling over as you read this). You can perhaps be aware of the effects of some of those activities, but you can’t sense it happening unless something goes wrong.

In our discussion, however, it is the third stimuli that is of primary interest. This third activator of thought, feeling, and behavior is the human spirit. Our human spirit is what enables us to think about things that have nothing to do with our immediate environment or physical existence. It is responsible for the capacities to will to do something, to meditate, to think original thoughts, to create new associations or connections between old networks or constellations in our brains.

The human spirit is not the electrical or chemical signal or transmission within the brain, but is a spiritual dimension of our makeup that instigates such activity.

The human spirit is also that which gives us what the psychologists call temperament, or our particular predispositions in life. Temperament is described by terms such as introverted or extroverted, dominant or compliant, active or passive. It is said that temperament is roughly 50 percent of who we are, although I have no idea how anyone can come up with such a figure.

I would further argue that personality resides in our spirits and that the makeup of the mind (the subject of the next post) is largely the resulting configuration of our brains growing out of the accommodation, assimilation, and compensation due to the interaction of our spirit, our physical constitution, and our experiences. I believe this because of the Incarnation.

When the Second Member of the Godhead took human form, He did not develop a personality that was different than what it had been previously. God doesn’t change, remember? So who Jesus was is who Jesus is and is who Jesus will always be. His Spirit took up residence in human form – He became actual flesh and blood – and it was His Spirit that manifested itself through His brain, mind, and body.

Unlike Jesus, of course, our human spirits are not pre-existent but are formed at the moment of conception (naturally, I believe, not by a direct act of God). Our personalities are largely set at that time, although modified later through experiences, drugs, or by coming in contact with rapidly moving blunt objects aimed at our heads.

Our human spirit not only initiates brain activity but also supervises or superintends conscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Our spirit decides how to respond to some of the external and internal stimuli we experience, and then “accompanies” the transmission at various points along the way. Ideally, at significant points, our spirit can make a choice about which direction the thought, feeling, or behavior will go. Because we have a human spirit, we are morally responsible. By and large, we can make choices about moral matters.

PART THREE

Having taken a quick look at the brain (Pt. 1) and the human spirit (Pt. 2), it’s now time to consider the third of the five aspects of our spiritual nature and sanctification: the mind. But first, a brief review.

Think of the brain as a seemingly infinite number of points (neurons) that exist in three-dimensional space. A pretty good analogy is to think of all the stars in the night sky: although we can see only a few thousand (at most) with the naked eye, there are actually (to quote a dead man) “billions and billions” of them. Our brain has 100,000,000,000 or so of these “points” scattered throughout its four-pound mound of gelatinous mass.

Of course, the night sky does not exhibit any visible signs that there are connections that exist between these billions of stars. Our brain, however, does have connections. Lots of them. Or, more accurately, it has channels of potential connections that exist, awaiting only some activation to establish a connection. Not all the points or neurons are connected to each other – at least, not directly – but the number of channels and connections are staggering. More than can be counted on your fingers and toes. Or the fingers and toes of everyone on the planet.

Some of these neurons and channels exist in areas of the brain that seem to be the triggers for various mental functions, such as sight, hearing, touch, feeling, thinking, and adjusting our underwear in public. And we seem to have connecting thoughts and feelings about our activities, as well as similar behaviors in others when we catch them.

What causes the creation of these connections via the channels is the human spirit, along with internal and external stimuli. Think of the human spirit as an immaterial cause and the other two as material causes. But not only does the spirit initiate, it also superintends or governs the connections at various points along the way. We are generally aware of this activity due to the phenomenon of consciousness, although there may be other things that our spirit does of which we are not always conscious.

Now we turn to the mind, which according to Rom 12.1-2, is an important element in our spiritual growth and maturity. (Of course, the heart and soul are also involved in sanctification, but that’s a different part of my dissertation. I’ll only say that it’s really cool the way I conceptualize all of that. Sorry.) Basically, the mind is the architecture or configuration that results from the interaction of the spirit and the brain over the course of our lifetime. It is not just the connections that exist but also – and more importantly – the non-activated channels between the various neurons.

This organization of the brain is sometimes called schemas and exists in vast networks and constellations of channels and momentary connections. As stated previously, the more frequently a channel is employed the greater the possibility that it – along with all associated connections – will be used again. A channel that may start out as a faint trail across a virgin field can develop into an eight-lane freeway. With apologies to Robert Frost, we normally take the road most easily traveled.

A channel can also start out as a veritable autobahn, however. Remember the first time you decided to lick a metal pole on a cold, cold day? How many times did you have to do that to come to the conclusion that maybe this was something to tell someone else to do, but not to do again yourself? That is because the brain marks some signals with powerful chemical indicators that this seemingly good idea is not so good after all. That marking is permanent and powerful.

So we have a mind, semi-ordered or disordered as the case may be, which is largely a result of our experiences. Our minds are created and activated by our spirits in interaction with our brains, giving us the incredible diversity among people. After all, how many different ways are there to organize 100 billions neurons? Well, more than a few. And this mind (along with the heart and soul) is the key to our sanctification.

PART FOUR

So far, we have described the mental aspects of your basic, natural, human being: a brain, a human spirit, and a uniquely ordered mind. This is true of every person who has ever lived on the planet. But for some – we call ourselves Christians – there is an additional component to our constitution that makes all the difference in the world. And in the next world. We will also consider in this post the fifth aspect of our spiritual existence, since the fourth and fifth are closely related.

The Holy Spirit is a fourth factor in the constitution of some people, and He is the Agent of change or sanctification in every Christian. Paul makes it clear that, if we do not have the Spirit of Christ, then we are not believers (Rom 8.9b). The Holy Spirit does a lot of things in His ministry to and through us, but here we are limiting our consideration to His role in our sanctification.

Like the human spirit, the Holy Spirit is an initiator, activator, and governor of processes in our brains. Unlike the human spirit, however, the Spirit only initiates and governs those (neuro)pathways of righteousness that He has made. He does not work on the old, sinful channels in the mind of the Christian – or even the “righteous” ones we have done in the flesh – but instead creates new pathways to be followed. His purpose is to make the righteous channels more active and attractive than the sinful ones.

The sinful paths are what constitutes the flesh (when used in a negative sense in Scripture). When Paul declares, “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please” (Gal 5.17), he may be describing something that modern neurology sheds some light on.

The flesh – the mental eight-lane channels of pleasure and sin – presents itself as an easy alternative to what the Spirit is offering. The Spirit beckons us down a path of righteousness, but the well-traveled and familiar path of sin is calling, too. Who wins?

Well, according to Paul, whichever one our human spirit decides to yield to. He says to the Galatians, “walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5.16), and to the Romans, “do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. . . . Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” (Rom 6.13, 16).

The Christian’s responsibility in the process of sanctification is to yield, not to the flesh but, to the Holy Spirit. As we walk with Him, He will transform our minds and change our behaviors.

Of course, it is possible to make similar changes without the Holy Spirit. Any person, including a Christian, can attempt to create new neuropathways of righteousness through willpower and discipline. There are, without question, a great number of very good, very honorable, very noble non-Christians in the world. Many of them are in church every Sunday.

The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were good men: their peers looked up to them and admired their piety. We know that they’re the bad guys because we know the whole story, but had we been living at that time we, too, would have thought very highly of them. But their righteousness was a product of their own spirit and thus corrupted by sin.

And there are a great number of Christians who, for one reason or another, are attempting to perfect themselves by the flesh (i.e., the work of the human spirit to change the brain for the better). Paul says that they are foolish (Gal 3.3) and states that no one – that is, NO ONE – will be made righteous or justified through their own efforts (Rom 3.20, Gal 2.21). All our righteousness, after all, is nothing but a filthy rag (a polite euphemism) in the eyes of God (Is 64.6). And this is true whether that self-produced righteousness is accomplished by a non-Christian or a Christian. The only righteousness that counts with Him is that which He gives (positionally) to us and that which the Holy Spirit produces (experientially) in us.

The Holy Spirit does not work willy-nilly or arbitrarily in the believer, He utilizes the written word of God – the Bible – to establish new paths of righteousness in the believer. That may come from reading the Bible, hearing it read, or hearing it from the lips of others, but it is the truth as contained in the Bible that provides the direction, form, and content of the new channels in our brain.

The more we hear the word of God, the more our minds are transformed – if we yield to Him and follow down those paths. The Bible does not contain error and, if studied correctly, cannot lead us into error. It is one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Scriptures for us. Strictly speaking, He does not “reveal” anything to us: revelation is complete; revelation is confined to the Bible. The Spirit enlightens us and enables us to see the truth of God in a way that it becomes part of our life.

It is not just knowledge of the Bible that He desires, but a change in our lives. We are to be “living bibles” in the world, blessing others and being blessed in the process.

It is the presence and leading of the Holy Spirit that makes the Bible living and active (Heb 4.12). The Bible does not possess some magical power of its own. This is clearly seen by the effect it has on a non-Christian: to them it is just a book, a collection of confusing and sometimes-quaint concepts. But it is hardly something to live by and, even if it were, it would be impossible.

The Bible is special because of its purity and clear revelation of the Person of God, but by itself it changes no one. Change is the activity of the Holy Spirit, and it is the Bible that He uses to accomplish His work in us.

PART FIVE

OK, for the sake of this post, let’s say you understand and accept everything that I said in the previous four sections on the brain and sanctification. At this point, then, the proper response or question might be: “You mean I read all of that stuff just to humor you? So what? What good or difference does any of that make?”

Calm down. Take a deep breath, hold it ’til the count of five, then release. Repeat a few thousand times or so.

In a way, the application of all the preceding can be of great value; at the same time, it is a re-discovery of what the Bible has demonstrated and described all along. Again, for the sake of argument (or, “discussion,” since spiritual Christians don’t argue (1 Cor 1.10 [pardon my ripping the verse out of context to use for my own sarcastic purpose]), let’s assume that everything I said is accurate and in keeping with biblical anthropology. Starting from that point, there are several important applications to be made.

The first, which was mentioned in the last post, is the importance of knowing the Bible. If it is true that the Holy Spirit uses the Bible to accomplish His work of sanctification in us, then the more time spent reading or hearing the word of God the more quickly He can work in us. Of course, the Holy Spirit must enlighten us as we read or listen, but if we’re not reading or listening to the Bible then the light may shine but there won’t be anything for us to see. Or anything for Him to work with.

So Bible reading/hearing/studying is important. But we have to be sure that we are accurately or correctly handling the truth God has entrusted to us (2 Tim 2.15). There is a discipline or regimen to the study of the Bible that is necessary to follow if we are to have truths available to the Holy Spirit. Again, the Bible is not a magical book that will yield truth to a reckless audience. We must be clear on what God has said or promised and, just as importantly, what He has not said or promised. Every lesson we are taught, every conclusion we come to on our own must be subjected to the infallible truth of the Bible and the penetrating discernment of the Holy Spirit within us.

The major application is drawn from a discipline called “brain-based learning,” which was pioneered by secular (?) educators Geoffrey and Renate Caine. Their books are fascinating reading and, as will be explained shortly, quite encouraging for Christians in an indirect way.

In 1975, Christian educator Larry Richards wrote A Theology of Christian Education, a remarkable book and well-ahead of its time. One of the problems he identified was the difficulty in getting isolated beliefs (head knowledge) to become operating beliefs (so-called heart knowledge, or that which is put into practice).

The work of the Caines provides valuable insight into accomplishing that task. (All quotes in the following are from their works.) There are three things necessary for brain-based learning to occur:

1. Relaxed alertness
2. Orchestrated immersion
3. Active processing.

Relaxed alertness refers to a state of mind characterized by low threat and high challenge: people must feel emotionally safe within an environment and relationship of an honest, supportive yet confrontational community that allows for growth and experimentation. This condition, which is the optimal state of mind for learning, is deliberately achieved. It includes relaxing physically, meditating purposefully (focusing on specific biblical content rather than attempting to empty one’s mind), and providing a physical environment that supports such a state of mind. Providing people with a safe, non-threatening learning experience requires first of all that the teacher/preacher/discipler feels neither threatened nor bored. Only then will learning be safe enough not to be threatening, but challenging enough not to be boring.

Immersion in the learning experience is based on the finding that “to some extent all meaningful learning is experiential.” Elements that contribute to immersion in learning include “an event or situation that has some aspect of a narrative or story form;” a physical environment that supports the narrative; genuine, supportive social relationships, and, a wide range of experiences involving as many of the senses as possible. The more that the experience resembles real-life, the more effective the teaching. Orchestrated immersion involves not only personal interaction with the teacher or discipler, but an opportunity for people to engage in long-term, open-ended, and self-directed studies which are sufficiently challenging so as to produce intrinsic rewards. One need look no further than the process of sanctification, a life-long pursuit not to be completed in this lifetime, for an example of such a challenge for the Christian. And more than merely being immersed in the study, the Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and provided with the power to do the work.

The third and final condition necessary for learning to occur is active processing of the experience by the people. This means that, guided by the teacher, preacher, or discipler, sufficient practice and rehearsal is provided to allow the people to begin to make connections and create new meanings with the new knowledge being acquired. To broaden and deepen the learning, people must be given an opportunity to actively process the material and the experience. One of the primary purposes in the calling of the twelve disciples, according to Mark, was so that these men might spend time with Jesus (3.14). This was their apprenticeship, a time when they would learn lessons from the Master not only through His messages but by accompanying Him during more than three years of ministry. Jesus did not primarily train the disciples didactically but by having them with Him and giving them ministerial opportunities and responsibilities. While His purpose was not to present a treatise on effective brain-based discipling techniques, our Lord nevertheless modeled the conditions and principles discussed here. In loving His disciples He created an atmosphere of relaxed alertness; by being with them continuously He immersed them for more than three years in a learning-rich environment, and through repetition, questions, and fellowship gave the disciples opportunities to actively process all that they were learning.

Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the effectiveness of His strategy was demonstrated by the awareness of the rulers, elders, scribes, and family of high priests who, “as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus” (Ac 4.13). Empowered by the Holy Spirit, Peter and John manifested the effects of three-plus years of on-the-job learning in what it meant to minister, preach, and witness.

They changed the face of the world because they had received a real-life education and had been discipled into being leaders of the early church. And this is precisely what the church is to be about today. The church is meant to be a loving and confrontational community (relaxed alertness), involving people in the work of the ministry (orchestrated immersion), and through fellowship allowing believers to process and discuss their Christian experience (active processing). God created our brains. He knows how we learn, and His approach is clearly demonstrated in Jesus’ interactions with the disciples and in all His dealings with His people throughout the Bible. For the church to succeed, it needs only to return to that which is effective in facilitating sanctification in the Christian.

Dr. Rob Waller at Mind and Soul needs some help. He will be speaking to a group at a church (in Leeds, England, where he lives, teaches, and maintains his practice) on mental health issues. He asks,

“What would you say? What are the important things to cover? What would you DO? What would you NOT do? What would you advise people to do after you had spoken / before you spoke?”

As a fellow professional (but hardly a peer), I gave him my two-cents worth, but I think he would like input from Christians not involved in mental health, too. Hit the link and give him some help, OK?

Don’t feel like taking the time to re-read Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes or Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations? Too busy to delve into Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan or Pascal’s Thoughts?

Did you forget to read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations in undergrad? Play Frisbee instead of devouring Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals?

Good news: the “Cliff’s Notes” version of these and a whole bunch of other classic works of philosophy are available at Squashed Philosophers, Glyn Hughes’ website that serves up Philosophy Lite for those of us who missed that day of class.

Want to read The Republic? Hughes has reduced Plato’s 130,000 words to a little over 13,000. Most of the outstanding works are available, and they are distillations, not paraphrases. Memorable quotes abound.

Impress your friends. Become a pseudo-philosopher. Sound like Grissom on CSI. Check it out.

“Hear, my son, your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching;
“Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head and ornaments about your neck.” – Pr 1.8-9

Parenthood is a double-edged sword: its sharp blade cuts deeply in whatever direction it turns. Those of you who have children – especially post-pubescent ones – likely know this.

Children, once they begin to make their own decisions, hurt us. All of us want our daughters and sons to be spared the painful lessons that we learned. We want them to be wiser than us, to make better choices, and to turn out better.

But they make mistakes, poor choices, and foolish decisions. This is, for the most part, a normal and necessary part of becoming adult: they, too, must learn the hard lessons of life. Personally, I cannot think of a single important lesson I learned when I was young that I did not learn the hard way. By being foolish, I learned to appreciate the value of wisdom.

A smart person, of course, learns from his own mistakes; a wise person learns from the mistakes of others. I know a lot of smart young people, but I don’t know many wise, young people. But we all want our children to be wise, or at least wiser than we were at their age.

The pain is amplified, however, when our children make mistakes without talking to us in the first place. I am not referring to the impulsive, daring choices they sometimes make; I have in mind the more premeditated decisions, the ones they consider and discuss with their friends before going ahead with it. They may tell us about it, but only after the deed is done.

As parents, we do want our children to have wings. We want them to leave the nest and to fly further and higher than we ever did. But, being older and more scarred from life, we know some of the things they will need to do and avoid in order to realize their dreams. We want them to listen to us, to consider what we say, and then to do as they think best.

When we are left out of the loop and informed about things only after the fact, it is a deeper and more painful cut. It feels ragged and infected, as though something went wrong. What should have been a clean, thin scar is suddenly a gaping wound with a long and ugly healing process ahead of it.

As parents, this hurts us more. We feel cut off and marginalized, relegated to the status of an afterthought. We become the emergency room to which our children rush when their foolish, isolated decisions catch up with them. We are left thinking to ourselves, “If only . . .” and “Why did I not . . .” and “Did I fail to . . .”

But this is not the other edge of the sword. The other edge, the one that plunges just as deeply into our hearts is wielded by the Holy Spirit. His cut is deep and clean, but profoundly painful because we understand so much more.

“Your child has hurt you,” He whispers, “but have you not done the same to your heavenly Father?”

He is right, of course. We have done the same thing to Him. Every time we have made our own decisions without discussing it with God first, every time we have treated Him like a cosmic emergency room doctor, every time we let Him know things after the fact – every time we have done that, we have done to Him the very thing that pains us so deeply with our children.

God waits for us to talk to Him, to seek Him, to desire to know His mind before we are foolish. He will have mercy on us when we rush ahead of Him, but He would far rather have us come to Him first so we might learn wisdom. He wants to protect us, even as we want to protect our children.

But we marginalize Him too often, seeking Him only after our choice has been made, realizing too late that we would have been better off had we come to Him first.

As parents, we hope that our children know that we want to help them, not hinder them. We want to impart information and wisdom to them, not wrestle the decision away from them by telling them what to do. We respect them enough to let them make their own choices; we hope they respect us enough to ask for our input.

God wants to help us. He gives wisdom while leaving the decision to us. Do we have enough respect to discuss it with Him before the choice is made?

* You post squirrel recipes on a website.
* You’ve ever bought beer online.
* You write to Hewlett-Packard to sponsor a NASCAR team.
* You’ve modeled your new ‘Daisy Dukes’ for a webcam.
* You have a cell phone headset for your fishing boat.
* Your robot dog is named ‘Bubba’.
* You paid more for your computer than you did for your house.
* You subscribe to the chewing tobacco newsgroup.
* Your windows wallpaper is the confederate flag.
* You make John Wayne MP3s.
* Your IM lists are “Hunting buddies” and “Mama’n them”.
* Your ring tone is a Hank Williams song.
* You changed beauty shops because they didn’t offer web surfing under the hair driers.
* You modified your gun rack to hold a rifle AND your laptop.
* You help install a wireless hotspot zone in your favorite Honky Tonk.
* You’ve ever called Graceland to tell them their webcam was down.
* You have your monster truck magazine collection on CD-ROM.
* You’ve ever been to a computer show wearing a Lynyrd Skynyrd T-shirt.
* You’ve used your shoe’s spike heel to pry out a DVD that was stuck in the player.
* Your ISP’s office is on a gravel road.
* You sent your husband an E-Card of Dolly Parton on the first day of deer season.
* You have Harley Davidson stickers on your mouse.
* Your Windows sound files are all steel guitar.
* You wrote a really cool flash animation that involves Jack Daniels.
* You’ve ever emailed a digital photo of your new tattoo.
* You know the GPS coordinates of your deer stand and duck blind.
* You’ve used a photo editor to see what you’d look like in Tammy Faye makeup.
* You’ve used a locking CD case to close a bag of salsa chips.
* You’ve ever gotten Kripsy Kreme icing INSIDE your PDA.
* You’ve ever spilled moonshine on your Blackberry.
* You wired your grandma’s outhouse with broadband just for giggles.
* You have a satellite photo of the Dallas Cowboys’ Cheerleaders on your wall.
* You’ve ever painted a URL on an overpass.
- from American Digest

Challies has an insightful and heuristic post entitled “Information Overload.” Well-written and thoughtful, it reveals the utterly staggering amount of information that we are both bombarded by and have at our disposal.

All this intellectual stimulation plays right into the strengths for most of us. Many Evangelical Christians tend to be quite cerebral anyway, and the availability of so much information only compounds that imbalance. We need more visceral input to complement the knowledge; we need love along with truth.

There are interesting posts on abortion (this being the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade) at La Shawn Barber’s blog, Tulip Girl, and The Minor Prophet. There’s also a remarkable story at beliefnet about an abortion that wasn’t (Hat Tip: Wittingshire). Abortion is not just a nightmare that doesn’t end, it’s a conscious industry of execution where the employees are medically trained and morally self-righteous..