Veritas numquam perit

Answers: (1) I don’t think it’s orthodox, although I’d stop short of calling it heretical. (2) The quote is from Gregory A. Boyd, founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN, and an open theist (the latter doesn’t make him wrong about everything, of course, but it does flavor his view of things). It appears in The Myth of a Christian Nation, pp 67-69.

Question: Do the following statements (not necessarily the author of the statements) pass muster¹ with regard to orthodoxy? Why or why not?

According to the biblical narrative and church tradition, at some point in the primordial past, Satan managed to deceive humanity and co-opt us into his rebellion against God, seizing the world and making humanity his slaves. Jesus came into this world not only to take it back and free earth’s inhabitants but also to put an end to the war altogether. . . .

Now, through his death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished the task for which he came. He defeated the kingdom of darkness and set humanity free. In principle, therefore, the world has already been reconciled to God (2 Cor 5.14-21; Col 1.15-20). In principle, the wall of sin that separates humanity along ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and tribal lines has been destroyed. In principle, all have already died in Adam and been made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15.22; 2 Cor 5.14). In principle, we are already one new humanity in Christ (Eph 2.14-15). In principle. Yet Scripture as well as our own experience make it painfully clear that what is true in principle has not yet been manifested as accomplished fact (see, for example, Heb 2.8). . . .²

The author then explains that Jesus Christ is “the first fruit of the new humanity (Rom 8.29, Col 1.18)” and that we are also first fruits.² He continues

To be these first fruits, we must allow the kingdom to grow in us and through us. When we genuinely repent (turn from) our idolatrous allegiances to the world and submit to God’s loving rule, the kingdom gets planted in our innermost being . . . We learn how to walk in freedom from violence, self-centeredness, materialism, nationalism, racism, and all other false ways of getting life. . . .

As we grow in Christlikeness, we grow as conduits of the kingdom, increasingly manifesting the fact that we are ‘first fruits.’ Through our Christlike love, others are brought under the influence of the kingdom until, in time, it is planted in them and the process taking place in us begins to take place in them.

Bonus Question: Who is the author and in what work do these quotes appear?

Emergent people tend to wear me out. Not all of them, of course, but only the vast majority, i.e., the ones who run around talking about things they don’t understand and possessing all the qualities of a dog except loyalty.

Here’s what touched off this rant:

Scot McKnight wrote a wonderful rebuttal of Spencer Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, especially rejecting Burke’s contradictory universalism, denial of the Trinity and Personhood of God, and lack of an orthodox gospel. The post above is the fourth in a series on the book and, while all are worth reading, it can stand alone without having read the previous posts.

So far, no rant.

Then I read Andy Jackson’s response and - whoosh! - up goes the blood pressure! Andy says, to begin with,

First, No one should use Burke to condemn everyone in the Emergent movement. Condemnation by association is not right.

First, why is it that everytime an emergent author gets nailed for poor or heretical theology, all the drones start squawking, “Oh, no! Not us! We’re as innocent as lemmings doves!” Well, it seems to me that if you hang out in with charlatans, praise charlatans, and gobble up the books written by charlatans, you’re asking for condemnation by association.

Now it is true that Jesus hung out with outcasts (such as prostitutes) but it didn’t pervert His theology and He didn’t distance Himself from them when they were attacked. Neither, however, did He defend their philosophies or theologies: He sought to change them. Big difference. Critical difference. And I can’t recall Him associating with charlatans, although I do seem to recall Him going off on a rant or two against them.

Just once I’d like to hear someone in the emergent movement - excuse me, conversation - stand beside one of their own authors instead of running like scared little puppies when the big dogs arrive at the fight. Or, at the very least, admit that their leaders are heretical at this or that point and that the conversation needs to change its tone, direction, and assumptions. Getting an emergent to criticize another emergent is like getting a liberal to criticize a liberal - or a conservative a conservative. Actually, it’s more difficult, I think.

Andy does go on to say,

Second, Emergent leaders should continue in their conversation, but also realize that they have biblical leadership responsibility for those they influence. God will hold all biblical leaders accountable for our teaching and ministry. In other words, our ministry effects people.

Third, Recognized Emergent leaders need to ’show their cards’ as it relates to Burke’s theology. We need to hear what key Emergent leaders think, and provide correction. Hopefully, it will start with McLaren.

Second, using the word “biblical” with regard to emergent leaders is akin to the trite Jello and a tree metaphor. Besides, surely God won’t judge them because He just wants everyone to get along with one another: Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, atheist. After all, He’s a generous kinda God, isn’t He? Calling for emergents to adhere to biblical standards is too broad: they tend to pick and choose which standards they want to accept.

Third, Burke is one of the “key Emergent leaders,” being the inspiration of the emergent The Ooze website. So we’ve heard what a leader has to say. Does anyone seriously believe that McLaren will say anything negative or corrective about Burke? If there is but one fatal flaw (this is optimistic: their fatal flaws are legion) it is the total unwillingness of emergents to clean up their own houses.

But my point is this: don’t jump on the emergent bandwagon if you’re going to jump off as soon as it starts to stink. Have the courage to take a stand - somewhere, anywhere. Either get with them - which in this case means leaving orthodox Christianity behind - or get away and stay away from them. You can (as I have) read their books, publicly reject their theology (if you can call it that), and pay attention to their at-times valuable insights into problems in the church.

It must be recognized, however, for all the wonderful exposure of problems they might offer that they have zero solutions that will benefit anyone beyond this lifetime. Denying the Godhead, espousing pantheism, and making the gospel unnecessary is no solution at all; in fact, it is worse: it is snake oil, i.e., it is no solution packaged as the only solution and sold to people dead in their sins.

Addendum: Andy at Smart Christian responded to this post here; I sent him the following email which I’ll reproduce here for anyone who’s interested or has voyeuristic inclinations.

Andy:

“First, a suggestion: you might consider leaving comments open when you mention someone by name in one of your posts. That would allow people like me to clarify a thing or two at your site as well as mine (I’ll be adding a post script shortly).

“Second, my beef is with fence-straddlers, as I tried to make clear (but may have failed). Taking a stand does not mean totally abandoning the emergent group: my role model would be John Stott (I think it was John Stott) who stayed with his own denomination for years and years even though he had serious theological disagreements and concerns. As long as they didn’t depart from the gospel message, he said, he thought he could do more good on the inside than on the outside. But he never hesitated to speak out or write against the errors in his denomination.

“So that’s the main point, although it may have gotten lost in tangential thoughts and ideas.

“Finally - and this is what I’m going to add at my post - my rant was triggered by your post but not aimed at you. Your post was merely the proverbial “last straw” that caused me to break. Sometimes I think emergent churches should meet at a Waffle House, since that’s what they seem to do best - waffle.

“So, sorry if the attack seemed personal; it wasn’t meant to be.”

Related Tags: emergent, emerging, Spencer Burke, Scot McKnight, theology, church

As I mentioned in my previous post on this matter, the purpose of this brief series is to reduce the judgmentalism of some Christian Pharisees - or at the very least to draw them out - and to comfort some who have suffered as a result of divorce. My first post sought to establish the fact of God’s marriage to the unified nation of Israel in preparation for discussing His subsequent divorce from the northern part of the then-divided kingdom.

The evidence of God’s divorce comes directly from the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah. The former declares, (more…)

Douglas Moo on the connection of theology and Christian living:

Romans has the reputation — well deserved — of being one of the most theological books in the Bible. Unfortunately, this reputation has led many Christians and even some commentators to wonder why Paul bothers with all the practical stuff at the end of the letter. He has finished the theology section at the end of chapter 11. Why say any more?

“Such an attitude betrays a basic misunderstanding of theology and its significance. All theology is practical, and all practice, if it is truly Christian, is theological. Paul’s gospel is deeply theological, but it is also eminently practical. The good news of Jesus Christ is intended to transform a person’s life. Until individual Christians own and live out the theology, the gospel has not accomplished its purpose.” - on Romans 12.1-2, NIV Application Commentary

(Note: This post is prompted by numerous accounts of pain and suffering of Christians due to an inadequate understanding of the nature of divorce in the Bible. My hope is that it would cause the Pharisees among us to stop treating divorced believers as bastard children of God and, in addition, would provide some comfort for those who carry unnecessary guilt because of divorce.)

Those of us quick to adduce Mal 2.16a – “‘For I hate divorce,’ says the LORD, the God of Israel” - would do well to accept an inescapable fact of the Bible: God Himself was divorced. Here, in context, is the aforementioned proof-text used by many to condemn and bludgeon those who are considering, in the process of, or dealing with the aftermath of being divorced: (more…)

For the most part, I have stayed out of the fray over the orthodoxy (generous or otherwise) and orthopraxy of Brian D. McLaren for one simple reason: although I’ve read a lot about him, I really haven’t read much of him (only The Church on the Other Side). Most of what I have read about him has seemed polarized: he is either the second-coming of a Minor Prophet or the latest emanation of a False Prophet. Few indeed have been the reasonable voices: Scot McKnight comes to mind but I couldn’t accept all that he had to say, either. That has nothing to do with him and everything to do with me: in my ignorance of McLaren, I didn’t know how to evaluate McKnight’s interaction with and frequent defense of the Emergent contingent. (Finally I emailed him and asked him if he were still orthodox in his beliefs; he assured me he was. I believed him; I still believe him.)

Not much has really changed - I am still ignorant, but slightly less so. I have just finished McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus and have found what I believe are some valuable insights and perspectives therein, some of which are intended and at least one that is not.

The purpose of this post is not to provide an apologetic for McLaren nor even to review his book. It is to attempt to shed a wee bit of light on him as an individual and perhaps make him a bit more palatable to some. I fully recognize that there are those among us who will require the Heimlich maneuver for anything not written by their denominational patron saint - Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Darby, Osteen - and I don’t expect to make many converts with them. But hopefully there are others who might benefit from McLaren if he is viewed from a profitable, maybe even biblical perspective.

Having said that, I do not believe that my view is the last word (or even the word after that) on McLaren. It is, however, my word and I think it has some merit, at least for me if no one else. I want to make two points in this post; perhaps, in another post, I’ll provide additional quotes from and comments about his latest book.

First, I think McLaren can be viewed as a prophet but not as a priest. I take my definitions from McLaren:

The best way I’ve found to understand Jewish prophets is to see them in dynamic tension with another important religious community in Judaism: the priests. Priests were responsible for the regular, ongoing, day-to-day and year-to-year, religious life of Judaism - the key words being regularity and its cousin regulations. The priests made sure the traditions and practices of regular religious life went on as they should with holidays and sacrifices, feasts and fasts, Scripture and tradition. In Jesus’ day, priests were closely allied with the scribes - religious scholars who studied and argued about what exactly the rules and regulations of Judaism should be. Together, they constituted what we might call the religious establishment . . .

“There were tensions between Aaron the priest and Moses the prophet, and tensions between priests and prophets continued through the centuries. Priests focused on regularity and tradition, but what happened when people began going through the motions with their bodies, while their hearts and minds were unengaged? . . . In those cases, a prophet would arise and tell the people that God is downright disgusted with external religious observance that rolls along without heartfelt sincerity and without commitment to social justice and practical compassion for the poor and week . . .

“As you’d expect, since their purpose was to disrupt the status quo, their life and rhetoric were necessarily unruly, disturbing, sometimes shocking.” - pp 20-22

I think McLaren has put his finger on something here, and it is - at the very least - himself: McLaren is a brilliant prophetic mind and an alluring prophetic voice in many, many ways. It is impossible for anyone paying attention to the cultural climate of current Christianity to not agree with many of the points he makes. He sees clearly; he knows the emperor is naked and is not hesitant to say so.

Consider, for example, McLaren’s statements about the conspiracy of religious and political leaders to crucify Jesus Christ, thus bringing His ministry to what appears to be a tragic, failed end:

This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. It is crushed. When its message of love, peace, justice, and truth meets the principalities and powers of government and religion armed with spears and swords and crosses, they unleash their hate, force, manipulation, and propaganda. Like those defenseless students standing before tanks and machine guns in Tiananmen Square, the resistance movement known as the kingdom of God is crushed.

“But what is the alternative? We really must consider this question. Could the kingdom of God come with bigger weapons, sharper swords, more clever political organizing? Could the kingdom of God be a matter of what is often called redemptive violence? Or would that methodology corrupt the kingdom of God so it would stop being ‘of God’ at all and instead become just another earthly (and perhaps in some sense demonic) principality or power? . . .

“What if the only way for the kingdom of God to come in its true form - as a kingdom ‘not of this world’ - is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love?” - p 69

Powerful and timely words, these are, and McLaren is speaking them at a point in American history when Christianity is becoming so politicized as to be rejected more for its politics than for its message of salvation.

On the other hand, and by his own admission, McLaren is not a priest, i.e., he is not one who is a biblical scholar or skilled in discerning what biblical teachings are timeless and those that are culturally influenced. As a result, he sometimes makes statements that are unnecessary and/or untenable. Touching on the matter of future things, he says,

Others - and I am among them, although I was born and thoroughly indoctrinated into the former approach - believe that neither the Bible nor the teachings of Jesus are intended to give us a timeline of the future. In our view, God intended to create our universe the way parents give birth to a child: the child is given limits and guidance, but she also has freedom to live her own life. That means that the future of the universe is not determined as if it were a movie that’s already been filmed and is just being shown to us. Nor is it completely left to chance like dice cast on a table. Rather, God’s creation is maturing with both freedom and limits under the watchful eye of a caring parent. So what we find in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus are not determining prognostications or schematic diagrams of the future but instead something far more valuable: warnings and promises.”

Certainly there is much truth in what he has said here, but there is also much that has been ignored or left unexplained. When McLaren attempts to turn theologian or exegete, he is out of his depth. He is more philosophical than theological, more esoteric than exegetic. This is not a character flaw or a reason to dismiss everything he says; it is a reason to read his writings with discernment, rejecting his misconceptions (not deceptions) and profiting from his legitimate exhortations.

Which leads to my second point and one which, unintentionally and unconsciously, McLaren makes himself. The second point is that McLaren is an old wineskin. He grew up in the church - a fundamentalist church, as he says - and was innoculated as a child to the variant strains of Christianity spreading like hearty viruses throughout the Christendom of his youth. As he grew older, however, the innoculation seemed to lose its effectiveness: he jettisoned the fundamentalist mentality and set off to find a new and better way.

Therein lies the problem: there is obviously a bad taste in McLaren’s mouth about his early, fundamentalist upbringing; he is so soured on the old that he too often unnecessarily and mistakenly rejects what is good and true. So strong is his dislike and distrust of anything remotely “fundamentalist” that he could be considered “fundaphobic” - if there were such a thing.

Though being an “old wineskin,” McLaren does not burst but he cannot help but distort the flavor of the fresh, new wine he seeks to serve to others. It does not seem possible for him to achieve a rapprochement between what fundamentalism had right and what he now rightly proclaims.

The fault is in his shortcomings as a priest - or, more accurately, as a scribe, a biblical scholar who is able to “rightly divide the word of truth.” He is a poor theologian at many points and exegetically completely dependent upon the expertise of others; the “expertise” of others is determined by whether or not they support and agree with his position. (He is hardly alone in that proclivity.)

It would not be a mistake, perhaps, to reject or ignore McLaren totally: the church is not dependent on any one individual for its continuance or health. But it would be, I think, unprofitable to reject or ignore him completely. It requires discernment and careful reading to gather his roses without being pricked by his thorns, but he is - in his prophetic role - a voice with much to say for those who have ears discerning ears to hear.

A brief excerpt from the book:

In 1989, Piper was heading home from a Baptist conference when he hit a truck head on. ‘A light enveloped me, with a brilliance beyond earthly comprehension or description.’ 90 minutes later, Piper returned to life.”

OK, so it’s Don Piper instead of John, but Christianity Today’s series of articles on heaven, hell, and the afterlife provide a wealth of information - some funny, some sad, all worthwhile.

The lead story is “Travel Writing from the Afterlife,” Rob Moll’s wry and sardonic look at the claims of Don Piper’s 90 Minutes in Heaven and Bill Wiese’s 23 Minutes in Hell. Worth your time, too, are the many links to additional, related articles. I’ll provide snippets to whet your appetites for some of the writings.

Travel Writing from the Afterlife

Regarding Wiese’s time in hell:

Hell, Wiese says, ‘was hot—far beyond any possibility of sustaining life.’ (Thankfully, it being hell, everyone but Wiese had already died.) ‘My flesh should disintegrate from off my body at any moment. The reality was that it didn’t.’ Lots of other things happen in hell, says Wiese, which don’t normally happen on earth.

“‘I was extremely nauseous from the terrible, foul stench coming from these creatures. It was absolutely disgusting, foul, and rotten. It was, by far, the most putrid smells I have ever encountered. … The odor was extremely toxic, and that alone should have killed me.’ Somehow it didn’t.

“Wiese was also given information that he ordinarily wouldn’t have known. The creatures in his cell were speaking in a blasphemous language, Wiese says which he was supernaturally able to understand. Then, ‘one of the creatures picked me up. The strength of the beast was amazing. I was comparable to the weight of a water glass in its hand. … Instinctively, I knew that the creature holding me had strength approximately one thousand times greater than a man.’

“Jesus told Wiese to tell people that hell is real. Wiese says he was brought to hell in order to warn others about its torment. Twenty-three minutes after first being catapulted from his bed, Wiese woke up. He was lying on the floor of his living room, screaming in horror. His wife, hearing his screams, woke up and brought Wiese a glass of water.”

Of Piper’s time in heaven, Moll reports,

For those considering the comforts of heaven, Don Piper, a Texas pastor, tells his story. In 1989, Piper was heading home from a Baptist conference when he hit a truck head on. ‘A light enveloped me, with a brilliance beyond earthly comprehension or description.’ 90 minutes later, Piper returned to life . . .

“Interestingly, Piper’s vision corresponds to American Christians’ view of heaven. ‘Nearly all Christians think that union with God, peace, and tranquility, and reunion with relatives are likely to await them,’ writes Alan F. Segal in Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion.

“So, either Piper proved American views of the afterlife correct, or he saw what he expected to see, because he expected to see it.”

What Will Heaven Be Like?
Thirty-five frequently asked questions about eternity.

Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, tackles the FAQs of heaven. A sampling from his article:

3. Will we recognize our loved ones in Heaven?

George Macdonald answers this question with a counterquestion: ‘Will we be greater fools there than here?’ Of course we will know our loved ones. This is a divinely designed, essential part of our joy. We are not designed to be solitary mystics, lovers of God alone, but to be, like God himself, lovers of men and women as well.”

9. What happens in hell?

Nothing.

10. What happens in Heaven?

Everything.”

14. Do differences include sexual differences? Is there sex in Heaven?

Of course. Sex is part of our divinely designed humanity. It is transformed, not removed, in Heaven. We will be ‘like the angels’ in ‘neither marrying nor being given in marriage,’ according to Christ’s answer to the Sadducees (Matt. 22:30), but not in being neutered. Sex is first of all something we are, not something we do. I do not think we will be “doing” copulation in Heaven, but we will be busy being ourselves, and that includes being men and women, not genderless geldings. Vive la difference!”

Harleys in Heaven

John G. Stackhouse Jr. begins his article,

According to a recent snippet in Harper’s magazine, the reach of American entrepreneurship has exceeded that of the builders of the Tower of Babel and extends into heaven itself. Afterlife Telegrams offers to deliver messages to the dead for a price of $10 a word (with a five-word minimum) by way of terminally ill patients who promise to deliver the messages upon ‘passing into the afterlife.’

In the fine print of the agreement, however, it warns customers that it cannot guarantee the message will get through. ‘The truth is,’ Afterlife Telegrams solemnly warns, ‘no one knows what happens when someone dies.’”

Additional articles:

What’s a Heaven For? - by Philip Yancey

The Believer’s Final Bliss - by John Murray

The Eternal Weight of Glory - by Harry Blamires

Afraid of Heaven - by Kenneth Kantzer

Plus many more. Scroll to the bottom of this page for a full listing.

And, thank you Christianity Today!

20 Bless Yahweh, you His angels, mighty in strength, who perform His word, obeying the voice of His word!
21 Bless Yahweh, all you His hosts, you who serve Him, doing His will.
22 Bless Yahweh, all you works of His, in all places of His dominion; bless Yahweh, O my soul!” - Ps 103.20-22 (NASB - I have rendered LORD as “Yahweh,” since in each occurrence it refers to the personal name of God.)

Most evangelicals, it seems to me, give little thought or study to the ministry of one of the two created, living beings that God has produced: angels. David, in contrast, was clearly aware of them and understood their role and place in God’s work of and in creation. They are “mighty in strength,” he says, and are faithful to obey and perform His word, i.e., His commands and purposes in creation. Angels, being without sin and holy (or elect), exist only to serve God and to do his will: they take no thought for themselves nor pursue their own interests, if they have any. They, along with everything under God’s dominion, bless Yahweh in their perfect obedience to Him.

It is understandable - and perhaps even desirable to some extent - that evangelicals tend to neglect the ministry of angels in the world. First, the Bible does not emphasize or draw attention to angels, mentioning them typically in a passing, matter-of-fact way. This is, I think, quite intentional: our focus is to be upon the Lord GOD and not upon His servants and messengers.

At the time of the writing of the Bible (an undertaking that spanned roughly 1600 years), cultures adjacent to the people of God were involved in their own forms of worship. Some of these practices involved the worship of angels: this seems to be central to the Colossian heresy that prompted Paul to write to the church there and warn them about those who would “keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels” (Col 2.18). This particular cult appeared to have established a hierarchy of angels or demiurges through which one approached God; Christ Jesus, in their system, was the highest of the demiurges but had to first be approached through lesser beings. But even as the highest of demiurges or angels, Christ was not God.

It is for that reason that Paul states earlier in the letter that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete” (Col 2.9-10). In other words, it was unnecessary to focus on angels or demiurges in order to gain access to God: Jesus is God, and as Christians we have all that we need (i.e., are complete) to approach the throne of the Eternal One.

Second, when believers do focus on angels, they tend to focus more on the fallen or non-elect angels. Questions arise about whether or not believers can be possessed, controlled, or influenced by demons (as the New Testament calls fallen angels). Much energy and speculation is spent on exorcisms, although nowhere does the NT command that demons must be cast out of believers (even if one accepts the longer reading of Mk 16, it is not necessarily referring to believers being possessed). As Cook¹ notes, “Nowhere is the Christian commissioned to cast out demons” - he obviously does not accept the longer, debated conclusion of Mark’s history of the ministry of Christ.

The purpose of this post, therefore, is not to encourage Christians to spend an undue amount of time or energy focusing on the existence, presence, and ministry of elect angels; the purpose is to provide an introduction into this race of beings with whom we share a spiritual nature.

Others in the history of the Church have, in fact, stepped over the line. Justin Martyr (Second Century A.D.) believed that Christians would do well to worship angels: he apparently understood passages such as Col 2.18 in an unusual fashion. Aquinas seemed to be quite fascinated by angels; he stands in sharp contrast to such later theologians as Bultmann, Barth, and Tillich. Bultmann, with his demythologizing hermeneutic, eliminated such spiritual beings from God’s creation. Barth, more orthodox than Bultmann, saw the origin of angels as emanating from “nothingness, chaos, darkness.” Tillich, says Cook, believed angels to be “nothing more than ‘concrete-poetic symbols of the structures or powers of being. They are not beings . . . ‘” (emphasis mine).

Whether in Greek or in Hebrew, the word for angel refers to a being that is a messenger. It usually, but not always, refers to created spirit beings (whether elect or not). In the OT it at times refers to a theophany, i.e., the appearance of the Second Member of the Godhead in physical form (e.g., Gen 18). In addition to having the meaning of one who bears a message, however, the words for angels have the additional notion of describing a being who serves - Someone or someone.

That angels are created beings and not eternal is evident from passages such as Jn 1 and Col 1:

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” - Jn 1.3 (”Him” being Christ)

“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.” - Col 1.16 ( “Him” again being a reference to Jesus Christ)

As created beings, then, the angels - holy or fallen - are subject and accountable to God, even as all people - saved or unsaved - are under the authority of God. As to when they were created, Scripture is not clear. Job 38.4-7 indicates that they came into existence prior to the formation of the physical world; further, it is likely - but not definite - that they were all created at the same time.

As spiritual beings, they do not normally possess physical bodies - although they can take on human form if necessary. They do not reproduce (hence, their number is fixed) and do not die: they will continue into eternity and will even be judged by believers. They have great knowledge but are not all-knowing (a characteristic of God alone); similarly, they have great power but are not omnipotent (also only true of God).

It is important to correct a common misunderstanding about angels, a misconception found among unbelievers and believers alike. Angels are not the spirits of dead or glorified people (cf. Heb 12.22-23, where angels are distinct from the “spirits of righteous men made perfect”). As Cook says, angels

are above the sphere of men (Ps 8.4-5, cf. Heb 2.7) in the sense that they are pure spirit and thus of a different created order; they rejoice over the salvation of men (Lk 15.10); and they will be judged by the saints (1 Cor 6.3) all of which distinguish them from human kind (emphasis mine).

What else may we know about elect, unfallen angels? First, as has been mentioned above, they are holy and separated to God and from sin in order to serve Him. Second, unfallen angels were chosen by God to remain in their original state and, third, they are not redeemed or, if fallen, redeemable. Their abode is in heaven, but it may be the “second heaven” - the first being the physical realm of space and the third the dwelling place of the throne of God.

Much is known about the ministry of angels. Following is a brief but fairly comprehensive list of their activities as compiled by Cook:

a) They minister to the elect, even before salvation (Heb 1.14, although ’salvation’ here could refer to final salvation and thus this would be a statement regarding the ‘guardian angel’ concept).

b) They minister in relation to the church . . .

c) They minister in relation to Israel. According to Dan 12.1, Michael the archangel, ‘who stands guard over the sons of [Daniel’s] people,’ has a special concern for Israel . . .

d) They care for children . . .

e) They have special interest in the people of God . . . Among other things they protect and deliver (Gen 19.10-11; 1 Kings 19.5; Dan 3.28; 6.2; Ac 5.19; 12.7-11; cf. 2 Kings 6.1-17) and inform, direct and encourage them (Mt 28.5-7; Ac 8.26; 27.23-24).

f) They had and will have an extensive ministry to Christ: at birth (Lk 2.13); following the temptation (Mt 4.11); at the ascension (Ac 1.10); at the rapture (1 Th 4.16); and at the second coming (Mt 25.31; 2 Th 1.7).

g) They have a ministry to the nations (Dan 10.10-11.1; 12.1). The precise nature of this work is difficult to ascertain but it may be an extension of the ‘guardian angel’ concept. (Eph 6.12 seems to give the negative - evil - side of this truth.)

h) They worship and serve God as He chooses (Ps 148.2; Mt 18.10; Lk 1.19, 26; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.11-12; cf. Ezek 28.14) and sometimes function as instruments of his judgment (Gen 19.12-13; 2 Sam 24.16; 2 Kings 19.35; Ezek 9.1; Mt 13.36-42; 49-50; Ac 12.23; Rev 7.2; 8.6-9.21; 16.4-17).

i) They function as agents of praise . . .

Some angels have been identified by name - Michael and Gabriel (the Angel of Yahweh would be Christ and thus not truly an angel) - or by rank, i.e., archangels (such as Michael), cherubim (perhaps defenders of God’s holiness) and seraphim (who praise God and prepare believers for service).

Finally, and a particular interest and delight for me, is Heb 13.2: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.” This reality absolutely is beyond my comprehension. There may have been times in my life - and yours, too - when I have been in the company of angels without knowing it. A purely spiritual being who has temporarily taken human form has perhaps talked and walked with me, eaten with me, shared a ride with me, or found shelter with me for an evening or two.

We live in a physical world that is but a shadow of spiritual realities. And, from time to time, the spiritual slips into the physical and spends time with us without us ever having a clue. This is not to say we should devote time to trying to “uncover” these angels - our devotion is to be to Christ alone - but it is to remind us of the true nature of the world in which we live and breathe and have our being.
_______

¹The material and inspiration for this post is drawn almost exclusively from the unpublished Systematic Theology of Robert Cook, Th.D., which he was kind enough to give to me many years ago. Although I never had the privilege of sitting under his instruction - he was for many years Professor of Systematic Theology at Western Seminary - I have benefited and profited immensely from his work.

Related Tags: angels, theology, evangelicals, Christian, doctrine

[The following was originally posted at Theologica and is reproduced here for those who are too tired to click to that site.]

In an earlier post I likened some theological arguments to “gorillas thumping their chests, peacocks strutting, and bodybuilders striking a pose to look better than others.” My point was that such interactions too often turn out to be more for show and to puff ourselves up than to promote love or further the purposes of the Kingdom of God. The earlier comparisons hold but, upon reflection, I realized that the jawing of two male hippos might be more appropriate. At left is a candid photo of me looking for a fight (did you know I can open my mouth an amazing 150 degrees, i.e., enough to put my foot in it?) that illustrates my point.

Some may think it strange that on a blog devoted to theology - hence, the name Theologica - space and energy would be devoted to the manner in which we engage in in-house theological discussion. Ultimately, however, the study of theology is wasted if it does not result in changed behavior toward God, people, or both. This discussion, therefore, gets to the purpose and practice of doctrinal pursuits.

There are numerous statements that seem designed to excuse unloving or reckless words in such exchanges. Perhaps you have encountered - or used - some of them yourself. Admittedly I have far too often said such things in the past to justify my calloused comments. They appear to be reasonable and wise comments meant to take the sting out of what has been or is about to be said. The following are representative.

Don’t take it personally.”

“I’ve got to speak and defend the truth.”

“Iron shaprens iron, you know.”

Starting with the last statement, let’s explore these claims a bit.

It is true that “iron sharpens iron”: Pr 27.17 states, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (NASB). The question is whether this is true in every exchange between people or only in certain ones. It is not difficult to think of interactions in the Old Testament wherein the result was not necessarily beneficial to both. David’s confrontation with Goliath seems to have been a sharpening experience for the former but not so much the latter (1 Sam 17). The meeting of Samuel and Agag (1 Sam 15.32-33) also comes to mind. In the New Testament, Peter’s rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira seemed to be somewhat “dulling” for the deceitful couple.

Advice and commands to the contrary are also found in Scripture. Though there are many verses from the same book, i.e., Proverbs, that could be adduced, the following will suffice to dispel the universal application of 27.17:

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.” - Pr 18.2

“When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.” - Pr 29.9

Please understand that I am not accusing anyone of being a fool (i.e., one who behaves as if there were no God; see picture of me at right) but am only seeking to demonstrate that there are some interactions that do not result in a mutual benefit. Iron can sharpen iron but, as anyone who has ever sharpened a knife knows, if it is not done properly iron can actually dull iron. So slapping Pr 27.17 on an argument does not prove that all such discussions are profitable.

Second, it is also true that Christians need to speak and defend the truth. The admonitions are hard to miss, especially in the New Testament. It is no less clear, however, that Christians are called to take the high road and to do the right thing in the right way. Perhaps the most obvious and sufficient statements come from Paul:

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
“but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
“from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” - Eph 4.14-16

“Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” - Col 4.16

“We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” - 1 Th 5.14

Even with the “unruly” we are commanded to be “patient.” So our discussions and disagreements are limited by behavior that is loving, gracious, and patient.

Finally, there is my personal favorite: “Don’t take it personally.” If I understand this correctly, it means that I should not have an emotional reaction to an attack on my belief system but should instead process it cognitively and dispassionately, perhaps even stoically. The problem is that this is not possible: all thought has an affective component to it. The question is whether or not we are aware of the emotional valence or not.

LeDoux and Goleman argue that it is basically impossible to have conscious thought without there being an emotional component attached to it, but that the opposite is not true. All thoughts have emotions connected to them to some degree. Emotions are basic to the brain and are either consciously or unconsciously operative in any thoughts - and therefore conversations - we might have.

Fear, in fact, might be the most basic dimension of our mind - perhaps this is why Jesus so frequently told His disciples to “Fear not”? When something is said or communicated to us, it is impossible not to respond emotionally at some level. We are far better off being aware of what that emotional reaction is than to convince ourselves that we are not emotionally involved or moved by something that is said. Emotions will push us from behind if we are not aware of how they are influencing our thoughts and subsequent behaviors.

We need to keep this in mind, therefore, when we speak or write to others. How we say things is no less important than what we say. As the body of Christ, we have a wealth of knowledge and resources that any one of us - or even any single church or denomination - lacks individually. If we are to benefit from those resources, however, we must be diligent to obey 1 Cor 16.14: “Let all that you do be done in love.”

All of us are prone to be suspicious of those who are “not like us” theologically; when such messages are couched in angry, disrespectful, or condescending tones it is especially difficult not to shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

I received the manuscript for this book several weeks ago through the Diet of Bookworms. My only compensation is that I am to receive a free copy of the book when it is made available. This is no compensation at all, however, since (a) the book is available free for online reading at Crossway’s site, and (b) it is not a book I would buy, recommend, give away, or use as a doorstop.

Recommendation: Save your money and read it online. Better yet, save your time and don’t read it at all.

I had intended to do an in-depth review of God Is the Gospel, pointing out the serious reservations I have about it while also attempting to salvage what good there is within its pages. The surprise release and availability of the book online, however, makes my review superfluous and so I will primarily share many of the notes I made in the margins of the manuscript during my two readings of the book. I trust you will get an idea of my areas of concern.

Let me begin by highlighting some of the disturbing statements in Piper’s writing. (All emphases are mine.)

What makes the gospel good news in the end is the enjoyment of the glory of God in Christ. The Holy Spirit provides the present experience of that enjoyment. Therefore the promise of the Spirit in the gospel is what makes it good news.” - p. 31

“The effect of this peace with God is eternal life. This too is what makes the gospel of Christ good news.” - p. 33

“That any of us has believed is owing to the mighty work of God’s grace - the grace made possible by the blood of Christ. And this blood-bought grace is essential to what makes the good news good.” - p. 36

“Now the point of this book must be pressed. The point is that the precious gospel events and gospel blessings that I have outlined in this chapter do not suffice to make the gospel good news.” - p. 37

This annoying doublespeak would be minor if it were not for the next step Piper takes in his reasoning. Through some creative hermeneutical gymnastics, he makes seeing the glory of God in Christ at the moment of effectual calling necessary for salvation.
(more…)

An attorney left a comment on my earlier post re trivializing God that I felt deserved its own post in response. I’ve removed his last name to grant him some relative anonymity, even though he eschews this. He can comment again and leave it again if he desires.

I read his comments a couple of times, trying to tease out the tone, intent, or (especially) main point of what he said. Upon my first, cursory reading of his comments I found myself agreeing with him and assumed he was agreeing with me; when I hit the last paragraph, however, I knew I had to re-read his comments carefully.

You can read the comment in its entirety at the above link, but I’ll reproduce it here and make some comments of my own. I have not changed anything other than to remove his last name. Derek wrote:

Let me do something profoundly dangerous: I admit to being one who regularly demonstrates his hubris in commenting on matters theological –excuse me–”impressions of God.” And just as “fools names are like their faces, always seen in public places”, I exhibit this hubris sans anonymity on various blogsites that “dangerously” self-proclaim their Christian witness.

The phrase “something profoundly dangerous” is a not-so-subtle mocking or scornful reference to what I wrote about a friend’s comment to me. I said - and still say - that it is dangerous to believe that my opinion is as good as the next person’s even though they’ve got specialized training in the biblical languages and the study of the Scriptures. Derek is an attorney and (I assume) a competent one. What, I wonder, does he think of people with no training in law or the legal system defending themselves on serious charges? Would he argue that an amateur - albeit Christian - attorney is just as competent and qualified as he? Probably not.

I am not a veterinarian so I don’t propose to spay you; I am an attorney so let me just “sue” for your attention.

Derek is an attorney and, it would appear, an amateur comedian. Not bad but don’t quit your . . .

You may “opt out” of the generalities I intend to lay out, only wearing the shoe if it fits. I choose to lay the shoes out here only because you brought up the subject matter of “theological” expertise, and whether it exists outside of the “pastor’s union.”

The matter of the shoe fitting is irrelevant; the question is whether the shoe matches or not. I re-read my post - yes, I found it a bit tedious, too - but couldn’t find anywhere that I said that theological expertise could not reside outside the “pastor’s union” (his phrase, not mine). Being the cynic realist that I am, I would argue that it’s only rarely found among seminary graduates!

My post was not about people not being entitled to an opinion; my post was about not being dogmatic or unteachable. I did not say, in fact, whether my veterinarian friend was right or wrong; I commented on his certainty and rigidity. I’m glad Chet the Vet thinks about such things; I only wish he would be willing to think a little more about them. We want answers, conclusion, settled doctrines; we avoid things that upset us, disagree with us, or rattle our cages. But we need to have our cages rattled.

I have been around and known as many pastors in my life as anybody my age who is not themselves part of the “union.” And as you might expect – based on your own personal experience with attorneys or vets – there are good pastor/theologians and bad ones and lots of mediocre ones in between.

Absolutely true, and what makes a good pastor-teacher is his openness to being taught. The bad ones have the answers, or so they think.

I do not pretend to be the theologian that Barth was or the exegete or theologian that you are.[1] But what I do know – and perhaps your vet friend knows too – is that the Bible isn’t nearly as arcane as many of you “pros” make it out to be.[2] Nor is the law as complex as many of us attorneys create it to be.[3] And there is the key: the complexity is mans’ “gift” to the project of knowing God. His is the Mystery; our’s the complexity.[4] THE LAW and GOSPEL is only foolishness to the Greeks. Believers “get it.” Believers “get it” and not primarily because we have theologians, but because we have the illumination of the Holy Spirit.[5] Can He and does He use theologians? YES and Praise God! But . . . professional “Levites” while they often aid in the effort to understand can as often “complexify” it.[6]

There is a lot to respond to in the above quote, so please bear with me as I indulge in a bit of narcissistic froth. I numbered his quote to correspond to the following comments.

[1] Barth was remarkable and perhaps the most prolific - if not profound - theologian of the last century. Few were his equal and certainly I am not. I am also not an exegete - I have never claimed this and would never claim it - although I am a theologian. In fact, we’re all theologians since we all have some knowledge of God. The question is how good a theologian we are, i.e., how truly we are representing God.

[2] I don’t believe I ever said or implied that the Bible is arcane. It is not, even though Paul does speak of “mysteries.” I would explain that, but I’m sure Derek knows what Paul means by the term and an explanation would be condescending and rude. My point is that the Bible can be difficult at times and requires careful study. More on that in a minute.

[3] I’m sure this is an attempt at humility, but I don’t for a minute think that the law - especially tax laws or corporate laws - are simple enough for the untrained person to understand. Sorry, but I don’t buy it.

[4] Is Derek suggesting that God is not complex? I agree that there is mystery - profound mystery - concerning the Person and activities of God, but I would argue as well that it is not as simple as Derek would have us believe.

For example (since I’ve been studying Romans 6-8 recently), what is the identity of the person in Rom 7:14-25? Derek says it is simple and that we have made it complex. If it is so simple, why has the church been debating this since the 3rd century on? Is Paul talking about a nonbeliever? An immature believer? A mature believer? A believer who attempts to keep the Law via her new nature? How does this conflict compare with the one in Gal 5? Is it the same battle or is it different? You might say I’m making this complex; I might ask you, if it’s so simple, why all the different views?

[5] If believers “get it” solely due to the presence of the Holy Spirit, then why so many denominations and disagreements about things? Did the Holy Spirit tell James Arminius one thing and the Arminians another? (Arminius, of course, died a Reformed theologian.) Why so many different opinions on such simple (as Derek maintains) things? Is the Holy Spirit incapable of convincing us of these basic truths? Do I contribute nothing? If it is all the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating me, why can’t I read Hebrew?

[6] The term “Levites” refers to a tribe from which the Old Testament priests were taken; perhaps Derek meant “scribes” or “lawyers,” since they were the experts in the Law in the New Testament. The priests officiated at the Temple; the scribes and lawyers interpreted the Law. Apparently Derek didn’t “get it” in this instance. But maybe I’ve just “complexified” it.

No believing vet or lawyer is going to spend time contemplating whether or not God has a navel and if so how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while contemplating it. (Yes: I’m aware that is hyperbole.) Those are seminary exercises the fall-out of which is too often detachment from the “real presence” of the Living God, a detachment that spills out from the pulpit – where such things are still in fashion – well beyond the first tier of pews – where those are still in use.

Actually, the big debate in every seminary is not whether God has a navel or not; it is over whether Adam had one or not.

But - and excuse me a moment while I draw my sword - Derek’s comment is an insult to the men and women who have devoted their lives to teaching in seminaries and Christian colleges. To think that they spend their time pursuing ridiculous, trivial matters reveals a degree of ignorance - or meanness - on Derek’s part that cannot be left unaddressed. I would maintain that the professors I had in seminary - or the ones in most conservative Christian institutions - have committed their lives to pursuing a true knowledge of the God that Derek professes to know so intimately in his spare time. His statement is as stupid as it is arrogant, and where I initially thought it was hubris on his part (which he sarcastically admits) I now believe it is animus instead. Whatever his personal experience of God has produced in his life, it has not generated so much as a shred of humility. At least not in this slander of hundreds of brothers and sisters in Christ.

(If I am correct in my assumption that Derek is angry, it will help to explain the disorganized, at-time random nature of his comment. If I’m wrong, then Derek’s just disorganized and random for no apparent reason.)

Would that you “theologians” stuck to your “impressions of God” and kept your therapeutic impressons of man to yourselves. There is way too much therapy and way too little theology being absorbed and passed on by the seminary levites these days. And because so much of what passes for His Word is little more than your word, it should neither surprise you or anger you that vets and attorneys and moms and pops know themselves to be as qualified as you to discuss and understand His Word or your latest “homily.” If pastors would get out of their own words and into His Word perhaps the number of times you find attorneys or vets claiming equal understanding with you will diminish. “It is My Father’s World.” Not Freud’s; not Maslow’s; not Bultmann or Barth’s; not even Dr. Phil’s.

Again with the “levites.”

What this rant has to do with anything in my post escapes me entirely. Who was talking about therapy? Or Bultmann? Or Freud? This off-topic tirade leads me to believe that Derek is just another self-inflated, self-impressed critic of the church who now, under the banner of the emergent church movement, can roll around like a loose cannon wherever he finds himself.

“Therapeutic impressions of man”? Psychology was, up until the time of Freud, primarily under the aegis of theology. The true experts in anthropology/psychology are those who understand man biblically. And, as far as the “therapeutic” messages being offered up on Sunday mornings, you will find few others who are more opposed to the psychologizing of the church than I. I have written about the inherent dangers of elevating non-theologically trained psychologists to the position of high priests in the church and bowing before their psychological absurdities as though they spoke as a god and not a man. So take your whining somewhere else: you’re preaching to the choir.

Okay, Mike: now have at it.”

Your Brother in Christ,
Derek

No thanks.

Your Brother in Christ,
Mike