In former times, the general public in the United States would have recognized this as blasphemy, and the person responsible would have been held accountable. Those days appear long gone. Lord, have mercy upon us.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
A note on some recent magazines
Magazines as a media form seem to be dying a slow death, sped up somewhat by the recent economic downturn. Nonetheless, I remain a magazine addict, and have a hard time believing that I will ever be satisfied with the internet as a substitute. In light of my clinging to hope beyond hope, here are a couple of recent issues of magazines worth checking out.
First, the latest issue of Christianity Today features an article about the ever provocative Douglas Wilson. Pastor Wilson himself commented on it on his own blog, and was reasonably pleased with the article. I thought the article was fairly good, though the author seemed to accent the controversies that have surrounded Doug a bit much. One can hardly blame her. People love train wrecks, and where they can't find one, they are usually glad to manufacture one for their own amusement. And this does sell magazines, after all.
Secondly, the latest issue of First Things is devoted entirely to the life of Father Richard John Neuhaus. I haven't spent much time examining it yet, but it looks to be quite good.
Lastly, the latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the state of religion in Russia, particularly highlighting the Russian Orthodox Church and its historic relationship with the national government. What makes it most interesting is that it was written by Serge Schmemann, the son of the late Father Alexander Schmemann. Fr. Schmemann was a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, and president of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in New York. Serge weaves references to his father's work into the article, making it especially interesting for those who have appreciated Fr. Schmemann.
First, the latest issue of Christianity Today features an article about the ever provocative Douglas Wilson. Pastor Wilson himself commented on it on his own blog, and was reasonably pleased with the article. I thought the article was fairly good, though the author seemed to accent the controversies that have surrounded Doug a bit much. One can hardly blame her. People love train wrecks, and where they can't find one, they are usually glad to manufacture one for their own amusement. And this does sell magazines, after all.
Secondly, the latest issue of First Things is devoted entirely to the life of Father Richard John Neuhaus. I haven't spent much time examining it yet, but it looks to be quite good.
Lastly, the latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the state of religion in Russia, particularly highlighting the Russian Orthodox Church and its historic relationship with the national government. What makes it most interesting is that it was written by Serge Schmemann, the son of the late Father Alexander Schmemann. Fr. Schmemann was a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, and president of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in New York. Serge weaves references to his father's work into the article, making it especially interesting for those who have appreciated Fr. Schmemann.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Flannery O'Connor
Flannery O'Connor's birthday was March 25th, and it passed me by without my noticing it. This is fairly inexcusable, considering she was possibly the greatest writer America has ever produced. HT to the Avenue Blog for the reminder: http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/happy-birthday-flannery/
Here are a couple of great quotes from O'Connor:
“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
On hearing that her friends, Sally and Robert Fitzgerald, were expecting their fifth child:
"I hope this one will be a girl & have a fierce Old Testament name and cut off a lot of heads."
"My mamma and I have interesting literary discussions like the following which took place over some Modern Library books that I had just ordered:
SHE: 'Mobby Dick. I've always heard about that.'
ME: 'Mow-by Dick.'
SHE: 'MOW-by Dick. The Idiot. You would get something called The Idiot. What's it about?'
Me: 'An idiot.'"
"The Manicheans separated spirit and matter. To them all material things were evil. They sought pure spirit and tried to approach the infinite directly without any mediation of matter. This is also pretty much the modern spirit, and for the sensibility infected with it, fiction is hard if not impossible to write because fiction is so very much an incarnational art."
"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."
"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater... She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say...Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."
Here are a couple of great quotes from O'Connor:
“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
On hearing that her friends, Sally and Robert Fitzgerald, were expecting their fifth child:
"I hope this one will be a girl & have a fierce Old Testament name and cut off a lot of heads."
"My mamma and I have interesting literary discussions like the following which took place over some Modern Library books that I had just ordered:
SHE: 'Mobby Dick. I've always heard about that.'
ME: 'Mow-by Dick.'
SHE: 'MOW-by Dick. The Idiot. You would get something called The Idiot. What's it about?'
Me: 'An idiot.'"
"The Manicheans separated spirit and matter. To them all material things were evil. They sought pure spirit and tried to approach the infinite directly without any mediation of matter. This is also pretty much the modern spirit, and for the sensibility infected with it, fiction is hard if not impossible to write because fiction is so very much an incarnational art."
"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."
"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater... She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say...Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Fireproof - Art, or Propaganda?
Here are some great thoughts from Doug Wilson on the latest Evangelical fad movie, Fireproof:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6434
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6434
Friday, March 27, 2009
British minister beaten by Muslims
Who says Islam isn't a peaceful religion?
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Prodigal Father
Here's a fantastic sermon on the Prodigal Father, given by Gene Helsel at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Check it out if you get the chance:
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/custom.asp?recid=26
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/custom.asp?recid=26
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Once...
...there was a pub in County Clare where the locals took their evening beverages. One particular night, a gentleman walks in who was unfamiliar to the rest of the patrons. Saddling up to the bar, he says to the bartender, "I'd like three beers." Wondering in his own mind, but not questioning the man, the bartender fills his request. The gentleman drinks the three beers, and leaves the bar.
The next night, the gentleman does the same. Pulling up to the bar, he requests his three beers, and after having drunk them, he leaves.
The third night comes, and the man once more comes in and requests his three beers. By this point, the bartender's curiosity is getting the best of him, so he asks the fellow, "say, bud, why is it that each evening you request exactly three beers?" The gentleman was glad to answer. "I have two brothers, you see. And we made a pact with one another that wherever we went and had a beer, we would also have a beer for each of our other two brothers, in honor of one another. So that's why, each time I order a beer for myself, I order two more as well."
The bartender thought this was one of the noblest things he had ever heard, and he began to tell it to those he knew. Soon word of the gentleman and his two brothers spread throughout the countryside.
Then one day, as the bartender was serving drinks, the gentleman came up to the bar and said, "bartender, give me two beers." With a heavy heart, the bartender brought the man two beers, and by the next day word had spread that one of the gentleman's brothers had died.
The next evening, when the gentleman came into the pub, the bartender, hesitant to bring the subject up, said, "I am sure sorry to hear about the death of your brother."
"My brother isn't dead! What made you think he was dead?" the man replied.
"Well, you've only been ordering two beers the past couple of nights," said the bartender.
"Oh, that," the gentleman said. "Actually, I've only been ordering two beers because I've given up drinking for Lent."
The next night, the gentleman does the same. Pulling up to the bar, he requests his three beers, and after having drunk them, he leaves.
The third night comes, and the man once more comes in and requests his three beers. By this point, the bartender's curiosity is getting the best of him, so he asks the fellow, "say, bud, why is it that each evening you request exactly three beers?" The gentleman was glad to answer. "I have two brothers, you see. And we made a pact with one another that wherever we went and had a beer, we would also have a beer for each of our other two brothers, in honor of one another. So that's why, each time I order a beer for myself, I order two more as well."
The bartender thought this was one of the noblest things he had ever heard, and he began to tell it to those he knew. Soon word of the gentleman and his two brothers spread throughout the countryside.
Then one day, as the bartender was serving drinks, the gentleman came up to the bar and said, "bartender, give me two beers." With a heavy heart, the bartender brought the man two beers, and by the next day word had spread that one of the gentleman's brothers had died.
The next evening, when the gentleman came into the pub, the bartender, hesitant to bring the subject up, said, "I am sure sorry to hear about the death of your brother."
"My brother isn't dead! What made you think he was dead?" the man replied.
"Well, you've only been ordering two beers the past couple of nights," said the bartender.
"Oh, that," the gentleman said. "Actually, I've only been ordering two beers because I've given up drinking for Lent."
The Movement of the Spheres
Greg Wilbur quotes David Yearsley on the relationship between musical counterpoint and the motion of the heavenly bodies. Is this what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote Ainulindale?
He can create money out of thin air
In The Christian Almanac, George Grant and Greg Wilbur take the position that the movie version takes Baum's original intent and turns it on it's head. Unfortunately, I don't have the book at my disposal at the moment, so any interested may want to check it out. Nonetheless, this BBC article is a good introduction to the question of whether the Wizard of Oz was intended to be a political allegory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7933175.stmMonday, March 16, 2009
In lieu...
... of anything from me on music at the moment, here's an interesting post from Doug Wilson on a recent experience he had:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6391
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6391
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A lesson from the life of Bernie Madoff
When choosing a crime to commit, take your last name into consideration first.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Getting the Ooshy-gooshies: Music, pt. 2
Let's rehearse, in a nutshell, the history of the recent worship wars. Until the late 1960's, music in the American church was pretty consistent across the board, no matter what denomination one was in. (There were some variations between traditions, some greater than others, but they weren't as great as the gap between what are now considered "traditional" and "contemporary" forms of worship.) But with the cultural revolution of the sixties came the beginnings of a revolution in church music. And now, there is scarcely a denomination that hasn't since been affected by the shift in music.
So has the change been for the good? It's a simple question that one might think would yield a simple answer, but I don't think it does.
Often when people address the question of whether or not a certain type of Christian music is good, the rationale that people will give is something along the lines of this: "It must be good, because the Lord blessed me through it." But just because the Lord uses something for good in a person's life, that doesn't mean that we should regularly seek that thing out. God once spoke through a donkey (Numbers 22), but that doesn't mean then that we should make a regular practice of ordaining jackasses to the ministry (though some denominations do this fairly frequently). Equally so, God uses all sorts of things to bless his children, whether or not those things are good in themselves (Romans 8:28).
This sort of thinking is what is called "pragmatism". Pragmatism says that a thing is justified by its effectiveness. If it works, then do it. But pragmatism excludes all other moral claims. The easiest way for me to get money may be to knock over a convenience store. But God says it is sin, and therefore it's wrong.
Also, when talking to people about worship music, I frequently find there is little rational thought behind why they like the kind of worship music they like. "It gets me pumped up," or some variation thereof, isn't a good argument for why a certain type of music is appropriate for worship. Based on that argument, maybe we should replace the bread and wine (or, I suppose for most, grape juice) with giant candy bars and Red Bull. This isn't to say there shouldn't be an emotional response to music in worship, or that worship music shouldn't be pleasing to the emotions. But when that is one's main focus in assessing worship music, then there is a need for them to do a little deeper thinking on the subject. This would also suggest an erroneous way of viewing the world in general that goes deeper than the question of music.
This isn't a problem confined to the younger generation of Christians, either. Part of the problem in the worship wars has been that the older generation hasn't been able to intelligently articulate why they think the music they were accustomed to worshiping with is superior. And in some cases, the music they were accustomed to wasn't superior. That's where we'll pick up next time.
So has the change been for the good? It's a simple question that one might think would yield a simple answer, but I don't think it does.
Often when people address the question of whether or not a certain type of Christian music is good, the rationale that people will give is something along the lines of this: "It must be good, because the Lord blessed me through it." But just because the Lord uses something for good in a person's life, that doesn't mean that we should regularly seek that thing out. God once spoke through a donkey (Numbers 22), but that doesn't mean then that we should make a regular practice of ordaining jackasses to the ministry (though some denominations do this fairly frequently). Equally so, God uses all sorts of things to bless his children, whether or not those things are good in themselves (Romans 8:28).
This sort of thinking is what is called "pragmatism". Pragmatism says that a thing is justified by its effectiveness. If it works, then do it. But pragmatism excludes all other moral claims. The easiest way for me to get money may be to knock over a convenience store. But God says it is sin, and therefore it's wrong.
Also, when talking to people about worship music, I frequently find there is little rational thought behind why they like the kind of worship music they like. "It gets me pumped up," or some variation thereof, isn't a good argument for why a certain type of music is appropriate for worship. Based on that argument, maybe we should replace the bread and wine (or, I suppose for most, grape juice) with giant candy bars and Red Bull. This isn't to say there shouldn't be an emotional response to music in worship, or that worship music shouldn't be pleasing to the emotions. But when that is one's main focus in assessing worship music, then there is a need for them to do a little deeper thinking on the subject. This would also suggest an erroneous way of viewing the world in general that goes deeper than the question of music.
This isn't a problem confined to the younger generation of Christians, either. Part of the problem in the worship wars has been that the older generation hasn't been able to intelligently articulate why they think the music they were accustomed to worshiping with is superior. And in some cases, the music they were accustomed to wasn't superior. That's where we'll pick up next time.
Friday, March 06, 2009
A Man's Library
Douglas Phillips, on why a father's library is an important part of any Christian home:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/a_mans_library.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/a_mans_library.aspx
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Does anybody else find it ironic...
...that President Obama is giving a speech about a lean economy on Fat Tuesday?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Well, well, well...
Tonight I decided randomly to go to Westover Church here in Greensboro for their singles group called The Well. I used to attend somewhat regularly, but it's been over a year since I've been. I'm glad I went.
I asked a single friend a few years back, "why is it that all they ever talk about in singles groups is relationships and the end times?" The friend thought for a second and replied, "hey, that is all we ever talk about!" So I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I showed up tonight to find out they were beginning a four week series on relationships.
Former singles pastor Chris Lewis (now pastor of discipleship) gave the message tonight. One passage he discussed was the conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well, recorded in John 4. That sparked a few thoughts in my own mind, which follow, and had little to do with what Chris actually said. (Sorry Chris, I actually was listening.)
I believe it was Doug Wilson who pointed out in one of his lectures that, throughout Scripture, whenever a man and woman meet at a well, then a wedding is soon to follow. Men and women would tend to meet there, and therefore it wasn't unusual that their meeting then led to their getting married. The well was sort of like the soda shop, or the water fountain, or maybe today, the Starbucks. Or maybe like the bar, though people who meet in bars don't usually get married, they just use one another until they tire of one another. But in Scripture, beyond the mere sociological aspect, wells carry a specific typological significance. Since wells have water, they tie in to the various typological meanings of water in Scripture. Water is connected to the Holy Spirit; to death, burial, and resurrection; to regeneration; and through the Exodus and the Jordan, it is connected to entering the Promised Land. All these things overlap in the John 4 passage. But in the least, we should note the connection between this passage and other passages where men and women meet at wells. So it is reasonable that the disciples would be shocked that Jesus would be talking to this woman. Would he have anything to do with a woman who had lived such a promiscuous life? But this is exactly how God had been throughout the Old Covenant. Yahweh's wife, Israel, had played the harlot over and over and over again, and He had repeatedly taken her back. This woman, though a Samaritan, symbolized unfaithful Israel. In fact, in being a Samaritan, she was an example of an unlawful intermarriage between the people of God and the pagans.
So was Jesus looking to marry this woman? Well, yes and no. This woman also symbolized the church, in that she wasn't fully Jewish. Were she to become one of the faithful, and therefore one of the church, then yes, Jesus was going to "marry" her, just as He would marry all who became part of the church. In fact, Jesus notes that the woman had had five husbands, and the man she was with at the time wasn't her husband. So a little basic math reveals that she had been with six men. Then who was to be the seventh, that is, who was to be her Sabbath rest? Jesus was.
But on the other hand, he wasn't going to marry her. Jeff Meyers once noted in a lecture that Jesus has several encounters with women through out the Gospel of John. It seems reminiscent of Adam's act of naming the animals (Genesis 2) and not finding among them a suitable helper. Jesus meets many women, but only the Church is fit to be his mate.
The conversation between Jesus and the woman turns to the subject of the proper place of worship, and the debate is over which mountain is the correct one. But Jesus tells her that neither is right. He says that true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth. We might be tempted to take that to mean in a non-physical way, or that location doesn't matter. But that isn't the case. True worship is directed heavenward, where the New Jerusalem is, the heavenly Mount Zion. This connects the passage to Revelation 21, where the New Jerusalem is portrayed as a Bride, adorned for her husband, coming down out of heaven. Jesus will marry the Church, which is His Bride, which is the New Jerusalem.
And all of this happened at the Well.
I asked a single friend a few years back, "why is it that all they ever talk about in singles groups is relationships and the end times?" The friend thought for a second and replied, "hey, that is all we ever talk about!" So I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I showed up tonight to find out they were beginning a four week series on relationships.
Former singles pastor Chris Lewis (now pastor of discipleship) gave the message tonight. One passage he discussed was the conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well, recorded in John 4. That sparked a few thoughts in my own mind, which follow, and had little to do with what Chris actually said. (Sorry Chris, I actually was listening.)
I believe it was Doug Wilson who pointed out in one of his lectures that, throughout Scripture, whenever a man and woman meet at a well, then a wedding is soon to follow. Men and women would tend to meet there, and therefore it wasn't unusual that their meeting then led to their getting married. The well was sort of like the soda shop, or the water fountain, or maybe today, the Starbucks. Or maybe like the bar, though people who meet in bars don't usually get married, they just use one another until they tire of one another. But in Scripture, beyond the mere sociological aspect, wells carry a specific typological significance. Since wells have water, they tie in to the various typological meanings of water in Scripture. Water is connected to the Holy Spirit; to death, burial, and resurrection; to regeneration; and through the Exodus and the Jordan, it is connected to entering the Promised Land. All these things overlap in the John 4 passage. But in the least, we should note the connection between this passage and other passages where men and women meet at wells. So it is reasonable that the disciples would be shocked that Jesus would be talking to this woman. Would he have anything to do with a woman who had lived such a promiscuous life? But this is exactly how God had been throughout the Old Covenant. Yahweh's wife, Israel, had played the harlot over and over and over again, and He had repeatedly taken her back. This woman, though a Samaritan, symbolized unfaithful Israel. In fact, in being a Samaritan, she was an example of an unlawful intermarriage between the people of God and the pagans.
So was Jesus looking to marry this woman? Well, yes and no. This woman also symbolized the church, in that she wasn't fully Jewish. Were she to become one of the faithful, and therefore one of the church, then yes, Jesus was going to "marry" her, just as He would marry all who became part of the church. In fact, Jesus notes that the woman had had five husbands, and the man she was with at the time wasn't her husband. So a little basic math reveals that she had been with six men. Then who was to be the seventh, that is, who was to be her Sabbath rest? Jesus was.
But on the other hand, he wasn't going to marry her. Jeff Meyers once noted in a lecture that Jesus has several encounters with women through out the Gospel of John. It seems reminiscent of Adam's act of naming the animals (Genesis 2) and not finding among them a suitable helper. Jesus meets many women, but only the Church is fit to be his mate.
The conversation between Jesus and the woman turns to the subject of the proper place of worship, and the debate is over which mountain is the correct one. But Jesus tells her that neither is right. He says that true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth. We might be tempted to take that to mean in a non-physical way, or that location doesn't matter. But that isn't the case. True worship is directed heavenward, where the New Jerusalem is, the heavenly Mount Zion. This connects the passage to Revelation 21, where the New Jerusalem is portrayed as a Bride, adorned for her husband, coming down out of heaven. Jesus will marry the Church, which is His Bride, which is the New Jerusalem.
And all of this happened at the Well.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Why Johnny Can't Preach
I just got an email from the Westminster Seminary bookstore that featured this book, which looks like it would be very interesting:
Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Christ the Ark
This morning's Old Testament reading from the Book of Common Prayer came from Genesis 8, which tells of the latter portion of the time that Noah, his family, and all the animals spent on the ark. What strikes me as interesting is the care that God gave in describing to us the sequence of events that took place leading up to and during the flood. Four chapters of Genesis are devoted to the story of Noah (ch. 6-9), which suggests that we do the story a disservice when we reduce it down to a tale about a big boat full of cuddly animals.
The passage is rife with typological symbolism. The tabernacle typology fills the passage, and seems to be the main imagery here. Just as Yahweh went into great detail in His prescriptions for the tabernacle, and then later the temple, He also here goes into great detail in His instructions to Noah. The measurements are detailed, as are the materials that the ark is to be made out of. Rooms are to be made in the ark (6:14), which are later echoed in the two rooms in the tabernacle, and even moreso in the various chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:3-5). We might say, in other words, that, from the perspective of the flood, the ark prefigured the tabernacle and the temple. But from the perspective of the tabernacle and the temple, they were designed in part to resemble and hearken back to the ark. They were each, in themselves, arks, means of salvation from the judgment of God for sin.
Yahweh commands Noah to take seven pairs of each clean animal, which pointed forward to the Mosaic law and the animals prescribed in the Levitical offerings. And after the flood, we are told that Noah offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, a specific type of offering in the Levitical system (Lev. 1). As the ark pointed forward to the tabernacle and temple, so Noah functioned here as priest and pointed forward to the Levitical priesthood.
There are the details given regarding the days and months during the flood. The number seven makes several appearances in the story, pointing back to the Creation as well as forward to the foundation of the Levitical calendar, the Sabbath (Lev. 23:3). It also seems to be no coincidence that the ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month, which date would later have been during the Feast of Booths (Lev. 23:33-36).
Leaving the matter of the Old Covenant liturgical system somewhat, we also see a parallel between the flood and the baptism of Jesus. Peter shows us the connection between the flood and the baptism of Christians (1 Peter 3:18-22), but when the details are considered, the connection with Christ's baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) becomes apparent. Christ went into water, just as the ark did. We have reference to the opening of the heavens (Gen. 7:11), just as in the stories of Jesus' baptism. And there are the reports of the Holy Spirit being as a dove (even in the bodily form of a dove, as Luke records, vs. 22), which is a link to Noah's sending out of the dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8-12).
And so the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were all types of Christ. Or, in other words, Christ was the fullness of all that the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were mere shadows.
The passage is rife with typological symbolism. The tabernacle typology fills the passage, and seems to be the main imagery here. Just as Yahweh went into great detail in His prescriptions for the tabernacle, and then later the temple, He also here goes into great detail in His instructions to Noah. The measurements are detailed, as are the materials that the ark is to be made out of. Rooms are to be made in the ark (6:14), which are later echoed in the two rooms in the tabernacle, and even moreso in the various chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:3-5). We might say, in other words, that, from the perspective of the flood, the ark prefigured the tabernacle and the temple. But from the perspective of the tabernacle and the temple, they were designed in part to resemble and hearken back to the ark. They were each, in themselves, arks, means of salvation from the judgment of God for sin.
Yahweh commands Noah to take seven pairs of each clean animal, which pointed forward to the Mosaic law and the animals prescribed in the Levitical offerings. And after the flood, we are told that Noah offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, a specific type of offering in the Levitical system (Lev. 1). As the ark pointed forward to the tabernacle and temple, so Noah functioned here as priest and pointed forward to the Levitical priesthood.
There are the details given regarding the days and months during the flood. The number seven makes several appearances in the story, pointing back to the Creation as well as forward to the foundation of the Levitical calendar, the Sabbath (Lev. 23:3). It also seems to be no coincidence that the ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month, which date would later have been during the Feast of Booths (Lev. 23:33-36).
Leaving the matter of the Old Covenant liturgical system somewhat, we also see a parallel between the flood and the baptism of Jesus. Peter shows us the connection between the flood and the baptism of Christians (1 Peter 3:18-22), but when the details are considered, the connection with Christ's baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) becomes apparent. Christ went into water, just as the ark did. We have reference to the opening of the heavens (Gen. 7:11), just as in the stories of Jesus' baptism. And there are the reports of the Holy Spirit being as a dove (even in the bodily form of a dove, as Luke records, vs. 22), which is a link to Noah's sending out of the dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8-12).
And so the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were all types of Christ. Or, in other words, Christ was the fullness of all that the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were mere shadows.
And now, for something completely different... a little pre-show music.
I decided a week or so ago that I would write some pieces about music and post them on my Facebook page. I'll be posting them here as well. They will rarely make Facebook references, but I don't really care to take the time to edit them for this blog. So here is the first one, as written for Facebook, and I trust the reader will be able to consider it without being to distracted by comments referring to the original intended context.
I think the one thing that comes up most often when I talk to people about worship is music. Obviously, music is an important part of worship, so it's natural that people would want to talk about it. Whether or not it's as important as most Christians think it is, however, is a whole other question.
The "worship wars" are gradually becoming old news, it seems to me. As the older generation of Christians are passing on, so is the music they were accustomed to hearing in church. And as the younger generation has grown up and is taking the reins of leadership, the default position now in most Evangelical churches seems to be contemporary worship. Generally, though, what is meant by "contemporary worship" is simply "worship with contemporary music". This isn't to say that there aren't other things that have changed in worship in recent decades. But let's be honest. People don't generally find themselves in the middle of huge church splits over whether or not to have a skit before the sermon on Sunday morning. Usually, the fights that take place over worship in the local church center around music. Of course, when the shift in music takes place, other things usually come with it. You don't find churches with worship bands where the seats are full of women in dresses and men in three-piece suits, after all.
Then there is the whole question of music outside of corporate worship. As a Christian, is music that falls under the heading "Christian" the only type of music I should listen to? Is all "secular" music bad? I'm always intrigued by the different answers to these questions that are bandied about in Evangelical circles.
When I signed up on Facebook a couple of months ago, I didn't really anticipate reconnecting with so many people from earlier in my life. As I've interacted with old friends through email and online, music usually comes up, since I'm a musician of sorts. For what it's worth, I must confess that I don't play guitar much anymore. I'd rather listen to others play these days. And the photo with the headstock of my guitar? I was just trying to get an artsy picture for my profile.
Nonetheless, people who haven't seen me in years still think of me, I guess, as a musician. For those who have only known me recently, it used to be that my guitar and I were practically joined at the hip. Much of my identity was wrapped up in it. These days, I'd rather be reading. The world is full of things to learn, and I want to learn all I can, hopefully for my own good, for the good of others, and, especially, for God's glory. I find the masses, however, aren't as interested in knowledge. For most people, armchair polymath apparently holds less mystique than guitarist. If you play a song people like, they love you. If you tell them some sort of insight you gained from Scripture, or from reflecting on the world around you, they generally seem, shall we say, less than impressed. Alas.
But I still consider myself a musician. I've been a sort of musical jack of all trades, master of none. I sang in choirs and choruses in school and church from elementary school on up through high school, and even one semester in college. I played in a garage band in high school. I sang with a southern gospel group briefly. I led singing in youth group, and daily worship for a ministry I served at for a couple of years. I've sung solo in churches and in coffee shops. I've dabbled in everything from barber shop to Bach to the Beatles. So, though I may not be classically trained, in light of my experience I believe I have some views on the topic of music that are worth sharing.
So my plans at this point are to post occasional thoughts on music, both inside and outside the church, and this is the introductory post. As always, I welcome any interaction on what I'm writing.
I think the one thing that comes up most often when I talk to people about worship is music. Obviously, music is an important part of worship, so it's natural that people would want to talk about it. Whether or not it's as important as most Christians think it is, however, is a whole other question.
The "worship wars" are gradually becoming old news, it seems to me. As the older generation of Christians are passing on, so is the music they were accustomed to hearing in church. And as the younger generation has grown up and is taking the reins of leadership, the default position now in most Evangelical churches seems to be contemporary worship. Generally, though, what is meant by "contemporary worship" is simply "worship with contemporary music". This isn't to say that there aren't other things that have changed in worship in recent decades. But let's be honest. People don't generally find themselves in the middle of huge church splits over whether or not to have a skit before the sermon on Sunday morning. Usually, the fights that take place over worship in the local church center around music. Of course, when the shift in music takes place, other things usually come with it. You don't find churches with worship bands where the seats are full of women in dresses and men in three-piece suits, after all.
Then there is the whole question of music outside of corporate worship. As a Christian, is music that falls under the heading "Christian" the only type of music I should listen to? Is all "secular" music bad? I'm always intrigued by the different answers to these questions that are bandied about in Evangelical circles.
When I signed up on Facebook a couple of months ago, I didn't really anticipate reconnecting with so many people from earlier in my life. As I've interacted with old friends through email and online, music usually comes up, since I'm a musician of sorts. For what it's worth, I must confess that I don't play guitar much anymore. I'd rather listen to others play these days. And the photo with the headstock of my guitar? I was just trying to get an artsy picture for my profile.
Nonetheless, people who haven't seen me in years still think of me, I guess, as a musician. For those who have only known me recently, it used to be that my guitar and I were practically joined at the hip. Much of my identity was wrapped up in it. These days, I'd rather be reading. The world is full of things to learn, and I want to learn all I can, hopefully for my own good, for the good of others, and, especially, for God's glory. I find the masses, however, aren't as interested in knowledge. For most people, armchair polymath apparently holds less mystique than guitarist. If you play a song people like, they love you. If you tell them some sort of insight you gained from Scripture, or from reflecting on the world around you, they generally seem, shall we say, less than impressed. Alas.
But I still consider myself a musician. I've been a sort of musical jack of all trades, master of none. I sang in choirs and choruses in school and church from elementary school on up through high school, and even one semester in college. I played in a garage band in high school. I sang with a southern gospel group briefly. I led singing in youth group, and daily worship for a ministry I served at for a couple of years. I've sung solo in churches and in coffee shops. I've dabbled in everything from barber shop to Bach to the Beatles. So, though I may not be classically trained, in light of my experience I believe I have some views on the topic of music that are worth sharing.
So my plans at this point are to post occasional thoughts on music, both inside and outside the church, and this is the introductory post. As always, I welcome any interaction on what I'm writing.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Irony with a vengeance
Many of you will be familiar with Ben Stein. He is probably best known for his appearance as the dead-pan teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or maybe for his now defunct game show "Win Ben Stein's Money". He happens to be an all-around brilliant guy, being also an economist, as well as a political commentator and speech writer. His most recent fame, however, has come from his movie "Expelled", which was released last year and which highlighted the bias of the scientific community against anything but Evolutionary theory.
Well, his exposé of Darwinianism has come to be a personal reality for him. Originally asked to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont this Spring, a huge backlash erupted, based off of his criticisms of Evolution. As a result, Stein has declined the invitation to speak.
On the Big Hollywood website, Andrew Leigh notes the irony in this. The whole point of "Expelled" was to show the unwillingness within academia to be open to theories of origins other than Evolution. Now, the thesis of the movie has been confirmed. Plus, the Darwinists have shown that they are as hypocritical as they often accuse Christians of being. So who's closed minded now?
Relevant links:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/90203038&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/02/04/ben-steins-commencement-day-off/
HT: Gary DeMar
Well, his exposé of Darwinianism has come to be a personal reality for him. Originally asked to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont this Spring, a huge backlash erupted, based off of his criticisms of Evolution. As a result, Stein has declined the invitation to speak.
On the Big Hollywood website, Andrew Leigh notes the irony in this. The whole point of "Expelled" was to show the unwillingness within academia to be open to theories of origins other than Evolution. Now, the thesis of the movie has been confirmed. Plus, the Darwinists have shown that they are as hypocritical as they often accuse Christians of being. So who's closed minded now?
Relevant links:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/90203038&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/02/04/ben-steins-commencement-day-off/
HT: Gary DeMar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)