Three ways to live

Here is another cool product from OpenBible.info, Bible Book Browser. It’s technology is quite similar to web albums appeared in the recent MacOS update. Check it out!

Evangelical churches and ministries across America are reeling today after a lower court in Manhattan found the defendants guilty in the “U.S. vs. ‘Rev. John Smith’” sermon sharing case.

On April 1, 2007 the justice department filed charges against thousands of pastors and seminary students across America. Due to the large number of parties involved, the justice department simply designated the defendant as “Rev. John Smith” to represent the whole.

At the center of the suit are the sermons and writings of Rev. Timothy J. Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. After an intensive three year investigation the justice department uncovered an extensive network of pastors, seminary students and other church workers who downloaded hundreds of sermons by Rev. Keller, distributed them and preached them regularly in churches across America.

Read the whole thing here.

Guilty as charged. Maybe I should shut down my blog before authorities get to me… :)

Update: Well, just want to clarify that this article is intended as a joke. I know it’s sounds very realistic, but it’s not real.

Have you heard about New Perspective on Paul or NPP? I haven’t until about half a year ago, when one of my friends brought the subject up. Since then I spent considerable amount of time trying to understand the issue and still cannot claim I am there.

If you are like me, you might find a series of posts (part 1,2,3) by Matt Harmon very useful. His is probably the best summary I’ve seen (and I’ve seen many). I believe he plans more posts, so keep watching.

Wondering where I stand? Well, I have not made up my mind yet. I do think it is an important issue. It does pose danger to traditional understanding of justification by faith. Should we utterly reject it as nonsense? I can’t; too many very established scholars support it. And as D.A. Carson, an expert in the subject, pointed out during recent talks I attended, “Not everything in the New Perspective on Paul is wrong”. I agree with many that in trying to correct some mistakes of the “traditional” doctrine NPP probably went too far in the other direction. Yet, it does contains some truth.

I am quite excited that we are starting on book of Romans next month with our bible study group. Romans is central to the doctrine of justification by faith and NPP scholars tried hard to re-interpret it in the light of their findings. So it will be a great opportunity for me to learn about NPP, as in addition to 4-5 traditional commentaries on the book I also own a Word Biblical Commentary volume written by James Dunn, a well-known NPP theologian. Watch this space.

Raffi Shahinian, a blogger I have just stumbled upon, mentions his 10(+2) favorite C.S. Lewis’ quotes.

If I were to choose one out of these, it would be:

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

Here is a short interview with Gabe Lyons, the author of “unChristian“, a book about how Christianity is perceived by younger generation. Nothing really groundbreaking here, but still very sobering. Again and again, non-Christians are saying they do not want to be treated as a product, that Christians only care about “spreading the message” and not about many ills of our society. One important aspect of Christian mission - to be fair representation of what God is - is often completely neglected. It’s not surprising that by looking at us non-Christians will think that God only cares about people been saved.

In case you are not aware, this movie is the first installment of “His Dark Materials” trilogy by well-known atheist Philip Pullman. It is soon (Dec 6) to be released in Singapore. As it often happens with art, it very well represents Pullman’s religious views, which are strongly anti-Christian.

I found Christianity Today article “Fear Not the Compass” to be very helpful and well-balanced summary on what Christian response to the movie should be.

Scott Mackay has a series of interesting posts on what it means to work for God:

1. Part I
2. Part II
3. Part III
4. Revisiting

It’s a long read, but highly recommended! Here is my own summary of Scott’s summary (do not mistake it for the real thing):

There are two kinds of work, creation work and new creation work. The former is taking care, cultivating God’s creation, was was a direct command from God right after Creation and is still valid today. The latter is participation in God’s work of reversing the Fall, building up the church and bringing in New Creation. Both are important, but new creation work has the priority now - without reversing effects of the Fall, creation work makes little sense.

Reading this reminded me of a war situation. When a nation is at peace, men are doing their usual stuff - studying, farming, mining, building, etc. But a war creates a new kind of work - fighting for your country. Both works are important, but fighting has priority. After all, if your nation get destroyed by enemy, other work won’t matter at all. Yet, it’s wrong to think of fighting as the only worthy thing to do. It is temporary, while common work is lasting. It is impossible that everybody fights; it needs to be supported by all other activities, like farming, building, even entertainment.

I remember this scene from an old Russian movie about World War II, where a young guy (let’s call him Dimitri) is trying to decide whether to voluntarily join the army, or go study in University (he had a great talent for sciences). His older friend is trying to change his mind, “Dimitri, you have to think about the future. This war will be over soon, and our country will succumb without people like you”.

How do you explain a blind from birth person what is red color? The only choice you have is to appeal to his other senses (hearing, smell, touch, taste). But is the taste of orange is like red color? Or maybe touch of wood is like a red color? Well, not really.

But this is exactly what Paul is trying to do in this passage, explain to us what’s going to happen at the resurrection. The main question is in v.35: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”. Verses 36-50 provide the answer to the second question, while the first question is quickly addressed in verses 51-52.

1. Key observations about the nature of the new body

• The new body is as different from our current body as the plant is different from the seed - v.37. Pushing the metaphor a bit, just as a plant is much more alive than the seed, we will be much more alive than we are now
• Everybody’s bodies will be different, just as animal bodies are different from human and from heavenly bodies - v.38
• The new body will be a spiritual body rather than a natural body - vv.44-49
• The current body is perishable, the new will be imperishable - v.42
• New body shall bear the likeness of Jesus - v.49

2. What is the difference between the natural and spiritual bodies mentioned in vv.44-49?

It is a common mistake to think that physical means material and spiritual means immaterial. That is not what Paul means. If the new body is going to be immaterial, why talk about body at all? Why not just call it spirit? Or earlier in 1 Cor 10:3-4, when Paul talks about spiritual food and drink, does he imply that these are immaterial? No, there by spiritual he means that their source was the spiritual rock of God. In 1 Cor 2:15, Paul addresses a spiritual man as somebody who has the Holy spirit.

One of the sources of confusion is the translation “natural body”. A better translation is “soulish body”, body formed from and for the soul. Spiritual body is then a body formed from and for the spirit, which does not mean it will be immaterial.

3. In the last two verses Paul is basically saying, Now, since you understand these facts about resurrection, devote yourself to the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. What’s the connection?

One possible answer is that proper understanding of the resurrection might help you do your work better. It could also mean that in the view of resurrection, some work matters and other not. I think both statements are true - there is a work that is not in vain because of resurrection and understanding this connection will help you do this work better. Just as our new bodies will be different from the current ones, as the plant differs from its seed, both have something in common - the share the DNA. There is some continuity between the current and the new creations - something that we do here now will be in some sense preserved in the life to come.

One obvious example is evangelism - a saved soul now will become a new resurrected inhabitant in the New Earth - a clear connection between now and then. Another example is giving away your earthly possessions that Jesus equates to storing up treasures in Heaven. This is clearly work not in vain.

However, it is also important not to push this idea too far. What you believe will matter in the life to come should not be the only guiding principle to what you do now. For example, if this Earth will be completely destroyed and nothing from it will be carried out to the New Earth, why care about rare species, global warming, pollution, etc? Yet what about God’s command to take control and care for his creation in Gen 1? Another example is marriage - there will be none in the new life. So why get married now, if it’s not going to last?

There is more to life that just trying to do what we think will matter in the next life. First, we have to admit we do not always know what will matter. Will there be music and, if yes, will my skill and appreciation for it be preserved? Will there be science? If doing something helps strengthen the character, will it be preserved? Second, some things are worth doing only because they serve to represent God or obey his commands, whether we think the results of such actions will last or not.

I think this is a neat way to test the leaders who want to run your country:

However, let me point out what I think is a deficiency in all three answers. The question should not be whether you believe the Bible literally or not, it should be whether Bible has authority over you. What do you do when you encounter a passage that requires a change in you behavior or attitude? Do you tend to write it off as something cultural or outdated? Or do you think long and hard how to properly apply it to your life? This makes all the difference.

Very often those who say they don’t believe Bible is literally true are those who end up picking and choosing what to believe from it. They might like “Love your neighbor” and discard “Take up your cross and follow me”, accept “Forgive your brother” and reject “I am the truth, the way and the life. No one comes to father except through me”.

How are you doing?

John Piper is probably most famous for promoting so-called Christian Hedonism. In case you are wondering, a hedonist is one who lives a life devoted to finding and experiencing maximum pleasure or happiness. Sounds incompatible with Christianity, does it? Wrong, says John Piper.

Here is his logic, very simplified but hopefully still true to the original.

1. There is nothing wrong with the desire for pleasure, but there are many wrong ways to go about achieving it.
2. Since God is our creator, he intended that ultimately we achieve this desire by taking pleasure in Him
3. God has created the world and us for His own glory
4. These two things (God seeking his own glory and us seeking pleasure in God) must go hand-in-hand. We find the deepest pleasure - God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him

When I first heard these ideas, I readily accepted points 1 and 2, due to my familiarity with numerous C.S. Lewis notes on these, see my earlier post. But point 3 came to me as a big surprise. What? God is so selfish as to seek his own glory? If you have a similar issue, you might want to to take a look at a long list of scriptural references that supports this view.

If you are interested in learning more, read Pleasure of God, by John Piper, where all these ideas are presented in much greater detail. The first three chapters are also available as a free download here.