Misc.

Can I Get a Witness?

For one of my classes at Biblical Seminary, I was asked to summarize Brian Blount’s Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture. The following is a chapter-by-chapter summary ending with my thoughts on a very good book.

Chapter 1: “The Revelation of Culture”: Brian Blount suggests that any interpretive schemes seeking objectivity are pointless since in the end “all readings are politically situated” (p. 12). Instead, one should admit his or her cultural standpoint and read the text through his or her cultural lens. The reader should seek “what Revelation means for us” (p. 5). With this being said, the most appropriate method is that of cultural studies. Blount suggests that culture is simply the sharing of experience (p.8), and all interpretations have “meaning potential.” If this is the case, biblical interpretation takes into account various opinions and participates in the “construction of meaning” (p. 22), specifically valuing the conclusions of “previously marginalized contemporary communities” (p. 25). This does not allow for a subjective, “anything goes” interpretive style, but it simply suggests that “the case is always open” (p. 35).

(more…)

^6-8Then I heard the sound of massed choirs, the sound of a mighty cataract, the sound of strong thunder:

Hallelujah!
The Master reigns,
our God, the Sovereign-Strong!
Let us celebrate, let us rejoice,
let us give him the glory!
The Marriage of the Lamb has come;
his Wife has made herself ready.
She was given a bridal gown
of bright and shining linen.
The linen is the righteousness of the saints. (Revelation 19:7, The Message)

This past weekend I was privileged to be the “best man” in my brother Jonathan’s wedding. As you may know, the best man is attributed the duty of a “best man speech.” I have given one in the past, and I was pretty sure I knew what I wanted to say. But, as the ceremony proceeded, I began to think differently. My brother decided to write his own vow to my sister-in-law (to-be) Katie. Often, I’m not a fan of written vows, but Jon’s was really good. He pledged himself to her, and, as he read his pledge, his emotions began to express themselves through none-other-than metaphor.

Metaphor often expresses which we so desire to express, but we can’t do so “literally.” And I find it incredibly beautiful that, when Scripture decides to express it’s emotion of the joyous coming-together of Christ and his Church, it uses none-other-than the metaphor of marriage.

So, I shared that with my brother and his bride.

Isn’t it beautiful? Christ is being united with his Church (!), and the only way the writers of Scripture can express this is through the language of bride and bridegroom.

I believe that our human marriages are no less than a signpost to the marriage of Christ and his Church. So, when you and I witness a marriage between two humans, we are in turn seeing the beauty of Christ the bridegroom being united to the Church his bride. We get a glimpse of the future. We see heaven come to earth. Therefore, let’s not take the spectacle of the marriage ceremony lightly. Let it be a reminder to us. May we see heaven come and meet earth in none-other-than two lowly beings sharing vows, rings, and a kiss in this brilliant metaphor.

Maybe I’m just old school, but I feel that church decisions should be left up to the church’s leadership.

I know a number of occasions where a church’s leadership has become power hungry and does not desire what is best for the community but for itself (let’s be honest, you know them, too). However, I know an equal or greater number of occasions where church leadership has made better decisions in the short term and long term that I, personally, would have (let’s be honest, you know these situations, too). If you stick around a church long enough, you will see a mix of both, but, if we truly believe that God has called our leaders to their places of leadership, shouldn’t we trust them?

Have you ever heard of a situation like this? — church people: “God has called this pastor to our church.” Then, about a year later, the pastor makes one decision that the people don’t like…church people: ”Pastor, God has called us to let you go because he wants to do more with you elsewhere but not here.” — it’s a ludicrous situation! We would all say that the church over-reacted, but we often treat our church leadership the same way, don’t we?

We must trust our church leadership, even when we disagree. A local church must be willing to listen to its congregants, but, as soon as it comes to “decision time,” the church leadership must make the best decision based upon those voices. If you think the church’s carpet should be red (and you have “everyone” on your side), and the leadership goes with blue carpet, trust that they listened, and they made the right decision. And let’s be sincere, if the leadership makes a poor decision, they will go “down with the ship,” and most congregants will have moved on by then because they have the luxury to leave. However, if it’s a great decision and one that brings life to the church, most of the dissenters will never say anything in gratitude.

The problem is that many of us believe we have the “right” to make decisions in our church. That’s a nice idea, and it most certainly is a nice American idea; but, in reality, it’s well…not realistic, and it’s not very fruitful. When we start to think of a church as “our” church, we’ve run into a huge problem, which needs to address.

I’m not saying this will be easy so “no sweat,” but it’s not your church, or my church; it’s Christ’s church. Many will say, “Well, Evan, you don’t know! It’s easy for you because now you are a ‘church leader.’” See, I’ve been on both sides of the coin. I’ve been burned by church leadership, and I’ve been a church leader. I’ve had my salary cut from the church budget, and I’ve been one of the decision-makers for someone else’s income. I’ve been told I’m too young and immature to understand (and perhaps, I was), and I’ve had to tell people that, too. I’ve seen the church as my church, and it’s not healthy. Why? As I said, it’s Christ’s church.

So, I say brothers and sisters; let’s refrain from back-biting or gossiping about our church leadership and their decisions. But let’s trust them, and support them. Let’s submit to them as they submit to the Lord.

Thomas Turner from EverydayLiturgy.com will be guest blogging for me while I’m on vacation this week. Thomas brings a world of great thoughts for the church and especially its mission. Enjoy! I’m off to the Outer Banks!

Pastor Evander Evangelical: “Do you know what the Euro is? You know, the money used for the European Union [EU]? Do you know what the EU is?”

Billy Sundayschool: “Yes.”

Rev:  ”Good, but if you aren’t aware the Euro and the EU are signs of the end times.”

Billy: “Why is uniting currency a problem?”

Pastor E.E.: “Well…ye of little faith!…because the Antichrist is coming to setup a one-world government, and the European Union is just a piece of this horrific, demonic puzzle! Not only do those pesky Euros make you think you’re spending less than you really are (i.e., exchange rate), but Satan pays his heating bill with them!”

Billy: “Wow, Pastor. This is the second time you saved me! To think, I almost listened to Queen’s Another One Bites the Dust because I didn’t know what it says when you play it backwards, and now this?! Next question, should I join the Freemasons?”

This (pretend but often true) Euro/EU argument may not be a convincing one to you (you must read intelligent blogs!), but, to many, this argument was incredibly convincing during the first appearance of the Euro that “we are living in the end times.” According to many, the unifying of the entire world, world economic stability, and socialized medicine (yes, I went there) are seen as tools of  the Antichrist. Favorite sources of ammunition for this argument are Daniel 7 and Revelation 12–the beast with multiple heads, etc. However, I would like to take issue with seeing world unity as part of the Antichrist’s plan.

Similarly in what we discussed about peace, it seems to me that the problem is not world unity but world unity established in opposition to that of the Lord of the Cosmos, that is, Jesus the Christ. The spirit of antichrist, such as with Nero (of whom Revelation is likely speaking), decides to setup a counter-world-kingdom in opposition to the Christ and his Church.

Christianity is essentially composed around this idea of unity and drawing all people into the community of Jesus. His kingdom will bring about true unity. We must not be against ideas of world peace or unity, but we should always be skeptical of anything that could stand in opposition to Jesus. Which begs the question, Is unity without Jesus even true unity? I would say, no.

What I’m really fighting against is the horror that is often shown by evangelicals anytime a politician/religious leader speaks about world peace or unity. We aren’t against those things, are we? We should be for those things, but we represent the true King and his kingdom.

Our eschatology directly influences what we are about now. If we think world unity is so evil, and we don’t want the devil to pull the wool over our eyes, we will implicitly for inequality, division, and so forth. I mean, division is the opposite of unity. We don’t want world unity, so we want division. I may be making too many generalities, but we must be for unity wherever that comes into play. We simply need to be watchful of anyone attempting to do this in opposition to Jesus, and, as fallible human beings, we will never be able to create something infallible like Jesus will. So, pray for world unity, pray for peace, but pray for discernment and wisdom.

If there is light in the soul, there will be beauty in the person. If there is beauty in the person, there will be harmony in the house. If there is harmony in the house, there will be order in the nation. If there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

-Chinese Proverb

There was a point where I remember expressing to another Christian that I was for Christian non-violence (i.e., what some term “pacifism”), but the individual responded with his view of the book of Revelation where Christ makes war with the Beast. He posed the question somewhat like, “How could non-violence be Christian if Christ goes to war in the future apocalypse?” I responded, “Well, I guess that’s would be the case if you read Revelation that way.” I’m a firm believer that our views about the future affect what we do as God’s people now. And this is no different.

After that conversation, I went a bit deeper in thought. I began to think about how the Antichrist is supposed to come a bring peace to the world, but, as I was told in Sunday School, it would be a “false” peace. It was often concluded that anyone who attempts to bring about peace in this world should be looked upon with suspicion, perhaps, he is the Antichrist? Thus, we spent way too much time pointing out who is the Antichrist (right now, a popular target is Obama, in case you didn’t know).

American evangelicals have often been skeptical of anyone (even other evangelicals!) who speaks about bringing peace to the world. You’ve probably heard, “Well…world peace will never happen until Jesus comes back.” True, but such statements have implied, “So…instead, I’ll do nothing. Maybe I’ll support war, but, mainly, I’ll do nothing to bring about peace to this world.”

Now, if we look back to our last post, the Bible speaks of the spirit of antichrist–a principle, mindset, personality of antichrist that can be embodied in anyone or anything. I have to say, such statements as the above embody the spirit of antichrist. Here’s why I say that: the problem is not world peace, but it is world peace brought about by a counter-kingdom or counter-king. In Revelation, the counter-kingdom is the Antichrist’s kingdom–it is an anti-kingdom! The true kingdom is brought about by the kingdom of God and its King–Jesus the Christ.

Everytime he said, “Jesus is Lord,” the apostle Paul was attacking the counter-king (or antichrist), Caesar, by implying, “Caesar is not [Lord].” The New Testament apocalyptic passages are doing the same. They aren’t saying, “Peace is bad. Non-violence is bad, and be skeptical of it.” They are saying, “Anyone who brings about peace and non-violence in a counter-kingdom-way is antichrist. Be skeptical of that.” Jesus and his kingdom bring peace, and no one or nothing else does. It’s not peace that’s bad, but it’s spirit-of-antichrist peace that Christians must oppose.

I understand Jesus said, “I didn’t come to bring peace but a sword,” but I think we all can understand that to be metaphorical and not a trivial argument against Christian non-violence. I understand Christian non-violence doesn’t make sense, but neither did the cross, and we believe in that. And yes, I’ve read the Old Testament. But I am convinced that Jesus’ people are asked to bear the burden of peace and justice until he returns.

Jesus’ birth was “peace on earth” and anyone or anything that is against his kingdom of peace is anti-King, anti-kingdom…Antichrist.

Mother Teresa once said, “If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.” Peace starts when we bring it to our local contexts. What are ways we as Christians can work for peace in our local contexts?

[both the Chinese proverb and Mother Teresa's quote come from Sojourner's Verse and Voice emails. Sign up yourself here.]

I didn’t know Karl Barth was so involved with Columbus, Ohio’s police department, but I found a statement by him that is likely unknown to Barthian scholars–

“Most accidents are caused by driver inattention combined with too much speed”…

[and in classic Barthian paradox] “And, of course, in the most serious accidents, one or two types of things almost always occurs: speed and drunk driving,” Barth said. “Sometimes both.”

Question to ponder: what does this mean for our understanding of his “dialectical” method? Did Barth abandon it?

Read more here. The amazing things you find with Google Alerts!

Today, July 10, 2009, is John Calvin’s 500th birthday! The big five-O-O! Like many, my life journey has involved not knowing who Calvin was, being attracted to Calvin’s teaching, becoming a Calvinist, but then realizing problems of Calvinism, and repudiating his teachings, and then finally appreciating him from a distance. The last part of my journey is where I am presently. Appreciating Calvin at a distance is what I’d like to call “conceptual Calvinism,” since I believe the concepts of his teachings have been great reminders to many of us. Many do not have any appreciation for Calvin, but I think it’s because we actually don’t have appreciation for the attitude of many self-proclaimed “Calvinists.” The idea of double predestination (i.e., God predestines every’s eternal destination–some to heaven and others to hell) sickens many of us. But Calvin’s has much to offer, and here’s a start:

1. Election/Predestination: Calvin is responsible for what is now called Presbyterianism–the “Frozen Chosen” as they are often self-designated. Whether or not you believe that humanity has no say (i.e., free will) in their eternal destination or salvation or what cereal you choose for breakfast, Calvin’s teachings have reminded us, as Christians, that we are chosen for something. We aren’t chosen to just sit around. We are special, and we have been given a purpose–that is, a mission. I’d like to keep that concept circulating as the church’s lifeblood.
2. God’s Sovereignty: Calvin rightfully reminds us that God is indeed sovereign over all creation. To quote the Psalter, “the earth’s is the Lord’s and everything in it.” It’s a beautiful reminder for all of us and, especially, to the suffering to know that God is in control of life’s circumstances, instead of, chaos (cf. Genesis 1).
3. Love for Scripture Study: Calvin’s emphasis was Scripture study. His love for Scripture was self-evident in his teaching and writings (I mean, have you read his commentaries on certain biblical books?). Conceptually, this reminds us to take Calvin’s love for Scripture, not necessarily his methods (hence, the recent “justification” debate between Piper and Wright). I believe Calvin would not desire us to always follow his methods forever, but that we follow his love for Scripture.
4. “Reformed Theology is Always Reforming.” Such a statement justifies taking Calvin conceptually. This statement must be held close to the heart of all Reformed theologians (I don’t classify many in this, but they do themselves). Reformed theology must continually follow the line of reforming theology, church practice, and more. Our understanding is not stuck in the mud in the 16th century, but it continually looks to move forward.

So, with this being said, Calvin’s not too shabby. I don’t think he’s God’s gift to theology, but his concepts are extremely helpful.

For more, read BBC’s website about this here.

I had a pretty thought-provoking discussion with some teens during the retreat I did for the two youth groups in West Chester. I can’t remember exactly how (though I have some recollection), but the question of the Antichrist came up in conversation. Basically, the question was, “Will the Antichrist be an actual person?”

We were looking at First John where the author states, “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world” (4:3 NIV).

From this passage, I notice a few things off the bat:

1. The issue of First John deals with an early form of docetism, which is the denial of Christ’s humanity, that is, Christ didn’t have a real body but only appeared so. Thus, the author contrasting those who follow docetism and those with the apostles. Thus, every spirit that says Jesus didn’t come in the flesh is not from God (v. 2), and every spirit that says he is not from God is the spirit of the antichrist (v. 3).
2. The spirit of the antichrist is “coming and even now is already in the world.” Thus, people were embodying this “spirit” when they claim that Christ is not from God. It is already in the world but is also coming.
3. If any human beings are the antichrist, here, it would appear that the “false prophets” are.
4. Lastly, notice: the spirit of the antichrist is coming. We should not take this particular passage to say that a person under the title “antichrist” is coming. Rather, we should see that the same spirit that was alive at that time is coming some time in First John’s future. Thus, it seems that this would not be an actual human being.

But let’s look elsewhere at the “antichrist”:

Second John 7 states, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Here, there are many antichrists (plural), and those are people who don’t acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh. Thus, these early docetics are antichrists.

There is one particular place where “antichrist” seems to be an actual person. First John 2:18 says, “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” Thus, “the antichrist is coming,” which implies someone/thing in the future from the present moment of the penning of First John.

There are possible references elsewhere in Scripture to antichrist. Paul’s “man of sin” (2 Ths. 2), Daniel’s “little horn” (Dan. 7), and Revelation’s “Dragon,” “Beast,” “False Prophet,” and “Whore of Babylon” are all possible references to the antichrist.

Daniel specifically speaks of this figure setting up an “abomination that causes desolation” (9:27). However, this is likely fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes from the Seleucids dynasty (reign: 175-164 BCE), who did just that, and his action of setting himself up in the temple led to the rebellion of Maccabees. With this being said, it still could prefigure another person titled “antichrist.”

Now, we all want the Bible to speak to us today I do think the Bible speaks to us today, but we must be wary of making “future tense” passages our future. But the Bible, when it was written, was written to those people in those days.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are many antichrists and have been many antichrists. Anyone who stands in direct opposition to the Christ is the antichrist. It seems fair to say that Nero was the antichrist. Hitler was the antichrist. Perhaps (and I mean perhaps), the Pope was (?) as Martin Luther claimed. Osama bin Laden is the antichrist. In fact, someone reading my blog may be the antichrist since anyone who has the spirit of the antichrist is the antichrist.

I suppose we could play semantics and say, “Yes, there are antichrists, but we are still waiting for the Antichrist.” However, it seems to me that the antichrist is more of a spirit, ethos, or principle rather than an actual person. The reason individuals are “antichrist” is because they carry the spirit, ethos, or principle of “antichrist,” as First John states, “…every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus…is the spirit of the antichrist” (4:3).

In conclusion: biblically, “antichrist” is not a person but a spirit or principle. With this being said, individuals can also embody “antichrist.” In places where Scripture alludes to “antichrist,” this person has greater power than most, and, so, the area in which they have power leads to many antichrist-ian actions and laws. In a world where Christianity was anti-imperial (and still should be, mind you), the laws and actions of persecution were clearly instituted by an individual who embodies the ethos of “antichrist.” Christians today in many ways continue to experience actions instituted by “antichrist.”

If this is true, instead of looking for a political figure to arise in the future, we must look for those people and things which are embodiments of “antichrist.” Unjust laws. Persecution of the church. Death in all its forms. And let Christians respond to antichrist always with love and peace.

As many of you know, Amanda and I have decided to help plant a church in Bristol, PA. It won’t be easy, but it’s exciting. Right now, the leadership team is discussing our purpose for coming to Bristol. Somehow, I think the homeless man who was killed in a Bristol Township apartment complex has something to do with spurring further conversation about purpose. I post it here as a reminder to us that homelessness is prevalent in suburbia, even though it is removed from the city limits. Bristol needs the love of Jesus, and we hope to be part of that.

Read the article here. It’s very telling and thoughtful. We don’t often think of the homeless as part of a “community,” and we often see them as “less human” for some reason. The article does well to point on the humanity of this group. I remember one recent trip to center city Philadelphia where I was part of feeding and clothing the homeless. I remember staring into the eyes of those individuals and seeing myself. Sometimes we think, “Well, they are there because of drugs or alcohol,” and in some way, “They deserve it.” But I know that this is not always the case. Sometimes, it’s bad support systems. I mean, if it wasn’t for my family taking Amanda and I in after I lost my youth pastor job, or Amanda’s sister recommending her for a position at her school, I may have been homeless. Or, if I fell into alcoholism, my parents and/or Amanda would assist me. They wouldn’t leave me for dead! Often, the homeless don’t have such support. I remember one homeless gentleman who moved from Jacksonville, lost his job, fell into some bad habits, and is on the street. He left his support system for his job, and now he lives on the streets.

Pray for the homeless. Pray that we see their humanity. Pray that we, as Christians, can be a part of physically, spiritually, and emotionally restoring such people.

Question: How have you seen the humanity of homeless people?

If you are in the area, look into a forum on suburban homelessness that The Well is hosting.