eschatology and restoration

only two days away from my WaSaBI seminar on the above-mentioned topic, subtitled, is it right to say "the Christian hope is to go to heaven when we die"?

my plan is as follows:

why do we think what we think?
and take a look at world histories, and how we get to where we seem to have got to

what actually happens when we die?
we can think thru matrices(!) and a few passages that talk about the now and the not yet

what will be the characteristics of the new heavens and new earth?
looking at a few passages, working out what will be continuous, where the discontinuity is

what is God's goal for creation?
restoration

if we live now for the future because of the past, how does our thinking about the future affect how we live now?

it will be nice to get all this stuff out that has been swinging around in the monkey-bars of my head for so long.
and i hope it should be fun too!
Sunday 24th June, 2:30-4:00pm, Wild St Church Hall, Maroubra

matrices!

i used to be a mathematician.
well, i did lots of maths at high school.
7 units in my final two years, to be precise!

and it may be (unless you include counting animals in the ark), that we finally have a use for maths in Theology!

John Polkinghorne, in his chapter in The End of the World and the Ends of God (Trinity Press, 2000) on Eschatology, suggests that an understanding of matrices may help us understand the nature of the resurrection!


the current state of forgiven sinners is that which is portrayed in the first 20 chapters of John's Revelation.

but what then happens when we die? are we bodiless? do we go do the limbo rock?

Polkinghorne postulates:

What [we] would naturally think of as the vector spaces of the old and new creations could be "alongside" each other, with the continuity of resurrection being the result of a structure-preserving mapping from one space into the other. From this point of view, it would be conceivable that all persons arrive at the general resurrection at the same "time," irrespective of the time of their deaths in this world. (p40)

no limbo, no "sleep", no bodiless resurrection, no playing harps in clouds.

but does it hold water?

the bible was written for me! or was it?

When you're feeling a bit down, reading the Psalms, it's easy to start seeing yourself in them.

When I wept and humbled myself with fasting,
it became my reproach.
When I made sackcloth my clothing,
I became a byword to them.
I am the talk of those who sit at the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about me.
[...]
Hide not your face from your servant;
for I am in distress;
make haste to answer me.
Psalm 69:10-12,14

You start saying - yeah, that's so true. That's exactly what's been happening. It's like it was written just for me, 3,000yrs beforehand!

But then you come across something like this:

Reproaches have broken my heart,
so that I am in despair.
I looked for pity,
but there was none,
and for comforters,
but I found none.
They gave me poison for food,
and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.
Psalm 69:20-21

And then you remember that all of the scriptures point not to you, but to the Christ, the suffering servant King – to Jesus, who fulfilled this on the cross.
He was despised, abandoned, rejected; to top it all off all 4 gospels testify to him being offered sour wine to drink, fulfiling this Psalm. (c/f Matthew27:48, Mark15:36, Luke23:36, John19:29-30)

For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

the problem of evil

are things as good as they can be?
no.
why aren't they?
God uses bad stuff for 3 reasons:

1. as judgement because of sin (c/f isa45:7 dan9, 1cor11:30)
   
2. to discipline us as his children (c/f heb12:10)
   
3. to test/make sure of our faith (c/f 1pet1)

therefore we should be satisfied that God is in control over all, knowing he works all things for good (Rom8:28)

right?
wrong.

reading this article by Matheson Russell, it was good to see his righteous indignation at this "ideology", this apathetic, laissez-faire view of the evil.

Theodicy [This idea of God using evil for good] misrepresents evil by saying that evil is necessary for the good; God is weaving a tapestry and he needs the light and the dark thread to make the picture beautiful. But the analogy won’t wash: while the weaver may need the light and dark threads, the creator of heaven and earth made a world that was good, very good without a drop of blood being spilt. And theodicy puts us in the wrong relationship to evil since it asks us to put our pain, outrage and opposition to one side and to see the bigger picture, the harmonious and rational whole of the universe in which evil has its place. But this does not do justice to victims of pain, loss and injustice. And even more importantly, it doesn’t do justice to the good news of the gospel [...]

and what is the good news of the gospel?
that God is seeking to right the wrongs.
that he will not be content with a world that is self-destructive, consuming itself in hatred.
that no price is too great a price to pay, that this world might be redeemed for that which he purposed it.

mmm. salt.

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." Matthew 5:13

Jesus here is telling Kingdom people, those living with him as their king, that they're to be the salt of the earth.

now, it has been put to me there are two options for Jesus' use of the word salt here:

as a flavour enhancer, and/or,

as a preservative.

how do we do that?
i'm thinking it's a great idea, but is there not a point at which you're no longer tasting the real food underneath? if i'm eating something (chips are probably the exception here), i want to be tasting what i'm eating. i want to know if whatever i'm tucking into is off. roadkill with lots of salt is still road kill. i'm not saying we're not to be in the world, we are, but we're not to be of the world. we're to show that we are different, that we don't value things which will rust and rot and the moth will eat. so does that pretty much rule out the flavour enhancer idea?

and what of salt being a preservative?
for what are we preserving this decaying world? we're told the heavens and earth will be renewed - isn't it like putting a fresh coat of paint on a wall you're about to bulldoze?

comments? what have i missed?

thru a mirror dimly

... it is as if this story's (Mark's biography of Jesus) method is to possess the reader through its characters, in order to provide a range of mirrors back on the viewing I.

what is the purpose of the scriptures?
what do you like about this quote?
what would you change?

(from John Carroll's The Existential Jesus)

guy dance

CampusBibleStudy's Mid-Year-Conference is on the topic of Guidance. as part of the advertising to this generation, there's a youtube campaign, replete with some very clever vids.
for any napoleon dynamite fans, guy-dance is particularly funny. actually i think only it, and Decisions, Decisions are the funny ones. all the others are interviews and such.
it's at youtube.com/campusbiblestudy
check it out. even better, GO! 16-20 july 2007AD

la science des rêves

wow. top film. the science of sleep, another astonishing film by michel gondry (also eternal sunshine of the spotless mind)

it's one of those movies where you smile almost incessantly throughout! which is great!

one of the toughest nuts to crack, scientifically, would surely have to be the science of dreams. maybe that and homeopathy. or chiropracty! do you ever do that? work out the source of the elements of your dream? why was that person in there - i haven't so much as thought about them in years!

one question i sometimes have is how much our dreams are guidance? to what degree should we take them as divine providence, communication from God - or are they more self-absorbed than all that, ie they're us communicating with ourselves what we want to hear, just making transparent what in waking was opaque.

or simply gobbledygook?

it's interesting seeing the visions of others of our subconscious, movies like the cell (i think with J-Lo?), as well as being john malkovich, which interestingly enough was written by charlie kaufman, who co-wrote eternal sunshine with michel gondry. quite freudian, really!

arrival or attestation?

the questions raised in my short comment below regarding talladega nights have been mulling over in my mind for some days now.

the incarnation of Jesus, the 2nd person of the trinity, born as a baby around 4-6BC, is oft quoted (particularly around Christmas time) as the pinaccle of God's creation.

yet i remain convinced that the resurrection of this self-same man is the attestation of his messiahship, the beginning of the in-reaching of the heavenly realms into this created order; the foreshadowing of what will be brought to it's mighty fulfillment when Jesus returns, when the faithful receive their resurrection bodies. (c/f Rom 1:4, Phil2:5-11, Eph2:16, 3:11, the vibe of Gal, 1Tim4:14 et al, not even going to Hebrews!)

whilst i am still thinking this through, is it too simplistic an answer to wrap this up in saying it's the narrative, the story, mabo, the vibe?

the word, spoken to us through the prophets in the past, which became flesh and dwellt among us, has now sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

jesus is Lord before all time and now and forever. to say that he is only king because of his death and resurrection would be to deny his power in having all things created through him. likewise, it would be to say that when he descends from heaven with a cry of command, that that authority is enabled only because of his death and resurrection.

we cannot summarise our great God in a simple statement of faith, a creed, much less a three-day period in the history of the creation of the creator. what we do have are snippets, fragments of a great tapestry, like this:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Titus 2:11-14

who da king?

on a recent holiday in Geelong (about 1hr west-south-west of Melbourne) i watched Taladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, a fairly ordinary hollywood film, replete with a few guffaw-worthy scenes, my favourite was the one that was also on the ad (so just watch the trailer - no need to watch the rest of the film).there was Ricky Bobby and his wife sitting around the table, overflowing with his sponsors' food, and he starts to give thanks, saying, "Dear Lord Baby Jesus," and then proceeds to give thanks for his "hot wife", kids (Walker and Texas Ranger), as well as his sponsors for their gracious provision of food.

his wife then gets a little narky with his constant rememberance of Jesus as a baby; "he did grow up you know!"

isn't it funny how hollywood sometimes hits the nail right on the head?

he did grow up, he did die. and (perhaps surprising to those with nightmarish visions of this half-naked man eternally hanging on a cross), he did rise again from the dead.

yet, as we read from Matthew 2 this Sunday, he "was born king". He didn't become king, didn't kill off anyone and everyone who in his paranoia may have been a rival (c/f Herod, most of the successors to Jereboam's throne).

no; he was born king, with no regent, predecessor nor successor.

his life on earth was what it was, not that he might become king, but because he already was.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:7b-11

SMBC preaching conference

Don Carson and Dale Ralph Davis spoke to us over four days at the 2007 sydney missionary and bible college preaching conference.

Ralph Davis was really impressive, especially when we worked out he was translating on the run from the hebrew. i think most people walked out, keen to preach thru OT narratives.

Don took us thru:

1. biblical theology,
   
2. systematic theology,
   
3. historical theology and
   
4. preaching and pastoral theology

some of it i still have to process a little more, but a few highlights from his last talk, when asking how do we do pastoral theology?

cultivate compassion - how do you feel when you see sheep without a shepherd?

cultivate an understanding of people and their needs in biblical categories - if you analyse people in sociological categories, you'll start thinking of (pop)-sociological solutions

cultivate a prepared mind and heart for turning points in people's lives - be prepared to rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep, and often both on the same day! think about how you are preparing people for eternity in light of those events.

cultivate a connection between lofty thoughts of God, and people - hear hear.

cultivate a healthy independence from your congregation - fear God more than your congregation. they need you to be their pastor first, not letting your friendship get in the way of that.

cultivate your own maturation (and check your motivation) - your people need to see you being shaped and matured by the word of God

great conference, really encouraging, correcting and cautionary.

that hostile wall

writing a talk for youth group on ephesians 2:11-22, I got to thinking:
is there a point at which we may say that, although Christ lived and suffered and was tempted as a man, so in some ways he united man and God in that he himself was fully God and fully Man -
- yet it was only when he died that he was able to end the hostility?
man was hostile to God up to and including in Christ, in that this God-man was tempted in his flesh. so is the dividing wall of hostility simply that wall between jews and greeks, circumcised and uncircumcised, is that what was broken?
OR is the hostility of the law and commandments not the jew/gentile divide, but the man/God divide?

at least that’s what the 2nd half of ephesians 2 is leading me to think.
which is a different argument to the predominant line of thought going through galatians, romans...
the pre-eminence of jew over greek is something I’ve always seen as a main theme to be overcome in the fulfillment of God’s plan of unity.
is this a different theme, or one and the same? God v man, or jew v gentile?

in Christ alone

today marked the final in a series we've been doing at CBS Core* on church; what it is, what it isn't, when it is, and isn't, what it should, shouldn't be and so on.

as pontius pilate asked, the ultimate postmodern question, what is truth?**, when you think about it -

do you believe the same thing you did 10yrs ago?

will you have arrived at "the truth" by the time you die?

after my recent jude extravaganza, the question of truth - what it is and who arbitrates over the grey, fuzzy areas, came up again.

"we" would of course say that truth is what we declare it to be; what we teach, exposit, explain, live.
but we must humbly admit, as per the above questions, that even our own understandings will shift over our lives.
therefore to rule others out of God's kingdom (very risky business indeed! c/f 1Cor4) is extremely short sighted considering our own unsteadfastness.

so, for example, the lovely jehovah's witness ladies who visit me every now and then, whose hope is 100% rooted in the propitiatory act of Christ's death, whose lives speak volumes by their prayerfulness and other-person centredness - apart from continuing to try and show them how the Bible speaks of Christ's divinity, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, what am i to say to them?

stepping back and trying to focus on what is of central importance, am I to exclude them, or anyone who believes an alternative doctrine, from God's kingdom?

* also known as i can't believe it's not SOCM
** John 8:28

the author of this blog reserves the right to make inflammatory posts, raising questions that he may or may not have completely resolved, in order to either help him or others be more sure of what they may or may not believe. ätsch!

s(un)shine

a question i've raised once before (here) has asked itself again, courtesy of a new film, sunshine.

without giving too much away, this film is set in the not too distant future, in a world where they've discovered that the sun is cooling down a little, and they need to "zap" a little more life into it!

so my question is to what extent will we (humanity, God's image bearers) be witnesses to the destruction, collapse of the physical universe?

this idea of the dying sun is not a new idea (arthur c. clarke thought of it yonks ago, and my recollection is that j.g. ballard also mooted the idea half a century ago), it is simply a device for bringing cosmic catastrophy into the present (much like that asteroid film with that guy and the girl and the father and stuff).

the waning sun postulated in the film is one thing, but:
what of the bomb-race that looks like it's getting a second-wind?
what of the disastrous state of the evironment?
what of the increased ability for those who would do great harm to many, to accomplish their desires?

at what stage is enough going to be enough? will ther ever be any of us around to see that day when evil will be completely vanquished?
OR, might there be a similar pattern to the death and resurrection of Christ?

ie, all that is evil - conquered. all that is good - gone.
then, bursting forth, the Lord, with (to quote Jude quoting Enoch) ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

that would include, i guess, doing their very best to destroy this good world that we have been given stewardship over, perverting this good creation for their own wicked ends.

but then again, i wonder, might it ever get that far?

*no points for guessing what i've just been preaching on!

theo blogs

i have no idea how this happened, but apparently, as of yesterday, YOU reckon i'm the 22nd most popular theo-blog in the universe!
that's according to unspun's top theology blogs list
however, 77 people had voted almost 900 times between them! always look at the fine print...

a blog list AND a novelty sweet! aah, the life.