9January2012

The Great Tribulation that was? Paradigm change in Mark 13

Written By robfaircloth

In Mark 13 — Jesus’ Olivet Discourse — we are told about ‘great tribulation,’ persecution, wars and earthquakes and famines, the ‘abomination of desolation,’ and the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory. We are told of an event in which the son is dark, the moon doesn’t shine, stars fall from the sky…

Surely, this is ‘end times-‘, Armageddon-, ‘Left Behind’-type stuff, right?

Maybe, but at least it dealt with things that the original hearers would experience. Giving us the most trouble is Jesus’ time reference that ‘this generation’ would not pass away and that the ‘gospel must be preached to all nations.’

But sometimes the apocalyptic langauge obscures a more fundamental, and much more dramatic, truth about what is going on with the destruction of the Temple.

Through the time of Jesus, the nations and people in them that wanted to access the one, true God had to do so by coming through His people, Israel, and specifically the Temple. This is why God engineered into the Temple the ‘Court of the Gentiles,’ so that the nations could come and give proper worship to Yahweh. This is why, as a result, Jesus was so angry that Israel’s religious leaders had effectively shut out the nations from Temple life by making the Court of the Gentiles a sanctified bazaar. The Temple, which represented access to God for all nations, had become Israel’s self-serving private religious club.

If the Temple were then to be destroyed, as Jesus indicated in the parable of the fig tree and the Olivet Discourse, and if God’s promise to give to Christ people from all nations, peoples and tongues were still in effect, those nations should know how to come to Yahweh without a temple in Israel.

Those nations would be told, in effect, that their access to God is no longer through a particular people, no longer through a specific city, in a specific building, but their access to Yahweh is now through a Man, who was killed but now lives, never to die again.

Those nations touched by the Roman Empire, many of which we see represented at Pentecost, would have known that Israel’s God had established his temporal abode at the Temple in Jerusalem. It was those nations that missionary Paul asserted had been reached with the gospel in his lifetime, those nations to which the ‘gospel must be preached’ before the Temple destroyed.

Must now the gospel be preached to all nations before Christ returns the final time? Perhaps, and probably, when we consider the frequent dual-fulfillment of prophecy that Scripture gives us.

But don’t neglect the impact of Jesus’ teaching about first-century events. The message to the Gentiles before the destruction of the Temple was that they could still come to Yahweh, but now through the mediation of the Son of Man, whose regime was confirmed in glory when the last vestiges of the old were confirmed in 70 AD.

7January2012

What kind of disciple does your money make you?

Written By robfaircloth

Here’s another compelling way that Randy Alcorn (Money, Possessions & Eternity) challenges our typical views on Christian discipleship, particularly how we view possessions and wealth:

Today there are still two kinds of disciples — one who gives up his income and possessions to further the cause in full-time ministry, and one who earns an income to generously support the same cause. (We should be careful not to discourage one another from either of these callings.)

There is not, however, a third kind of disciple, who does whatever he or she feels like with money and possessions and fails to use them for the kingdom. Such people are common today, but by New Testament standards they are not disciples.

(emphasis in original).

 

7January2012

Review: I Am Second

Written By robfaircloth

I AM SECOND: Real Stories. Changing Lives (Doug Bender & Dave Sterret)

By now, I Am Second the book follows a movement and established I Am Second phenomena, including website (www.iamsecond.com) and merchandising.  Before reading the book, I had heard mention of the website and personal story format on radio and other media.

The theme of I Am Second is to highlight the stories of people who faced difficult circumstances and who were able to gain control of their lives and turn them around, often dramatically. The turnaround came when the individuals involved ‘made God first’ (hence the title), either in coming to faith in Christ in the first instance or in coming to newfound obedience as a believer.

The descriptions of these life-changes are presented well and are frequently compelling, and I found myself wrapped up in the dramatic stories and identifying occasionally with them.

One concern, however, for the book’s use as an evangelistic or motivational tool is that it might fall into the category of ‘celebrity conversion’ marketing: if this prominent athlete, musician or celebrity can turn his life around with God, so can you. And the reason for exploring the claims of God through Christ on the lives of people is almost solely limited to that of gaining control of a temporal life that is spinning out of control. As the stories are reported, very little attention is given to matters of eternal life and spiritual reconciliation with God, and without looking further a reader might be left with the impression that God – through Christ – is simply the best life coach.

Another concern is that personal accountability before God for sinful choices in life is not addressed. The first mention of ‘sin’ as I recall is on page 140, the first explanation of salvation as the substitutionary death of Christ for that sin is on page 166, and even then the biblical call for repentance and belief is not included.

However, the book does conclude with a clear – if not a bit too concise – explanation of the biblical gospel and next steps for the reader wishing to explore Christian truth further.  Though not a theological powerhouse, I Am Second does present a compelling picture of the effects of sin in real lives, and how the grace of God can mend broken people. It’s worth a read.

Rating: 4/5.

Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Book Sneeze (BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com>) book review program. I was not required or encouraged to write a positive review; the thoughts expressed here are my own.

5January2012

Choosing a President: what Christians (should) want

Written By robfaircloth

The President is not King.

Nor is he dictator. Nor czar, nor emperor, nor CEO.

Yet I’m afraid that many believers go about choosing presidential candidates as if they were all of these.

Christian media is abuzz with discussions regarding the various reasons that we should question supporting each of the presidential candidates. Supporting Mitt Romney means endorsing his quasi-cultic Mormon beliefs. Supporting Newt Gingrich gives a thumbs-up to serial divorce, opportunistic self-interest, and dubious conversion claims. Supporting Herman Cain (no longer in the race) means that we approve of womanizing.

Some refuse to support Rick Santorum because he does not allow for U.S. foreign policy complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and some even because he gave an “unpresidential” head shake at a debate.

Is our thinking that muddled?

If Christ-followers were selecting a king — along the lines of a Saul, a David, a Solomon — then issues of moral character are obviously crucial. Witness the problems that those three kings encountered when they slipped morally. Were we to grant someone kingly authority and power, then we would be wise to demand kingly character.

But we are not selecting a king, and despite what recent presidents seem to think, and despite what media and Congress and pundits would have us to think, the President of the United States is not all-powerful. Ours is a government of the separation of powers: each branch of government serves as a check and balance to the other.  As a result, the personal moral failures of a Justice or a Congressman or a President — or the megolomanical machinations of any of the them — does not spell doom for the country.

National destruction would need to be conspiratorial (that is, each of the three branches would need to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities).

So, just how perfect does a presidential candidate need to be? This is not the same question as what advice we should give to candidates who claim the name of Christ, but threaten the witness of the gospel by their political behavior. Prominent Christians advised Herman Cain to exit the race, but if he had not, would that fact alone require those Christians to vote against him in the general election facing Barack Obama?

Since, then, the effect of a candidate’s shortcomings are lessened in our separate-powers government, can believers vote for a tainted candidate? Another way to view whether our standards are appropriate is whether — if faithfully and consistently applied — they would permit us to vote for any of the current slate of candidates, including the current President?

Some who have had no problem eliminating candidates from contention have a much more difficult time promoting any of the others. But why write articles, submit blog posts, and announce to the world on social media why we can’t support Candidate A, when we can’t say who we do support? Would it not be better to discuss, as believers, what principles to use to discern the best candidate given our political system and current need? Otherwise, one views the political landscape and finds that collectively we Christians have effectively eliminated everyone.

If we apply standards haphazardly, or if they leave us with no one to vote for, we should reassess our standards.

4January2012

Preaching at funerals

Written By robfaircloth

Members of the Christian Church often view death and dying as the surrounding culture does, especially when it comes to funerals. Here is what Harry Reeder III says to about that, in the context of preaching at funerals:

Most of your listeners believer their loved one or friend has just gone from ‘the land of the living’ to the ‘land of the dying.’ You must proclaim to them that the exact opposite is actually true. They have not left the ‘land of the living’ to go to the ‘land of the dying’; they have left the ‘land of the dying’ to go to ‘the land of the living.’

29December2011

Perspectives on Quid Pro Quo

Written By robfaircloth

The capitalist says, ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’ The socialist says, in effect, ‘You scratch my back or I’ll break yours.’

(Randy Alcorn, in Money, Possessions and Eternity, describing the need for coercion in socialist systems that view wealth as a zero-sum game).

28December2011

Should Christians be Nationalist or Federalist?

Written By robfaircloth

If it is perfectly permissible in a federalist system for Mitt Romney to say that RomneyCare was good for Massachusetts but not good for the entire United States, how should followers of Christ view the difference between a nationalist system and a federalist system?

The Scriptures, of course, simply tell believers to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and they give no prescription for what sort of political system is the holiest. A believer’s kingdom is not of this world, so there is a sense in which earthly political forms are not our primary concern. It is possible for both an earthly dictatorship and an earthly republic to guard God-given freedoms.

On the other hand, we are to be stewards of the freedoms and liberties we enjoy simply by virtue of the fact that God providentially placed us here. Our political system affords us the right to vote, so vote we should, and we should vote while engaging our transformed mind (Romans 12:1-2) in applying biblical truth to the practical issues demanding our attention.

To illustrate the differences between nationalism and federalism, I’ll take a prominent political issue: abortion. The abortion issue was nationalized in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision from the Supreme Court. One rule was given for every State in the union regarding whether and how abortion could be restricted, and how it should be protected. A citizen could not, for instance, move from New Jersey to Tennessee to benefit from a State abortion law more consistent with his religious, moral and ethical beliefs.

Since the Supreme Court decision, States have been afforded a good bit of discretion to fashion their own abortion laws: some still preserve an almost unlimited right to abortion; others almost ban it, with a few even attempting to enact laws defining life as beginning at conception. The current state of the abortion issue is much more federalized than it was in 1973.

[Very few matters remain federal — preserving the State’s authority to act: licensing for professionals, disposal of waste, building codes. More and more issues are becoming increasingly national — limiting the State’s authority: public education, health care, regulation of industry.]

For the believer, issues such as abortion cut both ways: if we could obtain a national law banning abortion, who would not consider that a good thing? On the other hand, as we have seen first hand, when the opposing side obtains the national law or rule, we feel the effects of nationalism.

In one sense, changing a law for the entire country in a nationalist system is easier: work hard at convincing Congress, and you have prevailed. In the federalist system, advocates of a certain position must work to change opinion and political will in each State.

Even so, it would seem that the advantages of a federalist system outweigh those of a national system. In proposing a law on abortion, for example, advocates are attempting to persuade those people who live close to them and are most similar to them, rather than attempting to convince those with disparate views from the opposite coast. And, in the end, if all the States in a federal system agree on a matter, it is because each States’ citizens have been convinced of its wisdom, not because of national diktats from career politicians and faceless bureaucrats in Washington.