It seems beyond belief, but Zanne and I have FINALLY sold the property! Yes, the closing is done. The money has been wired. The adventure is concluded. We are so grateful to God. A five year sojourn that feels like a hundred years is over. Woot!
We have budgeted carefully and prayed and considered various scenarios and courses of action. In the end, we have decided to spend part of the proceeds on making our home into what we envisioned some years ago when it was first being framed. We are: (1) building a library; (2) putting on the decks; (3) installing an in-ground pool; and (4) finishing the basement. If possible, we will put hardwood flooring in the family room, and we are also furnishing the morning room. When it is all done (July?) we will have a substantially different home and will have still used a good part of the proceeds on savings and managing our mortgage.
Our prayer is that God will use our home as a base for evangelism and blessing for our many Christian friends. Nothing in this world will last...it will all burn some day. We don't want to place our affections upon anything in the devil's world. So we are trusting that God will bless our investments and make use of our beautiful home while it lasts.
Joe is in Marine Corps basic training at Paris Island, SC. We have received one letter so far and have sent him (as requested) 18 days supply of protein bars. I can only imagine that our Joe will come back a huge, strapping Marine that can lift all of us with one arm! I am so proud of my youngest son (well, all of my kids!), and we are looking forward to seeing him graduate this great adventure in August!
Rachel has been staying with us, and she is a great cook. We had incredible chicken fajitas tonight.
Kadey is headed to Costa Rica soon, and she's very excited.
Eva Gabor gave birth to quadruplets--named Mitch, Stanley, Blanche, and Stella. Her sister Zsa Zsa is due on Monday.
All is well. I took a week of leave and worked my buns off cleaning up and organizing the garage and took three truck loads of junk to the dump. Back to work tomorrow.
Meanwhile, I'm concluding a nine week seminar course on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel next Sunday. I don't especially like teaching seminar courses, because there is too much material and too little time. But any opportunity to teach Bible class is welcome.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Harold Camping
It grieves me that people like Harold Camping are able to dupe so many people and thus bring discredit on a serious part of Christian theology. From my perspective as a Bible teacher, the worst part is not that kooks like him exist, but rather that so many otherwise normal Christians would fall for his deception.
I see this as a failure of the church. So many churches today have become politically correct entertainment centers instead of fulfilling their commission to "make disciples". How many churches in America today spend any time, money, or space to educate teens and adults in fundamental Christian doctrine? Very few. We're too busy trying to attract unbelievers (who don't belong in church to begin with!) so that the church can evangelize people whom the congregation should be evangelizing already.
So many pastors today spend their time delivering "sermons" instead of teaching Bible doctrine. A good church instead focuses on teaching believers the basics of Christian theology: soteriology, christology, and eschatology among others. The failure to train believers in eschatology is what leads to this Camping nonsense.
And the result? Unbelievers mock Christianity, mock Christ, and mock the Bible. The sad truth for them is that the world truly is moving toward its end. The rapture will indeed happen--not on Harold Camping's time table, but on God's secret timing. In the mean time, the gospel still must go out to our fallen world: Salvation and a right relationship with God comes through faith in Jesus Christ, who died the substitutionary death in our place.
I see this as a failure of the church. So many churches today have become politically correct entertainment centers instead of fulfilling their commission to "make disciples". How many churches in America today spend any time, money, or space to educate teens and adults in fundamental Christian doctrine? Very few. We're too busy trying to attract unbelievers (who don't belong in church to begin with!) so that the church can evangelize people whom the congregation should be evangelizing already.
So many pastors today spend their time delivering "sermons" instead of teaching Bible doctrine. A good church instead focuses on teaching believers the basics of Christian theology: soteriology, christology, and eschatology among others. The failure to train believers in eschatology is what leads to this Camping nonsense.
And the result? Unbelievers mock Christianity, mock Christ, and mock the Bible. The sad truth for them is that the world truly is moving toward its end. The rapture will indeed happen--not on Harold Camping's time table, but on God's secret timing. In the mean time, the gospel still must go out to our fallen world: Salvation and a right relationship with God comes through faith in Jesus Christ, who died the substitutionary death in our place.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
How to thnk about Islam
Americans are trying (unsuccessfully) to navigate through the challenge of dealing with Islam. The problem, of course, is that our most fundamental ideology is all about freedom--including freedom of worship. Our forefathers fled from European tyranny, including religious tyranny, and their collective experience led the brilliant crafters of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights to champion freedom of conscience in matters of religion.
On the other hand, Islam presents a serious threat to our country. At the lower end of the threat spectrum is the simple fact that many of us find Islamic culture and beliefs distasteful in the extreme. More seriously, it is a culture that gave birth to a sustained, worldwide proclivity for violence against perceived infidels. Historically, according to Huntington, Islam "has bloody borders,"--i.e., it is a civilization that inculcates a collective feeling of victimization--blaming others for its own failures. This leads to the easy seduction of young, often unemployed men toward the emotional release of violence and hatred. Finally, there is the real threat of American Muslim communities pushing for Sharia law and the forced integration of their values and beliefs.
So how do we defend ourselves and yet stay true to our principles concerning freedom of religion. The answer is simple.
The reason we feel so emasculated in dealing with Islam is that WE THINK OF IT AS A RELIGION. IT IS NOT.
Islam is a geopolitical ideology above all else. It is a culture (more accurately a system of cultures) with strong, often uncompromising views about politics, warfare, economics, and social organization. It also happens to have a religious component. But Islam is much more than a religion. The religious part of it is relatively minor in comparison to the greater whole.
An analogy helps to clarify. The Holy Roman Empire was not a religion. It was a political and military organization that had a religious ideology. In its heyday it boasted a universal ambition: to conquer the world for Christendom. (Sound familiar?) It would be ridiculous to think of the HRE as a religion, even though it had some religious ideas connected to it.
In the same way, Islam is not a religion. It is an ideology of world conquest and incessant war. It began when a talented warlord named Mohammad rose up and conquered his neighbors. Over the next few centuries, relentless conquest and bloodshed established Islam as a major power stretching from Andalusia to the borders of China and beyond.
But is it fair to say that Islam is inherently violent and bent on conquest? The worldview of mainstream Muslim scholars suggests so. The world, from the Islamic viewpoint, is basically divided into two parts: dar al-Islam ("the abode of Islam"), and dar al-Kufr ("the abode of unbelief"). The abode of unbelief is further divided into two parts: dar al-harb ("the abode of war"), and dar al-'ahd ("the abode of treaty"). The latter is viewed as a temporary measure--a present necessity while Islam gathers its strength. Ultimately, according to Islamic eschatology, world history ends with the conquering or coerced assimilation of the world under the Mahdi. The ideology couldn't be clearer.
Why then is there such a sustained insistence on the part of so many Muslims that Islam is peaceful and not a threat? There are two basic reasons: ignorance and deliberate deception. As with all belief systems, there are many, many people who identify themselves with some ideology without truly understanding it. How many "Christians" today really read their Bibles, could explain soteriology, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, or Christian eschatology? These are fundamental issues in Christianity, but relatively few "believers" have any idea about them.
In the same way, many Muslims are blissfully ignorant of their own beliefs. How many Muslims understand that the Qur'an is composed of two contradictory parts--the Mecca part and the Medina part? How many know about the rule of interpretation called abrogation? This is basic to understanding the Qur'an, and yet few Muslims know anything about it. Hence, they are easily duped into mouthing whatever they are told and whatever is politically correct at the moment.
Likewise, Islam teaches that it is the duty of the believer to deceive his enemies concerning his real intentions. Hence, much of the debate about the so-called "pacifistic nature" of Islam is mere deception--played out many times in Islamic history.
Is Islam a peaceful ideology? Three of the first five caliphs were murdered by fellow Muslims in power struggles. The first few centuries of Islam featured unrelenting conquest. The facts are obvious and inescapable.
Critics are quick to respond to the obvious bellicosity of Islam by trying to equate Christianity to it. An absurd practice for those who have any sense of history. Do you remember the Apostles of Christ murdering each other in power struggles? Instead, even when they found themselves in serious, gut-level disputes with one another, how did they respond? Read Galatians 2:9.
Christianity did not advance from Palestine into Asia and Europe by the sword, but rather by word of mouth, prayer, and love. Christians were murdered, tortured, harassed, and abused...and the gospel of Christ advanced ever faster. Later, when misguided and unscrupulous men wrested the purity of biblical Christianity and foully converted it into a political alliance with the Roman Empire, it became repugnant and often evil. But the real essence of Christianity survived and thrives today, converting souls and bringing some respite to the devil's world.
What is biblical Christianity's view concerning violence? The answer is simple: warfare is an unavoidable part of this fallen world. Christians should be neither pacifistic nor warmongers. When required by their duty as citizens, Christians should serve honorably, killing in war as necessary. As for the biblical view of the end times--there will a period of grave, worldwide violence on an unimaginable scale--BUT NEVER AT THE HANDS OF CHRISTIANS! Rather, it is the devil and his agents who will perpetrate violence, and, in the end, Jesus Christ himself who ends it all in one decisive, bloody campaign to establish justice and lasting peace.
The contrast with Islam is obvious and compelling.
Americans have a right to oppose Islam, because Islam is not a religion, even though it has some religious components. In World War II we fought Nazis because they were bent on conquest and violence. In the Cold War we opposed the Soviet Union--not because we insisted on the eradication of socialism, but because the Soviets, in the name of socialism, were bent on conquest, coercion, slavery, and violence. Similarly, today we should oppose Islam, not because we are bigots who fear a foreign religion, but because Islam is much more than a private religion. It is a vicious, universalist, geopolitical ideology of conquest, deception, coercion, and violence.
On the other hand, Islam presents a serious threat to our country. At the lower end of the threat spectrum is the simple fact that many of us find Islamic culture and beliefs distasteful in the extreme. More seriously, it is a culture that gave birth to a sustained, worldwide proclivity for violence against perceived infidels. Historically, according to Huntington, Islam "has bloody borders,"--i.e., it is a civilization that inculcates a collective feeling of victimization--blaming others for its own failures. This leads to the easy seduction of young, often unemployed men toward the emotional release of violence and hatred. Finally, there is the real threat of American Muslim communities pushing for Sharia law and the forced integration of their values and beliefs.
So how do we defend ourselves and yet stay true to our principles concerning freedom of religion. The answer is simple.
The reason we feel so emasculated in dealing with Islam is that WE THINK OF IT AS A RELIGION. IT IS NOT.
Islam is a geopolitical ideology above all else. It is a culture (more accurately a system of cultures) with strong, often uncompromising views about politics, warfare, economics, and social organization. It also happens to have a religious component. But Islam is much more than a religion. The religious part of it is relatively minor in comparison to the greater whole.
An analogy helps to clarify. The Holy Roman Empire was not a religion. It was a political and military organization that had a religious ideology. In its heyday it boasted a universal ambition: to conquer the world for Christendom. (Sound familiar?) It would be ridiculous to think of the HRE as a religion, even though it had some religious ideas connected to it.
In the same way, Islam is not a religion. It is an ideology of world conquest and incessant war. It began when a talented warlord named Mohammad rose up and conquered his neighbors. Over the next few centuries, relentless conquest and bloodshed established Islam as a major power stretching from Andalusia to the borders of China and beyond.
But is it fair to say that Islam is inherently violent and bent on conquest? The worldview of mainstream Muslim scholars suggests so. The world, from the Islamic viewpoint, is basically divided into two parts: dar al-Islam ("the abode of Islam"), and dar al-Kufr ("the abode of unbelief"). The abode of unbelief is further divided into two parts: dar al-harb ("the abode of war"), and dar al-'ahd ("the abode of treaty"). The latter is viewed as a temporary measure--a present necessity while Islam gathers its strength. Ultimately, according to Islamic eschatology, world history ends with the conquering or coerced assimilation of the world under the Mahdi. The ideology couldn't be clearer.
Why then is there such a sustained insistence on the part of so many Muslims that Islam is peaceful and not a threat? There are two basic reasons: ignorance and deliberate deception. As with all belief systems, there are many, many people who identify themselves with some ideology without truly understanding it. How many "Christians" today really read their Bibles, could explain soteriology, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, or Christian eschatology? These are fundamental issues in Christianity, but relatively few "believers" have any idea about them.
In the same way, many Muslims are blissfully ignorant of their own beliefs. How many Muslims understand that the Qur'an is composed of two contradictory parts--the Mecca part and the Medina part? How many know about the rule of interpretation called abrogation? This is basic to understanding the Qur'an, and yet few Muslims know anything about it. Hence, they are easily duped into mouthing whatever they are told and whatever is politically correct at the moment.
Likewise, Islam teaches that it is the duty of the believer to deceive his enemies concerning his real intentions. Hence, much of the debate about the so-called "pacifistic nature" of Islam is mere deception--played out many times in Islamic history.
Is Islam a peaceful ideology? Three of the first five caliphs were murdered by fellow Muslims in power struggles. The first few centuries of Islam featured unrelenting conquest. The facts are obvious and inescapable.
Critics are quick to respond to the obvious bellicosity of Islam by trying to equate Christianity to it. An absurd practice for those who have any sense of history. Do you remember the Apostles of Christ murdering each other in power struggles? Instead, even when they found themselves in serious, gut-level disputes with one another, how did they respond? Read Galatians 2:9.
Christianity did not advance from Palestine into Asia and Europe by the sword, but rather by word of mouth, prayer, and love. Christians were murdered, tortured, harassed, and abused...and the gospel of Christ advanced ever faster. Later, when misguided and unscrupulous men wrested the purity of biblical Christianity and foully converted it into a political alliance with the Roman Empire, it became repugnant and often evil. But the real essence of Christianity survived and thrives today, converting souls and bringing some respite to the devil's world.
What is biblical Christianity's view concerning violence? The answer is simple: warfare is an unavoidable part of this fallen world. Christians should be neither pacifistic nor warmongers. When required by their duty as citizens, Christians should serve honorably, killing in war as necessary. As for the biblical view of the end times--there will a period of grave, worldwide violence on an unimaginable scale--BUT NEVER AT THE HANDS OF CHRISTIANS! Rather, it is the devil and his agents who will perpetrate violence, and, in the end, Jesus Christ himself who ends it all in one decisive, bloody campaign to establish justice and lasting peace.
The contrast with Islam is obvious and compelling.
Americans have a right to oppose Islam, because Islam is not a religion, even though it has some religious components. In World War II we fought Nazis because they were bent on conquest and violence. In the Cold War we opposed the Soviet Union--not because we insisted on the eradication of socialism, but because the Soviets, in the name of socialism, were bent on conquest, coercion, slavery, and violence. Similarly, today we should oppose Islam, not because we are bigots who fear a foreign religion, but because Islam is much more than a private religion. It is a vicious, universalist, geopolitical ideology of conquest, deception, coercion, and violence.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Alternative to Panic
Psalm 11 is one of my new favorite passages. A powerful and slightly comical piece of Scripture. Verses 1-3 express the panicked human viewpoint of the world. When you read these verses, you should scream them as if you're also panicking, so as to get the full meaning of them! It's the viewpoint of someone who is terrified, running around with his hair on fire, sensing doom and gloom, ready to flee to the mountain. Ahhhhhh!!!! The commies are crawling up my legs!!! Help! Help!!
David rejects this perspective, because, as he explains at the start of the psalm, his trust is in the Lord.
After recording the screams of the freaked-out world, there is a dramatic pause between verses 3 and 4. Suddenly, all becomes quiet. The panic subsides and David imparts a strong, calm, encouraging truth:
"The Lord is in his holy temple. The Lord is on his heavenly throne."
No amount of evil, violence, sinfulness, or trouble can possibly affect this universal truth. No plot of the devil, no hatred of man, no disaster, and no fear can reach up into the Throne Room of Heaven and move the Lord. He is in total control. And he loves the righteous! He is watching them and has good things in store for them.
This is a powerful song of encouragement when the world wants you to panic! Woot!
David rejects this perspective, because, as he explains at the start of the psalm, his trust is in the Lord.
After recording the screams of the freaked-out world, there is a dramatic pause between verses 3 and 4. Suddenly, all becomes quiet. The panic subsides and David imparts a strong, calm, encouraging truth:
"The Lord is in his holy temple. The Lord is on his heavenly throne."
No amount of evil, violence, sinfulness, or trouble can possibly affect this universal truth. No plot of the devil, no hatred of man, no disaster, and no fear can reach up into the Throne Room of Heaven and move the Lord. He is in total control. And he loves the righteous! He is watching them and has good things in store for them.
This is a powerful song of encouragement when the world wants you to panic! Woot!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Ecclesiastes
I think the Book of Ecclesiastes is (1) a jewel among the books of the canon; (2) a shocking and politically incorrect book; and (3) largely misunderstood by the evangelical world.
1500 years before any evangelical scholars were born, before Dallas Theological Seminary was founded, the book of Ecclesiastes was included in the canon of Scripture. Modern theologians thus must deal with this difficult book--a book that, if we were honest, some of us might wish were not in the Bible! It is a book written by a man whose sole virtue is astounding honesty. But a man who has little or no relationship with God, at least at the time of his writing.
Traditionally, we believe this book to be written by Solomon. I think this likely, but it really doesn't matter. It is certainly written by someone in the line of David who ruled and had great wealth. But the important point is that this is a book written by someone who is desperate, depressed, frustrated, resigned, and slightly suicidal.
I think that evangelical Christianity, in its discomfort with this book and its haste to make it respectable, rushes to read into it some deep spiritual message from the author. The problem is that the author has no deep, spiritual message. All he has to offer is the perspective of a man divorced from his spiritual relationship with God--a message of despair, resignation, and death. We look at his occasional references to God with the hope that somewhere around chapter 3 or so, he "got saved" or something. I think this is not the case. Rather, I believe this guy was far from God all the way through the book. Even at the end, in the last chapter, when he concludes that we should fear God and obey his commandments, it's not the advice of a spiritual man who has found happiness, but rather of an unspiritual man who is resigned to the inscrutability of God. He has the honesty to record for us that his futile attempts at happiness--through wealth, women, wine, ambition, wisdom, etc.--have come to naught. But that doesn't make him spiritual. Rather, his descriptions of God are cold and contemptuous.
The Teacher (as he calls himself) is openly contemptuous of fools. Still, he notes that some fools have achieved a sort of happiness in life, largely because they are ignorant. In 3:13 he notes that some people can find satisfaction, but he concludes "this is a gift from God"--a gift that obviously the Teacher himself does not enjoy, primarily because he is smart enough to see the vanity in it. (See chapter 1.)
Chapter 3 ends with the Teacher saying things that scandalizes us Christians! How dare he say that men are like animals, that no one can be sure of what happens after the grave! WHY IS THIS BOOK IN THE CANON?!!
Ha! Why indeed? Chapter 4 almost endorses suicide. The Teacher continues in his depressed rant. In chapter 5, he bemoans injustice but offers no solution. In 5:8 we expect him to say, "If you see injustice, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!" But no, he simply explains it away as part of the corrupted nature of mankind. He condemns wealth and its futility, and he again exalts the commoner who can somehow find satisfaction--the satisfaction of the ignorant. A satisfaction that the Teacher obviously does not share.
Chapter 6 offers no solace but only more lamentation that the Teacher does not enjoy the wealth and prosperity he has. Chapter 7--one of my favorites--offers a naked honesty by our frustrated Teacher. Notice once again his description of God--as if God is aloof, inscrutable, capricious. This is not the loving, personal God that David writes of, or that the New Testament describes as "Abba! Father!". Rather, the Teacher's God is cold, unpredictable, detached. In our haste to find some evangelical meaning to this book, we try to make a short-cut and convince ourselves that the writer--somewhere along the line--got religion, and we desperately point to his references to God as the proof. I think this is erroneous. The writer's God is conceptual, not personal, and the Teacher views God as inevitable, tyrannical, irresistible, but not loving, not a God who saves. This is the view of a depressed agnostic.
Chapter 8 borders on incoherence. I picture myself standing before King Solomon in his latter days and listening to him rant the words of this chapter while his ministers lower their eyes and hope that he will shut up. In verse 15 once again, he praises those who are stupid enough to enjoy their lives. You can see his envy of the ignorant. Instead, his "wisdom"--his intellectual ability to see the futility of life on earth--has left him depressed and resigned.
Chapter 9 makes clear the writer's understanding of God: aloof, detached, and capricious. Rather than being a God of Justice and Righteousness, he is instead a God that dispatches blessing and cursing, life and death merely on his divine whim. So I ask again--is this writer of Scripture a spiritual man? Is his representation of God accurate? Of course not! This book is written by a man far from God. But stay tuned...there is a point to all this!
Chapter 10--another chapter of ranting by a king at his wit's end. Chapter 11 gives us deep, meaningful advice indeed: work hard, because you can't possibly predict whether it will pay off. Enjoy your youth and good days, because it's gonna be hell soon enough. Are these the words of a spiritual man? It reads like a suicide note.
Finally we get to chapter 12. The Teacher laments that he's losing his teeth, his vigor, his sexual drive, his sight, and eventually his life. Thankfully for us evangelicals, the writer throws out a desperate conclusion: fear God and obey his commandments. We like to believe that Solomon got religion at last! We cling to verse 13, hoping somehow that it provides a fit ending to this embarrassing rant.
But what we have failed (in general) to see is this: this book is written from start to finish by an unspiritual man. He may be saved, or he may not. That is irrelevant. But he is writing from the perspective of a man living in the devil's world. He's intelligent, and he's honest. In excess, we might say. He's intelligent enough to realize that most people live in total ignorance of the truth of their own mortality. He's honest enough to tell us loud and clear: "I've tried it all and it's all crap." Even his understanding of God is tainted by his depression. The "God" of Ecclesiastes is not the God of the rest of the Bible. From Genesis through Revelation, we see an integrated, beautiful, terrifying, gracious, loving, righteous, incomparable, merciful triune God. We see a God whose perfect character could be propitiated only by the substitutionary, efficacious death of the God-Man on the Cross. We see a God who knew the end from the beginning and who sought out those who could be saved. We see a God who is intimately involved in every detail of life--a God who is powerful, surprising, but consistent in his judgments. This is not the Teacher's God. When the writer of Ecclesiastes writes about "God", it's almost as if he's writing instead about "Fate": cold, unpredictable, detached, purposeless.
Evangelical tradition has hastened to interpret this book in the best light possible...and thereby has lost its real worth. Ecclesiastes is a valuable part of the Canon of Scripture precisely because it gives us the perspective of the lost! It is a book that is intended to be read so that we can see the futility of life unattached to God. There is NO spiritual wisdom in this book....except insofar as we can move on from it and discover that the world view of the writer is horrifying and misguided! The purpose of Ecclesiastes is to motivate us to read the rest of Scripture so that we can lay aside the depression and despair of the unbeliever and turn to the real God of the Bible and his plan of salvation in Christ! Don't try to make the writer into a spiritual giant who "gets religion". Instead, see him for what he is: the voice of the unredeemed, the spiritually dead. Then, move on to the Gospel of John and see the utter, fundamental difference!
God is NOT aloof, capricious, detached, and uninterested. He loves you, as he loved the writer of Ecclesiastes who had lost himself in sin and self-absorption. Our God created you for a purpose and has in mind an exciting, eternal relationship with you. He is SO involved that he formulated a shocking solution for your sinfulness: that he himself would become a human being and die in your place to make you righteous!! He is so vitally interested in you that he brought upon himself unfathomable pain and suffering to save you. This is the beautiful conclusion that you come to when you set down the depression of Ecclesiastes, reject the human viewpoint it voices, and embrace the gospel of peace of the rest of the Bible. Enjoy!
1500 years before any evangelical scholars were born, before Dallas Theological Seminary was founded, the book of Ecclesiastes was included in the canon of Scripture. Modern theologians thus must deal with this difficult book--a book that, if we were honest, some of us might wish were not in the Bible! It is a book written by a man whose sole virtue is astounding honesty. But a man who has little or no relationship with God, at least at the time of his writing.
Traditionally, we believe this book to be written by Solomon. I think this likely, but it really doesn't matter. It is certainly written by someone in the line of David who ruled and had great wealth. But the important point is that this is a book written by someone who is desperate, depressed, frustrated, resigned, and slightly suicidal.
I think that evangelical Christianity, in its discomfort with this book and its haste to make it respectable, rushes to read into it some deep spiritual message from the author. The problem is that the author has no deep, spiritual message. All he has to offer is the perspective of a man divorced from his spiritual relationship with God--a message of despair, resignation, and death. We look at his occasional references to God with the hope that somewhere around chapter 3 or so, he "got saved" or something. I think this is not the case. Rather, I believe this guy was far from God all the way through the book. Even at the end, in the last chapter, when he concludes that we should fear God and obey his commandments, it's not the advice of a spiritual man who has found happiness, but rather of an unspiritual man who is resigned to the inscrutability of God. He has the honesty to record for us that his futile attempts at happiness--through wealth, women, wine, ambition, wisdom, etc.--have come to naught. But that doesn't make him spiritual. Rather, his descriptions of God are cold and contemptuous.
The Teacher (as he calls himself) is openly contemptuous of fools. Still, he notes that some fools have achieved a sort of happiness in life, largely because they are ignorant. In 3:13 he notes that some people can find satisfaction, but he concludes "this is a gift from God"--a gift that obviously the Teacher himself does not enjoy, primarily because he is smart enough to see the vanity in it. (See chapter 1.)
Chapter 3 ends with the Teacher saying things that scandalizes us Christians! How dare he say that men are like animals, that no one can be sure of what happens after the grave! WHY IS THIS BOOK IN THE CANON?!!
Ha! Why indeed? Chapter 4 almost endorses suicide. The Teacher continues in his depressed rant. In chapter 5, he bemoans injustice but offers no solution. In 5:8 we expect him to say, "If you see injustice, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!" But no, he simply explains it away as part of the corrupted nature of mankind. He condemns wealth and its futility, and he again exalts the commoner who can somehow find satisfaction--the satisfaction of the ignorant. A satisfaction that the Teacher obviously does not share.
Chapter 6 offers no solace but only more lamentation that the Teacher does not enjoy the wealth and prosperity he has. Chapter 7--one of my favorites--offers a naked honesty by our frustrated Teacher. Notice once again his description of God--as if God is aloof, inscrutable, capricious. This is not the loving, personal God that David writes of, or that the New Testament describes as "Abba! Father!". Rather, the Teacher's God is cold, unpredictable, detached. In our haste to find some evangelical meaning to this book, we try to make a short-cut and convince ourselves that the writer--somewhere along the line--got religion, and we desperately point to his references to God as the proof. I think this is erroneous. The writer's God is conceptual, not personal, and the Teacher views God as inevitable, tyrannical, irresistible, but not loving, not a God who saves. This is the view of a depressed agnostic.
Chapter 8 borders on incoherence. I picture myself standing before King Solomon in his latter days and listening to him rant the words of this chapter while his ministers lower their eyes and hope that he will shut up. In verse 15 once again, he praises those who are stupid enough to enjoy their lives. You can see his envy of the ignorant. Instead, his "wisdom"--his intellectual ability to see the futility of life on earth--has left him depressed and resigned.
Chapter 9 makes clear the writer's understanding of God: aloof, detached, and capricious. Rather than being a God of Justice and Righteousness, he is instead a God that dispatches blessing and cursing, life and death merely on his divine whim. So I ask again--is this writer of Scripture a spiritual man? Is his representation of God accurate? Of course not! This book is written by a man far from God. But stay tuned...there is a point to all this!
Chapter 10--another chapter of ranting by a king at his wit's end. Chapter 11 gives us deep, meaningful advice indeed: work hard, because you can't possibly predict whether it will pay off. Enjoy your youth and good days, because it's gonna be hell soon enough. Are these the words of a spiritual man? It reads like a suicide note.
Finally we get to chapter 12. The Teacher laments that he's losing his teeth, his vigor, his sexual drive, his sight, and eventually his life. Thankfully for us evangelicals, the writer throws out a desperate conclusion: fear God and obey his commandments. We like to believe that Solomon got religion at last! We cling to verse 13, hoping somehow that it provides a fit ending to this embarrassing rant.
But what we have failed (in general) to see is this: this book is written from start to finish by an unspiritual man. He may be saved, or he may not. That is irrelevant. But he is writing from the perspective of a man living in the devil's world. He's intelligent, and he's honest. In excess, we might say. He's intelligent enough to realize that most people live in total ignorance of the truth of their own mortality. He's honest enough to tell us loud and clear: "I've tried it all and it's all crap." Even his understanding of God is tainted by his depression. The "God" of Ecclesiastes is not the God of the rest of the Bible. From Genesis through Revelation, we see an integrated, beautiful, terrifying, gracious, loving, righteous, incomparable, merciful triune God. We see a God whose perfect character could be propitiated only by the substitutionary, efficacious death of the God-Man on the Cross. We see a God who knew the end from the beginning and who sought out those who could be saved. We see a God who is intimately involved in every detail of life--a God who is powerful, surprising, but consistent in his judgments. This is not the Teacher's God. When the writer of Ecclesiastes writes about "God", it's almost as if he's writing instead about "Fate": cold, unpredictable, detached, purposeless.
Evangelical tradition has hastened to interpret this book in the best light possible...and thereby has lost its real worth. Ecclesiastes is a valuable part of the Canon of Scripture precisely because it gives us the perspective of the lost! It is a book that is intended to be read so that we can see the futility of life unattached to God. There is NO spiritual wisdom in this book....except insofar as we can move on from it and discover that the world view of the writer is horrifying and misguided! The purpose of Ecclesiastes is to motivate us to read the rest of Scripture so that we can lay aside the depression and despair of the unbeliever and turn to the real God of the Bible and his plan of salvation in Christ! Don't try to make the writer into a spiritual giant who "gets religion". Instead, see him for what he is: the voice of the unredeemed, the spiritually dead. Then, move on to the Gospel of John and see the utter, fundamental difference!
God is NOT aloof, capricious, detached, and uninterested. He loves you, as he loved the writer of Ecclesiastes who had lost himself in sin and self-absorption. Our God created you for a purpose and has in mind an exciting, eternal relationship with you. He is SO involved that he formulated a shocking solution for your sinfulness: that he himself would become a human being and die in your place to make you righteous!! He is so vitally interested in you that he brought upon himself unfathomable pain and suffering to save you. This is the beautiful conclusion that you come to when you set down the depression of Ecclesiastes, reject the human viewpoint it voices, and embrace the gospel of peace of the rest of the Bible. Enjoy!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Labyrinth
Played a really fun game of Labyrinth tonight—a new wargame that simulates the Global War on Terror at the strategic level. Peter played the Jihadists, and I had the US. For the first two years after 9/11, things were bleak. Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines were hatching plots and hurting American prestige. Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, and they were recruiting cells of jihadists in Central Asia, Russia, and Pakistan. They even took a shot at getting hold of Soviet nuclear weapons (but the plot failed, thankfully).
I countered by using persistent diplomacy to get Pakistan to ally with me, whereupon I sent some troops to help them disrupt the growing number of jihadists there. Then, in 2002, I launched the invasion of Afghanistan and forced a regime change there. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda was recruiting cells in Italy, Great Britain, Iraq, and elsewhere, and the world community was increasingly at odds with the US over how to deal with the terror threat. More and more countries were advocating a soft posture, while the US and Israel (and Russia) were hard on terror.
Finally, I decided to make a major change in strategy. I conducted a reassessment and changed the US posture to soft, bringing my administration’s anti-terror policy in line with the rest of the world. The response was overwhelmingly positive, boosting my influence in the Muslim world.
In 2003, I pushed hard to press my advantage and managed to complete the operation in Afghanistan, establishing good governance there. Next, I coaxed Pakistan into democracy, and then the Gulf States after that! Democracy was busting out all over, and the jihadists were reeling. For my final one-two punch, I hammered away at jihadist funding. Al-Azhar, the Islamist University in Cairo, came out with a fatwa denigrating Al-Qaeda, which quickly dried up funding for the jihadists. By the end of the war, they had no means to recruit. They had staged a comeback in Central Asia and were moving toward declaring a major jihad there to re-establish Islamic rule after being chased out of Afghanistan. But I countered with some back-door diplomacy and coaxed Central Asia into a position of neutrality, dooming the Islamists’ ambitions there.
Very fun game. I think my best move was reassessing strategy and shifting to a soft posture, which in turn led to diplomatic gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Must play this one again and again. Excellent game design!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Hitdorf
Peter came over--haven't seen him in ages--and we played Combat Commander: Europe. He chose the Hitdorf scenario, and he got the Americans. Previously, we played that one twice. The first time, he had the Americans and foolishly advanced on the Monastery too early. He took it, and then I counterattacked with my German reinforcements and slammed him. In our second game, I played the Americans and avoided that mistake, concentrating on the center. In tonight's game, Peter did the same, executing a skillful advance in the center against my beleaguered defenders early in the fight.
My typical tactic is to concentrate my fires on squads that have poor leadership, and I managed to knock off a couple. When things got hot and heavy in the center, my main squad advanced out of their protective buildings and ambushed a key American unit, killing it. That felt good, but shortly thereafter, the Americans started to overwhelm me. I couldn't get my guys back to cover soon enough, and they were shot to pieces. The last squad made it into a pillbox but got close assaulted and killed. By the end of the fight, the Americans had captured the center completely. I still had a strong platoon on the hill near the monastery, but Peter's masterful use of artillery and smoke had depleted my ranks and limited my firepower. I advanced along the ridge to my right, but his artillery and fires killed my squad leader, dooming that advance.
In the end, the battle was a draw. A lot of little things contributed to that outcome. At one point, I routed his guys that were hung up in a wire obstacle near his side of the board, eliminating them. He did the same to two of my units near the monastery. Then, one of the units that Peter had eliminated reappeared as walking wounded...right on his side of the battlefield when it was my turn. I played a move card and claimed DOUBLE victory points, because one of the open objectives allowed me to do that. Then, when the battle ended and I thought I had won, Peter revealed his secret objective, which gave an extra VP for objective 2..making the game a draw. It was one hell of a fight. I actually feel that Peter out-fought me. His use of artillery and his relentless attack were punishing. The two things I did right: I fought an aggressive defense in the center, and my guys near the monastery killed a bunch of Americans and forced the enemy to attend to them with artillery.
Looking forward to the next one.
My typical tactic is to concentrate my fires on squads that have poor leadership, and I managed to knock off a couple. When things got hot and heavy in the center, my main squad advanced out of their protective buildings and ambushed a key American unit, killing it. That felt good, but shortly thereafter, the Americans started to overwhelm me. I couldn't get my guys back to cover soon enough, and they were shot to pieces. The last squad made it into a pillbox but got close assaulted and killed. By the end of the fight, the Americans had captured the center completely. I still had a strong platoon on the hill near the monastery, but Peter's masterful use of artillery and smoke had depleted my ranks and limited my firepower. I advanced along the ridge to my right, but his artillery and fires killed my squad leader, dooming that advance.
In the end, the battle was a draw. A lot of little things contributed to that outcome. At one point, I routed his guys that were hung up in a wire obstacle near his side of the board, eliminating them. He did the same to two of my units near the monastery. Then, one of the units that Peter had eliminated reappeared as walking wounded...right on his side of the battlefield when it was my turn. I played a move card and claimed DOUBLE victory points, because one of the open objectives allowed me to do that. Then, when the battle ended and I thought I had won, Peter revealed his secret objective, which gave an extra VP for objective 2..making the game a draw. It was one hell of a fight. I actually feel that Peter out-fought me. His use of artillery and his relentless attack were punishing. The two things I did right: I fought an aggressive defense in the center, and my guys near the monastery killed a bunch of Americans and forced the enemy to attend to them with artillery.
Looking forward to the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
