Silence Is Not An Option: Some Thoughts on Justice & Inequality

Looking back on this essay from July of 2013, about the hysteria surrounding the trial of George Zimmerman regarding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, I find that considering all that with all that has happened since, with Ferguson MO and NYC, this essay remains very applicable.  So I decided to edit it a little and republish it…

One of the things that has become painfully apparent in the wake of the hysteria that has surrounded the tragic events of the last few years in places like Sanford FL, Ferguson MO and New York City NY with all of the media hype and political spin, is that there are huge issues facing American Society which we still have to find answers to.  Many are attempting to do just that, but I for one find that most of what I read and hear falls seriously, disturbingly, short.

The loudest voices are decrying power structures and institutionalized racism expressed here in corrupt law enforcement and a prejudiced judicial system, as though this is just how things work in a society built by fat old white men who didn’t care about anyone but themselves.

As I said, I believe that there are real issues facing us in America today, and they are huge in scope; but I also believe that the explanations we are being given by our media and our elected officials, by our scholars and our celebrities… all fall short because they are answering the wrong questions and doing so from the wrong premises.

With each tragedy, we are left wondering what really happened and invariably the only people who actually know are the people who were actually there.  We can wish these tragedies didn’t happen, but we can’t change them and we can’t make up a narrative that soothes our broken hearts based on speculation and personal bias.  And yet that is what our media, our elected officials, our scholars and our celebrities want us to do as they cry out for justice against when the work of the legal system results in an outcome which they dismiss as invalid.

But consider the ramifications of this:  Our legal system was set up to protect the innocent from injustice because that has been the more common problem historically.  So if we lay aside the high standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” when facing the unknown variables of tragedies like these, we will inevitably return to those days when the courts were nothing more than the tool of power mongers looking to silence anyone they deemed to be a danger to their personal vision of society.

However, while we cannot construct a narrative for these tragedies, we also can not pretend that they didn’t happen and that there aren’t real discussions and changes which need to occur about Justice and Law and Law Enforcement, about Education and Inequality, about Individuality and Community… because we are all responsible for this.

The Individual sovereignty revealed in Genesis 1-2 and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence does not negate the Corporate responsibility that we have toward one another in the Community: separating these two things inevitably leads to either Anarchy or Collectivism, and neither honor God. We are bound together. The tapestry of humanity is made up of the individual threads of every Man and Woman. Each of our choices affects all others in some way.

Thus In Deuteronomy 21:1-9 we find that if there is someone found murdered and no one knows who’s to blame, the town closest to the body has to corporately repent just in case someone from their community was responsible.  This understanding of community consciousness must be reawakened if we are going to set this country back on the course of justice and mercy.

As followers of the Way of the Cross, this holds even truer.  For the Gospel of John reminds us that the World lies in darkness; it doesn’t understand it only feels, it can not make sense of Life it can only twist what it sees into a caricature of what is so as to numb the pain that gnaws at the inside (John 1).  Thus it falls to the Disciples of Yeshua to be His voice in this present life, to speak Truth to falsehood, to bring light into darkness.

When we fail to do this then we, like the watchman of Ezekiel 33, become complicit to the propaganda of the media, the posturing of politicians, the pseudo-intellectualism of scholars, and the ignorance of celebrities.

Silence is no longer an option.  The Followers of the Way of the Cross must stop allowing the World to set the talking points.  In the wake of the hysteria of these tragedies I have seen many in the American Church come around to this only to return to their platitudes and pseudo-piety the tragedy was no longer a trending hash-tag on twitter… this must change.

What The Gungor Controversy Tells Us About The American Church

In case you are one of the few people who are even less aware of what is happening inside the glass walls of the American Church than I am, there is a major controversy currently over comments made by the worship band and Dove award winner Gungor (Here is an excellent article from the Christian Post for summary).  First, there was the Ken Ham article wherein he challenged the scientific nature of Gungor’s assertions about the reliability of the Genesis accounts and then highlighted the philosophical implications of those assertions – spoiler: Faith in a non-literal Bible is a not Biblical Faith (Read Ken Ham’s article here).  Then there are blog post responses like the one from Tyler Francke at God of Evolution which insists that it is Ken Ham’s theology which is actually the problem – spoiler: A literal Bible is unreasonable and reasonable people reject such archaic thinking (Read Tyler Francke’s article here).  And so, lines are being drawn and redrawn as the American Church wrestles with this newest revelation that many who call themselves Christians are not Biblical literalists while the rest struggle with the sudden awareness that there are more Literalists out there then they realized.

As I have read through comment after comment on this, I am struck by one recurring issue regardless of which side of this people take:  That by and large the American Church is woefully ignorant of the Philosophical Foundations of a Biblical Worldview, of the impact of Biblical Theology on their choices and actions, and most disappointingly of the actual content of the Bible itself.

Many Literalists are only such because they have embraced the assumptions of Christian Existentialism, namely that the facts don’t matter as long as they believe enough.  Thus they eschew any challenge to the Bible, egregiously misquoting Paul’s assertion – “Let God be right and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).  For these, doubt and dissent are dangerous, not to be trifled with lest they cause one to fall away.  In reality, they fear the scrutiny of the Bible because they don’t really know if it would hold up under investigation and would prefer the blissful slavery of that than to be free in the wilderness of  skepticism.  As I have written about in a previous essay on Skepticism, a faith that cannot be tested is a Faith that cannot be trusted (Read my essay on Skepticism here).

On the other hand, many non-Literalists are only such because they have embraced the assumptions of Christian Humanism, namely that the Christian religion is a human institution which reflects human frailty in its orthodoxy because of its over-reliance on a book that reveals things about God.  For these, the Bible is more the words of God rather than the Word of God.  Thus they embrace the idea that faith lived like Jesus matters more than Theological propositions about Jesus, egregiously misquoting James’ assertion that “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).  For these, a literal understanding of the text is unreasonable, not to be considered by any rational individual.  In reality, however, these individuals are guilty of the same fear as the majority of so-called Literalists; for instead of seeking out those whose views challenge their own they prefer the blissful slavery of ignorance to the freedom of questioning their own assumptions about the nature of reality and truth and faith. (Read my essay on Faith here).

In the end, what the Gungor controversy tells us most about the American Church is that it is not interested nearly so much in Truth as in feeling good about itself.  The problem is that Jesus said very plainly that a Life not built on His words was a life that lacked structural integrity (Matthew 7:24-27).  So while the so-called Literalists and the non-Literals argue about what Christianity is, they both suffer from the danger of a structurally unstable life and while it may look good to those within their respective communities when the storms come they will Fall Away.

That is the heartbreaking outcome of an untested faith, of an unquestioning mind, of ignorance.

Post Script:

One last thing on this.  After almost an entire life spent looking for the errors, I have found that every error I thought I saw in the scripture was actually my own.  I am a Biblical Literalist and I have yet to find an actual contradiction in the Scripture or anything even remotely unreasonable.  If you have questions you need to ask them, your Life depends on it.  If those around you discourage this sort of thing that you need to find new people to be around.

Love Your Enemy: Reflections On The Orthopraxis Of Mercy & Grace

My daughter and I were talking the other day about the biblical exhortation to do good to those who hurt you (Luke 6:27-36).  It is a difficult thing for us to wrap our heads around but the scripture is clear.  Even psychology bears witness to the reality that the unkindness which stems from unforgiveness is cancer in the soul, consuming and destroying everything in its wake.

Thus the Apostle Paul exhorts us to be angry and yet not sin, to not allow bitterness to take root in our lives  (Ephesians 4:25-27).  This is because bitterness leads to either depression or rage, and sometimes both.  It is the natural expression of the soul when a person feels alone, abandoned and left to fend for themselves.  But being natural doesn’t make it healthy.  In fact, it is only natural in that when we are born separated from God we are born alone and therefore learn to mediate the circumstances of life in this way (Genesis 3:16).  We most certainly were not created for such a thing. Yet it is only forgiveness and kindness to one’s enemies, flowing out of a heart that is trusting Yeshua for shalom, that can truly know freedom from bitterness, depression, and rage – Restoration of the Life that is truly Life.

But there are at least three other reasons to embrace this aspect of the Way of the Cross which are equally compelling and the first of those three is freedom from pride.

Sometimes we are hurt and so we lash out.  But sometimes we are simply proud and in our pride are unwilling to see the hurt of the one who has hurt us.

That pride which blinds us to other’s pain and binds up compassion in us is what brought Lucifer down.  For it is pride which leads to rebellion and the stubborn refusal to seek grace.  Thus we are told that if we are unwilling to forgive others we will not be able to be forgiven ( Matthew 6:14-15).  This is not a tit-for-tat threat from God it is simply an acknowledgment that when we allow pride to control us we will neither extend grace nor seek it.  Embracing kindness and compassion, mercy and forgiveness, brings us freedom from this corrosive pride and ensures that our character is not the character of the Accuser of the Brethren ( Revelations 12:9-11).

The last two which my daughter and I discussed had nothing to do with the benefits of forgiveness and kindness for the one extending grace, but rather for the one receiving it.

First, the extension of grace through forgiveness and kindness to one who has wronged you invites them to experience the freedom of a new start. This fresh start offers them the opportunity to take on a new identity; to no longer be defined by their past.  In this way, the Follower of the Way of the Cross becomes a conduit for the Redemptive work of Messiah wherein He makes all things new ( 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Second, the extension of grace through forgiveness and kindness to one who has wronged you invites them to experience the freedom to encounter God in you as the one who bears His Image following in the footsteps of the ultimate Image bearer.  Like Abraham, the first to be called a prophet ( Genesis 20:7), and Moses after him ( Numbers 12) whose lives gave glimpses of the Messiah; we are meant to live our lives in such a way that we become intercessor and advocate for those who are still lost that they might also catch a glimpse of the God whose love for them put Him on a cross (Hebrews 4:14-16).

 

For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

~ 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 ~

Economics, Equality, Crayons & the Cross

My kids were coloring the other day and their cache of crayons was getting low, consisting mostly of worn down nubs and broken pieces.  So their mother got out two new boxes of crayons and added them to the cache.  She returned to check on them a few minutes later only to discover that they had broken all of the new crayons so that everything in their cache would be essentially the same. 

This is what I think of when I think of the false narrative of power and powerlessness that drives the political exploitation of poverty in this country.  Everywhere I turn I hear the regurgitation of this Marxist philosophy that views the world through the lens of economic haves and have-nots and assumes that the average person is incapable of real success not due to the lack of opportunity but because those in power have stolen success from them.  In reality adherence to this philosophy steals the opportunity to succeed by crushing the human spirit under the weight of a deterministic system that clothes itself in the vocabulary of Community all the while stratifying the society into two groups – the aristocracy and the rest of us.

The political exploitation of poverty by the aristocracy is not about setting people free from oppression, it is about leveraging influence so as to shift power from one set of elitist hands to another.  Furthermore, the fact remains that you can not tweak a free system without far-reaching repercussions.  Every regulation and every act of legislation to force employers to pay employees – whether wages or benefits as in the case of the Affordable Care Act – results in the total cost of living increasing exponentially; thus counteracting the stated goal of such increases.

Of course, the Statist answer to this is for the aristocracy to assume control over all business, an irony considering that while touted as progressivism doing so would actually be the serfdom of the dark ages revisited.  For history has proven over and over again that no matter how little or how much these aspirations of equality may draw men up from poverty, they do so at the cost of personal freedom and the solidification of a stratified society divided between the common man and the elitists who exert absolute control over their lives (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom).

What we need now is for the Followers of the Way of the Cross to stop aligning themselves with political parties and humanist ideologies (Colossians 2:8). We who are the Ekklesia of Messiah must lead by example, seeking wisdom by embracing knowledge and compassion, rejecting the rhetoric of oppression and revolution.  We must return to individually-sovereign community-orientated interdependent entrepreneurship; remembering that the dignity of Man is derived directly from the Imago Dei and that it is only He in whose image we are made that can sanctify our work, giving us peace and prosperity when we join His Work and walk in His Ways (Genesis 1:26-28).

To put it another way, the utopian vision of human progress inevitably ends with a bin of equally broken crayons.  But the Divine vision of human progress ends with a beautifully diverse array of broken and whole crayons, each useful and valuable.  The process is messier, longer and harder but ultimately it results in actual equality and true freedom (Galatians 5:13-14).

The time has come to choose whose assumptions about Life we are going to build our lives and society on…

Mechanics & Meaning: The Nye-Ham Debate

Recently there was a highly publicized and mostly disappointing debate between the Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Ken Ham, Founder of the Christian organization Answers In Genesis.  Now in the interest of full disclosure, I need to tell you that I love Bill Nye and appreciate all that he did for Science Education back in the day.  Likewise, I am a huge supporter of the Answers In Genesis organization and really appreciate all they have done to bring Science into the Life of the Church.

So leading up to the debate I was excited about the prospect of two even-tempered men whom I respect deeply discussing the scientific merits of Intelligent Design as a viable option for the explanation of first causation in the universe.  And I have to say that with regard to the merits of having a civil dialogue; it was refreshing to see these guys not degenerate into the disappointing kind of juvenile name-calling and scoffing that seems to plague those on both sides of this topic.

Unfortunately, it is here that the merits of this debate ended for me.

Nye’s position was clear from the beginning and while some might take issue with his rhetorical ability claiming that he suffered from going up against a slick- science denier, I found him to be compelling in the humble and unassuming way he presented what to him is strong enough evidence from which to infer his conclusions about origins.  Perhaps the problem for Evolutionary theorists was that Nye is not enough of an anti-theist for their taste, having referred to himself at one point as an Agnostic.

Unfortunately, Ham’s position going in had been clearly stated as trying to help people see that Biblical Creationism (One perspective on Intelligent Design) is a valid option for first causation based on the scientific evidence we have, but once the debate started apparently something changed.  Instead, Ham seemed bent on showing the world that Creationism is an alternative to Science; for while Nye was linking the evidence to his conclusions, Ham was linking the evidence to his premise.  Thus they spent the evening reinforcing the false narrative that science and faith are in conflict.

Here is the problem as I see it:

If you are going to debate the merits of theology informing science education and you wish to focus on the theological aspect of the discussion then debate a theologian, but if you are going to debate a scientist you have to focus on the scientific aspect of the discussion.  As a theologian, I can appreciate the conviction that nothing could cause one to doubt the Biblical text, but this debate was not supposed to be about personal philosophical convictions, it was supposed to be about the fact that the scientific evidence doesn’t warrant the abandonment of such convictions.  If you tell people that no evidence can move you from your convictions then you mark yourself as a biased, non-critical thinker, “proving” to your detractors that those who adhere to positions like yours actually fear Science and essentially nullify whatever progress debates like this one stand to make with those skeptical of your position.

The basic issue is one of Mechanics & Meaning:

True science concerns itself with the mechanics of things; trying to understand how stuff works and then using the evidence to infer new theories, testing those theories and making advances that call Humanity forward into the future.  Philosophy concerns itself with the meaning of things; trying to understand the why of the universe.  Science can not explain the WHY any more than Philosophy can explain the HOW.  When Philosophy attempts to control the HOW, history has shown again and again that scientific discovery is hindered and everyone suffers for it.  Likewise, however, when Science attempts to explain the WHY, Humanity itself suffers from the loss.

The Key is this:

If the Bible is just a storybook as some claim, then it doesn’t deserve anyone’s trust.  If it is nothing more than a collection of fairy-tales and myths which need to be explained away so as to maintain the comfort of organized religion without offending the sensibilities of contemporary society, then the Church should be abandoned straight away.  In fact, if this describes you then I am begging you to abandon the Church and go live your life in whatever way seems best to you.

But if the Bible is of Divine origin, if it truly is the Revelation of the Sovereign Maker-King of all things, then there should be no point at which the scientific evidence will contradict the text.  And if one begins with this premise and finds a seeming contradiction, then one of two options is at work.  Either the evidence is not as conclusive as it is being presented or else one’s understanding of the text is wrong.

Either way, if the Designer can’t be trusted to not contradict Himself, then faith is madness.

Thus, in hindsight, I wish that Ken Ham would simply have let Bill Nye explain why he believes what he does, and then simply asked: “Why not a Designer?”  For those whose belief in science is really just anti-theism, this would not have been sufficient; but for those whose commitment is not to their ideology but to the evidentiary pursuit of truth, I think it would have gone far towards developing common ground.

Remember, I am a Biblical literalist specifically because I am first a skeptic and a scholar. As I have written previously [cf. Science & the Faith], after all these years I have yet to find anything in the Biblical text which demands we abandon true science and I have yet to find a single true scientific discovery which forces us to choose between the Biblical text and the evidence.  These demands come not from Science or the Scripture, they come from ideologues who need mutual exclusivity to solidify their baseless authoritarian demands on Men’s allegiances; and those who bend to such demands, whether because they desire to be among the enlightened or the faithful, do so to their own tragic psychological mortification… a completely unnecessary break of the mind and heart and will.

Making Sense Of The Bible – An Introduction

Knowing the right Bible answers is not the same thing as knowing the God of the Bible.

Unfortunately this distinction is far too often overlooked and thus the text is approached rather haphazardly, as though it is of little consequence how one understands it so long as their answers fit the system they have aligned themselves with.  It is this very subjectivist approach to Biblical interpretation which lies at the heart of a growing disdain for real Biblical Truth.  Often the Post-modern paradigm which eschews reliance on one’s ability to ascertain any absolutes is credited with causing this dynamic, but if one digs into history one finds that the disdain for Biblical truth and the subjective approach to the text which is its precursor are as old as the text itself.

The academic words for these two interpretive approaches are Exegesis, which is the process of drawing out of a text what it actually says, and Eisegesis, which is the process of superimposing on the text what the interpreter wants it to say.  Exegesis employs what is called the Historical, Cultural, Grammatical & Rhetorical hermeneutic or method of interpretation which looks at these contexts to ascertain original meaning.  By contrast Eisegesis has no set hermeneutic and is subject only to the imagination of the interpreter.

Proper Biblical Exegesis gives one an objective set of boundaries which then frame one’s entire pursuit of the Truth of God’s revelation.  YHVH chose to reveal Himself in specific ways at specific times, thus the appropriate first question of study is not “what does this mean to me”, but rather, “what does this mean?”  Looking to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in this way keeps one from constantly “finding” only their pet subjects in the text and allows them to instead apprehend the whole council of God (Acts 20:17-27).  It is when one comes to God’s Word in this way that James statement of the Word being like a mirror truly comes to life (James 1:23-27).  When allowed to say what it says, rather than what one wants it to say, the Word of God shows an individual what kind of a person they really are, it strips their motives bear removing all pretense of self righteousness (Hebrews 4:12-13), cleansing and renewing the mind (Romans 12:2).

Examples of the danger of poor exegesis range from the sad to tragic.  The Judeo-Christian Scriptures have been used to justify all kinds of human evil and cowardice.  From the slaughter of unbelievers to the Inquisition of fellow Believers, from the Enslaving of Africans to the Degradation of Women; Preachers have used the text in awful ways.  While less dramatic it is no less detestable the way some will misuse the text to garnered power, twisting the Law of Love in Christ Jesus into a scourge of manipulation, spreading guilt so as to obtain acquiescence to their will under the thinly veiled guise of ministry (2 Peter 2).

From my personal experience, I have found that my own ignorance regarding God’s Holy Word has caused much grief.  When I was younger in the Faith I fancied myself very knowledgeable, but I knew only the letter and not the spirit of the Law of Christ.  In my zeal I hurt many people who I was trying to help.  This ignorance stemmed directly from the subject at hand, I had not invested the time in God’s Word to actually know God’s Word.

If we truly believe in a God who wants to be known then His self-revelation should first and foremost be reasonable enough that the average man can apprehend its meaning.  When one must turn to irrational mental gymnastics to justify their understanding of the text, they have openly contradicted the admonition of Moses in Deuteronomy 29 & 30 that what YHVH wants us to know has been revealed and requires no special intervention to be understood. But we must let the scripture interpret scripture, we must look to the point of first reference and we must look for the unity in the Divine narrative, before we can expect the text to truly make sense.

 

Atheism, Christianity & The Elephant

Let us attend to the Elephant that is not actually in the room…

As someone who is naturally skeptical; who is distrustful of institutions which lay claim to authority by virtue of their own existence; who believes that the pursuit of truth must trump all other biases and preconceptions – I have often found myself on the outside looking in.  Thus when I first came across a treasure trove of Atheist videos on YouTube I was delighted.  Frankly, I look forward to hearing what critical thinkers of all kinds have to say and even more so when their rhetoric is seasoned with comedy.  Unfortunately what I found was that the charges raised against the Judeo-Christian Faith were still based on the same Straw-Man Arguments, Deviation from the Design, or outright Misinterpretation of the Biblical Text as I have always encountered.  The thing is if I didn’t know better, I would be in agreement with these arguments because they are entirely reasonable given the premises which are used as the starting point.  But I have poked that Elephant and in so doing I found that it was not.

So for instance, if Christians really didn’t like science – as Bill Nye has concluded- I would be mortified.  The fact is that the scientific method is based on the a priori belief that we live in a world where reality is itself testable and the results of those tests reproducible and thus trustworthy.  Without a belief in this concrete nature of reality, the scientific method is nonsensical.  If we applied a belief in Random Chance to medicine, engineering, food production, or any other real-world situation we wouldn’t get very far.  As such the Follower of the Way of the Cross should be the strongest adherent of science because their belief in a transcendent designer forms the foundation of the scientific method and what is more the mandate of that same designer according to Genesis 1:26-28 is to do the work of science.  Now if the issue which is labeled as being anti-science is one of disagreeing with the Establishment, then I believe that I am in good company when I say that the voice of the majority can never trump evidence.

Likewise, the accusation leveled against the Judeo-Christian Faith that it is invalidated by the hypocrisy of its subjective morality is one that I have also struggled with.  The idea that you can cherry-pick the scripture, embracing what you are comfortable with and sweeping away what you are not, is truly offensive and those who do so bring shame on the One they claim to believe in.  However, this argument itself is also faulty because it is what I would call an argument based on Deviation from Design.  In other words, the basis of this argument is not truly representative of the Judeo-Christian Faith and is therefore invalid.  For example, the argument that biblical marriage (one man-one woman) as seen in the Judeo-Christian Scripture as opposed to homosexual marriage is invalidated by professing believers’ marital infidelity and divorce, is itself a invalid argument because it assumes that the basis of Judeo-Christian Morality is the collective conscious of the adherents rather than an objective source which sits in judgment on all deviation from design equally.

Finally, what seems to me to be the trump card of most arguments against the Judeo-Christian Faith is the notion that the Biblical text is full of contradictions which seemingly prove that the book was written by men about a God they made up to justify their own desires.  As with the video “Still the Good Guys” which at the 3:39 mark presents the following sentiment:

“So, why don’t we need to be told that Superman, Batman, The Avengers, etc, are good, but we do need to be told that the God of the Bible is good – if those verses were omitted – would you come to that conclusion on your own?  The destroyer of cities and worlds who fail to worship Him… Good?!  OR is it more likely that this God is a product of a culture seeking to justify its methods and actions against other cultures?”

The fact is that if all I had to go on was a KJV bible and some old guy telling me not to ask any questions I might have arrived at these same conclusions, but I had a Pastor who encouraged me to ask the hard questions, who encouraged me to embrace my unwillingness to allow someone else to do my thinking for me and who helped me to understand that if YHVH created us in His image as rational beings then there was no reason to assume that He had set Himself in opposition to Reason.  So I researched the history and the culture, I learned to read the original languages, I wrestled with Philosophy and Theology and Science… and what I have found is that the supposed contradictions don’t exist.  In reality, most people just choose to stop short of actually investigating the text with an open-mind because they are comfortable with their life the way it is and they don’t want to have to deal with the hard work involved in critically evaluating the text or their own biases.

But then it is we who are Followers of the Way of the Cross who must set the example here, that loving the Lord our God with ALL of our Heart and Mind and Strength means not letting others do our thinking for us.  So let us keep digging, keep prying, keep doubting, keep questioning- for the veracity of Truth can never be diminished by honest inquiry and the Sovereign Maker-King turn away those who seek Him.

  “…You will find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.”

~Jeremiah 29:13~

Spiritual Leadership: Acting as Prophet, Priest & King

Being a Pastor is one of the most rewarding things I have ever had the privilege to do.  It is second only to the privilege of being the Head of my Household, having the opportunity to pour my Life into my wife and children.  But though it is fun, it is far from easy; for in Yeshua we walk the path of Prophet, Priest, and King (Ephesians 4:11-13).

What are prophets, priests, and kings?

In ancient Israel, a prophet was an individual whom Adonai chose to speak for Him.  The prophets’ responsibility was to proclaim the mind of Adonai, less often a series of apocalyptic visions and more often an exposition of what was already revealed in the Torah.  Likewise, a priest was an individual whom Adonai chose to mediate between Himself and the People on the Peoples’ behalf.  The priests’ responsibility was to maintain the purity of devotion by identifying with the average person in compassion and humility.  Finally, a king was an individual whom Adonai chose to administrate the temporal affairs of the community.  The kings’ responsibility was to execute the Torah in public life, to ensure that civil society remained a civil society.

Prior to King Saul, from Moses to Samuel the Judges of Israel acted in each of these roles to a certain degree, though none as fully as Moses who was the first Covenant-bearer for the Nation-state of Israel; but with the advent of the kings these three responsibilities were divided in the nation of Israel as a kind of separation of powers.  And yet there was a lingering promise that in the Last Days Adonai would raise up a prophet like Moses, a Messiah who would speak for Him, Mediate for the People, and reign over the Earth with justice and mercy (Deuteronomy 18:15).

So what does it mean that the Ekklesia is a Community wherein everyone is a prophet, priest and king?

It means that each and every person who has come under the New Covenant of Yeshua the Messiah has now taken on the role and responsibility of speaking for Adonai, interceding with Him on behalf of others, and managing the resources which they have received from Him according to His revealed will.  In this sense, every person is meant to be a Spiritual Leader: speaking the Truth in Love, Loving the broken in spirit and in truth, and practicing faithful Stewardship of all their resources.

So how does this dynamic of being Prophet, Priest, and King affect how one leads?

Here a story from the Book of Numbers can be quite instructive (Numbers 17).   Moses has been dealing with the fact that some of the Levites, those chosen by Adonai to serve as priests for the Nation-state of Israel, felt that they had gotten a raw deal.  Needless to say, their rebellion is a constant source of contention, but Adonai keeps dealing with it until finally, He tells Moses that He is sick of it and that He is just going to kill all of them.  To this, however, Moses response is unexpected.  Instead of saying “its about time, I am so sick of their mess”, he seeks to intercede on the behalf of the People.  In the end, Adonai honors his intercession and the People are saved from themselves.

Moses recognized that he had to walk out the three-fold roles in an integrative balance.  For the Prophetic role alone may bring about fidelity to the rules but not necessarily fidelity to Adonai.  Likewise, the Priest role alone may bring about a compassionate community but not necessarily a loving one.  And the Executive role alone may bring about a well-organized machine, but it won’t cultivate a life-giving organism.  For Domination is not the same as Redemption; Consolation is not the same as Reconciliation; Regulation is not the same as Restoration.

This is so much the opposite of the way the world would have us believe effective leadership acts… and tellingly unlike much of how ministry is done at present in the American Church.

Generally, we expect the Pastor to walk out the role of the Priest, leading the People in worship and prayer, holding their hand like a hospice chaplain. At times we endure the Pastor paying homage to the role of the Prophet, proclaiming the Word of YHVH and calling the People to holiness.  Increasingly, however, we demand that the Pastor walk in the role of King, to be an effective executive – a kind of political salesman calling people to purchase our wares and manipulating them to accomplish our agendas.

Adonai’s ways and thoughts are not ours.  Where He sacrifices we tend to look to conquer; where He invites we tend to look to control; where He loves we tend to look to use; where He gives we tend to look to consume; where He cultivates we tend to look to manipulate. This must change.

If we wish to be true Spiritual leaders we must learn to think and act as Yeshua does, as Prophet, Priest & King.

Now, these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.  Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ.

~ Ephesians 4:11-13 ~

Skepticism

Critical Thinking & Limits Of Certainty

Thinking is an activity of the mind which is common to all people, although it seems to be done by some almost thoughtlessly.  Critical thinking however is both a disposition to judge the information one is thinking about, as well as a skill set that allows one to make those judgments with in the appropriate contexts.  This requires two things.  First it requires a breadth and depth of knowledge that boarders on expertise and therefore is hard to come by, though not impossible if one is willing to put in the effort to accomplish it.  Second it requires that one have enough self-awareness and integrity to set aside their biases and look at the information for the sake of truth alone.  This is of course a hare in the briar patch, because although critical thinking is presented as the ability to set one’s biases aside and evaluate information objectively one’s assumptions about the utility of the apprehension of knowledge form the basis of all thinking that follows and therefore can not be set aside, despite what the experts and elitists would have us believe.

Even with all the growling about unbiased science and unpolluted religious dogma, once you peel back the layers of propaganda you find a bunch of old men, scared of losing everything if someone should peek behind the curtain.  This is true not only of science and religion but of every area of life; politics, education, economics, social theory, etc.  In all of this, the only thing the men behind the curtain fear more than not having all the answers is that their cover will be blown by a ragtag bunch of misfits.  So the disinformation campaigns begin, steering people in the wrong direction, vilifying those who dare dig past the surface, all to protect the status quo. 

Knowledge is power, and knowledge of the Truth has the power to set Men free, but to get there we must first grapple with how we understand the utility of the apprehension of knowledge.

In the course of time Plato asserted what is known as Idealism, the notion that the raw knowledge of the reality of things is latent in the mind of the individual and that this knowledge of reality is drawn out of us as we interact with the world around us.  His was something of a Gnostic approach to knowledge, highly subjective, and emphasizing the metaphysical over the physical.  Plato’s student Aristotle went the other direction asserting what is known as Realism, the notion that things are what they are and a rational apprehension of the knowledge of them clears the way for an individual to gain a deeper knowledge of the metaphysical as well.  His was a more balanced approach to the utility of knowledge for it was predicated on the basis that things are what they are thus emphasizing the importance of scientific inquiry and reason in the uncovering of deeper metaphysical knowledge.

With the advent of the Enlightenment the Realism of Aristotle morphed into Scientific Rationalism.  Similar to Aristotle’s Realism, Scientific Rationalism emphasizes what one can experience with their senses as the utility of the apprehension of knowledge, but it also went a step further by discounting anything that could not be sensed as unreal.  The problem is that Scientific Rationalism as a philosophy of life offers no viable insights into Life’s purpose, relocating universe to nothing more than a fantastic machine with Mankind as nothing more than a cog in that machine.  From this we have inherited the blessings of Darwinism, Determinism, Utilitarianism, and Behavioralism.

Despairing of a life without purpose and meaning culture turned to the Existentialism which has become the hallmark of Post-modernity.  Where Scientific Rationalism claims objectivity due to its supposed reliance on only what can be sensed and observed, Existentialism embraces subjectivity by imposing meaning upon experience regardless of the facts.  In some cases this emerges as Nihilism, broadly understood as the idea that if nothing matters and all choices are equally valid, then hope is a myth and freedom means making yourself happy while you live.  At other times Existentialism emerges as Romanticism, a superimposing of hope and purpose onto the meaninglessness of life, an embrace of what can not be real for the sake one’s sanity.

Thus both Scientific Rationalism and Post-modern Existentialism come up short in their explanation of the utility of the apprehension of knowledge because neither sufficiently speaks to the issue of objectivity, the former presuming that all that is knowable is able to be apprehended by Mankind’s faculty of reason and the latter presuming that reason is unnecessary as a basis for the answer’s to Life’s biggest questions.  Thus we come back around to the distressing realization that objectivity is an illusion.

When one comes to this point, the moment where they realize that all knowledge offered to them is predicated on a degree of subjectivity that fundamentally calls into question the validity of every supposed fact, when they grow weary of being told to stop asking the questions which have been answered by the experts, they have reached the intellectual crossroads, a crisis of belief if you will.  Here is where one decides if they are going to invest themselves in finding a way to ignore the lack of reliability, or if they are going to invest themselves in the journey of discovery.  The former takes many forms – religious dogma, scientific dogma, addiction, apathy, Utopian idealism – while the latter is what is defined as Skepticism.

Skepticism is the conceptualization of the utility of the apprehension of knowledge that essentially sees knowledge itself as impossible for Man to apprehend with absolute certainty.  This Agnostic stance is not so much antagonistic toward knowledge but simply exercises a degree of ontological humility because the only thing the skeptic is really certain of is that no one and no thing in this universe can be trusted absolutely.  It is worth noting that this differs from the actual thinking of most self professed skeptics in that they are usually just Scientific Rationalists hiding behind the name of Skepticism because it makes them sound more unbiased.  True Skeptics are intellectual Gypsies, not bound to any one ideology or dogma, unwilling to cast their lot in with any one until respect is earned through relationship.

In Human society, true skeptics are outcasts because they will not march to the beat of any drum but their own.  They are called dissenters and traitors, subversives and revolutionaries, fools and conspiracy theorists.  Yet the Judeo-Christian scriptures calls these who have cast aside every other answer as insufficient, the most blessed of all Men for the Kingdom of Heaven is meant for them (Matthew 5:3).  This is because the Faith which is the key to the Kingdom of God is anchored in two premises.  First, that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are not the writings of men about God, but rather the autobiography of God dictated to His prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21).  Second that God establishes the trustworthiness of His objective account of reality through the experience of covenant relationship (Psalm 103:7).  Thus the 20^th century pastor and author AW Tozer used to remark that the Christian must be the most critical of all thinkers, for only the Christian has come face to face with their own utter inadequacy and cast themselves upon the author of every story who is intimately acquainted with the details of Life in a way that we can never be.

For we were created in the image and likeness of God, designed to live life to the full, but because of the corruption passed down from father to son from Adam to now, the deadness in our spirits clouds our minds, numbs our hearts, and enslaves our wills so that even our most pious choices carry the stench and stain of blood.  We are utterly lost, utterly broken… utterly incapable of knowing God.  It is not until He digs the holes for our ears and unveils our eyes by His previenent grace that we will even hear His voice and see His hands stretched out to us.  Thus we find again and again that God graciously initiates covenant with Mankind and they respond in Faith.  Through covenant relationship God reveals Himself and His design for creation, for us, for eternity.  Thus the divine revelation and the covenant relationship culminate in the Advent of Yeshua as YHWH puts on skin and dwells among us, God with a face (John 1:17-18).

This then is the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah: God has done what only He could do.  He has spoken into the darkness of ignorance and brought forth the light of knowledge, He has invited us to come and find our rest in Him and to learn what it means to live in that light.  So don’t fear the wilderness of Skepticism, for it is the path to true enlightenment if you are willing to listen to the quiet invitation of grace.

Spirituality

What is Spirituality?

While the word is used by many different people in many different ways, broadly defined spirituality is a focus on and pursuit of the transcendent.  For some it is the eternal verses the present, the majestic verses the mundane, the immaterial verses the material.  For Plato it was the ideal which superseded the real.  For Kierkegaard it was the existential which superseded the rational.

Regardless of how one defines it however, at its core spirituality is a foundational premise of life itself predicated on the ontological assumption that the universe is more than just atoms and amino acids, more than chemicals and chance combustion… and that life is more than just the meaningless marching on of a massive soulless machine.

Thus more than any other thing, spirituality – which incidentally is not the same as religion – is the fly in the ointment of the modern scientific establishment.  For the establishment, with its religiously unyielding and zealot-like commitment to Enlightenment Rationalism, demands fidelity to the Philosophy of Evolution – which incidentally is not the same as the science of evolution – which precludes any consideration of transcendence.

Ironically however it was this very commitment to the eradication of transcendence which led to the postmodern rejection of objective truth and thus paved the way for a new generation of scientists who see no reason why they should have to choose between science and spirituality.  Decent on this issue is far broader than the establishment would like us to believe, but if you scratch at the surface long enough you will begin to see what really lies beneath the facade… but alas I digress.

Spirituality, which grapples with the nature of the universe and our place in it, does so in different ways.  Whereas the older spiritualities were most often tied tightly to religious groups who by their prescriptive elements tended to govern the spiritual journey of individual adherents, the postmodern spiritualities tend to be much more open, personalized, and subjective.  This shift has even begun to affect the religious landscape as more and more one hears of those who claim to follow a certain religion but then espouse the view that they can pick and choose what aspects of that religion they think are most fitting to them.  Be they conservative or liberal, the shift away from absolute and objective truth has left us without the capacity for making rational judgments about the veracity of a belief or the validity of its expression… more about this another time.

It is not in the scope of this post to delineate the many varieties of spirituality or even to give a sweeping overview, which while quicker would undoubtedly leave many feeling the subject received an oversimplified and therefore unfair treatment.  Rather, it is my desire to explain my own conceptualization of the subject matter as this is one of the operating premises of my life and work and writing.

According to the first three chapters of the first book of the Torah, all things were created by God for the supreme purpose of intimate communion; with Him, with each other, and with the universe.  This purpose is interwoven into the design of creation: Male and female, together bearing His image and likeness, with co-dominion over all that was made (Genesis 1:26-30).  Thus there are two keys to Judeo-Christian spirituality.

First, it is primarily about relationships, not about rule keeping.  There are no checklists, God is not Santa Clause and He is not looking to see who is naughty or nice.  God knows our frame, He knows we are but dust, yet He loves us and is jealous for us (Psalm 103:14).  We were designed to be connected, everything else means nothing without this (Ecclesiastes 12).

Secondly, Judeo-Christian spirituality is holistic, not dualistic.  There is no place for the followers of Yeshua to degrade the material as secondary to the spiritual because God created both and the enjoyment of both are a part of His design.  Thus even in brokenness true spirituality sees beauty, although marred true spirituality sees the majestic, and even though we are frail true spirituality revels in the now and future restoration of all things.

Therefore it is my assertion that correctly understood, Judeo-Christian spirituality is at once a celebration and a pursuit of the transcendence and the immanence of the Sovereign God who makes His dwelling place with us (Isaiah 57:15).  He calls us to mystical union with Himself and with one another, and He incarnates Himself in His Ekklessia so that the world may know that He is the ONE they have been searching for (John 17:20-23).  He is the song within our souls.  He is the home that we have always longed for and yet never dared to believe existed.  He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:1-6).