Am looking at 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12.
With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may fulfill every good purpose of yours and every act prompted by your faith. We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This prayer follows Paul's thoughts earlier in 2 Thessalonians 1:1-10. I blogged about my reactions to verses 3-10.
In brief, Paul gave the Thessalonian believers some encouragement about how the sufferings they have experienced has not gone unnoticed by God and that those who persecuted them will be judged someday. It is in this context that Paul launches into a prayer for them.
Worthy of his calling strikes me. On one hand, there is no way I'm worthy of his calling in the sense I know I am, simply put, nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. On the other God has called me out of my old life which was controlled by sin and death into freedom (Romans 8:1-2). Thus, at one time a prayer to live worthy would have been pointless is now possible!
And so how does this work itself out in my life?
Paul's prayer continues ... by his power he may fulfill ...
every good purpose of yours ...
every act prompted by your faith ...
Imagine that!
Within the Thessalonian followers of Jesus, within us, within me, there are good purposes percolating within because our lives have been transformed by God. Within me, there are deeds prompted by the faith in my life. When those things show up within me, God's power is happily added onto it to strengthen it and to bring it to reality.
And then what happens?
the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him ...
The good deeds we do bring glory to Jesus!
J.S. Bach was well known for putting the initials S.D.G. at the end of his composition. S.D.G. stood for Soli Deo Gloria which is Latin for to the Glory of God alone.
Lord Jesus, please continue to work in my life by strengthening and prompting the desire to be holy in thought and deed. Help me not to quench those thoughts that push me towards godliness and help me to resist those thoughts that are selfish and wicked. Amen.
News: New Yorker Article on Adam Gadahn
Fascinating reading the story of how Gadahn went from typical middle class life to being part of Al Qaeda.
Anyway, I heard about the article because Hugh Hewitt interviewed Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason about how he felt being mentioned in the New Yorker article.
The paragraph:
I don't doubt that Gadahn heard some lectures where there was apocalyptic rambling and paranoia but he probably also heard some watered down Christianity in some places and thoughtful Christianity (from Koukl) in others. But the fusion of Koukl in one sentence with paranoia in another creates the impression, Koukl is one of them! And anyone who has ever heard him on the radio or read his writings knows he is definitely not one of them!
Also, the phrase "argues against religious pluralism" can be kind of loaded. It can suggest mean-spirited, intolerant and argumentative. Again, anyone who has heard Koukl knows those are the last words one would use to describe him. When Koukl speaks and writes about religious pluralism what he means is that you treat everyone well and respectfully but you honestly point out that not all religious truth claims can be true.
Anyway, I thought this was an interesting story on how religion is communicated in the media. Since many in the media are non-religious they probably don't recognize there are differences within the religious community. Thus, when they write about it, they aren't always very careful.
Anyway, I heard about the article because Hugh Hewitt interviewed Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason about how he felt being mentioned in the New Yorker article.
The paragraph:
Gadahn wrote of a yawning emptiness, and he sought ways “to fill that void.” He began scrolling through AOL’s religion folders on the Internet and tuning to Christian programming on the radio. That summer, he attended several Christian lectures and events, including one led by Gregory Koukl, an evangelical talk-show host who argues against religious pluralism. But Gadahn found evangelical Christianity’s “apocalyptic ramblings” to be “paranoid” and hollow. As he later recalled, “I began to look for something else to hold onto.”In the interview, Koukl and Hewitt felt the writer was a bit sloppy in how they wrote that paragraph and I'd have to agree with them.
I don't doubt that Gadahn heard some lectures where there was apocalyptic rambling and paranoia but he probably also heard some watered down Christianity in some places and thoughtful Christianity (from Koukl) in others. But the fusion of Koukl in one sentence with paranoia in another creates the impression, Koukl is one of them! And anyone who has ever heard him on the radio or read his writings knows he is definitely not one of them!
Also, the phrase "argues against religious pluralism" can be kind of loaded. It can suggest mean-spirited, intolerant and argumentative. Again, anyone who has heard Koukl knows those are the last words one would use to describe him. When Koukl speaks and writes about religious pluralism what he means is that you treat everyone well and respectfully but you honestly point out that not all religious truth claims can be true.
Anyway, I thought this was an interesting story on how religion is communicated in the media. Since many in the media are non-religious they probably don't recognize there are differences within the religious community. Thus, when they write about it, they aren't always very careful.
Culture: 24 - 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM
The twists continue ...
Intrigue in the inner circle of the White House with Karen ousted by Tom. I wonder if Tom is tied into the coterie of plotters from last seasons mayhem?
The sources Walid was trying to get information from turn out to be web surfers and at this moment he is on the way to the hospital. I wonder if the actor will be able to talk the producers of the show to make sure his character doesn't die. Anyway, those guys got the right information (or is it really right?) but aren't part of the plot. Of course, one wonders why the plotters would leak information onto a web page that could get picked up so easily by these guys and thus by the authorities. My reality check mind would say that if information is passed along on web sites it would entail downloading a file and then decoding it to get the secret message.
Lastly, Jack meets daddy Bauer but brother Graem turns the tables on them. Of course, like all James Bond movies, they don't get killed on the spot but instead have to be transported somewhere (next episode) and thus will have the chance to escape. Besides, we know they have to escape because the show would be over if they don't.
Biggest improbability in tonight's episode: asking Walid to pick the pocket of the suspected terrorist! That is a LOT to ask of someone who isn't a trained agent. And then for them to ask him to put it back? That's crazy!
Intrigue in the inner circle of the White House with Karen ousted by Tom. I wonder if Tom is tied into the coterie of plotters from last seasons mayhem?
The sources Walid was trying to get information from turn out to be web surfers and at this moment he is on the way to the hospital. I wonder if the actor will be able to talk the producers of the show to make sure his character doesn't die. Anyway, those guys got the right information (or is it really right?) but aren't part of the plot. Of course, one wonders why the plotters would leak information onto a web page that could get picked up so easily by these guys and thus by the authorities. My reality check mind would say that if information is passed along on web sites it would entail downloading a file and then decoding it to get the secret message.
Lastly, Jack meets daddy Bauer but brother Graem turns the tables on them. Of course, like all James Bond movies, they don't get killed on the spot but instead have to be transported somewhere (next episode) and thus will have the chance to escape. Besides, we know they have to escape because the show would be over if they don't.
Biggest improbability in tonight's episode: asking Walid to pick the pocket of the suspected terrorist! That is a LOT to ask of someone who isn't a trained agent. And then for them to ask him to put it back? That's crazy!
Theology: Robert Morgan and the Quest for the Historic Jesus
Every Christmas and Easter and with the huge splash of the DaVinci Code book and movie, the subject of "Who was Jesus really?" comes up in the popular media. I'm also currently reading N.T. Wright's book "The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is."
Thus, a little while back, I went to Fuller Theological Seminary to meet up with Nick to hear Robert Morgan of Linacre College of Oxford University talk about his views on the Quest.
I'm a molecular biologist not a historian nor a New Testament scholar so I couldn't always follow what Morgan was talking about. What follows are some of my notes from that evening's presentation. If you are an expert in the field, I'd welcome corrections, clarifications and comments!
Morgan, being from the UK, spoke with the stereotypical British understated humor. Additionally, though obviously opinionated (most academics are!), he was very gracious during the talk and in Q/A when he commented on other scholars who disagreed with his point-of-view.
He began by pointing out that scholars from North America tend to have a different perspective from European ones because the USA is culturally a more religious nation compared to Europe. He also mentioned that European scholars have a history of scholarship that they are brought up with for better or worse.
Overview of the quest
It was European scholars who started the quest for the historical Jesus. These early efforts concluded that the Gospel records in the Christian Scriptures were not reliable and that Jesus was nothing more than a failed messiah. They believed the historic Jesus was not knowable and what the Bible contains is the Christ of the early church.
Albert Schweitzer wrote a major work published in 1906. He critiqued the prior works that were excessively skeptical. Schweitzer believed that the historical Jesus could be understood within the context of Jewish eschatological beliefs. However, he stopped somewhat short of endorsing the orthodox view of Christ promoted by the church through the ages. Instead, Schweitzer believed the spirit of Jesus lives on in the persistence of the moral values he espoused.
Kahler's view of the Quest is that the picture of Jesus can only be drawn by looking at history, New Testament theology and Old Testament concepts.
Analogy of 3-D glasses
3-D movies look a bit blurry because the image layers are slightly off. However, with the glasses on, you can see the image clearly. Morgan believes the same is true for our understanding of Jesus. He proposed there are three layers of our knowledge of Jesus: history, oral tradition, New Testament documents. [ed. note - I think those were the three layers? Since many in the audience were PhD students familiar with the concept, Morgan didn't elaborate.] Each layer provides an image and they don't exactly overlap so it looks blurry but with the glasses of faith, a picture of Jesus emerges.
He said intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge that theological development occurred between the time of Jesus and when the New Testament Scriptures were written. Even within the New Testament documents there was theological development. He cited that the Gospel of John is much more theological compared to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He pointed out that some scholars believe that theological development means historically inaccurate. Morgan challenged that assumption.
There are many possible "Jesus" one can come up with when one incorporates theological development on top of the historical Jesus. The question then becomes, is the picture a credible one given what we know? He noted that there was a body of literature (Gnostic gospels) regarding Jesus that was rejected because those imposed a theological picture that was not plausible. [ed. note - I think that was Morgan's point. I was having a hard time keeping up with his thought process!]
Why the quest?
Some will feel the task is a hopeless one. Why bother?
Non-Christian scholars will pursue the topic anyway, so Christians should join in too. There should be some credible basis for the Jesus we have faith in. Christians hold certain beliefs that are historical i.e. Jesus actually existed and Jesus resurrected.
Question and answer session
Q: How do you view the efforts of the Jesus Seminar?
RM: They are honest scholars but I think their methods are wrong headed. They assume the Christian layer on top of the historic Jesus is completely irrelevant.
Q: How much evidence is there for your 3-layer model?
RM: The Prologue of Luke is the best example.
Q: How do you distinguish the layers?
RM: The methods of text analysis can help. An example would be Matthew and Luke drawing from Mark. The common material would be a layer. We can assign a layer in light of its plausibility with the first century Jewish setting.
Q: There is diversity within New Testament theology. How do you deal with that?
RM: The essentials are the God of Israel, Jesus existence/resurrection and historicity and the community of faith. Diversity exists and is troublesome; however, I don't think the diversity is so great as to constitute another religion or is contradictory.
Q: Could you elaborate on the criteria of dissimilarity?
RM: It is a tool though not a perfect one. The idea is that something might be in a theological development layer if it shows a difference between the pre- vs. post-resurrection Jesus or is in contrast to first century Judaism. This is a situation where one can take a maximal view or a minimal view. Some will take this as fabrication while others will say it isn't. For instance, when the Gospels have Jesus quoting the Old Testament, some will say Jesus really said it while others will say the NT writers put it into Jesus mouth. [ed. note - Here was another case of "inside baseball" so I'm not sure I got the idea correct as it was a question from a specialist to a specialist.]
Q: Following up, to what extent are we sure Jesus saw himself as "the suffering servant" and "the son of man" which are OT images?
RM: There is no way to be certain if it is historical or interpretive Christian reflection. Some of these questions of theological development are hard to trace.
Q: In terms of method, do you assign priority to the sources in the quest for the historic Jesus?
RM: We do tend to draw firstly from the Gospels then from the writings of Paul and other NT writings as they generally pertain to the post-resurrection Jesus.
Q: How reliable is oral tradition?
RM: Certainly, some scholars are quite skeptical. Albert Schweitzer in this regard was much more positive compared to other scholars of his time. We do see variations within the Gospel records probably due to variation in oral tradition. However, are those variations so large as to invalidate the oral traditions? I think not.
Thus, a little while back, I went to Fuller Theological Seminary to meet up with Nick to hear Robert Morgan of Linacre College of Oxford University talk about his views on the Quest.
I'm a molecular biologist not a historian nor a New Testament scholar so I couldn't always follow what Morgan was talking about. What follows are some of my notes from that evening's presentation. If you are an expert in the field, I'd welcome corrections, clarifications and comments!
Morgan, being from the UK, spoke with the stereotypical British understated humor. Additionally, though obviously opinionated (most academics are!), he was very gracious during the talk and in Q/A when he commented on other scholars who disagreed with his point-of-view.
He began by pointing out that scholars from North America tend to have a different perspective from European ones because the USA is culturally a more religious nation compared to Europe. He also mentioned that European scholars have a history of scholarship that they are brought up with for better or worse.
Overview of the quest
It was European scholars who started the quest for the historical Jesus. These early efforts concluded that the Gospel records in the Christian Scriptures were not reliable and that Jesus was nothing more than a failed messiah. They believed the historic Jesus was not knowable and what the Bible contains is the Christ of the early church.
Albert Schweitzer wrote a major work published in 1906. He critiqued the prior works that were excessively skeptical. Schweitzer believed that the historical Jesus could be understood within the context of Jewish eschatological beliefs. However, he stopped somewhat short of endorsing the orthodox view of Christ promoted by the church through the ages. Instead, Schweitzer believed the spirit of Jesus lives on in the persistence of the moral values he espoused.
Kahler's view of the Quest is that the picture of Jesus can only be drawn by looking at history, New Testament theology and Old Testament concepts.
Analogy of 3-D glasses
3-D movies look a bit blurry because the image layers are slightly off. However, with the glasses on, you can see the image clearly. Morgan believes the same is true for our understanding of Jesus. He proposed there are three layers of our knowledge of Jesus: history, oral tradition, New Testament documents. [ed. note - I think those were the three layers? Since many in the audience were PhD students familiar with the concept, Morgan didn't elaborate.] Each layer provides an image and they don't exactly overlap so it looks blurry but with the glasses of faith, a picture of Jesus emerges.
He said intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge that theological development occurred between the time of Jesus and when the New Testament Scriptures were written. Even within the New Testament documents there was theological development. He cited that the Gospel of John is much more theological compared to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He pointed out that some scholars believe that theological development means historically inaccurate. Morgan challenged that assumption.
There are many possible "Jesus" one can come up with when one incorporates theological development on top of the historical Jesus. The question then becomes, is the picture a credible one given what we know? He noted that there was a body of literature (Gnostic gospels) regarding Jesus that was rejected because those imposed a theological picture that was not plausible. [ed. note - I think that was Morgan's point. I was having a hard time keeping up with his thought process!]
Why the quest?
Some will feel the task is a hopeless one. Why bother?
Non-Christian scholars will pursue the topic anyway, so Christians should join in too. There should be some credible basis for the Jesus we have faith in. Christians hold certain beliefs that are historical i.e. Jesus actually existed and Jesus resurrected.
Question and answer session
Q: How do you view the efforts of the Jesus Seminar?
RM: They are honest scholars but I think their methods are wrong headed. They assume the Christian layer on top of the historic Jesus is completely irrelevant.
Q: How much evidence is there for your 3-layer model?
RM: The Prologue of Luke is the best example.
Q: How do you distinguish the layers?
RM: The methods of text analysis can help. An example would be Matthew and Luke drawing from Mark. The common material would be a layer. We can assign a layer in light of its plausibility with the first century Jewish setting.
Q: There is diversity within New Testament theology. How do you deal with that?
RM: The essentials are the God of Israel, Jesus existence/resurrection and historicity and the community of faith. Diversity exists and is troublesome; however, I don't think the diversity is so great as to constitute another religion or is contradictory.
Q: Could you elaborate on the criteria of dissimilarity?
RM: It is a tool though not a perfect one. The idea is that something might be in a theological development layer if it shows a difference between the pre- vs. post-resurrection Jesus or is in contrast to first century Judaism. This is a situation where one can take a maximal view or a minimal view. Some will take this as fabrication while others will say it isn't. For instance, when the Gospels have Jesus quoting the Old Testament, some will say Jesus really said it while others will say the NT writers put it into Jesus mouth. [ed. note - Here was another case of "inside baseball" so I'm not sure I got the idea correct as it was a question from a specialist to a specialist.]
Q: Following up, to what extent are we sure Jesus saw himself as "the suffering servant" and "the son of man" which are OT images?
RM: There is no way to be certain if it is historical or interpretive Christian reflection. Some of these questions of theological development are hard to trace.
Q: In terms of method, do you assign priority to the sources in the quest for the historic Jesus?
RM: We do tend to draw firstly from the Gospels then from the writings of Paul and other NT writings as they generally pertain to the post-resurrection Jesus.
Q: How reliable is oral tradition?
RM: Certainly, some scholars are quite skeptical. Albert Schweitzer in this regard was much more positive compared to other scholars of his time. We do see variations within the Gospel records probably due to variation in oral tradition. However, are those variations so large as to invalidate the oral traditions? I think not.
Elsewhere: Neat stuff in the blogsphere
I'm slowly entering the 21st century. I've set up a blog news feed through Bloglines.com.
So what are some neat things I've seen lately?
YS Marko shared a cool Youtube.com video with the title, "Free Hugs."
What did you think of the video? Be sure to read the blurb at Youtube for the backstory of the video.
Skyepuppy shares a news item about a woman who beat the tar out of a mountain lion to save her husband. NEVER go into the wilderness alone!
The D'Elia's have moved to Narnia ... well, actually London. I once did the call to worship reading during a service he preached at. After the service, for some reason we started talking about the band Katrina and the Waves! Also, one summer I served alongside his wife with the pre-schoolers at Sunday church. Look forward to checking in on their adventures in the days ahead.
Nick is thinking about the balance between art, the word and sacrament in corporate worship.
We've all heard the "professionals" give their take about the State of the Union. But I often feel your average guy from middle America (or in this case middle of California) gets to the heart of the matter.
So what are some neat things I've seen lately?
YS Marko shared a cool Youtube.com video with the title, "Free Hugs."
What did you think of the video? Be sure to read the blurb at Youtube for the backstory of the video.
Skyepuppy shares a news item about a woman who beat the tar out of a mountain lion to save her husband. NEVER go into the wilderness alone!
The D'Elia's have moved to Narnia ... well, actually London. I once did the call to worship reading during a service he preached at. After the service, for some reason we started talking about the band Katrina and the Waves! Also, one summer I served alongside his wife with the pre-schoolers at Sunday church. Look forward to checking in on their adventures in the days ahead.
Nick is thinking about the balance between art, the word and sacrament in corporate worship.
We've all heard the "professionals" give their take about the State of the Union. But I often feel your average guy from middle America (or in this case middle of California) gets to the heart of the matter.
Life: Does God "talk" to me?
Came across this item by Ben Witherington.
Here is an excerpt:
I have to say, I have not had a similar experience.
So does God talk to me?
Witherington writes:
In pondering this topic, I once wrote a friend the following:
Here is an excerpt:
Samuel heard it and mistook it for the voice of the priest. It was an audible voice, just like a human voice (1 Sam. 3). Moses heard it too. Elijah had to go all the way to Mt. Horeb to hear it, and then it came in a still whisper. Jesus heard it at his baptism in a vision and so did Paul, and we could go on. Throughout the history of God's people and even unto today people have been hearing God's voice. What characterizes most, if not all these direct communications (without aid of cellphone) is that they are brief and direct, and often they involve the direct calling by name of the human being involved.Witherington then went on to share his experience as well as an experience described in a book he read.
One of the reasons this phenomenon interests me so much is that it happened to me - once and only once.
I have to say, I have not had a similar experience.
So does God talk to me?
Witherington writes:
I haven't heard from Him in that way since. But then, I wasn't reading his Word then - I've been doing that ever since and both the Word and my life make much better sense now :)I suppose that would be one way I have heard the voice of God. I acknowledge there are times I read the Bible and soon forget what I read. But there are times when it just "hits" me and I realize I need to change something in my life or share what I read with a friend or feel a great sense of comfort because what I read refocused my mind towards God.
In pondering this topic, I once wrote a friend the following:
Now, I do believe I have sensed God pointing me in a certain direction ... for some reason a particular Bible verse would nag at me ... images of certain friends and their prayer requests would filter into my prayer time ... I'd feel compelled to call or email a friend ... I'm moved to donate to a certain ministry. I think God "communicates" in these ways though skeptics will just say I'm imagining things! But I do not believe I have ever heard God speak to me in the sense that God spoke to Moses, Abraham and Jacob ... I believe the Holy Spirit tends to work in rather subtle ways as a general rule though I definitely believe the Holy Spirit is free to be dramatic and drastic too!To another friend I wrote these wonderings about the potential mechanism of God's actions:
I do know that when I take time for mediation and prayer, different thoughts and ideas and people run through my mind. I suppose the atheists will say those things are the random flotsam and jetsam of the evolutionary produced brain organizing the memories of the days just past.Dunno ... deep thoughts for a Saturday morning. Maybe I should just go back to sleep!
But I suppose the joke could be on them if God designed the brain to operate that way and that the Holy Spirit's intervention could be as tiny as tripping an additional series of neural signals? The god of the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night could operate at the level of molecules too?
World: A sign of the times we live in ...
Am a classical music fan. I check out LA Phil.com now and then to see what is coming up.
I saw this item on the front page:
It is sad to know that we live in a world where this kind of caution is required.
I saw this item on the front page:
PARKING ADVISORY: Israel Philharmonic Parking will NOT be available at Walt Disney Concert Hall for the concerts on Feb 5 and Feb 6.For those of you who don't know, there is a large underground parking lot at Walt Disney Hall. Many people park there and take the escalators or stairs up to the concert hall. Others who don't mind a little walk park in the DWP outdoor lot a couple blocks away.
It is sad to know that we live in a world where this kind of caution is required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)