Between the Trees

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

-Romans 13:1-4

In all the prophetic hullabaloo about the problems our nation has (which are many), it is far too easy to lose sight of the reality which God’s word teaches us: Civil government, according to Scripture, is a good thing. This should be something we reflect on today as we celebrate the founding of our country. Pinheaded patriotism and nationalistic idolatry are unquestionably evil, and dogged our grandparents’ and (to some extent) our parents’ generations. However, ours is usually the opposite error. We regard government as the enemy to our great gods of Autonomy and Individualism. We have traded the nation-worship of the past for a self-worship which brooks no authority, especially not a civil one, interfering in our daily lives.

The problem is, this is not the biblical picture of government. As insane as it might seem, Paul writes to the church in Rome, smack dab in the middle of one of the most wicked and tyrranical regimes history has ever known, and tells them  that “he is God’s servant for your good.” Therefore there is great cause for celebration this Independence Day. We have been given a government without which life would not be far from Hobbe’s “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” existence of man’s natural state. We live in a nation which is not perfectly just, to be sure, although it is although worth pointing out that it is probably more just than most. But the injustices of our legislators and judges, great though they might be, are nothing compared to the evils of fallen and unconstrained men left to their own devices.

My own tendency has always been to cringe at patriotism because of the sins of oppression and murder which our country commits. However, I think today would be a good time to search our hearts for two other sins: those of unbelief and ingratitude. Read the passage from Romans again. If you don’t truly believe that George Bush, the Supreme Court, or Nancy Pelosi are placed in positions of power over us for our good, then you are in sin. You are denying the clear truth God’s word and daring to deny His all-wise decrees. If you acknowledge these things as true yet act as if they aren’t, then you are acting like the little child who angrily tells his parents he hates them while eating the dinner they worked to prepare for him. Either way, there is a great deal of repenting to do.

So I would like to make it clear: America is not God’s chosen people. It is not a holy or blameless nation, and it has many faults which we as Christians are called to address. But it is a good place to live. It is a blessing of the Lord that I might care for my family and raise my children here. Though our government may be flawed, it nonetheless renders great service to me and enables me to live in peace, prosperity and free worship of the True King, and for these things I am deeply grateful.

Earlier this week, Trevin Wax and Brant Hansen both posted that they were taking blogging sabbaticals in July. And I think I’m going to join them, on a slightly moderated level. I’m still going to post light news stuff from time to time, especially as it pertains to the ongoing events in Zimbabwe.

But as far as substantial posting goes, I’m done for awhile. I’ve spent the first half of the summer studying a crapload of systematic theology - biblical interpretation, doctrine of God, roles of women in the church, and apologetics/ethics to name just a few. But in a sense, I’m more uncertain about things than I was at the start of the summer, and for a lover of certainty like myself, that can be rather stressful. Additionally, I’ve seen two of my best friends move away. And I’m being suddenly thrust into new positions where there’s some basic expectation of leadership - I’m now almost the same age Eric was when I met him - and while that is certainly exciting, it’s also emotionally devastating to me. And, generally speaking, I’m a really screwed up person anyway so this stuff on top of all that is overwhelming.

Then I was thinking earlier today that throwing on the regular public processing of ideas and dialogue that I do online probably isn’t doing much to help me right now. So I’m getting away from it for awhile. This weekend, I intend to enjoy legal explosives, stereotypical male stupidity, and well-crafted stories. (Random thought of the day: Has there ever been a more appropriate way for a nation to celebrate itself than for Americans to engage in shockingly foolish behavior involving potentially-deadly explosives? It’s like a one-day illustration of American foreign policy over the past 50 years.) I picked up a few Stephen Lawhead books earlier today and I’m 150 pages into Hood and am enjoying it enormously so far. Hopefully I’ll finish it and Pride and Prejudice, which I’m rereading, before the long weekend is over. And next week I’d like to dip into G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown Mysteries for the first time.

Last thing, if you haven’t heard Mike Hsu’s sermon on rest, you must listen to it. It’s the best sermon I’ve ever heard on sabbath-taking and rest.

Zambian President, Levy Mwanawasa is currently in intensive care in a Paris hospital after suffering a stroke last week while at the African Union summit in Egypt.

Earlier reports were that President Mwanawasa passed away early this morning, which led South African President Thabo Mbeki to call for a moment of silence for President Mwanawasa. However, the Zambian government has since refuted these reports.

If you think of it, please pray for President Mwanawasa and the people of Zambia. I spent two months there last summer and the country and its people are very close to my heart. Mr. Mwanawasa is the best president this nation has ever had, he’s continued Frederick Chiluba’s (the previous president) move toward economic privitization while working to fight the widespread corruption created by Chiluba and his cronies. Moreover, Mwanawasa has been one of the few African leaders to condemn the regime of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Mwanawasa is a good leader and has accomplished many good things for Zambia, please keep him in your prayers.

Last week a bunch of bloggers talked about their definitions of the term “missional.” Many of the posts were outstanding; they talked about breaking down the us/them way of thinking in engaging with non-Christians, loving people as an end in itself rather than a means to the end of evangelism, sacrificial living, and a number of other excellent things we ought to be pursuing as Christians.

Another idea that’s been thrown around is that of a church without walls; being the church rather than going to church. And to a point, I agree. But often behind this rhetoric there is such a distaste for all traditional expressions of church, that the valid concern is lost in the midst of their distaste for all things traditional. I get this too, in fact, most of the time I’m guilty of it.

But at some point we have to wrestle with the fact that God has not chosen to work through independent individuals, but through a people. And that people is the church. Of course, we should be honest in our assessment of the church. Anyone with any exposure to it will say, with Augustine, “The church is a whore.” But like Augustine, we must also remember, “but she is my mother.”

Bob Hyatt, a church planter in Portland, nails it when he says, “‘Missional’ to the very first followers of Jesus looked like planting churches. Argue all you want about what the “right” way to do that might be. House, simple, mega… I have my opinions and so do you. The church is in serious need of reform (and truth be told- that’s always been true. And it always will be). Reform it, renew it, revitalize it, contextualize it… But an indispensable element to “Life in the Way of Jesus” is and will always be the Body of Christ- followers of Jesus gathering together to do and be all those things listed above- a community that together loves God, loves one another and loves the world.”

If being missional means changing the way we see the church - and I think it does - then we must change. There is too much at stake for us to continue living in stodgy, comfortable, affluent churches. But to change is not to abandon. The church may be a whore, but she is still beautiful; much like the individuals of which she’s composed.

The final view presented in The Genesis Debate is the framework view, presented by Lee Irons and Meredith Kline.

A framework reading of Genesis 1 and 2 argues that the days are simply a literary device used by God to communicate truth in an understandable and useful way. I should preface any further comments by saying that having read all three views, I feel quite comfortable endorsing the framework view. Of course, that means a considerable bias is going to be at work in my review and I want to acknowledge that before continuing.

Before laying out Irons and Kline’s three basic arguments we need to provide a clarification of what the framework view is. The framework view argues that the Genesis text should be read in a non-literal, non-sequential way, however that does not mean the Genesis text is non-historical. Irons and Kline fully affirm the historicity of the events described in Genesis 1 and 2, they just argue that the text itself is meant to be understood in a non-literal (IE the days are a literary device) and non-sequential (IE the days didn’t happen one after another) way. Before making their primary arguments, Irons and Kline pointed to several instances in the Scriptures of narratives that use figurative language and operate in a non-sequential order. (Much of Genesis in fact reads non-sequentially. There will be summary texts that concisely describe long periods of time, and then the text loops backwards and focuses on specific things that happened during that longer period of time.)

The first argument is that the account sets up what Kline calls two triads of days. On day one, light is created. On day two, the skys and seas are created. On day three, dry land and vegetation is created. That is the first triad. The second begins on day four with the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Day five sees the creation of sea creatures and winged creatures, and day six sees the creation of land animals and man. That’s the second triad. What’s interesting to note is that essentially what we have in the first triad is the creation of structure and in the second triad we see the filling of those structures. Kline breaks it down by  saying the first triad shows the creation kingdoms. The second shows the creature kings. Finally, on the seventh day we see the Creator King, resting over his new creation. Further, if one looks, for example, at the effect of the creation of light in Genesis 1:4, it separates light from darkness. Then, if you keep reading, you see that the effect of the luminaries being made on day four is the same, Genesis 1:18 says that the luminaries separate light from darkness. If the days are meant to be understood sequentially, this is redundant. However, if day one and day four are describing the same event, it makes perfect sense. Put simply, the triads are complementary, day one and four are describing the same event, just in different language. One using more abstract terminology which provides structural understanding of what is happening, one in more specific language that gives concrete explanations of the events.

Second, they argue that the days cannot be chronilogical because you cannot have an evening and morning without the sun rising and setting. But there are three days with evening and morning in the text before the sun is created. Further, you cannot have plant life without the sun. But the text describes vegetation on day three. The 24-hour view counters this argument by saying that there must have been different natural laws in place at this time so that you could have days and evenings without the sun and plants could grow without sun-light. However, Kline argues that Genesis 2:5 indicates that the same laws in effect today were in effect at that time. Plants were not growing because man was not caring for them and rain was not falling. (As far as verse 6 is concerned which describes God causing a mist to rise, Kline argues that this is a poor translation of the Hebrew and the original Hebrew indicates rainfall, not some sort of subterranean mist. I don’t know Hebrew, but Kline was one of the most respected Old Testament scholars of the 20th century, so I’ll trust his judgment on this.) Therefore, the same basic natural laws were in place so we can assume that the sun was still necessary for mornings and evenings. This would be another indicator that the days are not meant to be understood sequentially.

Finally, Kline appeals to what he referred to as “two-register cosmology.” This section made me a bit nervous because it smacks of Platonism, but I’ll let them lay out the basic idea:

“Taken together the two triads and the [Genesis 2:5 argument] are sufficient to show that the framework interpretation lays claim to a solid exegetical foundation. However, questions still remain: What exactly is the nature of the day-frames? Are they mere poetic figures of speech? Or do they reflect an objective reality of some kind? Answers to these questions are provided by the third exegetical argument in support of the framework interpretation: the two register cosmology of Scripture, consisting of the upper (invisible) and lower (visible) registers. As we shall see, two-register cosmology explains the significance of the nonliteral nature of the time indicators in Genesis 1 within the overall cosmological teachings of the Scripture.”

Kline then goes on to argue that Scripture sets up an upper register where God currently dwells (Heaven) and a lower which is visible and fallen. (See why I’m concerned about Platonism?) Kline then - assuming I’m understanding his argument - argues that the days are essentially a literary device used to convey truths about both registers: So in verse 1 we have the upper register - heaven - and the lower - earth. In verse 2, we have the upper - spirit - and the lower - deep. The parallels then continue throughout the rest of the text culminating in day 7, in which the upper register is seen in God’s rest with the lower register fulfillment being Sabbath rest for all people.

Simply put, the days establish realities of the upper register which have practical implications for the lower.

This was the least persuasive argument to me simply because to me it sounds more Platonic than anything else. And the basic idea - that God uses a device we can understand (”days”) to communicate larger truths to us - seems fairly simple and doesn’t demand the complications of “two-register cosmology.” Quite frankly, I had an extremely difficult time understanding two-register cosmology and understanding how it was in any way different from Plato’s ideas of forms and the physical world.

However, I found the first two arguments significantly more persuasive, which really saved the book for me. The first two views I both found to be enormously unsatisfying. What’s worse, they were both presented in enormously frustrating ways because the first was just 60 pages of sketchy historical scholarship and eisegesis and the second view was simply two guys trying to match the Genesis text to the findings of modern science.

In closing (this post is long enough!), I don’t think I would necessarily recommend this book due to the weakness of the first two essays, however if you want a brief intro to the debate or a well-made case for the framework view, I think it’s definitely worth checking out from your local library. (Or you can just borrow my copy.)

Most of us don’t take enough time to speak well of churches other than our own.

That being said, Zion Church here in Lincoln is awesome. And if you haven’t met any of their pastors, you need to. I’ve only had the chance to meet Stu Kerns (the preaching pastor) and Keith Ghormley, but I’ve had nothing but wonderful experiences with Zion. They model a gracious, irenic way of engaging with the culture at large and with brothers and sisters within the church. And last Friday I was able to talk to their 2nd-5th graders at VBS about my time in Zambia last summer.

It was great getting to speak to so many kids about Africa and hopefully make them more aware of Zambia and her neighbors. It really is beautiful to be able to share such personal things with young kids and that a church wants to make their kids aware of other cultures and other parts of the world. A couple days ago Lindsey, who helped teach VBS, even e-mailed me to say the kids are still asking about “tear gas, porridge, and the other things you were talking about.” I’m not sure that’s what I wanted them to take from that story about my friend Gershom and the riots at the university, but I guess I’m glad they remembered something :).

Please continue to pray for Zimbabwe. The crisis there continues to get worse, as President Mugabe continues to do whatever is necessary to maintain power. Due to local pressure to stand down, challenger Morgan Tsvangirai has withdrawn from today’s run-off election, meaning that Mugabe will stay in power indefinitely. The BBC has laid out some potential scenarios here.  You can also see video here; one is of Mugabe’s men hunting for Tsvangirai supporters and another is an interview with the mayor of Harare, a member of Tsvangirai’s party, whose wife was recently abducted and murdered by Mugabe’s men.

Okay, if you have an hour or so, I have an exercise for you all to try. First, listen to this speech by Barack Obama. Then listen to this response from Focus on the Family yesterday (the actual response starts about 11:30ish). Make sure you listen to the speech first.

Now here’s my three questions:

1) Which person displayed a Christian spirit of graciousness and thoughtful wrestling with the issues?

2) Was there a forwarding of dialog between Obama (who has shown a remarkable willingness to meet with and understand evangelical leaders) and the religious right? Was this even the aim of the response?

3) Did Dobson even listen to the speech??? He somehow completely missed the fact that Obama was discussing a hypothetical America without nonChristians by accusing him of saying people wanted to ship all the unbelievers away, and while this might be hard to wrap one’s head around, using Dobson and Al Sharpton as examples of polar ends of the Christian religious spectrum is not equating them. It’s the exact opposite!

I grew up in an evangelical household listening to Focus on the Family and I thought James Dobson had plenty of good things to say, particularly about practical parenting advice. The problem is that when a Christian uses a national radio program to directly attack a presidential candidate (and under questionable means of funding, at that), it is essential that it displays a Christian spirit of humility, civility, and care to avoid mischaricterization in every point. Obama’s speech, while far from perfect, was an extremely insightful assessment of the struggles confronting American Christianity in a pluralistic world. James Dobson’s response… sadly, not so much.

The second view presented in The Genesis Debate is the day-age view of Hugh Ross, a respected member of several national science organizations and the Evangelical Theological Society and Gleason Archer, an ordained pastor in the PC(USA) and professor emeritus at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

The day-age view argues that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 ought to be understood as being indefinite periods of time in which creative action took place gradually under the direct action and supervision of God. Ross and Archer advance several interesting arguments. First they argue that the order of the creation days roughly corresponds to the geological record. Second, they present an exegetical case that the word yom (which we have rendered as “day” in English) can mean an extended period of time, rather than simply one day.

In both sections of the essay, there is much to be commended. Archer and Ross are clearly the most knowledgeable scientists of the six authors. And they ably point out many of the scientific problems with a young-earth model. (To be fair, Duncan and Hall do make clear in their essay that they aren’t arguing for a young-earth but for 24-hour days. However, I’m not sure how you could possibly reconcile the 24-hour interpretation with an old earth.) Further, they build a decent case for their understanding of the word yom in Genesis 1 and 2.

Upon finishing the chapter I remained unconvinced for several reasons. First - and this is my greatest concern -Ross and Archer seem to be letting scientific discoveries interpret scripture for them. More on this later.

Their respect for science is certainly to be commended, and I think we can all agree that the so-called creation science of many young-earthers is questionable (at best). However, the abuse of an idea does not negate that idea. Just because some who exalt special revelation over general revelation demonstrate an embarrassing grasp of science does not mean the principle itself is wrong. It might just mean the speaker is ignorant. If you allow scientific data to dictate your interpretation of Scripture you are essentially an empiricist and you have made your empirical observations of the world your prime source of knowledge, rather than scripture. This is problematic in light of man’s sinfulness and limited nature.

Coinciding with this, I found their use of several Scriptural texts to be questionable as well. In their initial response to Duncan and Hall in part 1, they argued that Psalms 19 (”The heavens are telling of the glory of God,”) somehow teaches that natural revelation and special revelation are equals.

“Duncan and Hall declare that our understanding of nature’s record is in all respects inferior to our understanding of the Bible. Psalm 19:1-4, however, emphatically states that God ’speaks’ through what He has created. Nature is God’s ‘expression’ as much as the Bible.”

The overarching point they are making in that section is that general revelation and special revelation will never contradict each other, and if they appear to, it means we’re misinterpreting something. And I agree that there will be times when that misinterpretation may be in our understanding of Scripture. However, the misinterpretation ought to be corrected by Scripture, the norm of norms, not by our understanding of general revelation.

Summarizing: The chapter does an excellent job of educating the reader about basic scientific difficulties with a young-earth view and of demonstrating the many potential meanings of the word yom. However, the chapter also demonstrates that Duncan and Hall’s concern with the day-age reading of Genesis 1 and 2 are legitimate. As I read, I continually felt uncomfortable as Archer and Ross continually elevate general revelation to a level roughly equivalent to that of Scripture.

I go back and forth about the strategy going around in our circles that says that we need to “target the cities” in our church planting efforts. The argument goes something like this: city is the place where the culture-makers live - the universities, the media outlets, the politicians. As the cities go, so goes the culture. Besides, didn’t the early church grow by winning the cities first and then having it spread into the countryside?

I can sympathize with these concerns, but I have several issues as well. First, I have seen first-hand the plight of the rural church: small towns with a couple of dying churches largely abandoned by their denomination where the gospel simply isn’t preached and Christians hungry for the Word to be proclaimed but denied the opportunity without a very substantial drive. Second, I’m uncomfortable with the argument from the early church because it confuses history (what happened) with prescription (what should happen). By this sort of reasoning, we ought to spread the gospel by giving converts a cloak and ten silver pieces.

However, my bigger problem is one of priorities. Who is it that we’re seeking to target as we share the gospel? I have heard too much talk, both implicit and explicit, about trying to win “culture makers”as if those most influential in the world are also most important in the Kingdom of Heaven. We must win the politicians, the academics and the talking heads so that Christianity will the “trickle down” to the ordinary people. The case for this is made almost entirely from deducing principles from certain theological categories we have about the redemption of culture. The issue is that this contradicts what Scripture explicitly teaches. It always sees the gospel as coming to the broken, oppressed and downtrodden first and foremost. Sure, the Old Testament shows the importance of a righteous king, but the point of this is to show our need for Jesus as our perfect King of Kings, not that we need a Christian president (whatever that means.) The gospel is good news preached to the poor, as the prophet Isaiah foretold.

All of this to say, in the end I agree that we should target the cities as we plant new churches, but for different reasons. We need to go into the urban areas with the church because that’s where the poorest people live. Those most oppressed by our society are found disproportionately in the cities, and so this is where the gospel must be sent. But we must always remember why we’re doing this. It isn’t to win the culture through a show of force and a seizure of the reigns of power. Instead, it’s to undermine the kingdom of this world through those it counts as nothing.