Help to the needy often begins with those closest to us. And so we read: Whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8). Following this we may often start our help-giving with our family, our friends, our fellow-believers, those of our cultural group and only then to the world at large. If funds are short, we may even stop after helping just our own family.
However, it’s worth considering some other texts. The parable of the Good Samaritan holds up a model of help across cultural lines (Lke 10:29-37). The Christians of Corinth and nearby cities collected money for needy Jewish believers in far-off Jerusalem (2 Cor 8-9). All believers are urged to do good to all men, with particular mention of fellow believers (Gal 6:10). And Jesus teaches us to give to anyone who asks of us, citing the example of God who sends sun and rain on all manner and condition of men (Mat 5:42-47).
Human need is not parochial and neither is the responsibility of care.
The same point is made to the Old Testament church. When Israel entered Canaan she was to give a triennial tithe to help poorer people (Dt 14:28-29; 2612-15). This was part of being soft-hearted and open-handed (Dt 15:7-8). This would be an ongoing need, for there would always be poor people, even though there should not be (Dt 15:4,11).
The lists of receipients are significant. The first mentioned are the Levites, or clergy. They had no land to farm and depended on the offerings of landowners to support their families, much as today’s pastoral staff depend on the church’s funds so they can be full-time in ministry. Israel’s widows and orphans are certainly to be helped, but they are only mentioned after the alien or stranger. Likewise with the great celebration that was to follow the first offerings of first fruits in the land that God gave (Dt 26:11). Notice that order : needy non-Hebrews are mentioned before the main categories of locals. This was so that they too could share in, and celebrate, the Lord’s bounty.
Perhaps it doesn’t really matter which needy person we help first or last. However, there is a sense in which Christian help for the needy is to be like missions (Acts 1:8). We are to help those closest at hand, and those not very far away, and our regional neighbours, and all peoples ‘to the ends of the earth’.
Whoever we help first or last, let’s be sure that we echo God’s heart and keep his word by helping the needy wherever his sun shines and his rains fall.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Worldly Holiness
WORLDLY HOLINESS
In some places ‘holiness’ has a bad name. It is associated with prudishness, sanctimoniousness, censoriousness and self-righteousness. Is this what God means when he calls us to: be holy because I am holy (Lev 11:44; 1 Pet 1:15)?
A basic idea in holiness is that we are to be different. We are to be separated from God-denying ways of living in order that we might be separated to God’s way and reflect his character.
Holiness is not a matter of being other-worldly, but being this-worldly in a very grounded and God-pleasing sense.
Worldly holiness is on view in Deuteronomy 14 - 16. God’s people are reminded that they are his treasured children and are to be holy to him. But holiness is to show in everyday conduct.
For starters, certain foods would not be on their plate (Dt 14:3-21). This was not just a matter of (possibly) healthy eating, but also of showing their holy character by being publicly different to other peoples. It is worth noting that Christians are explicitly released from these food laws (eg Acts 10:9-14; 1 Tim 4:3-5). However, we can show holiness by a free choice of restraint in our diet and by helping hungry people to have food to eat.
Holiness also touches our time and treasure.
Time was money in a farming community like ancient Israel. Yet they were to down tools for several annual festivals and trek to the central place of worship (Dt 16:1-17). We are not farmers and nor do we share these religious festivals. However, there is still a challenge here. Can we show Christian holiness by making generous time available for priorities such as family, Christian activity and community service?
Old Testament Israel faced a struggle to build national and personal wealth as she settled in Canaan. Yet part of her holiness was to trust God’s provision by obeying his command for a tithe on income, cancelling all personal debts every seven years, lending to the poor with little chance of repayment, freeing fellow-Hebrew slaves with a generous bonus and giving the first born of their stock to the Lord (Dt 14:22 – 15:21). Once again, Christians are free from the specifics of these commands – but how do we show holiness with our far more vast treasure?
May God give us wisdom to know what worldly holiness is in our terms and faithfulness to show it.
In some places ‘holiness’ has a bad name. It is associated with prudishness, sanctimoniousness, censoriousness and self-righteousness. Is this what God means when he calls us to: be holy because I am holy (Lev 11:44; 1 Pet 1:15)?
A basic idea in holiness is that we are to be different. We are to be separated from God-denying ways of living in order that we might be separated to God’s way and reflect his character.
Holiness is not a matter of being other-worldly, but being this-worldly in a very grounded and God-pleasing sense.
Worldly holiness is on view in Deuteronomy 14 - 16. God’s people are reminded that they are his treasured children and are to be holy to him. But holiness is to show in everyday conduct.
For starters, certain foods would not be on their plate (Dt 14:3-21). This was not just a matter of (possibly) healthy eating, but also of showing their holy character by being publicly different to other peoples. It is worth noting that Christians are explicitly released from these food laws (eg Acts 10:9-14; 1 Tim 4:3-5). However, we can show holiness by a free choice of restraint in our diet and by helping hungry people to have food to eat.
Holiness also touches our time and treasure.
Time was money in a farming community like ancient Israel. Yet they were to down tools for several annual festivals and trek to the central place of worship (Dt 16:1-17). We are not farmers and nor do we share these religious festivals. However, there is still a challenge here. Can we show Christian holiness by making generous time available for priorities such as family, Christian activity and community service?
Old Testament Israel faced a struggle to build national and personal wealth as she settled in Canaan. Yet part of her holiness was to trust God’s provision by obeying his command for a tithe on income, cancelling all personal debts every seven years, lending to the poor with little chance of repayment, freeing fellow-Hebrew slaves with a generous bonus and giving the first born of their stock to the Lord (Dt 14:22 – 15:21). Once again, Christians are free from the specifics of these commands – but how do we show holiness with our far more vast treasure?
May God give us wisdom to know what worldly holiness is in our terms and faithfulness to show it.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Review 'The Prodigal God'
Review: Timothy Keller, 'The Prodigal God, 2008, Hodder & Stoughton, 138p.
As the title suggests, this is an exposition of the well-known parable from Luke 15.
But what an exposition! Part running commentary, part expansive sermon, this easily red gem of a book uses the parable to lay the gospel before the reader in a winsome and holistic manner.
A distinctive feature is the attention that he gives to the older brother. Both from the context of Jesus' first hearers and from the balance of the parable itself, Keller argues that at least equal focus should be given to the older brother.
As Ketter says, its a parable of two lost brothers. One is the wastrel who is lost 'without' - one characterized . The other is the self-righteous who is lost 'within'. Both need the father's love and the father goes out to both. But where the wastrel accepts the father's love the other son rejects. He is by far the harder case.
Jesus is attractive portrayed as the true older brother who is the 'keeper' of the lost and who reaches out to reclaim him at personal cost.
That's enough to give a taste of this great book. Who's it for? Enquirers or new Christians are obvious readers. But likewise for those who have been believers or even leaders for many years and who could do with a freshening up in gospel 101.
As the title suggests, this is an exposition of the well-known parable from Luke 15.
But what an exposition! Part running commentary, part expansive sermon, this easily red gem of a book uses the parable to lay the gospel before the reader in a winsome and holistic manner.
A distinctive feature is the attention that he gives to the older brother. Both from the context of Jesus' first hearers and from the balance of the parable itself, Keller argues that at least equal focus should be given to the older brother.
As Ketter says, its a parable of two lost brothers. One is the wastrel who is lost 'without' - one characterized . The other is the self-righteous who is lost 'within'. Both need the father's love and the father goes out to both. But where the wastrel accepts the father's love the other son rejects. He is by far the harder case.
Jesus is attractive portrayed as the true older brother who is the 'keeper' of the lost and who reaches out to reclaim him at personal cost.
That's enough to give a taste of this great book. Who's it for? Enquirers or new Christians are obvious readers. But likewise for those who have been believers or even leaders for many years and who could do with a freshening up in gospel 101.
Total Depravity & Total Delight
Some years ago I worked for a company that sold bulk industrial chemicals. I soon learnt the basic sales strategy of demonstrating a need (or creating one!) and then showing how my firm could meet it better any competitors.
We need to see our need of Jesus before we believe in him. Many will say ‘I’m not that bad, I can manage my own relationship with God’. These words betray a fatal self-deception and pride. They are fatal because they keep us from believing in the one person whose help we really need – Jesus.
All this is Paul’s theme in Romans 1:18 – 3:20. He previously spoke of how Jesus was the universal saviour for all and any who believed (Rom 1:16-17. He then demonstrates the universal human need of Jesus.
It’s easy to show how outwardly bad people need Jesus and Paul does that very quickly (1:18-32). But what about those who are religious but lost, or who are what Tim Keller calls the ‘elder-brother lost’ (see his book The Prodigal Son). These are people who are inside places of worship but who are lost from God. Their outward goodness and religion stops them from seeing their need of Jesus. In Paul’s day, these were his fellow Jews, and he gives many words to showing how they fall short of God (Rom 2:1 – 3:20). Who are their modern equivalents?
This is all part of the argument for what is sometimes called ‘Total Depravity’. (Google ‘Total Depravity’ or ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ for the background). This teaching is easily misunderstood, but its dismissal is dangerous.
‘Total depravity’ is not a teaching that all people are as bad as they can be. Few people are so bad that there is no spark of goodness within them. There is more goodness in the world of general humanity than we sometimes admit. However, sin is like a malignant cancer cell – it only takes one cell to be fatal. Thus total depravity is a teaching that left to ourselves we will all follow the habit of denying and defying God. Further, any falling short in thought, word or deed is fatal, for unholy people cannot dwell with an utterly good God (Ps 15).
Let’s get personal. Who among us can say that every thought, word and deed is what it should be and that there is no good thought, word and deed that we have omitted? I certainly can’t say this. Can you?
The gospel of Jesus is total delight for those who see their need. May God give us the ‘sight’ to see our need to Jesus and to act on it by putting our faith in him.
We need to see our need of Jesus before we believe in him. Many will say ‘I’m not that bad, I can manage my own relationship with God’. These words betray a fatal self-deception and pride. They are fatal because they keep us from believing in the one person whose help we really need – Jesus.
All this is Paul’s theme in Romans 1:18 – 3:20. He previously spoke of how Jesus was the universal saviour for all and any who believed (Rom 1:16-17. He then demonstrates the universal human need of Jesus.
It’s easy to show how outwardly bad people need Jesus and Paul does that very quickly (1:18-32). But what about those who are religious but lost, or who are what Tim Keller calls the ‘elder-brother lost’ (see his book The Prodigal Son). These are people who are inside places of worship but who are lost from God. Their outward goodness and religion stops them from seeing their need of Jesus. In Paul’s day, these were his fellow Jews, and he gives many words to showing how they fall short of God (Rom 2:1 – 3:20). Who are their modern equivalents?
This is all part of the argument for what is sometimes called ‘Total Depravity’. (Google ‘Total Depravity’ or ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ for the background). This teaching is easily misunderstood, but its dismissal is dangerous.
‘Total depravity’ is not a teaching that all people are as bad as they can be. Few people are so bad that there is no spark of goodness within them. There is more goodness in the world of general humanity than we sometimes admit. However, sin is like a malignant cancer cell – it only takes one cell to be fatal. Thus total depravity is a teaching that left to ourselves we will all follow the habit of denying and defying God. Further, any falling short in thought, word or deed is fatal, for unholy people cannot dwell with an utterly good God (Ps 15).
Let’s get personal. Who among us can say that every thought, word and deed is what it should be and that there is no good thought, word and deed that we have omitted? I certainly can’t say this. Can you?
The gospel of Jesus is total delight for those who see their need. May God give us the ‘sight’ to see our need to Jesus and to act on it by putting our faith in him.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Place of Worship
THE PLACE OF WORSHIP
The word ‘worship’ can be used in several important ways.
First up, there is our life-worship, in which all of all we are at all times is lived in thankful service to the Lord (Rom 12:1-2). Without this, no other worship makes sense. Secondly, there is gathered worship as represented by our Sunday services (eg Acts 2:42-46; 1 Cor 14:26; Heb 10:25). Thirdly, there is our devotional worship as we give our selves to prayer, praise and Bible reading in our family and private life (eg Acts 10:9).
But, what about the ‘place’ of worship?
That question was easily answered in Old Testament times. Worshipers went to a special tent and its successor - the temple. They were places of guaranteed access to God (eg Ex 33:7-11; 1 Kng 8:27-30). There was a big concern to centralise worship in this one place (eg Deut 12:5,11,13-14,26). In part, this was to ensure that gathered worship happened in a way that pleased God rather than in a free for all that pleased the worshippers. The form of gathered worship is as much an act of obedience to God as anything in the life-worship of God’s people (eg Dt 12:4,8,14,32).
It is doubtful if Old Testament worship was ever totally centralised in one place, despite Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem and the later efforts of Josiah to shut down the other shrines (2 Kngs 22). But the ideal was there: the Lord was only to be approached through the one place of his appointment.
All that takes a new twist after Jesus. He declined argument about the best geographical place of worship and instead pointed to new sense of place and manner for worship (Jn 4:19-24). A concern for spirit and truth must now be central. Further, Jesus was to replace the physical temple as the ‘place’ of worship (Jn 2:19-22). God is still to be approached through the one place of God’s appointment, but the place is now the person of his dear Son. A church building is just a church building, but Jesus is the living temple of the living God.
There is a paradox of singularity and universality here. On the one hand there is only one point of access to God (Jn 14:6) but this point of access is open to all peoples in all places. In the old days, you could not worship if you could not get to the temple. With Jesus, all can worship and we can do so in all geographical places. This is liberating!
So, let us worship God through Jesus. He alone enables our life-worship, our gathered worship and our devotional worship.
The word ‘worship’ can be used in several important ways.
First up, there is our life-worship, in which all of all we are at all times is lived in thankful service to the Lord (Rom 12:1-2). Without this, no other worship makes sense. Secondly, there is gathered worship as represented by our Sunday services (eg Acts 2:42-46; 1 Cor 14:26; Heb 10:25). Thirdly, there is our devotional worship as we give our selves to prayer, praise and Bible reading in our family and private life (eg Acts 10:9).
But, what about the ‘place’ of worship?
That question was easily answered in Old Testament times. Worshipers went to a special tent and its successor - the temple. They were places of guaranteed access to God (eg Ex 33:7-11; 1 Kng 8:27-30). There was a big concern to centralise worship in this one place (eg Deut 12:5,11,13-14,26). In part, this was to ensure that gathered worship happened in a way that pleased God rather than in a free for all that pleased the worshippers. The form of gathered worship is as much an act of obedience to God as anything in the life-worship of God’s people (eg Dt 12:4,8,14,32).
It is doubtful if Old Testament worship was ever totally centralised in one place, despite Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem and the later efforts of Josiah to shut down the other shrines (2 Kngs 22). But the ideal was there: the Lord was only to be approached through the one place of his appointment.
All that takes a new twist after Jesus. He declined argument about the best geographical place of worship and instead pointed to new sense of place and manner for worship (Jn 4:19-24). A concern for spirit and truth must now be central. Further, Jesus was to replace the physical temple as the ‘place’ of worship (Jn 2:19-22). God is still to be approached through the one place of God’s appointment, but the place is now the person of his dear Son. A church building is just a church building, but Jesus is the living temple of the living God.
There is a paradox of singularity and universality here. On the one hand there is only one point of access to God (Jn 14:6) but this point of access is open to all peoples in all places. In the old days, you could not worship if you could not get to the temple. With Jesus, all can worship and we can do so in all geographical places. This is liberating!
So, let us worship God through Jesus. He alone enables our life-worship, our gathered worship and our devotional worship.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Naming
I was recently at a hotel breakfast and watched a girl of two or three years age.
There were impressionistic sculptures of animals on each table. At first she was clueless, then puzzled and curious. With her mother’s help, she ‘named’ one sculpture for the creature that it represented. With a little help, all the names came tumbling out.
Her delight was evident as she ran from table to table amidst the guests repeating the names of each animal.
Various thoughts came to mind:
• Gen 2:19. By naming her world she was gaining understanding and a measure of control. She could talk about her world to herself and with others. In short, naming opened the path to mastery.
• Is naming one expression of what it mean so bear God’s image? To exercise stewardship and dominion over necessitates a measure of mastery? And naming is one means to that mastery.
• Observe how naming enables a child’s development towards autonomous human identity. Correspondingly, note how the inability to name blocks development. Or how a disability that prevents a person from naming there world prevents further development or even catalyses regression.
• In human society, who names what? To what extent does this give them power?
• Witness the habit of tyrants etc to rename places and even the calendar. Witness the Japanese renaming of Singapore on occupation in 1942. Witness the return to Maori names in much of NZ and what they express and create re the status of traditional culture. Witness the Generals renaming of Burma as Myanmar and how that is meant to bolster their claim to legitimacy by linkage to the past.
• Note Freire’s comments on the political import of naming the themes for discussion in language teaching and how the selection of themes and their naming either domesticates or liberates.
• Note how naming links to labeling which is so necessary in taxonomies but once set, takes on a metaphysical as well as an epistemological dimension.
• Note the power of naming and labeling as we humans move up the ladder of abstraction. As we name and label we make and express an evaluation which then frames our perceptions which, in turn, shape our actions and reactions.
Far more was at stake that morning than a girl’s simple delight at having names for the shapes before her.
There were impressionistic sculptures of animals on each table. At first she was clueless, then puzzled and curious. With her mother’s help, she ‘named’ one sculpture for the creature that it represented. With a little help, all the names came tumbling out.
Her delight was evident as she ran from table to table amidst the guests repeating the names of each animal.
Various thoughts came to mind:
• Gen 2:19. By naming her world she was gaining understanding and a measure of control. She could talk about her world to herself and with others. In short, naming opened the path to mastery.
• Is naming one expression of what it mean so bear God’s image? To exercise stewardship and dominion over necessitates a measure of mastery? And naming is one means to that mastery.
• Observe how naming enables a child’s development towards autonomous human identity. Correspondingly, note how the inability to name blocks development. Or how a disability that prevents a person from naming there world prevents further development or even catalyses regression.
• In human society, who names what? To what extent does this give them power?
• Witness the habit of tyrants etc to rename places and even the calendar. Witness the Japanese renaming of Singapore on occupation in 1942. Witness the return to Maori names in much of NZ and what they express and create re the status of traditional culture. Witness the Generals renaming of Burma as Myanmar and how that is meant to bolster their claim to legitimacy by linkage to the past.
• Note Freire’s comments on the political import of naming the themes for discussion in language teaching and how the selection of themes and their naming either domesticates or liberates.
• Note how naming links to labeling which is so necessary in taxonomies but once set, takes on a metaphysical as well as an epistemological dimension.
• Note the power of naming and labeling as we humans move up the ladder of abstraction. As we name and label we make and express an evaluation which then frames our perceptions which, in turn, shape our actions and reactions.
Far more was at stake that morning than a girl’s simple delight at having names for the shapes before her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)