Amos at Easter

Posted on 9 May, 2012 by

Reading Amos recently amazed me for the umpteenth time. The whole is, of course, extraordinary – its passion, its bold naming of evil, its firm resolve that God’s blessing comes with great responsibility. Breath-taking!

Along the way, some specific pre-echoes of Easter also jumped out. There may be more, but two verses in particular find a definite terminus in Jesus’ last week.

One relates to that odd mention in Mark’s gospel about an individual present when Jesus was arrested. A lightly-dressed young man, following Jesus, gets scared off when Jesus’ opponents make a grab for him. So he legged it, ‘and ran away naked’ (Mark 14:51-52). It’s a great verse for getting a laugh – perhaps we can’t help but look for a giggle while reading a story as tragic as the passion narrative. But after the laugh, everyone thinks, ‘Why is that in the account?’

Amos, in the eighth century before Christ, spoke of the coming judgement on Israel (Amos 2:14-16):

“Flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not retain his strength, nor shall the mighty save his life; he who handles the bow shall not stand, and he who is swift of foot shall not save himself, nor shall he who rides the horse save his life; and he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day,” declares the LORD.

This sounds like a good hint about the fulfilment of the prophet’s word in Jesus’ death – judgement is here, and even the young bucks are running away.

Another verse to note is Amos 8:9.

“And on that day,” declares the Lord GOD, “I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.”

The Old Testament has plenty of prophetic words relating judgement to heavenly signs (moon, stars, sun, blood-colour, etc). But note the time: noon. This time reference is not common at all. Ominously, one possibly similar Old Testament verse is Deuteronomy 28:29 – part of the statement of curses for covenant disobedience.

The gospels do not use the word ‘noon’, but indicate this time by a different phrase. See Mark 15:33 – And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

We might ask, ‘Was God really judging evil at Easter, did he obliterate sin?’ Amos gives this answer, ‘When God judges sin, expect to see brave young men running away naked, and expect to see noon-time darkness.’

A great thing about the Bible is that, unlike the Quran, there are many books written over many years by a number of human authors. This enables the former writers to set up understanding of the later, and later writers to interact with the former. The Bible has its own internal commentary. The Bible is its own reading guide. What a blessing: God not only tells us what happened, he also tells us how to understand what happened. These two links between Amos and Mark’s gospel illustrate this perfectly.

 


 

 

Posted in Bible | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Quick review: From Exegesis to Exposition

Posted on 6 May, 2012 by

From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical HebrewFrom Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew by Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I recommend this book, but I also consider it has serious shortcomings. The title, though not exciting, is clear about its purpose. Chisholm writes to help people use Hebrew in the move From Exegesis to Exposition.

Where it’s strong is the exegesis – using Hebrew.

Where it’s weak is the exposition – writing sermons.

First, the strength. I have a little knowledge of Hebrew, and benefit from the Bible software that aids interaction with the original languages. The great usefulness of From Exegesis to Exposition is building on that basic knowledge. It’s not an introductory text, not the book to use to start learning Hebrew.

If you have some biblical Hebrew, you might be tempted into this book by reading some of the chapter sub-headings: how words work and play, basics of Hebrew syntax, the basic structure of Hebrew narrative and poetry. These are matters I would like to know better – and Chisholm helps me. Along the way, he is always providing examples from the text. These show him as an attentive reader who is careful to let the text itself shape his understanding.

Such care in reading is also exhibited in the eight sermon texts he provides. So, while I have concerns about the sermons, Chisholm’s love for the Hebrew Bible is very clear all the way through his book.

So to the weakness: exposition. From Exegesis to Exposition is less useful from Chapter 8, ‘Putting It All Together.’ He starts with a series of seven steps. (From ‘Step 1: Viewing the Forest’ to ‘Step 7: Viewing the Forest Again.’) Unusually for a book published in the US, these steps are not as well formatted as they could be. But that’s a relatively minor matter.

The most serious issue with the process is the end product – the eight example expositions – are all rather pale and tend towards behaviour improvement. They are not legalism, but their feel is definitely that of spiritual-moral improvement.

The underlying cause is a lack of whole Bible integration. Or, simply, there’s not enough Gospel of Jesus. The Old Testament passages are read as if answering the question, ‘What does this tell me about being a Christian?’ It’s the wrong question! Better is, ‘What does this tell me about Christ?’

Jesus taught that all the scriptures point to him and his ministry (see John 5:39-40, Luke 24:44-47, 2 Corinthians 1:20). Therefore Old Testament exposition, to be a true exposition, must also point to Jesus and his ministry. The Old Testament is for Christians indirectly, because we are in Christ, rather than directly (with the notable exception of Jewish followers of Jesus, of course).

This work needs to be strengthened with a more gospel-centred approach to the pre-Christmas scriptures. Perhaps by reading the work of Graeme Goldsworthy, or something similar.

My final recommendation: read From Exegesis to Exposition to learn how to use Hebrew better, read something else to gain skills in turning that Hebrew understanding into Christian teaching.

View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged | Leave a comment

We’re all so Christian

Posted on 3 May, 2012 by

A friend told me that Buddhism was life-changing. Her description of what Buddhism taught her sounded, to me, perfectly Christian and terribly non-Buddhist.

As she said, Buddhism teaches that pain arises from desire. But how did she understand this?

Her illustration and explanation said that trying to grasp onto things only leads to disappointment when they – inevitably – are taken away. So, instead, we should hold things lightly, happy to seek out good things but content even if they fade or prove unattainable.

But that’s not Buddhist, going by my (inadequate) understanding. It’s my understanding that Buddhist philosophy teaches that all desire causes pain and should be negated. Even a ‘gentle’ desire is, therefore, undesirable.

I could not help thinking that her ‘Buddhist’ ideas were profoundly Christian. And probably ideas she’d picked up in a society deeply shaped by biblical teaching.

It’s Christian to say that creation is good and that God made it for enjoyment (see 1 Timothy 4:4-5). It is also very important not to grasp on to what God gives us, for it is idolatry to exalt the creation over the Creator (Romans 1:27).

I think my friend exemplifies a very common situation: that someone ‘not interested in Christianity’ actually loves something that it explicitly Christian. The treasure of the Bible and its worldview is still a treasure, even when the giver receives no thanks.

In a way, all people raised in a place like Australia have Christan roots. We’re all ‘Christian’, even when far away from being a follower of Christ. In another example, I remember an atheist’s proposal for how atheist-Christian conversation should take place. It was full of good ideas like respect and true listening. Every one of the positive ideas was grounded in biblical doctrine: creation in God’s image justifies equal respect (survival of the fittest justifies no such thing).

I would like to know how to sensitively raise this with people. I don’t want to sound superior or triumphant – ‘You’ve just said a Christian thing, ner nernie ner ner.’ I would love to see people become open to investigate that which they’ve written off.

I didn’t say anything to my friend. What do you suggest?

 


 

Posted in Christian living, Christianity & culture | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Review: One-to-One Bible Reading

Posted on 1 May, 2012 by

As indicated by the subtitle of the book (a simple guide for every Christian), this work is intended to guide any Christian into reading the Bible with another person. I think it achieves this aim very succesfully.

One-to-One Bible Reading is short: barely 100 (small-sized) pages. Even so, it’s divided into two broad sections and 11 chapters, with two appendices being required to push it over the 100 page mark. It’s an easy read!

The author, David Helm, rightly points out an obvious reality: there’s good reason to read the Bible one-to-one with all kinds of people. It’s good for those not-yet-Christian: God’s word can convert them. It’s good for newer Christians: God’s word can effect on-going transformation. It’s good for established Christians: God’s word equips them for further minsitry. And in all these possibible scenarios, one-to-one reading provides what so many people are crying out for – relationship.

After arguing briefly the benefits of regular one-to-one Bible reading, Helm provides a substantial amount of practical advice and tips. Chapter headings give a feel for the ‘users’ guide’ feel for much of the book: ‘How do I get started?’, ‘What will a typical meeting look like?’, ‘Preparation’, Help with reading different biblical genres’, etc.

It’s all great material, and I am sure it will be immensely helpful to anyone, but particularly those embarking on such Bible reading for the first time. Helm want to show how easy it is to pick up the Bible and read it with someone. How good it is – Christians are probably convinced already. But how easy it is? I suspect that perceived difficulty is a major reason more Christians don’t read the Bible together. Helm even provides two simple fameworks for Bible reading to show that we should not be scared off from starting.

I have two suggestions for improvement. One would make the book shorter, the other would make it longer.

Firstly, shorter. Appendix 2 is a series of pages ready to be copied and full of useful questions for the different types of biblical writing (The Gospels and Acts, Old Testament narrative, and so on). This material is reproduced from Chapter 10, ‘Help with reading different biblical genres’, with formatting added. I can’t see why chapter 10 was not itself formatted as ready-to-copy. It seemed a waste of space.

Secondly, longer. I would like to see an expansion of Chapter 2, ‘Why read one-to-one?’ Chapter 2 is, it appears, the theological and pastoral rationale for one-to-one reading. It checks if the reader is convinced of the value of such a ministry. I would like the chapter to probe a little more boldly. For example, we need to ask if we actually trust the power of God’s word to transform. Or do we, as modern Christians, behave in a way that suggests there are other ‘powers’ that equip God’s people for every good work?

These suggestions are quite minor. I hope you buy and use this book, and that it encourages plenty more people to read the Bible with a friend, who will then read the Bible with a friend, who will …

I received a free review copy of this book (though I had already bought one for myself). Since I had the book, I asked for an e-book – so was surprised to receive a copy in the mail. Maybe the e-book version was not yet released when I asked for a copy, but it now appears to be available. You can buy the physical book here (Australia, SE Asia, Pacific), or here (North & South America, Europe, Africa).

 

Posted in Books | Leave a comment

The danger of riches

Posted on 30 April, 2012 by
powered by Fotopedia

The danger of riches is a wrong explanation.

That is, when we own ‘stuff’ we also hold to an explanation of why we have it and where it’s from. It is a simple matter to be completely wrong.

The book of Hosea provides clear example of this (even though the prophet Hosea says less that his contemporary Amos about the rich exploiting the poor). The middle of the eighth century BC was quite prosperous in Palestine. Israel and Judah both were rife with Caananite cults, the Baals. It seems these cults took credit for fertility and abundance.

And she [Israel] did not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the wine, and the oil,
and who lavished on her silver and gold, which they used for Baal.
(The Lord speaking in Hosea 2:8)

Later on we hear that the people of Israel took the credit for their own riches. (In the following, ‘Ephraim’ is another way of referring to Israel.)

Ephraim has said, “Ah, but I am rich;
I have found wealth for myself;
in all my labors they cannot find in me iniquity or sin.”
Hosea 12:8

Despite superficial differences, these are the same explanation. Religion is a human creation. The Baals are like every god: made up concepts and made up figurines. And the practice of ‘religion’ depends entirely on the worshipper: he or she must make the right moves to ensure success. In other words, giving credit to Baal is the same as taking credit for oneself, for one’s own efforts are always at the centre.

This explains God’s judgement announced by Hosea. Immediately after each of the above verses, God proclaims that the riches will be taken away.

Therefore I will take back my grain in its time, and my wine in its season,
and I will take away my wool and my flax, which were to cover her nakedness. (2:9)
…
I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt;
I will again make you dwell in tents, as in the days of the appointed feast. (12:9)

The Lord proves that he provides all good things (James 1:17) by taking them away from the evil and ungrateful. ‘How useful are the Baals now? How productive is your claimed good work?’

I think this also explains how Hosea idealises Israel’s time in the wilderness, after the exodus from Egypt (see 2:14; 9:10; 13:5). It’s not that the people were less sinful back then. No, but in the wilderness the only explanation for their provision was the goodness of the Lord.

We all own stuff. In Australia, we’re rich. It matters little what we have. It matters immensely who receives the credit.

 


 

 

Posted in Christian living | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Church planning & numbers

Posted on 27 April, 2012 by

At church, we have a 2020 Vision. It’s a tool to guide us in prayer and planning. Recently I spent one Sunday sermon talking about a major part of the vision – that by 2020 we see 500 people meeting with us each week.

For the sake of further conversation, I want to write up something about what I said. (Oh yeah, we also had technical difficulties with the recording that day.)

500, is that all?
The main point to remember in every church plan: Jesus Christ is Lord of all. Already. He does not own 2% of Albury-Wodonga people, or 20%. Jesus rules 100% of us. There is one Lord – all will bow to that Lord, willingly or not (Philippians 2:9-11).

The Lordship of God everywhere is the driving impulse for evangelism to everyone. 500 is way too small a number! We love to honour the majesty of God by announcing this majesty to each and every person.

Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:22

500, that’s lots!
That’s a scary number. It’s a risky number. Why bother naming a target? As I see it, there are a couple of reasons and a couple of risks.

One reason to have a target is to stretch us and to provide no excuse for complacency. It would be easy to tread water as a church, and be content with existence. We’re relatively established – and can easily be happy with that. Surely God is worth a little more effort! Not to mention love for our perishing neighbours.

A second reason is that a definite number (rather than a general ‘increase in size’) aids planning. We then ask, ‘If we have that number, where will we meet?, how many small groups leaders do we need to start training?, etc.’

The risks? One is that we set ourselves up for disappointment. Another is that we become arrogant at ‘success’. Both of these come from finding our church identity in our church plans. Keep them apart at all times. Our identity is always in Christ. This never changes. To live is Christ. If plans go well, it’s Christ who did the work. If they do not succeed, Christ remains Lord of his church.

Many are the plans in the mind of a man,
but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.
Proverbs 19:21

But no one will care for me
There’s an idea I sometimes hear that churches are all about community, or Christian family, or mutual love. It usually translates, ‘I want good, supportive friendships here.’ That’s nice. But it is in no way Christian.

I’ll say it again: it’s not Christian in any way to love people who make you feel good. It’s not Christian – it’s human. As Jesus said, ‘Even sinners do that.’ By all means go ahead and have fine friendships, but do not derail the purposes of God in the name of your friendships.

God is about loving the ungrateful and evil. God is the Father who gives to people who will never repay. God is about ridiculous grace to people in rebellion against his rule. We know that, because we are those people. That’s precisely what God does for us through Christ. The way to have a Christian church - not merely a human organisation – is to welcome the unlovely. And that’s why we plan for growth.

Jesus said:
If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
Luke 6:32-36

 


 

Posted in Ministry | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Persecution: which God/god will you turn to?

Posted on 22 April, 2012 by

Over Easter came the news of another  bomb attack on Christians in Nigeria. This account from the New York Times includes a disturbing observation about Muslim attacks:

Churches have been increasingly targeted by violence on holy days in Nigeria, a nation of more than 160 million people. A Christmas Day suicide bombing in Madalla, near Nigeria’s capital, killed at least 44 people.

I have no idea of what it feels like to live in this kind of situation. What are the pressures and fears? How do the risks affect an individual, or a church?

Despite not knowing the experience, here’s one thought about what happens when people are attacked for our beliefs. Persecution reveals which God/god we turn to.

An immediate reaction is to turn to the attacker and attack back – or long to do so. It’s reactive, and it’s a just thing. After all, we rejoice that the Lord will come and judge the world with justice (Psalm 96:11-13).

Yet if taken to obsession, Christians can become fixated on Islam: Islam as the threat; Muslims as the enemy; the god of Mohammed as a danger; etc. In such case, haven’t we turned to focus on the wrong god?

As I’ve struggled for what to pray for persecuted Christians – in Nigeria and elsewhere – I regularly end up asking that Christians turn to the God of the Gospel. I ask that God fill his people will knowledge of the Holy One. And that Christians learn that the weak Gospel of Jesus is victorious, that the foolish message of love for enemy is more powerful than any jihad, and that the way to resurrection life is via the cross. I ask that, despite violent challenge from a false god, Christians will react to the challenge by turning once again to the real God.

 


 

Posted in Christian living, Christianity & culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Religion’s biggest enemy

Posted on 16 April, 2012 by

Melbourne just hosted the Global Atheist Convention. While I have not been a keen follower of these events, I have the distinct impression that the discussion has been a whole lot more constructive than previously. Of course that may reflect the sources of information I gravitate towards.

One stream of comment in the New Atheism is the ridicule of religion. Much of the ridicule, unfortunately, holds dearly to a false premise: that atheists the only ones to ridicule religion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The greatest mocker of religion is God. The strongest words against religion are in the Bible. The human heart longs for religion – and it is a terrifyingly simple move to twist real life with the real God into religious life with a ridiculous god.

Before looking at some of the Bible verses that prove this, here’s my very brief take on the nature of religion. Religion is untrue and irrational (comparing the real God with imagined gods is farcical). Religion is human-centred (what we can do, not what God has done). Religion is, ironically, dehumanising (allowing ritual or idols to overrule human dignity). Religion is enslaving (the demands of ritual never end, for achievement is never guaranteed).

God’s ridicule includes:

Their [the nations'] idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Psalm 115:4-7

He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, “Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!”  And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”
Isaiah 44:14-17

I also think of Elijah’s ridicule of the prophets of Baal in their religious frenzy. “Surely he is a god! Rave harder, that will get him out of the toilet to answer your prayer” (1 Kings 18:27).

God is not comfortable with religion. He does not tolerate it. He is not generous or welcoming to religious ideas. These things offend him, and belittle all of his creation. In consequence, God moves beyond mockery to judgement. He acts against religion. God’s searing indictment strikes fear into the heart of the religious:

Those who make them [idols] become like them;
so do all who trust in them.
Psalm 115:8

It’s a most fitting and most awful prospect – to follow a false god is to become like that false god. This process, and God’s active part in it, is seen in Romans 1.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up …
For this reason God gave them up …
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Galatians trumpets the view that religion is slavery and deadly. To insist upon non-essentials (in Galatia, it was circumcision) is astonishingly against the grace of Jesus Christ. Religion is anathema, accursed by God (Galatians 1:8-9). Paul knew what he wanted for those who peddle religion as a way to God. I can assure you what he wanted was not tolerance (Galatians 5:12.)

Religion’s biggest enemy? It’s God.

 


 

Posted in Christianity & culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Science & the gospel, vi

Posted on 11 April, 2012 by

This series is to consider how faith in Christ transforms our view of science.

I’m using Two Ways To Live (TWTL) to shape the series: six TWTL points – six posts on science. Each point has an image in addition to short summary statements.

The sixth and final part of TWTL is:

The two ways to live

A. Our way:
Reject the ruler-God
Try to run life our own way		 B. God’s new way:
Submit to Jesus as our ruler
Rely on Jesus’ death and resurrection
Result:
Condemned by God
Facing death and judgement		 Result:
Forgiven by God
Given eternal life

 

Which of these represents the way you want to live? 

The gospel outline of Two Ways to Live finishes with a question. This is as it should be, for the gospel is a call and an invitation. The gospel declares God’s work. The declaration is serious, and rightly includes fearful aspects, but it is also loving. God desires to give life to sinners stuck on the path of death (Ezekiel 18:32).

To put this slightly differently, the gospel is the king’s authority proclaimed, but the king is not merely conservative. A conservative kingship faces rebellion by re-asserting power and retreating to a prior situation (‘the good old days’ when everything was rosy). Such a king does not aim for a new kingdom, but restoration of the old kingdom.

God, in contrast, does something new. God confronts sinners with their evil, demonstrates his justice, then invites sinners into his own family. God could simply wipe away all evil – punishment without forgiveness. Instead, through the cross and resurrection, God completes justice with forgiveness. The Bible does not end with a second Garden of Eden, but with a new heavens and earth and heavenly Jerusalem where righteousness dwells and countless multitudes rejoice eternally.

In short, the gospel calls for decision (trust Jesus) and the gospel effects change (you are forgiven & freed to serve).

Science cannot do this. Science describes, science does not prescribe. Science does not care about what to do next.

This gives a very important warning for the use of science. Scientific understanding of the world is never an ethical argument. Science has wonderful insight into what is. This does not, however, translate into what ought to be. Between is and ought there lies the changes we desire and the decisions we require.

In a simple example, consider research into infectious diseases. There are so many: some are well-known (AIDS, malaria, hepatitis, measles); some I can only name because I searched the internet (paragoniamiasis, anyone?). In light of limited research budgets, and a finite supply of skilled researchers, which diseases should have priority? Science cannot tell us – other criteria must come into play.

Science can tell us which infective agents are responsible for the diseases, or that the agent is unknown. Science can tell us which people groups are most affected by infection, and compare the population sizes of those affected directly and indirectly. Science can even estimate the financial burden of the disease (OK, I’m being generous in calling economics a science!). But science cannot tell us that ebola is more worthy than measles for grant funding.

For a more pointed example, think of research into sex. Science can note and seek to explain the reproductive benefits of monogamy in birds. It can also note the promiscuity of bonobos. But it’s not a scientific argument to follow up either set of observation with, ‘Therefore, humans should do the same.’ If you come across an argument like this – usually in favour of promiscuity or homosexuality, not monogamy – you know that the ethical decision was made well before any science came into view.

When people argue about environmental science, it is usually the case that the science is irrelevant. At the extreme ends of the spectrum of views, proponents cherry pick the most relevant factoids to support their case. The ‘science’ they use convinces no one, because the decisions made were not based on science.

‘What do we do next?’ is a good question. It looks for change and to make a good decision. The answer can be informed by good science, but should be understood as a decision made before the God who will one day call us to account.

It is no argument to say, ‘I was born this way – let me be.’ Or to say, ‘Environmental science insists on a target for atmospheric CO2.’ Or to say, ‘We should do the genetic manipulation because we can do the manipulation.’

It is an argument to say, ‘Created, fallen and redeemed from judgement, we are to practice repentance and faith in self identity/environmental care/experimental design. The gospel tells us so.’

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him
John 3:36

Posted in Bible, Christianity & culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Science & the gospel, v

Posted on 8 April, 2012 by

This series is to consider how faith in Christ transforms our view of science.

I’m using Two Ways To Live (TWTL) to shape the series: six TWTL points – six posts on science. Each point has an image in addition to short summary statements.

The fifth part of TWTL is:

 

God raised Jesus to life again as ruler of the world.

Jesus has conquered death, now gives new life, and will return to judge.

Well, where does that leave us?

 

Jesus’ death was an astounding sacrifice. It is unique in all history. Yet the uniqueness of Jesus’ death is not in its death, for death afflicts all people. Historically, many others also have died unjustly, bravely, with love for friend and foe alike. The uniqueness of Jesus’ death is not historical, it is theological – that God was active through the cross. (God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sin against them, 2 Corinthians 5:19).

Jesus’ resurrection, on the other hand, is unique historically and theologically. No one else – yet – has been given new life by God after death, never to die again (that’s historically unique). And no one else can be the firstborn from the dead, appointed as judge and ruler (theological uniqueness).

This history touches a Christian view of science.

Christians know Jesus is alive, not dead. The tomb is empty because tombs are for corpses. Jesus is fully alive – if he’s not alive, Christians are wasting our time and pitiable (1 Corinthians 15:14-20). Amongst other things, the resurrection of Jesus was an event of the natural world. A corpse, duly readied for entombment and entering the phase of putrefaction, returned to life. The moment of resurrection was potentially observable. There were witnesses who saw Jesus in his post-resurrection life.

For science, this means there are natural events beyond the investigation of science.

Please don’t summarise that statement as ‘miracles are beyond science’, for that’s not my claim. There are wonders of the Bible given an explanation simultaneously natural/scientific and theological. Notably, God sending the strong east wind to clear a path though the Red Sea (Exodus 14). Presumably a team of meteorologists and hydrologists in the right place could have determined that the dry water-course was caused by hot easterly wind. It was a miracle in the natural world, and open to science. It’s no big deal that God can use nature – he made it! My point here is simply that some truly ‘natural’ events are impenetrable to science. Perhaps the resurrection is the only example, who knows?

In an earlier post I made the point that science cannot explain everything. There are matters outside of the realm of science (I mentioned justice, both human and divine). Now I am saying more, that there are matters inside the realm of science that science cannot explain. I reach this conclusion by the gospel, specifically the gospel-proclaimed resurrection of Jesus.

This leads to another gospel-driven reflection on science: history is bigger than science. This may sound  unconnected, but that’s not so. For just as science cannot tell us about Jesus’ resurrection, history can and does tell us. The empty tomb of Easter is a message with witnesses, not an experiment with technicians. It is possible to test the message of Jesus as we test any claim: we ask historical questions. (Who said this? Do we have a good record of their claims? What did they mean? What is their agenda? What corroborating evidence is there? etc.)

(Let me throw in a speculative, but related, idea: I think that science may be best seen as a subset of history. Experimental observations are what happened (‘the pressure was 745 mmHg’). Scientists interpret the data to make sense of what happened. Theoretical scientists, I think, work hard on teasing out the implications of the history of ideas. Historians and scientists both make predictions of the future, and do so on the basis of the past.)

Back to the main point … If history is bigger then science, and the gospel tells us this, I expect the biggest challenges to Christian faith to be from historians rather than scientists. When science attacks Christianity it gets more attention, I believe, but we should listen more closely to historians.

The theology of the resurrection also touches science.

In the resurrection, Jesus is declared to be in complete dominion and rule (Acts 17:30-31). At creation, dominion was granted to people. After years of sin’s rule, dominion was declared to reside in The Person – Jesus Christ is the true man who rules. Humanity is restored to its place in God’s order, in the person of Jesus. All authority is his, meaning that all rule in this world is a gift of Jesus. All who exercise any kind of rule are answerable to Jesus for their use of authority.

What is this to do with science? To state the obvious – as I love to do – the ruler is a person. Dominion is personal, not impersonal. Thus, science is not dominion.

We frequently use language that suggests otherwise. ‘Technology tames the wilderness.’ ‘Bio-medical science defeats disease.’ Effectively we hear the message, ‘Science rules the world.’ This is not true. On the largest scale, Jesus rules the world. In local situations, people exercise dominion. We must never be compliant with claims that science means we must … For science never claims anything, people do. The resurrection of Jesus allows us to step back from such claims and enquire who really is ruling.

I’ve written plenty already on the resurrection and science. And could say more. When I started the series, this was the one point where I wondered if I had anything to say! It appears I had nothing to fear about content. My remaining fear is that this longer post lacks clarity. Please help me in this – I love any feedback, comments or questions. Jump right in to the comments section below.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
1 Peter 1:3

 

Posted in Bible, Christianity & culture | Tagged , , | 8 Comments