O' Death, Where is thy Sting?

My grandmother died last week. It wasn't entirely unexpected, but it was sad nonetheless. But she lived to a ripe age of 89 and was a follower of Christ. She was ready to go. It was bitter-sweet.

When my grandfather died ten years ago, he had a funeral in the church but there was no graveside/burial service. Whoever wanted said a few words and that was about it. So this time, especially since there was to be only one service (at the graveside) I offered my father the option of me presiding over a simple burial service. In the end, they found a pastor from the Calvary Chapel my grandmother used to attend and he presided over the service.

I'm sad to say I was pretty disappointed with the service. In true Calvary Chapel form, it was very informal. But, what's worse, while the pastor talked a lot, very little was actually said. There was virtually no Scripture reading, no presentation of the Gospel, no comfort given to the grieving in the objective work of Christ on their behalf, and no talk about the Resurrection. If I would have given the homily, I would probably have said something like the following. It's by no means perfect, but I think it touches upon some of the more important points of objective comfort for Christians:

I'd like to make a few brief remarks about Death. It is common in our society to refer to the one who has died as having "passed away." There is, obviously, a sense in which this true. The Apostle Paul tells us in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians that, for those who are in Christ, when our spirit is absent from the body, it is in the presence of the Lord. So, in a way, one's spirit could be said to have "passed away" into God's presence. However, this type of language concerning death is not found in Scripture. The phrase actually comes from Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the "Christian Science" religion.

We also hear quite commonly in our society that "death is just a natural part of life" along with frequent references to the so-called "circle of life." These concepts are not Christian either. At best, they each serve to minimize the reality of death, to try to lighten its effects. And, for those who have not the hope we do, this is all they can do--try to minimize death.

In contrast, Christianity has a very real and "earthy" understanding of death. Death is not "a natural part of life." It is the most unnatural thing in the universe! When God created Man in his image, he was intended to live forever. The human race was designed to live and work and play and fellowship with each other and their Creator. But Death was not a natural part of the original scheme. It's just not right; it's not the way life is supposed to be.

As we know, once sin entered the world--when Adam and Eve rebelled against God--everything changed. The holy and righteous God who cannot tolerate self-centered rebellion against Him did what his righteous character required: he demanded justice, and pronounced the Curse upon upon Adam and Eve and all their descendants. And so, not only did all the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve inherit an unquenchable desire to continue that rebellion against God--but we also all inherited the just effects of the Curse that God placed upon our original parents.

Toil and labor, pain and suffering, sickness and, finally, death--all are results of the Curse. They are not our friends, they are our enemies. And, therefore, it is right--to an extent--to hate and despise them. This is freeing because, as Christians, we do not have to go around stoically biting our lips, pretending that all is wonderful and cheery in the world, whenever we face physical suffering or emotional pain.

From time to time, when I think about Leila dying, I cry. And I cry not only because I am going to miss her. To be sure, I have immense sorrow for my and the world's loss of her. But I have deep sorrow and anger at the bitterness, the finality (in a sense), and the plain unnaturalness of death. Scripture describes, and even personifies, Death as our "enemy." And so it is good and right to mourn for our loss--and also to be angry at death.

BUT--and this is a big but--while Christians do mourn, we do not grieve as those who have no hope! Though death will likely strike us all down, God's Word tells us that Jesus Christ has taken away the sting of death. In his death on the Cross, Jesus Christ triumphed over sin--he bore the eternal punishment of those who trust in him. But, at his resurrection, He triumphed over death and the grave. So the Apostle Paul asks the question: "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?!"

In his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ has become the firstfruits--the down-payment, the guarantee--of our own resurrection. That Jesus Christ can triumph over sin, death, and hell, is an assurance to us of his power to rescue us from the same enemies.

God gives us assurance in His Word that Leila's spirit has temporarily departed from her failing body and is in the immediate presence of her loving Savior. But that is not the end. C.S. Lewis once said: "God loves matter. He created it!" When we die, we will not all float around on clouds playing harps for eternity. Instead, we look forward to the reunion of her and our spirits with new and resurrected bodies. We share Job's hope when said: "in my flesh I shall see God." And that is the hope to which we all have to look forward: A new heaven and new earth, with resurrected and restored bodies that will never suffer, never get sick, and never again die. In the the final verse of the Bible our Lord comforts us, saying: "He which testifieth these things saith, 'Surely I come quickly.' Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!" Amen.

Is there Anyone Brave Enough?

...in the US House or Senate to stand up to President Obama and say, to his face, the same things this British member of the European Parliament said to PM Gordon Brown?



Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England, gives a speech during Gordon Brown´s visit to the European Parliament on 24th March, 2009.

N.T. Wright Speaks in Newport Beach

On Saturday I had the privilege attending a 3-hour lecture given by the well-known New Testament scholar, and Bishop of Durham, . N.T. Wright. It was hosted by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA. The title of the lecture was "Paul for Tomorrow's World." The lecture was taped and is slated to be available for viewing here.

Bishop Wright is well known for his defense of the biblical crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, among other doctrines. He is, perhaps, even better known today for his controversial teachings of a "New Perspective" on the writings of the Apostle Paul.

This was the first time I had heard Rev. Wright speak. He has a wonderful and engaging speaking style. It is no wonder he is so popular. Further, while the title of the lecture is indicative of Rev. Wright's position, I found it interesting that he did not really delve too much into the details of the New Perspectives theology. In fact, the vast majority of what he discussed was thoroughly orthodox and in agreement with Reformational Christian theology. What follows is my attempt to capture what he said during the lecture:

=========================
The First part of the lecture focused on "Paul and the Kingdom of God." Paul doesn't talk much about it but we badly need it. For some time he (Wright) has been trying to present Paul's message as a "big picture."

The problem is we think we know what Paul's message of the Kingdom is. However, we read Paul "with 19th century eyes and 16th century questions." We assume that unregenerate people go around worrying about whether they're going to go to heaven and assuming that they have to work their way in.

Paul's message about the Kingdom of God is "all about God; it's only about me inlight of that." Heaven is not our final destiny. In reality, God's sovereignty over the world results in Him rescuing that corrupt world.

Jesus is already reigning. Most Christians wouldn't disagree with that; but they don't understand what it means.

We often separate what Jesus did from what happened to Him. Jesus taught that all that stuff that the Jews had been longing for is now happening, but they just didn't see it. Jesus was busy "doing the kingdom."

The main point of the Resurrection wasn't that "Jesus is alive, therefore we're going to live again." Instead, it's "Jesus is alive, therefore God's new creation has begun."

The Kingdom of God is not about escaping this world. Love is not just our duty, it is our destiny. Because of the Resurrection, everything you do now will somehow be a part of God's new world.

---------------------------
The Second part of the lecture focused on Paul's teaching in his letter to the Romans (esp. ch 5:12-21). Up until now, Paul has been expounding the covenant faithfulness of God. Through His faithfulness to the Covenant, He is faithful to the creation.

When God saves us, He does it so that, through us, he makes the world right.

---------------------------
In the Q & A sessions, a few interesting questions were raised. He noted that the "fire" mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:10-11 is purgative, not destructive.

He noted that he sees an interesting potential that, in the Eucharist, there is a sense in which we have food coming from the future into the present. He thinks that may be a better sacramental approach.

Regarding the "intermediate state" (between death and the resurrection), the New Testament doesn't say much. The word used in Scripture signify a place to go and be refreshed, but not a place to live.

Romans 13 is about police work (not international warfare). Private vengance is out. Civil authorities are the way God has chosen to keep the world in order. But, how does that work out on an international level, between sovereign states?

Regarding the saints that were raised to life at Christ's death, he notes that this is one of the oddest parts of the Gospels. He doesn't know exactly why or what. Did they die again?

Regarding changing the pervasive pop-eschatology, he noted the best approach is to be involved in the community, showing people that Christians are not just polishing brass on a sinking ship, but that we care for other people because, through us, God is restoring the creation.

Regarding literature, he noted that so much Christianity today assumes beauty is unessential window dressing. We need to bring back music and art back to a place of importance in culture.

Regarding politics, we need to find a proper middle-ground between Anabaptist isolationism and theocratic domination.

Regarding unity in the midst of Christian disagreements, he noted that he believes women may be pastors, in light of the fact that Jesus' first witnesses of Him were women, Julia was an Apostle, etc. This is not something that should divide the Church.
===========================

In the midst of his discussion, Rev. Wright brought up a lot of important topics, such as vocation, eschatology, the already/not-yet paradigm, and issues that are adiaphora, on which I would agree with him wholeheartedly. For example, he repeatedly poked at the Gnostic, individualistic, me-centered understanding of salvation and eschatology that is pervasive in evangelicalism today. He encouraged Christians to have a broader understanding of Scripture, rather than just focusing on individual verses. For all of that, I am thankful for his teaching.

However, on a couple other points, I think he was off. First, at the very beginning he stated that because Christians read Paul "with 19th c. eyes and 16th c. questions," we assume that non-believers are walking around worrying about whether they're going to heaven and assuming they have to work their way in. I think Wright here is fighting a straw man. I don't know anyone who believes that people worry about whether they're going to heaven. I think it's pretty obvious that most unbelievers in the U.S. today don't give much thought to their eternal destiny. And when they do, I think they assume they're going to heaven. But they assume they're going to heaven--if there is such a place--because of their works. "I'm not such a bad person, after all. At least I've never killed anyone."

The second point on which I found disagreement with Wright was on the topic of a female pastorate. While he rightly points out that it was women who first told of Jesus resurrection, I don't think that narrative passage points to anything other than that women first told of Christ's resurrection. He didn't have time, but he neglected so many other didactic passages and the whole concept of the created order, biblical headship of men, etc.

All in all, the lecture was informative. Once it become available, watch the video online and post your comments here.

Tobacco and the Soul

Many of us have read this before. But, something this good ought to be read again. The following link is to an amusing article which connects Plato's philosophical analysis of the human soul (the "tripartate soul") with the the three most common uses of tobacco. While the analysis may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think it accurately highlights some characteristics of humanity, especially in light of the culture in which we live today. So, here's a link to the article (at First Things). And here are a few choice excerpts:

A cigarette is inhaled: it must be fully and internally consumed in order to give pleasure. And a cigarette, with its quick buzz, is also instant gratification.

A cigar is visually impressive: with its large size and great billows of smoke, it often leaves a greater impact on the spectator than on the smoker.

Unlike cigars and cigarettes, a pipe endures. Similarly, the questions of the philosopher far outlast the passing concerns of physical desires on the one hand and human ambitions on the other.

If the pipe epitomizes the intellectual way of life, then is it any surprise that it cannot be found where schools substitute politically correct ideology for real philosophy, or where the intelligentsia, instead of engaging in serious thought, pander to the latest activist fads? Is it any surprise that America’s most famous pipe-smoker in the last thirty years has been Hugh Hefner, pajama prophet of the trite philosophy of hedonism?