Karl Barth, Romans & Satan Falling as Lightning

In this fragment of the world there is detached from the world -- before the very eyes of men an in their actual hearing! -- something which gleams in the darkness and gives to the world a new brilliance; and this 'something' is -- Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased! -- God Himself, who willeth to draw the whole unto Himself, and to fashion a new heaven and a new earth. As yet we see but the image of this world and its dominion. Mighty it is, and lifted up, and very magnificent, terrible to behold, an image of gold and silver, or iron and clay and brass. But in the hidden Life of Jesus we see also the stone fashioned and detached, which smites the image upon its feet and, without any aid from human hands, breaks it into pieces. The whole image is crushed, and the wind carries it away like the chaff of the summer threshing floors. But the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth (Daniel 2:24-35). Satan as lightning is fallen from heaven, his dominion has ended; the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the heralds of His Kingdom are assuredly present.

Karl Barth, Romans regarding ch3:24-25. pg104.

Thinking About Worship

Why do we worship? Should we worship? What is the point of worship?

In my experience, worship has been about singing simplistically about what YHWH is doing somewhere else, and maybe, if we sing hard enough, he'll grace us with his presence. I was reading through the Book of Tobit in the Apocrypha, and was surprised to find Jewish prayers that sound so very different from my own.

For instance, they bless the Eternal God, the God that lives forever (T. XIII:1). They then bless his attributes and character, his mercy and judgments. They don't separate YHWH into specific categories and pick them apart. The worship is holistic, living rightly in community. "O ye sinners, turn and do justice before him." (T. XIII:6).

Justice in society is taken very strongly in Tobit, Proverbs, the Prophets and the New Testament. Life is taken with the utmost sincerity, worshipping YHWH who gives life from his breath. Personally, I find worship that speaks in symbols and pictures to be the most divine. The most prominent worship song to me is Blue Pail Fever by Woven Hand. I will post the lyrics at the end, but speaking of empty houses, breath, dust, heat and light gives us images that help one to understand the limitations of such worship. It not only gives us canvas, but colors.

Interestingly, Scripture tells us to go to his dwelling place and cajoles us to worship at his footstool (Ps. 132:7).

There is no need to invite YHWH to be among us, especially when one is made in His image. It is not enough to pay respect or to sacrifice an animal. It is to be comfortable in your skin, to breath, and to speak as one sings the praises of the unknown. And the unknown breath that enshrines humanity is more than welcome in his own home.

Worship is conversation and reckoning with one that is most dear, most high, most humble, most loving.

Like a voice in an empty house/ breathe your breath and speak to me/ speak to me./ Its a dry leaf that shivers on the branch/ what matter if the wind cast it down with a ruthless hand/ because we remember always that it took place forever/ thy kingdom come in whosoever.

--Nick

John Wesley on Justifying Faith and Doctrinal Summaries (Part III)

Q. 7. What are the immediate fruits of justifying faith?
A. Peace, joy, love, power over all outward sin and power to keep down all inward sin. 

Q. 8. Does any one believe who has not the witness in himself or any longer than he sees, loves and obeys God?
A. We apprehend not: "seeing God" being the very essence of faith, love and obedience, the inseparable properties of it. 

Q. 9. What sins are consistent with justifying faith?
A. No wilful sin. If a believer wilfully sins, he hereby forfeits his pardon. Neither is it possible he should have justifying faith again without previously repenting. 

Q. 10. Must every believer come into a state of doubt or fear or darkness? Will he do so unless by ignorance or unfaithfulness? Does God otherwise withdraw himself?
A. It is certain a believer need never again come into condemnation. It seems he need not come into a state of doubt or fear or darkness, and that (ordinarily at least) he will not, unless by ignorance and unfaithfulness. Yet it is true that the first joy does seldom last long, that it is commonly followed by doubts and fears, and that God usually permits very great heaviness before any large manifestation of himself. 

--Nick

This is adapted and copied from John Wesley: A Library of Protestant Thought (pg138).

Pulse: How We View The Bible (Guest Post by Brandan Robertson)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue?

The issue of how we approach the Bible in general. 

For me as an evangelical, I affirm the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and see it as the highest guide on all matters concerning faith and practice. But we need to grapple with what is the best way to approach and deal with the Bible. We have generally been handed two options: the literal approach, believing that every event and statement recorded in the Bible is scientifically, historically, geographically, and absolutely true in the modern sense of the word or a rejection of the Bible as a reliable guide for anything. Neither of these approaches works for the new generation of Christians. Most of us are ready to accept things like the fact of evolution and many of us want to embrace a hermeneutical framework that allows for egalitarianism to exist within our churches. But most of us have been told that to do these things we are either “selling out” or that we have to disregard the Bible as our authority all together.

Neither option is healthy. Neither option gets us anywhere.

If we don’t begin to look into history and try to find a better way to approach the Bible, we are going to see divisions continue to spring up and more and more injustice committed in the name of “the Bible”. Many support war, anti-environmental, anti-homosexual etc. sentiments with Biblical passages based on a skewed literal hermeneutic. Likewise, many Christians disregard the Bible and are embracing any new and colorful thing that comes their way. These postures will destroy the faith. Want proof? Look at the last 500 years since the Protestant Reformation.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

I think there is no doubt that we are all engaging with this issue. But the reality is, many of us don’t have a framework to engage this other than the two postures I mentioned earlier. Derek Flood, a young budding theologian, does an awesome job understanding and interpreting scripture in a serious, literal, but not fundamentalist way. So does N.T. Wright (who was born in the wrong generation).

Karl Barth and folks from the Neo Orthodox perspective also bring a fresh perspective to the table that I think our generation can relate to. Folks like The Gospel Coalition (whom I love) are unfortunately rehashing a fundamentalist approach to the Bible that isn’t very helpful but because of their popularity among millennial is being embraced. The answer to this issue is not to rehash the same old answers from the past 200 years. We need to stretch further forward and reach farther back in order to get a fresh and renewed way of dealing with Scripture. Scoffed, Edwards, Owens, and Calvin just aren’t cutting it anymore. We need some Clement and Chrysostom along with, dare I say, J.R. Daniel Kirk and Derek Flood.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

We just need to be open. We need to work on not being so sectarian, so defensive. We need to be willing to rethink, reform, and renew our faith. (and that’s not just a shameless plug for the Revangelical movement). Until we can begin, with epistemological humility, to admit that we may not have the right way or the best way and begin to listen to traditions beyond our own, then we will never be able to address any of the pressing issues that face our generation. We need to listen. To learn. And to discern with grace what is best and true. If we can’t learn from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, and Fundamentalist streams concerning hermeneutical approaches to scripture, then we are doomed to never see any change and instead see increased division and hostility.

I was recently having a conversation with an Evangelical friend of mine who comes from a fundamentalist background. I was suggesting that Evolution could be reconciled with the Genesis narrative. After a half an hour of discussion, he finally said something to the effect of, “You know what, I am a black and white guy! And I think you’re a heretic. Not the kind who is going to hell, but the kind that is teaching falsehoods.” I understand where he is coming from. Many of us have been taught a view of the Bible that has been fenced off with the warning “If you change this, you lose everything.” That kind of rhetoric is absurd, untrue, and stunts the movement of God in his Church. I used to believe that. I used to believe that our way was the only way. But that’s just not the case. Things aren’t as black and white as we want to make them. And our approach to the Bible cannot be reduced by modernism to simply either “everything is factually true in every regard” or “nothing is factual and is complete fiction.”

Neither is good. Neither is faithful. Neither helps anyone in the long run.

I hope that as we continue to discuss these topics as a generation, we will see new life spring up. I pray that walls will come down. I pray that we will grow closer to Jesus. And I pray that we would be pulled by the Spirit of God ever forward to fresh and new ways and ever backwards towards tried and true ways- living in that sacred and divine tension.

Brandan Robertson is a theology student at Moody Bible Institute, a blogger, podcaster, aspiring minister, and dreamer behind The (Re)vangelical movement.

You can find him on the web, twitter and facebook.

Hopped and Bothered: Flying Dog Pearl Necklace Oyster Stout

Flying Dog Brewery -- Pearl Necklace Oyster Stout

Alcohol content 5.5% (sad face). This pours a dark black, like the briny deep (I'll stop with the puns right about now). The scent is charred malt and a hint of coffee. So far, about your average stout. Nothing special. No alcohol burn.

It tastes like an average stout. A pinch of chocolate. A lot of burnt malt. A bit of vanilla and cold coffee.

And then the oysters kick in. Yes. You read that right. Oysters. They add a pinch of dry salt to the end and offer a unique spin on an average stout. This would probably taste wondrous on tap, but from the bottle its a tad weak and lacking. The smokiness adds a bit to the oceanic effect, but it just needs more.

But it has oysters.

Buy if: you want something unique.

Overall: it really needs more of everything. More malt, more cocoa, more sea salt and oyster at the finish. Its a bit watery and just needs more power. A unique, memorable experience I would share only with a friend.

3 out of 5.

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered: Great Divide Belgium Style Yeti

Great Divide -- Belgium Style Yeti

Alcohol content 9.5%. This was an interesting brew to review. It pours thick and dark, with an inch of mocha foam on top that leaves rings. Very opaque and smells of Belgium spice and thick malt. Chocolate and a bit of vanilla. A pinch of espresso and dark fruit. The sip is immediately off-putting. Roasted malt, some cloves, a hint of cardamon, and, well, more chocolate. A kiss of anise finishes this bad boy. It took me almost an hour to drink it. That strong. The Belgium yeast is intriguing.

Buy if: you want a Russian Imperial Stout that doesn't taste like black licorice.

Overall: a unique, sometimes overpowering and ultimately tasty beverage. I would try again if I found another year-aged bottle.

4 out of 5.

--Nick

Pulse Intrology

It doesn't take much to realize that lines are being drawn and rhetoric has been microwaved to the point of bubbling the plastic. In my experience, such things lead to more unwarranted heat than illumination. So, in my hubris, I asked several friends to contribute to a moving dialogue, shaped by our culture.

The goal is -- frankly -- to illuminate. My original title of this series was "Illuminate" but I didn't want to put off any rappers. Therefore, since this is my generation's attempt at opening Pandora's theological box, I decided Pulse was a more appropriate title. Putting our fingers on what culture says, where the church is going and what is left to us to do.

I will post an essay roughly each week, depending on when they are submitted. The topics will range from homosexuality to how we view the Bible. I've hopefully grabbed enough diverse individuals to more than compensate for varying voices and movements.

For the sake of exonerating myself from any criticism, the opinions expressed on these blog posts may or may not by supported by myself. There. Hands clean.

Look forward to our dialogue.

--Nick

She Said Yes.

Friday night, May 2013, I proposed to my girlfriend.

Its actually a four year story. It involves a swing set, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, chance, fate, predestination and yet another swing set.

Allison and I first met at Biola during her last semester, and we decided to give this entire relationship thing a try. Neither of us have any past real relationships, so this was all just a first. We paired off during the Summer and kept our relationship going through almost four years of near constant separation. I won't lie and say it was easy, because it surely wasn't. After what she had to go through with Westminster, it became a struggle to keep our relationship from dissolving.

But, we had many wonderful memories on that swing in the front of my house. We first watched Sunshine there. We had our first kiss there, and I think I even gave Allison her first foot rub there.

So that's the story behind the swing set.

So. Fast forward. Allison finished her MDiv from Trinity, and I got accepted to Fuller Theological Seminary. She is prepping to go to China for two weeks with her grandmother.

And I decided to do something either very stupid or very smart. Being sick and extremely tired, I cannot recall everything. But I knew what I was going to do.

I decided to propose.

Originally, I wrote an entire feature screenplay for my senior thesis at Biola (well, I wrote two; decided to write another one that I liked). I decided to write something specifically for her (science-fiction, philosophy, female action star) and that was the goal. My plan was to get her to read it, cut off the ending and replace it with a piece of paper that just read:

Will you marry me?

But Allison said she hadn't read it in time, so I had to do something drastic.

Had to do something different. With only an evening to do it.

I tagged Noel in this endeavor, and like a champ she decided to snap pictures and set up the memorable swing.

Allison's personality is very goal-oriented, and I decided to take full advantage with this. I dressed up a bit (not necessarily a first) and packed up everything and decided to propose that evening. I took an alternate route and just talked with Allison. She didn't suspect anything until we pulled into Olive Garden. Happily, we sat down to dinner. It went nicely.

Then Noel texted me and said she was going to be late. Thinking quickly, I stopped off to get gas and took Allison shopping for her trip. This is not to say that I wasn't going to shop, but they were great diversionary tactics if I do say so myself.

So, finally, I get the affirmed text and took Allison home. Mind you, I didn't have a set plan to propose, but I knew I was going to. We pulled up and I finally pointed out to Allison the candles around the swing.

Swing.

She was so stoked, she spent so much time looking at the roses and candles that when she turned, it took her a second to realize I had the ring out.

That one second of WTF was worth every second we had to wait to get to this moment.

While her back was turned, I decided it was perfect. Every little instant and sequence gave to this. Her surprise at the candles, the roses, the night out, everything.

With that, she laughed and said yes, trying to cover it up with a "Let me think about it." Then my sister came out, we took pictures and my family enjoyed popping poppers all over the damn place.

Home run.

It was a wondrous thing that happened.

And she said yes.

--Nick

John Wesley on The Love of God and Doctrinal Summaries (Part II)

For part one of this brief miniseries, enjoy it here. Onto the next sequence.

Q. 4. What is faith?
A. Faith, in general, is a divine supernatural [evidence, manifestation] of things not seen i.e. of past, future, or spiritual things. 'Tis a spiritual sight of God and the things of God (this is Wesley's standard definition, rarely deviated from). Therefore, repentance is a low-species of faith, i.e. a supernatural sense of an offended God. Justifying faith is a supernatural inward sense of sight of God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. First, a sinner is convinced by the Holy Ghost: "Christ loved me and gave himself for me." This is that faith by which he is justified, or pardoned, the moment he receives it. Immediately the same Spirit bears witness, "Thou art pardoned, thou hast redemption in his blood." And this is saving faith, whereby the love of God is shed abroad his heart.

Q. 5. Have all true Christians this faith? May not a man be justified and not know it?
A. That all true Christians have this faith, even such a faith as implies an assurance of God's love, appears from Rom. 8:15, Eph. 4:32, 2 Cor. 13:5, Heb. 8:10, 1 Jn. 4:10 and 19 (this is a corrected text, that was mis-written). And that no man can be justified and not know it appears farther from the very nature of things -- for faith after repentance is ease after pain, rest after toil, light after darkness -- and from the immediate as well as distant fruits.

Q. 6. But may not a man go to heaven without it?
A. It doth not appear from Holy Writ that a man who hears the gospel can (Au. Mark 16:16)[Oddly, he doesn't cite this as a likely interpolation], whatever a heathen may do (Au. Rom. 2:14).

I've heard claims that Wesley was an inclusivist. This seems unlikely given the answer to question number 5. Of course, I could be misreading this text.

--Nick

This is adapted and copied from John Wesley: A Library of Protestant Thought (pgs137).

First Testament Theology: God Birthed

In preparation for Fuller Theological Seminary, I've been reading as much as possible about pretty much everything: historical criticism, textual criticism, Greek/Hebrew etc. I picked up John Goldingay's Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel (the first volume in his three volume set) and what he wrote continues to amaze and challenge me.

Included below is such an excerpt:

In the beginning, God birthed the heavens and the earth. Genesis 2:4 itself describes creation as "the generations of the heavens and the earth," suggesting that they came into being like something like giving birth (he includes a lengthy footnote on the implications of the subjective versus objective genitive). Psalm 90:2 makes that explicit: "Before the mountains were birthed, or you labored with earth and world, even from age to age you were/are/will be God."

Any suggestion that the First Testament does not speak of God giving birth to the world, as some other creation account do, joins many other failed attempts to set the First Testament off from these other works. The boundaries usually turn out to be permeable. Yes, God gave birth to the world. Of course it is a metaphor, but then so are statements such as "God shaped" or "God created." All such statements use the language of analogy. Birthing is an image that tells us something true about God's relationship with the world, though like all images it has to be set in the context of other images so that we can guard against taking it too far.

First, birthing suggests wondrous mystery. It is stupefying that a fully alive being emerges from the body of its mother. It is extraordinary that mountains should exist, and human beings stand amazed before their majesty.

--Nick

1. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel, pg61-62.