The God-Man

I came across this in preparation for tonight's Bible study on the incarnation:

If salvation were simply a matter of correcting some mistaken ideas that humans held, then Jesus need be no more than a good teacher sent by God in the manner of Moses. If salvation were simply a question of rectifying social structures that were oppressing the people, then Jesus need be no more than a faithful prophet sent by God in the manner of Amos or Isaiah. If salvation, in short, were simply a human matter, then Jesus needed to be only a human being.

But what if the New Testament speaks about salvation in terms quite other than didactic or political? What if the witness of the New Testament - and the life and practice of the church from the beginning - regarded salvation as something far more than the adjustment of thought or of social structures? Then the agent of salvation must fit the nature of salvation. If the salvation witnessed by the Scripture and experienced by the
church could come only from God, then the agent of that salvation, Jesus Christ,
must be considered fully divine (because we have received from him what only God
could give) just as he is fully human (because we have seen and heard him as a human like us). And this is exactly what the earliest witnesses to the experience of Jesus tell us.

from The Creed, by Luke Timothy Johnson

Merry Christmas, part 2

Several of the comments before regarding Christmas noted that Dr. Kinneer statements weren't supported by research. Grant Van Leuven, a friend who works for RPTS, sent me this link to Dr. Kinneer's expanded answers regarding commonly held Christmas myths. Grant also reminded me/us that Dr. Kinneer's purpose is not to debate the celebration of Christmas, but to defend the truth of the gospel accounts. It's very fascinating reading. [thanks, Grant!]

The New Tragedy

It's happened once more, so now maybe it's a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Last weekend saw a rather brutal brawl in the Miami-Florida International football game. One of the players, echoing similar sentiments from NFL-stomper Albert Haynesworth, apologized for his behavior and implored us to realize "This is not the real me." This is not me. This behavior doesn't accurately reflect my heart or my character or my beliefs. Please don't think this is the real me.

We can sympathize, right? No one wants their poor behavior remembered; no one wants their "slips" and "indiscretions" to be permanently recorded in the public memory. Everyone wants to be thought well of by others.

But the tragedy is twofold: first, to separate who I am from what I do is to rip myself in half. If I am not what I do, how can I know who or what I am? The only option is to mentally construct a version of myself completely distinct from what I do, separate from the externals. ...Except the good things I do - those are me. And this is exactly what we do. Cling to the good, reject the bad - those slips and indiscretions? Those weren't really me; it was a momentary lapse in reality. Those times when I was good and you liked me? That was the real me. It's an issue of reality. How can one set of actions reflect the real me while the other set of actions is dismissed as "not the real me"?

The second part of this tragedy is what this means for individuals and Christ. If the good me is the real me and the bad me is accidental, I don't need a Savior. I don't need any help, because I'm basically good through and through, with those cleat-stomping aberrations popping up every now and then. But it's when an individual comes to ponder, "Maybe this is the real me. Maybe there is a real problem, a real issue of character that I can't overcome in and of myself" - sliding down that scary slope is the path to salvation. Doctors don't have time or patience for people who don't think they're sick and need help. Christ didn't come for folks who think they're okay, who think the "real me" is the nice one. Christ came for those who realized they were dead, that, left to themselves, they'd brawl as often as possible.

Of course, put into that light, we understand this isn't a new social phenomenon. It's the same song and dance folks have been using for a few millenia to make themselves feel better without Christ. May God continually reveal to us the depth of our depravity and our need for Christ - and may He reveal the same thing to the throngs who have lied to themselves about the "real me."

Why I'm not a conservative

It may be more accurate to say that I'm not an American conservative. It's not because I'm not "conservative" in my positions, but because the basic idea of conservatism as seen in the name (i.e., conserving something in the past) has not worked and has not gotten us anywhere. Right now, conservatives would be happy to have America be like we were in 1950, or 1776, or whenever. Should we be happy with that? Rather, I'd like to think Christ would have us look to the future with something more than "let's go back a few years."

Of all people, Christians are to be looking forward, anticipating real and radical change as the kingship of Christ is exerted over the entire world. And, of all people, we should realize that conserving the past is, at best, a mixed proposition: everything in the past was tainted by original sin. Plus, what was in the past is why we are where we are now. What would we gain if we took a 50-year step backward? Or if we regained the America of the founding fathers? Well, in all likelihood, we would end up in this same exact spot in 50 years. Or 300.

Christ's kingdom is a harvest field to grow and reap, not a museum to preserve until He finally shows up. We don't think this way about ourselves ("I just want to stay as good as I am right now") or about the church ("remember when our church was 30 people? I wished we could go back there") - why would we think this way about the nation?

To wit, R. L. Dabney:

“[Conservatism's] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

Perhaps my issues with conservatism are merely semantic - but I think there may be some help here for the church as she moves to shirk off her "place in the American political system" and realizes that our Savior is the same as our nation's King. As we head toward voting season, wondering how Jesus would vote, maybe it would be best to stick with being Christians and make decisions and vote votes based on how the King of the church would have us interact with His nations.