This is a test post to see if I can integrate services.
My answer to the question I asked a couple of weeks ago: Does God favour the poor over the rich?
God's Twofold Favour - Common Grace
God's Twofold Favour True or false: God favours the poor over the rich? I asked this question as I was preparing a lesson for youth two weeks ago. I based it on 1 Samuel 2:1-10, one of many scripture....
Re-entering the world of Blogging Proper, on the prompting of some friends, including +Ryan Genereaux. Will link to everything that goes on over there, beginning with this join series by him and I, as well as an answer to the question I posted a while back. I've enjoyed the Google+ blogging experiment... perhaps someday, it will be enough of a fully-baked experience that it can satisfy all the things that make a blog worth having!
Forward to the Past - Common Grace
Forward to the Past Since moving to Google+, people have commented to me a few times that they miss certain features of the blog… being able to do a simple RSS, being able to search through archives.....
True or false: God favours the poor over the rich.
Read the passage below and answer the question as best you can, in one of two ways:
1. Carefully explain whether the assertion is true or false based on a careful reading of this passage.
OR
2. Cite a passage that shows something different than the one below, and explain how the two relate.
Feel free to post your answer in the comments section or by posting it on your blog and linking back to this challenge!
1 Samuel 2:1-10.
And Hannah prayed and said,
“My heart exults in the Lord;
my horn is exalted in the Lord.
My mouth derides my enemies,
because I rejoice in your salvation.
Talk no more so very proudly,
let not arrogance come from your mouth;
for the Lord is a God of knowledge,and by him actions are weighed.
The bows of the mighty are broken,
but the feeble bind on strength.
Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread,
but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger.
The barren has borne seven,
but she who has many children is forlorn.
The Lord kills and brings to life;
he brings down to Sheol and raises up.
The Lord makes poor and makes rich;
he brings low and he exalts.
He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
and on them he has set the world.
“He will guard the feet of his faithful ones,
but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness,
for not by might shall a man prevail.
The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces;
against them he will thunder in heaven.
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth;
he will give strength to his king
and exalt the horn of his anointed.”
Today, a good friend raised a great question. In recent weeks, I have expressed that communion can be taken as a communal meal, rather than a Sunday-morning ceremony. Concerned, this friend brought 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 to my attention, pointing out that it seems to say that we shouldn't treat communion as a meal. He pointed me towards one commentator, who, in reflecting on 11:34, says this:
The Lord's Supper is not a common feast; it is not designed as a place where a man may gratify his appetite. It is designed as a simple "commemoration," and not as a "feast."
Respectfully, I disagree with this commentator: I simply don't see where in the passage he is getting this. In fact, when you look closely, I think the opposite is true: I think Paul is assuming this is a meal, and the problem is the distribution of the meal and the spirit towards one's brothers that it shows. In order to evidence this, I did an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 for my friend, which I would like to share publicly. Any thoughts are welcome on this passage that has held such a rich place in the Christian understanding of "the blessed sacrament."
Verse 17
Paul opens the section by stating that in what he says, he is condemning, not commending, them, because their gathering is not "for the better."
Verse 18
The key problem in this passage: There are divisions among the Corinthians.
Verse 19
Paul notes that some division is good in order to recognize who is genuine. The inference? That the division here is not the good kind of division, at least not entirely.
Verse 20
Paul turns around and says that their gathering is not actually the Lord's supper. Why not? Verse 21 explains.
Verse 21
The reason that their gatherings are in vain and the Lord's supper isn't being practised is because people are "going ahead with their own meal" while others go hungry. In other words: there's a meal laid out, and people are gorging themselves before others even get a chance to eat! The result is that some people are drunk, while others are starving!
Verse 22
Paul says that it would be better for the Corinthians to eat and drink in their own homes if they want to eat as much as they are. Why? Because by gorging themselves over the Lord's supper, they "humiliate those who have nothing." In other words: if you're rich and you're not satisfied with the portions that are being given out at the Lord's supper, then eat at home! That way, those who can't eat at home can get food here!
Verse 23-26
Paul spells out the tradition he has received, based on the Gospel accounts. This section is incredibly important, but the reason for this might be obscure at first, and because of the obscurity I think that it tends to be the part that derails the flow of this passage. Why does Paul describe the tradition for his readers, when they already know where the Lord's Supper comes from? If you look at the next section, the themes connect very smoothly with the first half of Paul's argument, so why make such a radical break?
I believe the reason is very simple: Paul is pointing his readers towards Christ's sacrifice as the solution to their divisions. Christ's sacrifice, the very thing that is being commemorated by the Lord's Supper, is the sole source of Christian unity. Thanks to the Cross, every believer is counted as equal before God, and because of this, every believer is invited to partake in the Lord's Supper. The Corinthians' actions undermine this basic fact, and so Paul points them back towards the Cross, showing them that they need to remember their equality in Christ.
Verse 27
One of the most quoted verses on the Lord's supper in the church, saying effectively that eating it in an unworthy manner brings judgement upon us. What is an unworthy manner? Traditionally, the church would say that it is wrong to approach the Lord's Supper with unconfessed sin. That may be true, but I believe that Paul has already told us what an unworthy manner is in this context... but don't worry, he's going to repeat it!
Verse 28
Examine yourself and eat the bread and the cup. Examine yourself for what? Sin in general, or a particular sin? Paul gives us the answer in verse 29.
Verse 29
The problem: anyone who eats without discerning the body. This means two things simultaneously... it means that you ought to be discerning the body of Christ in Lord's supper itself, and it also means recognizing the needs of the church - the Body of Christ (which he will explain further immediately after this, in Chapter 12). In other words, the spiritual problem with the Corinthians is that they ignore their brothers and sisters while they partake of the Lord's supper. How? He's already explained it: they ignore their brothers and sisters by gorging themselves on the food before others are able to eat.
Verse 30-32
Paul says that this failure to discern the body of Christ and look after one another's needs has led to God's judgement and discipline. The goal of this judgement is to avoid God's ultimate judgement, which the rest of the world is going to face.
Verse 33-34
Paul restates the overarching theme of this passage: That they should wait for one another. Don't arrive hungry, scarf down all the food, and cause divisions in the church. Wait for your brothers and share equally with them so that there will be no divisions - and no judgement.
Some other general observations
It's worth restating that the Lord's Supper was in its nascent form a feast, not a ceremony. Paul points the Corinthians towards Jesus' passover supper with the disciples as a model for this tradition. If you've ever been to a passover (I have), it's a massive amount of food! Jesus' initial institution was not a simple ceremony, it was a full-blown feast! This is, throughout the New Testament, one of the most enduring images of the Kingdom of God: it's like a feast! If we are going to turn around and say that our "ceremony" is the best way of doing things, rather than a feast, we had better be able to show very clearly that this is how the New Testament church saw it!
And again, I think that if you read this passage, it's actually pretty clear that this is a meal, not a ceremony. Paul's assuming there's enough food present for people to get drunk! How is it that a simple ritual would have enough food present for even a handful of people to get drunk? Think about your Sunday morning communion... there's not enough wine there to get two people drunk, and there's not enough bread to count as gluttony even on a good day! Paul doesn't seem to be describing what we typically see as communion... personally, I think he's describing something a lot closer to a communal meal of bread and wine. Enough food to get full, but not enough that everyone can get drunk!
Summary and Conclusion
I believe that I've shown that the problem Paul has here isn't that people are eating a meal. The problem is that some people aren't. Certain members of the Corinthian church are disrespecting the broken body of Christ (symbolized in the bread) by ignoring the needs of the body of Christ (the church)!
We are brothers and sisters in Christ, united when we break bread together and enjoy fellowship while remembering Christ's body. Symbolically, it's powerful to eat communion as a meal, because it shows that we are literally being sustained by Christ's body. Communally, it is powerful because it is taking an everyday thing (eating) and giving it redemptive value.
As far as I can tell, this is exactly what the early church was doing. The New Testament term "breaking of bread" always refers to a meal, not a ceremony. Anyone who thinks that the right way to do communion is a little ceremony rather than a meal has the burden to show it exegetically, because I don't see it - not in this passage, and as far as I can tell, not in any passage! Instead, the dominant theme of the Lord's supper seems to be that Christians come together to share in life-giving food as equals, in order to remember the ultimate life-giving food: Christ's body, broken for us!
I recognize that my position is a little unorthodox, and I'm open to criticism and questions. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way we typically celebrate the Lord's Supper... but I do think it would be wrong (factually) to suggest that that's how it was celebrated originally. I look forward to any thoughts!
Chairos
is watching
as child first encounters cat
in your lap.
I talked with a friend about this analogy today, and thought it would be worth a share.
My dad, +Stephen Peltz, has a theory about hockey. He figures that you can generally tell when a team is about to go on a hot streak when they lose a few games in a row that they should have won. The team outplays their opponents, getting more (and better) shots, but a couple of bad bounces go against them, and they end up losing. The opposite also holds true: a team is about to go on a losing streak when they win games they shouldn't have won.
Sports analogies aren't always helpful, because they're so niche, and you can read pretty much anything into them that you want, but this one is actually pretty close to the Christian experience at times, I think. There are times when you want your faith be good, but no matter what you do it seems to fall flat. You read your scriptures, you pray, you have good conversations with Christian friends, but there's still something missing at the core of it: the real spiritual victories aren't rolling in just yet. You just don't feel it.
That situation is actually a sign that you're about to start winning some pretty key victories. Like a car trying to move up an icy hill, the only thing missing is that little bit of traction that you need. Once the things you're doing take hold, you'll fire up and over the hill and your faith will be back in full gear.
Again, the opposite holds true, too. When you feel pretty good about where your faith's at, and you seem to be cruising along, you should check for red flags. Even if you feel at peace with God, if you're not working at it at all, chances are it'll only take one curve ball, one commitment too many or one bad friendship, to really throw a wrench in things. And then, you'll be on a slippery slope going downhill.
The funny thing is that in both cases, your emotions mislead you. When you're reeling in the victories without any effort, you begin to feel like nothing can go wrong. The world is in the palm of your hand; God is on your side! And that very emotion can lead you to neglect the only person who can really keep you afloat: God! And at the same time, when you're down about your faith, and you're desperate for something - ANYTHING - to work, that's actually the surest sign of life you could ask for.
I mourn for you, you who has exchanged shalom for peace.
You are satisfied, you say, with good things: small pleasures and a lack of conflict. You sit alone in your chambers, sheltered from the troubles that assail those who set foot outside. Snow and sorrows beat at your front door, but here, you are safe.
Why risk, when you can have joy without friendship, family, community, strife? Risk is not a virtue. Risk comes with compromise.
No lies; no one to lie to.
Pre-packaged holiness!
Relationship? Is it not better to avoid that which adds a seed of chaos to your life? Much easier to avoid that cold plunge beneath the surface, where tendrils of ice threaten to drag you deep into that great abyss called love. This way you don't hurt anybody.
Money is not a god to you. You don't need money, just financial stability, so that you don't have to worry about today (or tomorrow). Work is a joy, so long as it knows its place, not defining you, not demanding you to forfeit that which matters most: resplendent joy calm. And home? Home is a man's refuge. Why return to boisterous conversation and argument when you can eat together, sleep together... and avoid one another?
Faith is another matter. Once you believed, but now you see that waters are much more muddy than they first appeared. Why have faith when it can let you down? Humanism: a perfectly rational substitute. Can't we all just get along?
Your soul magnifies Silence, but fears the one who made it:
The God Who Speaks.
Don't you see? You have exchanged shalom for peace, and happiness for a lukewarm joy.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, blessed are the peacemakers..."
Peacemakers? Shalom Makers.
Peacemakers? Shalom Makers.
Peacemakers? Shalom Makers.
The world could be yours.
"Leave your chambers; Follow me."
This post has been cross-published on Goodreads, at the URL below.
Rating: 4/5 Stars.
To be honest, I was disappointed with this book for the majority of the way through. It was solid enough, theologically, and biblically Dever is good at backing up his points, but much of what he said was pretty standard evangelical fare. The importance of preaching from the Bible, the importance of conversion and evangelism, and the need to practice church discipline was all the kind of thing you would expect to find in a book by a baptist minister.
But the book redeemed itself at the end, oddly enough in Mark 8, Discipleship and Spiritual Growth. I don't know why Dever did not place this at the front of the book, instead of sticking it in the obscure 8th slot, but the truth is that Discipleship and Growth is the glue that holds the rest of this book together. Dever admits that this is the first concern that led him to write this book, and he systematically goes through every other mark and identifies how each of them builds a healthier, growing community.
This book would have been a lot more cohesive if Dever had identified right at the beginning that the thing that makes a church healthy is not its growth numerically, but its growth spiritually. Then he could have moved into expository preaching and shown how every other form of spiritual growth flows from being faithfully immersed in and exposed to the Word, and from there all of the other marks would fit into the overall theme of developing a healthy church. Once I read Mark 8, I was able to go back and recognize the overall theme of the book much better, whereas prior to that the book felt like a collection of typical evangelical thoughts.
All in all, upon concluding the book, I am satisfied at having come away with a better understanding of how to build a healthy Christian community. It just would have been nice if I had felt that way 3/4 of the way into the book, rather than discovering the primary thesis tucked away at the end!
To be honest, I was disappointed with this book for the majority of the way through. It was solid enough, theologically, and biblically Dever is good at bac...
My sermon from December 4th is now up on the Gathering website. Check it out if you'd like to know why I think of Revelation 12 as a helpful passage for our understanding of Christmas!
Sermons
The Gathering @ Trent is a Christian church that meets at Trent University on Sundays and in Hubs (small groups) throughout the week.