Let Us Stay “WOKE” as we wait for the coming of our Lord! First Sunday of Advent 2017
Until Next Time, May The God Lord Bless and Keep You!
Let Us Stay “WOKE” as we wait for the coming of our Lord! First Sunday of Advent 2017
Until Next Time, May The God Lord Bless and Keep You!
Back in the 70s we all laughed as the margarine commercial claimed, “It’s not nice to fool mother nature.” Yet, now in the 21st century we are all agog to ‘fool’ Father God. We have all but forgotten the original creation, which was pronounced as good. We were taught to pray for God’s will to be done on earth as in Heaven. Yet, we have allowed, and even endorsed, everything but God’s will. As Christians we are called to counter the culture not embrace and bless it.
We allow infanticide, yet wonder why there is no regard for others. We wonder what is wrong with society as we allow same-sex marriage—marriage that is against the original creation—leaving children with no role model of the sex opposite the sex of his/her same sex parents. We allow little Johnny to be little Susie if that is how he decides to identify himself. And, we wonder why men don’t act like men and women act like women.
It is time we turned back to the original creation that God pronounced as good. We need biblical manhood and womanhood back as the basic building blocks of society. Men and women need to return to being the image bearers of God that they were designed to be. Personal identification does not make men and women; God makes men and women. True freedom is not found in giving in to our every whim and desired identification; true freedom is being transformed by God’s spirit into the biblical man and woman—the true image bearers—that he called good.
Until next time may the good Lord bless and keep you!
Nothing is ‘black and white’ any longer it seems. The lines have all been blurred. Even in places where the lines could never be blurred, they have been blurred: the sexes. I recently watched an interview of a lady—a psychologist no less—who was raising her child to be neither boy or girl. When the child would ask if he/she was a boy or a girl, the mother would reply, “Whatever you want to be.” We live in a time where gender-lines are as blurred to the point that you never know whether to say yes sir or ye ma’am. The gender-lines are so blurred that US magazine’s woman of the year was a man. No, it’s not the Twilight Zone; it’s the 21st Century. And, in many cases the church is not combating the problem, it is embracing the culture.
Wayne Grudem writes, “The church has been called to counter and bless the culture, not to copy and baptize it. All too often our churches reflect, rather than constructively engage, worldly culture.” Christian Headlines reports that the Baptist church has ordained its first openly transgender pastor. CNN reported in 2010, that the Episcopal Church had ordained its first openly lesbian bishop. Writing in 2006, Grudem simply did not know how true his words were, and would become.
Homes are broken often leading to single parent situations where the child may not have role models of the sex opposite the parent with which he/she lives. Some children are brought up by two parents of the same sex. Television shows flaunt and glamour these alternative lifestyles. And the church, the lighthouse, the guidepost, for the world has all too often has bought into society instead of acting to show society a better. Little Johnny can be all that he can be, and he might just be doing it in a dress, with mutilated genitalia, in a church near you, unless the church steps up and teaches biblical manhood and womanhood.
While the Western church seems willing to allow societal norms to change its stance on many issues, the African church seems to be prepared to take a stronger stance. Father Raphael Adebayo from the Catholic church of Saint Agnes in the Nigerian city of Lagos asserts, “It is impossible for the Church to support something that does not please God. It is clear that homosexuality is an abomination.” We needn’t read further than Genesis 1 to see God’s intended sexual order for his creation: Male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27). And, in Genesis 2 we also see God’s intended picture of marriage: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24, ESV). God created man and woman. And, they were created for each other.
God created both male and female. He created them for each other. And, he did not create male for male, or female for female. Nor did he create male to become female or female to become male. Yet, in western society there seems to be an abandonment of absolute truth in favor of a relative truth which allows that anything goes. Corradi writes that the new societal delusion is “that gender is a social construct rather than a biological fact. This is the notion that there are no biologically determined characteristics of either sex.” Corradi goes onto to write, “In fact there are no ‘opposite sexes,’ only a gender spectrum between femaleness and maleness (hence the prefix “trans-” in “transgender”), and one may choose to identify oneself with any point on the continuum, or to remain undecided.” Rubano argues that argues that a pastoral sensibility should take into account research into ‘gender creativity’—a term coined by Diane Ehrensaft, adapted from Wincott’s phrase ‘individual creativity’—which would allow for children places of worship to be better sanctuaries for authentic living. He writes, “One way this pastoral sensibility can be expressed is through a gender-creative reading of scripture as a model for advocacy on behalf of gender-nonconforming children.” But, we abandon the created order and throw out biblical manhood and womanhood considering Romans 1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth (ESV)? Do we change the word and give approval of such practices in light of Romans 1:32: Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (ESV)?
What does this mean for the church? I worship in what most would call a medium size church, The Church of the Redeemer Anglican Church in Camden, North Carolina. To our east is Elizabeth City, North Carolina; and to our south, the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Both host gay pride events. So, while our church is not in some great metropolitan city, these issues knock at our door, as it knocks at the door of a good many churches. We handle it by making sure with our most vulnerable to fall to deceptive doctrine, we start early teaching biblical manhood and womanhood. Grudem writes, “If we write off, ignore, or distort the Bible’s teaching on gender roles, then we are bound to do so with everything the Bible teaches.” In this era where gender confusion runs amok we cannot afford to do anything less. As schools become more liberal in teaching ‘alternative’ lifestyles and genders on a daily basis, the church has to step up and teach biblical lifestyles—through all of its flawed characters—on its one day a week. It is essential that while preach/teach the way of salvation there be discipleship among all the church members. And, we bring them all back to the order of creation.
Former Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright asserts, “The last scene in the Bible is the new heaven and the new earth, and the symbol for that is the marriage of Christ and his church. It’s not just one or two verses here and there which say this or that. It’s an entire narrative which works with this complementarity so that a male-plus-female marriage is a signpost or a signal about the goodness of the original creation and God’s intention for the eventual new heavens and new earth.” Our teachings of the generations that will follow us has to be based on the goodness of the original creation. But, we have to be teaching and countering the teaching that comes from the world with the teaching that comes from above. As Wright wrote, “We need to let Paul remind us, precisely when major cultural change is upon us, that our confidence is not in the solidity of Western culture or the basic goodness of modern democracy. Our confidence is in Jesus and him alone.” We have to teach as in many ways society has taken a head start in the indoctrination race.
We pray that God’s will be done “on earth as it is in Heaven,” but is the church acting in such a way that God’s will is being done? In our quest to bring more people into the Kingdom are we allowing the church to mirror society as opposed to changing the world to look like a Kingdom that operates by God’s will? To accept both the homosexual lifestyle and the transgender lifestyle into the church is to change God’s word and to change his bride into what God intended as sin. As these issues become more common place in society, and as the western world tries to change countries in the East to be more like the West, maybe it’s time for the church in the West to look to the church in the East for a biblical understanding of these not so tough issues.
Until next time May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You!
 Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), Kindle Location 173.
 Richard Corradi, “Transgender Delusion,” First Things 256 (October 2015): 17.
 Corradi, 18.
 Craig Rubano, “Where Do the Mermaids Stand? Toward a Gender Creative Pastoral Sensibility,” Pastoral Psychology 65 (2016): 822-823.
 Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), Kindle Location 178-179.
 N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (New York: Harper Collins, 2014), 185.
As Daily Rite 1 continues, this week the story of David and Bathsheba comes up. A chess master is always thinking several moves in advance; in the “opening” alone he may be thinking seven to ten moves in advance. A mere pawn is only moved one space at a time, always straight ahead unless it is moving to capture. Yet, for the chess master the pawn can be a most dangerous piece as it can become a queen. Was Bathsheba a chess master, skillfully planning her moves well in advance? Or, was she a pawn in the hands of David, being moved one space at a time?
The key to answering the question lies in two places. First, how one interprets II Samuel 11:2 has a direct influence on the answer: One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful. For Bathsheba to be a chess master, here in the opening moves the skill of knowing the opponents next move would show. She would be opening with a Gambit knowing which piece would be sacrificed. She would have to know the following. First, David would get up and walk around. Second, he would notice her bathing. And lastly, that he would send for her. And, the last point is where the waters get muddied with calling Bathsheba a chess master.
David could have been in the habit of getting up in the evening and walking on the roof and Bathsheba could have been well aware of this habit, be the habit daily, weekly, or monthly. As the skilled chess master she could have set the trap that would eventually lead to checkmate. The problem with this theory is that Bathsheba would have no way of knowing that David would have taken the bait. Unlike the chess pieces that have certain set moves for different positions on the board, the human piece is not as predictable. While David’s schedule could be predicted, his actions upon seeing Bathsheba bathing could not be quite so predictable. While it is the position of this paper that Bathsheba was no chess master, it has to be remembered that the human, in this case David, is unpredictable. As well it must be remembered that sexual sin has been the downfall of a many a man “after God’s own heart.” It should also be noted that whether one takes Bathsheba to be a pawn or a chess master, David’s actions constitute sin.
The second avenue that needs to be explored lies in the Book of James: each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death (James 1:14-15). It seems a more plausible conclusion that David was a victim of sin in much the same way Achan was (Joshua 7:21). As David walked he saw Bathsheba. He coveted Bathsheba. He got Bathsheba.
Bathsheba was a pawn in the game of life. David saw Bathsheba’s beauty and was “lured and enticed by his own evil desire.” David’s “desire was conceived” causing him to inquire as to who she was. The desire gave birth to send after David found out who she was and “sent messengers to get her” (II Samuel 11:4).
While it could be argued that Bathsheba was a chess master, and as a skilled master she set a trap which David fell into, the Biblical evidence doesn’t give enough information to make that assertion. No one can doubt that David’s actions following the event were those of a guilty man. But, guilt could come from either conclusion: Bathsheba being a chess master or being a pawn. It seems much more plausible, and the Biblical record seems to be more in support of, that David followed the sin pattern of Achan and the progression into sin laid out by James 1:14-15: David saw Bathsheba; He coveted Bathsheba (tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire); He took Bathsheba (desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin).
A Collect for today:
O God, the King eternal, whose light divides the day from the night and turns the shadow of death into the morning: Drive far from us all wrong desires, incline our hearts to keep your law, and guide our feet into the way of peace; that, having done your will with cheerfulness during the day, we may, when night comes, rejoice to give you thanks; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Until next time, May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You!
Job chapter 8 brings in one of my favorite characters: Bildad the Shuhite. It was always the running gag in seminary to ask the incoming freshmen who has the shortest character in the Bible. Of course they would always answer together, “Zacchaeus!” We would correct them right away that it was Bildad, as he was only a Shuhite—a Shoe Height—[insert groan]. But, as chapter 8 seems to bear out, Bildad was short—short in his dealing with Job’s circumstance.
Bildad begins with a technique familiar to Israeli wisdom literature: attack that last speaker’s speech. And in true form and fashion Bildad attacks and does not seem to let up until possibly at the end. If it was thought that Eliphaz was easy on Job, after reading chapter 8 no-one will make that assertion about Bildad.
“How long will you say these things and the words of your mouth be a great wind?” Bildad could have well said, “Come on Job, how much longer are you going to continue speaking all this nonsense?” Job follows it up with a question—possibly a rhetorical question—asking, “Does God pervert justice?” Yet, that is not exactly Job’s complaint. Job’s lament was that God was treating him rather harshly.
Bildad differs from Eliphaz though in his appeal is to past history and nature to justify his message 8-10. Eliphaz justified his message recanting a dream. Then, in verses 11-19, Blidad launches into a series of rhetorical questions (11-13) and answers/explanations (14-19) to begin closing out his speech. The bottom line of Bildad’s speech however, is summed up in verse 20: Behold, God will not reject a blameless man [remember we have been told that Job is blameless], nor take the hands of the evildoers. If we think of Israel as the legalists that they have always been made out to be, this might bear some weight. But we have to actually see Israel as they were; they were never ones who believed their salvation was in perfect Law keeping. There was atonement for sins in Israel. Yet, it must be remembered that this story comes before the Law and possibly Israel. So, while we have been told that Job is blameless, there were none who were blameless before God. And, this statement by Bildad, in all his bluntness and shortness sets the stage for Job’s reply in chapter 9.
COLLECT FOR TODAY:
Lord God, whose Son our Savior Jesus Christ triumphed over the powers of death and prepared for us our place in the new Jerusalem: Grant that we, who have this day given thanks for his resurrection, may praise you in that City of which he is the light, and where he lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.
Until Next Time, May the Good Lord Bless and Keep you!
Looking at Job Chapter Seven
Job begins chapter 7 continuing his discourse; yet the recipient will seem to change. While chapter 6 had Job responding somewhat to Eliphaz, chapter 7 Job’s peroration will become aimed at God. While verse 2:22 asserts, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong,” the reader now has to determine if the same can be true after reading chapter seven.
The first pericope of chapter 7 (vv.1-6) begin with the parallelism that is common to Hebrew poetry and has been a feature of the book of Job. Verses 1 and 2 form individual parallel lines while verse 5 and 6 perform the same. Yet, tuck neatly in the middle of all the parallelism are verse 3 and 4. They are written in another vice of Hebrew poetry: chiasm. And, their place in the middle points to Job’s emotional state—because of the misfortunes mentioned in the surrounding verses [this is brought out by the use of conjunction ‘so’ beginning verse 3] (1-2;5-6).
Verses 3 and 4 and their chiastic structure:
V3. so I am allotted months of emptiness
And nights of misery are appointed me.
The center of the chiasm points to emptiness and misery as the emotional components of Job’s current life. Job interestingly forms the next pericope of 7 (7-10) into 2 chiasms—7-8 form the first while 9-10 form the later.
7 Remember that my life is but a breath my eye will never again see good.
8 The eye of him who sees me will behold me no more.
For Job, a man whose life is emptiness and misery, his eyes will never see good again, nor will the eyes of him who sees him—while many attribute the ‘eyes of him who sees me’ as being God, it almost seems a better interpretation to see the ‘eyes …’ as anyone who now sees job including his friends who are taking part in the discussion. If we believe to be able to see all then we would have to concede that God would be able to see Job in sheol—see him anymore, his life is but a breath and will be no more. While it is tempting to want to make an appeal to James 4:14 when interpreting ‘life is but a breath,’ we should refrain from using the New Testament in interpreting Job—a case could be made however when handling James 4:14 to make an appeal to Job 7:7.
We now have a man whose life is misery and emptiness, whose eye will never see good any longer, nor will anyone see him any longer because when one goes to sheol—this is not hell but simply the place of the dead—he does not anymore return [This predates resurrection theologies]. Because of this Job feels unrestrained in addressing God at t he beginning of the final pericope of verse 7: “Therefore I will not restrain my mouth.”
For Job, all of his problems are coming from God, and God does not—in Job’s eyes—want to let up. Job makes this clear in the last pericope of chapter 7. Job, for all of his problems simply needs a break. He can’t sleep because—in his opinion—God sends bad dreams (v.14). Job just wants God to back off for long enough for him (Job) to swallow his spit (v.19).
But, what is very interesting in this final passage is this man Job, who is upright and blameless, who is so upright that he makes sacrifices on behalf of his children in case they might have sinned, has now to come to the conclusion that he has sinned and that is the reason for his problems. He seems to have taken Eliphaz’s cause and effect theory to heart: Verse 20- Why do you not pardon my transgressions and take away my iniquity?
Job has come from being upright to believe he has sinned so bad that God now is tormenting him. And for Job this torment will go on until death—For now I shall lie in the earth, you will seek me, but I shall not be (v.21).
While we always speak of the “patience of Job,” as we read more into Job that patience seems to have been replaced with bitterness. Job sees himself as man tormented by God. As a result, he lives a life of emptiness and misery—remember this is a man who sum five chapters earlier had it all and was upright before God—he will go to the grave in this condition and all he wants is just a break for the amount of time it would take to swallow his spit.
We have all been in that situation where it seemed that the ‘bad’ would not let up. It is at that time that cheerful hymns just do not seem to comfort. And, like Job, we seem to feel like the good and gracious God has it out for us. As well, we have all probably been angry at God. And Job is not the only person in the Bible who has felt betrayed by the almighty. Jerimiah said:
O Lord, you deceived me, and I was deceived;
You over powered me and prevailed.
I am ridiculed all day long;
Everyone mocks me (Jeremiah 20:7).
Bad things happen in a good world and to good people. There are not always, though they definitely can be, the result of cause and effect. And, we will at times get mad at God. As I have been meditating on this chapter, over in England baby Charlie Gard is dying—as a result of a genetic condition [there have been many court cases about him receiving help that would not help him], and it would be safe to assume that his parents, if they are Christians, might have a bit of anger directed towards God. Why would you God not step in and heal this genetic problem; why would you God not allow him to cross the big pond for treatment in the USA; Why would you not step in and let him come home and be well; why would you not step in and let him come home to die? The questions could go on and on, but the point is we all can get angry at God. Some people might not express it as forcefully as Job, while others might express it stronger. But, not matter how it is expressed, we have to see God as sovereign over all creation. We have to remember the word’s that Job has seemed to have forgotten, “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil [at this point he has not attributed the evil to God] (v. 2:10)? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord (1:21).
We serve a good God in an evil world. We, like Job, will receive good. But, like Job, we also will receive bad. While we love God, just like the family member we love, we will at times feel angry his way. But in all things we should remember, blessed be the name of the Lord.
Collect for today:
O God, you make us glad with the weekly remembrance of the glorious resurrection of your Son our Lord: Give us this day such blessing through our worship of you, that the week to come may be spent in your favor; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Until next time, may the good Lord bless and keep you!
The Cycles begin and Job dances with the theodicies of his friends.
Chapter 4 begins cycle 1—many commentators will argue that the 1st cycle begins with Job’s speech in chapter 3, but that doesn’t fit the pattern of the rest of the cycles. Beginning with chapter 4 balances the cycles— and the meat of the book of Job. Job’s friends entered the story in chapter two, yet up to this point none have spoken; they sat and mourned with Job at their entrance. Job’s speech of chapter 4 then sets the stage for the first cycle to begin.
The first person to address Job and offer reasons as t why all this trouble had come upon Job is Eliphaz. Not much is known about Eliphaz, but we do know he is a Temanite. This most likely means he was an Edomite. And, Eliphaz is most likely the oldest of Job’s friends that are gathered at the beginning of the cycles. The custom would have been for the oldest to speak first and then follow the same pattern through the rest of the speakers.
It should also be noted that the poetry of Eliphaz’s speech is true to the form of Hebrew poetry. Where we may look for rhyming words—Roses are red, violets are BLUE, sugar is sweet and so are YOU—the Hebrew poetry has rhyming thought patterns:
Your words have upheld him who was
and you have made firm the feeble knees.
Job’s speech is replete with this type of rhyming.
After asking permission to speak, Eliphaz uses what we pastoral counselors, and people in conflict management, would call the sandwich method to address Job. As Bullock asserts, “He commenced courteously and ended gently.” Eliphaz begins with words of encouragement and praise for Job 4:3-4. And, as well, He ends as well on a peaceful note, Job 5:24-27. Yet, it is the middle ground where Eliphaz gives his thoughts on Job’s problems.
In verses 5-11, Eliphaz puts forth the theory of cause and effect. This comes out well in verse 8: As I have seen those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. While this is a plausible theory, we know from chapter 1 this is not the case with Job. Yet, for Eliphaz things do not happen without a reason. Thus—according to Eliphaz, when something bad happens to us it is because we have done something bad to warrant its happening: retribution. And while Job 1 tells us that Job was blameless, for Eliphaz, mortal man cannot be right before God (v.17). This was revealed to him in a dream that he relates.
Eliphaz puts forth another reason for Job’s suffering. In chapter 5: 17-18, Eliphaz suggests that suffering may be viewed as the chastisement of God with the purpose of correction and healing. Now, while he puts this forth as a slightly different idea, it could be seen to go along with his first cause and effect theory.
Job 5:17-18—Blessed is the one whom God
therefore despise not the discipline of
For he wounds, but he binds up;
He shatters, but his hands heal.
Cycle one begins with a great speech by Eliphaz. He delivers to Job his ideas for the calamities that have happened to Job. His theory is either ‘cause and effect’ or God’s chastisement in order to bring the person, in this case Job, back into right living. Yet, we know from the first chapter of Job that Job does live right—[Job] was blameless and upright, one who feared God (1:1). So, while cycle one begins with a nice speech and good idea of what might have caused Job’s problems, as readers we have information that Eliphaz does not have and we know that his theories are wrong.
Until Next time may the Good Lord Bless and Keep You!
 Some years back a friend of mine, and a preacher, had a son that was run over and killed. He told me that he had many visitors come to the house and per usual they had the wrong things to say—“God needed him;” “There is another angel in Heaven now” … But the one person he told me that helped him the most said nothing. One person from his church came and sat in a chair behind him. He put his hand on the grieving father’s shoulder and said, “I am here if you need anything.” Then there was silence—silence never broken. But, ever so often he would lean forward and put his hand on the grieving dad’s shoulder reassuring him that he was still there with him. This silence, no wrong or right theories on death, just the reassurance that a friend was there if needed; the friend sat quietly and mourned with the mourning father (Job 2:11-13).
 C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988), Kindle Location 1996.