This is my fourth time teaching this book and each time I've taught it, it almost seems to be a different book. I am enjoying this go-round perhaps more than I did last time. I think my growing familiarity with the outline and tone of the book is allowing me to reflect a little more on the theological themes of the book and on the ways in which Revelation might provide some spiritual insight. I'm also getting a much better sense of the rhythm of the text, which is making the reading even more enjoyable.
The book opens a typical greeting, but it is pretty noticeable that John includes the phrase "who is and who was and who is to come" twice in the first 8 verses. This is not accidental. This is a direct reference to Exodus 3:13-14 - "But Moses said to God, 'If I come to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' what shall I say to them?' God said to Moses, " I AM WHO I AM." In Hebrew, the Name God gives is 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh. 'ehyeh means "I am, I was, I will be", basically. Asher means "who, that, which, what", basically. So, God is basically saying here "I am Who I was Who I will be" - that's a reflection of the infinity of God and the consistency of God's nature and identity. In Revelation, it's also about scope - God is greater than anything on this earth. In Rev. 1:8, God says that God is the "Alpha and the Omega". God is all-encompassing.
In the context of Revelation, this is a statement about political power as well. If God is indeed the Lord and Christians proclaim God as such, this is full frontal assault on the power that Caesar claims for himself. This is a persistent theme in Revelation - to whom or to what do we owe our allegiance? This might raise some, if not controversial, then uncomfortable questions for those of us who are immersed in American culture. Revelation pushes to ask questions about how power is realized and wielded in our own culture and country. If an apocalypse is a pulling back of the curtain to reveal the realities behind the appearances, what systems of power are operating behind the curtain in American culture? I'm not talking about goofy conspiracy theories - I'm more interested in those "rulers", "authorities", and "powers" that Paul talks about in Ephesians 6:12. How does American consumerism and materialism square with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? How does traditional American militarism fit in with the proclamation of Jesus Christ? Is our culture of celebrity worship and "humans as commodities" congruent with Christian discipleship? These are uncomfortable questions and there are literally dozens more questions that we could be asking (and will ask over the course of the book).
A major point of Revelation, taken as a whole, is that God's vision for humanity and for human flourishing is vastly different from the visions of human life offered by the powers of this world. Right from the start, the book makes the claim that it is in fact God Who is in charge of creation. As you move through the book, however, the destructive power of sin and death is plainly evident. This glimpse behind the curtain of life in our world shows the holiness and loving kindness of God and the complete brutality and deadliness of sin, both personal sin and systemic sin.
Again, these are just scattered thoughts about what I'm reading...more to come later...
Monday, October 25, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Some Scattered Thoughts About Satan/The Devil
As a new youth pastor, fresh out of seminary, one of my favorite things to do was to lob "grenades" at my high school youth during my lessons. These were questions that were specifically designed to shake them up, unsettle them, make them think hard about their faith. Sometimes, this was a good idea and had the intended effect. In retrospect, I think that early on, I did this too often and it became more of a gimmick than anything. As I grew as a teacher and speaker, I no longer felt the need to lob those rhetorical grenades in the middle of a Sunday School lesson.
One of the times I did this and probably shouldn't have was in reference to Satan. At that point in my faith journey, I was not very keen on the idea of Satan/the Devil/Lucifer, what have you. I thought (and still think) that the Satan that most Christians picture is more a creation of Milton and Dante than of Scripture. Anyways, I was trying to get my youth to think outside the box, or whatever, and I said, "Do you have to believe in Satan in order to believe in the Gospel?" For a theologian or Biblical scholar, that's a fair question and one worth discussing. For high schoolers, probably not very helpful. However, this did start a good debate about the devil and "his" role in our lives (or lack thereof, according to some). Later that week, I was talking to my senior pastor about the question and subsequent conversation and he said (and this has stuck with me ever since): "If believing in a devil keeps those kids from using drugs or from getting in the back seat of a parked car, I'll talk about the devil as much as I need to." What I learned from that is that my theological ponderings/questions are not necessarily helpful for the practice of ministry. I still believe that Christians, especially young Christians, need to learn how to think and read critically (especially Scripture), but this doesn't mean pulling the rug out from under them.
I am still grappling with the nature and existence of Satan. Scripture speaks clearly and regularly about Satan, though the difference in presentation between, say, Job and the New Testament is pretty stark. Here are some things that I'm currently thinking in this regard:
1) Satan is real.
A story found in J. Louis Martyn's book "Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul" is helpful here. Here's what he says:
"Here we can be reminded of the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner, lecturing at Wellesley College not long after the Second World War, not long, that is, after the horrors of the Holocaust. In the course of his lecture, Brunner referred several times to the Devil. One was not surprised, then, that in the question period a student asked him why he, a modern human being, should have mentioned the Devil. It was a polite question, behind which lay the recognition that we live in the scientific age. Brunner's response: 'I have referred to the Devil for two reasons. First, I find that he plays a very important role in Scripture. And second, I have seen him.'"
I'm not sure I can add anything to this, except to say that I've too often played the role of "polite, sincere, modern human being", quietly smirking at the supernatural aspects of faith while being completely confident of my own intellectual understanding and ability. Thank God I'm growing out of that smug, arrogant confidence in my own understanding.
2) The Devil may be real, but the Devil is not a cartoon character.
I do believe in non-embodied, non-human, spiritual 'forces' that are in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These might be ideas, philosophies, addictions, certain 'attitudes' that seem to take over a person (lust, rage, despair). In some cases, I would call these things demonic or satanic, especially when it comes to abusive rage or life-depleting addictions. In Job, what we translate in English as Satan is in Hebrew known as ha-satan, which is a title and not necessarily a name. This can be roughly translated as "The Accuser". Just from that little piece of interpretative information, my pastoral insight might be that we all carry around with us a satanic mentality of accusation, about ourselves or about other people. Many of us constantly berate ourselves for being stupid, ugly, worthless, etc. This is an accusatory, even satanic way of thinking about ourselves. And we do this to other people, ascribing motives to people because we don't like them ("why does so-and-so hate me? They're trying to ruin my life!") This, too, is a satanic way of thinking, at least in terms of how the ha-satan is presented in Job.
In the New Testament, the Devil (in the Greek, "diabolos", which means "slanderer"; this is consistent with the ha-satan found in Job) is presented as a tempter, a liar, a killer, and an enemy of God. However, and this is especially true of Paul, Satan is not the primary enemy. The enemies of God are sin and death. Additionally, in terms of the Bible, Satan is not the primary enemy at all. That would be idolatry. The worship of false gods is prominent throughout Scripture. But that doesn't translate into cartoonish caricatures as easily as the Devil.
3) The Devil is defeated.
A few years ago, I figured out why I don't give much thought to the devil and what is known as the "demonic" - if they exist (and I'm increasingly convinced they do, though again not as personifications), they are already defeated. I have nothing to fear from them. The enemies of God and of human flourishing - sin, death, Satan, demonic forces - have been defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can live my life free from fear and free to serve Jesus Christ. James says it best: "Resist the devil and he will flee." Paul also says: "Make no room for the devil." So, I don't constantly feel threatened by spiritual attack nor do I see the purposes of Satan around every corner. They are defeated and God is at work reconciling the world to Himself through Jesus.
4) Satan is not a competing god.
Part of what the problem is that we are, generally speaking, very dualistic in our thinking. This makes the world easy to define: good/bad; light/dark; God/devil. Many Christians tend to think that Satan is simply the "evil version" of God. This is not the case. If anything competes for that position as "rival", it would be the various idols that we worship in our culture: fame, self, money, comfort, etc. And the truth of the matter is, God has no competition. The Lord reigns. That is my proclamation and I fear no threat from any spiritual force. Now, with that said, we still must contend with the spirits of conflict, despair, apathy, anger, addiction - all of these may properly be called satanic, in the sense that they will continue to accuse. The "spirit" of satan is the spirit of accusation and slander. The accusations are many and they do lead Christians into difficulty and sin. "God is not real." "You are not loved." "You are not worthy." "This person or that person is not worthy."
A real temptation here is to assume that anything that we disagree with indicates the presence of satan. For example, if I push my congregation to examine where their allegiance to their country might be at odds with their faith in Jesus, they may not like that. But that doesn't make it satanic. Or if I tell my congregation about the deficiencies I see in our life together as the church, I might be accused of introducing conflict, of bringing dissent into the church, which might be construed as "satanic". Not every word of challenge or conviction is satanic. Any word that denigrates your worth as a child of God is satanic. Any word that seeks to diminish the love of Jesus and the power of God for salvation is satanic, in the sense of being opposed to the will of God.
Here's where I'm winding up nowadays. In Mark 8, Jesus tells the disciples that he must suffer and be killed. Peter pulls Jesus aside and tells him that this can't happen. Jesus says, "get behind me satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." When Jesus calls Peter "satan", I don't think that Jesus actually means that Peter is the Devil or that he is possessed. I believe that what Jesus is saying is that Peter is playing the role of "opposer", standing in the way of Jesus fulfilling God's will for his life. When we stand in the way of God's will, we too are being satanic. When Jesus is calling us to live a certain way or to do a certain thing and we oppose Him, we too, are being satanic. When we accuse our neighbors of being less than beloved children of God, we are being satanic.
May God give us the gift of discernment and the gift of faith as we seek to live in line with His will
Grace and Peace to all of you!
One of the times I did this and probably shouldn't have was in reference to Satan. At that point in my faith journey, I was not very keen on the idea of Satan/the Devil/Lucifer, what have you. I thought (and still think) that the Satan that most Christians picture is more a creation of Milton and Dante than of Scripture. Anyways, I was trying to get my youth to think outside the box, or whatever, and I said, "Do you have to believe in Satan in order to believe in the Gospel?" For a theologian or Biblical scholar, that's a fair question and one worth discussing. For high schoolers, probably not very helpful. However, this did start a good debate about the devil and "his" role in our lives (or lack thereof, according to some). Later that week, I was talking to my senior pastor about the question and subsequent conversation and he said (and this has stuck with me ever since): "If believing in a devil keeps those kids from using drugs or from getting in the back seat of a parked car, I'll talk about the devil as much as I need to." What I learned from that is that my theological ponderings/questions are not necessarily helpful for the practice of ministry. I still believe that Christians, especially young Christians, need to learn how to think and read critically (especially Scripture), but this doesn't mean pulling the rug out from under them.
I am still grappling with the nature and existence of Satan. Scripture speaks clearly and regularly about Satan, though the difference in presentation between, say, Job and the New Testament is pretty stark. Here are some things that I'm currently thinking in this regard:
1) Satan is real.
A story found in J. Louis Martyn's book "Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul" is helpful here. Here's what he says:
"Here we can be reminded of the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner, lecturing at Wellesley College not long after the Second World War, not long, that is, after the horrors of the Holocaust. In the course of his lecture, Brunner referred several times to the Devil. One was not surprised, then, that in the question period a student asked him why he, a modern human being, should have mentioned the Devil. It was a polite question, behind which lay the recognition that we live in the scientific age. Brunner's response: 'I have referred to the Devil for two reasons. First, I find that he plays a very important role in Scripture. And second, I have seen him.'"
I'm not sure I can add anything to this, except to say that I've too often played the role of "polite, sincere, modern human being", quietly smirking at the supernatural aspects of faith while being completely confident of my own intellectual understanding and ability. Thank God I'm growing out of that smug, arrogant confidence in my own understanding.
2) The Devil may be real, but the Devil is not a cartoon character.
I do believe in non-embodied, non-human, spiritual 'forces' that are in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These might be ideas, philosophies, addictions, certain 'attitudes' that seem to take over a person (lust, rage, despair). In some cases, I would call these things demonic or satanic, especially when it comes to abusive rage or life-depleting addictions. In Job, what we translate in English as Satan is in Hebrew known as ha-satan, which is a title and not necessarily a name. This can be roughly translated as "The Accuser". Just from that little piece of interpretative information, my pastoral insight might be that we all carry around with us a satanic mentality of accusation, about ourselves or about other people. Many of us constantly berate ourselves for being stupid, ugly, worthless, etc. This is an accusatory, even satanic way of thinking about ourselves. And we do this to other people, ascribing motives to people because we don't like them ("why does so-and-so hate me? They're trying to ruin my life!") This, too, is a satanic way of thinking, at least in terms of how the ha-satan is presented in Job.
In the New Testament, the Devil (in the Greek, "diabolos", which means "slanderer"; this is consistent with the ha-satan found in Job) is presented as a tempter, a liar, a killer, and an enemy of God. However, and this is especially true of Paul, Satan is not the primary enemy. The enemies of God are sin and death. Additionally, in terms of the Bible, Satan is not the primary enemy at all. That would be idolatry. The worship of false gods is prominent throughout Scripture. But that doesn't translate into cartoonish caricatures as easily as the Devil.
3) The Devil is defeated.
A few years ago, I figured out why I don't give much thought to the devil and what is known as the "demonic" - if they exist (and I'm increasingly convinced they do, though again not as personifications), they are already defeated. I have nothing to fear from them. The enemies of God and of human flourishing - sin, death, Satan, demonic forces - have been defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can live my life free from fear and free to serve Jesus Christ. James says it best: "Resist the devil and he will flee." Paul also says: "Make no room for the devil." So, I don't constantly feel threatened by spiritual attack nor do I see the purposes of Satan around every corner. They are defeated and God is at work reconciling the world to Himself through Jesus.
4) Satan is not a competing god.
Part of what the problem is that we are, generally speaking, very dualistic in our thinking. This makes the world easy to define: good/bad; light/dark; God/devil. Many Christians tend to think that Satan is simply the "evil version" of God. This is not the case. If anything competes for that position as "rival", it would be the various idols that we worship in our culture: fame, self, money, comfort, etc. And the truth of the matter is, God has no competition. The Lord reigns. That is my proclamation and I fear no threat from any spiritual force. Now, with that said, we still must contend with the spirits of conflict, despair, apathy, anger, addiction - all of these may properly be called satanic, in the sense that they will continue to accuse. The "spirit" of satan is the spirit of accusation and slander. The accusations are many and they do lead Christians into difficulty and sin. "God is not real." "You are not loved." "You are not worthy." "This person or that person is not worthy."
A real temptation here is to assume that anything that we disagree with indicates the presence of satan. For example, if I push my congregation to examine where their allegiance to their country might be at odds with their faith in Jesus, they may not like that. But that doesn't make it satanic. Or if I tell my congregation about the deficiencies I see in our life together as the church, I might be accused of introducing conflict, of bringing dissent into the church, which might be construed as "satanic". Not every word of challenge or conviction is satanic. Any word that denigrates your worth as a child of God is satanic. Any word that seeks to diminish the love of Jesus and the power of God for salvation is satanic, in the sense of being opposed to the will of God.
Here's where I'm winding up nowadays. In Mark 8, Jesus tells the disciples that he must suffer and be killed. Peter pulls Jesus aside and tells him that this can't happen. Jesus says, "get behind me satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." When Jesus calls Peter "satan", I don't think that Jesus actually means that Peter is the Devil or that he is possessed. I believe that what Jesus is saying is that Peter is playing the role of "opposer", standing in the way of Jesus fulfilling God's will for his life. When we stand in the way of God's will, we too are being satanic. When Jesus is calling us to live a certain way or to do a certain thing and we oppose Him, we too, are being satanic. When we accuse our neighbors of being less than beloved children of God, we are being satanic.
May God give us the gift of discernment and the gift of faith as we seek to live in line with His will
Grace and Peace to all of you!
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Revelation Introduction, part III
Haven't blogged in a few weeks, for several good reasons. My son had what turned out to be minor surgery a couple of weeks ago - he's fine and basically fully recovered. I've also had a lot of stuff going on at the church, so my posting has been non-existent. I hope that I'll be able to get back on track. Anyways, I want to continue my look at Revelation as I teach through the book over the next few months. I've been thinking about how I want to engage Revelation on the blog as I'm teaching and I don't think I want it to simply be a repetition of what I teach. I'm think that on the blog, I'll write about my own reflections on the text in terms of theology and in terms of what the book might have to teach us related to spiritual growth.
I have given some thought about how I might discuss the interpretation of Revelation as it relates to the recent Left Behind phenomenon. This series represents the system of interpretation known as Darbyism, named after John Nelson Darby. Darby was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the church, joined the Plymouth Brethren and spent years devising the "system" that would come to be known as premillenial Dispensationalism. This is the system spelled out in narrative form in the Left Behind series, and it includes a belief in the Rapture, a 7 year period of tribulation, the Antichrist, and a final climactic battle between the Antichrist and Christ. There are a great number of details in this system that I'm not going to elaborate on - I don't have the time or interest in doing so. Suffice it to say that (a) I'm not a Darbyist; (b) I don't subscribe to a belief in the Rapture; (c) I have a lot of trouble with the interpretative methods used by the Darbyists; and (d) I have even more trouble with the theological exclusivism of many Darbyists ("If you don't believe in the Rapture, then you're not a Christian.") Maybe at some point I'll spell out in detail my thoughts about this, just not presently. I know that I said that this posting would be about Darbyism, but I'm not sure that I'm up to it at the moment...
So, some might ask, how does one interpret Revelation, or think about the "end times" apart from Darbyism? Here are some thoughts about that:
1) I do believe that Jesus Christ will return. Every time we Methodists recite the communion liturgy, we say: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." I believe this. And not in some fuzzy, ambiguous, "Jesus has come back in all of our hearts" kind of way. I think he's coming back. And I'm going to listen to Jesus on this - one, we don't know when; two, we will be surprised.
2) The return of Jesus Christ in no way, shape, or form diminishes my responsibilities and obligations as a Christian person in the present. Again, I'm going to listen to Jesus and what he says in Matthew 6:34 - "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today." I also like what Luther had to say about the return of Christ. When asked how he would respond if Christ was returning tomorrow, Luther said (basically) "I would plant a tree today." (Lutheran friends, correct me if I'm wrong). Even if he didn't say it, I like the sentiment. We are stewards of God's good gift today and what tomorrow holds does not change that.
3) Revelation is not a road map for the future - it has happened, it is happening, and it will happen. Revelation, in my understanding, is about what happens when the "curtain is pulled back" and we see the conflict between God/life and sin/death. The empires/powers of this world must ultimately fall under God's judgment, but they're taking a lot of people down with them. This is the way of human power and sin.
4) John of Patmos was writing, in large part, about the power of Roman Empire (and about the power behind the power). An interesting question that I've been grappling with the last 2 times that I have taught Revelation is "if John were writing this letter today, who would the Beast be?"
5) Revelation is ultimately inspiring book. If you read and study the book with patience and with one eye on the big picture, it can be immensely helpful in regards to discipleship. Far too many Christians view the book as something to be feared.
Later this week, I'll write my thoughts about chapter 1…peace and grace to you all!
I have given some thought about how I might discuss the interpretation of Revelation as it relates to the recent Left Behind phenomenon. This series represents the system of interpretation known as Darbyism, named after John Nelson Darby. Darby was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the church, joined the Plymouth Brethren and spent years devising the "system" that would come to be known as premillenial Dispensationalism. This is the system spelled out in narrative form in the Left Behind series, and it includes a belief in the Rapture, a 7 year period of tribulation, the Antichrist, and a final climactic battle between the Antichrist and Christ. There are a great number of details in this system that I'm not going to elaborate on - I don't have the time or interest in doing so. Suffice it to say that (a) I'm not a Darbyist; (b) I don't subscribe to a belief in the Rapture; (c) I have a lot of trouble with the interpretative methods used by the Darbyists; and (d) I have even more trouble with the theological exclusivism of many Darbyists ("If you don't believe in the Rapture, then you're not a Christian.") Maybe at some point I'll spell out in detail my thoughts about this, just not presently. I know that I said that this posting would be about Darbyism, but I'm not sure that I'm up to it at the moment...
So, some might ask, how does one interpret Revelation, or think about the "end times" apart from Darbyism? Here are some thoughts about that:
1) I do believe that Jesus Christ will return. Every time we Methodists recite the communion liturgy, we say: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." I believe this. And not in some fuzzy, ambiguous, "Jesus has come back in all of our hearts" kind of way. I think he's coming back. And I'm going to listen to Jesus on this - one, we don't know when; two, we will be surprised.
2) The return of Jesus Christ in no way, shape, or form diminishes my responsibilities and obligations as a Christian person in the present. Again, I'm going to listen to Jesus and what he says in Matthew 6:34 - "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today." I also like what Luther had to say about the return of Christ. When asked how he would respond if Christ was returning tomorrow, Luther said (basically) "I would plant a tree today." (Lutheran friends, correct me if I'm wrong). Even if he didn't say it, I like the sentiment. We are stewards of God's good gift today and what tomorrow holds does not change that.
3) Revelation is not a road map for the future - it has happened, it is happening, and it will happen. Revelation, in my understanding, is about what happens when the "curtain is pulled back" and we see the conflict between God/life and sin/death. The empires/powers of this world must ultimately fall under God's judgment, but they're taking a lot of people down with them. This is the way of human power and sin.
4) John of Patmos was writing, in large part, about the power of Roman Empire (and about the power behind the power). An interesting question that I've been grappling with the last 2 times that I have taught Revelation is "if John were writing this letter today, who would the Beast be?"
5) Revelation is ultimately inspiring book. If you read and study the book with patience and with one eye on the big picture, it can be immensely helpful in regards to discipleship. Far too many Christians view the book as something to be feared.
Later this week, I'll write my thoughts about chapter 1…peace and grace to you all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)