I’m a fan of expository speaking. Lest someone misunderstand, I fully agree that there is a time and place for topical sermons. Generally, however, I think the church is far better served by a steady diet of consistent, systematic explanation of the biblical text. There are lots of advantages to the expository approach. For one thing, it helps counteract the tendency of preachers to ride their favorite hobby horses. It forces you to talk about the subjects actually in the text rather than the enthusiasm of the day. Similarly, systematic expository speaking forces you to deal with the difficult and hard subjects you’d rather avoid. For example, it may not be politically correct to talk about adultery and divorce. But, if you’re doing an expository series on the “Sermon on the Mount,” you can’t sweep under the rug what Jesus had to say on the subject – regardless of whether it happens to offend somebody. In short, expository speaking is more likely to provide a congregation with a healthier and balanced diet than other approaches.

However, this brings up a related problem. We might need to provide explanations of the biblical text, but how can we make it interesting? How can we be faithful to the text without a sermon becoming a dry-as-dust commentary? In what sort of package should we convey content?

Let me approach the answers to these questions in a round about way:

The problem of how best to convey content has become even more important to me as I’ve branched out into writing books – particularly novels. Writing is a discipline as well as an art. I’m still learning my craft. In the process I’m trying to assimilate all the writing advice I can. There’s a lot to learn. On the “macro” level there are things like plot, structure, character, voice and world building. While there’s no doubt I need to work on those things, I still struggle with some of the more mechanical aspects of writing. Avoiding the more common pitfalls has not yet become as instinctive as it should.

Writing books and blogs are remarkably consistent in their lists of what to avoid. For example, “show, don’t tell” is a mantra common to all of them. They insist that we should replace adverbs – particularly those ending in “ly” – with strong active verbs. They are death on the use of passive voice – the subject of a sentence should act rather than be acted upon. (See what I did there?!) They say not to use the verb “to be.” Here’s a passage from one writing book:

“Worst of all to be’s forms is the past perfect tense. You can recognize it by the word had – a red flag of danger in your story every time.
“For had describes not just a static state, but a static state in the past: “He had traveled far that day.” “I never had realized how much I loved her.”
“Each had makes your story jerk, because it jars your reader out of the present action and throws him back into history.
“…throw in enough… hads, and your story grinds to an aching, quaking halt. Forward movement stops. Your reader finds himself bogged down in history.
“This is the kiss of death. No one can change what’s already happened. To waste any time on it is, at best, an irritation…” (Dwight V. Swain, Techniques Of The Selling Writer, University of Oklahoma Press, 1965, p. 28)

As valuable as the advise on the rules of writing may be, it doesn’t give the whole picture. Recently I re-read an old favorite of mine, The Fellowship Of The Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien. With the “rules” of writing stuck in my head, having just edited a book of my own, I found the following passage amusing:

“The hobbits had been nearly two months in the House of Elrond, and November had gone by with the last shreds of autumn, and December was passing, when the scouts began to return. Some had gone north beyond the springs of the Hoarwell into the Ettenmoors; and others had gone west, and with the help of Aragorn and the Rangers had searched the lands far down the Greyflood, as far as Tharbad, where the old North Road crossed the river by a ruined town. Many had gone east and south; and some of these had crossed the Mountains and entered Mirkwood, while others had climbed the pass at the source of the Gladden River, and had come down into Wilderland and over the Gladden Fields and so at length had reached the old home of Radagast at Rhosgobel. Radagast was not there; and they had returned over the high pass that was called the Dimrill Stair. The sons of Elrond, Elladan and Elrohir, were the last to return; they had made a great journey, passing down the Silverlode into a strange country, but of their errand they would not speak to any save to Elrond.”

In that one paragraph I count twelve instances of the past perfect tense and one instance of the passive voice!

A couple of pages later we find this:

“The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars set between the crescent Moon and the rayed Sun, and about them was written many runes; for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor. Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again; the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen. And Aragorn gave it a new name and called it Andúril, Flame of the West.”

By my count, that one paragraph contains four examples of the passive voice!

Tolkien also seems overly fond of adverbs and “filler words.” (See what I did there?!) Here are just a few examples to illustrate the point: “At that moment Elrond came out with Gandalf…” “Suddenly Aragorn leapt to his feet.” “Suddenly Gimli, who had pressed on ahead…” “Sam stood sullenly by the pony…” “Then slowly on the surface, where the wizard’s hands had passed…” “At that moment from far off the wind bore to their listening ears the howling of wolves.” “Pippin felt curiously attracted by the well.” “…the road sloped down swiftly…” “They stumbled wildly up the great stairs…”

Such phrases litter Tolkien’s writing.

According to the pundits all of these are examples of poor or careless writing. Yet, there is no question that The Lord Of The Rings epic is one of the most seminal, influential and important pieces of literature of the 20th century. It is a classic which endures. The books have inspired and given hope to tens of thousands. They have impacted whole generations. Millions of people count the books among their favorites.

How can a work be so beloved when the writing is so “bad”? One possibility is that the experts are wrong. Perhaps the generous use of adverbs and the passive voice are not always indications of poor writing after all. It’s fairer to say that the experts are right, but that it is a mistake to take a generality and turn it into a rigid rule. A master of his craft like Tolkien can deliberately “break” the rules to create the effect and mood he wants to evoke.

However, the more complete answer is that story trumps presentation. Tolkien’s world is so rich, deep, layered and consistent, his story is so sweeping and compelling that we are more than willing to overlook his relatively minor sins of presentation. The story carries us along. It moves us. We care about the characters. We feel with them. We see the reflections of their victories and defeats in our own souls. Their heroism, valor and integrity moves us to become more heroic, more valorous and true. Similarly, we can relate to their indecision and sorrow. Who can remain untouched by the Lady Galadriel’s choice who, when offered the Great Ring, remains true to herself even though it means she must diminish and lose all that she loves and has fought for in Middle Earth?

The concept of story, I think, provides the key to making our expository teaching and speaking effective and powerful. We need to find ways of being true to the text while, at the same time, making the content relevant and useful to the hearer. We can use the elements of story to bridge the gap.

Here’s an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about: The first chapter of the book of Ruth portrays one of the main characters, Naomi, as a bitter woman with a grievance against God. She is so out of sorts that she even tells the women of Bethlehem to call her Mara, which means bitter. One of the questions we need to ask when reading the text is why Naomi is bitter. What is it that brought on the state she is in? After studying the passage we can legitimately conclude that if we reject God’s discipline (God promised there wouldn’t be any famine if the Israelites obeyed the Law) it will lead us to rationalize and justify further wrongdoing (moving to Moab and marrying her sons to Moabite girls, which God said not to do). This, in turn, leads us to deny any responsibility for the consequences of what we’ve done. Denial of our own responsibility causes us to blame someone else – namely, God. We can’t trust God when we’re blaming Him. Therefore, we become bitter towards Him.

This is fine, as far as it goes. The teaching is plain and concise. But even though I used the word “we” it’s still abstract, head knowledge. It doesn’t grab our emotions. We can present the same information more effectively by looking at the situation through Naomi’s eyes.

Imagine her saying this: “There’s a famine in Bethlehem, if we want to eat we’ll have to go somewhere else. They’ve got plenty of food in Moab. Let’s go there. Well, we’re in Moab not Israel, who else is there to marry but a Moabitess? I’m sorry that she’s a pagan, but would you please show me someone around here who isn’t? Hey, I’m not to blame for what happened, God’s the one who forced us to move here. Some God He is! He makes us come down here and then kills my family and leaves me saddled with a couple of pagan daughters-in-law.”

Looking at the situation from Naomi’s perspective helps us to empathize with her and internalize the lesson. We start to feel her emotions instead of just looking at her actions.

Here’s another example of the kind of thing which can be done with story elements in expository presentations. This is an excerpt from a sermon I delivered on John, chapter 21. Notice how I express the implications of what Jesus and Peter said by couching it in the form of further conversation. I think it is more effective than merely explaining the meaning of what they said.

“After breakfast Jesus took the initiative and asked Peter a question. It’s probably significant that Jesus didn’t address Peter by the name that He, Himself, had given him. He called him Simon instead of Peter. There was still some unfinished business between the two. Peter had denied Jesus. He had acted according to his old nature rather than as the rock Jesus had called him. They were seated around a charcoal fire. This was probably something which Jesus had arranged deliberately. No doubt, it brought to Peter’s mind the other charcoal fire which had led to his downfall. It was time for Peter to make another choice and get his priorities straight.
“Jesus asked, “…do you truly love me more than these?” (John 21:15 NIV) It’s not clear exactly what Jesus meant. Did He mean, “Do you really love me more than the other disciples do?” In the upper room, shortly before the crucifixion, Peter made the boast, “…Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” (Matthew 26:33 NIV) In spite of the boast, he fell. Now Jesus was asking whether he still thought he was better than the other disciples.
“There’s another possibility, too. By referring to “these” Jesus might have meant the boat and the net. In other words, “Am I more important to you than your business and occupation?”
“The word Jesus used for love is “agape”. It is the kind of love which God has. It is not a feeling. It is the decision or act of the will to do whatever is best for the object of your love. It is the kind of sacrificial love which gives for the benefit of the other.
“It’s interesting that in his reply, Peter didn’t use “agape”. Instead, he used the word “phileo” which means affection. “Yes Lord, you’re aware that I’m fond of you.”
“Jesus didn’t debate Peter. Instead He issued him a directive: “Feed my lambs.” Our love for the Lord is not demonstrated by our words, but by doing the work He has given us to do. “Peter, you’ve been throwing your weight around and talking like a big-shot. But I need somebody who will be gentle and show kindness to those who are weak and vulnerable. Part of loving me is nurturing the people I entrust to you.”
“It must have been a relief to Peter that Jesus still accepted him and trusted him to do an important task. But it must have been disconcerting when, a little while later, Jesus repeated the question. Jesus again used the word “agape” and Peter again replied with “phileo.” This time, Jesus told him to “Take care of my sheep.” (John 21:16 NIV) “Peter, you’ve gone back to fishing, but I’ve called you to something else. You’re supposed to be a shepherd. Is your affection for me strong enough to make you switch careers?”
“Peter had denied Jesus three times. Jesus asked Peter three times whether he loved Him. The first two times, Jesus used the word “agape.” The third time, Jesus used “phileo.” “Peter, do you even have the affection for me you say you do?”
“This time, Peter was hurt. In his reply he said, “You know that I do!” Jesus, again, told Peter to feed His sheep. And, Jesus took it further. He told Peter how he was going to die. “Peter, in the upper room you said that you were willing to die for me. You’ve just said, three times, that you care for me. Is your love strong enough to see it through?”
“Peter learned his lesson well. From the way John phrases it, it is clear that Peter had already been executed for his faith at the time John wrote. And, John says that Peter glorified God in his death. Jesus’ trust in Peter was not misplaced.”

Granted, it’s a lot easier to do this sort of thing with narrative passages than it is with doctrinal arguments like the first few chapters of Romans or Hebrews. But it’s not impossible. Theological exposition doesn’t have to be dull. At the very least, we can incorporate story in the illustrations we use to make our points. Jesus did it all the time when He told the parables.

I’m of the opinion that the more we learn to use the elements of story, the more effective we will become in presenting content. It is story which touches our emotions and causes us to care about the information our minds perceive.

It’s not often I have the urge to answer the idiocy I encounter on the Internet. There seems little point. Such “discussions” generally produce more heat than light. I’ve got better things to do than contribute to some flame war. I can understand if you feel differently about this than I do. After all, if nobody calls people on the idiotic things they say about the church and the Bible, then it is only those idiotic things which will remain in the public view. “Answer a fool according to his folly,” Solomon said, “or he will be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:5 NIV)

That’s all well and good, but the verse just prior to that says, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.” (Proverbs 26:4 NIV) The way I see it, it’s a no-win situation. It’s not likely you’ll change any minds by engaging. At best you end up agreeing to disagree. I figure the most beneficial thing we can do is present the truth on our own platforms. Then, we hold the high ground if somebody wants to disagree. They’re on our turf. Our rules apply. If necessary, we can cut trolls off at the knees.

Having said all that, not too long ago I was sorely tempted to break my own rule and respond to some idiotic statements somebody made on his blog about the Bible, the writers thereof and Jesus Christ. What made the situation particularly galling is that the theme of the blog, and even of the post in question, is far removed from religion, let alone Christianity. In regard to the stated theme of the blog, the author is someone whose opinion I respect.

Though the situation still bugs me, I finally decided to retain my status as a lurker. What tipped the scale in favor of remaining silent was the man’s smug, condescending, arrogant attitude of superiority on the subject. He claims to be a skeptic – that he’s open to evidence and that he always challenges his own assumptions. Yet, it was obvious from his replies to a believer who, oh so gently and politely, demurred from what he said in the blog post that this man made up his mind long ago about the Bible and Christ. Far from being open he either dismisses evidence or twists it to suit his own preconceived notions.

It reminded me of an exchange I read some years ago between a believer and someone who called himself an atheist. The atheist claimed that he could see no evidence for the existence of God. The believer asked the atheist what sort of evidence it would take to convince him of God’s existence. The atheist immediately moved the goal-posts by asking the believer to define what he meant by “God.” It rapidly became obvious to me (and, I think to everyone else who read that exchange) that no amount of evidence of any kind would be sufficient to convince the atheist that he was wrong. He had already made up his mind that God could not exist, ergo, by definition, any evidence to the contrary is misleading or misinterpreted. Therefore, no matter what evidence you produce, or what arguments you use, it will never be enough to convince him. To put it another way, he is intellectually dishonest and self-deceived. I got the same impression this time around. The blogger claims to be a skeptic. In reality, when it comes to God and Christianity, it looks very much like his mind is closed to facts and logic.

The man wrote that he gave up belief as a teenager because his parish priest couldn’t answer his questions about the Bible. Really? That’s a pretty lame excuse. Since when is someone else responsible for our faith or lack thereof? I’m sorry the priest couldn’t answer his questions. But it sounds like the priest is a convenient scapegoat. I doubt the priest could have said anything to change the determination this man had already made.

Let’s suppose the priest genuinely couldn’t answer reasonable and sincere questions about the Bible. Is the priest the only authority in the world? Obviously not. There are plenty of sources which can answer questions about the authenticity of the Bible. There happens to be far more evidence for the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible than any other piece of ancient literature. It always amazes me that people claim to have doubts about the integrity of the biblical texts, yet accept that we have accurate copies of other works with far less manuscript evidence. Are people who question the biblical text merely ignorant, or are they hypocrites?

I have more sympathy for those who question the message of the Scriptures than I do for those who question the texts. I will freely grant that a superficial reading of the Bible – particularly the Old Testament – can raise questions about the character of God. The blogger emphatically stated that God, as portrayed in Scripture, is abusive because we are told to fear Him. How shallow! He does not inquire how the Bible defines “fear” (look up Proverbs 8:13). He does not look at context to see why we should fear God. He does not attempt to harmonize the various passages which speak of fear. He gives no consideration to passages which tell us to both fear and not fear. (Such as 1 Peter 3:1-6. The word in verse 2 which the NIV renders “reverence” is the Greek “phobos” from which we get phobia.) He makes no allowance for the biblical teaching about how love transforms fear (see 1 John 4:18). No! This man has apparently decided that fear is evil and, therefore, God must be abusive because the Bible instructs us to fear Him.

How can this man not realize that fear, as God made it and intends us to use it, is actually something extremely positive? It is fear which keeps us out of all sorts of dangerous situations. It is the person who does not have a “healthy respect” (which is what the biblical term “fear” often means) for power tools, firearms or automobiles who is at most risk of being harmed by them. How is God being abusive when it is a “healthy respect”, “awe” or “reverence” for Him which helps us avoid evil? Is the blogger a bad father if he tells his children that there will be consequences if they do not obey the guidelines he has established for his household? Is he an abusive father if he instills a fear in them which will keep them from “crossing the line” into harmful behavior? Would he prefer that his toddler run into the road and be struck by a car rather than fear his displeasure for ignoring instruction? Does he love his children any less because he has instilled a fear of the consequences of wrong behavior in them? I would argue that if he hasn’t instilled such fear in his young children it is evidence that he doesn’t love them as he should. Yes, I agree that as a child grows and matures, the motive of the fear of consequences should be replaced by the motive of love. The child should do what pleases his father out of respect and love for his parent. He should not want to do anything which would harm his relationship with his parent. But until that time comes, fear is a very healthy emotion. It saves both the child and his parents much grief and heartache. How can this man not see that what is true in human parent-child relationships also holds true in our relationship with God? The logical disconnect is mind-boggling!

The blogger also bashes the God of the Bible because of the terrible things which happen in this world. He blames God for natural disasters, diseases and birth defects. He claims that a loving God would never have sent Noah’s flood. In reality, all this bleating merely shows a profound ignorance of the Bible’s message. (I’m being generous here. If it isn’t ignorance it’s something much worse – a deliberate distortion or rejection of the facts.) The truth is that it is the Bible which makes sense of the problems of pain, suffering and evil. If the Bible’s explanation is wrong, then either there is no God and therefore there is no meaning or hope to life at all (hence no reason to be disturbed by any natural disaster or anyone’s pain and suffering), or God is the “Cosmic Sadist” C.S. Lewis postulates in his book A Grief Observed.

The Bible’s explanation is really quite simple. And it is elegant in that it accounts for all that we see and experience. The world we know is not how God created it nor how He intended it to be. He created it good and perfect. But, if God is going to allow us free will, it follows that He must also grant us the possibility of doing wrong. If people choose to do evil, then evil will be in the world. It is inevitable. It could not be otherwise. The presence of evil in our world is not a reflection upon God but the inevitable result of personal choices we made to do evil. God cannot grant choice and at the same time prevent evil from occurring.

The blogger’s complaint ignores this basic principle of action and consequence. Each action has a result. Not only is the presence of evil in the world a result of our choice, the Bible teaches that there was another consequence of that choice. The act of doing wrong altered the very nature of this world. Disease and disaster were not meant to be. But they are the consequence of what we did. Who is to blame? God for giving us the choice, or us for wrecking the perfect world He gave us? If I choose to walk off the roof, is God to blame that I smash my bones on the pavement below? Is the builder of a house to blame if I choose to set fire to it?

Even if that were the only message of the Bible, we would not be justified in blaming God for the mess we find ourselves in. We could only pine for paradise lost. But that is not the end of the story. Though God would be perfectly within His rights if He left us to stew in the consequences of our own decisions, He gives us a way out. Just as He created us and our world perfect, through Jesus Christ He is in the process of re-creating both us and nature. One day those of us who love Him and respond to His offer of redemption will inherit a new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13).

What I find particularly irritating about the blogger’s line of un-reasoning is that he, himself, is an author and, therefore, a creator. As such he should have an understanding of the principle of action and consequence. He should have an intuitive understanding of God the Creator, for he himself creates characters and the environments in which they live. As an author I doubt that he gives his characters as much choice and freedom of action as God gives us. Yet, if his stories are to make any sense at all, the characters he invents must experience the consequences of the actions they perform. If nothing happens as a result of what they do – if there is no connection between actions and results – the plot will be illogical, random and meaningless. Yet this man rails against God because we experience the consequences of what we do.

Not only that, there is another aspect of the creator/creature relationship he seems to ignore. He undoubtedly puts his characters in all sorts of uncomfortable situations. There would be no tension, suspense or conflict in his stories if he did not. They would be flat, insipid and boring. As the creator of these tales does he not have the right to put his characters into stressful or uncomfortable situations? Does he not have the right to determine the plot? Does he not have the right to say that if character X does Y, then Z will result, whereas if character X does not choose to do Y then A will occur? Is he a “terrible” author because he puts his people into difficulties? Is he a bad man because he decrees what is “right” for his characters to do and determines the consequences if they deviate from the morals or customs which he has designed for the society in which he places them? Why then, does he accuse God – the author of life – of being abusive and unjust when He determines the standards to which we, His creatures, should comply and the consequences which will result if we choose to deviate from those standards? It seems to me that this man allows himself the very privileges he denies God. I find the blogger’s attitude toward God more than a little hypocritical.

He also blames God for atheists. Why, he asks, if God is all knowing and all loving would He create someone to be an atheist? Note the illogical assumption. His question is predicated on people not having free will. According to him, we are born the way we are; we have no choice in whether we believe or not. Surely, the blogger’s every-day experience conclusively demonstrates that he does have the ability to choose. Since he has that capacity and exercises it every day, then how can he, with a straight face, blame God for the choices he freely makes? Even if God did create us so that we did not have free will, as Creator, that is His prerogative. Paul writes, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:20-24 NIV) I wonder how much guff the blogger takes from the characters he creates?

Not only does this man rail against the character of God, he disputes that God exists at all. He claims that people don’t need any divine being to tell them that everyone should get along together in love. The most charitable thing I can say about this sentiment is that it betrays a total lack of thought and understanding. The truth is that without the supernatural – specifically without God – there is no basis for love or any moral concepts at all. Throw God out and there is no reason to love. In fact, love cannot exist. Similarly, there is no reason for any moral constraints. “Might makes right” is the only principle left to you. In contrast, the instant you use the words “should” or “ought” you bear witness to the reality of something other than the material universe. This man wishes to have the benefits of Judeo-Christian morality – which is based solidly on the character of God – without the responsibility submitting to God who is the source of morality.

He claims that he would accept a being as God if that being performed miracles or created life before his eyes. So, what he is really saying is that God must fit into his mold before he will believe in Him. God must conform to his notions and do his bidding. Well, I’m sorry to break it to you, but such a god would not be worth believing in. Who are we to dictate to God what He must do? He is not a performing seal. If He is God, then we must come to Him on His terms, or not at all. And you would believe if you saw a miracle would you? Right. Tell me another. There were plenty of people who saw God “in the flesh” perform many miracles and still refused to believe (John 12:37). If the eyewitness accounts are not enough to convince you, then nothing will. “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.”” (Matthew 12:38-42 NIV)

The man claims he’d kneel before a being who would prove himself. Well, I’ve got news for you. The day will come when all creatures – whether in heaven or on earth or below the earth – will bow before Jesus and confess that He is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11). But when that happens it’ll be too late to change your mind. He’s already proved Himself and you wouldn’t accept the proof. You chose to reject it. That day you won’t have the choice. Since you refused to freely bow before Christ when you had the chance, you’ll be forced to bow whether you want to or not.

In spite of saying he would believe if he saw a miracle, this man also says that no church can persuade him because their answers always come down to faith. He then goes on to define faith as “belief without proof”. Even if we accept his definition (which is, at best, problematical and incomplete) it conveniently ignores the fact that everybody functions on the basis of faith. We might not believe a particular religious assertion or dogma but there are plenty of other things we take for granted without having proof. We simply couldn’t live our lives if we had to have proof for everything. Nobody takes the time to verify everything he’s told before he accepts it. How tedious life would be if we attempted to do so! No, this is simply a convenient excuse. I find it rather telling that in other posts this same blogger emphatically says that he has faith (his word) in certain processes or methods. So, either he is changing his definition, or he is undercutting his own argument. But then, when it comes to religion, this man isn’t very consistent.

Only God knows the heart, but the overwhelming impression I got was that, in spite of his assertion to the contrary, this particular “skeptic” has no interest in finding out whether God exists and, if so, no desire to serve Him. If the doubts and questions had been genuine and sincere it would have been a privilege and honor to show the man the truth. However, as I read his comments I couldn’t help but think that his problem is not one of intellect, but one of morals. If the God of the Bible truly does exist, he’d have to change the way he lives – and he wants to leave self on the throne. I found myself veering between feelings of pity and a weary disgust. Disgust because all of this stuff is the same, old, boring, insipid blather that’s been debunked a thousand times before. Unbelievers trot out these pathetic arguments as if they’re saying something original and brilliant while, in reality, they only demonstrate their own lack of wit and integrity. My sense of pity was aroused because I can’t help thinking how threadbare all of these excuses will sound when this man has to bow before the One he goes out of his way to deny and belittle. I also pity him because of the depth of life he’s deliberately turned his back on. He has this world’s goods, but how much richer his soul would be if he only was willing to submit himself to Christ!

What prompted my rant, however, is this man did say something which I don’t remember having heard before. It’s breathtaking for sheer audacity, condescension, presumption and arrogance. It is so “out there” and “over the top” that, at first, I couldn’t think how to answer as I was so busy metaphorically picking my “jaw off the floor”. He dismisses the writers of the Bible (and therefore what they wrote), specifically Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as “historical nobodies”. He even goes so far as to call Jesus Christ Himself an “historical nobody”. According to him they are “nobodies” because there are few or no mentions of them in contemporary writings. Since there are few or no mentions of these people, therefore – according to this blogger, it is doubtful whether they even existed. There isn’t really any evidence that they did.

The illogic is mind-blowing. First, notice the relatively minor point that someone is only worth listening to if he happens to be famous – or at least has a good publicity department. If you aren’t listed in the proper stud-book or contemporary who’s who, you have nothing to say. (The blogger skipped over the “minor” inconvenience to his assertion that in Jesus’ case we have full genealogies. We know exactly what His lineage is.) It occurs to me that if we are going to accept this argument, in order to be consistent, we’d have to dismiss or doubt the existence of a lot of other people, too. How would folks like Plato and Confucius fare under this requirement? Were they all that well-known in their own lifetimes? Is it not true that their teaching had its greatest influence after their deaths? If that is not a cause to doubt their existence, then why is it grounds to doubt whether Jesus lived?

To bolster his statement that Jesus is an “historical nobody” the blogger asks where, “in his own words” is Jesus’ gospel? Well, if you are going to doubt Jesus’ existence because He delegated writing down His teaching to the disciples, are you also going to doubt the existence of people like Alexander the Great? The only way we have to know what Alexander said and did, and the laws he passed are from the accounts of others. Does that make Alexander less of a historical person?

However, the thing which really boggled my mind is how can this guy dismiss Jesus as an “historical nobody” when Jesus and His teachings has, arguably, had a more profound effect on history than any other person? Frankly, in spite of this blogger’s notoriety on the Internet, he will never even remotely have the kind of impact on our world that Jesus continues to have. Yet Jesus, in his mind, is a “nobody”!

I really shouldn’t be surprised. The attitude merely demonstrates how different the mindset of the world is compared to those in the Kingdom of Heaven. It shows just how ignorant and uncomprehending this man is of the very teachings and writings he disdains and dismisses. The Apostle Paul described it long ago: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. (1 Corinthians 1:20-29 NIV)

So, if someone want to dismiss Jesus and the Apostles as “historical nobodies” go right ahead. It is those very “nobodies” God chooses and uses to fulfill His purposes. As for me, I would much rather be counted among the “nobodies” than to have all the honor and fame this world could give. I’d rather endure the mocking of people like the blogger in this life than try to explain, when I have to face to my Creator why I refused to believe in Him. I’ll take Christ crucified over the “wisdom” of the world, any day.

It is probably no exaggeration to say that most Christians believe that the original texts of the Bible (the autographs) were inspired by God and contained no errors. The textual variations which currently exist result from the process of transmission and they do not change the meaning, and certainly not any major doctrine, in any substantiative way. This belief is certainly held by most evangelicals.

Unfortunately, the fact that we do not possess the originals is often used as an argument against the accuracy of the text. In some cases the assertion may simply reveal the ignorance of the critics. They don’t seem to realize that there are far more ancient copies of the biblical texts than any other ancient literature. Even if we had no copies of the actual text itself, we could reconstruct all but about two verses of the New Testament from quotations of it in ancient commentaries and other sources. In other cases, critics apply a double standard. They accept the accuracy of other texts of which we have far fewer copies while questioning the far greater evidence for the New Testament.

I enjoy speculating about how things would change if we ever do find some of the original texts. Almost all scholars seem to think that the originals have long since perished. But have they? I can’t help but think that the first Christians would have understood the importance of the writings of the Apostles and taken pains to preserve them. It won’t surprise me if someday we stumble across a document cache that has been lost to history. What a sensation that would be! Not only would it settle, once for all, the problem of textual variations, it would also settle a lot of questions about when the New Testament books were first written. It might even shake up our understanding of the canon (that is, which books the early Christians regarded as inspired). My guess is that an awful lot of scholarship – particularly the so-called “higher criticism” would have to be jettisoned.

Finding the originals of the New Testament was one of the “what if”questions which gave me the idea for an adventure novel. How would people respond to the discovery? What difference would the discovery make? What would the impact be on faith? Throw in some physical danger and a love interest, and I think I have the basis for a fairly decent yarn.

I had so much fun during National Novel Writing Month last November that I decided to do it again during “Camp Nano” in April. For whatever reason getting started was more difficult this time around. Still, I eventually hit my stride and was able to finish a 60,000 word manuscript before the end of the month.

I set the book aside for a while before tackling the inevitable edits and revisions with a fresh eye. Now the work is done and “Truth and Love” is available for purchase in both paper and ebook formats.

The blurb on the back cover of the paperback reads, “Professor of Linguistics, Stacy Foster still grieves for her late husband. Preacher Keith Campbell suffers from ministry burnout. While on a tourist jaunt to Turkey, a natural disaster forces them to trust and depend on each other for survival. In the process they stumble upon an archaeological discovery which, if brought to light, will forever change biblical scholarship. However, powerful forces are arrayed against them. Many would like to suppress the truth. Will Stacy and Keith give in and compromise their integrity to preserve the status quo? Or, will they put their reputations, their careers and their relationship at risk to stand up for the truth?”

My wife sits at the dining room table typing on her laptop computer. Her cat lies sprawled across her legs. Every so often my wife reaches down and strokes his fur or gives the root of his ears a scratch. It’s a scene of domestic bliss and contentment. Two beings at peace with one another and enjoying each other’s fellowship.

But as I watch them, another thought occurs to me. What does the cat make of what my wife is doing? The short answer is, nothing. Yes, he sees the screen of her computer. On occasion he seems mesmerized by the movement of my wife’s fingers as she types. Yet there is no comprehension. The cat simply is not equipped to understand what he sees much less grasp its significance. He has no inkling of written communication let alone the abstractions embodied in the computer – ethereal bits and bytes representing concepts and ideas – marks on a screen conveying thoughts.

Leaving technology and the abstract to one side, I wonder sometimes what the cat makes of more ordinary things. Is he puzzled by our clothes? Why and how does his mistress appear this way one day and that way the next? Is he astonished when he sees her remove or put on a sweater? After all, he can’t change his color by swapping his coat. Or, is he even capable of such thoughts?

Does the cat ever wonder about his food? He sees my wife scoop it out of a bag or spoon it out of a can. Does he ever ask where the food comes from or how it gets into the bag or can? Is he even able to form the questions?

From the cat’s perspective so much of what we do must seem random, purposeless, chaotic, beyond comprehension. So much must seem inexplicable or miraculous.

In some ways the gap between God and us is even greater than that between us and the cat. True, we are made in God’s image and the cat is not. Still, we share the same time-space continuum with the cat while God is beyond and outside material nature altogether.

Since God made us in His image we share some of His attributes. Among those attributes, we are moral beings in that we recognize the concept of right and wrong. We think in terms of should and ought. We are capable of abstract thought. And, perhaps one of the most marvelous attributes of God we share (at least when it is directed and tempered by God’s love) is the ability to imagine and create. “God spoke… and it was so.” Like God, we have the ability to conceptualize and visualize things which do not exist. Unlike Him we are unable to create material objects out of nothing, but we can imagine them. We can conceive of things and even beings which do not exist. We tell stories about them. Though, unlike God, we cannot give life to our creations, they live in our imaginations.

My own imagination is not nearly as highly developed as some. I read a lot of fiction and am often amazed at some of the concepts, plots and creatures I encounter in the pages of books (whether paper books or electronic).

The range of human thought and speculation is truly enormous. Yet, in spite of our capacity to imagine, we still cannot really comprehend God. Try as we might, we cannot envision Him as He really is. Part of the problem is that our material nature does not have the capacity to do so. As God told Moses, “…you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20 NIV) At best we can see a representation or an image of Him because, to enter His true presence would destroy the very fabric of our material bodies. “God is spirit…” (John 4:24) The matter and nature of this creation is incompatible with His spiritual nature. The incompatibility is so great Scripture says that when Christ became a man He had to empty Himself and become nothing (Philippians 2:6-7). Our reality is as insubstantial as a shadow or a faint mist compared to God’s presence.

Not only can we not see God as He really is – because it would destroy us as long as we are locked into this creation, we also have another limitation. The Apostle Paul hints at it in an intriguing comment he makes. He writes, “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory…” (Ephesians 3:20-21 NIV) No matter how great our imaginations are – and there are a lot of people who can imagine some pretty far-out stuff – they can’t even begin to compare with God and what He can do. We’re like the cat who is unable to comprehend what my wife does or why she does it.

All this points to one of the great hopes that Christians have: We can’t see much now; we can’t comprehend as we’d like; we don’t have the capacity to even imagine God as He is, but one day those limitations will be taken away. Paul writes, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12 NIV)

John agrees. He writes, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2 NIV)

Peter and John both write about the new heavens and the new earth which God’s people can look forward to. This nature will be destroyed. It’ll be gone and something new will take its place. The “laws of physics” as we know them will no longer operate. It’ll be something totally different because God will dwell with His people and we will be able to see Him as He really is. What will it be like? I don’t know, brother, because it’s beyond what we can imagine!

My wife and I left the program with decidedly mixed feelings. On the one hand, the young people from our congregation we had gone to support did a bang-up job. The acting and singing was superb. On that level we thoroughly enjoyed the performance.

On the other hand we were, to put it mildly, bemused by the mixed message we’d gotten. I, in particular, was having a hard time processing what we’d seen and heard because of my background. The musical would have been totally inappropriate in the culture and country in which I grew up. In fact, the believers I know in that land would have been highly offended. They would have considered the musical blasphemous.

The incident got me thinking about the whole concept of blasphemy. I tend to be a bit hyper-sensitive about blasphemy because the country where I grew up now has a blasphemy law. If you happen to say anything deemed disrespectful or derogatory about the prophet of the majority religion or its holy books, you can easily find yourself facing a long time in prison, if not worse. When you’ve got that kind of thing hanging over your head, you tend to watch what you say and who you say it to. Innocent expressions, to which Americans wouldn’t give a second thought, can have deadly consequences.

With that in mind, I didn’t quite know what to make of what we’d seen and heard. For starters, the musical seemed to compare the words of Jesus to those of philosophers throughout history. But in what sense? I wasn’t sure. At first it appeared to me that the musical was saying that Jesus was simply another one of many philosophers and was on a par with them. However, the more I thought about it, perhaps it was trying to convey the message that Jesus’ words and thoughts were superior to all others. After all, the cast acted out many of Jesus’ parables and quoted verbatim almost the entire sermon on the mount. Can something which proclaims Jesus’ teaching to that extent be blasphemous?

I’ll also admit that the name of the production made me acutely uncomfortable. It was “Godspell” an obvious pun on “Gospel”. What grated on me was the implication that the “good news” of Christ was equivalent to magic. But wait! The word “spell” is merely the Middle English word for “talk” or “speech”. It was later that spell came to mean “words of power” and was associated with magic. Is it possible that the author of the musical was simply looking for a clever way to say, “This is God’s word”? Was he trying to say, “These are God’s powerful words”? Perhaps it was the author’s way of restating Hebrews 1:3? With the connotations the word “spell” has these days, the pun in the title may be in poor taste, but I can’t really say that it’s blasphemous.

What is blasphemy, anyway? We usually think of blasphemy as speech which is directed against God. To be sure, the Bible does define it this way. It is speech which mocks, insults or reviles. It’s helpful to me to think of blasphemy as the opposite of confession. The core idea of confession is saying the same thing as God. For example, when we confess our sins, it is not just acknowledging that we did something contrary to God’s expectations, or that we didn’t live up to His expectations. Confessing sin really means that we say the same thing about our sin as God does. Similarly, when we confess Christ, we say the same thing about Him as God does. In contrast, blasphemy is a deliberate misstatement or misrepresentation of God’s character or words.

However, blasphemous words may only be a symptom of the real problem. While the Bible does associate words with blasphemy, it also gives another definition. Numbers 15:30 defines blasphemy as sinning defiantly. In Ezekiel 20:27 God defines blasphemy as forsaking Him or being unfaithful to Him. Romans 2:23-24 associates blasphemy with breaking the Law.

With that in mind, I have to ask who is most guilty of blasphemy – the person who uses God’s name in casual cuss words, or those of us who call ourselves by Christ’s name yet still have a worldly lifestyle? Is it a musical that portrays the sermon on the mount which is blasphemous or we who refuse to do what the sermon tells us we ought? Something to think about.

Perhaps one of the most perplexing conundrums people face is the notion of free will, on the one hand, and the sovereignty of God on the other. Unless people have true freedom of choice, how can God possibly be just in punishing anyone for doing evil? How can God hold them responsible for something which God made them do and in which they had no choice?

On the third hand, both good Calvinists and Muslims maintain that if things can happen which are contrary to God’s will, it means that God is not totally sovereign – His power is diminished.

The answer is, of course, that though God is totally sovereign, He has deliberately limited His own power, for a time, to allow people genuine choice. Nothing can happen that God does not allow, but He allows things which are contrary to His will. Because God allows people to choose He can also, with perfect justice, hold them accountable for their choices.

This raises some interesting questions. To what extent does God withdraw Himself from human history? We all know that He allows horrible, even cataclysmic, things to take place. Yet Christians also have Jesus’ promise that nothing can take us out of His and the Father’s hand (John 10:28-29). Paul writes that nothing can separate us from Christ’s love (Romans 8:35-39), and the writer of Hebrews assures us that God will never forsake us (Hebrews 13:5-6).

Since we have these promises of God, by what means does He intervene in our lives? Hebrews 1:14 raises an intriguing possibility. There it says that angels are sent to serve those who will inherit salvation – that is, Christians. Another passage hints that we may actually encounter angels without our knowing it (Hebrews 13:2).

Though each of us has free will, and that means we may have to suffer as the result of someone else’s exercise of their freedom, I suspect that God probably interferes in our lives (or rather, directs or intervenes in our lives) far more than we realize. I also suspect that we often do not recognize the agents of divine intervention. We would probably be shocked and humbled if we knew what all God has spared us from and what forms His angels have taken while ministering to us.

These ideas and themes found their way into the novel I wrote last November during National Novel Writing Month. In it a guardian angel takes an unusual form (unusual as far as I know, that is!). Hence the title of the book: Pi-Dog Miracle.

One of the possible consequences of free will (it was not inevitable) is that people will choose to do what is wrong. A major purpose of Jesus’ coming was to redeem us from the results of our sinful choices. In addition to Christ’s sacrifice, redemption takes many forms depending on the circumstances and the individual. This, too, is one of the major themes in the book.

The plot centers around a Bible teacher who is trying to find his equilibrium after his wife’s death. He feels God’s call to leave his home in America to set up a training program for church leaders in Pakistan. In the process of finding renewed purpose, God uses him to redeem several others. His loneliness is filled from an unexpected source.

I hope you have as much fun reading the book as I had writing it. You can get your copy from the links in the right sidebar.

How being in covenant should impact us as a church.

In a previous post, I wrote about what it means to be in the marriage covenant. In this post I want to explore being in covenant relationship with God and what that means to the church. When we realize what it means to be in covenant relationship to God, it changes our whole perspective. We learn to look at God differently. We look at Scripture differently. We look at the world differently.

It follows that when people who have learned to look at everything through the lens of covenant, come together as a church, that church will also see things differently than it did before. Imagine a church filled with people who are alive to what it means to be in covenant relationship.

Before talking about that, let’s explore the concept of covenant a little more.

Characteristics of God’s covenant with us.

1) The heart of covenant is doing what is best for the other person. When I enter into a contract with somebody, I do so for my own self-interest. In contrast, if I offer to enter into a covenant with someone, it is for the benefit of the other person.

God has offered to bring us into covenant relationship with Himself. That means that He is looking out for our best interests. He’s working for our benefit. When we understand that, it changes our whole view of God.

Many people have the idea that they have to try to win God’s favor. But if you are in covenant with Him, you already have it. We don’t have to prove that we’re good enough – the truth is that we aren’t – but God still does what is best for us. We don’t have to act like we deserve God’s goodness – we don’t – but because of the covenant He showers His goodness on us regardless of how unworthy we are, or how many times we fail.

Trying to work your way into God’s good graces is as ridiculous as trying to earn an inheritance. You receive an inheritance because you’re part of the family, not because you earned it. It’s yours because of who you are, not because of what you’ve done. If we are in covenant relationship with God, we have an inheritance because we’ve been adopted into His family – we don’t have to earn it!

2) Grace is one of the key characteristics of the covenant God makes with us. You may have heard grace defined as the difference between our efforts and the perfection which God demands. That makes grace sound passive and inert. Even worse, a lot of people have the attitude that since God will make up the difference, grace gives them a license to do whatever they like.

But grace is not a stop-gap; it is not passive; it is not a license. In reality it is an aid to help us keep the covenant. It is the power God gives us to do what is right. For example, Acts 20:32 refers to the “word of grace” as something which builds us up. Titus 2:11-12 says, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,” (NIV)

Rules merely define what is right or wrong. Grace enables us to avoid what is wrong and to live right.

3) Entering into covenant always involves making a pledge. In Old Testament times, people entering into a covenant relationship would kill an animal. Then, they would split the carcass down the middle and walk between the two halves. By doing so, they were pledging to keep the terms of the covenant. They were saying, “May what was done to this animal happen to me, if I break this covenant.” For example, Jeremiah 34:18 says, “The men who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces.” (NIV)

4) There is an essential difference between the Old and the New Covenants. The Old Covenant was based on a written law. Keeping the covenant meant obeying the 613 rules that God gave Moses. It depended on human effort – and no one, except Jesus, was able to keep it.

In contrast, God describes the New Covenant this way: “…I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10 NIV) The Old Covenant was external, the New Covenant is internal. When we enter into the New Covenant, our old person dies, we are baptized into Christ’s death and we are raised as a new person. As party to the covenant, we are being transformed into the image of Christ. Keeping covenant no longer depends on our own effort, but on the work of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Under a rule-based system our focus is on the boundaries – where’s the edge? How close to the line can I get without crossing it? In the New Covenant, we’re not worried about boundaries. Our focus is on Christ and becoming like Him. We don’t have to wonder about where the line is because we know that the closer we get to Christ – the more we become like Him – the further away from the edge we are.

With those things in mind, here are four very practical ways in which being in the New Covenant affects us as a church.

I. The Covenant Meal

In Old Testament times, eating a meal together was part of the process of entering into a covenant relationship. For example, Isaac and Abimelech ate a meal when they made a covenant (Genesis 26:26-31). When Jacob and Laban entered into a covenant relationship, they also ate a meal (Genesis 31:44-54).

What many people do not know, and I certainly did not realize until recently, is that when God entered into the Old Covenant with the nation of Israel, the covenant was not only ratified by sacrifices, but with a meal. The account in Exodus 24 reads: “…they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. …they saw God, and they ate and drank.” (Exodus 24:5-11 NIV)

If you’ve been in church very long at all, those words probably sound similar to some you’ve heard from the New Testament. “…The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV)

Just as a meal was involved in enacting the Old Covenant, a meal was involved in enacting the New Covenant. What is the significance? I’m sure that all of you recognize the passage above from 1st Corinthians 11, refers to what we call the Lord’s Supper. Unfortunately, the words are so familiar; we’ve heard them so many times, that they lose their meaning. For example, has it ever struck you as a bit odd that Jesus would command us to remember something which we did not experience? If I were to say to you, “Remember the retreat last year?” How, could you, if you were not there? How can we remember Jesus when we haven’t seen Him; how can we remember the Last Supper since we weren’t there?

The key is to understand that for the Jewish people remembering meant something much more than merely recalling to mind. Malcolm Smith describes it this way: “…to the Greek and Hebrew mind of the first century, “remember” described something totally different. First, it was not only a mental activity, a “thinking about” a past event, but an activity of the whole person – spirit, mind emotion, and body. Second, it meant to do the past event, not merely think about it. To remember meant to re-create the past event, bringing it into the present moment by reenacting it, employing rituals and symbols to do so. Third, to remember meant that the persons remembering totally identified with and participated in all the powers and effects of the original event. Every year the people of God in the Old Testament “remembered” their deliverance from Egypt in exactly this fashion, reenacting it in the Passover meal.” (Malcolm Smith, The Power of the Blood Covenant, Harrison House Publisher, Tulsa, OK, 2002, p. 163)

The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal. When we partake of it, we are reenacting the covenant. Here’s a very practical application of this: Do you remember what I wrote about people making a covenant pledge by walking between the halves of a sacrificed animal? Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you…” When He broke that bread, He was making the covenant pledge. When we break the bread during the Lord’s Supper we reenact the pledge Jesus made. When we take the bread and eat it, we renew our covenant pledge.

There are those who say that they can’t take the Lord’s Supper because they’ve really messed up during the past week. They’ve sinned and they’re not worthy to participate in it. My friend, when you feel that way, that is precisely when you need to participate! That’s exactly why you need to renew the covenant! We don’t partake because we are worthy, but because we are unworthy. If we were perfect, we wouldn’t need to renew the covenant. But even though we sin; even though we are unworthy, God, because of His grace, allows us to reenact the covenant; He allows us to renew the pledge and symbolically applies the blood of the covenant to our hearts again.

II. Unity – Discerning the Body

There is another aspect of the covenant meal. Paul not only refers to it as the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20), he also speaks of it as a participation or communion. “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16 NIV)

Theologians endlessly debate exactly what those words mean. But one thing all can agree on is that when we participate in the Lord’s Supper, He is there. We eat and drink in the presence of Jesus. He is at the table with us. We are eating and drinking with Him.

However, there is not only a vertical dimension to this communion, there is also a horizontal dimension to it. In the very next verse Paul writes: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1 Corinthians 10:17 NIV) In other words, the bread that we eat in the covenant meal not only symbolizes the physical body of Jesus but, also, the church.

John Marks Hicks describes the practical implications this way: “A second level of meaning is communion with the body of Christ, the church. Paul emphasizes the oneness of the church at the table. Though many, the church is one because it shares the one bread at the table. The unity of the church is rooted in the “common union” the church shares in Christ who has made the church one. When the church eats and drinks it shares the same body and blood. By visibly eating and drinking together the church exhibits the unity of the body in Christ. When we sit at the same table, we testify to our shared experience of the shared reality of Jesus Christ.” (John Mark Hicks, Come To The Table, Leafwood Publishers, 2002, pp. 111-112)

When we partake of the communion, we declare that the church is one; it is united. And this should be a powerful incentive to ensure that it really is. Are you out of sorts with one of your brothers in Christ? Have you wronged a brother? Has a brother wronged you? Then, go to him and get it resolved so that you can truly be united, and commune together as one at the Lord’s table.

The same author I quoted above says this about eating worthily: “…to eat and drink worthily is not about private introspection, but about public action. Paul is not stipulating a kind of meditative silence on the cross of Christ or an introspective assessment of our relative holiness. On the contrary, to eat in an “unworthy manner,” in this context, is to eat in a divisive manner like that which existed in Corinth. The church must examine itself about the manner in which the supper is conducted (1 Cor. 11:28). There may be many ways to eat the supper unworthily… but the specific unworthiness in 1 Corinthians 11 is a communal problem, not an individualistic one. The church eats worthily when it eats as a united community embodying the values for which Christ died.” (Hicks, op cit., p.124)

In the Supper, we not only renew our covenant relationship to God, but also our covenant relationship to each other.

III. Ministry – Table Fellowship

There is much more which could be said about the Lord’s Supper. However, I’ll mention just one more very practical application for the church:

Even though Jesus is the Lord of lords and King of kings, He came to serve. At the last supper He gave a very graphic illustration of this. Though He was the host of the supper, He acted as a servant and washed the disciple’s feet.

What does Jesus’ example mean for us? Here is one more passage from the author I quoted above: “The table is not about power, control or authority. It is not about clerical authority. It is not about gender prerogatives. It is about mutual service and ministry. The table is where we serve each other. The table embodies the mutual love and respect we have for each other as we sit at the table with the host who served us all…

“When disciples sit at the table together with Jesus as the host, they commit themselves to imitate him. They commit themselves to be servants. Just as Jesus served us, even to the extent of sacrificing his life, so disciples commit to serve each other as Jesus served them. We cannot sit at table with fellow disciples and then fail to serve them when they are in need. We cannot commune with each other at the table and then fail to commune with each other in the sharing of our possessions to meet each other’s needs. To sit at the table and deny ministry to another is to undermine the meaning of the gospel. The table must extend beyond the worship assembly as it shapes the ministry of God’s people throughout the week.” (Hicks, op cit., p. 79)

Each week, as we reenact the covenant and eat the covenant meal, let us renew our commitment to serve one another, as Jesus served us.

IV. Giving Grace

There’s a fourth area where having a good understanding of covenant, and looking at things through the lens of covenant, will have a dramatic impact on us as individuals and as a church.

Over the years, I’ve come to really appreciate the letter to the Ephesians. In the first three chapters, Paul describes what Christ has done for us. He contrasts what we were with what we are now in Christ. We were lost; we were dead; we were without hope. In Christ we’re saved; we’ve been made alive; we have an inheritance; we’ve been brought near to God; we’re members of God’s household.

In the middle part of the letter, Paul writes about the role of the church. And, in the last part, he talks about relationships.

In Ephesians 4, the Apostle Paul places a lot of emphasis on the kind of communication Christians should practice. In verse 15 he mentions “speaking the truth in love.” In verse 25 he writes that we are to “put off falsehood and speak truthfully.” And, in verse 29 he says, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” (NIV)

Unfortunately, the NIV translation obscures an important concept in that verse. The ESV puts it this way, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” In this verse Paul is contrasting talk which is unwholesome or which corrupts with talk which gives grace. In order to understand what he means by unwholesome or corrupting talk, we must first understand what he means by grace.

At the beginning of this essay I said that grace is an aid to help us keep covenant and the power God gives us to do what is right. Another way to define grace is the “blessings of the covenant.” It is the benefits which accrue to us because we are in covenant relationship. In addition, grace makes up for our shortcomings. When we are about to default on, or violate the covenant, it is grace which enables us to keep it.

In light of this, when Paul instructs us in Ephesians 4:29 to talk in such a way that it “gives grace to those who hear”, he could very well be saying that our speech should be such that it helps those to whom we are speaking, keep covenant. In contrast, then, ‘unwholesome’ or ‘corrupt talk’ is anything which would entice or encourage someone to break covenant, or make it harder for them to keep it. This idea can have a profound influence on how we talk.

Let’s apply this specifically to fellow brothers or sisters in Christ:

In verse 31, Paul says to get rid of slander. To slander someone is to make false accusations against him, or to misrepresent the facts about someone in a way which defames them or damages their reputation. You can see that slander and gossip go hand in hand.

We need to make sure that what we say about others is true; that we don’t go around spreading rumors. If we do, we’re guilty of unwholesome or corrupt talk. We are violating covenant by not extending grace either to the person we are talking about, or the person we are talking to. In contrast Peter writes, “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8 NIV)

In Ephesians 5:4, Paul expands on the kind of speech which is inappropriate: “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” (NIV)

Unfortunately, we often are guilty of talking about each other, or to each other, in the three ways of talking which Paul says are out of place.

1) Obscenity – This is using crude, coarse or suggestive language. When we use such language to talk to a brother or sister in the Lord, or to talk about them, we are treating them as objects rather than as persons with whom we have a covenant relationship.

2) Foolish talk – This is more than just stupid or pointless nattering. The Greek word from which this is translated includes the idea of sin. In other words, this is talk which encourages, whether intentionally or not, ungodly thinking, wrong attitudes and wrong actions. An example of such talk would be belittling a brother’s moral scruple.

3) Coarse joking – Though the word from which this is translated does indicate ribaldry, it originally included the concept of repartee, that is, a witty reply. Paul is not condemning being witty, or the quick come-back. He’s not against stimulating conversation. Where joking or repartee becomes wrong is a) When it becomes crude or coarse. b) When it is at the expense of someone else.

This can be a real problem. Someone will tell a funny story about another’s foible or make a joke at his expense. At first it may be in all innocence on the part of the one telling the story or joke. But a put-down is still a put-down even though intended in fun. The person who is the butt of the joke may feel unappreciated, demeaned or of less worth as a result – even though that was not the intention of the joke-teller. It also plants a subtle seed in the mind of the joke-teller. If you talk about someone in unflattering terms, it can turn into your actual perception of him or her. The problem with a joke with a barb, is that the barb remains even if the joke was intended in fun. What started out as an anecdote or joke can be the “thin edge of the wedge.” If allowed to build up over time, the barbs fester and the feelings can easily strain the relationship.

A related form of speech is deliberately telling jokes that the teller knows the other person will not understand, or will misunderstand, and then making fun of him or her for not understanding. This kind of thing can also take the form of deliberately saying things, as a joke, which will set the other person off or upset them. Whatever form it takes, when we indulge in this sort of thing we are telling the other person, “I’m better than you. You aren’t up to my level.” It is particularly harmful when it is done in public.

Is it wrong to tease? No. But make sure that whatever you say in public is something positive – something which will build him or her up in eyes of others, not tear down. Deal with problems in private, and not in the form of jokes.

If obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking are out, what kind of speech should we practice?

The giving of thanks. Just as obscenity and jokes with a barb tear down, showing appreciation and saying “thank you,” builds up. When we thank someone it says that they have value. We appreciate not only what was done, but the person who did it. In addition, saying something positive about someone helps us to think positive thoughts about him or her. Positive thoughts lead to positive feelings. One way we can strengthen our churches is to always be on the lookout for positive things to say about others. Our tongues can be a powerful tool in helping others keep covenant.

Application

1) What does the Lord’s Supper mean to you? Is it just an empty ritual that you go through every week, or do you take the time to renew your covenant relationship with the Lord and with your fellow believers when you partake?

2) Does participating in the Supper proclaim a unity that does not exist in your congregation? What will you do to heal the divisions in the body?

3) How well does the church serve the needs of those in the body? How can you improve the way you serve and minister to others?

4) What sort of talk is common in the church? Does it extend grace to people and help them to keep covenant, or does it tear down? Are you part of the problem? Do you slander or spread gossip? Think of a specific situation, or a specific person about whom you need to change the way you talk.

A look at the practical application of covenant.

Several years ago a friend of mine opened my eyes to the importance of covenant. He pointed out that we Christians can’t really understand our relationship to Christ and God without understanding covenant. He’s right. That’s how the New Testament describes our relationship. When you get right down to it, the Bible is not so much a record of history as it is a record of covenant history. In fact, the word “Testament” which we use to label the two major sections of the Bible is simply another word for covenant.

But what is a covenant? It’s my observation that even though we are in a covenant relationship with Christ and though Christ called the Communion we celebrate – many of us each week – a new covenant in his blood (1 Corinthians 11:25, etc.), few Christians really know what a covenant is. They would be hard pressed to define it or explain covenant to someone else.

So what is a covenant?

In some ways, a covenant is like a contract in that it is an agreement between two parties. These parties may be individuals, families, nations or, in some cases on God’s part, all of mankind. Like contracts, covenants define certain benefits which accrue to the participants and also define the penalties for breaking the terms.

However, there are significant differences between contracts and covenants. Unlike contracts, covenants are put into effect through blood. They are confirmed and commemorated with fellowship meals. They usually remain in effect for life. The penalty for breaking the terms of a covenant is usually death.

But perhaps the most significant difference is that contracts are selfish. If I negotiate a contract, it will be for the greatest advantage I can get, for the least cost. In contrast, we enter covenants for the benefit of the other party. Sure, we hope to be blessed by the relationship, but our motive for entering the relationship should be love. It is to bless the other party.

Malcolm Smith provides this definition of covenant: “A covenant is a binding, unbreakable obligation between two parties, based on unconditional love sealed by blood and sacred oath, that creates a relationship in which each party is bound by specific undertakings on each other’s behalf. The parties to the covenant place themselves under the penalty of divine retribution should they later attempt to avoid those undertakings. It is a relationship that can only be broken by death.” (Malcolm Smith, The Power of the Blood Covenant, Harrison House, 2002, pp. 12-13)

This definition reinforces the fact that contract and covenant represent two different world-views. Contract focuses on self and emphasizes obligations and rights. In contrast, covenant focuses on the other party to the covenant and emphasizes promises and blessings.

Notice also the line in the definition about “undertakings on each other’s behalf.” One of the characteristics of covenant, which distinguishes it from contract, is that the parties help each other to keep the terms of the covenant. If someone is in danger of default, the other person will do whatever is necessary to help him or her remain faithful to the covenant.

The marriage covenant

Let me illustrate with the covenant of marriage. A couple stands in front of a preacher. He opens his little black book (Yes, preachers really do have them!) and proceeds to read the marriage vows from it. He asks the man something like this: “Do you solemnly promise, before God and these witnesses, that you will love her, comfort her, honor, cherish and protect her, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer; and that, forsaking all others for her alone, you will faithfully perform to her all the duties which a husband owes to a wife, so long as you both shall live?”

After the man answers in the affirmative, he asks the woman something similar to, “Do you solemnly promise, before God and these witnesses, that you will love him, serve him, honor, cherish and obey him, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer; and that forsaking all others for him alone, you will faithfully perform to him all the duties which a wife owes to a husband so long as you both shall live?” (Adapted from The Star Book for Ministers, Edward T. Hiscox, Judson Press, 1990)

Notice what the focus of the vows is. It’s not about getting, but giving. It’s about doing what is best for the other person. It’s about helping the other person remain faithful to the relationship. Our culture has bought into the lie that marriages are 50-50 arrangements. That is, each partner should carry 50 percent of the load or responsibilities. But covenant teaches a different reality. Marriage is not 50-50. It is 100-100. Each partner accepts full responsibility for making the relationship work. Each partner also does whatever is necessary to ease the other person’s load and help him or her keep his or her commitment.

Do you want to know how to have a happy marriage? Put the principles of covenant into practice. It’s tragic that many couples forget their covenant promise. Instead of concentrating on doing what they vowed to do for their spouse, they start complaining they’re not getting as much out of the marriage as they should. The focus becomes self instead of serving one another. They start worrying about their rights instead of what is best for their spouse. I guarantee you that if couples wold concentrate on serving each other instead of their own selfish desires, almost all marital troubles would be solved.

The New Covenant

With that in mind, is it any wonder that Christ likens the New Covenant to a marriage? “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church – for we are members of his body.” (Ephesians 5:22-30 NIV)

Just think how much better, deeper and richer our marriages would be; how much deeper and satisfying our church experience would be, if we followed the example of Christ and learned to give ourselves up for one another, if we could just kill off our pride and selfishness and put the good of others before our own.

It’s time we practiced covenant.

Is God cruel or loving?

People have trouble enough dealing with the dilemma of why an all-powerful and loving God allows evil. Yet the Old Testament stories make it clear that God, not only allowed but, was very much involved in the events recorded there.

One mistake people make when reading the biblical accounts is to assume that just because God permits something, He condones it. However, if God allows free will, it follows that people will sometimes choose to do things which are outside His will. Not everything which occurred during this period had God’s blessing. He often rebuked people for what they did.

Though that is true, to a certain extent it begs the question. The fact is that God often, not only condoned but commanded massacres and genocide. What kind of God would do that? What sort of God would sanction bloody civil war, the destruction and looting of defenseless villages and the forced marriages of captive women?

In light of the facts, many have concluded that the God we read about in the New Testament cannot be the same as the God we encounter in the Old. How can the God who loves so much that He sent His only Son to redeem mankind possibly be the same as the vengeful, vindictive and seemingly cruel God we read about in Joshua and Judges? For example, the founder of the Foreign Legion wrote, “…Yahweh (Jehovah) is the tribal god of the Israelites. …By treating the threats and fulminations of Yahweh as the words of our God, we increase man’s misunderstanding of the divine Spirit. When we study the Gospels, we find much of the Old Testament to be at variance with the teachings of Christ.” (John Baggot Glubb, The Way of Love, Lessons from a Long Life, Hodder and Stoughton, 1974, pp. 111-115)

The problem with that conclusion is that Jesus, Himself, made it abundantly clear that the God of the Old Testament is indeed the same as His Father in heaven. For example, He said to the Jewish leaders, “…My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.” (John 8:54-55 NIV)

Nowhere did Jesus ever make a distinction between the Father, and the God of the Old Testament. On the contrary, He upheld both God and the Old Testament Scriptures. He said on another occasion, “…Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came – and the Scripture cannot be broken – what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:34-38 NIV)

Not only did Jesus clearly say that God is the same in both the Old and New Testaments, He said that His actions were identical to God’s. The Father was doing His work through Jesus. “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.” (John 14:10-11 NIV)

Since Jesus does not allow any difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New, we who are Christians must also accept that He is the same Person. How then, can we reconcile the God of wrath and vengeance we read about in the Old Testament with the God of love and mercy in the New? The truth is that both these aspects of God’s character are revealed in both Testaments. The difference in perspective is that each Testament pertains to a different period of salvation history.

Life, An Inalienable Right?

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of God’s character to accept is His ordering the annihilation of whole peoples. To many, the death penalties imposed by the Law of Moses for some things which are widely accepted and practiced today are bad enough, but genocide? According to the Nuremberg Charter and other international criminal codes, that falls under the heading of “crimes against humanity.”

In the West, people have been deeply influenced by the United States Declaration of Independence which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” To put it succinctly, they regard life as a right which cannot be transferred to another. No one has the authority to take life away from another. Many argue that even the life of murderers and other egregious criminals cannot be taken.

But is life really an inalienable right? Leaving aside the issue of whether capital punishment is ever appropriate, there is something which those who object to God’s commands to the Israelites to destroy other peoples, forget. There is a difference of degree between mankind and God. The same Declaration which proclaims that Life is an inalienable Right also says that the Right was granted by the Creator. If the Creator is the Granter then, by definition, He is outside of the grant or stipulation.

No doubt it is true that no person is inherently more worthy than another. No one has an innate authority to take life from another. By the same token, no one has the authority to give his life into the power of another. We can see the truth of these assertions in God’s statement to Noah after the flood. “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” (Genesis 9:5 NIV) The same principle is endorsed in the Law of Moses in the commands against murder (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17).

However, there is another side to this. If the right to life comes from the Creator, then only the Creator has the authority to transfer that right or remove it. This means that though a person does not have authority over another’s life, God most certainly does. The Bible is clear and consistent that God is the One who gives life. “…the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7 NIV)

Our patent and copyright laws recognize the concept of intellectual property. An inventor or artist (and no one else) owns and has complete control over his invention or work of art. In the same way, if God is the One who grants life, does He not also have the right to take it or do whatever else He likes with it? The New Testament teaches that He does. “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory –” (Romans 9:21-23 NIV) What is wrong for man – depriving another of his right to life – does not apply to God. As the giver of life He is fully justified in taking it whenever He chooses.

James also upholds God’s right over life as well as the limit on man’s jurisdiction. “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you – who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12 NIV)

God Is Consistent

Though God has the right to take life He does not do so arbitrarily. He does not destroy nations or peoples on a whim. On the contrary, throughout human history He has followed the same pattern. When God does destroy, He does so for cause.

1) God waits until people’s wickedness is so great that He has to act.

God does not want to destroy. “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23 NIV)

In Noah’s day, “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.”” (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV)

Even so, God gave mankind 120 additional years to turn away from evil before bringing the flood upon them. The Apostle Peter writes that God waited patiently during that time (1 Peter 3:20). But the people did not turn from their evil.

God also waited 400 years to bring destruction on the Amorites. He told Abram, “In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” (Genesis 15:16 NIV)

Thus we see that the destruction of the Amorites during the Israelite’s conquest of Canaan was not something arbitrary. It was the consequence of their sin from which they would not turn away.

2) God gives opportunity to repent.

A mistake which many people make is to think that the peoples whom God destroyed never had the opportunity to hear the truth. How could they turn away from wickedness if they never knew anything better? But it simply is not true that people did not have the opportunity to know God and do what was right. The fact is that if people didn’t know, it was because they chose not to know.

For example, through Noah, Christ preached to the people who lived before the flood. They died, not because they didn’t have a chance to hear the message, but because they disobeyed it when they did hear it (1 Peter 3:18-20).

The entire earth was repopulated by the eight people who survived the flood. Every one of them knew the truth. They all knew about God. Yet most of their descendants chose to turn away from Him and embrace wickedness.

Even then, the nations which embraced idolatry still retained some knowledge of God. For example, during Abraham’s day, God communicated to Abimelech of Gerar in a dream (Genesis 20:3). Melchizedek was a priest of God (Genesis 14:18). God appeared to Laban (Genesis 31:24). Moses’ father-in-law was the priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1). One of the purposes of the plagues was so the Egyptians would know the Lord (Exodus 7:5) and the other nations would learn to fear Him (Exodus 15:14-16, Deuteronomy 2:25). Even Balaam communicated with God (Numbers 22:8 and following). Yet, in spite of all these witnesses and opportunities the nations, for the most part, did not repent and turn to God.

3) God always accepted those who did turn from their wickedness.

In spite of the fact that God decreed destruction for the people of Canaan, He still allowed all those who wanted, to enter into the Covenant. There is a long list of those who did so.

Rahab and her family turned to God and were spared from the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 6:25). She is in the ancestry of Christ.

Joshua 8:35 mentions the aliens who participated in the renewal of the Covenant at Mt. Ebal and Gerizim.

The Gibeonites entered into a treaty with the Israelites and became part of the community (Joshua chapter 9). Later, God punished Israel because King Saul violated that treaty (2 Samuel 21:1).

Ruth the Moabitess renounced her gods and entered the Covenant in spite of the fact that God had instructed the Israelites not to have any ties to that nation (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). She became the ancestor of king David and, therefore, Christ.

Uriah the Hittite is one of the best examples of faith, loyalty and dedication in all of Scripture (2 Samuel 11:7-17).

David purchased the land where the Temple was eventually built from Araunah the Jebusite who is another example of faith (2 Samuel 24:18-25, 1 Chronicles 21:18-26).

Men from Gath proved to be some of King David’s most loyal troops (2 Samuel 15:18).

4) People chose to reject God.

In spite of knowing about God, and the opportunities they had to accept Him, the peoples chose to reject Him. Since they would not accept the truth, no alternative was left but to allow them to reap the consequences of their decision.

The kings east of the Jordan river chose to fight Israel even though the Israelites tried their best to avoid conflict (Numbers 21:21-35).

The citizens of Jericho were fully informed about the plagues in Egypt, Israel’s victory over the eastern kings and God’s promises to the Israelites. Instead of responding like Rahab, they chose to reject and defy (Joshua 2:2-11).

The kings in southern Canaan chose to fight against Gibeon for making a treaty with the Israelites instead of following their example and seeking a treaty of their own (Joshua 10:1-4).

Instead of seeking a peace treaty, the northern kings of Canaan chose to fight the Israelites (Joshua 11:1-5).

The Philistines learned all about God when they captured the Ark of the Covenant. They got a graphic lesson about God’s superiority over Dagon. Yet, they still clung to their idolatry instead of turning to God (1 Samuel, chapters 5 and 6).

The Broader Picture

When looked at in context, there can be no doubt that judgment fell on the peoples of Canaan because they deliberately turned away from God. He destroyed them because they would not repent and turn away from evil though they were given every opportunity and all the time they needed to do so. In contrast, those who did seek God were spared, accepted and included in the Covenant.

However, there were other considerations which made the destruction of the people living in Canaan necessary. God was not only concerned about the people of that time but about all mankind in all times. Paul teaches us that even before the world came into existence God had a plan to redeem mankind (Ephesians 1:4-10, 2 Timothy 1:8-10). The plan would not only redeem those after Christ, but also all those whom God counted as righteous before Christ (Hebrews 10:3-12, 11:39-40). To bring that plan to completion, it was essential that the Israelites be kept separate and distinct from all others.

Why the Israelites? We don’t know all the reasons why. God doesn’t give us a complete answer. We can say this much that starting with Abraham, they were the lineage of faith. More people from them than any other branch of the human race sought and trusted in God. That in itself would have made them unique.

Though Scripture does not say this, I suspect that another reason God chose to bring His plan to fulfillment through the Jewish people is that they were the ones who kept the accounts of what happened. Though at one time all the peoples of the earth knew the stories of how God had created the universe, how sin entered the world, the flood and what happened afterwards, only the Israelites preserved them. All other cultures forgot the truth or distorted it with myth. In spite of all their rebellion, their flirtations with idolatry and their attempts to assimilate themselves into the surrounding cultures, a remnant always remained faithful to God and the Covenants. There was always someone who kept the record. Someone always kept the witness and testimony alive.

If God had not chosen the Israelites, He would have had to select another people to fulfill the plan. And, whether it was the Israelites or someone else, God had to keep them distinct and separate. One of the reasons, which is repeated time and time again, for annihilating the inhabitants of Canaan, is so they could not lure the Israelites away from the Covenant and, therefore, away from their part in God’s plan in redemption. For example, “When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-10 NIV)

God Is Still The Same

God was fully justified in destroying the peoples of Canaan during the time of the Conquest and Judges because it was His right as the Creator, they would not turn from their wickedness and enter the Covenant, and it was necessary to fulfill God’s plan to bring salvation to all mankind. However, there is something we, who are accustomed to look at God through the lens of the Gospel, tend to forget: God is still the same. He does not change. The God who brought destruction upon the Canaanites is the same God who offers us salvation through Jesus Christ.

Throughout history the cycle is the same. God offers, mankind rejects, God waits patiently, God brings judgment.

While reading the Bible we need to keep in mind that different portions of it deal with different portions of the cycle. The aspect of God which is portrayed will vary depending on which part of the cycle is recorded. When we read the books of Joshua and Judges, we are looking at a judgment section of the cycle. Therefore, God appears harsh and vengeful. When we read the New Testament, we see the part of the cycle where God offers. There we see more of God’s love.

But God is still the same. Even in judgment we still see glimpses of His love. Even when He woos us with the offer of pardon through Jesus Christ we can still see glimpses of His severity. The aspect of God’s character we ultimately experience depends on us and how we respond to His offer of a covenant relationship.

What Kind Of People?

The Canaanite people experienced God’s judgment during the Conquest and time of the Judges. The Israelites experienced God’s judgment at the time of their Exile. Today, we are in another cycle. God has made His offer. He has presented the Gospel to us. We have the opportunity to enter Covenant through the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf. Now God is waiting patiently for those who will respond. In the meantime, mankind continues to travel down the road of corruption and wickedness. One day, the judgment portion of the cycle will come again. Only this time, the judgment will be final. There will not be another offer. The final and complete sacrifice for our redemption has already been made. Another one will not be made.

The Apostle Peter sums it up this way: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.” (2 Peter 3:9-14 NIV)

What kind of people are we, indeed? Are we at peace with God?

Note: Except for a few changes, this essay is excerpted from my book Conquest and Judges. You can buy a copy of the whole book by clicking on one of the links in the right panel.

Everyone has a message he or she needs to share.

There’s a saying in church circles that everyone has at least one sermon in him. What I mean when I use the expression is that each person, no matter how long he or she has been a Christian, is passionate about at least one thing, one topic. Each person has a message which he or she feels other Christians, or the church as whole needs to hear.

The message might be a very positive one, for example, an aspect of God’s blessing or His grace which this person understands or has experienced more than others. It might be a message of encouragement and hope when others are in despair. It might be a message of comfort in the face of distress and grief. It might be a message to motivate. Or, it might be a message of rebuke to the complacent or those who are drifting away.

The tragedy is that most people never have the opportunity to share that special message with the rest of the church. All too often not only our assemblies and classes but the whole congregation are dominated by one or two individuals who do the speaking. At best, someone with a message that others need to hear might get to share it in a small group.

The lack of opportunity for people to express what is on their hearts has at least two unhealthy consequences. The first is that the church never gets to hear their message. And, because we never hear those messages, we remain bereft of much wisdom, guidance, insight and encouragement. Scripture tells us not to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19). Yet how many times do we do precisely that because we have cut ourselves off from the guidance the Spirit is trying to give through the agency of someone whose voice the church has stifled? How ironic that we, as a church, pray for leading and direction, yet so often are blind and deaf to it unless it happens to come through the “anointed” few we allow to occupy the pulpit!

A second unhealthy consequence of stifling the voices in the congregation is that people do not get the opportunity to develop their gifts and talents. In just about all the congregations I have attended, there is a perpetual lack of teachers, counselors, encouragers, exhorters, and those who know how to share their testimony. Yet, many of the same people who seem so incompetent in expressing themselves in spiritual things, perform well in their jobs. Why are they competent at work but not at church? I suggest it is because we have not allowed them to be. How can anyone grow and develop without opportunity, without practice? People don’t have confidence in their ability to express themselves because we haven’t given them the opportunity to do it.

There’s a corollary to this. I read someone, it may have been Tozer, who pointed out that each Christian inevitably feels lonely and isolated. The reason is that we all grow in our spiritual walk at different rates. As a result though we are all in Christ, to a certain extent, we travel alone. I suggest that there is another reason Christians feel alone and isolated. It is because their voices are not heard. They walk in silence, unable to express that one sermon or message God has given them. Even though they are in God’s family, they feel like outcasts, pariahs because they have no voice.

Everyone Has a Story

What got me started on the above rant is that there is a similar saying in the literary world. “Everybody has at least one novel in him.”

There are an awful lot of people out there who want to write a book. Many of them have been toying around with a concept or a plot for years. The problem is that very few people ever get anything down on paper. Someday they’re going to sit down and write it out, but someday never comes. Of those who do start to write, very few ever finish.

I was no different. Over the years I’ve had ideas for several novels. I even did a fair bit of research for one of them. But somehow, I never got around to writing anything except for a few notes and the beginning of one scene. Though the idea of writing a book was very alluring, actually doing it was daunting. There was always a good reason to put off the writing for another day.

Then something happened which changed everything. About a year or so ago I heard about a program that encouraged people to write a complete novel in a single month. Since the month was already over by the time I heard about it, I more or less shrugged my shoulders and forgot about it. And really, writing an entire novel in a month? The whole idea seemed rather preposterous anyway.

However, every once in a while I’d run into another mention of this annual event. Finally, I decided to do a little research and found the website. It turns out that National Novel Writing Month is not the fly-by-night gimmick I had thought it might be. Every year, hundreds of thousand of people from all over the world attempt to write a novel of at least 50,000 words during the month of November.

My daughter encouraged me to make the attempt. So eventually, with some trepidation, I signed up. With the exception of a few short stories, all of my writing has been non-fiction. Since articles and lesson plans generally take me several days to complete, I honestly didn’t know whether I’d be able to write 50,000 words in only a month. I also didn’t know whether I could come up with a story that long. I didn’t know whether I’d be able to force myself to work through those times when the words just don’t want to come.

Much to my relief, and somewhat to my surprise, the writing came fairly easily. In fact, I found that I was able to write enough each day to get ahead of the game. My novel came in at a little over 53,300 words, and I finished it early. I am now an official winner. I was amazed at what a sense of accomplishment that’s given me.

Why write about this? Because in the process I learned some things about achievement and motivation which I think are directly applicable to the problem I mentioned earlier – allowing people in the church to deliver their message.

A Positive Culture Which Breeds Success

What makes NaNoWriMo successful? Here’s what I observed:

1) They break the task down into achievable steps. 50,000 is a large number. Thinking of writing that many words is daunting. If the goal of 50,000 was the only thing they held before us, I doubt that many people would even attempt it. Instead, they broke the number down into an average daily word-count that would add up to 50,000 by the end of the month. Yes, 50,000 is daunting, but 1,667 words in a day is very achievable. I ended up averaging about 2,200 a day, roughly four pages, and I am not a fast typist.

In the context of church we, all too often, expect people to somehow automagically become fully formed and competent speakers and teachers from their first attempt. This is what happened to me 30 years ago. I had no experience, yet one day the preacher told me I was going to be the teacher of a youth class. Total cold-turkey. To say it was daunting doesn’t begin to capture the terror I felt. How much better it would have been if the task had been broken down into small, incremental steps and he had allowed me to build up to it!

2) They celebrate milestones. There’s a section in the NaNo forums for what they call shoutouts. People may still be a long way from reaching 50,000, but they’re encouraged to let others know when they’ve reached a goal which is significant to them. Reached 5,000? Let people know! Hit 25,000? Take some time and celebrate making the halfway mark!

As Christians, our goal is to become like Christ. That’s daunting. It doesn’t happen all at once. There may be many areas in our lives where the Holy Spirit still has significant work to do. But how often do we allow people to celebrate the mileposts on the journey? Do we let them share their victory over that habit? How can we rejoice with them when they are able to master their temper if we never hear about it?

3) They applaud progress and growth rather than dwell on failure. There are a lot of people who don’t make the whole 50,000 words. Sometimes, people have tried for several years and still can’t do it. However, one thing I noticed, both on the NaNo site itself and in the forums is that there are no put-downs. Instead there is positive appreciation and encouragement for whatever has been accomplished. Did someone only manage to get 800 words written? Instead of chiding them for not putting out 49,200 more, they congratulate the person for the 800 they achieved. Hey, it’s 800 more than you had before! That’s good!

How often at church do we concentrate on what people have not done, or the distance they still have to go, and ignore the progress they’ve made? How often do we express appreciation for honest attempts to grow in the Lord? Do we congratulate people for the progress they make in becoming a better speaker or expositor, or do we continually point to their weaknesses and how far they still have to go in order to meet whatever standard of competence we’ve created?

4) They provide help for those in trouble or who are discouraged. There are many potential pitfalls for the would-be novelist. Perhaps we suddenly realize that we have no idea how to train a dog or fix a computer. Perhaps we don’t know proper operating room procedure. Maybe we don’t know what all a pilot checks off on his list before takeoff – or a million other bits of data that we need to stick into our novel in order to make it believable.

Perhaps we have all the facts and procedures we need down pat, but are having trouble with plotting, structure, character names or…

Maybe we just get discouraged with the whole process. The words aren’t flowing as we’d like. Or, we’ve written ourselves into a corner with no visible out and feel like throwing in the towel.

There are sections in the forums to help in all these situations, and more. People are willing to help you chase down that elusive fact. They can make suggestions on structure or how to express an emotion. There are suggestions to help with character names. Most of all, they are willing to lend an ear or a shoulder to lean on when the whole process just gets to be too much.

It’s made me wonder how supportive we are to one another in church. Do we listen? Are we willing to help out when someone has a question? Can we offer advice? Do we have a word of encouragement when the going gets rough? Doesn’t Scripture say something about spurring one another on to good works? Doesn’t it tell us to bear one another’s burdens?

5) They do not insist on conformity. The stated intent of NaNo is to write a novel. The stated goal is to churn out 50,000 words in one month. However, there are a substantial number of people who don’t want to write fiction. Instead they want to work on their memoir, or a cookbook or some other non-fiction project. Some want to write short stories rather than a novel. Instead of aiming for 50,000 words, some just want the discipline of writing each day. Some set goals of as little as 200 or 300 words a day. The point is that there is room for all these people in the NaNo tent.

Now I’m not trying to suggest that when it comes to church there are no standards. I’m certainly not saying that we should be inclusive to the point where we look the other way from sinful behavior. No, there can be no compromise in exhorting people to live holy lives. Becoming like Christ is not an option – it is the essence of our covenant relationship with God. Scripture also tells us to be like minded.

However, there are areas where I think we harm ourselves and the church by insisting on conformity in non-essentials. I’m thinking in particular about speaking styles. How often have voices been silenced because they didn’t line up with someone’s preferences? A person isn’t “dynamic” enough to address the congregation. Someone else dares to use a “teaching” style and engages the congregation in dialog rather than the approved “preaching” monologue. Another person likes to pace, or puts his hands in his pockets or… I’ll let you fill in the blanks.

I can’t help but wonder how much the church has missed because it won’t listen to someone who doesn’t fit the approved stereotype. How much depth could we have gained if we were willing to hear people coming at Scripture from different, but still very valid, perspectives. What riches have we missed by not listening to the “small, still voice?”

6) They provide a true sense of community. One of the things which makes NaNo work is that the people who participate have a real sense of doing this thing together. Periodically, the originators or sponsors will email pep-talks and encouragement to everyone. They remind us that we’re in this thing together and that we’re not alone when we face obstacles and challenges. There are parties where people are encouraged to talk about the novel they’re working on. There are write-ins where people who live in the same geographic area get together in the same location and write. And so on.

Our church assemblies and small groups are supposed to give us that sense of community as well. To some degree they do. Yet all too often, I’m afraid, we don’t have that sense of all going the same direction, of all striving for the same goal. Part of the problem is, I think, that we often forget what the goal is – becoming like Christ. Instead we get side-tracked by secondary, sometimes trivial, issues which not every one can agree on. Instead of our assemblies drawing us together, they give us the sense that we’re headed down different roads.

But another reason I think we often don’t have a sense of community is that we’re prevented from communicating. Most of the communication which does take place in our assemblies is one-to-many instead of the rich, many-to-many communication we catch glimpses of in the New Testament. Whatever the reason, all too often, we end up feeling like outcasts instead of like the family we’re supposed to be.

7) They trust, yet offer validation. NaNo is based on trust. If you say you’ve written 15,782 words, they take your word for it. Your progress bar (which is visible to everyone if you post to the forums) will show whatever word-count you happen to supply from day to day. They figure that the only person you hurt if you cheat, is yourself. On the other hand, if you want to officially be counted as a winner, and get the certificate, you have to validate your word-count by pasting your novel into the official word counting tool on the site. Even then, no one checks to make sure you haven’t just copied one word 50,000 times.

I wonder sometimes how much further along we would be in our congregations if we had more of a culture of trust. I freely admit that it’s sometimes hard to give people the benefit of the doubt. It can be hard not to suspect motives. But we have to remember that Christ is the Master, not us.

A Matter of Quality

“But what about quality?” you ask. “It’s one thing to bang out 50,000 words in one month, but how good are they? Will your novel be worth publishing?”

In most cases, probably not. I don’t know whether my novel is any good or not. Authors are notoriously unable to judge the quality of their own work.

But if you can’t be sure of the quality of what you have at the end of the month, then what’s the point? The point is to turn off the inner editor and critic and just get the words down. The people at NaNo point out that you have to have something to edit. If you never get the words out, you can’t correct them. Remember what I said earlier about most people never writing their stories at all?

But there’s another point, too. You only get good at something, no matter what it is, through practice. Your first novel or two may be dreadful, but each one gives you more practice. It’s only by doing that you discover what works and what doesn’t. It’s only by writing that you discover your unique “voice” which distinguishes you from all other authors. It’s only by practice that you learn to use the “tools” of your trade.

This concept has a direct bearing on our church experience. We want competent, fluent and articulate teachers and speakers. Yet how can they ever develop those skills and talents unless we give them opportunity to do so? We complain about the incompetence of our people, yet withhold from them the very things they need (opportunities to practice and develop their skills as well as constructive criticism) in order to gain competence.

“What’s your novel about anyway?” Glad you asked. It’s about a teacher who is asked to set up a training program for church leaders in a foreign country. The working premise is that, in one way or another, we’re all outcasts. Through various circumstances, God fills the voids in our lives and shows us that we belong. “‘…I will restore you to health and heal your wounds,’ declares the LORD, ‘because you are called an outcast, Zion for whom no one cares.’” (Jeremiah 30:17 NIV)