And on this Rock...

"Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets." He said to them, "But who do you yourselves say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (Matthew 16:13-18, NASB)

I've read this many times - heard it preached on many times, this is a very familiar verse to any believers who has been in the Church for any length of time. Today, however, I have a new understanding of this verse and I wanted to share it with you. Before I add any more commentary though, let's go left in our Bibles.

Facing Death

I live in a suburb of Chicago that is quite charming. It is a town full of families, mostly quiet, everyone most people go to Church on Sundays, neighbors know each other...a kind of 'Lake Wobegon' type place, if you're familiar with Garrison Keillor's idyllic town, or Mayberry if Andy Griffith is more your speed. Keillor described Lake Wobegon as a place where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

Just this morning, we found out that tragedy has once again touched our community - in the form of a car accident, which claimed the life of a 16-year-old girl, with one of her classmates in critical condition. Almost a year ago today, we mourned the death of our close friend's 5-year-old boy. I had seen grief before, but never like that. I had asked God questions before, but never like those. When adults die, we can at least make sense of it - but children?

Nuclear War: A Scenario

Just finished the new book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen. I would categorize this as 'hypothetical nonfiction' - a very odd category, but hear me out. It is clear that Jacobsen did her research - she interviewed a very wide range of people who have some kind of expertise in nuclear weapons, whether that be former government officials, or experts who helped create and refine these weapons. She interviewed people who have spent large parts of their careers trying to figure out how to formulate policies around the use of these weapons and who have gamed out nuclear war scenarios. To put a point on it, the scenario she presents in this book is based on the very well-informed opinions and expertise of a) people who have studied nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use and b) people who know the kinds of events and interactions that might transpire in the event of a nuclear attack. In other words, the scenario presented is plausible - it's not based on the imagination of Annie Jacobsen, but rather on informed opinions of people who have spent countless hours imagining what this would be like.

In a word, it's terrifying. She meant it to be. It reminded me of a quote from Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast that I'll never forget:

Useless Labels

Calvinist. Arminian. Premillennialist. Amillennialist. Pre-tribulationalist. Preterist. Dispensationalist. Complementarian. Credobaptist. Fundamentalist. Zionist. Anti-Zionist. Reformed. Cessationist. Charismatic. Liberal. Progressive. Creationist. Evangelical. Pelagian. Covenantalist.

I subscribe to none of these and I'm finding more and more that broad theological labels are useless. They are used to put others (or ourselves) into boxes, to summarize sometimes complicated points of view, but the main issue is that with a lot of these, is that the meaning of them is subjective. Some of them are straight-forward, sure, like 'pre-millennialist'...the belief that mankind is currently living in a period of time BEFORE the millennial reign of Jesus. Or how about 'cessationist'...the belief that the spiritual gifts (prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, etc) ended with the Apostles. Fairly straight-forward. But many of these have ceased to be useful terms. 'Dispensationalist' for example - you see many different definitions of this. Some people mean that label as saying that God has dealt with mankind differently at different times/dispensations. Other argue that no, the actual hallmark of dispensationalism is the idea that God has two plans of salvation, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile. To the first definition, plenty of theological systems argue that God dealt with people at different ways at different times... 'Zionist' is another one -- it seemingly means something different to everyone who uses it. Same with 'evangelical'. Politically liberal folks use the label to mean 'anyone that is politically conservative that goes to Church'.

There are other gods.

Just finished "Supernatural" by Michael Heiser. I had read "Unseen Realm" a couple of years ago, but wanted a quick refresher and Supernatural seemed perfect for that. The same thought occurred to me this time around, as last time around:

How hollow is first commandment of "Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me" if there are not actually any other gods?

God is 'Yahweh Elohim', literally, "God of Gods"...but the Bible uses 'elohim' all over the place, not referring to God. I don't agree with Heiser on everything, but there is a lot I agree with him on - I particularly like his presentation of the two-part Yahweh idea and also the way he unpacks the 'Deuteronomy 32 worldview', which in my opinion, is critical for an accurate understanding of what all of Scripture is saying. Quick read, good short summary of Unseen Realm, highly recommend.

US Being Forced Towards Totalitarianism

The current lay of the land is that one side is trying to eliminate, by any non-violent (so far) means necessary, their political opponent from the Presidential ballot. The Supreme Court has pretty much squashed their overt attempt to eliminate him from the ballot, but they have other projects on-going, including specious legal proceedings with the hopes of imprisoning Trump before the election rolls around in November. The other side of the aisle really doesn't inspire much confidence either; whether it was an insurrection or not, at least some portion of the Republican party is OK with illegally entering the capitol building and causing mayhem. Former President Trump leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to ethics and conduct as well. His constant personal attacks on anyone who shows any kind of disloyalty to him, including members of his own party, is disturbing, petty and not becoming of the office he seeks.

These aren't the concerning things though...the concerning thing is how vile and frothy the rhetoric between the parties has gotten. Everything is now a 'threat to democracy' and 'must be stopped'. One side accuses the other side of acting like a dictator and imagining, out-loud, any number of absolutely absurd scenarios that will play out should the 'other guy' get elected. What we are experiencing now, as a country, is equivalent to a fish-tailing car that is out of control. Attempts to regain control are only causing the car to veer even farther in one direction and then the other...ultimately, this will end when one party does something unthinkable...but the problem with that is that once it happens, there's no going back. Pandora doesn't get put back in the box; once chaos is unleashed, it can't be reversed.

I don't know which party will do it. I can see scenarios for both sides. All I know is that one of them will because no one is willing to slow the car down. It careens forward, out of control, with no cooler heads to prevail. We The People is crumbling from the inside - and once the fuse is lit, it is only a matter of time before the bomb explodes. Things change slowly until they change quickly. Out of a sense of self-righteousness and with a call to 'save the Republic', one of the parties is going to over-step the boundary...and the country will fall into chaos as a result.

This is what I see - I hope I'm wrong.

Saved by Grace...Which is Not of Yourselves

I've been thinking about Ephesians 2:8-9 a lot lately. I think we're reading it wrong - and the equation presented there has consequently been misunderstood.

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ, and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." - Ephesians 2:4-10 NASB

I think Paul is commenting on two separate things here - grace and faith, not equating the two, and the order of the language he uses is what ultimately confuses. In checking several versions of Ephesians 2:8, some of them use a comma as in "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith" and some use none, as in the NASB translation above. I think that comma is critical. If I were to re-write it, I think this is what Paul is saying:

For you are saved by grace and this is not of yourselves so that no one can boast; and faith is involved, but God does not save people on the basis of their works, it is His choice alone.