A Scripture for This New Year

And He was also saying to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it turns out.

 

And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, ‘It will be a hot day,’ and it turns out that way.

 

You hypocrites !  You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time ?

 

And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right ?"  (Luke 12:54-57)

 

 

Jesus' words seem especially significant this year, when we're told that lies and unrighteousness will "make America great again."

 

God says unrighteousness will never produce good results.

 

 

Please join me this year in heeding what Jesus says:

 

"...analyze this present time."

 

"...judge what is right."

Revelation: Skepticism is wisdom

God hasn't given me permission to study Revelation for some years.  Quite a difference from when I was a "notional Christian" (in Barna's wonderful descriptor): back then, Revelation was the only part of the Bible I really cared about and studied.

Partly that was because my family loved to talk Revelation.  When we got together, we swapped and argued new interpretations of Revelation we'd heard or read.  Revelation was always the most interesting, exciting, and important thing God had said.

But it's not just Christians ("notional" or otherwise) who want to understand what the Bible says about the last days.  That desire seems widespread in our culture.  It's probably not just sales to Christians that put Hal Lindsey's books, or the "Left Behind" series, on secular best-seller lists.

God hasn't given me permission, or the insight, to read Revelation for some years.  I'm sure He will at the right time.  'Til then, one more theory about the events and players of the end-times won't be missed.

But until He gives me the Spirit's wisdom to understand Revelation, God has given me the wisdom of skepticism toward the thousands of interpretations that exist.

Revelation deals with end-time spiritual and political events and personages through intensely obscure imagery.  So the book is an open invitation to anyone confident in his own cleverness, to "discover" the hidden meaning he wants to find.  Deception (starting with self-deception) is virtually guaranteed any "interpreter" who comes to Revelation with his own religious or political axe to grind: and most do. 

Traditional interpretations especially have to be tested.  Interpretations of Revelation by Protestants (the branch of Christianity from which most end-time speculation comes) virtually all identify the major end-time personage, Revelation 17's woman seated on "seven mountains" (sometimes incorrectly translated "seven hills"), as the Catholic Church.  This interpretation has come down to us from the first Reformers, and has 500 years of tradition behind it.  But there's good reason to suspect their interpretation may not be based entirely on objective hermeneutic principles.

In outline, the standard Protestant interpretation is that the woman, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH,” is the end-time religious deceiver, and persecutor of true Christians ("drunk with the blood of the saints").  That's a valid reading, as far it goes.  And the Reformers undoubtedly saw themselves as the "true Christians" of that scripture (don't we all ?) in their battle against the corrupt Medieval Papacy.  That too was probably valid in their time.

Taking that interpretation beyond those two facts, however, we run into problems.

The woman is seated on the Beast which has seven heads.  Scripture specifically says interpretive "wisdom" is that the seven heads are "seven mountains."  Rome was traditionally built on seven "hills:" and that was close enough for the Reformers to identify the woman in Revelation 17 as the ROMAN Catholic Church: as most Protestant interpretations still do.

One problem of that interpretation (leaving aside the possibly-significant distinction between "mountain" and "hill") is that other cities of the New Testament Mediterranean world were known as cities built on seven mountains or hills: Athens, for example, and Jerusalem (Mount Scopus, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Zion: Old and New: among them).

Or if Rome is the city indicated in Revelation 17, there's a  problem for contemporary interpretation that Rome is also the "seat" of other world geo-political entities: the government of Italy, for example, or the "global think-tank" Club of Rome (prominent in many "New World Order" conspiracy-theories).  If either became more instrumental in persecuting true Christians in the still-future end-time God's describing: as either could: they might well be viable possible identities for the woman of Revelation 17.

For contemporary interpretation, there's also the problem that other world cities built on seven mountains or hills are centers of false spirituality.  Tirumala, India, for example, home of Vishnu's Temple of the Seven Hills, which claims to be "the most active place of worship in the world."  Even San Francisco, another city traditionally on seven hills, could be said in some ways to have a false spirituality "footprint."

There are additional reasons to be skeptical of the "Harlot = Catholic Church" interpretation.  The Vatican Hill where the Catholic Church is headquartered is not one of the traditional seven hills of Rome; and is, in fact, on the other side of the Tiber from those seven hills.  Rome was, at the time of Revelation's composition, the city of Imperial political power; and a religious center only secondarily.  Rome was certainly not identified with the Catholic Church, which didn't yet exist.

The standard "Evangelical" interpretation also fails to tell us how the seven heads which are seven hills are also seven kings (as are the 10 "horns" of the Beast on which the Harlot is seated); or about what it means that she is also said to be seated "on many waters."  A coherent working interpretation should consist of more than a single equivalence isolated from everything else in its context.

Especially when that single equivalence is itself questionable.  The certain identification is scripture's: the woman of Revelation 17:5 bears an inscription that identifies her as "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."  Revelation 14:8, 16:9, 18:2, 18:10, and 18:21 repeat that identification, as "Babylon the great," "the great city, Babylon" and "Babylon, the great city."
  
Revelation unmistakably identitfies "the great city" as "Babylon."   That is the understanding in which we must take the additional references to "the great city" in Revelation 16:19, 17:18, 18:16, 18:18,  and 18:19 (and indeed, the context of each of those verses show they likewise refer to "Babylon").  Revelation is thoroughly consistent in naming "Babylon" as "the great city."

It therefore seems honest interpretation to understand Revelation 11:8's reference to "the great city" as also denoting "Babylon."  The bodies of Christ's two great end-time witnesses "...will lie in the street of the great city...where also their Lord was crucified."  Knowing Christ was crucified in Jerusalem (another city seated on seven mountains) should give us pause in accepting the standard "Evangelical" interpretation that Rome is Revelation's "Babylon."

God hasn't given me Spiritual insight sufficient to say the woman of Revelation 17 is not the Catholic Church.  That may even be the true interpretation, exactly what God desires we understand from those verses. But He's given me skepticism about that interpretation, sufficient to keep me from the presumptuousness of certainty, until the Spirit speaks.

If He wants me to know who's who in Revelation, He'll show me, at the time He chooses.  My job 'til then is to listen: and to test what I hear.

Amen.

Boiled Down

Year's end seems a good place to "analyze" the times, as Jesus said to do in Luke 12:54-57.

He says there we should judge by "what is right."

That's certainly Jesus' word to our time, when 80% of "evangelicals" voted their belief that unrighteousness would "make America great again."

Here's godly commonsense:
Lies and unrighteousness will NOT make America great again. 
God guarantees it.

Their vote raises questions about those who've been deceived.

Don't people who know God, know He hates pride, and lies, and unrighteousness ?

Do people who know God hates pride and lies and unrighteousness choose to follow someone whose spirit is pride and lies and unrighteousness ?

Do Christians think they can follow such a man and not follow his spirit ?

But the defining question is whether politicized American Christians can tell the difference at all between righteousness and unrighteousness.

If not,

what good is their "Christianity" ?

The context in which Jesus tells us to "analyze" the times is His announcement that He has "come to cast fire upon the earth," and to bring "division" (Luke 12: 49-53).

That seems to me the context of these times.

Jesus is bringing division in our times, separating those who can perceive, and will follow, righteousness from those who will not.

Amen.

Boiling It Down

Sometimes you get a lightning-strike insight.  An idea comes "out of the blue;" about something you're not even consciously thinking about; whole and complete and right (the Biblical term for which is "perfect").

Those are the kinds of moments that probably gave rise to the word "inspiration:" an idea is literally "in-spirited" to our minds.  That's probably still as good an explanation of the phenomenon as anything cognitive science has come up with.

But more often  we have to meditate on a matter, concentrate to think it through, if we want to come to the wisdom of it.  I think of that process as "boiling down" a matter to get its essence.  

Every question comes before us with its own details, antecedents, examples, implications and repercussions: some of which are always irrelevant, contradictory, or misleading.  We can't deal rightly with any question until we think clearly about its core reality.

But that kind of meditation is necessary, in whatever mode an idea comes.  Even "lightning-strike" inspirations need to be analyzed, and tested.  There are more spirits at work, in the world and in human hearts, than just the Holy Spirit.

That's where our input makes a difference.  We don't come to wisdom by our knowledgeability of the details, or our skill in logic.  God is the sole source of wisdom: whatever other personal cleverness we cobble together is "worldly wisdom."

We make the difference in which we will get, by what we choose to accept.  The bench-mark we set ourselves makes all the difference.  Right understanding is righteous: wisdom is a moral quantity.  My takeaway is that the Spirit, in Person and in scripture, is the only infallible Standard by which righteousness and wisdom can be accurately measured.

My experience is also that the Spirit's wisdom is the only thing which ultimately works in the real world God created.  It's no good trying to play hockey with a tennis-racket.

We choose the standard by which we will think, and by which we measure our thoughts.  That is our deliberate part.  But it doesn't feel like something extraneous imposed on the process.  It feels like a natural fit.  I consider the Spirit, as Inspiration and Standard, is how God intends, and crafts, every human being's mind to work...if they will.

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him."  (James 1:5)

The Purpose of Clarification

I wrote a few weeks ago that I strongly sense this is a time when God is clarifying all things.  Clarifying our minds, too, about all things.

"All things" kinda resonates for me with "Alpha and Omega," Who Jesus IS.  And it makes theological sense to me that Jesus is God's clarity to us, in all things.

Jesus said "I AM...The Truth."  That's been the most clarifying realization of my life.  So I'm always super-aware of anything about Truth...and anything against Truth   How could I not be, when Jesus said that IS His very IDENTITY ?

Jesus' statement is not abstruse "head-polish" theology.   Truth exists.  Truth exists as part of the ordinary reality of our world.  (Which is, of course, what today's holiday supposedly celebrates about Jesus.)

We think and act, every day, in ordinary dependence on the existence and operation of truth in our world.  Juries are charged to sort out the facts of a case they hear, and witnesses to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."  We expect journalists (real journalists, at least) to report what really happens: even the weatherman.  The professions of scientists and historians is to look for truth, and report it truthfully.

So it's particularly significant that "post-truth" is the Word of the Year, describing people who ignore "objective facts" in making their decisions.  It's particularly significant that this year we needed that new word, for the new idea that Truth doesn't really matter.  Significant, too, that that new word and new idea came out of politics.

In that political attitude toward Truth, I think God's spoken some simple clarity: especially to Christians.

If your politics makes you unable to distinguish between righteousness and unrighteousness, your politics are not of God.

If your politics tells you Truth doesn't matter, your politics are not of God.

If your politics leads you to believe lies and follow deceivers, your politics are of "the father of lies" (john 8:44).

Christians who've let politics confuse them about Truth need to repent their politics.

Repent immediately and deeply.  This is a time God is clarifying all things, including who is really His.  He knows His own by their love of Truth: because that's who actually loves Jesus.

Evangelicals on "Religious Freedom"...Again

In a 20013 study, the Barna Research Group found that fifty-one percent of American "evangelicals" were "...concerned that religious freedom in the U.S. will become more restricted in the next five years."  (http://www.lookoutmag.com/in-the-world-april-7-2013/)

We frequently hear that "chip-on-the-shoulder" attitude of "evangelicals" about their "religious freedom" being denied.  It usually turns out to be some kind of self-serving political ploy, more than a matter of Christian principle.  The commercial wedding-chapel in Idaho, for example, which advertised it did Buddhist, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Shinto, and other kinds of weddings: but screamed its Christian "religious liberty" was under attack when the local city-council ticketed the business for refusing to do a gay "wedding."

Interestingly, Barna also found that a majority of "evangelicals" believed "traditional American" religious values (i.e., Protestant Christianity) should be given preference in public policy.

David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, well and rightly called out that "cognitive disconnect"...or rather, hypocrisy:

“Evangelicals have to be careful of embracing a double standard: to call for religious freedoms, but then desire the dominant religious influence to be Judeo-Christian.  They cannot have it both ways.”

"Post-Truth"

Looking back over my recent blog-posts, I notice I somehow deleted one of the most important.

Earlier this month, brother Tim called my attention to the fact that the prestigious Oxford Dictionary of the English Language had picked "post-truth" as its 2016 "Word of the Year."

Several of my recent blogs talk about the issues of a "post-truth" world.  Lacking the initial blog about the meaning of that term my comments may lack the necessary context: so I post it here again.

The Oxford folks define "post-truth" as

"relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

They note that the word is virtually always used in a political context: and that its sudden prominence in 2016 was a result of the U.K.'s Brexit referendum and the U.S. presidential election.

 The Oxford Dictionary website has additional information and reflection on "post-truth," and on any other question you can possibly think of about the English language .

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016

If Jesus Were Truth

"Jesus said . . . “I AM . . . The Truth . . ."  (John 14:6, my emphasis)

 
But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would love Truth.

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would surrender their lives to Truth.

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would know they're saved by Truth (II Thessalonians 2:10). 

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would say "Truth is Lord !"

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would heed Truth.

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would follow Truth.

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would HATE lies.

But if Jesus were "The Truth," Christians would turn away from liars


But 

"Jesus said . . . “I AM . . . The Truth . . ."

Questions, and Good News, for "Trump Christians"

Do you not know that human beings are transient in this world ?

Do you not realize an individual's true importance is the spirit they manifest in this world at spiritual war?

Does your vote for the person to lead us not say you want to be led by the spirit he manifests ?

In all you've seen and heard , didn't Donald Trump show his spirit is pride, and hatred, and lies ?

Didn't you notice ?

Do you not know his spirit is not the Spirit of Christ ?

Does your vote not say you approve his spirit ?

Do you not know we condemn ourselves by what we approve ?  (Romans 14:22)

You had a choice of several candidates, and the choice of not voting:
did your vote not say you choose to follow, and you approve, the spirit your candidate manifests ?

The good news is that God still offers forgiveness to all who will repent.