Monthly Archives: February 2008

Evading grace in the Bible by making it central to the Bible

I have a thought that’s been bouncing around in my head and I have been hoping to come up with some really clear and helpful way of expressing it.

But being impatient, I’m just going to blog it now.

Maybe we rhapsodize about grace in order to stay self-righteous.

Maybe saying that God was so gracious as to use Rahab (prostitute), Jephthah (son of prostitute, outcase, gang leader), or Tamar (one-time prostitute via father-in-law), etc, we are missing the point.

If we say the Bible is teaching how gracious God is, what are we saying? That we don’t need grace as much.

Maybe the real point is that we’re not supposed to be self-righteous. Jephthah was rejected until God reduced his hometown to desperation so they were forced to agree to make him their ruler. At first, Judah was ready to have Tamar burned to death for the exact same sin as himself (one that he must have been guilty of repeatedly). If Joshua had sent you and me to spy out Jericho, would we have been willing to be caught dead in Rahab’s house?

This is why it is important to know what sinner means, not anyone so that you can continue to separate those who are loathsome from those who are tolerable, but so that you can know that how you treat someone who is loathsome is really yours and my true test of faith.

Yeah, it is really about grace.

Cars: I have a fantasy

“Dream” would make it sound like I think it is going to happen.

I have a dream that all the automakers both domestic and foreign join together to beat the next president into the ground exposing how the economy is hampered, the public exploited, and the poor especially are made poorer, by the stupid quest for energy “independence.”

Billions of dollars are poured into corporations from taxes in order to raise corn prices and increase pollution to make ethanol. Cars become less affordable as this idiotic quest is pursued because illusion makes better government PR than does reality. After all, the economy would already go in that direction, which means there would be nothing for politicians to fix. Making up stupid self-damaging goals that no rational person would ever pursue without being loaded with misinformation, provides a rational for real government intervention. The entire discourse of our political culture on energy is to find a way to make national economic self-destruction look rational so that the government can be justified in forcing us to pursue that course, which would never happen otherwise.

I’m sorry but, duh, people already have an incentive to conserve energy. It is called the price of fuel. Anything else is just killing one’s citizens.

And, for the record, one thing that keeps you poor and unemployed is not having transportation. The more cars become out of reach, the more we will see people locked in poverty.

And automakers could, if they had the will, spell it all out.

But they won’t. They’ll run from the whip and chase the taxpayer-funded carrot and they will cave. More than that, they will promote the Presidential line of garbage by extolling their own virtues in abiding by unnecessary and destructive regulations. In this way all private industries become mouths for the public sector’s deceptions designed to glorify the public sector.

(BTW, on one issue in the news story I have to concede: I think the states should be allowed to set their own emission standards. It may be stupid, but I think they have the authority to be stupid. Hopefully prices would skyrocket in those states while people would see other states where people could still afford cars. But, in any case, forcing other people to bear the cost of your driving by poisoning their air is a different issue in principle–though I’m not sure how reliable the facts are–than myths about the need for fuel efficiency or independence, or fictions about “the greenhouse effect.”)

Ephesians as Paul’s gospel tract

Paul could write what is plainly a general statement of his doctrine about the work and person of Christ and the salvation he has wrought for believers–and he could do so without once mentioning the word, “justification” or even use any of the “righteous” word group for a forensic status given to believers.

I wonder what would happen if I wrote an introduction to Christ and salvation without once mentioning justification.

Blessing God for Blessing Us 2

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love. He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love.

This is all one run-on sentence. Many translations put a period after “before him,” and then begin the next sentence, “In love he predestined…”

I think the period belongs where I have put it above so that it reads that God chose us that we should be “holy and blameless before him in love.”

My reasoning is this: Paul will later exhort the Ephesians to do what they were chosen to do:

3.17: “that you, being rooted and grounded in love,…”

4.2: “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love”

4.15: ”Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,”

4.16: “makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.”

5.1-2: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children and walk in love”

In all these ways Paul instructs his readers how they can behave in a holy and blameless manner in love. God has chosen them for this and given them access to himself (i.e. holiness, “saints”) so that they must act in an appropriate manner to their new position (“holy”).

Was the Apostle Paul a fundamentalist?

What I find ironic about this discussion (though I appreciate it), is that the Apostle Paul was considered a liberal by his adversaries. He offered low-bar, bladeless (or flint-knifeless) entry into the Faith. He was a church-growth compromiser of the Faith handed through Abraham–one who misled people about what God commanded, and made obedience to them optional.

If Paul was so subversive to his Jewish identity, how do we get the idea he would have anything to do with a Scottish one?