• @JohnPiper: “Your sons and daughters were eating and a great wind struck the house, and it fell upon them, and they are dead.” Job 1:19

• @JohnPiper: “Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped.” Job 1:20

* * *

As expected, John Piper, retired pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN, weighed in on the destructive tornadoes in Oklahoma. That same night, while first responders were heroically combing through the damage trying to find survivors, Piper sat comfortably at his computer and posted two theological tweets, texts from the book of Job (see above).

Most of the folks that I read who responded to Piper’s musings mentioned only the first tweet. This was not good, and not fair to John Piper. It gave an incomplete picture of his thoughts. It is bad form and improper when critics give partial quotes out of context and then pass judgment. In a follow-up piece at Desiring God, Tony Reinke defended Piper, explained why he put up the tweets in the first place, and why he subsequently took them down. Reinke correctly criticizes the unfortunate selectivity by those who blasted the outspoken pastor and the wrong impression it created.

The impression given by online sources is that only Job 1:19 was posted, an isolated tweet some critics have thought “crude” and “insensitive,” thereby neglecting the most important point made in the second tweet, of Job’s response, and why our sovereign God is still worthy of worship even in the midst of the most unimaginable suffering and personal tragedy.

Point taken.

Problem not solved.

Even with both tweets, perhaps especially because of both tweets, Piper represents a “miserable comforter” who, remarkably, still has not learned the wisdom of Qoheleth: there is “…a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Eccles. 3:7).

I have heard many such things;
miserable comforters are you all.
Have windy words no limit?
Or what provokes you that you keep on talking?

- Job 16:2-3 (NRSV)

By steadfastly refusing to be silent, to take his place by the side of those who are suffering with mouth shut and heart open wide, he misses the point of the very Bible book he cites in a misguided attempt to bring theological perspective to the Oklahoma disaster.

Now when Job’s three friends heard of all these troubles that had come upon him, each of them set out from his home—Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. They met together to go and console and comfort him. When they saw him from a distance, they did not recognize him, and they raised their voices and wept aloud; they tore their robes and threw dust in the air upon their heads. They sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great.

- Job 2:11-13 (NRSV)

This is the high point of the three companions’ friendship and ministry to Job. Silence. Tears. Presence. Symbolic expressions of solidarity and mutual grief.

Once they opened their mouths, it was all downhill. They became “miserable comforters.” It is not simply a matter of timing. The friends’ words came after the accepted period of silent mourning. Their words were wrong. And so it is with John Piper. It is not as though Piper’s words, inappropriate in the tender moment, would be appropriate once wounds have healed somewhat, once things have calmed down and we have time to gain perspective on the tragedy. No, his understanding and application of the book of Job is wrong. He has taken his place with Job’s friends, not with the argument of the text.

From the point when Job’s friends open their mouths, the Book of Job becomes a protest against their “miserable comfort,” particularly by challenging all theologies of explanation.

The Theory of Moral Explanation
To be sure, John Piper does not fall into exactly the same trap as Job’s friends did. What came out of their mouths in the central section of the Book of Job was a traditional theology of explanation for life’s troubles that was based on Israel’s covenant with God. This was expressed most fully in the Torah in Deuteronomy and by her Wisdom teachers in the Book of Proverbs. We might call it a theory of moral explanation.

Simply put, obedience leads to God’s blessing and disobedience brings deprivation and suffering through God’s judgment. If Job is suffering, he must have sinned.

In a series of speeches, Job and the three friends pontificate on Job’s sufferings and argue about this conventional viewpoint. The friends insist that Job must be guilty and urge him to ‘fess up. Job argues that he is innocent, and challenges God and his “comforters” repeatedly to show him where he has sinned. The friends represent a Biblical, theological system of explanation which insists that life and its vicissitudes can be understood and explicated.

Clearly, the Book of Job is a protest against this paradigm. At the end of the book, God says to Job’s friends, “you have not spoken of me what is right,” (42:7), and this despite the fact that their speeches accurately articulate Deuteronomistic and Wisdom perspectives. They knew the Bible. God said their “Biblical” teaching was dead wrong.

This is one of those instances when we catch the Bible in the midst of an argument against itself. As Michael Spencer put it, Scripture (especially in the First Testament) is a lively “conversation in God’s kitchen.”

The conversational model allows for a number of helpful ways of approaching scripture. For instance, it allows a variety of viewpoints on a single subject, such as the problem of evil. Job argues with Proverbs. It encourages us to hear all sides of the conversation as contributing something, and doesn’t say only one voice can be heard as right. Leviticus has something important to say that Psalms may not say. This approach sees the development of understanding as a natural part of the conversation, and isn’t disturbed when a subject appears to evolve and change over time. This model allows some parts of the conversation to be wrong, so that others can be right, and the Bible isn’t diminished as a result.

It is my view that the story of Job, perhaps an old folk tale in Israel, took on new resonance in the light of the Exile. Those who sought to bring Wisdom to God’s people during that tumultuous time turned to it to counter the easy answers that some were giving as to why Israel was suffering in captivity. The argument of the book is that the approach of Deuteronomy and Proverbs is too simplistic, too pat. God is bigger than the sovereign, retributive monarch that those traditions made him out to be. His ways are more complex, mysterious, and unexplainable than obedience – blessing/disobedience – curse.

The moral explanation theory can’t cover all the evidence. Job is never discovered to have sinned, he never admits to having sinned, and God never accuses him of sinning. Those who take this line of reasoning end up at a dead end, and their words result in “miserable comfort.”

The Theory of “Meticulous Sovereignty” as an Explanation
As for John Piper, he is to be commended for avoiding the theory of moral explanation, at least on this occasion. However, for some reason he cannot relinquish the position that there must be some accessible explanation for tragedies like the one our neighbors endured this past week. For him, the “answer” lies in what Scot McKnight calls a theology of “meticulous sovereignty” — the idea that God directly determines or causes all things.

As Piper himself says:

God brings to pass all things — I mean all things. There are no maverick molecules, R. C. Sproul said. And that is right. Or Spurgeon said, every dust mote that flies in the air, or every little globule of spray in every harbor in the wake of every boat in the world, is guided on its path through the air by God.

John Piper believes this so strongly and has identified his ministry so closely with this doctrine that every time something happens which people do not understand, especially natural disasters and tragedies such as the Oklahoma tornadoes, he feels compelled to proclaim the meticulous sovereignty of God over the situation and urge that a primary response should be submission and worship.

To be fair to him, he does recognize that there are other aspects involved as well, and when forced to explain himself more fully, Piper will admit that compassion and care must be part of the response too. But — and notice this move carefully! — he still will only commend such actions within the paradigm of God’s meticulous sovereignty. This is how he puts it:

I think part of God’s will in permitting or ordaining a calamity is that we weep with those who weep. That is part of the plan.

He simply cannot admit to what the book of Job actually teaches — that all explanations are inadequate. The point of Yahweh’s overwhelming theophany at the end of the book is that we cannot hope to analyze the hidden counsels of God or translate the mysteries of life into systematic terms. To attempt to do so is to become “miserable comforters.”

Furthermore, on a pastoral and practical level, we don’t need such an explanation to exercise Christ-like love. We love others and respond to their pain and distress because we are brothers and sisters and neighbors to those who suffer, and our hearts break for them. It is the truly human thing to do. It grows out of the way God created us. It bespeaks the divine image we bear. It need not be explained as part of a system of meticulous sovereignty lest we somehow steal glory from the Almighty!

I think John Piper badly misunderstands Job’s ultimate position as portrayed in the Book of Job. Job does not simply submit to the sovereignty of God.

• Absolute submission is the appropriate response of Muslims to Allah — “submission” is the meaning of the word “Islam;” to be a “Muslim” is to be a Submitter. This is not Biblical Judaism or Christianity.

• Submission is not the ultimate response of Jews before the God of “Israel” — the name means “he who wrestles with God and prevails.”

• Nor is it the perspective of Christians before the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ — we look at life through the paradigm of death and resurrection.

The One before whom Job bows and repents in the end of the book of Job is not the God who explains everything, either in moral terms or in terms of meticulous sovereignty. God does not explain himself, he refuses to explain himself, indeed, he goes far beyond explaining himself. He overwhelms Job with the mystery, he does not give him “answers.” There is no theology of explanation.

In fact, one might say that the book of Job ends with a stand-off.

• God displays his glorious power but reveals nothing specific about his ways. Nor does he accuse Job of sin or wrongdoing.

• Neither does Job back down. He readily admits his limitations before the hidden counsels of the Creator, but does not confess that his own ways have been sinful or deserving of punishment.

Job proves himself a true son of Israel — he has wrestled with the Almighty and prevailed. Like Jacob, he clings to the One who remains mysterious to him.

As Walter Brueggemann puts it, in the end Job and God are “permanently linked in an unequal relationship.” Job confesses that God can do anything he likes. God acknowledges that Job spoke what was right concerning him (42:7).

The God of Job is the God who encourages us to wrestle, not settle for explanations.

The End of Explanations and the True Comfort of Love
Any attempt at explaining “Job’s troubles” falls short. The moment we as Job’s neighbors open our mouths, we become “miserable comforters,” especially in the immediate aftermath of tragedy.

The book of Job teaches us that the one good thing Job’s friends did was to be present and shut up, to sit down and silently express their solidarity in suffering.

And if we are “Job” — the ones suffering — we must not buy in to the view that mystery can be explained.

Of course, to live like this does not come naturally or easily. More than likely, it will involve an ongoing, agonizing process like the one portrayed in the book. This process will sometimes look pious (like Job in the early chapters) but more often than not I suggest it will put us in an adversarial relationship with Almighty (like Job in the central part of the book) — arguing, complaining, lamenting, and processing our thoughts and feelings before God. To be sure, many times we will also find ourselves in conflict with those who represent conventional religion and its theologies of explanation.

The Job we see at the beginning of the book, the person John Piper tweets that we should imitate, is not the Job at the end of the book. His initial pious responses of humble worship may reflect the commendable reflexes of a righteous man, but he did not live that way for long. The reflexive worshiper became a wrangling wrestler who refused to be satisfied by conventional wisdom or doctrine, no matter how sound it seemed. And whatever “rewards” Job received in the end had nothing to do with simply bowing in worship or confessing that “there are no maverick molecules.”

Indeed, the high point for Job comes at the end of the book and at the end of the wrestling match. First of all, he achieved a hard-fought stand-off with Yahweh. Secondly, he was moved to show selfless love to his “friends” (his spiritually misguided and, it might be said, even abusive friends) by praying for them. God answered Job’s prayers and they experienced forgiveness and restoration.

And so we must pray for one another, that God will not allow us to remain in our status as “miserable comforters,” settling for theologies of explanation when the true and living God is so much more complex, mysterious, and glorious.

Furthermore, the text goes on to mention the loving acts of Job’s brothers and sisters: “Then there came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and they ate bread with him in his house; they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him; and each of them gave him a piece of money and a gold ring” (42:11).

What we have in the end of the book of Job is love. It is in the context of that love — divine and human together — that “the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning” (42:12).

That doesn’t mean, by the way, that Job forgot the tragedy that marked his life or ever stopped grieving for his lost children. Whatever God gave him did not “replace” what he had lost. But in addition to the material blessings and new brood of children that God provided, Job received a most wonderful gift — a community of people who would come and “eat bread with him in his house,” who showed a spirit of sympathy and comfort that would not settle for trying to explain life’s conundrums.

No more miserable comforters. That may be the greatest blessing of all.

Monday I watched with great terror and shock as a massive tornado roared through Moore, Oklahoma, leaving at least 24 people dead. I was at work when someone said “the City is getting storms.” I live in Tulsa, 100 miles east of the City—Oklahoma City—and was trying to keep an eye on the weather. The City had a “moderate” risk of severe weather according to the Weather Channel, while Tulsa was in the “exceedingly high” risk area. I knew that when the City started to see storms, they would be on their way eastward to where I was.

So I pulled up an Oklahoma City TV station on my phone and … and watched on live TV as a massive tornado destroyed everything in its way. Buildings were ripped apart as though they were made of straw. I know people who live in and around Moore. My heart went out to them, even as I began thinking of what to do for my family if the storms held together. But they petered out before they got to Stroud (about halfway between Tulsa and the City), and we just got a brief rain shower.

Okies stand together (except when it comes to football), and those of us outside of Moore looked for ways to help the families who suffered such incredible loss. Don’t you think it pleases our Father when we look for ways to help others? Apparently that isn’t so obvious to some who cannot resist cramming their feet in their mouths at times like these. Before I get to these idiots, I want to share a story of someone whose life is given to giving.

My friend Vic heads up One To The Other Ministries, and a big part of what he does centers around natural disasters. Just as he did two years ago following the deadly Joplin, Missouri tornado, Vic and several others went to Moore yesterday to give food and water to those who were involved in the search and rescue mission, as well as to offer prayer and counseling to those who were still in shock from the storm. Vic didn’t cite any Bible verse for the reason he went. He didn’t make up a theology for why the tornado followed an almost identical path as the May 3, 1999 tornado that left 36 people dead in Moore. Vic went to serve those who were serving because that is what he does. (Last night Vic told me he had received offers of help from as far away as Cuba.) He was just one of many who gave of time and energy and resources to aid the survivors. Kevin Durant of the Oklahoma City Thunder pledged $1 million to help in the recovery effort; the Red Cross reports lines of people gathering in the state to give blood and donate blankets, pillows and the like. That’s who we are. We are Okies, and we help each other.

So forgive me when I say I do not need any bad tornado theology at this time. Yes, I expected Fred Phelps to jump in with a “I’m glad people died to show how bad our country is for allowing gay marriages” rant. He is an idiot and the very few who follow him are idiots. And I wasn’t all that surprised when Pat Robertson said the tornado could have been prevented if enough people had prayed for Jesus to still the storm. (How many would “enough people” be, Pat? I was praying. I stood with my phone in hand, watching live a two-mile wide tornado tear apart a town, and I prayed fervently for their protection. I guess I didn’t have enough faith, huh Pat?)

I didn’t even flinch when I read a tweet John Piper sent out (since recalled) Monday evening that read, “Your sons and daughters were eating and a great wind struck the house, and it fell upon them, and they are dead.” (Job 1:19)  He followed it up with the next verse in Job: “Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped.” I didn’t flinch when I read that, but I did want to puke. Piper sits in his pompous palace on his pompous ass and tosses out verses that are supposed to explain just why this tornado touched down and killed ten children and fourteen adults. (This afternoon, Chaplain Mike takes a look at just how miserable a comforter John Piper actually is.)

So why do bad things happen to good people? Why do earthquakes and tsunamis and tornadoes and hurricanes destroy so many lives? Why do good people get cancer that eats them alive from the inside out? Why do hard workers get laid off, setting in motion a chain reaction that leads to the breakup of families? Why is there rape and murder and theft in our world? Where is God in all of this?

For once, I agree with Al Mohler. Speaking on a special podcast he released on Monday night, Mohler said,

Evil is something we want to rationalize, we want to try to find a way to explain it. It is a natural human temptation, it is a natural Christian temptation, to try to rationalize evil and explain that we know how it happened. Once we understand it, we can control it. We do, as Christians, weep when other people weep, we share joy with those who are overjoyed. In this case it is grief.

Some of the bad that occurs in our world is brought about by our own choices. I’ve always said that this “free will” thing was a bad idea. When God breathed us to life, he did so knowing we would go our own way and do things that would hurt ourselves and others. Libraries of books dealing with this topic exist; I’m not even going to venture into their territory. I am talking right now about natural disasters. No one’s free will brought about this week’s tornado, no matter what Robertson or Piper say. So, why does this universe that God created seem so tragic so often?

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day (Genesis 1:31, NASB)

So, did God make this good world, and then take away his hand and let it spin on its own? No. We are told that Jesus holds all created things together.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16, 17, ESV).

So Jesus holds all things in his hands. That includes exploding stars and black holes, floods and plagues, hurricanes and tornadoes. Jesus created these as well as mountains, prairies, oceans and islands. I don’t know why our loving Father doesn’t banish all bad things from our world. I could never grasp why Dumbledore allowed Draco Malfoy to harass Harry Potter. Harry was the chosen one, wasn’t he? So why did he have to suffer so much? Bad things were constantly happening to him, which made for a great story for us, but a lousy life for young Harry. Yet without the areas of conflict, we really wouldn’t have much of a story, huh?

Perhaps we are part of a story God is  unfolding before the universe. Job certainly was. It starts with God receiving reports from various angels, including Satan, about what was going on in the worlds they are in charge of. God challenges Satan to take a good look at his righteous servant, Job. Satan goes on to destroy Job’s life with natural disasters, physical pain, and clueless “friends.” God seems disinterested in it all until Job begins to question what God is up to. Job learns a valuable lesson: There really is a God, and you are not he. Through it all, God never offers up even one explanation for the disasters that happened. Not one. And Job seems to be ok with that.

A story of Job’s faithfulness in the face of adversity? No. It is the story of God in all of his Godness being God. God is the God of life, yes, but he is also the God of death. Death is not evil to our God. Death was present in the Garden even before the Fall. This world operates on a cycle of life and death. The Creator, the one who holds it all in his hands, was slain from before the foundation of this world. He died, and once dead, even though resurrected, he holds death in his hands. He knows its taste and smell. His message to us is not, “If you would just try a little harder, you could become a good person like I am.” Instead, he says “Follow me to the narrow gate marked Death. Come with me through the gate marked Death, for on the other side is true life”

Dying is the one thing we can all do, and do well. And dying is the only requirement God makes of us if we want eternal life.

Some of us will live to be 105 by eating bacon daily. Others will develop cancer and die young. And others still will be killed by a tornado. It is not a form of punishment for sins—we are all sinners. It is not because of a lack of faith. When Jesus returns, will he find any faith on earth? It is not because God neglects us—he knows the number of hairs on our heads. We all die. And it is usually a mess when we do.

In the BBC production of Shadowlands—the story of C.S. Lewis and his wife—Lewis (known as “Jack” to his friends) is coming out of the church where his wife’s funeral had just finished. The parish priest is walking with him and says,

“Faith, Jack. It is faith that sustains us in times like these.”

“No, Harry,” says Lewis. “This is all one big mess, and that is all there is to it.”

For the people in Moore, Monday’s tornado doesn’t come with a gift-wrapped explanation. It is one big mess, and that’s all there is to it.

That is about the only way to describe things that otherwise make no sense. We seek to understand things that are incomprehensible when we really need to trust our God. For people like Piper and Robertson to try and reduce God to an explanation that will fit in a sound bite or a tweet is idiocy.

My friend Vic is no theologian. But he knows the God of life and death, and knows that Jesus, the creator of all things including tornadoes, holds all in his hands. Vic didn’t go to find an explanation; he went to find someone who needed help.

You can help, too. You can make a donation to Vic’s One To The Other Ministries that will enable him and his team to continue being fast responders.

Yesterday, we learned that some denominations are considering making 45 the age cut-off for ordination. Since I haven’t seen 45 for a few years and am much closer to many higher numbers (that will remain unmentioned), today’s Midweek Monkery features some smiles and laughs I’ve had lately with regard to the subject of getting older.

* * *

Jack Benny didn’t set his sights low enough

I get to serve some of the most delightful people in the world. The other day I was visiting a man who was enjoying his 95th birthday. Reminding him of Jack Benny’s famous “stuck on 39″ schtick, I asked him, “So how old are you, Frank? 39?” He paused and thought for a moment, smiled, and said, “36!”

Great Grandma Grace

My great grandmother lived to a wonderful old age — 103. Her name was Grace and her life embodied that virtue. When our children were little, we used to take the drive over to St. Joseph, Michigan every year to celebrate her birthday with her — on Halloween. They loved to go see “Grandma Great Great,” as they called her. One time, I think it was when she was 98 years old, we took her out to a restaurant that would give you the number of your age as a percentage off your meal bill. The young waitress stuttered and stumbled a bit when we told her Grandma was 98. All she could think of to do was to follow normal procedure, which was to ask the birthday person to produce a driver’s license! I’m actually not sure my great grandma had ever driven a car, but we had a good laugh and asked the waitress if she thought she could trust the little lady (well under 5 feet tall) with the pure white hair that she was telling the truth. Of course, she did.

This one’s for Matthew B. Redmond:

One of my favorite stories in recent days is the piece out of Texas about the 105 year old woman who was asked the secret to her long life. The answer should have been obvious: “Bacon,” she said. “I eat bacon every day.”

Her delightful interview caught the attention of one of America’s premier bacon producers, and they decided to give her a gift. Here’s the news report:

Almost…

When the famous fitness guru Jack LaLanne turned 93, an interviewer asked him how he felt. ”I feel great,” he said. “I have sex almost every day. Almost on Monday, almost on Tuesday, almost on Wednesday . . . ”

Larry Miller’s unique take on the aging process

Do you realize that the only time in our lives when we like to get old is when we’re kids? If you’re less than 10 years old, you’re so excited about aging that you think in fractions.”How old are you?”  ”I’m four and a half!”  You’re never thirty-six and a half.  You’re four and a half, going on five!  That’s the key.

You get into your teens, now they can’t hold you back.  You jump to the next number, or even a few ahead. “How old are you?”  ”I’m gonna be 16!” You could be 13, but hey, you’re gonna be 16! And then the greatest day of your life . . you become 21. Even the words sound like a ceremony . . You become 21. Yessss!!!

But then you turn 30.  Oooohh, what happened there?  Makes you sound like bad milk! He turned; we had to throw him out.  There’s no fun now, you’re just a sour-dumpling.  What’s wrong?  What’s changed?

You become 21, you turn 30, then you’re pushing 40.  Whoa!  Put on the brakes, it’s all slipping away. Before you know it, you reach 50 and your dreams are gone.

But wait!!!  You make it to 60.  You didn’t think you would!

So you become 21, turn 30, push 40, reach 50 and make it to 60.

You’ve built up so much speed that you hit 70!

After that it’s a day-by-day thing; in the middle of the week you finally hit Wednesday!

You get in to your 80s and every day is a complete cycle; you hit lunch; it turns 4:30; you reach bedtime.  And it doesn’t end there.  Into the 90s, you start going backwards; “I was just 92.”

Then a strange thing happens.  If you make it over 100, you become a little kid again.  “I’m 104 and a half!”

Age Has Its Advantages

Journalists were interviewing Molly Holderness, a 103-year-old woman, ‘Tell us, Mrs Holderness, what do you think is the best thing about being 103?” the reporter asked.

Molly smiled and simply replied, “No peer pressure.”

People My Age…

Finally, a song from one of my favorite singer-songwriters, John Gorka. And while you’re watching, listen carefully, all you folks from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and make sure you watch your diet. You don’t want to get on the road to lookin’ gross.

Some days more than others, and for various reasons, I’m glad I’m not a Methodist anymore. No, seriously, the trend this article from CT’s Live Blog reports is happening in many church bodies and denominations. I wonder what you think of it.

As for me, I’m all for young pastors — after all, I was one for many years — but is this wise? When you consider longer life spans, healthier living, and the advantages of having people with experience and wisdom in leadership positions, why would a church body ponder a decision like this?

* * *

Methodists May Discourage Those Over 45 from Becoming Pastors
by Melissa Steffan

Link: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/05/methodists_may.html

The overall average age of retirement is creeping slowly upward, but one regional United Methodist conference is promoting changes that would limit ordination opportunities for anyone over the age of 45.

The Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church (UMC) has proposed new guidelines for candidates entering ministry. The guidelines encourage those over the age of 45 to “to pursue other expressions of lay ministry,” and they aim to recruit younger clergy.

According to the UMC, “The Rev. Carol Bruse, the chair of the conference’s 70-member board of ordained ministry, said the aim of the proposed standards is to help the conference plan for future needs. The policy would not affect current clergy or clergy candidates in the Texas Conference.”

But the UMC also acknowledges that ordination is a lengthy process. As a result, “elders 35 or older made up more than 94 percent of all provisional and ordained elders [in 2012], and 53 percent of all elders were age 55 or older.”

Some critics of the proposal have called it “outright ageism,” and others say the emphasis on younger leaders could misinterpret the mission of the church.

Comprised of nearly 285,000 members, the Texas Conference is one of the largest UMC conferences in the U.S., and it could be an influential leader among other conferences when it comes to lowering the average age of clergy. In any case, the conference does not plan to make its final decision on the proposal until October.

O God our refuge and strength our present help in time of trouble, surround all who are affected by the devastating tornado in Moore, Oklahoma with your care; through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen. (ELCA prayer)

Here is the American Red Cross Statement on Oklahoma Tornado. Follow the link to find out how to donate.

Central Indiana Weather forecast for May 20, 2013

Warm, sticky, and breezy. High temperature of 87°. Humidity 64%. Intervals of clouds and sun; chance of rain 10%.

Back in the Saddle Again

Yesterday, I got an early start on my summer of leading worship in our home church. Our pastor and his family had a family need they had to attend to, so he called me Friday evening and asked if I could officiate and preach on Sunday. In addition, it was Music Sunday, the annual conclusion of the official choir season. My wife Gail is the substitute pianist, and so she was asked to play for the services and the choral anthems without having had much opportunity to practice. (I would rather be asked to do what I did than what she had to do.)

It was also the weekend of our Open House to celebrate our son’s graduation, and so we were involved in activities from Thursday to Saturday, getting things ready, welcoming family who came into town, and holding the gathering. Needless to say, it was a packed weekend, and our heads are still reeling from all the activity.

Despite a few frustrations natural to the last minute situation, we had a wonderfully encouraging morning with the congregation. It was Pentecost Sunday, and I preached on the Gospel text: John 14:8-17, 25-27. The two points I saw from Jesus’ words that I applied to our lives were:

• Because of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is closer to us than he ever has been.
• Because of the Holy Spirit, we get to participate in God’s work in a new and greater fashion.

The text focuses on God’s work — and Jesus’ promise that it will not cease or be hindered by his “going away,” but will, in fact be enhanced because of his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the Father’s right hand. This permits the outpouring of the Spirit and the prospect of working under the auspices of the inaugurated Kingdom, with Jesus on the throne.

It also emphasizes Jesus’ presence — though he is departing physically, the Helper that they have known because he has been with them, filling and empowering Jesus, will come to dwell within them. Jesus will be closer to his friends than ever before. This is the peace he gives us.

I illustrated this by outlining what it is like to live each day in the good works that “God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). I told the story of what happened last weekend, when God went before us and helped in the midst of our car troubles. We felt as though the Spirit had carried us. It certainly didn’t have anything to do with our planning or wisdom.

Pentecost means that Jesus is with us on every “ordinary day” and we have the privilege of participating in the works of God that he prepares for us.

An Incisive Analysis of “The New Legalism”

I read a good analysis of the current “radical” and “missional” emphasis by Anthony Bradley at the Acton Institute Power Blog, which focuses on what this is doing to many in the so-called “Millennial” generation.

For too many Millennials their greatest fear in this life is being an ordinary person with a non-glamorous job, living in the suburbs, and having nothing spectacular to boast about.

I found one of his observations most helpful. Bradley notes how the push for “missional” Christians and churches came to the fore at the same time that culture was experiencing what some have called the “narcissism epidemic.”

A few decades ago, an entire generation of Baby Boomers walked away from traditional churches to escape the legalistic moralism of “being good” but what their Millennial children received in exchange, in an individualistic American Christian culture, was shame-driven pressure to be awesome and extraordinary young adults expected to tangibly make a difference in the world immediately.

If Anthony Bradley is correct, it appears that we may have turned the truly “radical” and “missional” nature of Jesus’ Kingdom message on its head. Rather than losing our lives in the Gospel, we have found yet another (religious) way to try and save them.

If you see someone with his head stuck inside a book, it’s probably me…

A couple of Christmases ago, I received a copy of Laura Hillenbrand’s book, Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption. Every time I’ve started reading it, something interrupted and I reluctantly set it aside, hoping to pick up again soon.

The last week I finally decided to make a serious effort. The little I had read was so intriguing and such a compelling story that I knew once I had reached a certain point I would be sucked in and unable to stop reading. And so it has come to pass.

Watch for a review some time soon.

Decision Time

I had a conversation with Jeff, my illustrious blog partner, last week. This followed several conversations I have had lately with my wife and others about the crazy schedule we’ve been keeping — you know, the one that is about to get a lot crazier. These were the result of lots of conversations I’ve had within my own head and with my heavenly Father.

And so it has been decided.

I, Chaplain Mike, will take a break from the everyday duty of writing here on Internet Monk, at least for a few months while I fulfill some additional pastoral responsibilities. I won’t be completely absent — you folks are not going to get off that easy — but will contribute posts on Mondays and Thursdays. This will allow some other folks to participate, and I will add a bit of needed space and time to my life.

The new schedule will begin in June, and you will hear more about it in days to come.

St. Peter Preaching in the Presence of St. Mark (detail), Fra Angelico

In sacramental traditions, the concept of preaching, and even the corporate reading of Scripture, is different than in revivalist traditions. It is about God literally acting through the spoken word.

I know pastors who don’t think, for example, that the lectionary readings should even be printed in the bulletin. The words presented in worship are not given to be read by individual worshipers, but to be heard together by the congregation. The word spoken is the living word of God, and there is something special and sacred about the act of listening to God speak. There is also something special about being gathered with God’s family to be addressed by God and to be together as a people under his word.

Of course, holding this theology doesn’t mean it always translates into practice. But understanding the preaching moment as being of the same piece as the rest of the liturgy, in my opinion, has advantages over other views which see preaching in its essence as rhetoric, apologetics, persuasion, or teaching. Such conceptions highlight the skills of the person in the pulpit and the techniques employed, whereas a more sacramental view highlights God’s action through human speech (no matter how weak or flawed the human speaker).

John Frye, in his weekly “Shepherd’s Nook” post at Jesus Creed, has summarized this sacramental theology of preaching nicely:

John Frye on Sacramental Preaching

Preaching, in some traditions, is a sacrament or comparable to a sacrament. Low church evangelicalism will have to ponder this. What it means is: preaching is more about what God does, than what the preacher and congregation do. Preaching is a holy event when the preacher and the preached to encounter the living God together. The aim of preaching is community-encounter with the living, eyes-blazing Christ Who walks in the community’s ordinary, particular midst. Revelation chapters 2-3 are not just about the living Christ showing up a long time ago to seven churches in Asia Minor. The glorified Jesus, as Lord of his church, still walks around in the midst of local gatherings.

In preaching as sacrament, the aim is the application. Encounter God. Preaching as biblical information-giving with premeditated applications is too weak for such a cogent and holy aim. To be informed by the Bible about God is not the same as to be encountered by the God of the Bible. We preach to encounter God together, not to create a set of preferred human behaviors. Encounter with God in Christ carries its own energies to shape and direct human lives. We preach for corporate encounter with God, believing that encounter will provoke numerous discussions about how we together can live missionally in light of the encounter. Paul suggested even unbelievers and unconvinced will confess an encounter with God (1 Corinthians 14:25) when the church gathers. I do not think I have to unpack Peter’s paradigmatic sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2) to support what I am writing here. Peter, so perceptive of his particular context, announced an act of God in Christ and the announcement was so profound the congregation asked him, “What must we do?!”  Authentic kingdom of God gospel announcement (preaching) evokes startling and diverse questions about how we go about adjusting our lives to Jesus as Lord.

Tax day has come and gone for 2013, but that doesn’t mean the IRS isn’t still up to some hilarious mischief. It seems they might, just might, have spent a wee bit too much time scrutinizing certain conservative groups who sought non-profit status. Of course it had nothing to do with politics, did it? Franklin Graham says the IRS came with guns a-blazin’ for his Samaritan’s Purse charity. And of course he didn’t use that for personal gain or advantage, did he? (Do you ever get the idea Franklin would push aside little old ladies to get a few seconds in front of a TV camera?)

It is a bit disturbing to learn that the IRS asked at least one conservative group to detail the contents of their prayers. Am I the only one who thinks that is just a bit creepy?

Meanwhile, Pope Francis has decried our culture of money. I think he really does mean for the Catholic Church to take care of the poor. Did I mention I really, really like what this pope is saying? Good thing the IRS doesn’t have a branch office at the Vatican. When was the last time you heard a sermon about how the love of money is the root of all evil? Discuss. Right now.

Jonathan Merritt suggests that Mark Driscoll just might be the new Pat Robertson. Oh goodie. As if we really need another Pat Robertson. What is wrong with the one we have now? Well, other than the fact that he just okayed adultery for men. Sigh. Did I mention that I really, really, really like Pope Francis? No? Well, I do.

Finally, in celebration of George Lucas’s birthday this last week, I thought it might be interesting to look at this article comparing Star Trek with Star Wars. Which one are you? Or is it possible to be a Trekkie as well as a Wookie? Which is a greater power, The Force or Mr. Spock’s mind-melding abilities?

Others who celebrated the anniversary of their birth this last week include Irving Berlin; Salvador Dali; Foster Brooks; Phil Silvers; Eric Burden; Butch Trucks; Katherine Hepburn; Steve Winwood; Kix Brooks; George Karl; Joe Louis; Mary Wells; Stevie Wonder; Jack Bruce; David Byrne; Brian Eno; Henry Fonda; George Brett; Dennis Hopper; and Taj Mahal.

Remember David Bowie’s Space Oddity, the story of an astronaut named Major Tom? Here is a killer version sung by … a real live astronaut. While orbiting the earth in the International Space Station. Which is better, Bowie’s or Chris Hadfield’s? Enjoy. That’s an order.

The other day I was thinking that it would make a good discussion topic here at Internet Monk if we examined a “soterian” Gospel presentation (the link will take you to Scot McKnight’s post defining and critiquing this kind of Gospel) and then threw out a few questions, such as:

• Does the N.T. ever show anyone “sharing the Gospel” in a way that is comparable to this?

• Does the N.T. ever encourage Christians to “share the Gospel” in a manner that is comparable to this?

• What, if anything, is missing from this “Gospel” presentation?

• Is there anything misleading about this “Gospel” presentation?

• What do you affirm about this “Gospel” presentation?

Whenever I have a discussion like this, I recall something D.L. Moody once said when someone criticized him for the way he engaged in personal evangelism. He said, “Well, I like the way I share the Gospel better than the way you don’t.”

In other words, if you have problems with this way of “sharing the Gospel,” what would you suggest that we who are called to proclaim the Gospel should say in its place?

¹² When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. ¹³ Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. ¹⁴ Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. ¹⁵ But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. ¹⁶ And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. ¹⁷ For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12-17, NLT)

For someone who lived 3,000,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago, or never, Adam sure is stirring up a lot of dust. Of course, that’s what he was made of, if he was made at all.

Scott Lencke, faithful iMonk and pastor in Brussels, Belgium, brought to my attention a recent article dealing with the importance of a “real” Adam. J.R. Daniel Kirk, a professor at Fuller Theologial Seminary, recently wrote with this thesis in mind: To what extent do we need to affirm a historical Adam in order also to affirm the saving dynamics of Paul’s Adam Christology?  It is well worth reading the whole thing here. Kirk writes,

One of the first questions worth confronting is whether this passage allows for various understandings of how Adam might represent humanity. Thus, for example, might there be room here, not for a physical, natural progenitor of all subsequent human beings, but for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience?

But the question that will clamor for the attention of many is whether such a moment in which sin’s guilt and power are unleashed as the lords of humanity is required at all. There seems to have been death in this world millions of years before human beings came on the scene. Is it possible to affirm the point Paul wishes to make—that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ—without simultaneously affirming the assumptions with which he illustrated these things to be true?

Lencke wrote his own follow-up to Kirk on his blog, and I encourage you to read that as well. Lencke points us past the argument of a historial Adam to the redemptive work of Christ as the focal point of Paul’s Romans passage above.

The other things [Paul] says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event.Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam……we can now recognize that Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

Yet Steven Wedgeworth at The Calvinist International says belief in a real, historical Adam is essential for our faith.

We return to our main question, and we offer this unreserved thesis: The historicity of Adam determines the public nature of our religion. If Adam was a historical individual, then the Bible makes authoritative claims about all of humanity and indeed all of the cosmos. It can, at least in theory, be falsified, and it is thus a legitimate topic of dialectical discourse. It is rational and not a retreat to commitment. If Adam was not a historical individual, and if instead the Genesis account is a sort of mythical story which was employed in order to make a uniquely religious point, then Christianity is necessarily rendered merely metaphorical, expressing truths of the human condition through symbols. The Bible in this case is no longer an authoritative account of human origins, history, and final destiny. It no longer addresses all men in all places and times, but rather expresses one faith-narrative that seeks to convey a meaningful but wholly internal truth.

Put more simply: if Adam is mythical, then so is redemption. While it does not follow that if Adam is mythical, then the historicity of Jesus must also be denied, it doesfollow that if Adam is mythical, then the historicity of Jesus as Second Adam must be denied. And Christianity is founded on Jesus as Second Adam.

So, we have Paul writing that Adam is a symbol of Christ who was yet to come. Does this symbol have to have been real? Does our faith hang in the balance as to whether or not we believe in a historical Adam?

I normally don’t answer my own Difficult Scriptures question, but today I will, and then stand aside to hear your thoughts. To give my answer, I will have to lean heavily on what I learned from Michael Spencer about reading the Bible.

The Scriptures were given us for one reason, and one reason alone: To point us to Jesus. When we try to use the Scriptures to prove other points, we are going outside of the scope of its purpose. The story and symbol of Adam show us “little Adams” to be sinners in need of redemption. Redemption comes in Christ’s death and resurrection. If I focus on whether or not Adam is/was real, I take my eyes away from what God intends me to look at: Jesus. So I guess I’m saying it does not matter to me whether or not Adam was really real. The story of Adam points me to a very real Jesus.

Now, your thoughts?