Why Genesis?

We’ve been working through the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis recently. It’s got me wondering as to who this story and the others in Genesis were originally written for and why? I don’t think the answer is too complicated when you think about it, but it is certainly revealing.

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy come as a package that formed the backbone of the Hebrew Bible – they called it the “Torah” meaning law. This is possibly a little deceptive as these books are much more story than law. Any laws laid down in them are in context of the story. They were also laid down at a specific time in the life of Israel that was necessary for Israel’s survival. I believe that time was just before they crossed the Jordan to take possession of the promised land. Certainly, the book of Deuteronomy is written as a sermon by Moses to the people shortly before they crossed the Jordan. The emphasis of Deuteronomy is on what the Israelites had to do to keep a right relationship with God. Similarly, the book of Leviticus is attributed to Moses – this book is about the work of the Levites who were to be the priest who were to lead the people in living a holy life as God’s holy people. Numbers, also attributed as the work of Moses, is a census of the people during their journey in the desert and a continuation of the story of the people as they prepared for entering the promised land. Exodus is, obviously, the story of Moses and God’s rescuing the people from Egypt and taking them through the desert.

So, these four books can all be attributed to Moses as, at least, receiver and conveyor of the messages from God. Scholars may argue whether he was the actual scribe or not, of if the material has been edited at some other stage or not, but it seems clear to me that the first people that these books were intended for were the people who were ready to cross the Jordan and enter the promised land. As I intimated earlier, Genesis has always been part of this group of books. I think it is a very reasonable conclusion that it was also intended first for this same audience – the generation of Jews who had been born in the desert and were about to cross the Jordan. The way Genesis is written is such that it is probably all based on oral tradition passed down the generations. Whilst it is possible that it was not first written down till long after Moses’s day, I believe the stories were ones being told and retold to those desert born children of the Exodus.

So, why were the stories of Genesis important to this generation? I think the answer becomes obvious when we consider where those people had come from and what they were facing. This, in turn, helps us to concentrate on the real messages that come from Genesis, rather than some we “read into” the book ourselves – more on this later. First, who were these people?

They were a generation born to parents who had once been slaves in Egypt. In fact, their ancestors for many many generations had been slaves in Egypt. As such, they no doubt were still familiar with Egyptian ways of doing things, stories, customs, and possibly even language. It is hard to imagine that over 400 years of living in Egyptian culture working to the calendar of the Egyptian people – preparing the soil as they prepared the soil, sewing when they sewed, reaping when they reaped that they were not thoroughly imbued in the Egpytian ways. This is similar for refugee and migrant cultures today. We probably all know second and third generation migrants who are thoroughly familiar with “Kiwi” ways and are obviously Kiwi, yet they still also Vietnamese or Dutch and still maintain contact with that culture. As a slave race they were not integrated with the Egyptians through marriage or by becoming upwardly mobile – there was still a separateness. If there hadn’t been Moses would hardly have been able to identify them to lead them out of the country! In their separateness they would have maintained some customs from long ago and, like many cultures, they would have passed down the stories – stories that helped identify who they were.

I’m intrigued that through these stories they were apparently not strongly monotheistic – ie not strongly tied to one God. I say this because of the experience of the people in the desert. First, they did not readily identify with Moses’s God - “Yahweh.” That is the name of God that God himself gave to Moses (in English meaning “I am who I am”). They trusted him only in that they had seen his action with the plagues, so they reasoned he could get them out from under the thumb of Pharaoh. Once out of danger they began complaining to Moses – so your God can get us out of Egypt, but can he feed us? And, then, when Moses went away for a few days they apparently slipped into some old Egyptian habits and built themselves a god.

A generation later, the children of these obstinate people were facing some of the same questions. So, this God of the old man (and Moses was very old by then!) had apparently helped their parents escaped Egypt (though they hadn’t witnessed that first hand). Supposedly he dwelt in the tent – though only spoke to Moses. Supposedly, the few times we’d travelled it had been Yahweh in the cloud. Supposedly, he was the source of the manna and quail, though this was just a normal everyday occurrence that it wasn’t really all that special. Now, the old man was on the way out. Would is God go with him? We had to find somewhere to live and settle down and farm the land and raise families. Certainly, the fertile land across the Jordan looked good. But, we had to fight for it. Can Yahweh fight battles as well as deliver manna? Can he defeat the gods of these people sitting behind their fortified city walls? Then, again, what does Yahweh know about farming – don’t these fertility gods who have it sussed? Aren’t they responsible for the fantastic grape harvests in this land of milk and honey?

The answer to these questions are given by Moses in the stories of Genesis and what follows. Interestingly it is first in Genesis (in chapter 2) that the name “Yahweh” first appears. In English translations this usually is written as “the Lord” or “the Lord God” or sometimes, as in the Message translation, as a capitalised GOD. This contrasts to the term “el” which is a generic term for any god and, when referring to God, is usually written as God (ie in contrast to the Lord). What this all means is that at or around this time the stories the Israelites knew had something additional added to them … namely, the name of God – Yahweh. Thus, linking Yahweh who saved them from the Pharaoh and fed them in the desert to the Yahweh who created the world and everything in it, who wants to have a relationship with them, who made a promise to their ancestor Abraham about this land they were about to enter, who by saving Joseph and giving him dreams also saved his family from starvation – his family who were the originators of the thirteen tribes of Israel and the heirs apparent of the promised land.

What this means is that Genesis is an answer to the question “Who is this Yahweh?” “What can he do?” “Can he really give us this land and help us to live there?” The answer is a resounding “YES.” Yes, because he is the source of all life – the creator of all the crops and the animals, of the water that gives life. Yes, because he is not some capricious god that needs mollifying in the hope that he won’t do us in, rather, he is our creator who desires a relationship with us. Yes, because what we though of as other gods – like “Ra” the sun god, are mere creations – mere “lamps of the day and lamps of the night.” All this is in the first couple of chapters of Genesis. What follows is the story of Yahweh’s relationship with his people – most importantly it shows he is in charge and can be trusted.

For us today I believe this has a very important message when we come to read Genesis, especially the first few chapters. We must approach it as a book that is answering “Who?” and “Why?” questions as it was written originally to answer just such questions. The tragedy in many churches and with many Christians today is that Genesis is approached as an answer to “How?” questions. It is thought of as a piece of scientific literature that answers How God made the world. ie it is thought of as much like a book that says “Water freezes at 0 Celsius and boils at 100 C.” That is, it is thought of as giving scientific fact. I believe it is very misleading, indeed foolish, to try and read Genesis this way. For a start, such writing of scientific “fact” did not appear until about 3000 years until after Genesis was written (ie about 300-400 years ago). For Genesis to be a statement of scientific fact it would also have to be an invention of a genre of writing 3000 years ahead of when the genre next appeared. This means, that when someone says that Genesis supports the theory of the Big Bang because it separates dark from light, meaning the creation of photons, they are quite wrong. Similarly, when someone says that Genesis tells them that God made the world in seven (literal) days, in contrast to millions of years, they are similarly quite wrong. Genesis makes no claim as to “How” God made the world and that includes how long it took.

The tragedy is the wasted time and energy debating “How” claims when we should be rejoicing in all we can learn about “Who” and “Why.”

The tragedy is even greater in that it has resulted in us building a great barrier to the gospel. For many non-Christians when they hear of Christians proclaiming a young earth and literal 7day creation based on Genesis the message these Christians proclaim immediately looses credibility. The only stumbling block we should be putting in place is the Christ and Christ crucified – anything else is sinful. This includes all the misinterpretations of Genesis as a book of Hows.

As the Israelites stood on the bank of the Jordan asking “Who is this God?” “Can he help us where we are going?” “Why would he want to?”, so to are people asking Who, and Why questions that Christians have the answers to. These are questions of Who can help me, Why are things the way they are and why should I trust God when it is so tough? Genesis helps in answering these questions… let us get back to reading it as it was first intended to be read..

The heavens declare the glory of the Lord

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord ...." Psalm 19.

Click on this link for a slideshow of some of my favourite Hubble photos: http://www.photomax.com/web/mem_album_photo_slide_show.php?TrackId=1440596&RandomId=221267817

Where is the anger?

I've just read Numbers 31. God asked the Israelites to avenge him against a tribe that had led Israelites away from God. Moses's ordered a battle and there was a lot of brutal blood letting. Frankly, I don't know how much of how Moses acted God was pleased with and how much, if any, he thought "over kill" (literally!). What I do know, is that the Israelites had been led from God by others and God, and Moses, were angry.

The question I think we should all ask our selves is "When did I last get angry because God's holiness was afronted?"

If the answer is "never" or "a long time ago" then we need to take a long look at ourselves. We also need to be aware if we get angry only when we feel personally affronted or when we feel it is the "right thing to do" because everyone else is doing it (eg the anger at Meridian energy following the death of the woman who had her power cut off - That anger was only on the "possibility" that there was a causual link between the cutting of the power and the woman's death. It seemed to sweep the world of talk show and politics, without waiting for the facts to come in).

So.. how do we get a sense of God's holiness and his right to expect it to be defended?

When we feel that anger, the next question is how do we control it and express it to bring about changes in attitude and action?

DotCom 11: Passion, prayer, power in Habakkuk

He sat down, checked BBCnews and CNN - a story about a little girl kidnapped and murdered was the last straw. He let rip - "God - why do you allow this violence. how can you tolerate it any longer, you let the wicked get away with murder!!!!"

At least, that is how I imagine it would be for Habakkuk if he was around today. Read the first 4 verses of chapter 1 and you'll see what I mean.

God's response to Habakkuk's, and potentially our, cry for justice and an end to all that is wrong with the world (and church, and family, and ....) is both frustrating and puzzling. He says that things are going to get worse and I'm the cause of it .... "I'm raising up the Babylonians" (the "social engineers", the "church Liberals", the "drug dealers" who will corrupt your son....).

Frankly, I find this one of the most confusing and frustrating passages of the Bible. I fully understand Habakkuk's response (1:12-2:1) when he says, effectively, "Whoa there God - I can't accept this lying down - I thought you were good and perfect and almighty and just and ....." and "I'm so confident that you are those things I'm going to watch carefully for what you are going to do...."

God's response is very gracious - he gives Habakkuk a revelation - one to write down for all of us. He let's Habakkuk in on his own anguish at the awful sins of the people - their greed, arrogance, infidelity, idol worship etc. He also assures Habakkuk of his own triumph and the sure knowledge that the early will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord (2:14). This is awe inspiring for Habakkuk and he then turns to God in fear and trembling, yet with faith acknowledging God's power, and right to act as he so chooses and his position to wait and watch (chapter 3, especially 3:16-19

SOME LESSONS FOR ME

1. We should be indignant at all the evil and injustice in the world. My prayer is that I am never so insensitive to suffering and injustice that I can just watch the news and not be moved by it.
2. We should take this to God and plead for changes. These may be pleas for changes in the world, our city, our church, our family, ourselves. God won't turn around and tell us off for our passionate pursuit of justice - even if we accuse him of doing nothing (for it sure feels that way at times!). Honesty is the best policy!
3. God's answer may be unexpected (I don't like this one, but that's what's in the text!).
4. God makes use of all things - even evil people for his own ends. God is in control is what I can take from this - even when I don't see how.
5. When I don't see how things can get better, or how God is acting I need to focus on God's character - on the things I know about God for certain - his faithfulness, love, mercy, justice, power.
6. I do need to be patient and watch. I think this involves both the "leaving things in God's hands" and the being pro-active in watching for what he will do. I don't believe this is a resignation of defeat or a fatalism ... going to the watch tower and watching and waiting for God's response is a positive hopeful, expectant, action.
7. I must acknowledge God's sovereignty and praise him for who he is, even if I find it scary. I think this is recognising that God has a plan that is bigger - much bigger - than me or indeed anything I can conceive. That he bothers to consider me and my moaning and groaning is a sign of his mercy and his power. However, I need acknowledge his overall wisdom and his right to rule history (mine, the church's, the nation's, the world's)

DotCom 10: Hosea and the Church

We looked at the first chapters of Hosea the other evening. Poor Hosea - imagine being an upright member of your congregation known for speaking out against the corrupt and sex obsessed society and then being told to go out and marry a whore (not a pleasant word - but that is the reality of it). Not surprisingly she wasn't faithful. Then you get to name your children as "Nobody", ""No Mercy" and, after one of the most disgraceful bloody and corrupt episodes in your country's history "Jezreel" ("Soweto", "Rwanda", Auschwitz", "Dresden")

We often look at the world and church and thing "If you are so powerful God why don't you just wave a wand and sort it all out?" Hosea seems to take a look at things from God's side. We see God agonising over Israel - he speaks very harshly and threateningly (some of which came to pass with the invasion of the Assyrians and the Exile) at times, and then he displays incredible compassion as he seeks to court his whore and love her despite everything.

When we read Hosea it is easy to think of the world outside of the church as analogous with Israel/Ephraim. However, we need also to think of the church and about how much God hates when the church "prostitutes herself" with the things of this world.

In Chapter two we see that the Israelites were following the Canaanite Baals - or fertility gods. This was not just about sex, but also about following the gods that they thought most relevant to their needs. Their needs were no longer to be lead through the desert, but for the crops to grow and there be a good harvest - so, thanks YHWH for the help in getting here, but now we are here we'll do what the locals do because it seems to work best.

At the time of Hosea Israel and Judah had been through a golden age - 50-60 years without war, with good harvests, and high commodity prices - much like NZ today!

I think that the church today needs to learn a lesson from Hosea. We too block off whole areas of our life and thinking from God. This is particularly true in the public world of facts. We have allowed the scientists and politicians (and I'm a bit of both!) to shut the church out of public affairs and push it into the private inner realm. We no longer look at the WHOLE world from a teleological perspective - the perspective of God's purpose - we tend only to think about God's purpose for me as an individual or perhaps my congregation.

Also, like the Israelites, we tend to have an obsession with potency, power, success as what life is all about. God seeks faithfulness above all. There is nothing wrong per se with large or small churches, flash or plain buildings as long as they are all put to the use of building God's kingdom and not the petty little personal fiefdoms we all seem to crave.

DotCom 6: Who do you say I am? Part 1

Jesus asked his disciples about who people thought he was. Over the next couple of weeks we shall explore that question in our contemporary society.

First, let us dispel the myth that Jesus did not consider himself divine. There are many Biblical passages we could use for this (for example Paul's beautiful description of Jesus in Philippians 2). I've chosen to to use part of John's gospel.

One of the structures of John's gospel is the 7 "I am" statements.
6:35 I am the bread of life
8:12 I am the light of the world
10:7 I am the gate for the sheep
10:11 I am the good shepherd
11:25 I am the resurrection and the life
14:6 I am the way the truth and the life
15:1 I am the true vine

Each of these statements begin with "I am." (obviously). In Greek as in many languaegs today (eg Polish) there are two ways to say "I am", indeed two ways to express any verb. The reason is that the ending of the verb tells you if the meaning is "I" or "he, she, it, you, they". So the workd "eumi" in greek means "I am." However, if someone wants to emphasise the "I" then they can put the work for I in front of "eumi". That is they say "I Iam" (ego eumi). This is what John wrote was Jesus emphasis in all these statements. If he had spoken in English then we may have recognised the emphaise my the tone of voice "I am." John is making sure that the readers of know that Jesus was emphasising himself (singularly) in all all these statements.

But, wait, there's more.

Read
John 14:8-11 where Jesus explicity links himself to God the Father
10:30-31 where he is one with the Father
10:36 where he is recognized as the son of God
8:58-59 were he claims to pre-exist Abraham - "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!"

8:59, 10:31,39 When the Jews heard what Jesus was saying they immediately, without hesitation, concluded he was blasphemeing and deserved to die. Why - because he explicitly identified himself as God because he used the Jew's special name for God. That name is "I am" (Yhwh, Jehovah in Hebrew). In Exodus 3:14 Moses asks God what his name is ... he answers "I AM WHO I AM".

The conclusion that John wanted his readers to draw is obvious - Jesus claimed to be the great I AM, the eternal creator God giver of life.

Dotcom 3: How was the NT formed?

It's a good question. After all, we are making, and asking others to make, life changing decisions based on 2000 year old texts.

Ancient texts
Over 5000 ancient fragments and manuscripts of the NT remain.
The earliest of these was around 130AD (papyrus fragments of John 18). About another 85 papyri exist.
Manuscripts of most of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, Hebrews and Revelations are from 200-250AD
Complete manuscripts of the NT from the 4th and 5th centuries have been preserved.

A few points to note:
The manuscripts are remarkably consistent with only a few minor variations that are small copiest errors.
The volume of manuscript evidence far outweighs that of any other ancient text. For example, Josephus wrote of the Jewish Wars in about 90AD. There is one Latin translation from the 5th century, and Greek copies from the 10th century or later available. There are 10 manuscripts of the Gallic Wars (58-50BC) by Caesar, all later than the 9th century.

Which books?
How did the 27 books of the NT come to be chosen as the "right ones" (called forming the canon of the NT)?

1. Letters from Bishops Clement (96AD), Ignatius (c.108AD) and Polycarp (c110AD) between them quote and refer to 25 of the 27 books.
2. In addition to the gospels the letters of Paul and other apostles where quickly recognised as valuable - some had been deliberately written for circulating amongst churches.
3. In the second century there arose some heretical movements (mainly Gnostics with beliefs such as the God of the OT being different from that of the NT, Christ's human appearance and suffering where not "real" etc). These groups tended to pick and choose what they wanted from the texts (sound familiar?) and some even wrote "Gospels" to fill in the childhood of Jesus, on add some additional "Acts" of the apostles.
4. Iraneus in about 190AD (who studied under Polycarp who had been a disciple of John) recognised the need to spell out which books were acceptable. This is largely what we recognised today as the NT but with Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, 3John missing. The Shepherd of Hermes was considered OK for private worship, but not public and the Wisdom of Solomon was included.
5. The Wisdom of Solomon was soon dropped, some specific books excluded (incl the Shepherd of Hermes and Revelation of Peter), and James, 2Peter, 2&3 John and Jude debated for a while before they were included by AD350-400.

The early Church followed Jesus lead in recognising the authority of the OT. They recognised the Gospels and most of the NT having similar authority very early on. The disputes were not over what should be included in the canon of the NT so that it would be authoritative, but what is authoritative and therefore should be included.

It was not simply one or two who sat down and made decisions, but a broad consensus over many decades as to what was and what was not authoritative. Some criteria were obvious - it had to be written or sponsored by an apostle, recognized as having orthodox content, and be widely in use in the churches.

Another point to recognise is that these texts survived the many persecutions of the church - in other words they were found to be relevant to the lives and sacrifices of the early Christians.

For those wanting to read some more, FF Bruce's "Documents of the New Testament; Are they reliable?" is a good place to start.

Dotcom 1: What is the Bible?

What does it mean to say "I believe in the Bible" or that the Bible is the "Word of God"? Here are a few notes to stimulate your thinking ...

"I believe in the Bible" for me is a statement more about God than the books of the Bible. I am, in effect, saying God has authority and I sit under than authority. God has chosen to reveal himself to me through the Biblical story, therefore I better take note of it!

"The Bible is the inspired word of God." This is another cliche. In 2 tim 3:14-17 Paul uses a word sometimes translated as "inspired"

"All scripture is inspired by God ..." (NRSV translation)

In other translations it uses the term (closer to the Greek) of "God breathed" which reminded Timothy and us of God breathing life into Adam. So the Bible get's its life - it's very meaning - from God. This helps me because it reminds me that if I try and interpret any particular passage from the Bible I must remember that it's God who gave and gives it life. Any meaning I try and give it must be submitted to God for checking ... it must be consistant with the whole Bible (let the Bible interpret the Bible), with the Biblical Story (ie it must fit in with how God is trying to restore all people to himself) and with the character of God.

In the 2Tm passage mentioned Paul talks of "All Scripture" being profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Interestingly he is speaking of what we now call the Old Testament. Amongst some people there is the temptation to read the New Testament only and a few selected parts (eg Psalms) of the OT. I think this warns us to take the scripture as a whole and not to neglect parts of it. It also tells us that it's purpose is to help make and keep me right with God so that I can do good work.

The Biblical story, therefore, is still being carried out in our lives as we are still part of God's story as we become more righteous, build the church, and await the completion of the story.

Literal v Liberal interpretations
I've noticed that there tends to be a polarisation in the mind of some that there are only two possible positions to take with respect to the Bible, namely: "Liberal" where what is interpreted from the Bible depends much on what is socially acceptable amongst the wider community of the day and "Literal" where every word of the Bible must have a concrete meaning relating directly to today. I believe both views are fundamentally flawed. The flaw being the same for both ... they tend to fail to take into account what the original writers and hearers/readers first understood with what was written. This way of interpreting the Bible is known as eisegesis. Simply put eisegesis is giving a meaning from outside with minimal regard to the original meaning. Some very liberal interpreters do that over moral issues - such as homosexuality, saying that because we know more now and we "should" accept homosexuals and that God is love that the passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual acts no longer apply. Similarly some literal interpreters will find in the Bible allegories to almost every modern situation (such as Barry Smith did with Revelations when he said the world would end in 1985).

The opposite of eisegesis is exegesis. Exegesis requires us to first understand what was written, by whom and for whom. We must see how that fits into the whole Biblical story and with the character of God. From that (Ex being "out of") we may draw conclusions as to what it may mean to us today. For me, exegesis is always the starting point.

I do, though, believe we should take a literal interpretation of the Bible in the sense that we should take a liberal interpretation of ALL we read. Namely, when I read a novel I take it literally as a made up story, when I read a set of instructions for a microwave I take them as instructions that must be followed, not re-interpreted as a myth, when I read a scientific text book I take it as science, or a poem as poetry. The same goes for the Bible - I read poetry as poetry, historical narrative as historical narrative, parable as parable, allegory as allegory etc.

So, when I approach a Bible passage I ask the questions:
"What genre?"
"What is the author's purpose?"
"Who were the audience?"
"How did they react?"
"Why is it in the Bible?"
"How does it fit with the Biblical story?"
"What does it tell be about God?"
and, only then
"What can it suggest to me about the world about me, about the church, about who God wants me to be?"

The hope that we have - 1 Peter

Place: St Christopher’s
Date and Time: 7pm. 5 Feb 2007.
Title: Apologetics

I wonder if any of these statements are familiar to you ….

“I believe all religions are the same …”
“Jesus was a good man, but …”
“Obviously it’s true for you, but don’t push it down my throat”
“Christianity is so intolerant …”
“How can God allow that little girl to die?”
“All truth is relative …”

I like the last one in particular because the obvious answer is “Are you absolutely sure?”

What comments have you heard?

When you or I respond to questions like this we are engaging in something called “Apologetics”, this comes from the Greek word Apologia which means to give a word back. It was used in biblical times for the response an accused gave in defence of themselves in court. For example, a Roman governor (Festus) in Acts (25:16) said that in line with Roman traditions Paul had the right to make an Apologia to his accusers “face to face.”

How many of you have been to an Alpha course?
How many have read some of CS Lewis?
How about having heard Ravi Zacharias on the radio or read one of his books?

If so, then you’ve benefited from some of the best apologists of the last 50 years. These people and others all help us understand the answers to some of the difficult questions
- “Where is God when it hurts?”
- “How can God allow evil?”
- “How can Christianity be so exclusive?”
etc.

It is not the apologetics of intellectual giants that I want to talk about today, but the apologetics that you and I are exhorted to engage in by Peter in his first letter where he wrote:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15

Apologetics is the “give the reason” bit.

Peter was not writing to CS Lewis or Nicky Gumbell exclusively, but to Christians who, like us, a minority living amongst non-believers – pagans – who, at best were indifferent to them, at worse they hassled them.

CONTEXT


Peter was in probably in Rome and he was writing to Christians dispersed across what we not think of us North and East Turkey

It was a
•Fearful society (3:14) [Recall Paul in Athens who found an alter to an "unknown god" whom people offered sacfices to just in case this god got upset and caused them some problems!]
•Unrestrained society - drink and sex (4:3)
•Pluralistic society – idols (4:3)
•Hostile society to Christians
–Fiery ordeal (4:12)
–Maligned as evildoers (2:12)
–Considered shameful

This hostility was not from the Roman authorities (whom Peter told the Christians to honour), but from the locals. The exact nature of the persecution is uncertain but it appears to have involved a lot of false accusations – some of them quite serious. You may recall that Paul got in trouble with locals once when the local silversmiths got upset because his preaching diminished their trade in silver idols! They may have also been accused of things like cannibalism because of the communion ritual. In short, their suffering was because they were different, others were ignorant of what they were really about, and because of fear.


Another aspect of the society around them was that it was extremely concerned with showing honour to others - something that usually involved praising publicly the good deeds of others. They also were extremely concerned to avoid shame.

Peter reminds the Christians that their honour does not come from others, or the emperor, but through the genuiness of their faith and their behaviour during the siffering. In fact should they suffer for doing right (3;23) then it is to their honour and to the shame of those who persecute them.

PARALLELS

I see many parallels here with us and the society we live in …

Fearful

From yesterday's Press:

Dire climate warning
By PAUL GORMAN and PATRICK CREWDSON - The Press 05:00am
More violent floods and hurricanes, acute droughts and frequent heat-waves will plague the Earth if there are no massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say.


We are fearful – not so much of capricious Gods, but of what will happen to us and our planet. Will global warming “get us” as this Press article suggests.
Will it be terrorism?
Will we be destitute?
Will our friends still like us if we don’t get drunk with them?
Will he still like me if I don’t go to bed with him?
We are still a fearful society


Unrestrained

From yesterday's Press:

Alleged sex act by police officers
By STAFF REPORTERS - The Press 05:00am
Christchurch police are investigating allegations that two officers had sex outside a city station.

Such headlines should cause us shock, but they don't anymore because we are so used to a society which has seperated sex from love and revels in the debauchery involved.


Pluralistic

"Tolerance" is the new meta-religion.

Even our own church leaders have fallen for the myth that we must somehow show our tolerance by accepting other religions. Last year they allowed the erction of Buddhist statues on Cathedral property, and a Hindu text on an alter cloth.

Hostile

There are plenty who are publicly hostile to Christianity. One of the most vehement in recent times in Biologist and popular author who has not dropped all pretence of being a scientist and come out scathingly against the church in a new book called "The God Delusion" in which he
asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.

On a local scale - I heard this mornign how a son-in-law had been preventing a grandmother from taking her 2 year old granddaughter to church.

You'll have your own stories of hostility.

PETER'S RESPONSE

You must Remeber (read the first chapter of 1 peter):

–Who you are in Christ – chosen, made holy (1:2)
–What God’s done – Prophets (1:10) – Jesus – New Birth (1:3)
–What God will do
•Inheritance – revealed in the “last time” (1:6)
•Give honour when Jesus returns (1:7)
•Fulfil our purpose – salvation of our souls (1:9)


Peter’s response was to remind everyone of who they where, what God has done and what God will do.
We live in a society that resists any overarching story (metanarrative) – a characteristic of postmodernism has been to reject the idea that anyone or any country can some how say how history really is.
We need to be reminded that God created, we messed up, and God put in a plan that peaked with Christ’s coming, but is yet to be fully played out.

In short

Christ has Died, Christ has Risen, Christ Will Come Again

and Peter continues

THEREFORE (we must ask what is it there for) prepare your minds for action.



In those days the mind was not centred in the brain but in the heart. When the Bible speaks of heart it is not speaking of passion or some ill defined feeling, but the core of our thinking that drives our behaviour.

What we put into our mind will ultimately come out of us – positively we focus on the promises of Christ – of Jesus coming again to right all wrongs, to bring us to completion in him
Negatively, we reject the ways of the fearful, pluralistic society around us and we set our lives aside for Christ. We are to be holy even as God is holy – a big call, but by the grace of God one we can strive towards every day of our lives.

In this way, Peter says, we will influence those around us – our friends, our bosses, our spouses. Even when some are hostile there will be questions to be answered and by preparing our minds for action we will be prepared to answer them.

Why should we be prepared?


I began talking of some of the things people say
“Jesus was a good man, but ….” “All truth is relative …” “Science has proved there is no God …” “If there is a God he wouldn’t have allowed …”
It is very tempting not to rock the boat and just ignore those comments. I can easily in my mind justify this by saying “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion “ (a postmodern cliché), or “God doesn’t need my help to defend the gospel”

This, though is very muddled thinking. We are asked to “give a reason” for two reasons

1. to prevent evil.

Today’s ideas are tomorrows actions, look at where some ideas led ...
–There is no God therefore everything is permissible (Nietzsche) – Hitler
–“Religion is the opiate of the masses” (Marx) – Stalin
– belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly (Dawkins) - ????

Hitler was some one's grandson, he was someone's class mate, he was someone's work mate ... if one of them had managed to give him reasons for hope centred on Christ, how different history would be!

Who knows about those around you - they will be teachers, parents, and leaders. Are you ready to respond to them to prevent evil.

2. so that others too may have hope

We have no right to deny anyone hearing of the hope that we have. To the contrary for the sake of their souls – for the sake of their eternal life and all the other people they may come into contact with and may influence we must be prepared to speak of the hope that we have – of who we are in Christ, of Christ who has dies, Christ who has risen and Christ who will come again.

HOPE

Unlike lotto our hope is not pie in the sky – a “might”.
It is not individualistic, but for everyone.
Our hope is a certainty.
Our hope is based on Truth and the Truth shall set you free. One of the greatest challenges as a Church in New Zealand is to responds to a society that rejects absolute claims to truth. Personally, this is a challenge I have given myself – to try and understand the various subcultures of New Zealand and to find ways to respond to their questions with the truth. I am very interested in working with anyone else who wants to help me build bridges to convey the truth of the gospel and the hope that it brings.

The Challenge

Where do you place your hope?
Are you prepared?


Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

The active worrier

There are times when we all worry. The future may seem bleak ... for our selves or someone we know. Worry is in part being in a state of uncertainty. As someone who easily worries I've been thinking a little lately about this and about being an active worrier.

A passive worrier is someone who starts to worry and just allows the thoughts to continue, and possibly, overwhelm them. An active worrier is someone who recognises the worrier and takes some positive action.

Jesus gives us the clue to the first step an active worrier can take. He talks of not worrying because God is all knowing and all caring. In other words - put your worry in the greater perspective of you being part of God's creation - a very loved part. Jesus then calls us to action - "strive" for the kingdom of God and that which is right is his call (Matthew 6:25-34).

So, two actions are there - put things in perspective and strive to do what is right (ie not merely convenient). These may be preceded by a third action - prayer. A wise friend said the other day - when you find yourself worrying, pray. At the very least "a problem shared is a problem halved" - but be prepared for much more for our God is a gracious God.

Take Hold of life

"Take hold of life" - no passive sitting back and letting life "happen" to you. Instead, take life by the scruff of the neck and live it! Take action now ... don't let another day go past that you will never remember and will be just a grey blur of mediocrity. Instead - stand tall and do something today as if this was the first day of the rest of your life (which it is) and you want to remember this day for eternity. Living life is to be purposeful and full of action - it is not to be merely endured or left to run down to the day we die.

I came across the imperative "take hold" of life when reading something the apostle Paul said to his young disciple Timothy. Here's the verse in full:

"Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and for which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses" Paul to Timothy in 1Tim6:12

I may blog another time about taking hold of eternal life another time ... I'll finish with the thought that as we take action today we do so as beings designed for eternity.