In the Beginning

Rob and I started reading a new book together called, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Gensis, by Henri Blocher. We're only at the beginning of the second chapter, so we're not real deeply into it yet, but I like what I've read so far. 

The first chapter is essentially explaining how he believes Genesis should be approached --> Scripture should be the overarching authority, illuminating other sources of information (and not the other way around). He gets into the discussions of "Who wrote scripture?" "What place does science have in this discussion?" and "What is the relationship between the two descriptions of creation in the Bible?"

The second chapter begins addressing commonly held beliefs/theories among Christians on how the universe was created. 

• Literal Interpretation: The days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days.
• Reconstruction Theory: (Which I had always heard called the Gap theory.) God created the universe over a very long period of time (Genesis 1:1), then he destroyed it (vs. 2), and remade it in 7 literal days. 
• Concordist Theory: The days in Genesis 1 are really ages or geological eras. 
• He didn't name this one. The stinker. But the fourth view is that the description of the 7 days in Genesis 1 is a literary device. 

We still have to get into the nitty gritty of it all. But I thought I'd post the four views that he lays out in case anyone was interested. I've previously posted 6 views that were presented to us by my geology teacher when I was in 9th grade. It looks like Blocher is leaving out the diluvialist theory (unless he's merging that with Gap) which is interesting because I've heard Christians mention the diluvialist theory as something they believe as recently as within the past decade. 

Since I haven't included any nitty gritty here, let's not get into any of that just yet. But if you have thoughts on his 4 main theories/beliefs, feel free to pipe up. 

Election quote by Mark Driscoll

"That is election. Where the father in love, pursues foolish, obstinant and disobedient children who have chosen death, and he decrees that more important than their will is his love." -- Mark Driscoll

Let My People Go and Go and Go and Go, by Abraham Malamat

http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Let_My_People_Go_and_Go_and_Go_and_Go,_Abraham_Malamat,_BAR_24:01,_Jan/Feb_1998.
This is an interesting article describing several archeological references that sound similar to the story of Exodus (though not in the same scale). Here's the introductory paragraph:

"Nothing in the archaeological record of Egypt directly substantiates the Biblical story of the Exodus. Yet a considerable body of Egyptian material provides such close analogies to the Biblical account that it may, in part, serve as indirect proof for the Israelite episode."

"Will you forgive me?" -- Asking for forgiveness

Where does the Bible say that we should "ask for forgiveness" from someone we have wronged? I know that the Bible says that we should forgive others. And I know that if we confess our sins to God, he will forgive us. And I know that we have wronged another we should go and seek reconciliation. But it seems to me that going to someone that you have wronged and then asking them to forgive you is adding burden to them rather than taking it away. 

Let's say John injures Tom in some way and Tom is hurt. Then John goes to Tom and says, "I'm sorry, will you forgive me." I'd say that John is doing a good thing in admitting his culpability when it comes to having hurt Tom. But then he follows that quick admission up with an added encumbrance for Tom, that of having to forgive on demand. 

Asking for forgiveness and giving forgiveness are two very different things. The latter involves consciously being willing to let go of the argument or the emotional hurt in order to renew the relationship. The former is a request. Some treat it even as a demand -- the moment that I ask you for forgiveness for something I have done is the moment you need to make that conscious decision to give up on your side of the argument or your side of the emotional hurt. I have known people who used it as a means of ending an argument with the upper hand. You admit that you're wrong, but then force the other person into a position of loss by dictating that the argument is now over and your feelings toward me must now be restored since I said "sorry." And if you can't do that, then the problem is definitely with you and not me. 

So I'm curious. Can you think of a passage in the Bible that says that when we have wronged someone we should ask for their forgiveness? Certainly we should try to restore the relationship and certainly we should admit to our guilt in our part of damaging the relationship. But does the Bible say we should then vocally put the onus of forgiveness upon the other party? 

What is the difference between a theist and a deist?

Over thinking the brand

I know this is a bit of a leap, but I'm going to make it anyway. I feel like sometimes churches (or perhaps I should say "church staff") over think what they're all about. They try to turn church into something that sounds really, really great, even though you can't really pin down what they mean by most of what they're saying. The church is "authentic." What does that really mean and how does it fit in with the fact that most of the people on stage are paid staff/professionals? Or the word "covenant" is throw in before all the important words to emphasize how important they are, even if they don't really have anything in particular to do with the covenant. 

Here's a clip of Stephen Colbert sharing a sponsortunity he was given by Wheat Thins... with an overly thought out information sheet attached. 

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Grrrr, the video plays in edit mode, but not once I submit. So if this isn't working, click here to see the video. 

The only hermeneutic of the gospel...

I haven't read the book. In fact, I don't think I'd even heard of the author until yesterday. But to the extent that I understand what he's saying, I agree whole heartedly. If the world cannot see the gospel embodied in the church, then how can our story speak with authority or effectiveness?

The following is directly copied from Tolle Lege where I found the quote.

“I have come to feel that the primary reality of which we have to take account in seeking for a Christian impact on public life is the Christian congregation. How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross?

I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it. I am, of course, not denying the importance of the many activities by which we seek to challenge public life with the gospel– evangelistic campaigns, distribution of Bibles and Christian literature, conferences, and even books such as this one.

But I am saying that these are all secondary, and that they have power to accomplish their purpose only as they are rooted in and lead back to a believing community.”

–Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 227.