We are all in Babylon

For the past week I've been reflecting on Doug's sermon from Daniel 1, and have been struck particularly by the parallels between Daniel's situation and our own. No, we haven't been taken captive to a foreign land and trained for service to the king of that land, but we have faced (and continue to) the temptation of assimilation to a pagan culture, a culture not in service of Yahweh, a culture that serves many false gods, and seeks to rename us (understand our identity) in the language of those gods. And, like Daniel and his friends, God remains Jealous for our hearts. Jealousy can, of course, be a negative thing -- jealousy in the sense of envy or covetousness. This type of jealousy is not appropriate for God and thankfully not the kind of jealousy he evinces. God is rather jealous in the sense of zealous -- he desires greatly our worship and service and will not stand by idly while we misplace our affections and serve other gods, whether those gods be the gods of Babylon or the gods of 21st century America. Furthermore, while jealousy in the negative sense is usually directed ultimately at the harm of its object (there is a consistent link in Scripture between envy and violence -- Cain and Abel are one of many examples), God's jealousy is directed toward our good and our purity (As I understand Oprah -- and who can really understand Oprah -- something like a confusion between these senses of "jealous" is what leads her to reject the God of Scripture). In Exodus 34, God makes new tablets after Moses has smashed the old ones, and despite their idolatry with the golden calf, renews his covenant with Israel. He promises that He will drive out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, and that he will do so for the good of the people of Israel. Beginning in Ex. 34:12, God says the following: "Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods." Of course, Israel fails to fulfill God's command, and what God warns them against is exactly what happens -- which is why they find themselves exiled to Babylon in the first place.

So, like Daniel and his friends, God does not want us to assimilate -- that is, to become indistinguishable from the culture around us. I take it that later on in the book of Daniel, when influential members of the government conspire against Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and then against Daniel, something like this is their motivation. Of course they are jealous of the influence of these Hebrews (again envy leading to violence), but they are also angry about the influence of the HEBREWS -- who are distinguishable from the culture around them. A note about the influence that Daniel and his friends are able to develop -- as Doug pointed out, and as we will continue to see, this influence is the providential work of God. Daniel and his friends live by faith, not by prudence or shrewdness or political pragmatism. To do so would lead them to depend upon their own abilities for their survival (and maybe success) and to embrace assimilation. Their is an apparent connection between assimilation (being "one of the guys") and worldly success -- in business, politics, pretty much any facet of life. The one who is perceived as the outsider is rarely the one singled out for honor, fame, promotion, etc. If Daniel and his friends were looking for the easiest way to get along in Babylon, they would have sought to become as Babylonian as possible. But the life of shrewdness and the life of faith are different ways of life. While one depends upon our own ingenuity, the other depends upon the workings of a sovereign and providential God -- even, and especially when, we don't understand all of his moves. Now, of course, Daniel acts prudently in asking for the test with vegetables and water -- but his prudence is grounded in his faith in God -- not in an analysis of the ways of the world.

Notice also that Daniel and his friends are engaged in and participate in the Babylonian culture without being assimilated into it. After all, they go through the process of education (or perhaps indoctrination) that lasted three years before being placed in the kings service. But instead of being assimilated into the culture, instead of being brainwashed, they remained true to their faith and instead were EDUCATED about the culture. This education was significant, since it led to their being put in service to the king and given influence -- and this, coupled with and dependent upon the providential workings of God, allows them to influence the culture instead of the other way around. While Daniel and his friends do enter into the service of the king, they never WORSHIP him -- even under significant duress. Worship is always reserved for the God of Israel. Similarly, we may be in danger of being so distanced from the world around us that we have no impact on it for God. As Christians, there are certainly some elements of culture that we simply cannot participate in and remain righteous. But there are others which can serve as education for us not only concerning the culture, but concerning our own faith. As Christians, we are not to avoid the lost world around us -- but we must understand that world differently, Christianly -- see it through the lens of our faith.

Finally, let me remind us of something Doug also said that is particularly applicable in our situation. Doug noted that the first few chapters of Daniel can be understood as a battle over God's reputation -- and that by all outward appearances, the Babylonian gods had won. After all, Babylon had conquered Judah, just as Assyrian had conquered Israel (the northern tribes). But as the Assyrians learned, God doesn't play by their rules or evaluate things as they do -- the argument used by the Babylonians to assert their gods' dominance over Yahweh was the same argument used by Rabshekeh to Hezekiah after the Assyrians had destroyed the northern tribes -- and we all know how that turned out. God's providential work is not subject to our judgment or evaluation -- what seemed to be proof that the Babylonian gods were stronger (that they had defeated Judah) was in fact proof that Yahweh was the one true God, since it was by HIS will that the conquest took place. Similarly, the state of our world might tempt us to think that God is no longer in control, that there are "gods" that are stronger. But to do so would be the height of foolishness. Rather, we should remain faithful, trusting that just because we don't understand all that God does or allows, or the timing of any of it, doesn't mean that He doesn't have a plan. In fact, we know he does have a plan, and that he is particularly concerned for his glory and our good. What we can do is lament the state of the world, desire it to be better, and work so that it might be so -- and most of all, look forward hopefully to the day when through the power of God it WILL be so. Like those in captivity, we ought to at times sit down by the rivers of Babylon and cry -- but we should always do so with our heads up, waiting expectantly for the day when those tears will be wiped away.

Concerning Kings

I don't know that I have any particularly impressive things to say in this post (of course, I don't know that I EVER have any particularly impressive things to say, and would worry deeply about any of you who might think I do), but I wanted to add a few things to the sermon from a couple of weeks ago that Tim simply did not have time to mention. First, let me applaud Tim for adequately summarizing the history of the human race up until the time of Daniel -- I have seen a few others attempt such a thing, and it usually comes out a complete mess. By contrast, I think Tim did an excellent job of hitting the high points and painting a general picture in broad strokes.

Allow me to make a couple of points that I think are in consonance with what Tim said. As to the kingship of Israel itself, notice the contrast between what the people desire and get, and the God whom they reject as their king. As Tim pointed out, there are a precious few kings in Israel and Judah who merit a description as good. The people wanted a king like the nations around them, and generally speaking that is exactly what they got. Their kings were most often vicious and cruel, pursuing their own desires rather than the good of the people or the glory of God. Contrast these kings with the Lord himself, who had brought the people out of a bondage in Egypt which they had endured for 430 years. From the late 1300s BC until 586 BC, when the final deportation to Babylon takes place, God cared for the people in his patience and longsuffering, and endured their unfaithfulness and complaining. Earlier in our Core Seminars, Jay Caballero did an excellent job of pointing out the failure of the people during the time of the judges, and all too often, the failure of the judges themselves. The times of the kings were certainly not any better, and at times were perhaps worse. And yet the Lord remained faithful to his promises, patient, and loving. For 800 years (about 3 1/2 times longer than the United States has existed as a nation) God endured the people's unfaithfulness and lovingly disciplined and called them back to him, demonstrating throughout that he was the good king that they refused to accept. Choosing the kings they did over God himself would be like my going to the grocery store and purposely buying rotten produce instead of "perfect" produce. It makes no sense, and yet we know that the human heart is wicked and that we can't understand it. I doubt we would have acted differently.

But the Lord's patience was not infinite (and he continually told them as much) -- continued disobedience and sin has its consequence, and judgment and reckoning eventually came. But even then, the time of the people's deportation pales in comparison to the length and extent of their sinfulness -- in God's mercy, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Tim talked about the judgment proclaimed against Judah and the foolish act of Hezekiah in inviting the Babylonians into his kingdom. Ironically, Hezekiah's father Ahaz had done something similar -- when Judah was besieged by Israel and Syria, Ahaz, instead of relying on the Lord, called upon Assyria for help despite Isaiah's warning and urging to depend upon God alone (this situation provides the historical locale for the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7). Ahaz's lack of faith in God is why Hezekiah had such a big problem with the Assyrians in the first place -- and had Hezekiah not repented and depended upon the Lord for his salvation, perhaps Assyria would have destroyed both Israel and Judah. But as we saw, it was during Hezekiah's reign that God began to tell the people that the doom which was coming upon them was decided -- it could no longer be avoided -- and that the correct response of the people wass to SUBMIT to the judgment. Hezekiah is not the last good king of Judah -- Josiah institutes numerous reforms, and turns the people back to the Lord. But even this response and repentance doesn't change what God has decided -- that Babylon will be the instrument he uses to punish Judah. And when Nebuchadnezzer comes, the clear word from the Lord is that the people should submit to him -- that is, submit to God's judgment. This is something in particular I don't think we like to hear. We want to think that things are always for us like they were for Assyria -- after all, the reason Jonah ran from God is because he knew God was merciful and compassionate, and that if the Assyrians repented God would spare them -- and Jonah didn't WANT God to spare them. Sometimes when we repent, God still judges us, still disciplines us -- but never in such a way as to destroy us. Even in as severe a judgment as the deportations, the remnant was always preserved -- and that God would honor his covenant by preserving a remnant was always part of the prophesy of the judgment itself. God's discipline (given that we are his) is always for our ultimate good, whether we recognize it or not.

Reflection on happiness

I finally got a chance to listen to Chad's sermon from last week, and wanted to discuss one point that stuck with me particularly. Chad mentioned that of the many things we ought to learn from the apostolic church, one is the connection between sacrificial giving and joy. Sometimes we talk about joy and sometimes about happiness -- at times we mean the same things by these terms -- basically, a particular type of feeling or emotional response. At least, this is how I think the world around us uses these terms. To experience joy or to be happy is simply to feel a certain way -- and for those outside of the faith, these feelings are often transitory and impermanent -- things that we are always pursuing, searching for, and either never find, or find for only a brief period of time. Now I think both biblically and classically (and by this I mean primarily the Greeks) the concepts of joy and happiness are decidedly different. In both cases, I think the terms refer to something much more permanent and grounded -- not simply a feeling, but a state of being, as it were. The feeling of elation that the world associates with joy or happiness is certainly a part of these fuller and richer concepts, but is an EFFECT of them rather than the thing itself. I think Aristotle has a significant point when he talks about the pleasure (feeling of enjoyment) that is proper to the ACTIVITY of happiness (for Aristotle happiness is something one DOES -- sounds odd, doesn't it? -- that's because WE use the word incorrectly). What he says is that the activity of happiness, if done correctly (happiness is "an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue"), will produce enjoyment or pleasure. One of the big mistakes the world has made is to confuse the pleasure that is properly associated with happiness with happiness itself. And so, while anyone you talk to will tell you that they want to be happy (unless they are lying, perversely argumentative, or suffering from some kind of disorder), because of what they think happiness is, what they really mean is that they want to FEEL happy, to experience the pleasure that is attendant upon certain activities. It's really absurd when you think about it -- what people want is happiness, but they pursue an effect of happiness, and then call it happiness. No wonder people find it so difficult to be "happy." The reason they can't find happiness is because they have no idea WHAT IT IS -- although they think they do. Pursuing pleasure in place of happiness is like pursuing "being full" without eating.

Now while I think Aristotle has a lot of insightful things to say about what happiness is, I think he's dead wrong about HOW one becomes happy. For Aristotle, happiness is a combination of righteousness (right living -- according to virtue) and good fortune. To be happy for Aristotle, you can't be female, of low birth, poor, sick, powerless, particularly unattractive, or a host of other things that one has little or no control over. One of the great ironies here is that THIS part of Aristotle's conception of happiness is, I think, almost WHOLLY adopted by the world (even if they won't admit certain parts of it due to political correctness). But of course Aristotle lacks God's gracious gift of special revelation, and so doesn't see that with regard to happiness, as with regard to most other important things, the truth actually turns what seems reasonable to us on its head. Aristotle is right that righteousness is a key component of happiness, but again, absent revelation, fails to grasp what real righteousness is (we shouldn't be too hard on him for this -- doubtless we wouldn't get nearly as far as he did absent revelation -- rather, we should be grateful to a gracious God). As Chad pointed out, real joy or happiness is to be found in sacrificing one's own desires and giving of oneself to others. Pause to consider how completely counterintuitive this is -- okay, keep reading. In order to be fulfilled, to be happy, for the complete cessation of desire (how Aquinas defines happiness -- this can only be perfected in heaven, when my knowledge of and relationship to God becomes all in all to me), I have to DENY my own desires, interests, etc. and seek to meet the needs of others. No wonder the gospel is considered to be both foolishness to the Greeks (this just makes no sense -- you people must be daft) -- and a stumbling block to the Jews (and to us -- it makes sense, it's just too dang hard).

But oddly enough (not really), I think our experience in the Christian life bears this out -- and not just in terms of happiness (the state of being) but in that proper effect of happiness, pleasure (enjoyment). Again, don't confuse these two -- when people ask me if I'm happy, and I answer confidently that I am, they look at me as if I must be self-deceived, since no one can possibly be that sure of happiness, despite the fact that this is what EVERYONE is seeking. Now if connecting happiness to self-denial and sacrifice is counterintuitive, it's just patently absurd to connect these things to PLEASURE -- unless, we might think, one is masochistic (and actually I think this is how the world often views us -- we take pleasure from pain -- again, foolishness to them).

One of the most pleasurable/satisfying/enjoyable experiences of my life was also one of the most sacrificial and humbling (there's a connection here as well, but I won't explore that now). In high school, during the summer after my senior year, our church choir took a mission trip to New York City. In addition to singing at various venues, churches, etc., we spent one whole day serving at the Bowery Mission. For eight straight hours, with no break that I can remember, I served meals to (unfortunately, only a fraction) of the disadvantaged and homeless population of the area. By all normal accounts, the experience was not pleasant -- it was incredibly hard work, constant, and in most instances, thankless. There were of course a number of the recipients who were grateful, but many more were critical, rude, and even threatening -- to this day I haven't endured the type of verbal abuse that was a consistent theme of that experience. But in the midst of it I found I didn't resent it, but rather than I understood it and even sympathized (and hopefully empathized) with it -- and I found myself PRAYING throughout the day much more consistently than I would have on any normal day, and more GRATEFUL by leaps and bounds, not just in the "thank you, God, I'm not homeless" sense, but grateful for the opportunity to serve and for the very people I was serving -- and grateful that I was given the privilege to serve THOSE people. At the end of the day I was exhausted, but immensely happy, and satisfied. At the end of that day I thought I might have an inkling of how Jesus felt at the end of EVERY day -- would that we would pursue THAT type of happiness and the satisfaction associated with it.

REC Blog Beginning

So . . . I've resisted blogging for as long as I possibly could (okay, maybe not as long as I possibly could -- I suppose I could have responded with vitriol when Tim brought blogging up), but the powers that be have finally roped me in. And by the powers that be, I mean our elders, represented particularly by Tim. By the way, and just as an aside, with all the various wordsmiths in the world, could we, the human race, have not come up with a better term for this activity than "blogging"? Whatever "blogging" is, it doesn't sound pleasant, and therefore something I'd like to engage in, or that would be worth my time -- which is perhaps why I have resisted it until now. The other reason is that, blogs, like Facebook (avoid games like Farkle and Mafia Wars like the plague), MySpace, and the internet in general, can be a gigantic time-suck. And by time-suck I mean a black hole into which time is sucked without any hope of escape, never to be seen, heard from, or used productively again. You sit down at the computer to check your email at one pm, then Facebook (hey, look, quizzes!! What is my philosophy? Which Harry Potter character am I? How well do I know 1980's sitcoms? I HAVE TO KNOW!!!!), then read a few blogs -- and the next thing you know, it's five pm, you've failed to teach all of your afternoon classes, or turn in that report, or do whatever it is Richard does, or change/feed/play with/keep alive your infant. Hopefully, this blog won't be like that. For one, hopefully you won't spend that much time reading or posting on it, and for another, hopefully what you read and discuss here will be worth whatever time you spend doing those things.



That said, let me say a bit about what I think the blog is supposed to be. Primarily, I think it should be another way of fostering community, communication, and study at REC. To be honest, most of us (at least those of us who don't work at Tri-Med or use offices there -- wait, that's almost everyone), okay, some of us, simply don't see one another enough to be as involved in each other's lives as we should be in order to grow in faith and community together as we should. After all, we are a far cry from having all things (possessions) in common. Hopefully, we can use this blog to remedy that a bit. That said, we (the elders and myself) would like to use the blog to post comments and conduct discussions about just about anything and everything relevant to the community of faith. This includes but is not limited to comments and points of discussion concerning sermons (whether those at REC or those heard or read elsewhere), core seminars, or home group studies. We are particularly concerned that we focus on these things not just for the sake of our intellectual amusement, and alternatively that we not use the blog as simply a means of social interaction, but that we focus our discussion, our "blogging" (shiver), with an eye toward the development of our Christian lives. What we don't want the blog to degenerate into is, say, a discussion between JUST me and Doug about some philosophical problem (Doug: So how many angels CAN you fit on the head of a pin? Jay: 42. Doug: How do you know that? Jay: Because 42 is the answer to everything -- Douglas Adams says so.) In other words, the elders and I want this to be relevant to you, and for that to happen you have to help us -- by asking questions, posting comments yourself, and generally contributing to the "life" of the blog (shiver).



With that, let me begin by asking a few questions about last week's (9/6) sermon (I was with the kids this week and so haven't heard Chad's sermon yet). Tim talked about Pentecost and the four things concerning it that are clear: 1) The giving of the Spirit was the final act of the saving ministry of Jesus. 2) The inauguration of the new era of the Spirit living within the people of God -- the baptism of the Spirit equivalent to salvation happens one time in the life of the believer (I Cor. 12, Gal. 3:27). 3) The promised power given needed to fulfill the mission assigned to the church by Jesus -- the filling of the Spirit is repeatable in the life of the believer. 4) The first "revival" -- a special, unusual visitation from God by which a whole community becomes immediately aware of the powerful, awe-inspiring presence of the Holy God. I would love to get any thoughts that you have concerning these four elements, as well as the following: in a way, Pentecost seems to reverse what happens at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9). At Babel, God confused the one language that people spoke so that they spoke many languages but did not understand one another. At Pentecost, the people speak many different languages but they do understand each other. Is there any significance to this? If so, what is it?

We look forward to your comments and questions.