Archive for the ‘Theology’Category

What Hath Zion to do with Salt Lake City?

As far as political columnists go, Jonah Goldberg is a good read.  I regularly enjoy his commentary, style and wit.  For those of us who aren’t policy wonks or constitutional junkies, Goldberg places keen insight on the lower shelf well within our reach.

Today Goldberg commented on the hubbub surrounding Robert Jeffress and Governor Rick Perry.  Jeffress, pastor of historic First Baptist Church in Dallas, introduced (and tacitly endorsed) Governor Perry for President at the recent Family Research Council‘s Values Voters Summit.  Jeffress was quite clear both before and after the summit that Mormonism is a nonChristian cult, thereby insinuating that Mitt Romney (a Mormon) should be off limits to any Christian voter.  This, of course, spilled over into Perry’s lap who was forced to defend Jeffress’s statement or distance himself from it.

Frankly, I am less interested in what Goldberg thinks about Jeffress, Perry or Romney than I am what he thinks about Christianity.  Attempting to defang a candidate’s theological foundation, Goldberg emphasizes the moral compatibility between Mormonism and Christianity:

“. . . from a moral perspective, contemporary Mormonism is squarely within the Judeo-Christian tradition, promoting decency, self-restraint, family values, etc.”

In other words, why are all the “born-again Christians” up in arms about a Mormon candidate when his morality is no different than what you say Jesus teaches?  Would you rather have a puckish Presbyterian or saucy Southern Baptist or miscreant Methodist instead of an unsullied Mormon?  I get Goldberg’s logic and in a sense appreciate the pragmatism inherent in the politics of the City of Man.  But that’s not the nexus of my concern.

My concern is the ease with which Goldberg (and undoubtedly countless others) boil down the “Judeo-Christian tradition” to merely its moral contribution?  Are we to cheapen the Christian tradition to its lowest common denominator?  Should we concede that as long as we share a common morality then there’s little to be gained by theological hairsplitting?  Is Jesus to be considered merely a means to an end, that end being a shared morality among all faiths?  Is the object of our faith less important than the effects of our faith?

The Judeo-Christian tradition is not fundamentally a legacy of moral tenets passed down through generations.  The Judeo-Christian tradition is no less than the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.  That is the tradition begun in the Garden of Eden, promised to Abraham, passed down and through the Jewish nation, and is now that of the Christian church from every nation, tribe and tongue (Romans 1.16; Jude 1.3-4).

The essence of the Christian tradition (even it’s moral tradition) is not “promoting decency, self-restraint, family values, etc.”.  The essence of the Christian tradition is promoting Jesus Christ, God of very God, who died for our sins, was buried and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15.1-11).  The Christian tradition is that there are no decent, self-controlled people in the world (Rom 3.9-18), but all Christ-less “morality” is self-righteous exaltation of ourselves.  That is the message (or tradition, if you will) we’ve inherited and what we intend to pass down to the next generation.  We do not call men and women to a common sense of decency, but to a Savior who died in the place of eternally condemned sinners: the Just for the unjust, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, the Decent One for the indecent.

Goldberg implies that we can unmoor morality from the theological dock that holds believers at bay.  That may be true of many religions and belief systems, but cannot be said of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  In that sense, Mormonism cannot fit “squarely within the Judeo-Christian tradition” because the Christ of Mormonism is a square peg and the Christ of Scripture a round hole.  Our common “morality” ended at the Fall, and now we share a common “immorality” which the Christian message alone is sufficient to explain and remedy.

Goldberg is probably right: there is no reason to think Romney wouldn’t be as good a President as any evangelical Protestant or pre-Vatican II Catholic.  We may all share the same ideas in matters of State, but let’s not dare assume we share the same ideas in matters of Zion.

 

12

10 2011

Ashes to Ashes: Dying on the Cheap (Part 3)

This will conclude where Parts 1 and 2 started.  Together with them, I outline five reasons why I prefer to be buried, unless otherwise providentially hindered,  rather than cremated.  In no way do I subject anyone else to my convictions, but hopefully my wife will remember them should, because of my death, do we part!

4.  Jesus was buried and I want be like Jesus.  This isn’t the same thing as saying Jesus wore sandals so I wear sandals, or Jesus grew a beard so I grow one (Amy wouldn’t let me be like Jesus in such case!).

But Jesus’ burial is of significant importance to the glory of the gospel.  Jesus wasn’t merely redeeming the souls of all those who would believe, but suffered sin’s curse on the totality of the human condition.  He was buried  as a dead man (1 Cor 15.4), with all the care and compassion afforded him by those who loved him (Mk 16.1; Lk 24.1; Jn 19.31-42).

Our union with Christ is displayed through baptism in our being buried (not cremated) with him (Rom 6.4; Col 2.12).  If burial was irrelevant or unimportant then why the emphasis on our being buried with Christ?  I realize this is a salvation metaphor, but it’s a useful metaphor because of the reality behind it.  Jesus was buried.  The Light and Life of heaven and men (Jn 1.4) entered the darkness and death of the tomb.  And our union with him means we must die to ourselves and see our old man buried with him in that tomb.

I want to be buried because Jesus was buried, and I’ve testified to being in Christ by being baptized into him.

5.  The bodily resurrection is predicated on the correspondence of the body that is buried (or “sown”).  We care for the body at death because of our conviction about our own bodily resurrection.  Jesus was raised physically and corporeally from the dead; therefore, so shall we be by the same Spirit (Rom 8.11).  We don’t throw away the corpse as though it has served its purpose.  We care for it because it will be raised.

This does not mean God won’t or can’t raise cremated or incinerated or incomplete bodies.  He will indeed raise every body that has already turned to dust.  However, we leave that up to God and, insofar as we can, commit ourselves to the care for the entire person.

Paul wrote gloriously of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15.42-49.  Throughout this passage the “it” that is buried (metaphorically, “sown” as seed that will soon sprout and bear fruit) is the “it” that is raised.  In burial, we “sow” perishable, dishonorable, weak, natural, earthly bodies knowing God will one day raise those bodies imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual and heavenly.

What those bodies will look like remains to be seen.  We know that Jesus gave us a preview in his own resurrected body.  There will be some correspondence between our earthly and heavenly bodies but without the restraints of sin.

As a farmer plants in the spring in hope for the autumn harvest, I want to be “sown” in hope for the angelic reaping one day.  I don’t want may ashes scattered on a golf course or displayed on a mantle.  I want my body sown to the earth (from which we came) so that God will finally complete what he started.  I want to be there when the words of Ezekiel finally ring true:  ”Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.  Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people’” (Ezek 37.12-13).

So give me my grave and plant me firmly in the soil.  God’s fertilizing grace will make sure he brings forth a beautiful harvest to the glory of Jesus Christ: the one who died, was buried, and on the third day rose again.

03

10 2011

Ashes to Ashes: Dying on the Cheap (Part 2)

Read Part 1 to catch up, but here I continue the reasons why I intend to be buried, unless providentially hindered, instead of cremated. Cremation is certainly no cardinal sin, but we should allow Scripture to dictate how we live and die.

2.  In Scripture, the burning of the body was an expression of disgrace toward the person who died.  Though not without possible exception (perhaps 1 Sam 31.12), the burning of a body (either alive or after being stoned to death) was a sign of desecration.  It was a declaration of shame (cf. Gen 3.24; Lev 20.14;  21.9; Num 16.35; Josh 7.15-25; Judg 15.6; Jer 29.22; Amos 2.1).  In burning the body the people were essentially stripping the subject of his/her personhood.  Even in such practice, those performing it recognized the unity of body and soul (see Part 1).  In burning the body they were making a statement about the person’s soul.  Even inanimate idols were to be burned as an expression of the people’s hatred toward them (cf. Exod 32.20; Dt 7.25; 2 Kgs 10.26).

The general scope of Scripture suggests that burning is an expression of disgust toward that which is burned.  It is public display of shame and disgrace.  That said, we cannot hold God to that same standard.  When, in his wise providence, allows one of his sons to be incinerated by bomb he is not shaming his child. Although, we should cry out against the wages of sin and the sting of death while retreating to Christ who will put the world to rights soon enough.

Now, I do not suggest everyone views cremation as dramatically as ceremonial shaming.  In fact, everyone I know considers cremation an act of mercy on the family who are relieved of burial expenses.  However, the church must uphold the value of the body as part of her love for the resurrection.  Part of that commitment is making sure everyone who can be buried should be.

I simply don’t want to be treated (and in treating my dead body you are in some sense treating me; see Part 1)  like God’s enemies were treated.  I don’t want to be burned to ashes and thereby join the ranks of liars, adulterers and idols.

3.  Burning of the body is how hell is described.  Of course, hell is described as the “lake of fire” (Rev 19.20; 20.10, 14, 15) and all who go there suffer 6th-degree burns for eternity (Lk 16.24).  Their bodies will be raised and prepared to endure fatal punishment without ever dying (Is 66.24).

God’s wrath is often personified as a consuming fire (Dt 9.3; Is 29.6; 30.27, 30; 33.14; 66.15; Heb 12.29; Dan 7.9).  Fire is also used to describe God’s favor, power or glory (Is 4.5, for example), but in such cases the fire is never to consume.  God’s fierce anger toward his enemies is that of a consuming fire, complete judgment of both body and soul.

I want to be buried because I don’t want my body to be treated like the bodies of those in hell are treated.  Even in my dying I don’t want to hell any “props.”  I don’t want to credit what is the eternal destination of unredeemed sinners with being a cost-saving measure in this life.  If I’m to return to ashes then it will be by God’s hand and according to his timing.  As in life, so in death.  Jesus bought me, body and soul, with a price and therefore let us “glorify God in [our] body” (1 Cor 6.20).

Reasons four and five coming soon, Lord willing.

29

09 2011