mikefisher.org

²² Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life. ²³ But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised first; then when Christ comes back, all his people will be raised.

²⁴ After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having put down all enemies of every kind. ²⁵ For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet. ²⁶ And the last enemy to be destroyed is death. ²⁷ For the Scriptures say, “God has given him authority over all things.” (Of course, when it says “authority over all things,” it does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) ²⁸ Then, when he has conquered all things, the Son will present himself to God, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997 (1 Co 15:21). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

…

⁵¹ But let me tell you a wonderful secret God has revealed to us. Not all of us will die, but we will all be transformed. ⁵² It will happen in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, the Christians who have died will be raised with transformed bodies. And then we who are living will be transformed so that we will never die. ⁵³ For our perishable earthly bodies must be transformed into heavenly bodies that will never die.

⁵⁴ When this happens—when our perishable earthly bodies have been transformed into heavenly bodies that will never die—then at last the Scriptures will come true:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.

⁵⁵ O death, where is your victory?

O death, where is your sting?”

Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997 (1 Co 15:50). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

Boyd made a few comments on Open Theism in a recent blog post.

…if it’s logically impossible for God to create a world in which the future is partly open, then those biblical authors who depict God as speaking and thinking about the future in terms of what might and might not come to pass (e.g. Ex. 13:17) or as changing his mind (e.g. Ex. 32:10-14) or as experiencing surprise and disappointment (Jer 3:7, 19; Isa 5:1-5) must also be asserting a logical contradiction, even if we interpret these depictions as “mere” anthropomorphisms. (Even anthropomorphisms must be logically coherent.) It is certainly difficult to see what it is about these depictions that’s logically contradictory, but not as difficult as it is to explain how passages presumably inspired by God could contain such impossible pictures of him in the first place.

If the above argument is valid, then the assumption that an omniscient God must by definition know the future as eternally and exhaustively settled is demonstrably false. God could create a world with an open future if he wanted to. The unique claim of Open Theism is that, not only is this kind of world possible, but scripture, experience and sound philosophy give us compelling reasons to think that, as a matter of fact, this is precisely the kind of world God created.

I don’t know much about open theism, but the little I have read intrigues me.

Interesting article by Roger Hertzler in recent issue of the Remnant magazine.

He talks about the Sermon on the Mount in an intriguing way.  He asks,

…if you could imagine with me for a moment, I’d like to ask you a question which may shock you at first. What do you think would happen if we would form a church which, rather than trying to follow the Sermon on the Mount, purposed instead to violate it? What would happen if we would look at each major issue discussed in this sermon and then do the exact opposite of what it teaches? How would such a church look?

Click here for the article.

I recently read Witherington’s book The Living Word of God.  Today his blog linked to a lecture of his titled “Choosing a Translation.”  This corresponds to a chapter of his book and I would highly recommend it.

Watch the video lecture here.  Expect some excellent, practical, yet thoroughly professional information on a subject that often elicits rather different sorts of discussion.

“I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.”

- John Wesley, via Ben Witherington

On a business trip, my dad and my wife and I found time to tour the Behalt Cyclorama at the Amish & Mennonite Heritage Center in Berlin, Ohio this week. I was struck by something the guide said during a description of an Amish barn raising.

An “English” onlooker at a real barn raising told the tour guide once that she was fascinated by the fact that she could not find for the life of her who was “the boss” at the event. It appeared that everyone just pitched in and did his part. This of course is the thing about an Amish barn raising that is so appealing and amazing. Hundreds of men work together to pull off a huge project in only a few hours, all with only a minimum of “bossmanship.”

It occurred to me that this wonderful example of working together could apply to the Church. And here is a strange contrast. Many of the “plain” Anabaptist groups which in some ways demonstrate Christian brotherhood to an extent which should embarrass all other Christians have difficulty applying the brotherhood principle in church life. Many Anabaptist churches consider it impossible to function as a church without complex organization of authority. Broader conference-style structures and authoritarian hierarchical systems at the local level are deemed necessary for the church to prosper. What if our church experiences were as much of a wonder to onlookers as our barn raisings? What if it were difficult to tell who was the boss because of how eager each member was to shoulder his share of the load?

What the onlooker at the barn raising did not realize is that there was, without doubt, a very capable foreman whose organizational and motivational skills were a large part of the project. Certainly we need leaders in the Church who have this kind of authority – the sort of leadership ability that brings out the best in each member without drawing power, attention, or prestige to itself, but that merely assists the body to do what it is supposed to do.

Jordan and others are working on a project they call the “Mennofesto.”

Quote:

“These Mennonfestos were inspired our dear friend Peter Guertzen. Peter was listening to the NPR programe Fresh Air with Terry Gross. She was interviewing a non-Christian Left-winger who wrote a book about the Religious Right. As Peter listened to the interview, he was repelled by the understanding of Christianity which was given to this man by the Religious Right. On the other hand Peter felt himself rising to the defense of Christianity as this man completely dismissed the idea of creation and the essentially proclaimed Christianity stupid. He felt this tension inside. On one hand there was his own disgust with the Religious Right. On the other was his deeply held sympathies for Christianity. He felt a need for an articulation of Christianity which was not like that of the Religious Right, but that could be seen as a compelling and radical interpretation of the teachings of Christ. Something that would have more integrity and be more compelling than mainstream Christianity. He wondered what would be the result of a number of Anabaptists writing their understanding of Christianity which could be compiled into a book as a statement of Anabaptist Christianity. In answer to his call, Michael Hostetler, Darrel Hershberger, and I (Jordan Ehst) have written the following papers. We each have a little bit of a different angle.”

The Mennofestos.

Jordan’s paper is here.

As a followup on the book review I posted several entries ago, here is an answer I wrote to a question in a subsequent assignment.

The Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal to harbor a runaway slave. A more recent historical parallel can be drawn to the restrictions placed by the Germans on protecting Jews during World War II. Is a Christian ever justified in openly violating laws such as these that they feel are immoral? Do you believe it is sinful to defy authorities in all situations? Discuss your reasoning.

I believe that a Christian is not only justified in but also compelled to violate laws that are felt to be immoral. “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). I do not believe that it is sinful to defy authorities in all situations. My reasoning in this is similar that which I used in critiquing the viewpoint of the author of Indian Wars of the U.S. Army in the previous assignment, who maintained the popular theory that the army as a tool of government was not responsible for the ethics or morality of the wars because it was merely following orders. Scripture does not teach such an abdication of responsibility for one’s actions, as each individual is personally accountable before God. One cannot use loyalty to nation, church, parents, or any other earthly authority as an excuse for wrong actions.

In my opinion, the fact that the government forbade citizens to aid runaways did not free them before God to turn away the poor and needy who came to their door. I am reminded of the humorous incident in Uncle Tom’s Cabin in which a senator who had voted for the Fugitive Slave Act came into conflict with his wife who had taken in just such a fugitive as the law described. Thankfully the wife realized the principle of which I am speaking, persuading her reluctant husband to assist in helping the fugitive on to the next stop on the “Underground Railroad.” For me this demonstrates the necessity of each person to view himself as first being under God’s authority, which in the case of conflict with the mandates of lesser authorities must be respected above them.

In short, if an act is wrong, it is not made right by the dictation of some earthly authority. Similarly, if an act is right, it is not made wrong by the decree of said authorities. Therefore from a Christian standpoint it is to be anticipated that throughout human history there will be times when it will not only be justifiable but also essential to respectfully disobey the civil government (and other earthly authorities as well). Naturally there are consequences for such disobedience, and true Christians of all ages have been willing to bear them in their dedication to Christ as the prime authority.

There are four major views on what is known as the biblical teaching concerning the millennium, during which it is said that Christ will reign on earth for one thousand years with those who were killed for his sake during the period of tribulation. This millennial reign of Christ is only mentioned in one passage in scripture, Revelation 20.

Of these four views, the earliest is the position known as historic premillennialism. This position Read the rest of this entry »

On Saturday I went to Faith Builders for their annual Colloquy. This year the theme was the kingdom of God. Melvin Lehman presented parts of a paper on the subject in two hour-long sessions; then John D. Martin and Richard Herr responded to his thesis.

For me the most interesting concept of the day was the idea that the force that drives the world forward and upward is suffering love. God has built into this world the preserving mechanisms of authority, force, natural selection, etc. However, these forces only succeed in slowing down the decaying and dying world we live in. Suffering love as exemplified by Christ’s death and as lived out by Christians is the force that brings about real progress and positive change in the world.

For other blog posts on this colloquy see this and this.