Nathan Key

Daniel (of the bible) was captured by Babylon and through a series of interesting events was eventually is set in a place of authority over all the wise men of the nation.

Later, wise men from the east (presumably Babylon) saw signs that indicated the birth of a foretold king and traveled far to meet and pay homage to him.

The other night at Northland Church, Dr. Joel Hunter wondered aloud if there were any connection between the two- a strong Hebrew with a gift for prophecy who was charged with the smartest men of another nation may have influenced the others with his own stories, legends, and predictions. As the years went by, the source of these myths may have been forgotten, but the signs to look for were not.

This may not be true, but if it were- it would make me very happy. I love little connections like this.

When I was at church on Sunday, Dr. Joel Hunter reminded us that through Joseph's interpretations, Egypt undertook one of the largest social welfare endeavors: a great effort to put away food so that its own people and the people of the surrounding countries would not starve during the days of famine.

Dr. Hunter is rarely political, so it was a really interesting moment. And as he pointed out that when we assume that governments can never be right and never do good for their people- I realized that it would be a good idea not to get caught in a "never" or "always" mentality. And I probably also need to go back and re-read the latter part of Genesis with that lens in mind.

As a fairly libertarian-but-Christian individual, I have to say that it was one of the shortest defenses of government I've ever heard and probably the most provocative (in a good, thoughtful, and really "check your resolve against the scripture narrative" moments). I'm not going to jump ship from the limited government camp- but I'm going to think more about what governments can do to be "good."

Speaking with my friend Jonathan Sutherland about leadership and manhood made me recall a post I wrote a few years ago when I was on Livejournal. I've taken the liberty of revising it a bit, but here it is for your reading enjoyment:

You're probably familiar with the story of Joseph. In the Bible, he's one of the major players toward the end of Genesis and well-known for a few things: prophetic dreams and dream interpretation, a coat of many colors (Technicolor Dream Coat, anyone?), being sold into slavery by his brothers, and saving his family from starvation.

What you may not have noticed is that Joseph is also quite the crier. In fact, he's an emotional wreck throughout much of his story. Now, I'd probably understand it a little more if he was sobbing after his brothers threw him in a well or after Potiphar threw him in prison (for NOT sleeping with his wife). But the most significant amount of weeping in this story is actually during the parts where he is in a position of power and authority only second to the King. Within the span of ten chapters, Joseph goes into a crying fit more often than any other character in the Bible.

Here are some examples:

"He turned away from them and began to weep... "
"Deeply moved at the sight of his brother, Joseph hurried out and looked for a place to weep. He went into his private room and wept there."
"He wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard him, and Pharaoh's household heard about it."
"Then he threw his arms around his brother Benjamin and wept, and Benjamin embraced him, weeping."
"And he kissed all his brothers and wept over them. Afterward his brothers talked with him."
"He threw his arms around his father and wept for a long time."
"Joseph threw himself upon his father and wept over him and kissed him."
"When their message came to him, Joseph wept."

But, it's not just him.
Many of men in the scriptures weep.

And this puts me in good company because there have been many times in my own life when I'm overcome with emotion and I want to weep, as well. So, whoever came up with the lie that "real men don't cry" was just plain wrong. Either that or they have a much different view of manliness than I do.

I love the Liar Lunatic or Lord argument, but it's pretty silly.

If you don't know this famous argument (first made by CS Lewis, I believe), here's a short summary: You say Jesus was a good man, but you don't believe he was God. Fine. You're either calling him a LIAR (He was dishonest about who he said he was) or a LUNATIC (He falsely believed that he was God). Either way, you're stuck with the problem of explaining how a Good Teacher whose ideals we should follow could be compatible with a person who wasn't honest with us about his person-hood or was mentally unstable.

This is a pretty good argument at first glance. I'll admit that I was smitten with it for quite a while.

But the problem is that the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord Argument is that in essence it's claiming that a Liar can NEVER tell the truth and that a Lunatic can NEVER say something sane or worth repeating. I think you'd find us hard pressed to make that sort of leap. Liars are usually proficient at telling truth-telling; just think of all the politicians who lie through their teeth to get elected and sometimes end up passing legislation that's worthwhile. And Lunatics are sometimes better at seeing reality than the rest of us- they are often simply missing the filter that allows them to interact with the rest of us in a reasonable, rational manner.

Now, this isn't to say that Jesus wasn't Lord. I believe He is. I just don't like this particular argument because it oversimplifies matters where there isn't a simple answer.

This series is about the importance of the oral tradition and reading scripture out loud, with other people. I know, at first glance to be a very strange proposal. I mean, aren’t there more important things to discuss about scripture or about community than the importance of reading the bible, out loud together?

For a few years now, I’ve wrestled with that question.

I keep coming back to this topic over and over again and struck by its importance. I think it’s partly due to the environment I live in, here in the West. We have a very independent spirit about us which has contributed to our success. The individual spirit it’s crept into all sorts of areas of our life- our political structure, business practices, and most of all, our religious heritage. In fact, it took me a while to really pinpoint this missing element from my own life. I don’t claim to have it all resolved either. I’m really just hoping that this series will evoke some thoughts in others to see if this is truly a good idea, or merely a misaligned pattern drawn from my own, personal experience.

So, instead of jumping in with theory or praxis, I thought I might share a few stories- a few scenes as it were, to shed some light on my own experience over the past few years. These three scenes embody of what’s been nagging at me. Together (along with other scenes that I don’t have time for), they form an outline of a misalignment that I’ve sensed for the past few years. I hope that they will invite you into the discussion and spark some interest in you to explore this topic with me.

Scene One:

If you’ve attended an American church for any length of time, you’re probably familiar with a similar rendition of the following story:

As a small group bible study nears its end, during prayer request time, someone in the group lets everyone know that her computer died and she is looking into different options for replacement. She needs the group to pray about it because she isn’t certain how much money she has and which computer really meets her needs. She’d like a Mac, for after all it’s the computer that she likes the most, but she’s not certain that she wants it for the right reasons or if she can afford one at all.

Later, after a week of prayer and meditation, she returns and tells the group that while thinking through her decision, she turned to the book of Genesis and began reading about the garden and God’s command to eat of any tree in the forest (with one exception: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). She knew at that very moment that the decision was clear- God wanted her to get a PC. Why else would she be directed toward a passage about the “forbidden fruit” (which was obviously God’s symbol for the APPLE computer she was concerned about)? She thanks the group for their prayer and announces that the request has been answered- scripture has been used to clear up her issue about which computer she should purchase as a replacement.

Scene Two:

This story is actually true, (the former was a myth that I invented based on similar experience regarding individual interpretations of scripture).

The other week I was wondering around the bookstore when my eyes happened upon a display table filled with all sorts of different bibles. It seems that no matter who you are there is a bible tailor-made for your taste and style.

Traditional leather bibles, thump-able and what have you, stood out clearly on the table. But there were also women’s devotional bibles, teen devotional bibles, men’s bibles, and girl’s bibles. There were children’s bibles- with mostly pictures, and bibles that looked more like a journal than scripture. There were poetic interpretations and slang versions. There were big ones that called attention to themselves and some so small you could fit them in your pocket. There were bright colors, soft colors, hardbacks, paperbacks and every variety in-between.

One in particular caught my eye. It seemed to sum up the entire experience. It was the Solo Bible Devotional from Eugene Peterson. Now, while the Solo Bible Devotional isn’t actually a bible (it’s a collection of scripture and thoughts from Peterson and spaces for self-reflection), it captured my attention because it seemed to be encouraging each person to create their own unique experience.

“You can do it!” It called to me. “This bible and you are all you need to begin your solo journey in Christ.”

Scene Three:

During the past few years, I’ve been admiring the work of musicians who have invited their fan base to remix or reinterpret songs. Radiohead, Ben Folds, Phoenix, and 3Eb (among others) have all made their contributions in one form or another. I’ve blogged about each of them in the past because in a way, it represents the practical outworking of the postmodern “Death of the Author” doctrine that’s been broadcast by art critics and university professors. The artist’s invitation to the public to reinterpret a song is a way that they create a unique experience for each listener.

It’s a similar concept that video game designers use when introducing a “sandbox” map or character that can be customized by players.

Perhaps this idea is represented in its finest form within the work of the folks over at Auto-Tune the News. You don’t need to look much further than their site to know that reinventing arbitrary videos can make them even more fantastic than they were to begin with. In fact, many of these remixes are much more famous than the original content.

Three scenes:

1. A girl who knows that the scripture has authority over her purchasing decisions
2. The solo bible devotional, inviting us on our own unique journey
3. The 'death of the author' and a culture that embraces and encourages personal interpretation

These (and others like them) represent the cultural underpinnings that I live in. Perhaps you, too, have experienced stories like these in your own life. Over the next few posts, I hope to explore exactly why I feel that reinstituting the oral tradition and community reading are so vitally important for us today.

I hope you'll join me, too, or this will be a fairly contradictory exercise.

I've got this fantastic idea for a blog series that I've been milling over in my head for years now. I want to write a series on the lost art of reading biblical narrative and scripture together. Reading, out loud, together with others is how the majority of people throughout the course of history have taken in spiritual guidance.

In modern times, we've got access to books of all kinds as well as digital media that has put scripture into the hands of laypeople and allowed us to have individualized reading plans and devotion. I think this is mainly a good thing, but I wonder if we're missing something by leaving behind the legacy of corporate reading and community interpretation.

Anyone want to join me for the series?

I've been listening to Herbert Dreyfus' lecture series on Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard on the way to work over the past few weeks. He's quite a good lecturer and I'm not only intrigued by his insights into the content of Kierkegaard's most famous work, I'm also blown away by a few aspects of the lecture that seem to be present in front of me in my every day life.

I want to give additional time to these ideas and mill them over in my mind for a bit, but I also feel the need to write some of them down lest I forget them.

According to Dreyfus, Kierkegaard's makes an interesting differentiation between the Universal Ethic (a Greek ideal) and the "Suspension of the Ethical" for those who are engaged in an Unconditional Commitment (a Judeo-Christian ideal). The reason this concept stuck out to me, personally, is that living here in the West, I've grown up in a culture that straddles these two concepts. We value both conformity and individuality simultaneously.

I heard a joke a few years ago that summarizes this experience pretty well (I think I saw it on a t-shirt): "I want to be different, just like everybody else."

We live within this duality in a lot of different arenas- one that's specific to my experience is my religious/spiritual life. Over the past few years I've attended "Christian" conferences, events, or church services where the speakers have made a very strong argument for Absolute Truth and Absolute Ethics (which is more Greek/Rational) even in the midst of our Judeo Christian tradition (which is based on Revelation/Subjectivity).

Now, I know that comment regarding absolute truth and relativism is sure to get a lot of resistance, so let me clarify it a bit more before I'm pounced upon for abandoning my faith. Kierkegaard reestablished a very clear historical perspective that the concept of Absolute Truth and Rationality are Greek- not Christian. It's Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Greek Philosophers) who responsible for the idea of a Universal Ethic. Now, it's true that their influence permeated Western Christianity to the point where Augustine, Kant, Dante and other Christian philosophers all adopted a very Absolutist attitude. And with that sort of thinking affecting early church reasoning and writing, it's also true that we've been impacted (in the West) to the point where we don't have a clear understanding of the original Judea-Christian ethic, which was very personal and subjective. But there are still small semblances that remain, even with our viewpoint washed thoroughly with the Socratic Method.

For those of us who are engaged in an Unconditional Commitment to God, there are instances when we may be called to do something very personal to our own experience rather than the requirement of all. We ask “what is God's will for MY life” rather than merely His plan for the Church/collective; a hint that we care about the very personal/subjective nature of our relationship with God. And there are even times when we may find ourselves being required to do what which is "outside" of the Universal Ethic. One instance that Kierkegaard explores in Fear and Trembling is where God requires Abraham to murder (sacrifice) his son- a universally unethical, immoral act which would be sin for him to enact in any situation other than the one he's presented with.

Luckily, we know the end of the story- God provided an alternative sacrifice (a ram) in Isaac's stead. So, for us, it's a little easier to rationalize the instance. He wasn't really forced to act out the murder/sacrifice. But for Abraham, trekking up the mountain with his boy by his side, wrestling with the knowledge that he was about to kill the offspring who had been promised to him- there was a clear problem. Although the Universal Ethic says that it's wrong to kill- especially wrong to kill your children, God had revealed an instruction that usurped the Ethical. And in Abraham's Unconditional Commitment to God, he was ready to do the unthinkable. And this was accounted as Faith.

That said, it's actually Revelation rather than Rationality that we adhere to as the Ultimate Right for the Judeo-Christian Ethic. The problem for us is that it's a rather difficult concept to reconcile with the claims of "Absolute Truth" that are proclaimed by most prominent Christian leaders in the world today. They seem contradictory. And they are. They are birthed out of two traditions that have shaped our thinking here in the West.

The only way I can even come close to reconciling the two is in this:

It seems that the only exception to the Universal Ethic is when Revelation clearly counters it. But Revelation never comes from the individual. It always comes from outside of the individual- either from God or from the consensus of many individuals. This said, individually perpetuated murder is still Universally Wrong. If God clearly commands a death, perhaps it could be said that the individual is no longer driving the choice- it's being delivered to the individual from an outside force greater than the individual. So, Abraham in this case would not be violating the Universal Ethic of self/individually perpetuated murder. Likewise, an individual jailor who flips the switch on an electric chair is not a murderer even though a prisoner dies by his hand for a jury of peers may come to consensus that the person's life should be taken. This Revelation or outside opinion has not violated the Universal Ethic, but enhanced it and made the way for exceptions.

I don't know that this is what Kierkegaard has in mind. He believed that it's an individual's unconditional commitment to God (or to ideals) that allows faith to suspend the ethical. But I think my way is a better reconciliation of these two ideals.

I live in the paradox, as Kierkegaard did, and I want it both ways.

Last night, Beth and I decided to attend Northland Church again (for the second week in a row). I'm really glad that we did. It was inspiring to say the least.

At the beginning of his sermon, Joel Hunter (the senior pastor), ascended the stage and revealed that it had been a very difficult week. His granddaughter has been in hospital due to brain cancer. He was noticeably shaken as he related the story to the congregation.

Two things really struck me about what he said.

He began by telling us that he's been praying for his church all week because of the situation. "Although our family is under a lot of stress," he said, "we're confident that our God is a God who heals. He may wish to heal her physically here on earth, or he may choose to heal her completely by bringing her into His presence. But either way, we're confident that God will do what's best for our family."

If that weren't enough, he continued...

"Our family is under stress, but we are not shaken. But that doesn't mean that everyone who goes through something like this isn't. In fact, I know that Satan would like nothing better than to use something like what's going on in my family to shake you to the core and cause you to question God's goodness and mercy. And so I've been praying for you this week. I've been praying that your faith will be strengthened whether you're dealing with your own personal pain or if you're seeing pain in the life of a friend or a pastor."

And that's about when the tears began to creep into the corners of my eyes and my throat got that feeling... you know, the one where you're on the verge of sobbing.

Why was I suddenly about to burst out crying?

Well, I was in the presence of a man who is so in tune with the church he shepherds, that even his own very personal pain is a cause to pray for and encourage his flock. Instead of being more self-focused, he became more other-focused.

That said, I think we've decided to put some roots down at Northland. Mainly because we both want to learn from a man like that. And, honestly, I want to be like that, too.

OK, I haven’t been keeping up with my promise to blog about this every day, but I am reading through this every day and talking about it with my good friend Brad on a weekly basis. Last night, we talked through day nine in Piper’s book which talks about how Christ’s Death allows for our forgiveness.
 
Usually one defines forgiveness as something that’s all about grace from the perspective of the one recieving it rather than the one giving it- if my mortgage were forgiven it would mean that I wasn’t required to pay any longer (self-centered). In the case of Christ’s Death, we’re talking about ultimate forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness means that we don’t have to worry about the eternal consequences of sin (self-centered).

But we rarely think about what forgiveness COSTS the person giving it.

When we teach our children to forgive others, we tend to leave out the part about how much it costs the person doing the forgiving. We focus on letting the other person off the hook instead of on the person forgiving and on the incrimental costs associated with when a real debt is forgiven.

If my mortgage were forgiven it means that I don’t have to pay it back, sure, but it also means that the bank has to give up the right to collect money from me. Money that they shelled out in the first place. They lose out. It costs something.

It costs something when God forgives sin, too. He’s got to figure out a way to punish sin because that’s the cost that sin requires. Pouring out that cost on His son was the only way for Him to truly enact grace to us.

On a more personal note, I’m beginning to realize that if I tell someone that I forgive them, it’s gotta cost me something. I can’t just blow it off when someone truly lets me down. In order to forgive, I have to truly give up the right to feel angry at them or stew about it. Otherwise, it’s not actually true forgiveness, is it?