What Mystery?

There was a time when the mystery novel was a Very Big Thing. As a type of literature, it became very popular in the mid-1800's and entered a golden age in the mid-20th century. Books, magazines, movies, radio, and theater all have been used to tell a good story. The essence of a mystery is: something happened (usually bad), none of the Good Guys knows what happened, Good Guys must discover and then reveal what happened. Much of the fun of a good mystery is how the facts are discovered. 

"Mystery" is a Biblical word, as well. It literally means, "something not yet revealed." There are a few mysteries that the Bible speaks of. Here's one ...

“… making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph. 1:9-10 ESV)

If you think about it, it is rather special that God would even bother to tell us things. That is not the case in other religions. In the deism that was popular in the mid-1700’s, one of the tenets of that notion was that God may have created things, but he is like a watchmaker. To the deist, God made the watch (the created world), would it up, and has been letting it run. Apparently, to the deist, God has other things to do. 
Islam has a similar notion, I’m told. For the Muslim, there is no interactive relationship with Allah. Allah only speaks to the prophets; for the rest, he demands submission – the literal meaning of the word, “islam.” In that way, Allah is not open to understanding or relationship.

For the Jews and Christians, God is far more engaging. He speaks to humanity all the time. And not merely talking to, but talking with. Conversations with God occur routinely.

Technically, when God tells us new information this is called “revelation.” That is, God reveals truth, facts, and insights to humanity. And God has told us many things. The Bible itself – one of the ways God speaks – tells us that God has told everybody enough to understand some basic things: God exists, he is a person, there are right and wrong, God is not only good but a good judge of that right and wrong, and so forth. Everybody has the information to recognize those general facts. God has ordered creation as well as even the structure of human reasoning to make those general truths obvious.

From time to time, God speaks to humans in specific instances. The person might be a prophet or not. God will give specific information. Technically, that is called ‘special revelation.’ Special revelation roughly means: “Information that God gives people which are not generally available to the rest of humanity.” Here are some examples: the Old Testament was God’s word to the specific nation of Israel. Christians strongly believe that God then used Jesus (the anointed, "messiah") to break the division between Jew and non-Jew (“gentile”) so the New Testament is God’s additional word to all of humanity. God has also spoken to individuals through dreams, visions, and other people. The absolute best, highest quality, and most significant communication that God made to humanity is the person of Jesus himself. 

And now to our text: There have been times when God has revealed something very clearly that just wasn’t seen or recognized before. That fact was – technically – a “mystery:” something previously unknown or unrecognized which God made clear.

It seems to me that all those thoughts and ideas are the philosophical-theological context that Paul has when he talks about “making known the mystery ….” There was a mystery – we didn’t know quite what God was up to. But now, we have a much clearer idea because of Jesus.

Paul writes of God’s special revelation of his intent. Not only is God’s goal a good one, but he is powerful enough to make it happen. What is that goal? It is the “Summing up” in Christ. This theme of Christ uniting or pulling all things together has been with theologians for a very long time. It was the predominate theme (he called it, ‘recapitulation’) of Ireneas’ theology. More recently, that heaven and earth will be re-united as per Randy Alcorn.

So, we didn't know what God was up to. More accurately, we didn't have a full picture. But Jesus' coming has unveiled the mystery. And, what is surprising ("Ta-da!") is that what God has been up to centers on Jesus himself. Jesus is Messiah and he will bring all things together.

So, what does that mean for us? Well, to be blunt, Jesus Wins. Now the question is, do you want to be on the winning side?

History III

History is important to Christianity.

But, oddly, history isn’t very important to Christians these days. Most believers in my tradition have a passing understanding of Jesus’ biography, the events surrounding the Apostles, know there was something called “The Reformation,” and then think of Billy Graham. That’s all the history about the church they know.

And that’s a shame, it seems to me. Of course, we could observe how many Christians of my tradition are barely aware of what they believe (and, much worse, if what they believe is truly in line with the faith they "profess"). There are many reasons for this: an underlying suspicion of ‘intellectual stuff;’ an emphasis on felt needs and experience; an emaciated theology of the person that believes that Jesus was just joshin’ when he told us to love God with our minds; and a teaching-pulpit tradition that encourages all those weaknesses.

In any case, my point is this: we ought to pay more attention to church history. During my couple of years in seminary, I’ve been challenged by my good friend, Johnmark, to give a bit more weight to the early Patristics.

Now “Patristics” is another word for “church fathers” and they, as a group, are kind of Christianity’s ‘founding fathers’ (a term most Americans know). When I talk about the early Patristics, I’m thinking of those influential church leaders who helped guide the church as it transitioned from the Apostles commissioned by Jesus to the ‘institutional’ church that Constantine ushered in. For about two hundred years, most of these early church fathers worked very hard to preserve and teach nothing but the teachings of the Apostles. The church fathers of the first hundred years after the last Apostle died are of particular interest to me.

My current hero from this time is a man name Irenaeus who was raised in Turkey, actually was a protégé a bishop named Polycarp. Polycarp was a protégé of John, the Beloved Disciple. So it was John (Jesus’ best friend on this earth) who taught Polycarp, and then Polycarp taught Irenaeus. During that era, we don’t see much speculative theology. No, the emphasis was on conservativism: teaching what the Apostles taught – no more and no less.

Now the value of these Patristics to us is that when we have certain questions about, say, church organization or baptism, or engagement with worldview philosophy our proper, right, and God-honoring response should be to go to the Bible. But what if there is ambiguity there? I realize that’s a hot-button statement. But still, I have to acknowledge that some ambiguity on those matters exist. The next place to go is, seems to me, to those early Patristics.

For example, to those who insist that baptism is only valid if it is done by immersion might be surprised to learn that the Apostles and their protégés were not nearly so rigid. From “The Didache,” a very early document that dates from the 100’s, the understanding of Apostolic practice was that how a believer was baptized was a matter of circumstance. That is, there was an order of preferred 'modes:' immersion in cold flowing water (river or beach) was the best, second best was cold still water, third best was warm still water, fourth best was to pour water over the head three times. All of those were legitimate modes of baptism to the very early church. What was really important was that the person being baptized and the one doing the baptism to fast one or two days before. These days, we don't even think about doing a fast before baptism.

Hmmmm. Folks, that’s what was important to the Apostles: not how the person got wet, but whether they were spiritually prepared to engage in the ritual.

We say that our faith is built upon Jesus and the Apostles’ teaching but we conveniently neglect to see what the Apostles actually taught. We make ambiguous Biblical passages into doctrine and ignore Apostolic teaching.

Now I am not – read me well – in any way suggesting that early Patristic writings have the same authority as the canon of scripture. I am suggesting that they should be influential in our understanding of some ambiguities which I believe God has allowed to be in scripture.

Here's another thing; I realize that there's a current faddish re-discovery of the Patristics among Evangelicals. I applaud that movement as an attempt to get reconnected with the church's history. However I would exhort Evangelicals to go beyond the faddish find-a-quote-from-a-Patristic and thoughtfully engage with those men who struggled to carry on the Apostles' teaching.

Heroes - Part 2

So here is part two of my hero list….

Titus – we see Titus as St. Paul’s associate. What I like about him is that Paul could count on Titus to do anything. Titus was Paul’s utility player: take care of some money transfers, do a church evaluation, step in as an interim pastor – Titus had lots of talent that God used. So he appeals to me because he was multi-talented and ministered in a broad context.

Bill Hybels and Mark Driscoll – these are two guys who both love Jesus and want others to know about Jesus, as well. They are both innovative and created models of ministry that are admirable. They are on opposite sides of one theological spectrum, which might be ironic except that they both very insistently point to Jesus. They are similar in that their younger days were marked by being both very effective and maybe a bit arrogant. They are both very committed to engaging their culture with the gospel.
(update in 2015) - of course, many in evangelicalism have heard the Mark Driscoll had an implosion. Of course, this is disappointing. Yet, while this speaks volumes about Driscoll's struggles with pride and his pastoral 'heart,' I hope this does not invalidate his Jesus-centered preaching and the mission to bring the gospel to Seattle-land. The messenger has shot himself, but much of the message is still valid.
(update in 2018) - and ... now Bill Hybels has been accused of sexual abuse and has resigned. While I could repeat the tenor of my update on Mark Driscoll, I have recently wondered if there is something else going on - a systemic problem with 'evangelical' leadership. Hybels - especially - promoted the young, charismatic, dynamic speaker, alpha-male model. The cracks are splitting - that model (as useful as it *might* have been) is failing the church and the Lord of that church, Jesus.

Bishop Irenaeus – he was born in the Orient, then ministered in Europe, and a man with a powerful love and concern for his church. He saw a faddish spiritual movement developing, recognized its toxicity for his flock, and took it upon himself to argue and refute that heresy of Gnosticism. In doing so, and not really intending to, he became the first systematic theologian of the church. His name means “peaceable” and he lived up to that moniker.

C.S. Lewis – I have a real respect for bright people who can communicate clearly. C.S. Lewis was once described by a close associate as “the clearest thinking man in Britain” because of the lucidity of his writing style. He came to Jesus later in life and turned his smarts towards explaining why following Jesus was the most obviously rational thing to do.

George Washington – people of my generation went through the 60’s when it was the cool thing to trash the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson excepted. But in college, I read a biography of Washington and found him to be a true hero. Not always the brightest man in the room (compared with others of the Founding Fathers), he was a man of character, courage, and talent. He made many mistakes but never repeated any of them and learned from them all. He was sacrificially dedicated to his new country.

Winston Churchill – very similar to George Washington for me: a late-bloomer, tenacious, dedicated to his nation, and a charmer. We think of Churchill today for his wit, which was considerable, but few knew that Churchill wasn’t much of a student, had a pretty obscure start as a politician, but kept plugging away until he was the man of the hour during the Second World War.

George Smiley – this is a fictional character born of ‘John LeCarre,’ a spy novelist. George is a master spy but as anti-James Bond as can be: middle-aged, un-athletic, bad with women, plenty of self-doubts, a powerful thinker, hated gadgets – the character of Smiley is very compellingly drawn by ‘LeCarre.’

So there are some common themes here. Dedication and purpose of life, character and integrity, talent and capacity, mostly intellectuals or bright people. These are my heroes.