The Point of Genealogies

When you come across genealogies in the Bible, which happens inevitably, you may wonder why they are there and also secretly think, “Can I skip this? Or skim this?” Although every genealogy has its own unique purpose, flavor, and message, there are general principles and purposes behind all genealogies in the Bible.

The importance of genealogies reaches beyond those immediately concerned (i.e., the immediate descendants whose lineage is being recorded). Genealogies also speak to us who are totally unrelated. This is a strange idea because the whole practice of recording genealogies is about descendancy and lineage. This is why it is peculiar that they might have relevance to us who are unrelated (and why it’s easy to think they don’t).

First, the genealogies of the Bible tell us something about God Himself. They are a record of God’s faithfulness to the generations recorded and thus a display of His faithfulness in character. If you are wondering if God is faithful or trustworthy (and who doesn’t wonder this?), then you can surprisingly consider the genealogies a source for contemplation.

Secondly, genealogies tell us something about ourselves. Before the Abrahamic genealogies and the genealogies of Israel and its tribes, there are genealogies of Adam’s descendants. These remind us that we are all part of this lineage, no matter how dispersed we are now or how disconnected we may feel. We still remain, in mysterious ways, related and connected.

Genealogies also tell us that God sees and values each of us. This is ironic because when we read any genealogy, we often glaze over these individuals and care little about who they actually were. They are meaningless names to us because we don’t know the vast majority of them. They only ever appear in the Bible as names in a genealogy, and we think, “Who is that? And why would I care about them?” However, God knows exactly who that person is, and more than that, He knows the lineage and story of every person and every family, including ours. The irony is that as we care little for the people in the genealogies, similarly, in the eyes of the world, we may seem like nobodies, of little importance to world affairs. But hundreds of “nobodies” are named in the genealogies and recognized by God in His plans and purposes. Likewise, we are known by God (see also, 1 Cor. 8:3 & Gal. 4:9) and therefore valued by God. Genealogies also speak a tale of death—one generation lives, raises another, and then dies. It’s a tale of death but also a tale of dependence. Each generation owes its existence to the one before it. As little as we may know about them or feel any connection to them, we owe them our existence. In this sense, genealogies also highlight the importance of family.

Finally, genealogies tell us about God’s dealings with humanity. We are called to pass on the faith to the next generation, ideally as we have inherited the faith from our parents. Our purposes go beyond ourselves. It’s not only individuals who do great things in the Bible, but each individual’s calling extends beyond themselves and sometimes their impact is felt only through the generations as outworked and built upon by further generations. In the West, we might naturally think in terms of those immediately around us, but the genealogies remind us of the calling to pass on the faith in a longer chain to the next generation, with impacts for generations to come (under God).

What might at first glance seem like a meaningless list of names with no relation to us is, hopefully, recognized as a meaningful message of God’s faithfulness, our importance (or rather, God’s recognition of us), and our greater duty to the generations to come.

Proverbs from the Crescent

See a man who goes to bed early and wakes up early, he will stand before Kings.

Better a long sermon for the sake of learning the depths of God.

Better a short sermon for the preacher lacks skill and the people lack attention.

Long hair makes a woman attractive. A man’s biceps draw the eye.

Better cigars in good company than cigarettes in the street alone.

The fool says, “If I were in charge I would do this or do that”, but he does neither.

The Wise do both this and that though he is not powerful or mighty.

It is wise to buy time with money and not money with time.

The wise reread and recall but the simple read once and forget.

There is a time for long sermons and a time for short sermons. But only the wicked have time for false teaching.

Buy a home. It is wise to flourish like a planted tree not uprooted.

Do not buy a home. It is unwise to root yourself to the earth lest your concerns be taken from the Lord.

Even pleasant music played on public transport by a stranger is an annoyance. How much more Rap music played by teenagers?

Better priorities produce better results. Poor priorities produce busy workers.

Better a rental filled with children than your own home filled with pets.

The one who speaks his mind gets himself in trouble but the one who is slow to speak finds a listening ear.

The ends do not justify the means. But wisdom is shown to be right by her results.

People long for intimacy but the phone longs for attention.

A house filled with your toys will be tidy. But a house filled with kid’s toys will be a joy.

One man tends to his rental though it is not his and another renovates his home as though it were his.

A man loses his phone, then his time, then his temper.

The rich have kids, while the poor have pets.

One woman’s beauty is greater than another. But no woman’s beauty is greater than his wife’s.

“Roadworks! Roadworks!” But there are no roadworks.

The Infinite God of Finite Nature and the Underappreciated Argument of Thanfullness

What is the difference between reading the tea leaves in a cup for a message from the divine and drinking the tea with a sense of awe at the beauty of creation, as if the experience of the tea itself is a message from the divine? Because our culture (and therefore our minds) are polluted by post-modern principles (that there are many equally true competing truth claims based on the subjective experience of the individual), we might think both experiences are valid or possible, and both have hints of the truth in them, though not the whole truth.

The mistake and temptation would be contentment with the pursuit of partial truths, as if partial truth is enough or the most you can get. That is the best that post-modern thinking can allow. I do not think this kind of framework truly allows one to be convinced of even one’s own subjective truth. Probably, the most you could hope for is to have a strong hunch that the tea leaves are telling you to marry the waiter serving you.

The reason these two scenarios are posed, rather than a scenario where the tea leaves are simply molecules interacting with other molecules based on the universal laws of molecular economy, is because there is an innate story-telling, meaning-making, and meaning-searching instinct in humanity (of which even the molecule ‘theory’ is a kind of ‘story,’ just a really boring one for boring people).

Instead, when we are faced with the world, we commonly have thoughts of its overwhelming greatness. Even the greatest fantasy novels are inspired by the world we live in and the elements that make it up because the nature of reality is truly ‘fantastic’—almost unbelievably so.

One fantastic narrative explanation is that nature is finite, but its greatness is explained by God, the creator who is infinite. These marks of infinite greatness and power are signatures in the corners of the art. The reason it ought to seem too fantastic is because the two—finite nature and an infinite creator—seem like milk and orange juice. No sane person would mix the two and say it’s a fine cocktail.[1]

And yet, the finite meaningfully knowing the infinite God is exactly what we are striving for. Not only is it natural, but it is always worth spending time appreciating the nature of God—who He is and why we know who He is (not just having a hunch about it). This happens in two ways. If we run with the language of God not only being the creator but the ruler of creation, then we learn about the King through His specific revelation (as He invites us into His throne room to meet and talk) and also through His display of His general nature to all people (natural theology—as people walk through His kingdom and see the banners of His glory and might displayed). For now, we will focus on the latter—the banners of His glory strewn through His natural kingdom.

Certainly, His nature is communicated partially through His creation, but its limitations are obvious, given the prevalence of paganism through the ages and idolatry in every age—like insurrectionists within the city walls. God’s revelations of His power and glory are beneficial in general to people (Psalm 19, Romans 1:19ff); however, this is only true insofar as they enable us to bolster and supplement the gospel proclamation of God to people and bridge the general to the special. We know this because the same general revelation will be used as evidence against those who do not acknowledge His rule. Without turning to God, people invariably trade the glory of God for idolatry.

Not so when God is at work, gracefully and specifically giving sight to blind eyes and life to stone hearts, enabling them to begin to comprehend the power of God rightly. He is, after all, the Creator, and acknowledging Him as such must be one of the first steps in understanding the gospel story (shout out to Two Ways to Live).

To spell out the ideas that are hidden in the short words of Ps. 19 and Rom. 1—that the heavens declare God’s glory and that God’s divine nature and power are known by all—could be summarized as follows:

  1. We can say that in the world there are different kinds of beings and some of them are greater than others (unless you subscribe to PETA’s values). Therefore, in the hierarchy of beings, the greatest must be God by definition.
  2. Everything in the world has a cause. Tracing causes back far enough, we arrive in principle at the first cause. That must, therefore, be God.
  3. The observable world is seemingly infinitely complex (who would honestly argue otherwise?). The possibility of it being accidental is therefore seemingly infinitely improbable. This leads us to presume that the being known as God is at work in creating and sustaining it all (only He is able to orchestrate and manage the infinitely complex by definition).
  4. Humanity has a sense of good and evil. So there must be one who is good—the standard by which all else is recognized and measured, namely, God.
  5. We also have a sense of beauty and proportion. Where does this come from? (Beauty doesn’t square with arguments of naturalism governed by the principle of mere survival.) Arguably, the presence of beauty is accounted for by the notion that the appreciation of glory is inherent in the creation by the Creator who is most glorious and has given us the faculty to appreciate glory.
  6. And finally (for our purposes), thankfulness.

Thankfulness and gratitude are perhaps among the most compelling experiences that ought to direct us toward the King of creation.

Acknowledged by the Christian, God is the creator of all. He is also the provider of all good things, both needful and needlessly abundant. The Christian has no problem directing thanks and praise toward God. God is personal and personally relates, not only within Himself but also toward His creation. But the issue of thankfulness is problematic for a naturalist. You cannot be thankful in the abstract. Thankfulness is not a mere feeling or some sort of intellectual concept. What is obvious (when you think about it) and yet overlooked is that thankfulness must always be, and essentially is, a personal matter. When we are provided for, we are appropriately thankful for those blessings, but our thanks are given to someone. Ultimately, this is God. So if you are giving thanks to something, that is idolatry—which ought to make sense of all literal idols and the current practice of thankfulness to the universe, etc. To whom and how can someone who does not acknowledge God ultimately be thankful? Of course, they truly feel thankful, but in their own hearts and minds, it is an enigma as to whom they are thankful. Who provided? (Again, idolatry answers that question with many ‘gods’ or things, or even the self).

Interestingly, at the moment, there is a craze about gratitude and gratitude journals or diaries. People in the productivity and self-help worlds talk about this as a means to manage stress and feel good. It is assumed in these writings that thankfulness can simply be expressed with no object, expressed to nobody and nothing, simply and merely expressed as a standalone action or feeling. The operating principle is that expressing thanks (by writing about it or otherwise) will lead to feelings of thankfulness (read: dopamine and other pop-science words), which contributes to productivity and all that good worker-ant stuff. The irony is that these hacks are basically the pleas of people calling out to an unknown god to have said god rain showers of productive blessing on them in the forms of feel-goods and managers-made-happy. All well and good if that’s what reality at its core is like. But it isn’t, and the mere presence of the human inclination to thankfulness points this out.

Rather, the human experience of thankfulness touches on the personal reality of God and, therefore, the personal reality behind all reality, all creation, and all experience. Is that overplaying it? Not at all!

And yet, even ‘thankfulness’ only points towards the probability of God. It will take the special revelation of God to understand who it is from whom all blessings flow. Just as we cannot know someone aside from their revealing themselves to us, so it is the case with God.

The arguments above are six perfectly fine and compelling arguments. They are the products of natural theology and demonstrate its usefulness. However, the compelling case they make and their usefulness lie not so much in proving God’s existence but in demonstrating philosophically the probability of God. They are helpful intellectually, especially in the field of philosophy.

But theology is concerned with more than the intellectual. Theology is concerned with the personal relation of God to His creation. That is why thankfulness is getting closer to the mark when it comes to the usefulness of natural theology. It starts to join the individual’s experience with the person of God, not just the ‘idea’ of God. It is also why the first five arguments, though intellectually stimulating, are not as helpful. If anything, these all point us to the need to move beyond the merely general nature of their claims and press into the specific nature behind them. This is what God the King does. He invites His subjects into His throne room to hear from Him and meet Him themselves—not to be caught up on the wrong side of a civil war in the kingdom by rejecting their King.

[1] which is a reason why I think the Abrahamic faiths are unlike any other, and why Islam is not necessarily a new religion, but a splinter sect of Christianity – because they hold to a finite creation made by an infinite God.

The Bondage of Self-determination

As I sat down to write this, the Indian immigrant chef at my café, who serves me coffee every week, came over and asked what I was writing (side note: it is worthwhile going the same place for the same thing, to become familiar and even have the smallest of conversations). We got talking about freedom. I asked him what he thought about Australia, freedom, and the differences with India. He mentioned (without mentioning) the caste system, the authority, and living in people’s shadows until you are old enough to make decisions culturally, or get married, or work—painting the picture of a much stricter form of expectations.

But then he said (I paraphrase), “Here, there is too much freedom. For example, kids are too free to do whatever they want, and the lack of input from parents doesn’t go well for the kids.” He added, “We come from India to get a better life, but we must take the good and leave the bad of both cultures.”

I then took the opportunity to talk to him about serving God, explaining that God frees us to serve God. Bondage to God and service to God is a good thing in itself because God is good. One doesn’t need to sift through the good and bad of God and re-image him because he is perfectly good and we are perfectly safe within his service.

How much did he understand? Very little I’m sure.

But his observation about taking the good and bad from both Indian and Australian culture is illustrative of my point in this piece, that we desire freedom and autonomy at the same time that we desire boundaries and limits or a goal to direct our efforts toward.

Although autonomy is nothing to dismiss and certainly those robbed of autonomy suffer terrible plights, despite all that, even as some suffer from atrophied autonomy many ‘free’ people will suffer with hypertrophied autonomies. Many are encouraged to free themselves from shackles placed on them, metaphorically speaking, by others (either family or perhaps society at large). It’s taken that because others limit us, either by their expectations or through some sort of duty they impose on us (ie: the Indian immigrant chefs’ example), it is always an evil to be resisted in order to pursue utter self-determination and expression. In an ironic twist, this is itself a burden as shackling as the other end of the spectrum. It’s just a different ward in the same prison block. (I should have said, “welcome to Australia my Indian friend!”)

What is the factor that determines one’s freedom in this particularly ironic prison block of autonomy? It is your will. Your desire. Yet it is its own slave master. You will be bound to fulfil your own will, striving endlessly after your desires. But is our desire “our” desire? Does it really come from who you ‘really’ are? If yes, then you are obligated (ironically) to fulfil it always. But maybe we are not so naïve. Maybe we think there are times when we want to do things but don’t do them, and we do things we don’t want to do. So then, if these ‘inner desires’ are not from your ‘authentic self,’ what are they and where do they come from? What happens when you have conflicting desires? For instance, if you want to spend but also want to save. Does the stronger feeling win or does the long-term feeling win? And why?

All this illustrates the obvious: despite our desire for freedom, we are bound. We are bound no matter what. We are bound by our bodies’ limitations. We are bound by time. And most of all for many, we are bound by our own wills to be unbound.

It’s like a zip tie. The right amount of pressure gets the job done. We need enough of a boundary to operate optimally. Too loose, and things fall apart. Too tight, and function is impaired. The extremes of autonomy lead us to experience both at the same time. When we seek to be as loosely bound as possible, we are actually pulling against the noose, which only gets tighter. (Even the desire to avoid mixing metaphors due to grammatical propriety should be resisted!)

When this happens, what does it feel like? It feels like decision fatigue. Free choice, like anything, when made an idolatrous principle and blown out of proportion, becomes overwhelming and undercuts our ability to function. With theoretically limitless possibilities, we experience less satisfaction with each decision. We play the ‘what ifs,’ and the grass is always greener when fertilised by our imagination and fuelled by our discontentment (and the fertiliser is provided free of charge by advertisers—be polite and say thank you).

All this makes me wonder: how much of our world’s anxiety is related to the autonomy narrative we consume every day? Who can say for sure? But I theorise it has a significant enough impact that its effects are felt globally, especially among modern generations in the West. So, unless Alex Jones is right and the puppet masters are putting chemicals in our drinking water, we have a narrative problem—a worldview problem. With self-determination and an unrealistic view of autonomy, anxiety has more room to cause damage.

So how do you resist? You should give up your freedom. But give it up to the right master. At the same time, use your will to do his will.

“I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you. Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.” (Psalm 32:8-9)

This is the right way to be led by God. God’s leading is in his instruction and his teaching is through his word. His word is his loving council and this council is received willingly. So the image is that one gives up their will to follow God’s will but at the same time they use their will to follow God’s will in that they are not like an animal that kicks and resists at the leading.

This image speaks well to the religious mindset that tries to do as God says to do (because there is some sort of intellectual acknowledgement that they should) but at the same time also fights and pushes back at the leading of the Lord or grumbles and complains about it.

The meaning of the image is evocative and almost incites you to resist it. Part of us wants to fight against giving up our will for the sake of ‘dignity’ but that’s to behave like an animal (ironically). Instead, be dignified and give up your will for him.

In doing so, I think one will surprisingly find contentment.

Consider the Exodus narrative. The Israelites are freed from slavery but soon grumble and argue and are discontent with Moses (and therefore God’s leading) desiring rather to return to slavery. It is the starkest image of where our unfettered ‘autonomy’ leads us – away from God’s promises and laws and to fruitless labours in bondage to convenience.

Better by far to put all decisions through a filter of service to God because that’s what a christian is now free to do. God has freed you from the power of sin to exercise your will for his glory. So one asks when one has a choice to make, a moment that requires the exercise of their volition, “does this enable me to serve God?”

The Discomfort of Theological Mysteries

For something as common as the headache (for which 98% of people experience – who are those 2% of people?!) doesn’t it induce a headache to think we don’t actually know the exact mechanisms for their causes?!

The same is true for the theological questions that evade any satisfactory answer – quite despite the bibles very clear statements within the same related topics which are often essential for salvation.

Consider these theologically essential and non-negotiable truths; God is creator, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, every person is composite of Body and Soul, Sin is our greatest problem, God is sovereign and people are agents in their own lives, most people reject Jesus, some people accept Jesus, The bible is God’s word to us. These statements are abundantly clear and accepted (at least within the reformed community).

Now consider, for all that, we simply do not know for sure…

What was God doing before creation?

How is the one God also Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

How is Jesus both fully divine and fully human without mixture or confusion of either?

What is a soul?

What is the origin of sin (ie, where did Satan come from and how did that happen?)?

Given God’s omnipotence, how exactly do we understand our own autonomy within Gods sovereignty and omnipotence?

Also, why did God allow sin (first in the devil and then for humanity)?

And then, why would he allow it to continue (especially Satan who went on to deceive, presumably, other angels, and then humanity)?

Why did God choose Israel specifically (why set his affection on them and why make his promise to Abraham)? Or for that matter, why did He choose you and me?

And why do so many hear the gospel and not accept it?

Or, related, why do so many never get the chance to hear the gospel for even the chance to accept it (or reject it)?

Why is anyone saved at all?

And, equally, why isn’t everyone saved?

Then, why are christians to enjoy life after death but promised suffering in life before death?

Given the ultimate importance of God’s word, how exactly was it received and transmitted throughout history? And why did God not preserve the original autographs?

Finally, why would God allow all these questions (especially because some of the most fundamental truths of christian faith are closely related to these questions)?

As much as headaches are nearly a universal experience of pain (and for some much more serious than others), the same can be said with regard to each of those questions above.

For some people, these questions will only occasionally bother them but not very seriously. For others, they will be a constant source of discomfort or worse.

Again, much like for a headache, we will want to reduce the pain or discomfort of the mysterious (or the cognitive dissonance depending on how you understand different claims).

A source of relief (but not a cure) is in knowing what we must know. We can stand on the solid ground of scripture with regard to everything necessary for salvation. We know what is essential for living a godly life. And with those two addressed (for which we will have our work cut out for us already) we are then equip for telling others the message of salvation and guiding them in living a godly and God glorifying life.

For the more mysterious areas of theology which we have no clear answers, we can implement some general principles. When I talk to people who have some of these questions I like to use a metaphor to help in our pursuit for the truth. I encourage them to consider looking for the answer like we are looking for something in a field (see the image for this post). What we can do is determine the fence line. For example, say the query is about God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and human suffering. One fence post is that God is all powerful. That’s in the ground firmly at point X. Another fence post is that people are responsible for their actions (otherwise hell and judgement would be unjust and unfair – contradicting God’s character). That post is in the ground at point Y. Then another fence post is that God cares for us and loves us. That’s point Z.  And we know we suffer (that sounds obvious, but Buddhism insists suffering is an illusion…). That’s point Q – the experience which drives the intellectual pursuit. We then put up our fence by connecting our fences together. We know for sure, the answer to the mystery is not outside that fence (outside those parameters is error). So the answer to the mystery is within those parameters. Where exactly? That’s the mystery we must live with. But we must operate within the fence line. With regard to the mysteries, helpfully, God gives us some clear instructions (which you may feel only adds insult to injury or digs into your discomfort more). God tells us the secret things are intentionally hidden.

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

We must be humble. Although we have our questions, we do not question God’s character or wisdom (ect).

Again, I don’t think anyone is exempt from these struggles. People must learn to deal with them, and sadly, they are the sort of issues for which people can easily deal poorly with, either thinking they have answers to these mysteries which they simply do not (and then potentially falling into error because of that) or by never learning to deal appropriately with the discomfort and so stunting their growth in the faith (or falling away entirely!).

It would be a shame to dwell incessantly on what are openly acknowledged as mysteries while rejecting what is openly revealed as truth. That would be a reflection of the kind of inappropriate priorities of ones thinking.

The issue we think we are solving is the intellectual issues of these questions and mysteries. But what will actually serve both us and others best in our ministry to them is if we are to some degree comfortable in the mystery. Able to accept the unknown. Perhaps this will be used by God as an example, that it is possible to stand on the essential truths found in the light of Scripture, but also live surrounded by the darkness it does not illuminate.

The Personal Experience of the Person of God

The placebo effect in the medical/scientific world shows the mysterious interplay between mind and experience and therefore to a degree reality (both subjective and objective). Fake medications relive pain, experiments in managing expectations cause us to anticipate pain and therefore feel it (although no pain stimuli are physically triggered). Similarly, do you want to improve your physical health? The protocols for doing so will depend significantly on your mental health. True also in reverse. Want better mental health? Improve your physical health. One set of actions changes the experience of the other, and at least regarding physical health, it is significantly dependent on the mind and mind-state.

Probably the most significant leverage of all for effecting changes across one’s life is social/relational factors. If I recall correctly non-for profits like Compassion Australia consider relational poverty as potentially the root cause for monetary poverty.

Thus far we might then say that relational resources are going to be a key determinative factor in the overall experience of life (not a unique proposition).

Also, not a unique proposition but what I think is an incorrect one, namely, that many who talk (positively) of people’s religious views and how that contributes to their overall (positive) experience of life do so reasoning that the religious life is functioning basically as a psychological or emotional resource. An entirely reasonable way of thinking within an imminent framework. But for a variety of reasons, the imminent framework is unreasonable.

I want to propose that the resource of one’s theological views is not primarily an intellectual or emotional resource, but it is a relational resource. This relational resource, much like what was argued for poverty been fundamentally a relational poverty, is likewise the greatest source of leverage for experiencing positive changes in basically all areas of one’s life.

In an ironic way, the psychologised self operating within an imminent worldview views the doctrines of God and knowledge of God as having no reference to the person of God, but the idea of God (and at best, the positive influence of other like-minded individuals gathering under the same ideas).

However, the experience of God is far from merely intellectual or merely social. It is personal.

To illustrate again from the medical sphere. Our social situation is going to especially impact our experience of suffering and sickness. Someone well supported socially is going to experience suffering with the benefit of others also shouldering some of the suffering and responsibilities of life they can’t handle. But also, simply the wordless presence of others is a comfort.

Oppositely, those who are lonely will experience the same physical suffering more acutely due to their lack of social resources. But within both these situations let us factor the Christian doctrine of belief in a personal God. I would pose that the benefit of belief is not merely an added psychological buffer for the sufferer, but a relational resource.

In much the same way as someone’s wordless presence comforts us, so too God who is present (as many christians will personally attest to during suffering) is comforting us with His presence, but also with his word (stored in our heart or meditated on and received during suffering).

It would be selling the blessings of God short to say that they are primarily physiological or emotional. The blessedness of the Gospel is the very personal presence of God.

Nothing For Keeps

“What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:29–31)

“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:32–35)

Time is short. The brevity of our life, and more broadly, that of the world, provides a perspective that shifts our concerns. Our hierarchy of concern still contains worldly concerns (especially if we are married in the context of this passage). Hence, we will still have worldly concerns such as buying and using things of this world. But Paul is pushing us to the limits of this logic. We buy and use in such a way that it’s as if we never owned what we buy or ‘use’ what we use. (The NIV uses the word “engrossed” when translating the more literal word “use” to convey that we can be consumed by the idea of getting the most out of the things of this world)

Ironically, we live in a world that is concerned with the brevity of life, but at the end of life there is no hope or vision of God. That is to say that this life is all there is; hence, we should get the most out of the things of this world. This view and the Christian view almost look identical – as they share the perspective that our time is short. But of course, the former view has no ‘hereafter’.

Minimalism and offshoots like it (even anti-capitalist critiques of it) are still extremely worldly. They operate within a temporal sphere and emphasise our need to make the most of the relationships we have now. The hope is that during our journey in this world we would be more at peace and focus on the things that really matter, like relationships and experiences. Many that talk this way are half right. Sadly, that still leaves them stuck with the problem that all things pass away. So why would relationships and experiences somehow be a better arbitrary standard for a life well lived?

As John reminds us, “The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.” (1 John 2:17)

Even if we have fewer material possessions, those possessions will inevitably pass away.

Even if we prioritise relationships and experiences, we must remember that they are temporary and will eventually come to an end (in the secular framework, that is).

Paul is advocating for a particular kind of worldview, a view of the world from the perspective of the end. But at the end is the resurrection and our entrance into the presence of the Lord.

A perspective from the present moment, a worldly perspective, means to be dominated by the imminence of material needs and possessions, especially as they contribute to worldly thriving; whether relationally (marriage or singleness) or economically (business, buying, possessions).

Paul speaks of a Christian’s concern. The Christian’s desire is to please the Lord. But if a Christian is too closely associated (the language of possessing) with using the things of this world, then their concerns and devotion are (potentially) unbalanced. The Christian is always to be concerned and devoted to the Lord. Some Christians who are married will have competing concerns and devotions, and so must work harder to have the Lord’s affairs at the forefront of their mind (while in Paul’s argument, the single person potentially has more room for the concerns of the Lord).

This passage speaks predominantly about marriage and singleness. But worldly possessions and business (buying and using) are mingled into that subject. I’ve been reflecting on the possessions aspect of it mainly. That’s because I am someone who is easily ‘engrossed’ by the world. So, my mind and heart lingered on these verses. I am a married man, but this passage speaks to everyone who finds their heart longs for worldly matters more than heavenly ones.

The antidote? Paul seems to advocate for some sort of emotional/psychological distancing of sorts from worldly matters. He is extreme, sure (if happy, be as though not happy; if mourning, be as though not mourning, etc.). But to detach is wise because the world is passing.

I’m not sure why we forget that the world is passing away. I’m not sure why we forget that everything is temporary. We seem never to forget that we’re going to die. But still, we live as if we are not going to die. I think that is strange. In one sense, it’s true. We were made to experience life with God that never ends. Death is an aberration. So I think our forgetfulness at death could potentially be connected to our initial purpose to live forever with the Lord. But the presence of death is so utterly undeniable as it leaves a mark on literally everything as literally, everything is passing away.

The Bible proposes that we live with the end in mind. Because all things are passing away, nothing should engross us. Easier said than done, because that requires regular remembrance. The best way to do that (without staring at dead people) is to read your Bible.

A biblical perspective on the temporal nature of this world is also a safeguard. We could live a life of licentiousness and hedonism motivated by the fact that everything is fleeting. But as Paul helpfully reminds us (because we so easily do that), we are motivated by our devotion to the Lord. Much as Jesus lived a life of devotion and a perfect balance of loving the world and yet not been engrossed in it, we follow. Although on the path there will be a gate to pass through named death, it will be a transformation. Much better than an abrupt ending, rendering all prior things as ill-spent and squandered benefits.

Doctrines Prescribed for Anxielitic Effect

“If we are justified through faith then we have peace with God through Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:1).

Today everyone is thinking about peace because everyone is thinking about tackling anxiety. The famous anxiolytic passage of the Bible is Philippians 4:6-7. Paul calls us not to be anxious about anything but to pray with thanksgiving in response to our anxieties. The expected response to our prayers is peace.

But Paul doesn’t stop there. In the next verses he encourages us to fix our thoughts on what is noble and true and pure and right and admirable and praiseworthy. In practising these thoughts, Paul again expects us to experience peace. In one sense we might argue that this is what we would call today, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Indeed there are great overlaps. Many of us have practised thinking anxious thoughts. We have practised this so much that we’ve gotten very good at it and made a habit of it. What modern psychology would encourage us to do, much like Paul has done in Philippians 4, is to practice thinking of the praiseworthy as opposed to thinking on the matters that make us anxious.

This is great wisdom, great Christian wisdom. It is Christian wisdom because Paul is encouraging us to think on the Lord Jesus. For what is more praiseworthy and more true and more noble or admirable than to think on our King?

To this end, Rom 5:1 provides an important contribution. To think on Christ is wonderful. But it is only so wonderful when we are at peace with God. Peace with God is the grounds for peace within ourselves. So our theology of justification by faith is in fact our grounds for experiencing peace.

Some of us may struggle and wonder at what the tangible lived benefits are of theological concepts such as justification by faith alone. Well here is one aspect in which it speaks very clearly to a great need in our current age, a very anxious age.

Justification by faith leads to peace, both with God, and I would argue also, within ourselves. The doctrine of justification allows you to think on the praiseworthy. It also allows you to pray to the Lord as your heavenly Father. Without being justified, declared innocent, you are unable to approach God because you are guilty, and there is very little to think of that is praiseworthy because you’re existential grounding is non-existent or incongruous with the created order.

It’s easy to think that doctrines like justification provide little practical benefit to life. But I would encourage us not to make that mistake. Spiritual realities are neglected not only at the peril of our spiritual state. We are mind, body, and soul. The three very much influence each other, because we are made up of all three. That is our anthorpological reality.

People today talk about looking after your body by looking after your mind, and looking after your mind by looking after your body (good and true). The Christian adds to that. We look after our soul, and it helps us look after both body and mind.

A Theological and Ethical approach to Mullets

“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head…” (Leviticus 19:27)

this passage speaks on its own terms. Nothing can be more clear. The context is not required. The plane reading is sufficient. Mullets are clearly ungodly aberrations (and potentially occult). That’s been conservative and generous. Any reputable theological journal or commentary in conflict with this stance is clearly liberal (and potentially occult).

Evidently from this passage, without a doubt, the biblical author is encouraging the people of God to look different than the surrounding nations. Nations which we don’t only presume, but rightly assume wore mullets (and for no other reason I can imagine than to invoke demonic deities – more on that later).

The passage is a warning to the Israelites. Partaking in the culture around them, the Israelites would slowly forfeit their distinctiveness as the people of God. And you would have been able to tell that with just one look. Hair speaks for itself.

So what did the mullet represent in the Old Testament?

It clearly represents a person’s desire to please God merely on the face of the matter, when indeed licentiousness and debauchery are hidden behind. As I would rightly assume they would say in their temples and high places, “business at the front, party at the back.” There is no debate, that is the origin of the oft used mullet slogan. It has its roots in the darkness of the human soul from antiquity.

The imagery of the snake in the garden reinforces this. The mullet is patterned after the deceiver of humanity. The body of the snake is what inspires the waving locks of the mullet attached to the head of a snake.

Clearly, the mullet has satanic and occult historic and theological roots.

Further in the OT narrative, an enemy to the throne of David (his son Absalom) suffers the consequences of his actions. With no uncertainty this incident occurred because Absalom was sporting a mullet contrary to the law of Moses. “Now Absalom happened to meet David’s men. He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s hair got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going.” (2 Samuel 18:9).

Fullfillment in the New Testament

What do we do now? Does the law of the Old Testament apply to the Christian? After all Christians eat pork, and they are even permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols as an idol is nothing. True. But at the same time, the standard for moral and ethical behaviour is not lessened in the New Testament, but increased!

Using an argument from nature, theologically referred to as general revelation , the apostle Paul writes, “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,” (1 Corinthians 11:14) People complain that this passage is notoriously difficult to interpret. I disagree. With a hermeneutic based on a plain reading and common sense reading it prohibits the sporting of a mullet by the male gendered population.

All this means that when you see a brother fall into sin (which ironically seems to happen in both the inner city areas and country areas), then it is appropriate to rebuke them for the sake of their soul and the purity of the church.

Aside from that, there’s not really much else to say. But Moses says it best, “Do not let your hair become unkempt” (Leviticus 10:6)

In the interest of being transparent, I must confess that further research needs to be done on the following verse, “They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the LORD is over; they must let their hair grow long.” (Numbers 6:5)

For some reason it acknowledges that a certain sect of Israel may sport a mullet. My current assumption is that they were to infiltrate the bad guys undercover, kinda like Sampson did, and defeat them. That’s probably what it’s all about.

PS: Have you seen this minister? Guaranteed, his theology is is bad as his hair.

Leviticous-cous, A vegan manifesto

Chapter 1: the café of non-meat-eating

A general spirit of virtue-based Veganism called to the leaderless mob of animal rights advocates from within the Café of non-Meat-eating. It said, “When one among you desires to present an offering of plant-based sustenance to honour the value of animals and proclaim your virtue, let them gather the finest fruits, vegetables, and grains. Let no living creature be harmed for this sacred (low-calorie) feast. Let nothing be used from either herd or flock. But only that which can be plucked from the ground. It may have spot or blemish and be riddled with defect for you are not a people who shop at supermarkets with unnatural aesthetic standards. You are a people who are accepting of all fruits and vegetables no matter the shape, size, colour, or gender.

You must present this feast at the entrance to the café of non-meat-eating so that it will be acceptable to the general spirit of virtue-based veganism and in the eyes of all who see this great virtue. This offering is an atonement between you and the earth (in lieu of the better alternative of self-selected human extinction – which is lacking popularity due to the selfishness of the human race).

You are to pluck the apple from the tree, crush it, juice it, and sprinkle the juice upon the café tables as a fragrant offering and aroma pleasing to the mob.

Take a hin of olive oil and the finest flour and bake wholemeal sourdough loaves in a woodfired oven at the heart of the café of non-meat-eating. After baking the loaves, remove the crust. The volunteers at the café may eat the loaf. But the crust is to be offered to the Spirit of Veganism for it Is the most holy part of the loaf offering. It must be presented to the general spirit of veganism for the atonement of the mob. Post it on social media for all to see. In this way, it will be a perpetual memory for all who enter the café of non-meat-eating.

Season all your vegetable-based offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of non-harm out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.

Chapter 2: The Priestly volunteers

After the social movement had gained greater online presence the spirit of veganism spoke to the crowd through the self-selecting process of one person electing themselves to be spokesperson. He said, “Let those with the most zeal for veganism be selected from the mob by my impartial and selfless selecting as selflessly self-appointed leader chosen by the spirit and ethos of veganism as determined by social media following.” Twelve of the most outspoken advocates for animal rights were self-selected and came forward by virtue of their virtue and outspokenness. Nobody dared stand up to them for the spirit of veganism was with them. The priest anointed them with olive oil and gave each a garland of celery to represent the perpetual self-selecting process to be used by all gatekeeps for the duration of the spiritual and religious movement of generic notions of justice for life in general (humanity not included).

At the café of non-meat-eating two other self-professing and outspoken animal right advocates entered and sought to offer contrary and unauthorized offerings of honey from the honeycomb (considered by the most strict rules of veganism to be unethical and unjust due to its association with the categorisation of Hymenoptera) and palm-oil (which threatens forests in a roundabout way). The priest instigated the mob and the twelve leaders joined in. The two who offered unauthorised offerings out of a misguided sense of justice were deemed unjust and the mob posted photos of them on social media and consumed them in a media firestorm of the greatest reputational ruin. They were swallowed up whole, and all who followed them by associated were likewise consumed. In this way, the strictness of the mob was confirmed, and the priest was satisfied.

Chapter 3: sin offerings

The priest spoke on his social media platform. The people listened and obeyed. He said, “If any of you sins, let them be cancelled. But for those who have sinned but nobody knows about it, seek to live a better life to atone for your sins. Come to the café of non-meat-eating and present your currency. Purchase for yourself lentils and post a photo on social media. By this will you be known as holy. Be holy as I am holy.” Said the priest, and the gatekeepers agreed. “If anyone sins and is caught by one of the mob and it is posted on social media, that member shall be cast out of the community.”

Chapter 4: on sexual relations

The 12 gatekeepers posted, “In regard to sexual relations, let a person have sex as they see fit in their own eyes. No one is to hinder another in this way. You are to make love to one another. Only allow the sexual partners to give consent. In this way you will be known among the nations. For you are an animal, as others are animals. Do as the animals do.”

At that time a great cloud filled to Café of non-meat-eating as the priest turned on a smoke machine. There were lights and sounds like thunder from the café as a DJ spun the discs and the strobe was plugged in. The people rejoiced. They slept with whoever was pleasing to the eye.

During the revelries, a community advocate spoke up. “Is this sexual freedom not demeaning? Are we not more than animals?” she said.

Her words were brought to the priest and the 12 gatekeepers. It was unanimously decided that she would be cancelled and defamed publicly. The priest said, “post her actions online. Everyone who heard her say these things is to comment and to lay their thumbs over the angry emojis and reactions for she has blasphemed. The entire assembly online did as the priest and gatekeepers told them. In this way the evil was purged from among them.

Chapter 5: various laws

It arose online and was agreed upon in general that the following laws would be instated because they are universally obvious.

Respect animals.

When you make more money than others, keep it for yourself. In this way you will store up for yourself treasures on earth and be able to spend more on lentils, vitamin and mineral supplements, expensive ecologically minded products and café meals.

Do not steal, unless you feel you have to.

Do not lie, unless you feel you have to.

Do not deceive one another, unless you feel you have to.

Do not swear falsely, unless you feel you have to.

Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, unless they are ideologically deaf and blind. In which case, judge them by our standards instead of their own.

Do not go about spreading slander among your people, unless it’s about others who are ideologically different.

Do not hate a fellow vegan, unless you think you’re doing a better job than they are but you are not recognised for it.

Do not eat meat.

Do not practice divination or seek omens or look into astrology. It’s embarrassing.

Chapter 5: rewards for obedience

If you follow these rules in the strictest sense possible, and if you post it online for all to see, then you will be rewarded with favour. Your profile will be fruitful and increase in followers. The priest and the gatekeepers will like your posts. You will eat vegetables and not grow fat. You will eat choice fruits in abundance and not suffer from malnutrition. Justice will make its dwelling place among you. A general air of self-congratulation will follow you all your days. Then you will die in peace and become food for worms.

Chapter 6: consequences for disobedience

If you fail, you will be a person devoted to destruction, with no hope of redemption, to be put to death by the community.