you communicate that the people that aren't here yet are more important than the people that have been diligent to be here on time.
So I don't want to do that.
I got my room.
Okay.
Well, if any are just joining us, though I don't think that that's the case,
we are in a series on Scripture.
And when we were together last, we observed that the Bible is at the heart of our faith,
yet also at the center of much controversy.
Specifically, it is controversial in its claim, believed and heralded by Christians, to be God's Word.
And as such, authoritative in all that it tells us.
True and trustworthy in all that it proclaims.
Last time, we took the entire time, and we were yet pressed,
to set out what we described as strong grounds for affirming this confidence in Scripture's authority.
For those of you then with us, you will recall that we reflected upon the Trinitarian ontology of Scripture.
That is, how the Father, Son, and Spirit are personally involved in the production of Scripture.
And what entailments this bears for the character of Scripture.
And we concluded that the Trinity is so profoundly involved in the being of Scripture,
that the character of Scripture is invested with the divine character.
Strong grounds, it seems to me at least, for maintaining the divine authority of Scripture.
And warrant for responding to the Bible just as we would to God Himself.
And yet, we acknowledge that at many points, the Bible is not the world's obvious candidate for divine authority.
True and trustworthy in all that it affirms.
Indeed, if we're honest, it's not always the obvious candidate for such status in Christian impression.
There are many a dear brother and sister in the Lord who struggle with no small anguish and confusion.
Who are familiar with the strong grounds for affirming the Bible's divine character.
Yet, at points, struggle to reconcile this conviction with what they find in its pages.
Perhaps at points where Scripture does not seem to comport with the confident pronouncements of modern science.
Or the assured results of critical historical scholarship.
Or perhaps with some of our most dogged moral sensibilities.
Or perhaps that, in parts, Scripture seem out of step with current, adamantly held, social norms.
Well, it is chiefly to those of us for whom such gnawing difficulties remain a reality
that I want to direct some comments this morning.
And specifically, to offer some considerations which, while acknowledging that problems will remain,
I hope will render any persisting problems just a little less problematic.
That's my hope.
And really, what I want to offer this morning is a single consideration for our reflection.
Again, time will prevent much more than suggestiveness, but hopefully this line of thought
will, like a pinch of yeast for your own reflections.
Just stick with you.
Here's the thought.
I want to suggest that what we find true of the incarnation,
God coming down in the flesh,
what we find true of the incarnation,
we should expect also to find true of inscripturation.
Okay?
Because it is a parallel case at the relevant point.
Corbyn can't miss this, so I'm going to repeat.
This is my thesis, okay?
I want to suggest that what we find true of the incarnation,
we should expect also to find true of inscripturation.
Because it is a parallel case at the relevant point.
Okay?
So, let's first consider the incarnation.
There is a paradox at the heart of the incarnation.
God coming in the flesh.
For God coming in the flesh was simultaneously a revealing and a concealing.
It was a revelation of God.
John 1, 14.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory.
Revelation.
John 14, 9.
Remember when Philip queried Jesus,
show us the Father and it's enough.
He said, oh, Philip, how long have you been with me?
And yet do you ask, show us the Father.
For he who has seen me has seen the Father.
Revelation.
Revealing.
But precisely because the incarnation involved a revelation of God in human flesh,
it was also a veiling.
For it disguised, so to speak, deity in the garb of humanity.
It involved the humiliation of the Son.
That is, assuming the humble estate of humanity.
This was a stooping with respect to God's splendor.
As Philippians 2, 7 tells us, he, speaking of Jesus, the Word, the Son,
he emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant.
Being made in the likeness of men and being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself.
So he emptied himself, not of his deity.
He remained God.
If one is God, one cannot cease to be God.
It's just not even possible for God to cease to be God.
He didn't empty himself of his deity,
but rather he emptied himself of the visible manifest marks of his glory,
which would have drawn conspicuous attention to his deity.
That had been laid aside.
And he looked forward to its restoration in heaven,
where his disciples would see it fully manifest again.
As he said in John 17, 24,
Father, in his prayer, high priestly prayer,
Father, I desire that they also, my disciples here with me, us subsequently,
Father, I desire that they also be with me where I am
in order that they may then behold my glory.
So there would be a time when his glory would be manifest.
But while in the flesh, the glory of the Godhead was concealed.
As Isaiah the prophet foretold,
he has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon him,
nor appearance that we should be attracted to him.
He was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 53, 2 and 3.
Thus, and this is the point,
it was easy to miss of the revelation because of the veiling.
It was easy when God came in flesh to see only the flesh.
You remember the comments from those around him?
Is this not the carpenter's son?
The son of Mary?
Are not his brothers and sisters among us?
And they took offense at him.
Mark 6, 3.
They missed it.
They could not see beyond this Nazarene.
Acts 6, 14.
That was those who contended with Stephen,
how they dismissed Jesus.
This Nazarene.
As John writes,
he came to his own,
and they received him not.
John 1, 11.
When revelation came in flesh,
they saw simply the flesh,
and nothing more,
and were scandalized at the suggestion
that it was anything more.
Indeed, even for his closest disciples,
his life of humiliation,
culminating in the cross,
the bottom rung of his humiliation,
as Philippians 2 tells us,
created such an excruciating sense
of incongruity
that the status of Jesus
as God's anointed
was given up.
We had hoped
that it was he.
Remember those on the road to Emmaus?
We had hoped
that it was he.
Notice the tense.
Their hope was in the past.
Luke 24, 21.
Others thought the claim
that Christ was God's anointed,
appearing as he did,
was so abhorrent
that it made a mockery
of God's very nature,
and was blasphemy
worthy of death.
This was Saul of Tarsus' position,
and many with him.
Such was the veiling,
even as God was being revealed.
So, so it was
with the incarnation.
All right.
Well, how about
the parallel case
of inscripturation?
Inscripturation.
How about the parallel case
of inscripturation?
As inscripturation,
that is,
the word of God
becoming written language.
Inscripturation.
Making it into,
yes.
Yep.
So, good.
Helpful clarification.
Elizabeth, thank you.
As with the word incarnate,
so with the word inscripturated.
Both involve the same sort
of humiliation,
the same sort of emptying,
the kenosis,
the emptying,
the self-emptying.
Just as in the incarnation,
God's word became human flesh.
So, in scripture,
God's word comes in human words.
Thus, the Bible is,
like the incarnation,
deity in the garb of humanity.
It is the voice of deity
in the voice of humanity.
Just as God came in the flesh,
embedded in the culturally
and historically situated,
okay,
Jesus resembled Mary.
Oh, I see it.
Yes.
He spoke in a Galilean accent,
okay,
culturally and historically situated,
et cetera.
We could go on
and describe all these things.
So,
God comes in his word,
embedded in the culturally,
historically situated,
okay,
spoken through the culture
and in the accent
of a first century fisherman,
Peter,
and an eighth century B.C.
fig picker,
Amos,
and all the scripture writers.
Do you see the parallel case here?
And this parallel results
in a similar paradox.
While God's words
are revealed in scripture,
they are simultaneously concealed,
for they are disguised.
They come in the garb of,
manifestly,
human words.
And it should come
as no surprise
that just as many
only saw
the humanity of Jesus
and did not see it
as the vehicle
for deity
and were scandalized
at the suggestion
that it could be,
so many see
only the humanity
of scripture
and myths of the deity.
It appears to them
simply human,
all too human
to be any candidate
for divine revelation.
It does not come to us
with the appearance
of the divine.
It has no form
or comeliness
and we esteem it not.
Indeed,
there has been an impulse
even among those
who honor it
to deny
that it can be
lackluster
at any point
and argue
that at such points
its luminosity
needs to be preserved
through some means,
usually seeking
a deeper allegorical meaning.
meaning.
So,
for example,
a meaning
that would be
worthy of divinity.
So,
for example,
origin,
probably the,
certainly
the greatest
first theologian
that tries to put together
and actually creates
a systematic theology,
first one in the church
after the apostles,
let's say after Paul.
He just thought,
you know,
as I read scripture,
some parts of it
just seem
utterly unimpressive.
Even banal.
And this was just
utterly incongruous.
I can't reconcile this
with this being
God's word.
So,
I have to,
I have to find
some other way
to understand it.
So,
let me just understand it
allegorically.
There must be a meaning
that's utterly profound.
Here,
how about this one?
So,
you can,
you can see the impulse
and it derives
from the tension
of just,
just the,
the,
the pressure
to somehow
find God's word
at every point
luminous.
Okay?
Did he
passprate himself?
He did,
yes,
thank you.
I,
I would have
completely missed
mentioning that
had you not
reminded me.
Thank you.
Origins is a remarkable
story and you've
just heard the sneak
preview of the
remarkable nature
of it.
Yes,
he did.
But,
he,
yeah,
he,
well,
no,
I won't get into that.
Well,
recall Augustine,
okay?
Recall
Augustine's
barrier
to
considering
scripture
as God's
word
because
he found
them,
as he
puts it,
unworthy
in comparison
with the
dignity
of Cicero.
Now,
remember,
Augustine was
trained
as a
rhetorician
and
Cicero's
some pretty
fine Latin
and when he
first encountered
the scriptures
not yet
converted,
he looked at
that and he
said,
oh,
you've got
to be
kidding me,
you Christians.
This
is the best
God can do?
It doesn't
even match
the elegancies
of Cicero.
You must
be joking.
And he
stumbled at it.
Interestingly,
the only way
that he was
able to get
over that
was following
the cue
of Milan,
of Ambrose
of Milan,
who said,
oh,
no,
Augustine,
no,
that's just
on the
surface.
You need
following
origin.
Just here,
here's the
allegorical
meaning.
So ironically,
what actually
got Augustine
over the hump
of being able
to accept
scripture was
what I think
is probably
a problematic
view of
scripture and
one that he
at least
refined.
If he didn't
completely abandon
later in life,
he at least
came to a
deeper appreciation
of scripture.
But interesting,
this was a
real problem
for Augustine.
That was a
quote from
Confessions
3.5.9
for those
of you
who are
looking.
Jerome was
the same.
I mean,
this is really
common in the
early church.
Jerome was
just so
committed to
Cicero.
He just
loved the
Latin that he
didn't even
bother to read
his Bible
very much,
even as a
Christian.
He said,
it's not
really literary.
Then he
had this
terrible dream
where he
died and
went to
heaven and
he tried to
get in and
he said,
oh no,
you're not a
Christian,
you're a
Ciceronian.
So that's
Jerome's
story.
But I
mean,
we could go
on and
on,
lots of
examples of
people kind
of being
scandalized at
the plainness,
the banality,
the lack of
luminosity of
scripture.
But the
scripture is
involved in
the same
emptying as
the sun.
Again,
empties itself
not of
divinity,
rather the
visible manifest
marks of
its glory.
And to
appreciate this
is to
expect the
veiling,
to not
expect the
scriptures to
be perpetually
transfigured,
gleaming with
the evident
marks of
glory,
shimmering and
radiant in
manifest deity.
It was only
rarely so with
the word made
human flesh.
Think of
Jesus'
earthly career.
One brief
moment on the
Mount of
Transfiguration,
there,
then the
resurrection,
a couple of
hints,
moments,
this remarkable
instant,
perhaps a
momentary
unveiling.
Remember when
he was about
to be taken
captive in the
Garden of
Gethsemane?
I am he.
Boom.
Fall over
backwards.
Every once in
a while,
you get this
lightning bolt
that comes out
and shows you.
But for the
most part,
it's hidden.
As with
hidden in the
word made
human flesh,
should we
expect otherwise
with the
word made
human words?
It is no
accident that
the precursor
of the written
word,
the scriptures,
the spoken
and preached
word of
the apostles,
heralded by
the apostles who
gave us the
written word,
evoked the
same reaction
as the
incarnate
word.
Scandal.
As Paul
writes,
foolishness to
the Greeks
and a
scandal to
the Jews.
1 Corinthians
1.23
It did not
conform to
their associations
and expectations
of divinity.
It proclaimed
a God who
stoops,
not struts.
A king,
but one whose
crown was
of thorns.
Lifted high,
but not upon
a throne.
rather upon
a cross.
Triumphant,
not over
the Roman
occupiers,
but over
our spiritual
occupiers.
Sin,
death,
the devil.
Such a word
did not
impress.
It did not
conform to
their prior
judgments
of how it
ought to
be.
No,
no,
we know
the marks
of divinity
and that's
not it.
They would,
it seems,
have him
always
transfigured.
They did not
see the glory
of God
hidden
in his
countenance.
They stumbled
at the scandal.
It is
revealing that
when Paul
came to
Corinth,
many were
utterly
unimpressed
with him
as
word
bearer.
They thought
such a
word bearer
incongruous
with a
divine
message.
Surely
that should
come in
Ciceronian
prose when
it comes.
The
medium
did not
fit their
expectations
of a
divine
message.
But the
apostle knew
that God
conveyed
his,
you remember
the phrase,
wonderful,
isn't it?
Conveyed his
treasure
in earthen
vessels.
That is,
common
pots
of
unimpressive
clay.
Just the
common
house
stuff
you keep
in the
garden.
2 Corinthians
4,
7.
And he,
Paul knew,
ironically,
that the
weakness,
fear,
and much
trembling in
which he
came to
them,
1 Corinthians
2,
3,
the weakness,
fear,
much trembling
of the
medium,
in his
case,
himself as
the messenger,
actually
did
comport
with the
message.
For both
were
cruciform.
And this
is the
point that
Paul makes
again and
again in
2 Corinthians.
No,
no,
you think
that the
medium of
the message
is supposed
to be
all this
magnificent,
you know,
lovely
Grecian
phrases
of rhetoric.
But no,
it's
cruciform,
just like
the message
itself.
The medium
bears the
same marks
of the
message.
It's
cruciform,
both involved
and emptying.
In God's
wisdom,
he has
chosen to
use the
foolish things,
really those
apparently foolish
to us,
apparently foolish.
He has put
his treasure
in earthen
vessels.
the gospel
in the
words of
fig pickers
and fishermen.
That's what
he's chosen
to do.
A stumbling
block to
those scandalized.
Yet,
as he tells
us,
the power
of God
unto salvation
to them
that believe.
Romans
1.16,
1 Corinthians
1.18.
So,
in
some,
if we
appreciate
the
parallel
features
of
incarnation
and
inscripturation,
the word
made flesh
and the
word made
words,
and grasp
some of
the implications
of the
emptying
involved,
while this
does not
clear up
all the
problems,
it helps
us understand
why we
might expect
them,
why we
would expect
scripture's
divinity
to be
veiled
in its
humanity.
So,
will we
be led
astray
by misguided
expectations?
let us
not,
with respect
to scripture,
be as
those who
looked for
Messiah
in a
mold quite
foreign
to God's
purpose
and Christ's
reality.
Let us
not be
among those
scandalized
by the
jarring
contrast
of the
Christ
with their
conceptions
of what
the Christ
should
surely
be.
eke
homo,
behold
the man,
there he
was,
deity
verily
though
veiled,
eke
logos,
behold
the word,
deity
verily
though
veiled,
same
case.
well,
let me
pause
there
and
throw it
open
for any
questions,
comments,
clarifications,
maybe cavils,
who knows,
that's fine
too,
that's fine
too,
and to
make sure
that we're
on the
same page
here,
or at
least see
these pages,
and then
after a little
time we'll
continue on
considering some
other practicals
of what
happens if
we still
have
problems,
what are
some
stances
that we
want to
take.
So any
comments or
questions or
clarifying,
does this make
any sense?
what you're
saying makes a
lot of sense
to me because
I really
struggle with
when you
know the
glory of
God,
I mean in
your head you
know the
glory of
God,
but you
don't feel
the glory of
God,
even this
week I've
been struggling
with that all
week long,
it's like,
why do I
know how
magnificent
God is as
much as I
think?
But how
does it not
translate into
my soul as
well as it
should?
And I think
this is why,
so I'm really
glad.
Yeah,
yeah,
okay,
good,
yes.
He did this
on purpose
so that we
could come
to him,
yet bring
himself down
to our
terms,
which is
wonderful and
beautiful that
he did,
but it helps
me understand
that my
soul wants
to get
more.
Yes,
yeah.
Yeah,
absolutely.
And again,
it's probably
vital,
it's probably
necessary that
something,
you have to be
careful about
talking about
necessity when
it comes to
God,
better to say
fitting,
it seems
very fitting
and maybe
necessary.
Think again
of the parallel
case of the
incarnation.
So many,
many,
many people
will talk
about,
what they
call the
scandal
of
particularity.
They'll
say,
wait,
you
Christians
are,
you point
to something
so local
and you
suggest it's
of universal
significance.
You're
talking about
some person
who's a
Galilean,
you know,
a long time
ago,
in a place
far away,
and how can
something so
particular
be of
universal
significance?
it's what
philosophers
call the
scandal
of
particular.
But if
you understand
what is
actually being
done,
it's
critical
that
Jesus
became a
true,
that the
Son became
a true
human
person.
And in
order to
do that,
you have
to be
particular,
because there's
no such
thing as a
generic,
universal
person.
There just
isn't.
People only
come in
particular
cases.
So insofar
as God
wants to
become a
person,
it has to
have all
the particular
ities of
what people
do.
he had
to be
from
somewhere,
so he
was from
Galilee.
He had
to be a
gender,
so he
was male.
He had
to speak
some
language,
culture,
so he
had accent.
He had
body odor.
He had
all these
things.
But in
order for
him to
identify with
us as
humanity,
he had
to be
that.
so it
had to
be some
place that
seemed so
parochial.
So the
claim that
this thing
so parochial
actually has
universal
significance is
hard to
swallow.
But if you
figure out,
it had to
be that
way.
What do
you
Enlightenment
people want?
What is a
generic person?
Exactly.
He didn't
pay the
debt to
God.
Yes.
Because we
couldn't do
it.
Exactly.
Not Ambrose,
but Anselm.
I suffer
from depression
and I
pray or
we were on
a ride
yesterday and
we talk
godly talk
and I
gotta tell
you,
after our
walk and
after our
lunch,
I still
felt like
garbage.
Gotta find
a better
friend,
Raul,
who can
I don't
feel good
all that.
Sometimes I
go to church
and I
leave flat.
That's God
working in
that sanctification.
Yeah.
Oh,
let me just
notice the
incarnation,
the
particularity,
but again,
in
scripturation,
if you're
gonna put
it in
a human
language,
it's gotta
go into,
we don't
have generic
language,
you know,
what's an
angelic language,
how is an
angelic language
gonna go,
you know,
I don't,
what,
it's gotta
go into
something that
is,
that is
particular.
It's gonna
be in
some sort
of cultural,
historical,
you know,
limitations of
fig pickers and
fishermen,
or,
you know,
that's the,
it's gotta be in
some,
so that's gonna
scandal,
it's gonna
scandal everybody
coming from
some vantage
point,
and that's the
way,
if you're gonna
put it in
human words,
those are
human words,
you know,
so,
I won't forget
you,
but,
oops,
sorry,
once,
once I get
Matt,
you were just
beaten out by
Susie here,
but I'll come
back to you
as a second
Matt,
yeah,
yeah.
So,
you talked
about how
both in
incarnation and
scripturation,
God's glory,
that God
removed the
visible marks
of his glory,
but isn't it
kind of paradoxical
when he also
removes his
marks of glory,
but also,
I guess,
asks us,
or requires us
to fear God and re-fear God's glory.
Like, yeah, I was just wondering
how can we then fear God
when God is...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Right.
Well, it is not that we have no access
to his glory,
but that becomes this progressive process
that his spirit works.
So if you were...
A good passage maybe to look at
would be in 2 Corinthians 3
where he talks about
how the spirit removes the veil.
Remember?
And a veil is over...
And it's talking about when reading Scripture
or seeing Jesus.
It's actually in this context.
And that the Holy Spirit removes a veil.
So what is actually there
but has been concealed
becomes more manifest to us.
And then he uses this image.
He says,
it is as if we gaze at Christ
as in a mirror.
And we take on that image of glory
from one degree of glory to the next.
So that as we behold his glory,
we become more and more like that
as we behold the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ.
So there is this progressive revealing to us.
And some of it,
again, it's an unveiling.
Maybe we didn't see any glory in the cross.
I mean, how could you?
It's not evident how that would be glorious.
But as we come to appreciate
and the spirit actually takes the veils off our eyes
and we see that that actually,
the cross.
When Jesus says in John 17, 3,
he says,
Father, glorify me now.
He's actually talking about the cross.
Not that after the cross,
I'm going to get through that
and that's not going to be very glorious.
Then I'll be glorified.
But the cross is actually the apogee,
the high point of his glory.
That's the most concentrated manifestation
of what God is like.
But we wouldn't see that as glorious at first,
certainly not in the culture in which it happened.
You wouldn't even speak of crucifixion
in polite company.
But as the spirit gives us eyes to see,
kind of like he did Saul of Tarsus,
and that thing that was so contemptible and horrid
and even blasphemous at the suggestion
became something in which he gloried in.
Glory alone in the cross of Christ.
So that's kind of how that works.
Matt, you had one.
Your class so far has reminded me
of a type of stumbling block for some people.
Oh, scripture just seems so banal or mundane
or doesn't relate to anything I care about.
And somebody might point, for example,
to a lot of the book of Leviticus.
Do this with the liver.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
How can this be the word of God?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I appreciate that.
Though that's not what I typically think about.
I, you know, wrestle in this regard more with,
I'll use an example of Genesis 1,
which is I look at it,
oh, you know, very beautiful poem
or a piece of literature,
you know, that Cicero, you know.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't have any problem with the formula
like I do with Leviticus.
My problem is with the context.
Right, right, right, right.
How can this be the word of God?
So I think of those as two different stumbling blocks
that different people might have.
Right.
And again, content, I mean, form and content.
Some of the things that Jesus said were scandalous.
There's the content, too, not just his appearance.
Appearance is the total.
You know, so I don't want to,
I don't think that these principles ignore content at all.
I think that they take up content also.
But let me just pick up a couple more points.
Within this framework,
how might we respond when we encounter difficulties?
In other words, when Scripture seems not at all divine,
but merely human, all too human,
how do we respond when we find ourselves there?
Well, I want to propose that we respond with,
first, faith.
Trust him,
even in the midst of unanswered questions.
May our attitude be as the anguished father
of the demon-possessed boy.
I believe, Lord.
Help me overcome my unbelief.
Mark 9, 24.
And there is a way to question
within a framework of faith,
as with Mary to the angel at the Annunciation.
Remember?
How can these things be?
She said, Luke 1, 34.
Full of faith,
despite honest questions.
How can these things be?
It's interesting.
Virtually the same question was uttered by Sarah,
Abraham and Sarah, Sarah,
in Genesis 18.
Remember?
You will bear a child.
Ha ha, she laughs.
That's never going to happen.
Or Zachariah.
Remember when it's revealed
that Elizabeth is going to bear a child.
And they're reproved for their attitude.
So there is a way that you can ask questions
within a framework of faith.
And then there's a way that is different from that.
So when the...
So do you think that in Luke,
Zachariah asked the angel along the way,
and then Mary did it the right way?
Yes.
Because he was made mute,
but she wasn't.
Yes.
And both of them questioned what was happening.
Yes.
And they never understood that.
Yeah, yeah.
It's a different attitude.
One comes from faith.
A faith.
And again, with Sarah,
hey, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, Sarah,
nothing's impossible with God.
So...
And I think Mary knew that and trusted
if you read the Magnificat,
you know, what she says,
it becomes clear.
But she just said,
okay, how?
What am I supposed to do?
I mean, I am a virgin.
So, yeah, very different attitude.
So we can ask our questions,
but within a framework of faith.
And, you know,
when the Bible seems nothing but human
and we can't see the divine,
don't be scandalized and stumble.
As Jesus says,
blessed is he who does not stumble at me.
Matthew 11, 6.
So when we find ourselves standing in a fog
that we can't see through,
let's remember ourselves
that we stand upon rock.
His word to us.
Matthew 7, what is it?
22.
You know, his words.
That's the rock.
And remember, in his case,
the verily amen
was not uttered by his hearers in judgment.
That judgment he has already rendered.
Remember, Jesus often says,
contrary to the custom,
verily amen,
surely, assuredly, I say to you,
and we all, you know,
and then he'd make a statement.
Usually somebody would make a statement,
and if people, you know,
we kind of do this now,
and if people thought,
yeah, that seems right,
amen, verily, it's true.
Jesus does it differently.
He just starts his statement,
verily amen,
and then just says it.
You know, the judgment's
already been rendered,
and we just need to remember that.
Let's trust him,
the one so worthy of our trust.
Surely, Peter's response
is well adapted to this question, too.
To whom would we go instead?
Who's more worthy of our trust?
For he alone has the words of life.
John 6, 68.
So, in our doubt-ridden quandaries,
respond in faith.
But also, let's respond in hope.
Hope.
Remember the eschatological reality
of where we are.
Now, we see through a glass darkly,
1 Corinthians 13, 12.
We see darkly.
Realize that our problems
are a calendar issue.
They will one day be resolved.
Don't demand that all be revealed
and unveiled now.
Don't demand that the Bible
be transfigured.
its glory made manifest now.
That, remember,
that was Satan's temptation
to Jesus at the temple top.
Remember, unveil yourself now.
But Jesus kept God's calendar.
Kept God's calendar.
And sometimes we can show
the Corinthian immaturity.
Can we not?
They thought it was time of glory,
not suffering.
Have what theologians call
an over-realized eschatology.
And we can have over-realized expectations
about the word.
It, the word,
is in its sojourn of suffering.
It's kenosis.
It will have its vindication.
It will have its exaltation.
When it will be truly glorified.
But that is not yet.
So let's wait in hope.
Abide till I come, Jesus says.
And suffer now.
That's right.
As Jesus told his disciples,
what I am doing,
you do not now understand.
But afterwards,
you will understand.
John 13, 7.
And might we not equally,
at times,
say,
what you have written,
I don't now understand.
But let's,
at such times,
remember the but afterward.
But afterward.
Afterward.
An afterward
of full understanding
to come.
And be patient,
awaiting that coming day.
We can do that.
So,
we respond in faith,
and in hope,
but also,
in love.
We got problems
with the Bible.
We got issues.
Okay,
that's fine.
We all do.
Busy yourself,
loving God,
and neighbor.
This is the best environment
for truth
to prevail
and get rooted
in your life.
certainly,
it doesn't happen
by obsessing
over the problem.
2 Timothy 1, 13
is relevant here,
where he says,
retain the standard
of sound words,
he's talking about truth,
in,
the faith and love
which are in Christ Jesus.
In other words,
the sphere
or the environment
in which truth
is nourished
is the community
of faith
where mutual love
is at work.
And part of this,
I think,
is that there
we will be constantly
witnessing the power
of the faith
and love
born of the gospel word
that keeps transforming lives
all around us.
And that helps
to give us confidence
in that word,
even where we,
we don't quite understand
or have problems
with it.
And this,
seeing how the word
just dramatically
changed people's lives.
It's,
it's,
it's a proleptic
vindication.
In other words,
it's a,
it's a little vindication
in advance
of the final invocation.
It's kind of a sneak
preview
of the vindication
that the word
will have.
little,
little transfigurations
where the divine
shows through
the human
in advance
of the great unveiling.
In,
in the days
when biblical criticism
was harrowing
the faith
of many a Yale student
and questions
were many
and urgent
and answers
were few
and pretty slow
of arrival,
Henry B. Wright,
after whom
Wright Hall
is,
is named.
He's kind of a minister
on campus
godly man.
He observed
that amidst
all this solvents
to their faith,
what most kept
the faith
of Yale students
intact
was their involvement
in Yale Hope
Mission.
Yale Hope Mission
was where
they busied
themselves
in reaching out
in loving service
and gospel witness
to the down
and outers
as they called
them then.
We would say
the underprivileged.
Okay?
Many of whose lives
were dramatically
transformed,
just wonderfully
reclaimed.
And in the process,
the faith
of the witness
bearers
was fortified.
And it gave
them some ballast
and staying power
amidst all this
German higher
criticism
that was coming
in like a flood
and dislodging
their footing.
It was kind
of like
the man
more blind.
He's asked
all these questions
by the cross
examination.
I don't know,
but I do know
this.
I once was blind
and now I see.
And that gives you
some pretty good
ballast
in the midst
of unanswered
questions.
And if we see
that more and more
as we're busy
about loving others
and God
and the transformation
that that brings,
it'll give us
some ballast.
So,
love.
So,
faith,
hope,
love,
and finally,
humility.
Our judgments,
I mean,
we were born yesterday.
I always tell my daughters,
what do you know?
You were born yesterday.
Listen to your father.
But, you know,
our judgments
and they roll their own,
oh, gee.
Our judgments
are finite
and fallible
and deeply
dyed
by our sinfulness.
Accordingly,
epistemic humility
becomes us.
Humility about
what we can know
and how we know things.
It becomes us.
I can't see
how to solve
this particular question.
But,
why would I think
that I should be able to?
You know,
okay,
I guess,
God,
I don't need to know,
at least right now.
You know?
And,
realize that
part of our frustration
may come
from presumption.
I was just talking
to you
the other day
and,
you know,
we were talking
about the problem
of evil.
You know?
He said,
I can see
no good reason
why God
would act
or speak
in this way.
therefore,
he must have none.
Therefore,
he must have none.
I tried to gently
point this out.
But,
note
how
breathtaking
is the hidden
premise there.
God
could have
no good
reasons
for anything
that I would not
be acquainted with.
That's the hidden
premise.
you think,
that really
is breathtaking
an assumption,
a premise.
So,
sisters and brothers,
surely in these
matters,
as in most
matters,
humility
becomes us.
Humility
becomes us.
As David
reflected,
oh Lord,
my heart
is not lifted up.
My eyes
are not raised
too high.
I do not
occupy myself
with things
too great
and too
marvelous
for me.
But,
what I can do,
I can't do those
things,
but what I can do,
I have calmed
and quieted
my soul
like a weaned
child with its
mother,
like a weaned
child is my
soul within me.
Psalm 131.
So,
these four
qualities
befit us
as soul
vesture.
when we
encounter
difficulties,
stumbling blocks
in scripture,
which puzzle,
perplex,
perhaps even
pain us,
put on
faith,
hope,
love,
and humility.
But,
quickly,
there may be
some in our
company
for whom
an additional
response
might be
fitting.
that of
stewardship.
Stewardship.
For,
there may
be some
among us
whom God
has gifted
to grapple
with these
conundra,
who,
like
Odysseus,
have the
strength
and skill
to string
the bow,
pulling together
the limbs
of that
bow,
word
and world,
harmonizing
the books
of scripture
and nature,
unifying
doctrine
and data,
which seem
disparate.
One thinks
of an
Augustine,
an Aquinas,
an Edwards,
or a Sayers,
Dorothy Sayers.
Those
among God's
people who
have taken
up these
haunting
questions,
disturbing
questions,
so difficult,
and applied
themselves with
patient
thoughtfulness
to answering
them.
A favorite
image of
mine is
Botticelli's
Augustine
in his
study.
I wonder
if you've
seen it.
Go back
and Google
it.
Some Google
images.
It's a
great one.
Brow
furled
and thought.
He's bent
over his
desk,
pen in
hand,
ready pen.
The floor
around him,
this is my
favorite bit,
the floor
around him
strewn with
crumpled bits
of paper,
the discarded
relics of his
cogitations as
he keeps
upgrading them.
It's a
fantastic image.
Could yours,
I wonder,
be a similar
stewardship of
kingdom thinker?
I think of a
previous student
of the college
hard buy,
who as an
undergrad
resolved,
this is
resolution number
11,
I think he had
72 of them,
when I think
of any
difficulty in
divinity to
be solved,
in other words,
a problem,
immediately to
do what I can
towards solving
it.
He was just
a young teen
at the time,
Jonathan Edwards.
There is a
sense of
stewardship,
of a
gifting,
and calling,
to apply
oneself to
engaging these
difficulties,
and stumbling
blocks,
and so
blessing and
bearing the
burdens of the
people of God.
The sheep that
are so harrowed
by these wolves.
Well, some of
you can go
after these.
Some of you
can do this.
Might be your
calling.
Okay, so this
might be a
stewardship.
And finally,
a closing
word to those
who perhaps
do not
themselves deal
with doubts,
but who may
deal with those
who do deal
with doubts.
Jude tells
us,
have mercy
on those
who doubt.
Jude 22,
have mercy
on those
who doubt.
Let us
as Christians
not be
an army
that shoots
our wounded.
And this is
going to be
really,
really important
if they're
going to be
that previous
group who
take it on
the stewardship
to try to
wrestle with
these questions,
and sometimes
you fall over
on one side
of the horse
and then the
other trying
to work
these things
out.
And if
it's troubling
to try to
work these
things out,
we need to
be very
compassionate
toward these
people who
wade into
the depths of
these problems
and challenges.
Don't shoot
our wounded.
We should
not react
to them
with horror
or shun
them.
And I
fear some
are lost
by harshness
who might
be reconciled
by gentleness.
And it is
right that we
show mercy
for we
recognize that
we all
are the
recipients of
mercy as
believers in
Christ.
And it is
mercy that we
all await.
The very
next, no,
it's the
verse right
above where
Jude says,
have mercy
on those
who doubt.
He talks
about all
of us
awaiting that
mercy from
Christ our
Lord.
Well, let
me, that
would be a
good way to
conclude with
Jude's
benediction.
If we
struggle with
doubts,
don't be
afraid, little
flock.
Don't be
afraid.
The good
shepherd has
you well
in hand.
And his
hand is in
the Father's
hand, we're
told in
John 10.
And no
one shall
pluck us
out of the
Father's
hand.
Those tender
almighty
hands.
So as
Jude puts
it, and
we'll finish
with this,
now unto
him who
is able to
keep you
from stumbling
and to
present you
blameless
before the
presence of
his glory
with great
joy to the
only God
our Savior
through
Jesus
Christ
our Lord
be glory,
majesty,
dominion,
and authority
before all
time and
now and
forever.
Amen.
Well,
God's
God is
關 노
God is