Friday is Good.

Last weekend I spent several hours on the GO train.  I was headed to and from a point east of Toronto, but as it happens the express train coming into Union Station from the west arrives within a minute of the east-bound train leaving on a different track.  So I missed my connection and was stranded in TO for an hour.  As it happens, they were handing out free newspapers and shortly I found myself reading an article about a community event in Toronto on the Sunday.  Apparently since 1998 the community is invited to bake Matzo in the park in an open oven – supplies are donated by a local company and as many as wish to can mix, knead, roll and bake the bread within the customary 18 minutes. 

Why 18 minutes you ask?  To quote The Star, “The time limit is in keeping with a traditional belief that flour – when it comes in contact with water – will rise [become leavened] after that amount of time.”   In Exodus 12 the Jewish people were specifically told to prepare the Passover meal in haste, and to make the bread without yeast (leaven – see Ex 12:8).  This meal was (and is) to be a perpetual festival as the Lord declared, “Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.  In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day.  For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born.  Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” ^[1]

Most Christians know that Passover was a physical foreshadow of the spiritual reality of Easter.  As 1 Cor 5:7 declares, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. ⁸ Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. ^[2]”   The lamb that was sacrificed in Passover is a foreshadow of Jesus, who is the sinless lamb of God, sacrificed for us.  In the Gospel of John we read of John the Baptist’s first encounter with Jesus; “John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ^[3]”  The unleaved bread of the Passover is symbolic of His sinless body, broken for us on what we now call Good Friday  (see Mark 14:22), the wine is symbolic of His blood, spilt for us the same day (see Mark 14:23-24).  So the Christian celebration of Easter has its origin in the events on Calvary (where Christ was crucified) but its roots in the Jewish Passover.  That makes sense, for salvation comes from the Jews (not my words, but Christ’s – see John 4:22). 

But why would God use bread and wine?  Bread is the most basic of foods – in the ancient middle east wine was a very common drink.   The analogy is best seen in that light.

Bread is available in some form all over the world.   Likewise Jesus is available to all for salvation.  Bread is necessary to sustain human life.  We need some form of carbohydrate in our diet to provide us with the energy we need to live.   In a like manner Jesus is necessary to us – without His indwelling influence we have no spiritual life.  Bread is made of crushed grain just as wine is crushed out of the grape.  In a similar way Jesus’ was crushed for us.  Isaiah 53:5 declares, “But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”  

We remember Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the cross every time we take communion, what we call “the Lord’s supper”.   This sacrament has its origins in Jesus’ last celebration of the Passover meal.  As the Scripture records:  “When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.  And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.   For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”  After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.  For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”  And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. ^[4]”

During communion we prayerfully consider our state before God and His sacrifice for us.  Then the bread is broken before being offered to all around the table.  In a similar way Jesus’ body was broken by the scourging He endured just before He died for us all (see Rom 5:8).   All around the table partake of the one bread – just as all who come to Jesus partake of His one sacrifice and are made alive by His one Spirit.  Then the cup is lifted up and all participate, just as Jesus was lifted up on the cross and all who jcome to Him are washed of their sin and made new by His Spirit.  

As Schaff and Schaff wrote, “The Lord’s Supper is: (1) a commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross; (2) a feast of living union of believers with the Saviour, whereby they truly, that is spiritually and by faith, receive Christ, with all his benefits, and are nourished with his life unto life eternal; (3) a communion of believers with one another as members of the same mystical body of Christ; (4) a eucharist or thankoffering of our persons and services to Christ, who died for us that we might live for him. ^[5]”

This Easter, let us give thanks and celebrate.  But first let us prayerfully consider the great cost and truth of Good Friday.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: New International Version. 1984 (Ex 12:17–20). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[2] The New International Version. 2011 (1 Co 5:6–8). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[3] The Holy Bible: New International Version. 1984 (Jn 1:29). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[4] The Holy Bible: New International Version. 1984 (Lk 22:14–20). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[5] Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Fie Fi Fo Fum. I smell money

In the news today is a small article undoubtedly to be missed by many.  It announces the solution to Federal government debt and the banking crisis worldwide.  It also ought to send a shiver up the spine of every hard working bloke who ever tried to live within their means.

The National Post reports, “In a radical departure from previous aid packages — and one that gave rise to incredulity and anger across the country — euro zone finance ministers forced Cyprus’ savers to pay up to 10% of their deposits to raise almost €6-billion.”

What that means is to help solve their government debt and the banker’s mess in Cyprus, the EU froze bank accounts over the weekend and announced that all savings accounts will now be ‘taxed’ by 9.9%.  Did you say you had 100K in there?  Here’s your 90.1K - enjoy!

I’m not sure about you, but to me, the prospect of losing basically 10% all at once of what you worked your whole life for – so that people who made all the worst choices can avoid the personal cost of their own largesse – is more than slightly disturbing.  Even worse, Lar Seier Christensen, CEO of Denmark’s Saxo Bank, said, “If you can do this once, you can do it again.”  With trillions and trillions of dollars being hoarded away by savers all over the world, this a troubling new development in covering government miss-management. How long it will be before the idea of this new ‘windfall’ of free money catches the ears of politicians around the world? 

I pray a very long time indeed!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/16/this-is-theft-pure-and-simple-cyprus-bail-out-slicing-average-depositors-savings-up-to-10/

Final Posting on "The God Delusion" by Dawkins - Chapter 10

In his final chapter, Richard deals with religion as a source for consolation and inspiration.  He begins by comparing faith and belief in God with having an imaginary childhood friend.  Why shouldn’t he?  He believes that those who have faith are somehow defective.  Like a childhood fear still held tight, belief in God lingers into adulthood – a frail and weak crutch, upon which the mentally infirm lean hard.  Of course, if you talk to those who have been comforted by God, you realize nothing is further from the truth.  The consolation they speak of – the one they experienced, and the one the Scripture speaks of - they have from God for a time and a purpose that, while meeting the present need in a deeply personal way, far exceeds themselves (as Scripture says in 2Cor 1:3-11).  But this comfort is given only to those who both need it and seek it while in their deepest need – certainly not all who know the Lord even do that (perhaps thankfully, most have only rare occasions when they do need it).

Moving to the subject of inspiration, Dawkins points out the ridiculously small scope of our perception when silhouetted against reality.  Dawkins does a good job at pointing out the absurd vastness of the universe, the temporary nature of humanity and the disturbing vagueness of reality – but (as my preaching tutor often said to me), “So what?”.  If the hugeness of the universe is fully beyond my grasp, now and forever, then so what?  If all that is goes on forever without me, so what?  If reality is so much more than I could ever hope to see, so what?  How does knowing that help me?   I do not doubt it is interesting.  Actually, as a man who reads much in the fields of science I can say I find it all very interesting.  But if it has no practical implication for me, you or any of us in our lifetime, can it be truly inspirational? 

Ultimately this a nice review of high school astronomy and post-graduate physics, but I do not think it truly inspires.  For me at least, inspiration must include not only a possibility beyond our immediate present (for instance, the possibility to see beyond the visible spectrum), but also motivation (to do something about it) and at least the hope of an achievable timeframe.  Otherwise it is not inspiration but merely an idea – perhaps a good idea – a very interesting idea – even a noteworthy idea, but nothing more.  Is it not more inspirational to have the knowledge that if you pray you can move spiritual forces in opposition, or would you rather have the knowledge that you cannot perceive the world the way a neutrino does? 

Christianity does more than point out the vastness of creation, the eternity of God and the reality of the spiritual realm.  It reveals the immediate practical implications and show us what to do about them. It opens our eyes to the fact that we CAN and (for those who trust in God) WILL see time roll away.  To the fact that we DO belong, ARE loved and CAN make a difference.   Those things (destiny, intimacy and meaning) are things that matter – to both us and those we care about.   Unfortunately, Richard Dawkins ultimately does not address any of them to any degree of satisfaction.  

Praise God, He does. 

END.

On Reading "The God Delusion" by Dawkins - Chapter 9

In chapter 9, Richard Dawkins begins with a story from 1858 detailing the abduction of a small child on the basis of a questionable baptism.  He writes, “It passes all sensible understanding, but they sincerely believed they were doing him a good turn by taking him away from his parents and giving him a Christian upbringing.  They felt a duty of protection!”   While I feel no urge to try to justify the tragedy of a young boy being uprooted from his parents, I feel Richard errs in his expression of outrage against religion as the cause.  The cause of evil is evil, and not religion – for evil exists independent of religion.  Would he be OK if the boy was removed by secularists, eager to ensure that the boy not have religion to start with? 

Apparently he would, because he unabashedly equates teaching key Biblical doctrines to minors with child sexual abuse.  He writes, “Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland.  I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”  Not to let that slide as a misquote, he continues, “I am persuaded that the phrase ‘child abuse’ is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.”

He believes teaching about hell should be banned because it’s scary to people, especially children.  Perhaps we should also ban teaching about lions, tigers and bears.  After all, they’re scary too!  The good news of course, is that you can educate yourself to avoid entering the habitat of lions, tigers and bears, and we can teach children not to go there.  It is a shame that the fact that you can also avoid hell goes unnoticed in his book.  Instead, Dawkins goes on to argue against allowing parents to decide what to teach their children.  “Parents” he writes, “have no God-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose.”, “…we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.” 

So according to Richard, any parent that takes their kid to Sunday School is unfit.  Such a parent cannot possibly be trusted to raise children.   A major flaw in this argument is easily seen by asking the obvious question, “On what basis should society qualify a parent to raise children?”  Although I am confident that Richard could qualify any who teach what he believes – as though atheism is the only acceptable worldview.  One can only hope and pray that the world never embraces the illogic and conceit so demonstrated. 

Richard seems to believe that the ability to think critically about religion can only be granted by an atheistic worldview.  Yet everyone who has grown up in the church knows full well that eventually you have to wrestle with the, “Why?” of the faith yourself.  No one is born Christian, no one gets to impose the Christian faith on others.  Unless you’ve chosen it for yourself, and approached Christ in humility and repentance, you are not born again.  A faith that brings you to the point of personal decision is the only faith you can ‘own’ as your own. 

The fact is, there are some who are content with owning their faith privately – only sharing it when asked, and some who are zealous to extend their faith to others through preaching and discussion (just as Richard Dawkins is).  There are also those too who are so over-zealous in extending their faith to others that they seek to do so by force, law or other inappropriate means.  Such methods are always ineffective in producing faith – they produce only passive-aggressive behavior and resentment.  Of course, if atheistic secularism produces that in abundance, at least they cannot be accused of producing faith.