Category Archives: Uncategorized

A Consideration of the Focus of God’s Wrath (or Anger)

Posted on by
8

The painting above is John Martin’s, Great Day of His Wrath. (It hangs in the Tate Gallery in London.)


A while back, in a Sunday service, I mentioned that my perspective of God’s wrath is that it has more to do with God’s longing than with God’s anger. This perspective elicited a disagreeing comment by someone who was there. Following is my attempt to articulate my thinking in this area. I am not insisting that I am right, only passing on to you my current thinking in this area…
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient” (Eph 5:6, emphasis added).
The word orgē (Greek: ὀργή) is used approximately 36 times in the New Testament; twenty-one times in Paul’s writings, six times in Revelation, and only occasionally in the Gospels.[1] In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul uses orgē three times (2:3; 4:31; 5:6).


Biblical hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation and is perhaps summarized best by 2 Timothy 2:15,

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Biblical hermeneutics is art because it calls for nuance and craft and science because it demands technique and skill. There are accepted academic rules to follow and one of those rules states that a verse or passage must be interpreted:
  • Historically,
  • Grammatically, and
  • Contextually.
Historical interpretation refers to understanding the culture, background, and situation, which prompted the text. Grammatical interpretation is recognizing the rules of grammar and nuances of the Hebrew and Greek languages and applying those principles to the understanding of a passage. Contextual interpretation involves always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage into consideration when trying to determine the meaning.


In Paul’s letter (epistle) to the Ephesians he was probably writing primarily to Christ-following Gentiles, or Greeks — and not Jews. (Ephesus was ranked with Rome, Corinth, Antioch, and Alexandria as the foremost urban centers of the Roman Empire.) In writing to Gentiles, Paul, as a well educated rabbi and also a citizen of Rome was, no doubt, aware that in the Rhetoric,[2] Aristotle defined wrath (orgē) as, “a longing, accompanied by pain…”[3]  Aristotle additionally ascribed value to wrath (or anger) that has arisen from perceived injustice because it is useful for preventing injustice.[4]


Misconceptions of the wrath of God have led to a false picture of God. One such is reading into the phrase “wrath of God” the idea of a “wrathful” or “angry” God. Here God is often seen as stern and cruel, a mean Judge who loves to revenge and punish humankind whenever there is an opportunity to do so, and at times even does so arbitrarily. Such a picture of God, however, is a grave distortion of God’s character and often leads to unhealthy fear or reward-motivated obedience — disconnected from love.


The Old Testament certainly states that opposition to God’s will results in God’s anger. In reference to anger, the Jewish Encyclopedia[5] states: God is not an intellectual abstraction, nor is He conceived as a being indifferent to the doings of man; and His pure and lofty nature resents most energetically anything wrong and impure in the moral world. Christ-followers also subscribe to the perspective of God’s holiness and anger welling up in the sight of evil and this anger is not inconsistent with God’s love. We also believe that the wrath of God comes upon those who reject Jesus.


Yet, could this wrath (or anger) of God be focused more on the effects of sin than on the sinner? In Romans 1:18 Paul states, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” Could this be speaking of the longing and pain that God has for people to repent of their godlessness and wickedness?


The totality of Scripture makes it very clear that the wrath of God is not the last horizon. God is love (1 John 4:16). God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but is pleased when they turn from their sinful ways and live (Ezekiel 18:23). God wants all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the saving truth (1 Tim. 2:4-6). Reconciliation has its starting point in Christ. God wants the world to be reconciled with him, both in and through him (2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 5:8-11). God does not desire revengeful punishment. Within the context of biblical judgment, divine wrath is not an expression of a despotic deity, but a just and legitimate reaction against the effects (or, sinfulness) of sin. God’s wrath is aroused against sin, because sin is a rebellion against God’s nature and character. But even in God’s wrath mercy is remembered (Is. 54:7, 8).


The ultimate test of biblical scholarship is whether it serves effectively to equip God’s people for discipleship. The essentials of the Christian faith include: 
  • The authority of Scripture
  • The existence of a Triune God
  • Humankind is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God’s image
  • Jesus Christ is by God’s grace, was born of a virgin, is fully God and fully man, died for our sins, physically rose from the dead, will one day return to judge the world and fully deliver his people, and was sent to save us from our bondage to sin
  • Faith in Christ is the only means by which humankind can escape eternal judgment
  • The church as God’s ordained institution headed by Christ, composed of all believers, and organized for the furtherance of the kingdom of God.
In the essentials of the Christian faith, we must have unity (Eph. 4:4-6); in the non-essentials of the faith, we embrace diversity (Rom. 14:1-6); in all matters of faith, we seek to have charity (1 Cor. 13:1-3).[6]

The focus of God’s wrath, or anger, is not – by my understanding – an essential of the Christian faith. Respectful, honest dialogue will help us to refine our faith…

What are your thoughts??




[1] Brown, Dictionary of NT Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), p. 110
[2] Rhetoric is an ancient Greek treatise on the art of persuasion, dating from the fourth century BC.
[3] 1378a
[4] According to Aristotle: “The person who is angry at the right things and toward the right people, and also in the right way, at the right time and for the right length of time is morally praiseworthy.” cf. Paul M. Hughes, Anger, Encyclopedia of Ethics, Vol I, Second Edition, Rutledge Press
[6] The History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff. In Volume VII, Modern Christianity, The German Reformation, Schaff writes: “This famous motto of Christian Irenics, which I have slightly modified in the text, is often falsely attributed to St. Augustin (whose creed would not allow it, though his heart might have approved of it), but is of much later origin. It appears for the first time in Germany, a.d. 1627 and 1628, among peaceful divines of the Lutheran and German Reformed churches, and found a hearty welcome among moderate divines in England…The authorship has recently been traced to Rupertus Meldenius, an otherwise unknown divine, and author of a remarkable tract in which the sentence first occurs. He gave classical expression to the irenic sentiments of such divines as Calixtus of Helmstädt, David Pareus of Heidelberg, Crocius of Marburg, John Valentin Andrew of Wuerttemberg, John Arnd of Zelle, Georg Frank of Francfort-on-the Oder, the brothers Bergius in Brandenburg, and of the indefatigable traveling evangelist of Christian union, John Dury, and Richard Baxter.”

Don’t Lower the Bar, Lower the Barriers – Becoming Missional

Posted on by
Reply

Before Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the state in the year 313, Christianity was a subversive, counter-cultural movement that existed at the margins of society – not at the center. The subsequent move to the center of society had advantages as well as dis-advantages.:

  • The advantage was that there was a common (Biblical) language and reference point for public moral discourse with which society could discuss what was “good” or “moral,” or “right.”
  • The disadvantage was that (legislated) Christian morality without the Holy Spirit and gospel-changed hearts often led to cruelty, hypocrisy, and the abuse of power and authority.

There is an often-told story of Thomas Aquinas (13th century) when he visited Pope Innocent IV and found him counting a large sum of money. “Ah, Thomas,” said the Pope, “the church can no longer say, ‘silver and gold have I none.’” That is true, Your Holiness,” said Aquinas, “but then, neither can it now say, ‘Arise and walk’” (Ref Acts 3:6).

One of the downsides of Christendom is that we’ve placed way too much emphasis on the WORDS of Christ and not enough emphasis on the WORKS of Christ. We’ve been a voice without sufficient action. Again, in Christendom nations — and people groups — have been “Christianized” without becoming whole-heartedly converted.

Since about the mid-19th century the church in Europe and North America has been losing its privileged place in the center of society and as the authority of public morality. The decline of Christendom has accelerated greatly since the end of WWII, when science and reason ultimately failed to fix all our problems and concerns (i.e., the decline of modernity).

We are now living at a time that many would consider “POST-Christian.” (Or, if you’re an optimist, “Pre-Christian.”) Once again the church is finding itself at the margins of culture and society – we are losing our place of moral authority. This will force us, as the church, to engage the culture around us in a whole new way. (That is what it means to be “missional.”)

Studies indicate that unchurched people do not have a problem with God, or even Jesus — they have a problem with the church. Our current context in North America is more like the early NT context – the church has been pushed to the margins and is no longer at the center of society.

The people who make-up a missional church see themselves as missionaries to the dominant post-Christian culture that surrounds them – as well as the various sub-cultures. As missionaries to a “post-Christian” culture it would be wrong to assume the people we encounter have any basic background regarding the availability of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ – or that they have read the Bible. And the ones who have grown-up in churches may, very well, have an extremely negative view of the church.

As missionaries we are invited by God to seek new ways to tell the “Jesus story” to the surrounding culture. It takes understanding the culture (contextualizing the gospel for the culture we are investing in) and looking for redemptive ways to share the Jesus story.

What other parts of our current cultural context are redemptive? One de-churched person asked how a church can sing (the hymn), “This is My Father’s World” on Sunday and rape the environment on Monday? Justice issues? Affordable housing? Oppressed poor? Aids? Care/treatment for the homeless?

A missional church is seeking to engage the surrounding “dominant” culture with redemptive relationships – and move people toward reconciliation – with one another and with God. We don’t want to lower the bar; we want to lower the barriers.

Marks of Missionality

Posted on by
Reply

How do we know if, or when, we are diving into missionality?

Missionality goes beyond any ministry or program – even evangelism. For instance, a ‘missional’ small group is not necessarily one which is doing some kind of specific ‘evangelism’ program (though that is to be recommended). Rather…

  1. If its members love and talk positively about the city/neighborhood,
  2. If they speak in language that is not filled with pious tribal or technical terms and phrases, nor disdainful and embattled, or embittered, language,
  3. If in their Bible study they apply the gospel to the core concerns and stories of the people of the culture,
  4. If they are obviously interested in and engaged with the literature and art and thought of the surrounding culture and can discuss it both appreciatively and yet critically,
  5. If they exhibit deep concern for the poor
  6. If they show generosity with their money
  7. If they show purity and respect with regard to opposite sex
  8. If they show humility toward people of other races and cultures
  9. If they do not bash other Christians and churches.

Then seekers and non-believing people from the city…

  • Will be invited and
  • Will come and will stay as they explore spiritual issues.

If these marks are not there it will only be able to include believers or traditional, “Christianized” people.