Thinking about covenants (and oral bible stories)

We have been telling stories in Genesis for quite a while now. It could be argued that we have been bogged down in Genesis, but then again we have learnt so much. In fact I would go so far as to say that we have relearnt a lot.

As we embarked on telling stories orally to students here in Siberia we did not know just what stories from the old testament we should include, and when we would then move on to Jesus. I have often argued in the past that it is not wise to rush to the new testament too quickly. One of the things we realised as we studied bible translation, was that many of the key terms needed in the new testament can actually be discovered by going through the old testament first. In the same way, it has been the stories of the old testament that have revealed to us, just how many we also need to share.

Quite a while back I wrote a blog on The First Covenant. I had a bit of a personal revelation after telling the story of Noah to some of our indigenous Siberian friends. I realised that a covenant was all about God taking territory back on earth. When he made a covenant with Noah, this was ground that the devil could not take back from God, even though he claimed the rest of the planet. It was God's first step in his plan for victory to reclaim everything.

With this enlarged view of covenants other revelations have laid in wait for us as we have continued to share oral bible stories. There is clearly a big thing going on between God and Abraham. God makes a promise to bless all nations through Abraham. This is a covenant of massive prophetic levels. God is now laying out his plan to claim everything back. If we look at the Abrahamic covenant we will see that all nations on earth are included in it. It is therefore very relevant for all peoples who have never heard the story before. In fact, I would even say that they are provided for or covered by the Abrahamic covenant, even though they still need to place faith in it.

Our understanding of scripture is that Isaac is the son of the promise, who God promised to Abraham. It was through Isaac's line that God would bring his message of salvation to the world. This is of course true, but there is more to the Abraham story than meets the eye. On more than one occasion, something interesting has happened when we have come to the story of Ishmael, when sharing it with Siberian indigenous peoples.  (Bear in mind that we were even tempted to skip over this "irrelevant" story.) Each time we shared the story, the listeners were convinced that Ishmael was the son of the promise. We told them, wait on, the story will reveal someone else.

On deeper reflection, there is something going on with the Ishmael story. He is not God's original plan, Isaac is. But at the same time, God does not reject Ishmael. In fact God even decides to bless Ishmael and bring about a great nation through Ishmael too. When God made his covenant with Noah, he enlarged his tent in this world. When he made his covenant with Abraham he enlarged his tent again. When Ishmael came along (a mistake by Abraham), God decides to incorporate Ishmael into his plan.

Ishmael was not part of God's original plan, but God decides to enlarge his tent through Ishmael anyway. If you like, Ishmael is an annex to the Abraham tent, even though the front chamber is still in Isaac's name. This means that the Arab's exist in provision under the line of Ishmael as a blessed nation.

Every single covenant made in scripture needs to be fulfilled by Jesus the King. We as believers now live under the new covenant of Jesus. The covenants of Noah and Abraham apply to us as gentiles, and then it is Jesus who fulfils these covenants and then brings completion through his sacrifice. As gentiles we were never and should never be under the Mosaic covenant. Paul argued rightly in the new testament that the Jerusalem church should not bring gentiles in under the Mosaic covenant. The Jerusalem church were under the Mosaic covenant, but this was still incomplete without the new covenant of Jesus to fulfil it.

If Jesus fulfils all covenants, then he also fulfils the Ishmaelic sub-clause of the Abrahamic covenant that applies to Arabs. When Muslims claim Ishmael we should not be so quick to tell them they are wrong. But we should point them to Isa (Jesus) who is the only true fulfilment of the Ishmaelic sub clause. This of course means that there is no such thing as a Mohumadic covenant.

When we are bringing the gospel to people, we need to consider what covenants they are under before bringing them to the new covenant. For Jews, this means they need to come in through the Mosaic covenant first and then on to Jesus. But this does not apply to any other peoples. For Muslims, or Arabs at least (I haven't figured out whether they are to be considered the same or not), they need to come in through the Abrahamic covenant with the Ishmaelic sub clause. For most peoples of the world however it is enough for them to come first through the Noahic and then Abrahamic covenants, before they finally come to Jesus and his perfect new covenant, in which we are all provided for.

This deeper understanding of covenants has brought us to the place where we realise that we do need to share all of the oral bible stories from Genesis 1 to the end of Abraham. But for the majority of peoples in the world, it is then appropriate to move on to Jesus next.

Jesus original intention for his followers.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "Upon this rock I will build my Ekklesia?" This came up in Matthew 16 verse 18 when Jesus was speaking to Peter, after Peter is the first of the disciples to openly declare Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Do we automatically know what Jesus meant, or is it worth revisiting this again? The first mistake would be to simply assume we know what he meant based upon modern translations of the Bible. Modern translations all seem to translate the work Ekklesia as Church. Older translations into English such as Tyndale and others of the 16th century did not do so.

But what does the word Ekklesia actually mean? When Jesus uttered the word in this context it was radical. In fact, so many of the things that Jesus said were completely radical the first time he said them. That is why he had so many enemies and was crucified. Remember, he completely upset the religious sensibilities of established institutional Judaism.

Here are a few places that I have looked at to seek a definition:

1) A straight definition of the Greek word the way it had been used up until Jesus' time can be found in Wikipedia. Ecclesia (from ancient Athens).
In Ancient Athens, the Ekklesia was a political assembly in any one city that made decisions for that particular city. All citizens were welcome to be a part of the Ekklesia. When Jesus uttered the word Ekklesia, this is the definition that his disciples would have heard. Another definition did not exist at the time.
Could Jesus have had a political definition in mind when he uttered this word? Well good exegesis demands we consider Jesus' views on politics from elsewhere in the gospels. Jesus says in John 18:36 that "His kingdom is not of this world" and that his followers would fight to defend it, if it were. Pilate rightly goes on to say "so you are a king then?" to which Jesus agrees.
I would argue that Jesus did have a political definition in mind when he said the word Ekklesia. The distinction that needs to be made though is that he was not saying his Kingdom was of this world, so neither should his Ekklesia be.

How could the word Ekklesia be translated as it had been understood by Greeks and Romans before the first century AD? If it is to have some political meaning, then this needs to be considered. It carries the idea of a council, a body of representatives, a legislature, a parliament, senate or congress. This "council" is to be the representative of God's Kingdom here in this earth. This does not mean making earthly political decisions as such. It does mean however, making decisions to transform this world through acts of love into God's Kingdom.

Consider the place that early believers had in the Roman Empire. They were expected to worship the Emperor as all people were. The Emperor set himself up as a god and demanded worship. Early Christian believers refused to worship the Emperor, and said "we have a different King". What is more they also had a different Ekklesia, the assembly of believers that endeavoured to see Jesus' Kingdom established on earth. It is no wonder that Rome was threatened by this concept and executed early Christians. I count myself among these believers. I know that in today's world if the Ekklesia of Jesus was truly impacting society in a big way, that it would be a threat to the established political system of the day, a threat that would undoubtedly result in persecution and execution of Christians once again.

In my mind, this is something of what Jesus meant when he said would establish his Council Assembly, starting with his first follower Peter.

2) It is worth taking a look directly at the Greek scriptures. This is not hard to do these days. The NET bible on Bible.org makes the Greek text available.  (A note here for dissenters- the Greek text has been deduced from the over 25,000 original manuscripts available. The fact that there is some variation in these texts is not alarming, as a process of Triangulation can be used to come up with the original words.)
Read the Greek text. To actually read the Greek you will have to click on the Grk/Heb tab at the top of the right hand column. You can click on the word ἐκκλησίαν and come up with a definition.
The definition speaks of "a gathering of citizens" or "an assembly of people gathered". The definition then goes on to speak of what the word means "in a Christian sense". That is, the word Ekklesia did add meaning from it's original Athenian political sense. But this is added meaning that came over the next couple of centuries.

So, I will readily admit that Ekklesia also means "a gathering or assembly of Christians".  But that is the definition of the word as it appears in Acts or in Paul's letters, but not as it appears when Jesus first says it in Matthew 16:18.

3)  A well researched article entitled "The translation of the Greek word 'Ekklesia' as 'church' in the English Bible and its ramifications", further discusses the definition of the word.
The article makes the point that there is no sense in scripture of a universal hierarchical church. Indeed the word Ekklesia is always used in a local context. Even in Revelation, Jesus addresses seven separate Ekklesia groups, but not one mass Ekklesia. This article argues that it is a mistake to translate the word Ekklesia as church, and that assembly or congregation are better suited.

Conclusion: Jesus was interested in establishing his Kingdom on earth, a new order. To do this he wanted to see Local Council Assemblies of believers be his representatives through out the earth. He always intended to remain the King in charge of all of these assemblies, never to have an intermediate person in charge. These Local Assemblies are of course places of worship, but if they never consider how to transform the world around them, then they are not fulfilling their purpose. Therefore the Council part of the definition needs to be worked out in practical Christian love.

I have argued strongly against the word church before. Again, I am not even suggesting a replacement. It is equally possible for us to behave as the representatives of King Jesus in local gatherings without having to put a label on anything. Often when we start to use labels, we begin to shape them into our own human religion and depart from Jesus' original intention. Let's be about doing Jesus' Kingdom.

Ekklesia in my own life

I've been enjoying reading some posts on Jim Wright's blog recently. One post that really blessed me was "Finding Ekklesia"  and another was "Organic Dead Ends". The thing I really like about Jim's writing is that he is completely honest. He gives the reader permission to be who Jesus wants us to be. His writing is the shot in the arm that I have needed.
A few weeks ago I was feeling all depressed and guilty about "not going to church" after having spent two months in church services while back in Canada. I feel some of this guilt lifting after reading Jim's posts. Why? Well because the posts are about simply living as an authentic Christian. Jim describes this as simply reproducing the life that Jesus has put in us.
In Jim's post "Finding Ekklesia" he warns against people seeking others for the purpose of sharing their hurts from the institutional church. Rather he encourages people to seek genuine fellowship by simply being hospitable. That is either inviting people for meals to your own home or visiting people in their homes. In the midst of this it is possible to share the life that Jesus gives us with one another. From this genuine Ekklesia should develop.
The great thing is that is exactly what my wife and I are already doing. The thing is, most of the time we are actually doing this with non-believers. Of course we are sharing the life of Jesus in us with them. We are hopeful that in time life will reproduce in these friends of ours. It has changed my perspective a little. I have been brought up with the attitude that if I don't have enough fellowship with Christians that I will find myself in trouble. But in time, I am sure these friends will be a huge blessing. We already find our time with them an encouragement often anyway. It will just be special to hear the things they have to teach us as they hear the Holy Spirit talking to them.

I am a baby Christian learning to take my first steps

I made the decision to stop going to church in July 2011. It was a decision that was a long time coming. I have long known about the priesthood of all believers and long known this is God's plan for the body of Christ.

So leaving church was not a sudden decision nor was it not deeply considered. Back in 2007-08 my family was blessed to be part of a home church when we decided to step out in faith following reading "Organic Church" by Neil Cole. This wasn't even the first time I had been involved in something close to the priesthood of all believers. Back in the early to mid 90s I was part of a church that made its way from a traditional "sitting in rows and pastor led church" towards an "open church" where all were encouraged to share, prophesy and lead in worship and teaching.

The decision in 2011 followed after reading "Pagan Christianity" by George Barna and Frank Viola. (Yes, I did read Reimagining Church and found it to say nothing new than I already knew from previous experience and reading.) There were many good points made in this book about the development of the church from Constantinian times. I had also long been aware of the massive changes that happened during the fourth century, but never to the extent that the book pointed out. I no longer needed any convincing. 

If I was to be a part of the solution instead of the problem I needed to be a part of something new. This meant I would have to go through a period of "detoxification" from many of the things in the church that had polluted my faith. At times this past year has been very good, and at times very hard. On the positive side, I noticed that I made friends with a lot more people who were not Christians. At the same time I did not judge them, I did not plot how I would invite them to church. I spoke to them of Jesus out of an overflow of my faith. I know this has had many positive effects on people, leading them towards Jesus. But on the downside, there would be times of feeling guilty for not going to church.

This guilt passed with time. It is quite ridiculous that I had subconsciously picked up the belief in my life that to be a good Christian you have to go to church. This is fraught with so many problems and is at the root of human religion. As I realised that there must be something else to being a Christian I began to go back to the gospels, and began to see Jesus in a very different light. I began to notice that Jesus is very forgiving. In fact, he forgives without provocation. 

The biggest story that wedged a splinter in my mind is the story of the woman caught in adultery. This woman had just been caught, she hadn't even the time to repent. Yet as Jesus exposed the hypocrisy and sin of the pharisees as none could throw the first stone, he tells the woman "no one condemns you, nor do I, now go away and sin no more."  Jesus does not ask the woman if she repents before he is willing to forgive her sin. (He hasn't even died on the cross yet.) He forgives her first! He then asks her to repent as an act of response to her forgiveness. This is not in keeping with evangelical doctrine, and so I have realised neither am I.

Forgiveness is a massive part of Jesus' purpose. When he heals the paralytic he is more concerned that he be forgiven than physically healed, "so that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins, I say to you take up your mat and walk." Jesus teaches in some hard hitting parables that if we do not forgive, we are fried. I'm not much of a fan of hell, but I can not avoid that Jesus teaches about it. But it is not in reference to punishment for sins that he so much speaks of hell, but rather that people who do not forgive will lose the Father's forgiveness. This seems so backwards, but I believe it is a massive part of the gospel that we have misunderstood. There is NO option to not forgive. We endanger our very salvation by not forgiving. Yet at the same time Jesus is handing out salvation as quickly and as generously as he can to who ever will receive it. This challenges me in ways that have often been glossed over in my past church going life, where there is much unforgiveness.

Let's go straight for the most obvious of all stories Jesus taught when it comes to heaven and hell. Many church going evangelicals will love to put this one in the too hard basket. It's the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus does not let us off the hook. If we ignore those in need around us, we are ignoring Jesus, we are unloving (perhaps unforgiving of someone for offending our prejudices), and yes we set ourselves up for hell fire. Surely my idea of Jesus forgiving everyone is a universalist sounding idea? No, I am not a universalist. I do believe Jesus hands out forgiveness much more easily than any Christian or any church on the planet. But we humans have an awful knack of throwing it back in Jesus's face and saying "no thanks, I think I will hold on to my comforts, my prejudices, my unforgiveness and I will go it my own way." People reject salvation, far more than missing out on seeing it.

I have been praying for the last couple years that Jesus would help me to love the weak and the poor. I am such a novice at this. I have began to really take a notice of the poor people in our city, of the street people and the beggars. Jesus tells us to give to everyone who asks of us without expecting anything in return, and as a rule I really try to do this. Only recently my wife and I found ourselves holding the hand of an old lady we know from the street as she died of gangrene behind some rubbish bins on the wet concrete. The Lord's graciousness in this situation speaks such volumes. He provided a person to tell us that she was dying, he provided an old arm chair that someone had thrown out so we could lift her on to it, he provided a caring doctor in the ambulance who did not reject a street bum. It is staggering for us to realise that our friend Marina was most likely destined to die alone in the cold, rain and garbage, but that the Lord loved her enough to make sure that this would not happen. I read to her from Psalm 23 and Revelation 21. As I was walking on the way to those garbage bins with another street lady, the Lord spoke to me and reminded me "what ever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." I knew that I would offer her forgiveness of sins. Melody and I were at her side, Marina was quite unresponsive as she died from toxins in her system. But the Lord blessed us as we saw Marina nod a couple of times in response to Melody. I prayed for Marina, "Marina, Jesus forgives you of your sins, Jesus is waiting for you." No matter your belief on sin and forgiveness it is hard to argue that Jesus did anything else in the gospels. Of course I do not know Marina's heart. But I also know it would have been her choice to reject this forgiveness that was freely given to her. We saw this woman open up to us slowly over the last couple years, shedding tears as my wife and I hugged her many months ago and declared our love for her.

It is only in taking these baby steps that I am beginning to learn what actually being a Christian means. This feels like the beginning of the journey of my faith, that my entire life up to this point has been embryonic. I am still very weak and hopeless in being able to truly love the way Jesus does.

So back to this dreaded church thing. Why do I feel so guilty about not going to church? Recently we went to Canada for two months, to see family and supporters of our work. We went to church every Sunday for two months. I didn't have the heart to tell people I wanted to skip services. I didn't want to offend them. I figured, how could going to church for a couple months hurt? But I fell into my stupid little subconscious lie that I was pleasing God by going to church services, that I was performing some kind of holy religious ritual. And surely all the people in these church services are good people who love God, so it can't be that bad? But after doing this for two months, and getting my religious reward in God's eyes for attending his holy temple, I suddenly feel like a heathen again for not going to church. It feels like a year of progress in my detox has gone down the drain.

How the spirits were born and rebelled

On the fourth day of creation, the Lord God created the sun, moon and stars. The sun to have authority over the day, the moon to have authority over the night and the stars to give light on the earth, to send God's messages.
After the Lord God had created the stars they began to dance and sing and worship him as he completed the rest of creation, the sea creatures, the birds, the animals, insects and then finally people. The people were made in God's image.
A little while later after God had finished his creation, one of the stars who was very beautiful said to himself, "I am very, very beautiful, all of the stars worship God, but if I was to sit higher than God, then they would worship me. After all I am very, very beautiful and they should worship me." This star, called the Son of the Morning was filled with pride in his heart, he set himself up against God, so the Lord God cast Son of the Morning Star out of heaven.
Son of the Morning fell down to earth and took on the form of a snake. The snake went to the garden that God had made for the man and the woman, the garden of Eden, in the east. There the snake tempted the woman named Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The woman listened to the snake's deception, she ate the fruit, and so did her husband Adam. The Lord God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden, so that they would not be trapped in evil for ever. The snake slithered away.
Later, after Cain had killed his brother Abel, Adam and Eve had more children. Some of these children decided to worship the Lord God and some did not. Many generations later there was a man named Enoch. Enoch worshiped the Lord God and walked closely with God. When Enoch was 365, God took him up in to heaven.
In the days of Enoch, Son of the Morning Star had another plan to try to destroy God's creation. The Star decided he wanted to take a daughter of man, to be his wife. This was something God had forbidden the stars to do. Their job was to send God's messages to earth and to worship the creator. Son of the Morning Star thought about his plan, he knew he would make God very angry. Instead of doing this by himself, he decided he would convince some other stars to do this with him.
Son of the Morning Star took on the form of a dragon. The dragon flew up to heaven to convince the stars of his plan. When he arrived, the Lord God sent his archangel Michael to war against the dragon. Michael, also a star won this war in heaven on behalf of God. But before the war was finished the dragon had convinced one third of the stars to carry out his evil plan with him. The dragon took his long tail and swept a third of the stars out of the sky. The dragon set out on his plan to torment the nations.
The stars fell down to earth. They took on the form of man this time. These rebellious stars, now looking like men took women for themselves as wives. They had children by these women. These children were known as the Nephilim, they became very powerful. These powerful Nephilim were giants, they were also the gods and legends of the nations around the world. The fallen stars taught the Nephilim magic, and in turn the Nephilim taught the people of earth magic and many other evil things. The people of earth became very, very evil. They were evil all of the time, and no longer worshiped God as their ancestors had.
The Lord God became very said that the earth had become such an evil place. He needed to put a stop to the terrible situation that had happened in his world.

References for this story:
Genesis chapters 1-6; Job 38; Isaiah 14; Revelation 12.

Grace versus punishment

Many people like to reverse engineer their theology. They have an end goal or belief and then go back through the bible finding proof texts to back up their supposition. I think there is a danger in this though, that we will not hear the full message of what God is wanting to say to us.

I am beginning to understand the early stories of Genesis on a deeper level. I have now told the early Genesis stories so many times they are teaching me things I didn't see before. I see so much more grace than people give God credit for.

I honestly think we ourselves as humans have turned God into an ogre. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is a perfect example of this. It irritates me how a lot of evangelicals think there is only one point to this story, which is to point out humanity's sin, and then move on to the solution. To me, this is rushing through the story far too much.

The point that jumped out at me recently was that of pain. When God turns to speak to Eve after speaking to the snake and to Adam, he tells her she will now have great pain in child birth. A misinterpretation would see this as a punishment from God. It is not punishment, but grace. If we were to live our entire lives with evil, but without pain, then it would be so easy for us to ignore God and our need for him. It is often only when we have pain we are reminded to think of our desperate need for God.

C.S Lewis rightly analysed the situation when he called pain "God's megaphone to a deaf world." In the midst of pain God calls out to us to come back to him to find the solution. The Genesis story is full of grace.

When God sends Adam and Eve out of the garden it is also often seen as a punishment. But God clearly says he is sending them out of the garden so they will not eat from the tree of life. God does not want them to live for ever with the disease of evil affecting their lives. God sends them from the garden to protect them not to punish them.

I am not saying there is no punishment for sin. If there were no punishment, there would be no need for redemption. But God's primary purpose is not punishment either. If God's primary purpose were punishment there would be no need for redemption either. God could simply choose to punish everyone and the job would be finished.

Grace compels God a thousand times more than punishment does. God knows punishment is an ultimate requirement, but he actually delays it as long as possible, and finds as many ways to avoid it as possible. Punishment is necessary, but Grace moves God to find a way to over rise punishment.

The story of Cain and Abel shows this again. Today I told this story to an Evenka. This friend of ours said:  "previously, you told me God is good, but now I am convinced. God could easily have killed Cain for murdering Abel, but he did not." God says to Cain, "anyone who kills you, I will punish 7 times more." God's concern was still to protect Cain. His punishment was he would have to wander the earth (as a nomad). Again this seemed like a rather gracious act to our nomadic Evenka friend.

Earlier in the story of Cain, God warns Cain, "I will happily receive you if you do what is right, but if you do not, be careful, because sin is at the door waiting to control you, but you must be the master over sin." God was wanting to teach Cain how to deal with the problem of sin. God's concern right at the beginning of the biblical story is to teach us and lead us out of sin. It would have served no purpose for God to simply punish Cain by killing him, how would he, how would we learn to avoid sin?

A careful examination of the text will reveal the word 'sin' first appears in the story of Cain. That is, the word does not appear in the story of the garden. This does not mean sin did not already exist, but rather that sin is not the entire point of the earlier story. Adam and Eve found out evil exists, but they did not find out how evil, evil really is. Sin only became obvious at a later date. They were like juveniles God chose to teach about sin and consequences.

I guess I am calling into question the concept of "original sin". Yes, the act of eating the fruit in the garden was disobedience, and therefore the first sin committed by people. But no, I do not think it means we automatically inherit sin. We are aware of the existence of evil, but we still need to choose to go out and sin. Mind you, I am not saying anyone actually avoids sin. It is like a virus, the instance of temptation presents itself to every human being, and we all give in. If temptation is the virus, we all get infected. The only antidote is Jesus.

The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity also greatly irritates me, and I can not see a biblical basis for it. Total depravity says people are not capable of doing any good. People are not capable of being good enough to enter God's glory, but this does not mean people can not do any good at all. After all, we did gain a knowledge of both good and evil. But to say people are not capable of doing any good is to say God's creation is a complete failure. He created us to do good, and this is why he chooses to redeem us. He chooses to work through us, as broken vessels.

I'm waiting for the stone throwing to start. To clarify for those who are freaking out right now, I want to say, yes- all do sin, and all are in need of God's redemption. Yes, sin does require punishment, and ultimately this does happen. But the point of balance is that God's first motivation is grace, not punishment. The second point of balance is that his creation is good, and we are his creation. We are good, but marred by sin, therefore also evil.

Multiverse theory (parallel universes)

According to quantum physics, if time travel is possible then parallel universes are possible. Quantum physicist have come up with a "multi worlds" hypothesis.

It goes something like this:

1) Today I make a choice that affects who I am for the rest of my life. Say perhaps I choose to accept a job offer. As a result I meet certain people, develop certain relationships, maybe even marry a certain person.  My life takes a certain path based upon one decision. This could be thought of as a fork in the road. Whether I eat lasagna for dinner tonight is not really such a big decision.

2) Perhaps I go back in time ten years from now, or perhaps my son goes back in time and convinces me not to take the job. From that point onwards in my life a different path is taken. When my son returns to his time, nothing will have changed there though, I would still have chosen the same job, and he would still have been born.  BUT- a new parallel universe is created where I take a different job, meet different people, maybe even marry a different person, or perhaps still end up marrying the same person.

Some argue that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. I don't quite agree with this. In quantum physics there are an infinite number of possibilities until an observation is made, with all of those possibilities collapsing back into one resulting reality.

I argue that a parallel universe can only exist IF and when time travel has occurred and IF and when a different decision is made at an important forking point. In such a scenario, if time travel has occurred multiple times, there are multiple parallel universes (based upon different dichotomous decisions), but still not an infinite number.

In the same way that an electron can be in more than one place at the same time (yet not being two electrons and not being two halves of one electron; --> see the "double slit experiment"), a person in two or more different parallel universes is the same person not different people. This means that even if there are multiple versions of the same person, ultimately they are still one person. In my opinion this person would be the one person before God.

In fact if one such version of a person tried to jump across from one parallel universe to the next the very act of observation would collapse the other parallel universe that person left behind, making the new parallel universe the reality.

This image goes some way to explaining the various paths a person can take. Many different choices can be made, but the more that are made the thicker the bunch of lines together will be, until there is just one thicker bunch of lines, one over all uniting identity and reality for a person.

I had previously thought I did not believe in parallel universes. My logic went something like this:

1) Apparently there are an infinite number of parallel universes.

2) If that is the case then there would have to be one where Jesus chose not to go to the cross.

3) This possibility could not be so, Jesus would not have done such a thing.

4) Therefore there can not be parallel universes.

Now I think differently:

1) There can be parallel universes, but each of them exist as a result of time travel.

2) There are not an infinite number, but only as many as have been spawned my time traveling choices.

3) Each of these parallel universes still collapse into the one, just as the electron collapses into one upon observation in the double slit experiment.

If you are interested in the double split experiment watch here:

Why did Jesus get baptised?

Why did Jesus need to be baptised?

Jesus never sinned. I have always been confused about why he decided to receive baptism. I thought that perhaps it was to simply give us an example so that we would follow. The point in the story where Jesus is baptised though is basically at the end of John's ministry. John the Baptist has baptised all the people in Judea and Jerusalem, and then Jesus is basically last. So it wasn't really as an example for the people in his day.

John's baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, so this is still confusing. For the rest of us, we need to be forgiven of our sin. So what does baptism mean for us? For the rest of us it means a physical act of repentance. What is repentance? A decision to not sin in life. For those of us who have sinned in life (everyone except Jesus) this decision means leaving behind a sinful life, but also walking into a sinless life (of course we still struggle to be sinless). Think about it for a moment though- baptism is a covenant with God to live a sin free life. Jesus was able to make such a covenant. By getting baptised he was saying to the world "I am going on record to declare that I am living and will continue to live a sin free life before God, I covenant myself to be sin free." God's response to Jesus covenanting himself is immediate, "You are my son, who I love very much and I am very pleased with you."

Jesus covenanted himself to a sin free life. This is definitely an example, but it was a pre-requisite for his starting up the kingdom, his coronation if you like.

That's what baptism is for us, a covenant to be sin free before God and as such it is actually repentance in action. As such I can not see how a believer would not choose to take this physical step of making a covenant with God. It is an essential step in obedience to following Jesus.

The kingdom of God is found in the doing

The kingdom of God is all about action. The gospel of Mark outlines this well.

* John the Baptist preaches repentance, that people should come to the river to be baptised. Action is required in response.

* Jesus comes to the river to be baptised, even when he does not need to be forgiven of sins. (But the state of sin free living is still required.) Jesus models action, he shows more than tells.

* Jesus calls people to get the kingdom started with him, to confess their sins and believe. But how were they to believe? Was it just a thought in the heart? Action was required. Belief came about by following Jesus. Simon, Andrew, James and John all decided to act in response and went with Jesus.

* Jesus cast out a demon from a man in the synagogue. The way had been prepared by repentance of sins and baptism in the Jordan, but Jesus then began to clean house. Jesus went through out the towns and villages of Galilee to all the synagogues casting out demons. This action of Jesus was the beginning of implementation of his Kingdom. Jesus also healed Simon's mother in law and the many people that came to Simon's house and later to Jesus' house in Capernaum. This action was also a demonstration of his kingdom.

I think there are some very telling stories about repentance in the gospels. One of my favourites is the story of the woman caught in adultery. As there is no one to stone her Jesus tells her to "go and sin no more". This is the action that is required from her to repent. Repentance is not actually the presence of a contrite heart. It is in the act of going away and not sinning that repentance is actually lived out. Baptism is also part of the physical action required to couple with repentance. Words are not enough. This is one of the reasons that formulaic prayers for becoming a Christian can be so hollow and mean so little. It is not the prayer that makes someone a Christian, it is the going away and not sinning and then the following of Jesus by affirmative action.

It is my opinion that little of the Kingdom of God exists in the landscape of the western institutional church. There is a formulaic teaching going around that people need to repent of their sins once, (because Jesus died for sins once and for all, there is a misconception that repentance is once and for all also) and that after this no real action is required. Christianity becomes a religion of words and good feelings, but no copying of Jesus' behaviour, the modelling that he gave to us.

It is impossible to build his temple (the one temple of all believers) in a place where the kingdom does not already exist. I know of very few places in my own experience where- continual confession of sins occurs, demons are cast out, the sick are healed, the poor fed, the lonely invited in. Most of the expression I have seen of Christianity is a hollow expression of ceremonies with little action followed up (these are not meant to be sweeping generalisations against the people I know who do these things, but they are usually no more than 5-10% of any congregation, sometimes less).

Building the church before building the kingdom is putting the cart before the horse. I do feel a little stuck as to doing this in my own life. But I also know that it is only when the kingdom is built that Jesus' true ekklesia will come to life.

A season of detox

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

This is a serious question that I am asking myself. Not because I think it a worthless thing to do, but rather because I really want to follow Jesus. I don't want to follow any man. I don't want to follow the church. I want to follow Jesus.

A major error in Christianity is that people are led to believe that to be a good Christian they must be actively involved in a church. But at subtle levels Jesus is pushed out of the church. Churches and people in them are so caught up with their programs, with convincing people to attend them, run them, financially support them, that they don't have any time left to actually follow Jesus.

I have long known the institutional church to be diseased with this structure of man, preventing the average person from fulfilling their priesthood in Christ. To be a follower of Christ means to also be a priest of Christ. As Jesus is the high priest, all of his followers must also be priests. If I can not be a priest of Christ, then how can I be a follower of Christ?

I desire to be a follower of Christ, therefore I desire to be a priest. To do this, I must be allowed to minister in the priesthood of all believers. Sadly the institutional church does not allow me to do this, and in the process prevents me from properly following Jesus.

I have decided to take a season to detox from the institutional church. I still very much love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not forsaking them. But I do desire that we can all minister to one another as our High Priest calls us to do.

In my season of detox so far, some lessons have gradually been coming to me. One was that I realised that in my time in the institutional church I had very few friends who were not believers. I had some, but very few. I was also quite bad at being friends with these people. I subconsciously expected them to conform to the sub culture of which I was a part. The sub culture judges people who are different. I now have more non Christian friends than at any time in my life. But something is different. I am sharing the gospel on some level with all of them. In the past I almost kept it a secret from people that I was a Christian. I think one of the reasons for this is that I am not afraid of having to bring these people to church. I can simply introduce these people to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

Part of the toxins that I have swallowed is that I have believed that by practice that I need to attend a ritual temple ceremony (the Sunday morning service) to follow Jesus. In fact, religious Christianity places a very high emphasis on this "sacrament". This has been such a central part of my belief that it is hard for me to imagine that I even can follow Jesus when not attending the temple ceremony. Of course this is a thousand times ridiculous. If I can not follow Jesus outside of the temple ceremony, what good is such a ceremony? My life must be made up of 24/7 passion and commitment to my suffering King.

So I think I am in another stage of my detox now. I am allowed to follow Jesus outside of the temple. I am allowed to Love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. I am allowed to love my neighbour. I am allowed to exhibit the fruits of the spirit. Most of all, I don't need the endorsement of the temple religion to do so. I only need the endorsement of the King and High Priest.

I am free. But clearing toxins out is a distasteful experience none the less.

A subtle error: idolatry in the camp of Protestants?

[Before I give my opinion on the topic of Evangelicalism vs Charismatism, I should give full disclosure of myself. (Full disclosure allows people to filter any biases that I have.) I invite you to read the full disclosure before or after my essay. It can be found at the end.]

I first joined an organisation with strong evangelical roots in 2000. I was a member of the Church of Christ at the time. Later in 2004 my wife joined with me, and we were evangelical Anglicans at the time.

The statement of faith of this particular organisation does something that many other evangelical bodies do. It lists its first item as:

WE BELIEVE that the Holy Scriptures, consisting of Old and New Testaments, were originally given by God, divinely inspired, without error, infallible, and are entirely trustworthy and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I have no problems with the wording of this item as such, but I do have a problem with it coming before the Triune God in the statement of faith. This distinction is subtle, but very important.

Evangelicalism was born in the age of the modernist enlightenment. In the context of atheists arguing with logic that God could not possibly exist, protestants began to formulate their logical arguments of response. Christianity descended to these quarters, from something of mystery (God's ways and thoughts are not our ways; the Spirit blows where it pleases (John 3); no mind has conceived of the mysteries of the gospel (1 Corinthians 2)... etc), to logical systematic theology, ending up with such simple notions of "four spiritual laws" and the sinner's prayer.

Modern evangelicalism sought to explain all matters of faith. It sought to build a logical framework that could not be disputed. Step by step, the bible was dissected into easily understood and irrefutable logic. A point was reached where modern evangelicals could easily explain all things about God, as they understood the Bible in entirety. There was no room left for the Spirit to blow where he pleases. In modern evangelicalism the Spirit is only allowed to blow according to the strict formulas that are logically understood by a mathematical deduction of theology. In short, God was caught in a box, he had been captured, never again to be released.

I have often wondered why Evangelicals are so afraid of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is because rampant pentecostalism has exploited the Holy Spirit for its own materialistic gains, and hyper abusive spirituality. Or perhaps that is just an excuse on the part of evangelicals. Perhaps they are afraid of the Holy Spirit, because they don't want God to escape from the box, where he can easily be controlled. Evangelicals often don't seem to believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, even though this is frequently evident in Acts. They claim that conversion (at the point of the sinner's prayer) brings the Holy Spirit. Even in Acts there were believers who had not yet received the Holy Spirit, such as Apollos. (See my earlier post.)

I have had my times to examine how the evangelical culture of my organisation operates. This has most often been in the context of international conferences. The first of these times was in Europe in 2007. A speaker attended the conference to educate people living in Europe on how to relate to post modernism. People were asking questions such as "how can we communicate the gospel to these post modernists", while I just sat there and thought "hello, I'm sitting right here, I am already a post modern Christian." At the end of the question and comment time a brave man stood up and said something that shocked the whole room at the conference. He said, "we need to go the God beyond the scriptures."  There was a collective gasp across the room. How dare he question the Evangelical God contained within scripture? (Sarcastic emphasis, my own.)  In reality this man was not for a moment saying that he did not believe scripture, he was just saying that God is bigger than scripture, and that God still has freedom to move outside of scripture. Evidently he had struck an evangelical sacred cow.

I sat there cheering this man along as he spoke. Later he was made to apologise before the conference for his errant statements. I participated in a discussion with him and some other leaders of the organisation after the session ended. The argument was made that we can only know who God is from scripture. I disagreed. I argued that we can know God in the following ways:

 1) Through the witness of God in creation.

For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (The Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.)

I.e- not only is it possible to believe in God from looking at creation, it is also possible to recognise his eternal power and divine nature, and worship him accordingly. I would argue that this is the first witness that every human being receives, not scripture. As the Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross says "God's book of creation, and God's book of scripture will never disagree with one another."  But it is very important to acknowledge that God has another "book" apart from the scriptures.

In the ensuing discussion I threw forth the question- "which Bible did Abraham read when he came to faith?"  This is also a very important question. God taught Abraham how to have faith, and so forth he taught his descendants (of which we are a part).

I would argue that Abraham had God's book of creation, as well as the oral stories that make up the first 11 chapters of Genesis- the prehistory of the the Bible. This was indeed a lot. In fact we see from Genesis that Melchizidek had this same faith and so did Job who lived in the era of the patriarchs. But most of all Abraham had an active living relationship with the Living God. They related back and forth. Dare I say that he even had a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

2) Through the witness of the saints. This may be a bit scary for some evangelicals. It may even sound a bit Catholic or Orthodox. But think about it for a moment. Early believers in the Old Testament all talked about their belief in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."  It was the witness of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by which they believed, not by a huge body of scripture that we have today. Think about how you came to faith yourself. My guess is that you received the testimony of another believer. This testimony was then confirmed by the Holy Spirit speaking to you, prompting you and then convicting you of sin and righteousness. I know that I came to faith this way myself. It was only much later that I began to understand about the Bible, and how it is useful for teaching and discipleship (2 Timothy). Even Paul, in the context of saying that Christ's death and resurrection are spoken of in the scriptures (he is referring to Old Testament prophecies) goes on to list the testimony of 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ. (1 Corinthians 15). This witness of the 500 is paramount in establishing his claim for the validity of the entire Christian faith. "Without the resurrection of Christ, we are all fools." So Paul argues that we can be sure that Christ rose because of the witness of the saints. And to add a little fuel to the fire the writer to the Hebrews lists the Heroes of the faith who are our "cloud of witnesses" in chapters 11 and 12.

3) The witness of scripture. In reality, scripture becomes a good way to underline and confirm the witness of creation and the witness of the saints. Also, scripture is a collection full of the testimony of the saints, recorded for all time. Just as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, words spoken without love are as a clashing cymbal; in the same way words on a page do not impact the lives of others without the embodiment of the love of Christ. The words of scripture are as often used to falsely condemn others as they are to point to Jesus' love. This does not mean the words of scripture are somehow bad, it just means that when people do not act in love they have a way of twisting the words of scripture to their own ends. Jesus exhorts us that the world would know that we are his disciples by our love for one another. So even when we use the words of scripture, the testimony of the saints remains imperative.

When it comes to the Bible and God, which came first? It is nonsense to say that we believe in God because the Bible tells us so. This is circular reasoning (and even according to an evangelical framework of logic, must fail the test). The Bible is God's word spoken to us, for sure, but it is like a photo negative that needs to have light come through it for people to see it. The words of scripture are understood under the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We believe in God because of his witness to us through his creation. Later we believe in the Bible because it came to us from God, via the testimony of his saints through the ages. The Bible is a sure and reliable testimony because of the the first two witnesses. God spoke through the prophets. The prophets wrote the words on to the page. Through out the ages, and even today God continues to work through the Holy Spirit and though people. I believe in the Bible because it comes from God. I don't believe in God because it comes from the Bible.

These ideas become controversial in evangelical circles. An evangelical is usually comfortable with the words on the page, but becomes uncomfortable when asked to trust the Holy Spirit while closing the book. But God will never contradict himself, so it is possible for the evangelical to come back to scripture at a later time and find out that the things the Holy Spirit has said remain in the same vain. But we need to learn to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice." Sometimes we don't have time to open up the book, and we need to respond to the voice of the Holy Spirit immediately in our lives.

Another moment at an international conference came recently. Sadly the speaker said something classically evangelical, and classically in error. He wanted to encourage evangelicals to seek the Holy Spirit more. But as his talk unfolded, this was not what he did. He pulled out two scriptures as his proof texts, and then put them through an evangelical filter:

Colossians 3:15-16  Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Ephesians 5:18-19 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord.

The speaker then went on to explain that these two scriptures are so similar that they are essentially the same, and that therefore "the word of Christ" (which he explained is the Word of God; which is the Bible) fills us with the Holy Spirit in our lives. He used the texts to explain to us that reading the Bible more would fill us with the Holy Spirit. He went on to subtly twist these words and make people feel guilty for not having good enough "quiet times". Following his talk there were people in tears, repenting for not reading their Bibles enough. He had successfully condemned them through proof texting an evangelical maxim, that God can only be known through the Bible, and that if you are not reading it (as much as him) then you are not filled with the Holy Spirit. In my opinion his talk was nothing short of spiritual abuse. Pentecostals have been (rightly) accused of spiritual abuse. They have used their position of "touch not the Lord's anointed" to say what ever they please and exert power over people. But this was the evangelical equivalent of spiritual abuse. This man, because he was a "learned bible scholar" and speaking from the pulpit was not to be questioned. His interpretation of the Bible was the "correct" one, and with it he wielded great power. I was saddened and shocked. He had spent an entire sermon, with other proof texts too, telling people that the Bible is essentially the Holy Spirit. This fits into the evangelical trinity: Father, Son and Holy Book.

It is a subtle but grave error that evangelicals can often make. The Bible contains the words of God given to us via his saints. (Yes they are all true- I am not detracting from that for one moment.) But when the Holy Spirit is pushed aside and replaced by a book, this is nothing short of idolatry. This may be hard for people to see. But ask anyone- who is greater, God or the Bible?- the answer must surely be God.

Allow me to offer a different interpretation of the scriptures given. (Admittedly I also have my biases, but I surely hope that I am allowing the scriptures to speak instead of forcing them as my own proof texts.) At the time that Paul wrote his letters, the "scriptures" were what we now know as the Old Testament. When he exhorted believers to let the "word of Christ" dwell richly in them, what could he have meant? I would argue that he was not referring to words on the page. Many of those early believers would not have had words on the page. They would have had stories yes. But until Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them down, they did not have access to many of those particular words of Christ. But they were not lost. They had the Holy Spirit! In fact, this was the whole point. Jesus told the disciples not to worry when he was leaving, because he would send the Holy Spirit to them who would lead them into all truth. Was this just for the disciples so they could then later write the stories down? No! It was for all believers, the Holy Spirit was abundantly made available to all flesh at Pentecost in Acts 2.

So this scripture is referring to the believers all getting together as priests, all sharing a word of wisdom with one another, all keeping one another accountable, all bringing songs to worship the King, all bringing words of prophecy to glorify the Lord and encourage one another. When they all did this together it brought a full, wholistic and broad body contextual representation of the body of Christ, with Jesus as their head. This was the actual Word of Christ. Just as John teaches us that Jesus is the Word made flesh, the full participation of all priests in the royal priesthood of all believers brings about the Word of Christ, Jesus incarnate, this time not as flesh walking but as the Spirit blowing amongst us. The Holy Spirit is the Word!  The Bible is not the Holy Spirit. It is all a question of priority and sequence.

To remove any confusion, it comes down to our definition of the phrase "the word of God."  The Word of God is a person. John teaches us this. The Word of God is not the  Bible. The Bible is the words of God, but not The Word, that must be reserved for Jesus and the Holy Spirit.


DISCLOSURE:

I was raised in the Lutheran church. The Lutheran church is a liturgical church that recites the Nicene creed every Sunday. One of the things I like about the Nicene creed is that it declares faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while only mentioning briefly the scriptures in the context of Jesus raising from the dead. It also mentions that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets (a reference to the scriptures). But the scriptures are never placed in priority before the Triune God.

My family flirted with charismatism and pentecostalism when I was a child. There was a charismatic renewal movement in the Lutheran church. This mostly happened outside of Sunday services in home groups and at retreat style camps. Over the years it did creep into some congregations. This happened more successfully in South Australia and Queensland. In Victoria the Lutheran church carried out a campaign against the charismatic renewal. Over a period of about 20 years they successfully "assassinated" all sources of what they believed to be heresy. This resulted in a lot of people being hurt and abused, including my parents. I left the Lutheran church at the age of 16 in this environment.

My teenage years included membership in a more rampant form of pentecostalism under the banner of the Assembly of God. I was actively involved in the youth group and Sunday evening services. It was in this time that I experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and took on the concept of boldness for Jesus in my faith. In those years I erred on the side of boldness but lacked gentleness and respect. Over the years I learnt the importance of gentleness and respect for someone, when sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Never in my experience though have I rejected my pentecostal experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is still very much a part of who I am. 

For some years I did subscribe to the notions of the prosperity gospel that are regularly preached in the pentecostal church, under the likes of Kenneth Copeland and many others. I now consider those doctrines to be in error.

In late teenage years I became involved with an independent charismatic church. It had a lot less hype than the Assembly of God. This church was on a devolving journey away from institutionalised religion. Over the years the pastor stopped calling himself a pastor, and simply became an elder, along with other elders in the fellowship. The building we met in evolved from hard chairs and rows, to couches and soft chairs in a circle. The style of worship evolved from one priest led to open participatory worship. People began reading books with titles such as "The Open Church".  As a fellowship we began relating to an itinerant Apostle.

I was eclectic in my worship experience. For all the years that I went to the devolving open fellowship, I also continued to associate with hard core pentecostals at a church my sister attended. In those years I also experienced the "laughter phenomenon" that came from the Holy Spirit via the Toronto Blessing. While such experiences have not been normative in my journey- they continue to line up with my relationship with the Holy Spirit as a person who is gentle and loving, yet also extraordinarily powerful.

In my early twenties I left behind both the hard core pentecostal circles and the open church circles, and landed in an extremely post modern embryonic emmergent church. It was called South Melbourne Restoration Community, and was a member of the Australian Churches of Christ (a protestant denomination- not the Boston movement). This fellowship was led by the now famous Alan Hirsch and his wife Debra Hirsch, along with other leaders who are no where near famous, but desired after the heart of God also. My six years in that context led me through a lot of post modern questioning that has been very helpful in my faith. It enabled me to find synergy in all of my previous Christian experiences.

I still look back fondly on my years in South Melbourne Restoration Community. I consider them to be formative, but not conclusive in who I am as a Christian. Alan Hirsch used to talk about "simplicity before complexity" and "simplicity after complexity."  We were all exhorted to wrestle with our faith, to go through the complexity and come out the other side into a deeper and purer simplicity. That is, a simplicity that is grounded in the Eternal God and an active relationship- having tested the truth, but not a naive simplicity that is founded in dogmatism- i.e accepting something as true just because other people say it is, and should never be argued with.

After my time in the post modern emmergent church, I moved to live in Saskatchewan, Canada, where I married my wife. At the time there were no such concepts in Saskatchewan. I sought out a Vineyard fellowship, which advertise themselves as holding the tension of the "radical middle." The Vineyard of course are far from perfect, still being an institutional church. We even currently attend a Vineyard fellowship in our city of residence. It often disappoints for its shallowness.

During this season in the Vineyard in Canada the actual fellowship began to implode under crises of personality in leadership. (A problem that should not exist if everyone is allowed to participate in ministering- but often exists when personalities compete for leadership.) My wife and I again became eclectic, attending the Vineyard sometimes and also the childhood church of my wife, the Anglican church. At first I resisted the Anglican church, because I had come to dislike the stuffiness of a liturgical church. But at such a small country side fellowship it became easier to slot in and appreciate the good things.

Upon returning to Australia, my wife and I sought out an Evangelical style Anglican church in Melbourne. This is the closest that I have come to being Evangelical. Many of the attitudes of people are quite evangelical, but not the same as the Baptist evangelicalism of America. The Anglican church in Australia is still a liturgical church, that recites the Nicene creed (even if the evangelical variety no longer do this every service).

The first covenant

Our story telling has been continuing. A few weeks ago the story was a synthesis of Genesis chapters 1;3;6, Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12. It's my least favourite story in scripture.

As mentioned previously here on this blog, there is actually mention of the creation of the spirits (angels) in Genesis 1, but we usually can't see it through western eyes. But a more complete exegesis of scripture shows that the angels are referred to as stars also in Isaiah, Job and Revelation.

The initial purpose of the stars was to give light on the earth. Light? But surely the sun and moon give more light than the stars. This light is of course metaphorical and refers to guidance. But once a third of these stars fell from heaven (Revelation 12), they were then deceptive and no longer gave good guidance. Think of astrology. Astrology is based in the stars. Perhaps it was God's original plan to use the stars to speak to people. But as a third of the stars are now lying and deceiving, astrology can not be trusted. God tells people to stay away from astrology because it is now corrupted by the fallen angels. It takes a more holistic world view to see the spiritual and the physical co-inciding.

The first of these fallen spirits was the Morning Star. He said that he would ascend on his throne above all of the stars and above God himself. (Isaiah 14) This fallen angel fell from heaven to earth. He then took on the form of a snake. (This is not hard for non western animistic cultures to understand. Spirits can easily appear as animals.) This spirit in the form of a snake deceived Adam and Eve in the garden.

It is my thesis though that no other angels fell for a significant period of history after this. It was only in the days of Enoch that this fallen angel (who we now know as the first devil, or the father of lies) plotted further sinister activities. He lusted after the daughters of men (Genesis 6) and decided to take them for his own wife. (The Sakha even have this in their own ancient stories.) Instead of doing this alone he tempted other angels to do this with him. He came in the form of a dragon and tempted the angels. (Revelation 12) When he tempted them they too decided to take the daughters of men as their wives (Genesis 6) and then a great war started in heaven (Revelation 12) and they fell to earth, where they committed their terrible sin (Genesis 6), then taught magic and other evil things to the people on earth (Book of Enoch, quoted by Jude in the New Testament). They had the Nephilim as their descendants (the gods of various mythologies such as Greek and Babylonian mythology- Genesis 6).

The power of the spirits on earth increased greatly, and the evil of people also increased. This was what led God to destroy all people and the creatures living with them in the flood of Genesis 6-9.

In telling this story I made the comment that God had a plan to limit the power of the evil spirits. As I said that I realised I didn't even quite know what this plan was.

In telling the story of the flood it became clear to me what God's plan was to limit the power of the evil spirits. The power of the evil spirits was tremendously high on earth. People had entered into sexual intercourse with them and the demonic powers were rife. People may not realise it today, but I am convinced this is why sexual sin is an opening to demonic activity, even today. Sexual sin was the gateway sin that the demons used to bring the occult to earth.

God destroyed everything that the evil spirits had brought to earth. Noah is listed as a blameless man who walked closely with God. After the flood God makes some promises to Noah and his descendants, and then he establises a covenant. Up to this point in scripture there has been no covenant. There has been sin and consequences (curses) there has even been God's grace (in every major story- Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and then Noah). There have been prophecies of good things to come (a descendant who would crush the head of the serpent; Noah who would deliver people from the curse). But there has been no covenant before this point. 


Each act of sin up to this point was a legal contract of bondage to the evil spirits. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they had knowledge of good and evil. The devil was then free to tempt them all he pleased. When people entered into sexual union with the spirits in Genesis 6, they were effectively signing contracts all over the place to give spiritual authority over their existence to the evil spirits. They signed all of their authority away, it was stolen from God. Noah was the only righteous one left, God had no alternative, the human race was nearly completely lost for eternity.


But when God made a covenant with Noah, it was permanent. The connection between Noah, his descendants and God was sealed. A covenant was made that could never be broken. Sure, sin still had significant power on earth, but the power of the evil spirits was limited. God re-established his claim to having authority of the people he made in his own image. (There is some argument to say that the Nephilim were not in God's image because they were the offspring of demons.)


It became clear to me. This first covenant that God established was God's first step in his epic plan of redemption. The first step to limiting the power of sin and the evil spirits. The power had not been abolished altogether, but God had taken significant territory back in his spiritual war with the fallen angels to completely recover his creation for himself.


Even today, as the power of sin can now be abolished because of the new covenant in Christ that we live under, there are more covenants to come that we have not experienced. Revelation 7 speaks of a time when there will be no more tears or suffering. That will be the ultimate covenant. God has taken much territory of his creation back through each consecutive covenant in scripture, but we can see that he has more planned in his plan of complete redemption for all of creation.

Things we can learn from the creation stories (creation of spirits, hydrogen).

We have been sharing some oral bible stories with some of the friends we have been making. With one friend we have been looking at some stories about Elijah the prophet. That's appropriate for his life. With another friend and some of her friends too, we have been looking at the early stories in Genesis.

Each of these stories have been oral. Nothing is read. The stories are followed up by discussion and questions. (1) What did you like or not like about the story?  (2) What can you learn about God from the story? (3) What can you learn about people from the story?  Recently we added another question as it is appropriate- (4) What can you learn about spirits from the story?

I decided that the first story we would share would be the creation story from Genesis 2. There is actually more than one creation story in the Bible. Some people get freaked out by this idea. It doesn't mean that the stories contradict each other. It just needs to be remembered that they come from the ancient world and a different perspective than our own. The creation story in Genesis one has God speaking the divine word, that is creation by word. The creation story in Genesis two has God creating by action. God plants a garden, God forms the man from the ground and then breathes life into the man. God opens the man up and takes out part of his side, closes him up and forms the woman from part of the man. The story in Genesis two has people actively in the story and is a little easier to relate to as a first contact story. 

Following Genesis two, we actually shared the story of the tree of good and evil on the next occasion with our friends. It was fun to listen to many of their insights- God is generous. This is our common story. We all blame each other like that in our own lives. Who was the snake? These insights and questions were prompted by the story and nothing else.

Before moving further into the "pre-history" stories of Genesis, such as Cain and Abel, I decided that it is probably important to tell the creation story of Genesis 1.

Over New Years we had some friends stay with us who live among an animist people. I handed a book to our friend called "Making disciples of oral learners." It made for some good conversation, and explains well what we are trying to do ourselves. A question came up during the reading of the book- someone in Nigeria was asking when the spirits were created. Apparently the people there then told an oral story from the Bible that addressed this issue.

The spirits are very important to animistic peoples. The spirits are very real every where in the world, but many western people doubt their existence and write it off as superstition. Many Christians can be included in holding this perspective. So I began to wonder how important it was to address this question before moving ahead with stories in Genesis.

When were the spirits created? I began scouring the bible and looking up what other people thought about the topic. Nobody gave a clear answer. Various scriptures can be found that show that God did actually create the spirits (such as in Colossians). So there is no doubt on this issue. But there just didn't seem to be a definitive scripture that showed when it happened. Some argue that Job 38 shows that they were already there at the foundation of the world:

Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?

Tell me if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set?

Or who laid its cornerstone?

While the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

I don't think this shows that the angels were there at the actual foundation of the earth, but only during the process. This becomes a little clearer in the Genesis 1 story.

I had always thought that the spirits were created before the world. But there is no scripture to show this at all. In fact I think the devil wants people to believe he is special enough to have been created before the world. Consider for a moment some other stories in the Bible that refer to the devil or fallen spirits. Two that come to mind off the top of my head are Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12. In Isaiah 14 the devil is referred to as having been the "Morning Star" before his fall from heaven. In Revelation 12 he is called a dragon, but it is mentioned that this is the same as the "ancient serpent" from Genesis 3. We tend to think that since Genesis 3 is so early in the story that the devil must therefore have fallen before the creation of the world. In the Revelation 12 story, the dragon (who St. John confirms for us is the ancient serpent from Genesis 3) sweeps a third of the stars from heaven down to earth, after a war in heaven against Michael the archangel. These stars are of course the fallen angels.

A consistent fact that we can learn from each of these stories is that spirits or angels are synonymously referred to as stars at times in scripture. Even in the Job 38 story the morning stars are singing for joy. Why are they are called morning stars? Perhaps because they are born at the dawn of the world. People are born some time later.

I read the first creation story closely. Something jumped out at me. In Genesis 2:1, the NIV says that "God created the heavens and the earth and their vast array." I think they have actually left something out in the translation. Other versions say "God created the heavens and the earth, and the hosts there of." The word "hosts" is a little archaic in this context. But the word is translating a Hebrew concept that actually refer to an army or armies. Elsewhere in scripture the word is used in the context of "angelic hosts" or "starry hosts". Again there is a level of synonymity between "angel" and "star". So, it becomes clear that there is at least a reference to the creation of spirits or angels in the creation story.

When taking bible translation studies at SIL we learnt that it is ok to make something that is implicit in the text explicit, so long as it is in the text. I determined that the word hosts sufficiently explained angels in creation, and that there is enough else where in scripture to support this. So I explicitly expanded the line to say "God created the heaves and the spirits (hosts) that inhabit them and he created the earth and the creatures that inhabit it, he created them completely." I almost left it at that.

This seemed to be a good enough explanation. It satisfied me that there is at least a reference to the spirits being created in Genesis 1. It never bothered me that the serpent's cover is not fully blown in Genesis 3. The serpent is clearly a lying spirit, but it really didn't matter which spirit it was. The point of the story was not to give focus to this lying spirit but to show what happened in relationship between God and people. But of course the lying spirit still plays a big role.

One of the mistakes we make as westerners is to ignore the spiritual world. So often we just don't even see its existence. It can be right under our nose and we can still miss it. This is a big and common mistake that happens when westerners try to take the gospel into animistic cultures. Paul Hiebert called it "the flaw of the excluded middle." That is, there are three levels to be considered in the animistic world (1) God, (2) the spirits, (3) people. Often as westerners we only think about God and people and completely forget that the spirits exist, or at very least think they are not important and at worst think they don't even exist. (Every animistic person knows how real the spirits are.)

I had been reading the creation story and excluding the middle. But my eyes were beginning to open. Just as chapter 2 verse 1 showed me that the spirits are actually in the story, I started to look further.

Here are some of the things that became apparent to me as I read the story and prepared it for oral rendition. Aspects of a spiritual world view and a scientific world view.

* "The spirit of God hovered over the waters." The word waters seems to be inept to explain what happened at the start of creation. But is it really? This is an ancient story, carried orally for thousands of years before writing even existed. Water was the most basic element in the ancient world view. What is water made up of chemically? Two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Hydrogen is the most basic element as we understand the universe today. Stars are all made of hydrogen. All elements come from hydrogen. So in reality "The Spirit of God hovered over the hydrogen mass". Amazing as it may be, this ancient story still holds up to scientific scrutiny for those that want to see it.

* God separated the waters below from the waters above.  Once again waters can broadly refer to all space matter. In this case, God is separating the hydrogen masses to form stars and planets. Yes, stars as we know them are created on day two, not day four as we think the story says. It is also on this day that the solar system and earth are formed. I am not bound by six 24 hour periods. The phrase "there was evening and there was morning" serves to delineate between the periods of creation and to show completion to God's task; i.e God did everything he intended to do that day and he did not forget anything.

Day four is the day that confused everybody. How could God make the sun and moon and the stars after he had already made plants in day 3? Our western intellects fail us here. We can only understand "literal" texts. We fail to understand ancient oral texts and the word imagery that is being used. This does not make them any less true, we just need to travel back in time X thousand years to when the oral story originated and wear glasses from that ancient world view to understand it. This is the day when seasons, days and years are marked. This is the day when the constellations were set in place. Constellations in the ancient world represented gods or spirits. Yes, this is the day when the spirits were created. Just as many other bible texts use the word star to be synonymous with spirit, so is the case in the Genesis 1 story. What was the purpose of the spirits/ angels/ stars? To give light on earth; i.e to be God's messengers of light, God's light bearers.

Keep in mind that everything that happens in the creation story in Genesis 1 is good. The spirits God created in Genesis 1 were good, they had not fallen yet. Things that happen in the spiritual realm may not be on a time line the same way that we understand. This is clear from Revelation 12 when the war in heaven happens after Jesus is born.

I contend from this story that no spirits fell before or during creation. Spirits were created on day 4 and then sang for joy (Job 38), their purpose being to bring light on earth. It is only in Genesis 3 that we see a spirit doing something sinful. At this point it is fair to say that the events in Isaiah 14 may have happened shortly before the serpent tempted Eve. Or it is equally possible the Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are simply renderings in the spiritual realm of what was happening simultaneously in the physical realm.

The next chapter in the story of the spirits happens in Genesis 6. I may write on that topic when we get to that in our oral story telling.