On Theologian Thunberg
She is up to her gills in religion. And her religion is of course radical environmentalism. She worships at that altar, and wants all of us to do the same. For many people today who have thrown out the one true God, the vacuum is replaced by various substitutes. Hardcore green religion is one of them. We all need to live for something greater than ourselves, and if we reject the one who created us, then we run with cheap imitations.
Yes, I realise that honorary degrees are usually not worth the paper they are printed on, but in what has got to be the joke of the decade, climate alarmist Greta Thunberg is to be awarded an honorary doctorate in theology from the University of Helsinki!
The 20 year old Swede has already been honoured with a doctorate by the Belgian University of Mons, and was named Time’s ‘person of the year’ in 2019. She is held up by many as our only hope. About the only accolade left is to proclaim her to be the long-awaited Messiah.
It seems to me that Thunberg does not have a theological bone in her body – certainly not any Christian ones. Yet here we have another woke university declaring that she might be Scandinavia’s greatest theologian – if not the world’s. Wow, not bad for a day’s work.
Theology, as I might need to remind some folks, is a word easily broken down. It has to do with the study of God. I am not sure what contributions young Greta has made to that field of study. None, I suspect. But now we must esteem her as some great mind – some great academic.
But as far as I know, she has not even finished a bachelor’s degree. And I am not sure how hot she was even in her high school studies. But none of that matters. In our PoMo world image triumphs over substance any day of the week. Never mind that she basically runs with a script spoon fed to her by her leftist parents. She is now to be bowed down to with her every word taken as gospel.
However, to insist that she is not some renown Christian theologian is NOT to say she is not religious. She is up to her gills in religion. And her religion is of course radical environmentalism. She worships at that altar, and wants all of us to do the same.
For many people today who have thrown out the one true God, the vacuum is replaced by various substitutes. Hardcore green religion is one of them. We all need to live for something greater than ourselves, and if we reject the one who created us, then we run with cheap imitations.
Worshipping Mother Earth or Gaia or Deep Green spirituality is one way to proceed. And this is not new: we have always been looking for alternative religions to embrace. Back in 1982 American sociologist Robert Nisbet (died 1996), remarked that environmentalism has become the third great redemptive movement in human history, following Christianity and Marxism. As he wrote in Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary (Harvard University Press):
From the Gospel of Capitalist Efficiency to the Gospel of Utopianism’ would serve very well as subtitle here. It is entirely possible that when the history of the twentieth century is finally written, the single most important social movement of the period will be judged to be environmentalism.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Is It Okay to Be White?
The perspectives of men like James Brown and Scott Adams are overt appeals to skin color. While the motivations for these appeals vary, the goal is the same: self-help, pride, and temporal well-being. A question like “Is it okay to be white?” and its provocative musical counterpart, “Say it loud, black, and proud,” are short-sighted appeals at best.
Recorded in 1968 at the Vox Studios in Van Nuys, California, “Say It Loud, I’m Black, and I’m Proud” would be released to the public. James Brown and Alfred “Pee Wee” Ellis were working on what would soon become another hit. The song, released in August 1968, would spend six weeks at the top of the R&B chart and reach number ten on the Billboard Hot 100.
In the aftermath of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968, Brown wanted to give black people a reason to take pride in themselves, and he believed that music was the best way to express that pride. The song would become an anthem for the black power movement that took root after King’s death.
Following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., social unrest broke out in more than 200 cities across the nation, causing millions of dollars in property damage and business losses. Far from being an anthem for unity, James Brown’s song was about self-empowerment and standing against the forces of racism.
With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many in the “white community” believed they had done enough to combat racism. Many whites marched with King and fought against Jim Crow laws and racism in the South. At the cost of black and white lives, their efforts led to a change in how the rest of the country felt about civil rights for black people. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one in four whites favored civil rights. In the months following the legislation, 50% of whites supported the bill.
By 1968, as cities burned in the wake of King’s assassination, many began questioning whether it was worthwhile to help black people achieve the equality they had fought for.
“Black and Proud” by James Brown is an old example of the continued ethnic tribalism that arises when people discuss “race” nowadays. Once ethnic pride is tied to a person’s sense of empowerment, it becomes necessary to defend it. When guilt is assigned and sacrifice demanded based solely on a person’s skin color, a lack of respect can transform into indignation.
From Woke to Reality
For American cartoonist and novelist Scott Adams, his indignation was peaked by a Rasmussen poll in which 46% of respondents disagreed with or were uncertain about the statement, “It’s okay to be white.” Adams took to Twitter to express his outrage. In his Twitter video, upon reading the results of the poll, Adams labeled the 46% as a hate group, advising whites to stay away from black people.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Good Shepherd Series: Part Three
Written by E.V. Powers |
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Jesus’ sheep refuse to renounce Him under even intense persecution from the world system. Jesus’ sheep refuse to listen to the voice of the world system.The Morning Scene (vv. 1-6)
The symbolic picture began with the ministry of the first advent of Christ and the earliest period of the Apostolic Age where the sheepfold is meant to mean the nation of Israel. This is the sheepfold that Jesus initially purposed to enter by the door. It was the Messiah’s mission during His first advent to call out His own sheep from this ethnic sheep pen. This harmonizes with Matthew’s Gospel as he recorded the Lord announcing the same mission when Jesus said, “I was sent only to those being lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24; cf. Matt 10:6; Rom 15:8).
The Door into the Fold
Jesus introduced the setting of His symbolic picture in Jn 10:1 with the words, “Amen, amen, I say to you the[1] not entering in through the door to the fold of the sheep but climbing up another way, he is thief and robber”[2] The first feature of Jesus’ symbolic picture is the door into the fold. The natural features of the main entrance into the ANE sheep pen have already been established above. Later in the symbolic picture Jesus will refer to Himself as the door of the sheep (cf. v. 7). Concerning the morning scene, the emphasis on the door concerns the one who was authorized to enter by the door as well as the one who was authorized to guard the door.
The door into the fold has meaning backdrop that extends from the OT prefiguring of the Messianic office as early as the Protoevangelium (i.e. Gen 3:15). The OT is about the history of the Nation of Israel – the nation from which the Messiah would come. In the NT, the Gospels record that the Messiah has come. The OT prophesied of the Messiah and revealed that He would have distinct qualifications inseparably constrained to signs that He would perform that would authenticate His offices – namely, raise the dead, heal the deaf, open the eyes of the blind, heal the lame, heal the mute, cleanse the lepers, heal the sick, and preach good news to the poor (cf: Isa 26:19; 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7; 61:1). Jesus fulfilled these features when He came during His first advent to the glory of God the Father. God the Father authenticated that Jesus was the Messiah by identifying these features prophesied from the OT (cf. Jn 6:27 e.g. “the Father’s seal”). In this sense, Jesus is the door, that is, the door representing the Messianic office. As the only Messiah, Jesus is the only Shepherd who has authority to enter the door and have authority over the sheep. It is undeniable that in the first century A.D. Jesus came as the Messiah and because He fulfilled the OT credentials and qualifications for that office He became the only door. In conclusion, the standard according to the OT is that the only lawful authority over the sheep is through the Messianic office which is represented by the office of shepherd and the office of door. In other words, the “door” and the “shepherd” from Jesus’ shepherding symbolic picture are synonymous terms to the OT Messianic office.
The Fold of the Sheep
As mentioned above the fold of the sheep in the morning scene represented the nation of Israel (Jn 10:1-10). During the First Advent of Christ, the Self-Existent Second Person of the Triune Godhead took human flesh to Himself permanently forever in the incarnation (cf. Phil 2:5-11). In His humanity when the fulness of time came Jesus was born of a virgin woman and born under the Law (cf. Matt 1:18-25; Gal 4:4). The ministry of Christ during His First Advent was involved in fulfilling the Law and the Prophets (cf. Matt 5:17). The Gospel period, namely, the First Advent of Christ recorded in the Apostles’ memoirs of His ministry (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written to show that Jesus is the Messiah – the fulfillment of OT prophecy. To this effect, the Gospels serve as a bridge between the OT and the NT because they record a period still under Law during Jesus’ First Advent that He had to fulfill concerning His active obedience. There were lost sheep from the house of Israel (i.e. the ethnic sheep pen) that Jesus came to call unto salvation because Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24). During His First Advent, Jesus was not initially sent to the Gentiles (cf. Matt 10:6). The initial purpose of His First Advent was to minister to and save the elect from the nation of Israel (cf. Rom 15:8). There was an initial sheep pen full of ethnic Israelites and from out of that sheep pen Jesus called ethnic Israelites who were the elect out of the nation of Israel (cf. Rom 9:6). Indeed, when Greeks sought after Jesus during His First Advent He did not disavow Gentiles (cf. Jn 12:20-26). However, His initial purpose for His First Advent was to disclose Himself to the lost sheep of Israel (e.g. Jn 7:4-7; 14:22). It would be through the ministry of His Apostles that the Gospel would go to the Gentile nations because Israel’s salvation was intended to be extended also to the Gentile nations as their salvation (cf. Isa 49:6; Acts 14:47). In conclusion, the fold of the sheep in the morning scene symbolically represented the nation of Israel. From that national sheep pen it is quite clear in the shepherding scene that Jesus called His sheep out of this larger fold which had become corrupt.
Thief & Robber
The first character mentioned in Jesus’ symbolic picture that was negatively involved with the fold of the sheep is the thief and robber because the text reads, “Amen, amen I say to you the not entering in through the door to the fold of the sheep but climbing up another way, he is thief and robber” (v. 1). It is unmistakably clear that Jesus intended the religious leaders of the nation of Israel, namely the Pharisees, to be identified as the thief and robber.[3] Emphatically, Jesus’ initial point in the symbolic picture was to reveal the contrast between the Pharisees versus Jesus in how they led God’s people (cf. v. 10). In the case of the Pharisees they are surreptitious in obtaining a place inside the sheepfold – that is, they secretively access the sheepfold in a way that attempts to avoid notice or bring attention to their destructive philosophy of ministry just as a literal thief or robber would enter a sheepfold secretively to steal sheep. The Greek term “εἰσερχομαι” translated in English “entering in” from the phrase “the not entering in through the door to the fold of the sheep” is a present middle/passive participle and has the sense to mean “I go in; I enter in.”[4] Because “εἰσερχομαι” is middle/passive in the context it has the sense that those who would enter through the door are called by God – that is, grammatically and contextually the action is performed by God upon the subject who would have entered through the door. However, in the case of the Pharisees, the negative adverb “not” is used before the participle in reference to those who do not enter through the door because they have not been authorized by God to shepherd the sheep, let alone even be identified as sheep. If they had been authorized to enter the door then there would have been no need to try and enter the sheepfold surreptitiously for the goal to steal from God.[5] On the other hand, the Greek term “αναβαίνω” translated into English “climbing up” from the phrase “but climbing up another way” is a present active participle.[6] Therefore, the grammatical active voice from “αναβαίνω” shows that the thief and robber actively on his own gained access into the sheepfold by an opposite or different way than the way God has authorized to enter the sheep pen.[7] The One God has authorized and called to be Shepherd of the sheep to enter the sheepfold is the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. vv. 14; 18). What is more, the only others that have been called by God to enter into the sheepfold are the “doorkeeper or porter” v. 3 and the “sheep” v. 9. On the other hand, after the thief/robber has gained access to the sheep he imitates a shepherd in disguise for the purpose of intimidation toward the sheep – namely, fleecing the flock for his own financial gain. This is implied by Jesus referring to the Pharisees and their philosophy of ministry collectively as “thief and robber” v. 1 and “thieves and robbers” v. 7 because a thief or robber is only interested in taking what does not belong to him for the purpose of obtaining a profit from stolen goods, as well as actively plotting casualties by malice aforethought if anyone should try to expose them and prevent them from achieving their goal.[8] Thievery and malice aforethought are certainly not the criteria that the NT identifies as qualifications that one must fulfill to occupy the office of “the Good Shepherd.”
The Shepherd of the Sheep
On the other hand, the Lord Jesus Christ introduced in v. 2 the authenticity and honesty of the protagonist in the scene – namely, the shepherd, when Jesus said, “the however entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.”[9] The shepherd is portrayed in Jesus’ symbolic picture by entering in through the door to access the sheep pen. John contrasted the entrance of the thief and robber with the entrance of the shepherd by using the Greek disjunctive δὲ translated in English “however” (cf. v. 5, 6). Literally the text is translated into English as follows – that is, “the however entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.”[10] The contrast between the thief and robber versus the shepherd is not merely the literal nature of the different ways they enter the sheep pen but the moral implications concerning their different entrances because of the symbolic nature of the scene. The shepherd’s entrance, because he entered through the door, is honest, non-secretive, life-giving, selfless and interested in protecting the sheep from harm (cf. v. 3, 9, 10, 11, 15). On the other hand, the entrance of the thief and robber is disingenuous, surreptitious and with malice aforethought to harm the sheep (cf. v. 10). The identity of the shepherd in Jesus’ symbolic picture is without doubt the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. v. 11). The identity of the sheep in the morning scene vv. 1-6 are undoubtedly Israelite believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah (cf. v. 16). The singularity both grammatically and contextually of the shepherd in Jesus’ symbolic picture revealed there is no one else who can qualify to fit His description. To this effect, there is continuity throughout the Word of God concerning the exclusivity of Christ as occupying the office of shepherd. The exclusivity of Christ as shepherd in the sense of an office was prefigured in Ezekiel 34:23 when God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel the following – “Then I will set over them one shepherd . . .” The same sense is found from Jesus’ shepherding scene concerning the exclusivity of one shepherd who is qualified to occupy the role as an office and its synonymous association with the Messianic office.
The Doorkeeper
In v. 3 the Lord Jesus Christ introduced another character called the doorkeeper[11] when Jesus said, “to Him the doorkeeper opens . . .”[12] It has already been established above with hermeneutic clarity that the overall sheep pen in the morning scene of the symbolic picture is Israelite. What is more, the same clarity has been established above concerning the synonymous relationship between the shepherd and the OT Messianic office. Therefore, the identity of the doorkeeper to the sheep pen who best fits within the context is John the Baptist. John the Baptist is the best answer to the identity of the doorkeeper because of the authority he was given by God over the entrance into the sheep pen to only let the Messiah enter among the sheep. The OT prophesied that the Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner – namely, a messenger who would prepare the way for the Lord (cf. Isa 40:3-4; Mal 3:1).
There are two major reasons why the doorkeeper is John the Baptist. First, the doorkeeper does not allow thieves and robbers access through the door to the sheep pen. It has been thoroughly established above that the thieves and robbers represent the Pharisees. John the Baptist severely rebuked the Pharisees and would not allow them to be baptized (cf. Matt 3:7-12).[13] It was John the Baptist’s ministry to be the forerunner for the Messiah and prepare people for the Messiah’s First Advent (cf. Matt 3:1-3, 7-10; Lk 3:1-18; Jn 1:6-8, 19-34; 3:22-36). Due to the shepherding scene serving as a symbolic picture – the phrase, “to Him the doorkeeper opens” harmonizes with the Gospel narratives record of John the Baptist’s ministry testifying to Israel the Lord Jesus as the Messiah.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Horizontal in Worship
Written by Barry J. York |
Sunday, November 27, 2022
One place we need to renew our sense of the horizontal in worship is when the Bible is being read and preached. You are not there merely listening to it by yourself. You are to hear God’s Word not only for its personal benefit, but you are also to listen as a fellow member of the body of Christ. Each person is to “hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7, emphasis added). Understanding this corporate dynamic affects how we listen to God’s Word.When the minister calls you to worship on any given Lord’s Day, undoubtedly he seeks to draw your heart’s attention heavenward, as he should. He uses texts of Scripture to call you to praise the Lord and to shout joyfully to Him. As Paul told the church at Colossae, as those who “have been raised with Christ,” we are to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1). In worship, we are to heed his admonition when he says, “Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth” (Col. 3:2). Our worship is “vertical” as we glorify and commune with our triune God.
Yet, we must not miss the needed “horizontal” nature of worship as well. Setting our minds on things above, and not on earthly things, does not mean we are to ignore the others around us who are worshiping with us. In worship, we are not only to fulfill the great commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We are also to love our neighbor who is there with us in worship. As the congregation arrives on Sunday morning, it is gathering for corporate worship. Thus, we need to be sure that we are putting the corporate into our corporate worship! In looking up, we must also look around.
Obviously, we think of this before and after worship. Christians enjoy seeing their brothers and sisters in Christ, greeting them and catching up with them, whether in the sanctuary before the service or over a cup of coffee afterward. But what about during the service? It is especially during the service that we are to be mindful of one another.
Do the Scriptures encourage this horizontal dimension of worship? They most definitely do. For example, think through how, as we participate in the various elements in worship, each element encourages this viewpoint.
When we are called to worship, we are called not as individuals but as the body of Christ, a temple of living stones who together offer sacrifices to the Lord (1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Peter 2:4–5). Many of our calls to worship emphasize moving beyond a mere personal sense of worshiping God to this corporate aspect. Listen to a few of these admonitions.I will bless the Lord at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth. My soul makes its boast in the Lord; let the humble hear and be glad. Oh, magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together! (Ps. 34:1–3)
Oh come, let us sing to the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation! Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! (Ps. 95:1–2)
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb. 10:24–25)Read More
Related Posts: