The Comforting Consistence of God’s Immanence
The child of God can find confidence and assurance in the fact that the transcendent God is a relational and intimate God. He desires to lovingly dwell with his people. The storyline of the Scripture is one of God working and planning to dwell in sweet fellowship with his people (Deuteronomy 4:7, 20; 7:6; 14:7; 26:18; 2 Samuel 7:24; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 21:7). He wants to be their God, and they his people. He is Immanuel! Which is translated as ‘God with us.’
The messenger in Isaiah is exhorted to exclaim to the people: “Behold your God!” This is a call to see the majesty, splendour, and power of God, who is transcendent from all his creation, but also a call to behold the knowable, ever-present and intimately personal God. In many ways, the series on the attributes of God has served that purpose, to cause us to look at, marvel, and worship God in light of both his transcendence and immanence.
The Lord is the mighty and infinite one, who calls himself Father, husband, and redeemer. He is seated on his throne, but he reaches out to the needy in the ashes. He dwells eternally, but comes down to comfort the lowly. These twin truths, God’s transcendence and immanence, must be held in tension for the believer’s comfort, encouragement, and soberness.
Though He Needs Nothing, God Draws Near
As Stephen R. Holmes writes: “God is both transcendent over and immanent in his world. These 19th century words express the thought that, on the one hand, God is distinct from his world and does not need it. While on the other hand, he permeates the world in sustaining creative power, shaping and steering it in a way that keeps it on its planned course.”
The Bible speaks of God as both transcendent and immanent. For example, we read that God is holy and in his holiness he will consume sinners in wrath. Yet he is so tender that he covers us in his unending and overflowing delight (Psalm 21:8–9; 16:11).
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Memorial Presbyterian Church Votes to Leave PCA
The attacks cited by the Memorial session relate to criticism Memorial and Johnson have received since hosting the controversial 2018 Revoice conference; Revoice is an organization created to support Christians who experience same-sex attraction while upholding the historic Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality.
At a congregational meeting on Friday, Nov. 18, 2022, 92% of the congregation of Memorial Presbyterian Church of St. Louis voted to withdraw from the PCA as recommended by their session. Memorial’s pastor, Greg Johnson, has indicated that he will be leaving with the congregation.
When the session called the meeting, they informed the congregation that their recommendation was coming “with a mixture of sorrow and hope . . . after fifteen months spent fasting, praying, waiting, consulting and listening.” The reason for withdrawing, the session explained, was “continued attacks” from within the denomination which were distracting the church from its mission.
The attacks cited by the Memorial session relate to criticism Memorial and Johnson have received since hosting the controversial 2018 Revoice conference; Revoice is an organization created to support Christians who experience same-sex attraction while upholding the historic Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Authoritarian Science and the Case of Hydroxychloroquine
Critical thinking about medicine or any topic requires weighing multiple sources against one another and distinguishing between degrees of certainty, not ruling out all sources of evidence but one and equating “unproven” with “false.” The approach to health information increasingly taken by public officials, reporters, and social media—under which any statement is “unproven” and must be assumed harmful, barring some definitive pronouncement by public health authorities to the contrary—is thus not only authoritarian but also damaging to public health and science as a whole.
Imperial County, California, a poor, largely Hispanic agricultural region in the southeastern corner of the state, has been hit hard by Covid-19. By the end of January, according to the New York Times’s Covid-19 database, Imperial County had suffered 845 Covid deaths, or 4.7 per thousand inhabitants—a rate almost 80 percent higher than the U.S. average. The case fatality rate in Imperial County is 1.44 percent, the second-highest in California—and was significantly higher, 2.10 percent, at the end of October 2021 before the Omicron wave.
Two doctors in Imperial County, though—George Fareed and Brian Tyson, who run the All Valley Urgent Care network of medical centers—claim to have done far better with their Covid-19 patients. In fact, they claim near-perfect success: in a book that they published last January, they claim to have seen more than 7,000 patients and had only three deaths, all among patients who began treatment in later disease stages. A statistical analysis of part of their results by the statistician Mathew Crawford, included in their book, counts only seven hospitalizations and three deaths among 4,376 patients seen up through March 13, 2021—a reduction in hospitalization risk of well over 90 percent from the county average, even after (admittedly imperfect) statistical adjustments for differences in age between Fareed and Tyson’s patients and the general population.
According to prevailing medical views, Fareed and Tyson’s claimed results should be impossible. The doctors’ first protocol was based around hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a repurposed anti-malarial drug, with other drugs such as ivermectin as more recent additions. Received opinion on the drugs is that ivermectin is at best unproven in treating Covid-19 (the Food and Drug Administration maintains an official webpage warning against using it as a treatment for the virus), and that HCQ has been actively disproved: early optimism from laboratory experiments and small clinical studies did not hold up in larger, more rigorous trials.
Such opinions have influenced not just news coverage but also the moderation policies of social media platforms, which have imposed ever-stricter rules against “misinformation” (meaning, in practice, contradicting American public health authorities). After Fareed and Tyson spoke by invitation at a meeting of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Times ran an article noting that the Imperial County Medical Society “had urged supervisors to ‘not contribute to the dissemination of false or misleading information by legitimizing unproven treatments.’” The paper also quoted an executive at an Imperial County hospital, saying, “We need to stick with what we know is approved by the FDA for COVID-19 treatments. . . . Misinformation itself ought to be stopped.” In December, Twitter also suspended Tyson’s account for breaking its policies against Covid misinformation.
The dismissal of hydroxychloroquine as a possible Covid-19 treatment, however, was never based on solid science. The Los Angeles Times article reveals a fundamentally authoritarian worldview: medical claims are “unproven,” and dangerous for the public to discuss, until some official body endorses them—an approach that threatens public health and science alike.
Interest in hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment stretches back at least to 2005, when an in vitro study showed that chloroquine, a very similar compound, might protect against SARS infection. Based on laboratory studies and small clinical trials, medical authorities in China and South Korea recommended chloroquine as a Covid-19 treatment in February 2020.
Some doctors outside East Asia followed. Vladimir Zelenko, a doctor in a Hasidic community in New York, advocated a combination of HCQ, azithromycin (an antibiotic to guard against secondary infections), and a zinc supplement: HCQ increases the uptake of zinc ions into cells, a property that Zelenko surmised might provide antiviral effects. In an open letter in April 2020, Zelenko claimed to have treated about 1,450 patients, including 405 that he judged “high risk,” with only two deaths. Luigi Cavanna, a doctor in Piacenza, Italy, also claimed about the same time that thanks to an HCQ treatment protocol, none of his patients had died and only 5 percent were hospitalized—one-sixth the contemporaneous Italian hospitalization rate of over 30 percent. Many more systematic “observational” studies of HCQ—comparing patients in a hospital or elsewhere who received a drug (because of their own or a doctor’s choice) with those who did not—returned good results both as a treatment of Covid-19 cases (including one large study from the Henry Ford Health System in metropolitan Detroit) and for prevention of Covid-19 in individuals at high exposure risk. One especially striking example of the latter is a set of 11 “case-control” studies from India, where medical authorities recommended but did not mandate a weekly prophylactic dose of HCQ for medical workers. Most of these studies found that workers who took HCQ had reduced odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with especially marked reductions for those who took six or more doses of the protocol.
Medical researchers tend to discount doctors’ reports and observational studies—which, granted, have many potential biases that can’t always be spotted or corrected. For instance, observational studies can underestimate the efficacy of a treatment that’s given more often to sicker patients—or overestimate it, if health-conscious patients are more likely to demand experimental treatments, or if doctors who give ineffective experimental drugs are also more likely to give effective experimental drugs (this latter point was a common and valid criticism of the Henry Ford study). So doctors generally consider randomized trials, which avoid these classes of bias, to be more reliable—though they have drawbacks, too, such as considerably greater expense and, therefore, typically smaller sample sizes.
And most analyses of randomized trials of HCQ—on the basis of which mainstream medical opinion decided that it doesn’t work for Covid-19—do draw negative conclusions. For instance, a February 2021 review by Cochrane, an organization that produces comprehensive reviews of randomized trials, concludes, “HCQ for people infected with COVID‐19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation.” Another meta-analysis in Nature by Cathrine Axfors et al. estimates an 11 percent increase in risk of death on the basis of 26 randomized trials.
The results of both meta-analyses were essentially determined by two large, similar trials: the Solidarity trial run by the World Health Organization and the Recovery trial at the University of Oxford. These trials accounted together for over 97 percent of the statistical weight in Cochrane’s main analysis, and both claimed to rule out more than a tiny benefit of HCQ for hospitalized Covid-19 patients.
But neither trial disproves claims such as Fareed and Tyson’s. First and most importantly, both trials were on hospitalized patients and are not necessarily applicable to “outpatients” earlier in the disease course. Antiviral treatments work better earlier: for instance, oseltamivir (also known as Tamiflu), an antiviral influenza treatment, works well if started within two days of symptom onset, but not later. In Covid-19, viral load peaks soon after symptom onset, and viral replication has already ceased in most hospitalized patients, guaranteeing that antiviral treatments will have limited effect. One review in The Lancet found that dozens of studies consistently find that viral load in Covid-19 peaks in the first week of symptoms and that “No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness.”
Read More -
Does John’s Last Supper Chronology Differ from the Other Gospels?
It’s likely the case that John’s original audience saw no contradiction between John’s Last Supper chronology and the chronology of the other Gospels because they understood the way terms were used interchangeably in their day. Unfortunately, for modern readers who are unaware of the context, John’s language can sometimes be misunderstood to represent a different chronology than the Synoptics.
Close readers of the Gospels understand that John’s timeline of the Last Supper seems to differ from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The Synoptics indicate that the disciples prepared the Passover meal “on the first day of Unleavened Bread,” or Thursday night (Mark 14:12; see also Matt. 26:17; Luke 22:7). Judas went out to betray Him that evening, and Jesus was arrested in the night. He was then crucified on Friday. He was in the grave until Sunday morning, on which day He was raised from the dead.
Yet John says this after the Last Supper had occurred, when the Jews went to Pilate’s headquarters: “They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover” (John 18:28). He then later says, after Jesus was crucified, that “it was the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14). This means that Jesus’ arrest and trial would have happened before Passover, unlike in the Synoptics, where Jesus’ arrest and trial happened after Passover.
Is this a contradiction? It seems that way on first reading. Various solutions have been offered to resolve this seeming contradiction. Some have argued that Jesus celebrated the Passover according to a different calendar in use at this time, such as according to a special Pharisaic calendar. Yet there is little evidence in the Gospels or historical records to validate such a view. Others have argued that Jesus wasn’t celebrating a Passover meal, but rather a different but related festival meal. The trouble with this argument is that one is left with the opposite problem—John’s chronology makes sense, but the Synoptics’ chronology doesn’t. The plain meaning of the synoptic Gospels indicates that Jesus was celebrating the Passover meal.
There is a final view that seems most biblically justified and understandable to me, but it requires some explanation. The first thing to understand is that Passover was simply a meal that began on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which went for several days. Western Christians don’t often celebrate multiday holidays, but many in other cultures do. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week-long feast. It was one of several national celebrations for the Jews. It reminded them of their liberation from Egypt and God’s preservation of His people in the wilderness years. Passover kicked it all off, just like the original Passover kicked off Israel’s liberation from Egypt and led to the wilderness years and the promised land.
Read More
Related Posts: