In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Magical Systems and the Soft Enchantments of Christianity: Part 2, Soft Enchantment Versus Hard Magic
Let's start by noting how sociologists of religion have struggled to offer clear definitions of magic and religion given the diversity of religious and magical practices across time and cultures and the often complicated ways they overlap.
One common attempt to make a contrast between religion and magic has been to describe magic as a metaphysical technology, a means via a hex, spell or ritual to harness some natural or spiritual power/force in order to achieve a goal. Magic is a metaphysical tool to make something happen. In this, magic tends toward the pragmatic rather than the relational. Religion, by contrast, involves communal, cultural, and cultic rituals, practices, and observances that instantiate a relationship between a group and a deity. In contrast to magic, religions often involve moral codes that express relational commitment to the deity. Finally, where magic tends toward individual practice, religions function to bind together social and cultural groups.
But as I said, the lines are fuzzy here. For example, Roman religious observance had a lot of magical aspects. And some Christian practices, especially when it has fused with indigenous pagan practices, can also blend with the magical.
The reason for the blurring is easy to see. If magic is harnessing a power, and you're in a relationship with a powerful spiritual being, why couldn't you try to ask, persuade, or compel that powerful being to do things for you?
Here's where, I think, Sanderson's contrast between hard and soft magic can be illuminating. Recall, with hard magic the mechanism is transparent. We know how the magic works. Consequently, that mechanism can be used to solve our problems. By contrast, we don't know how soft magic works. Soft magic enchants our world, filling it with wonder and awe, but we cannot harness or use it to fix things in life.
As I share in the paperback edition of Hunting Magic Eels, Christianity is a soft magical world. By this I mean that our world is full of wonder and awe. God's divine presence fills all of creation. Hope and possibilities exist in our world that cannot be found within a purely materialistic view of the cosmos. Miracles happen. Angels are encountered unawares. As Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote, "The world is charged with the grandeur of God."
In describing Christian enchantment as "soft magic" I mean that, following Sanderson, we do not know how this enchantment "works." Neither can we control or manipulate it. We could say that there is a apophatic aspect to soft magic, a persistent mystery. Consequently, and this is key to the point I want to make, the soft enchantments of Christianity cannot be exploited to solve our problems. God is not a tool to get us something we want.
This is not to say God doesn't help us or answer our prayers. The point is that God is not at our disposal. God's ways are mysterious to us. We know that he is with us and working for our good, but many of our prayers go unanswered and God's plans are often inscrutable. Our experience with God is enchanted, but it's a soft enchantment.
And yet, and here's my second big point, many Christians are tempted to turn the soft, apophatic enchantment of Christianity into hard magic. We seek God as a solution to our problems, looking for a magical fix. But God is not a Cosmic Genie in the Bottle granting our wishes, or a Cosmic Vending Machine giving us what we want if we push the right buttons.
Relatedly, some Christians are tempted to think that God's designs are transparent to us. We can become overly confident in naming "God's will" in our lives. The humility of apophatic mystery is replaced with hubristic pronouncements about God's providential actions, intentions, and plans.
What I am suggesting is that Christian enchantment, our magical world, is soft, which is to say apophatic. God enchants our world, but in a way that is fundamentally mysterious and not at our disposal. And yet, there are some Christians who are tempted to turn the soft enchantment of faith into a hard magical system. And when this happens, a suite or problems and issues emerge. I'll turn to some examples of this in the posts to come.
Magical Systems and the Soft Enchantments of Christianity: Part 1, Hard and Soft Magic
Having used the contrast between hard and soft magic in the paperback edition, I've kept exploring this idea and pondering its application to different questions of faith. So, here's a series of some experimental theology, exploring how the notion of magical systems might apply to Christian theology.
To start, what do we mean by hard and soft magical systems?
As I acknowledge in the paperback edition of Hunting Magic Eels, my son Brenden introduced me to this idea. Brenden is a huge fantasy fan, and loves the work of the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson.
One of the things Sanderson is noted for is his theory about hard and soft magical systems, and how these systems should and shouldn't be used in the plots of fantasy fiction. According to Sanderson, the magic in fantasy fiction should never be used to resolve plot difficulties if the audience doesn't understand the mechanics of the magic. Otherwise, the magic looks like a cheat, a deus ex machina. However, if the author explains the mechanics of the magic in enough detail, its "physics" if you will, then magic can be used to resolve plot difficulties. Understanding the "physics" of the magic allows the reader to follow along and see the puzzle the characters are needing to solve to save themselves or defeat an enemy. Sanderson summarizes this belief of his as his "First Law" in using magic in fantasy fiction:
SANDERSON’S FIRST LAW OF MAGICS: AN AUTHOR’S ABILITY TO SOLVE CONFLICT WITH MAGIC IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO HOW WELL THE READER UNDERSTANDS SAID MAGIC.
[A hard magical system is] where the authors explicitly describes the rules of magic. This is done so that the reader can have the fun of feeling like they themselves are part of the magic, and so that the author can show clever twists and turns in the way the magic works. The magic itself is a character, and by showing off its laws and rules, the author is able to provide twists, worldbuilding, and characterization.
If the reader understands how the magic works, then you can use the magic (or, rather, the characters using the magic) to solve problems. In this case, it’s not the magic mystically making everything better. Instead, it’s the characters’ wit and experience that solves the problems. Magic becomes another tool—and, like any other tool, its careful application can enhance the character and the plot.
[Soft magic is] for those who want to preserve the sense of wonder in their books. I see a continuum, or a scale, measuring how authors use their magic. On one side of the continuum, we have books where the magic is included in order to establish a sense of wonder and give the setting a fantastical feel. Books that focus on this use of magic tend to want to indicate that men are a small, small part of the eternal and mystical workings of the universe. This gives the reader a sense of tension as they’re never certain what dangers—or wonders—the characters will encounter. Indeed, the characters themselves never truly know what can happen and what can’t.
I call this a “Soft Magic” system, and it has a long, established tradition in fantasy. I would argue that Tolkien himself is on this side of the continuum. In his books, you rarely understand the capabilities of Wizards and their ilk. You, instead, spend your time identifying with the hobbits, who feel that they’ve been thrown into something much larger, and more dangerous, than themselves. By holding back laws and rules of magic, Tolkien makes us feel that this world is vast, and that there are unimaginable powers surging and moving beyond our sight.
Reading Revelation: Part 4, A Prison Poll
In starting the series, I surveyed four common ways people read the book. These are, as summarized by ChatGPT and edited by me:
1. Preterist:
The preterist view holds that the events described in the Book of Revelation were largely fulfilled in the past, specifically in the first century, during the time of the Roman Empire. Preterists argue that most of the prophecies in Revelation refer to first century events such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD or the Roman persecution of Christians under Nero and Domitian.
2. Historicist:
The historicist view sees the events of Revelation as unfolding gradually throughout the course of history, from the time of the apostles to the present day. Historicists often interpret specific symbols in Revelation as representing historical events, identifying them with different periods and figures throughout history. This view was popular during the Reformation.
3. Futurist:
The futurist view asserts that the majority of the events in the Book of Revelation are yet to occur and will take place in the future, often associated with the end times or the second coming of Christ. Futurists interpret many of the prophecies in Revelation, such as the rise of the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the final judgment, as events that are still awaiting fulfillment.
4. Symbolic (or Idealist) View:
The symbolic view, also known as the idealist view, emphasizes the symbolic and timeless nature of the imagery in Revelation, suggesting that it conveys general spiritual truths rather than specific historical events. Symbolic interpreters see the book as describing the ongoing spiritual battle between good and evil, with the various symbols representing universal principles rather than concrete historical or future events.
Of course, people mix and match here. In the Churches of Christ I was raised with a mix of preterist, historicist, futurist, and symbolic readings. Most of Revelation, I was taught, occurred during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD or the Roman persecution of the early church. Nero was 666. But I was also taught some historicist stuff, that various images in Revelation referred to Alexander the Great or the Catholic Church. The only real futurist view we held, being amillennialists, concerned the Second Coming. Finally, most of the sermons I heard about Revelation set forth a symbolic view, that we, as modern readers, can take from Revelation timeless truths and encouragements. We all struggle to "come out" from Babylons of various sorts. And as many preachers have summarized it, no matter what you think of Revelation, the book communicates one simple message: In the end, God wins.
Reading Revelation: Part 3, Passing or Picking a Fight
Specifically, as described in the last post, I've read the social setting as being one of acute persecution. Revelation was written, therefore, to give the persecuted community hope. The theme of vindicated martyrs along with associated judgment upon the persecutors features large in Revelation.
Blount gives this setting a bit of twist. Yes, the church was being persecuted, but Christians were not being actively hunted down. As long as the Christian communities accommodated themselves to Roman culture and worship things were okay. According to Blount, it was this accommodation that Revelation is so fiercely calling out. As Blount describes:
[Christian] complicity in artisan, trade, and funeral associations allowed for upward social and economic mobility. They passed themselves off as Roman cultic devotees in order to avail themselves of Roman resources...
[John] wants the Christians to see that they are caught up in a draconian, prostituting system. The only challenge to that system resides in the will of those who refuse to participate in its many social, economic, and political benefits. Whatever it costs them, those Christians must find a way to stand up and opt out. That, in essence, is his prophetic charge.
This changes how we think of the word "martyr." Instead of a murdered person Blount asks us to pay attention to the meaning of the word. A martyr is a "witness." Not just or primarily in death, but in the visible contrast and nonconformity of our lives. Blount writes:
[John's] confessional witness (martys) language is, then, his prophetic language. Martys is a word of active engagement, not sacrificial passivity. A believer's witness might provoke such a hostile response that it leads to the believer's death, but always, at least in the first-century mind-set, it seems, transformative focus was on the provocative testimony that had to be given, not a passive life that had to be extinguished. When someone in John's turn-of-the-century environment said "witness," she meant witness, not martyr.
In short, the prophetic and pastoral concern of Revelation, according to Blount, isn't persecution per se, but the Christian avoidance of persecution, refusing to stand up and become a witness. Christians were "passing" as Romans, reaping the social and fiscal benefits of political and religious conformity. John wants this accommodating behavior to stop. And he knows that if the Christian community comes "out of the closet," as it were, they are going to face fierce opposition, and even death. Fearlessly stepping out into the open as a Christian to face these hostile forces and bitter consequences is the demand of Revelation. Blount shares:
I love this, and these are stirring words. And yet, I'm mindful how easily they might be misconstrued. In the culture wars there's a whole of Christians "picking a fight" with the culture. But much of this conflict misunderstands the social context of Revelation. John wasn't asking the church to "win back" Rome. Following Blount, John was asking Christians to stop passing as Romans. In Revelation, the state is Babylon and the Christians are called to "come out" of her exploitive political, religious, and economic practices. Ponder the economic aspects of Babylon and how disconcertingly similar they are to America. In short, the proper way to translate Revelation into our context is to see America, not as Zion, but as Babylon, and to demand that Christians stop passing as Americans.Here is where both John's prophetic call and a consummate prophetic problem arise. If John was indeed asking his people to stand up and stand out in a world they had accepted and that that accepted them, a world into which they had covertly and successfully passed, he was essentially telling them to go out and pick a fight! No matter the consequences! He was ordering his people to self-identify, to declare that they were not nonaccommodating Christians who could no longer participate in a world that had not really noticed them since they had heretofore been accommodating to it. In a classic "Don't ask, don't tell" (that I'm a Christian) kind of environment, John was essentially ordering his Christians to be about the business of telling on themselves, with a full knowledge of the repercussions such telling might bring...He was asking them to come screaming out of the Christian closet, knowing that it could well solicit the same consequence it had attracted to the Lamb: slaughter.
John's visions operate in support of his effort to incite his followers to self-identify and then stand behind that self-declaration, that revelation, no matter what the consequences...
Psalm 47
Here's something you probably didn't know, or didn't want to know, about me. I'm a bit of a Swiftie.
Taylor Swift wasn't on my radar screen during her early career. But I do try to pay attention to what my students are listening to. So in 2014, our student office worker was listening to Swift's recently released album 1989. If you know Taylor Swift you know 1989 was the album where she stepped away from her country roots to fully embrace pop. My student played me some of the songs on 1989 and I thought Jana would like the album. Jana likes upbeat pop. So on a road trip, I played the album and Jana fell in love. We've been Taylor Swift fans ever since. It's something we share together. We listen to the albums when they come out. I've taken Jana to both the Reputation and The Eras tour concerts.
As you might know, Taylor Swift released another album this week--she's a very busy and hardworking girl--entitled The Tortured Poets Department. Keeping with tradition, Jana and I listened to the album together.
My love of Taylor Swift is really about my love for Jana. Jana loves Taylor Swift and I want to share in what Jana loves. So when an album or concert comes out I want to experience that with her. The same way she watches football and basketball games with me. She does struggle, however, whenever I try to play Bob Dylan. Which I understand. Some pleasures just can't be shared. :-)
Anyway, if you've been to The Eras concert you'll have witnessed what I witnessed, young girls (and old!), standing for three hours straight and singing every single verse and chorus. Non-stop singing, never missing a line. The Eras tour is a three hour singalong.
Jana and I didn't stand for three hours. We're getting pretty old for that sort of exertion. Plus, while we love Taylor Swift's music, we aren't obsessed with Taylor Swift the person. I can't name you her past boyfriends. We don't wait up for her albums to drop or chase Easter eggs she puts out on social media. Basically, we like Taylor Swift's music, but we're normal, adult people with day jobs.
But back to the three hour singalong of The Eras tour...
Watching the young girl to my left at the concert stand and passionately sing for three hours, I was struck by the power of music. Music is intoxicating. It creates an emotional connection. Music connected this young person to the artist and the music connected everyone in the stadium. As you're aware, music concerts are religious experiences for attendees. Sporting events create similar experiences of transcendence. To be sure, religious people detect a threat here. As we move deeper and deeper into a post-Christian culture, people will grow hungry for transcendence. And they will seek out those experiences at concerts and sporting events. That, or they'll experiment with psychedelics.
Which brings me to Psalm 47's "sing praise."
I've always been struck that ours is a singing faith. Singing is at the heart of our spiritual practices. And I believe that is due to the psychophysiology of singing. We are embodied and emotional creatures. And our spirituality has to penetrate and shape us affectively and physiologically. Music does this. Singing praise connects us to each other and to God. Singing creates the neurological and social scaffolding for an experience of transcendence. And I don't see why secular artists like Taylor Swift should be the only beneficiary of this aspect of human psychology.
Affectivity is often disparaged in many religious circles and in the spiritual formation literature. But I've been reading Jonathan Edwards' The Religious Affections, and Edwards is clear: Emotions are the motor of human psychology. You see it right there in the Latin root movere, which means "to move," in the words move, motor, motivation, and emotion. Emotions move us. Emotions motivate us. Emotions are our motor.
And what is something that gets that motor engaged and running? Singing! Singing does this, perhaps more than any other spiritual practice we do.
You might not like Taylor Swift. (And let's admit that the discourse about her online is getting very tired.) You'll have your own music to listen to and concerts to attend. But let's not forget the exhortation of Psalm 47.
In all your singing, make space to sing praise.
Reading Revelation: Part 2, Those Who Do Not Know Oppression and Suffering React Strangely to the Language of the Bible
Revelation...is a violent book. Some interpreters argue that because of its violence, it does not belong in a New Testament canon that takes its direction and energy from a Jesus who extended forgiveness to sinners and counseled love even of one's enemies.
How to respond to these concerns? Blount starts off with this observation:
John's presentation in the form of (divine) passive verbs demonstrates his understanding that the agent behind the violence is God. It is a violence meant to frighten those who are persecuting God's people so that they will cease their hostilities. It is a violence done on behalf of a people who are being persecuted so as to ensure them that God has heard their cries and is responding swiftly and convincingly. It is a violence meant to scare those who are evil straight back to the ways of a good God, and to warn those who already stand with God to maintain their place lest they find themselves in the same crosshairs as their intractable enemies. The violence is, then, like the furious fire of a kiln, which burns away all impurities until what is pulled from the furnace emerges unblemished and pristine.
...The divinely orchestrated destruction is God's way of shepherding human traffic in the direction of eschatological salvation. Those who refuse to follow are pushed. Those who are following are often caught up in the maelstrom. Because there is no rapture in the book of Revelation, believers also find their way to God through the terror that those opposed to God inflict on the earth and the terror that God wields in what John sees as a just response. The conflict in heaven, having spilled onto earth, catches up everyone and everything in creation.
John justifies God's violence by staging it as a just response to the cries of God's people...
Blount continues by comparing Revelation to the Ten Plagues inflicted upon Egypt, cataclysms also intended to free God's people from violence and oppression. But such visions unsettle many modern readers of the Bible. Blount continues:
Can such a God be justified in a twenty-first century context? It is a difficult question, to be sure. It is the book's binary (either/or) dualism that almost ensures a need for God's violence. At every turn, good is threatened by great and powerful evil. If there is to be justice, such evil must be eradicated by the good at whatever cost. God therefore meets fire with apocalyptic fire.
It raises a question: Are modern readers of the Bible too sensitive and fragile when reading Revelation? Blount quotes Allan Boesak, who observes in his book Comfort and Protest, "People who do not know what oppression and suffering is react strangely to the language of the Bible." In a related vein, Miroslav Volf observes that in these strange reactions of the comfortable "one can smell a bit too much of the sweet aroma of suburban ideology." More, we see in progressive reactions to Revelation the "pleasant captivity of the liberal mind."
This is true! I've observed it myself. In my Bible teaching I toggle between very different audiences back to back. On Sundays at church I teach a Bible class for a theologically progressive, politically liberal, highly educated, and comfortably middle class audience. And then, the very next day, on Mondays, I teach a Bible study for men incarcerated in a maximum-security prison. Here's what I've observed about these two Bible classes. The very comfortable and liberal church group blanches at Revelation. They are very triggered. The men in the prison? They don't blink an eye at Revelation.
The strangest thing is how the very liberal group at church considers themselves to be social justice warriors. The very people who rage about injustice and oppression react very strangely when the Bible speaks up for victims and rains verbal fire down upon oppressors.
Reading Revelation: Part 1, Mean, but Not Mean-Spirited
This is going to be an interesting study. The men out at the unit have been thoroughly marinated in dispensational theology. Many of them are convinced that we are in, or approaching, the end times. I have my work cut out for me.
In preparing for the study, I've been looking at various commentaries. One recommended to me by my friend Mark is Brian K. Blount's commentary. Blount's commentary is rare among Biblical commentaries because he's a really great writer, with a flair for vivid, bracing prose. I wanted to use this series to share some of Blount's material from his Introduction, how he approaches the book of Revelation.
Blount opens the Introduction by commenting on John's emotional state in writing the book: "In the literary storm that is the book of Revelation, John writes in anger." In the next paragraph, Blount continues:
Revelation is a mean book; it is not, however, mean-spirited. The line between those two points on the human emotional scale is admittedly razor thin. John's meanness is the effect of a sure cause. It derives from the anger he feels about the injustices that have been imposed upon him and his people, and the even greater injustices that he is sure will soon rise if his people live out their faith in the way that he hopes they will.
You might not like these descriptions, that John "writes in anger" or that Revelation is "a mean book," but Blount sure does grab your attention right out of the gate! And Blount does have a point. Revelation has some pretty grisly passages about the plight of the wicked and rebellious. Are these passages, in their imaginative excessiveness, "mean"? Feel free to debate that word, but the visions in Revelation are very violent and off-putting to many. Just spend time with graphic novel depictions of Revelation and the point is made. Consequently, it's critical when approaching Revelation to know how to handle the violence, pain, and blood. For example, as Blount continues, John has repentance on his mind, not retribution. Blount writes:
John not only allows for repentance; he also encourages it, begs for it, and pleads with those who have joined forces hostile to God's world-transforming intent to come back to God's way of being and doing in the world...
The point is that Revelation is rhetorically excessive because it's polemical. Revelation is trying to accomplish something in the lives of its listeners. Revelation is a jolt. A thunder clap. A five alarm fire. Stated simply, the violence is rhetorical. John's words are trying to kidnap your attention and galvanize your immediate energetic response. Focusing on those rhetorical goals is the proper way to approach the verbal onslaught that is the book of Revelation.
Notes on 1 John: Part 4, What is the Sin that Leads to Death?
If anyone sees a fellow believer committing a sin that doesn’t lead to death, he should ask, and God will give life to him—to those who commit sin that doesn’t lead to death. There is sin that leads to death. I am not saying he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin that doesn’t lead to death. (1 Jn. 5.16-17)
The one who believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. The one who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. The one who has the Son has life. The one who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 Jn. 5.10-15)
We know that everyone who has been born of God does not sin, but the one who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. (1 Jn. 5.18)
Notes on 1 John: Part 3, Do Christians Sin?
1 John starts off by making the claim that, as I said, Christians sin:
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1.8-10)
Everyone who remains in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him or known him. (3.6)Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. (3.9)
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them.
If we say, “We have no sin,” we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous one. He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.
Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed so that he might take away sins, and there is no sin in him. Everyone who remains in him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen him or known him.
Little children, let no one deceive you. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the devil’s works. Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.
Psalm 46
God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change,
though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble with its tumult.
Notes on 1 John: Part 2, The Two Assurances
So, what's 1 John's answer to the question "How do I know if I'm a Christian"?
The answer is twofold.
First, there is a confessional aspect. A Christian is one who confesses Jesus as the Son of God. For example:
The second part of the answer "Who is a Christian?" turns to love. We know we are Christians if we love. For example:"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (2.22-23)
"Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ..." (3.21-23a)
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." (4.1-3a)
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God." (4.14-15)
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well." (5.1)
"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." (5.5)
"Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." (5.10-12)
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." (5.13)
"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble." (2.9-10)
"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him." (3.14-15)
"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth." (3.16-18)
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (4.7-8)
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus." (4.16b-17)
"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." (4.20-21)
Notes on 1 John: Part 1, How Do You Know You're a Christian?
What struck me about 1 John is that a major theme of the book, perhaps its main and overriding theme, is the issue of assurance. How do you know you are, in fact, a Christian?
To start, consider how often the word "know" shows up in 1 John: 32 times in only five chapters. No epistle comes close to this sort of density. By contrast, Romans and 1 Corinthians, the two longest epistles, use the word "know" 31 and 39 times respectively.
You can trace this theme of assurance--How do you know?--through the whole letter:
"This is how we know that we know him." (2.3)
"This is how we know we are in him." (2.5)
"This is how God’s children and the devil’s children become obvious." (3.10)
"This is how we have come to know love." (3.16)
"This is how we will know that we belong to the truth and will reassure our hearts before him." (3.19)
"The way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit he has given us." (3.24)
"This is how you know the Spirit of God." (4.2)
"This is how we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception." (4.6)
"This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us." (4.13)
"We have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us." (4.16)
"This is how we know that we love God’s children." (5.2)
"This is the confidence we have before him." (5.14)
"We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true one." (5.20)
The Bleeding Stinking Mad Shadow of Jesus
You are not big enough to accuse the whole age effectively, but let us say you are in dissent. You are in no position to issue commands, but you can speak words of hope. Shall this be the substance of your message? Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God.
...trudging into the distance in the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus...the Lord out of dust had created him, had made him blood and nerve and mind, had made him to bleed and weep and think, and set him in a world of loss and fire...
For he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.