Miscellaneous Missionary

What is the job of the US federal government? The president says that his main job is to keep the American people safe. If I remember correctly, the oath of office swears to support, defend and protect the Constitution. As I hear more hoopla about the president's response to Katrina, I become more and more tired of hearing it. On the other hand, I cannot "disengage" because there is a fundamental principle at stake.

The first five words of the first amendment to the Constitution are as much of a preamble as the preamble itself--"Congress shall make no law... ." The key is that the Constitution has always been about protecting the American people from its government. A protectorate government assumes powers over the people that it should not have, and that seems to be the entire framework of the discussion. Both sides of the isle have accepted the idea that the federal government should have power to override local authority at its choosing. It is a fundamentally collectivist idea that has serious ramifications. That was the whole issue in the debate. We could argue that George Bush has been inconsistent in his application of the law, but in the case of Katrina, he was held back by its restrictions. Do we now take off those restrictions or ignore them? The mayor or the governor had the jurisdiction in this case all along, and the federal government was their servant. They failed to use it properly.

Furthermore, the framework is increasingly troubling as we deal with this issue in the context of the War on Terror. What rights are held by the federal government to micromanage society from a set of bureaus on the Eastern Seabord? I, for one, am appalled by the expansion of federal power on this issue. It is true that the nation was attacked and thousands died. It may well be fair to invade states that sponsor terrorism. What is abhorrent is that the entire program of policing by the federal government is invasive by a branch of government removed from the public by distance and independence from an elective accountability. Being at war is one thing. Being at war with an enemy that is independent of any state is another. What really troubles me about the Katrina situation is that the war begins against a completely indefinable enemy. Is the president to declare war on nature, weather, hurricanes, God? In the end, whether by intention or accident, the war will be on the people and on individual liberty. This is the problem with power. Power corrupts, despite the best of intentions, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I would rather see people spend their energy planning and developing technology and ideas that benefit me as a person or even better the individual lives of the poor and the suffering than plan massive infrastructures. The ultimate lesson that I think we all should take from Katrina is not that the government should do more. It has been doing more for hundreds of years down there with all of the intelligence collective engineers can muster, and the ultimatly the levees broke and the town flooded. The government built it, and it broke. The ultimate lesson should be that the government should do less. When we give the government power to do good, it can turn right around (and will eventually) and use that power to do evil.

We know from an extensive study of Scripture that Satan existed before he tempted Eve, and that he planned that temptation, and that his intention was to overthrow the rule of God. He has acted that way as history has progressed. Paul, for example speaks of two "mysteries:" one is the mystery of God's will acted out and revealed through history toward the ultimate conquering of evil and salvation of creation from it, the other is the mystery of iniquity or Satan's will toward the ultimate conquering of good and the destruction of creation (which speaks of the creator). This seems to indicate that there are competing eschatalogical plans for the universe, one is God's and the other is Satan's. The events in the Garden of Eden are the same. We know from certain passages of Scripture that "that Serpent of Old" is the Devil. We know that it was part of his plan to destroy creation.

I have a couple of important observations to make at this point.
One consists of the nature of good and evil. In God's record of history, we find definite boundaries of morality. Good, being a foundational characteristic of God's nature ("And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good") existed, or better said has always been, eternally as a part of God's character. Evil, as a function of God's permission and not of His character, has only existed within the confines of history. Furthermore, it has a definite beginning and end (an entirely different work for another time, but eternal dualism is not biblical). Therefore, whenever Satan began this plan and its execution, it was within history, for he is a finite creature operating under the permissive will of God.
The second observation is in regard to the biblical text. Why did Moses not tell us all of this? It is almost mysterious how he describes this serpent and its conversation and the whole event with little to no explanation of exactly what is taking place. One reason clearly is that he cannot tell all at once. I believe the second is because the focus of the event and its purpose is to launch themes more central to God's plan. How long do we have to read in the Bible until we find such and explanation? We find little until Job, and there the evidence is scant. More is clarified in the prophets, but we really do not get the whole picture until we see the last books of the New Testament writing about last things. Clearly, the events surrounding the fall of man have heavy relevance to demonology, but the focus of Moses is on once again introducing at a fundamental level the nature of the books of the Bible. For this, he does not articulate deeply. I now feel a little guilty, for I have begun to articulate deeply, and I see that is not Moses intention. He is introducing. The explanation comes later. We should be careful about ordering our teaching the same way.
I am a firm believer in the chronological teaching method. By this I mean that we should order teaching programs and even evangelism around the structure of Scripture. I believe therefore that the tensions created by leaving some of the obvious questions until later (who was the Serpent) will serve to follow the logic of the Scriptures more closely. Having already violated this principle, I stand in judgment. As we shall see later, the Christ is a central message of this story, but He is never mentioned by name, nor is His ministry described in any detail. This tension should also be left to be resolved.
As a reader of classic literature and a fan of Charles Dickens, I cringe every time a new movie comes out from one of the classic books, because they skip around too much. A reader of Great Expectations never knows who the benefactor is until the end. It is a great read, I do not want to spoil it for you. It is also an illustration of my point. I could tell you the end or the alternative endings and explain how it all fits together right now, but the impact of the story only comes from sensing the tensions and questions and events and characters of the story. The same is true of the Bible. It is not a dry series of proof texts, but a living story of history that resolves beautifully in the end. However, the impact of its teaching comes from teaching it progressively in context from beginning to end. Stop asking "What does God have to say about...?" and start asking "What does God have to say?"

This weekend was a very long one and a very tiring one. I played soccer with some Portuguese friends Friday night and became tired. Saturday morning, being my only good time to do homework came early. Saturday afternoon, I went to a birthday party for a Portuguese friend. At this party we had a local specialty called leitao (I cannot include accents here for some reason). Leitao is a young pig roasted in a similar way that large pigs are roasted. I brought some pictures, but my camera card is not working right now. Maybe I can post them tomorrow. I also was able to sample some local soups, one like grass chowder and the other liver and potatoes. They were not what I was accustomed to eating, but they were not bad. I also got to sample some local cheeses, sausages, and breads. It was great. It was also great to be surrounded by Portuguese speech, and understand most of it, except when we went to the coffee shop. On Sunday, I had church meetings followed by a group of the young people who went to a coffee shop to drink coffee and watch the big game of the week. This was interesting as well, although a bit challenging after a weekend of heavy immersion.

This week is the Festa do Carnival. In Portugal it is said to be quite different from that of Brazil. One of the main differences is that the festa really only lasts one day. The other is, thankfully, that with the much cooler weather and more conservative modesty the people are less offensive at this time of year. To explain the party, one teacher said today "Adeus carne," meaning "Goodbye flesh." That about hits it. The idea is that since consecration happens during the period of Lent, they have to get the sins out of their system by committing them. Why is it that, not just in Catholic but in all religions, days designed to celebrate the holy are preceded and superseded by days that celebrate the unholy?

Please pray for continued progress in the language. It is coming, but I always want to learn more.
Please pray for the church in Portugal. One percent are professing protestant, which includes a wide variety.
Please pray for the Mozambique team. They have full work schedules. Praise the Lord that the earthquake in Maputo was not as disastrous as it could have been (7.5, but not a lot of structural damage). And praise the Lord that it was no where near the team of missionaries who work in the north.