The Image of the Invisible God

(Isaiah 40:21-31; Colossians 1:15-20)

This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture—I could easily preach for 45 minutes on this text. I know that because I’ve done it! (Just ask Sara, she was there.) As such, this passage is also the reason why I write out all my sermons. It was back when we were in college, and I was preaching to our InterVarsity chapter, of which I was one of the student leaders; it’s the only time I’ve ever preached without a manuscript. In my defense, I was also sick as a dog that night (which is the main reason I hadn’t written the thing out), so I had even more of a tendency to ramble—but still: 45 minutes—and that was when I talked a lot faster than I do now. Be glad I’ve learned a few things since then. My fellow students at the time were . . . diplomatic. They did agree, though, that I hadn’t repeated anything, and that everything I’d said was good—I just hadn’t known when to stop. There really is enough here to talk about for 45 minutes easy, especially if you don’t know when to stop. Like I said, be glad I’ve learned a few things.

This is a magnificent hymn of praise to Christ, in my opinion one of the high points of the New Testament; many scholars believe that Paul took up a hymn that was circulating around the early church and just plugged it in here, but I don’t believe that. For one thing, that assumes that there’s another great writer floating around the early church about whom we know nothing, which seems unlikely; for another, this passage just seems to erupt out of the end of Paul’s prayer, which is characteristic of Paul. He’s praying for the Colossians, he lays out the reason for their faith, and he mentions Jesus, “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”—and then he just explodes into praise for who Christ is and what he has done. He can’t help himself, he has to; Jesus means so much to him, his love for Christ is so great, and his understanding of who the Savior is and what he has done is so deep, that praise just bursts out of him. To understand Paul, and to understand anything he writes, we have to begin with that fact, because everything he says and does flows from that.

The first thing Paul says about Jesus is that “he is the image of the invisible God.” This is a powerful phrase. It was well established in the Old Testament, as we talked about a while back, that no one has ever seen God, that no one can see God and live, not because God won’t permit it but because our physical and emotional being is too limited: we simply couldn’t handle the experience. Light is a wonderful thing, but too much light blinds and burns the eyes; heat is necessary for life, but too much heat kills; and joy is essential for our spirits, but too much joy overwhelms and overloads us. For us to see God as he is would be all of these things and more, and we could not endure; we would burn like paper in a bonfire. That’s why we sang at the beginning of the service, “immortal, invisible, God only wise, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes.”

This is the problem for all human attempts at religion. Hinduism and its descendants deal with it by making a virtue of necessity, making that extinction of the self the goal of religion. A lot of modern folks, who really prefer a tame God anyway, choose to deny the whole problem. The teachers who were leading the Colossians astray made human effort the solution—if you just work really, really hard and give up all these pleasures and do all these religious things and cut out all your bad behaviors, you can purify yourself enough to see God—an approach which is still fairly common today, especially among diet books. None of these can solve the problem; only God could do that. In Jesus, the one who was immortal took on human mortality—and died; the one who was invisible in the brilliance of his glory bound himself in human flesh and bone and became visible—and indeed, touchable, and knowable in a whole new way.

Now, this is possible because God created us in his image, and though that image in us is broken and marred by sin, it still remains; and so the fact that Jesus is the image of God, the image in whom were were created, tells us something important about ourselves as well: we were made to be like Christ, and any shift away from him, any shift away from the life to which he calls us, no matter how “natural” we might claim it to be, is in fact a betrayal of our true nature. The problem, as Paul well understood, is that sin has so ensnared us and so deceived us that in ourselves, we no longer know who we are, much less who we’re supposed to be; but in Jesus, we can see who we’re supposed to be, and how we were meant to live. In him, we can see not only who God is, but who we truly are, and will be when his work in us is complete.

Having made the ringing statement that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, Paul then says several specific things about him. First, in him all things were created. He was the creative agent through whom God the Father made everything that is—nothing exists that he didn’t make, nothing exists apart from him, nothing has life that he did not give life. What’s more, nothing exists which was not created for him; everything that exists is properly his, created to serve his will and his purposes.

Interestingly, Paul emphasizes that this is true not only of the visible, physical world, but also of the invisible world, what we might call the spiritual world. This is probably in response to the false teachers in Colossae; they seem to have believed that when you ascended to the throne of God, you had to pass through a number of realms, each controlled by an angel with whom you had to negotiate—perhaps, though we can’t be sure, by offering them worship. These angelic figures, then, were of some importance, independent powers who must be treated with considerable respect. To that, Paul says, no: they too, if they exist, were created in Christ, through Christ, for Christ, and are properly under his authority, whether they accept it or not. As such, Paul says, there is only one power who truly matters in this world: Jesus.

Paul goes on to say of Jesus that “in him all things hold together.” Our scientific age has developed this idea of the universe as, essentially, a giant machine—even if God did create the world, all he had to do was put it together, wind it up, start it moving, and walk off to do something else; it would run just fine without him. Thus we have the image of God as divine watchmaker—which is a powerful argument for his existence as creator of the world, but not for his ongoing involvement with it. To this idea, too, Paul says no: the universe doesn’t run all by itself, it runs because Christ holds it together, and if he ever stopped, it would all fly apart; if the universe is a giant watch, it’s a watch with no back but God’s hand to hold all the parts in. The will of Christ sustains our lives, and the life of all that is; apart from him, we have no life, no existence, at all.

Finally, Paul says that through Jesus, the man who was fully God, the only one sufficient for the purpose, God has reconciled the universe to himself. Now, this might seem like a strange assertion, because when we look around, we don’t see that; we see a world that is very much unreconciled—to God and to itself. We see wars and rumors of wars, we see division in the church, we see millions upon millions of people chasing other gods; and when we look at ourselves, if we’re honest, we see that God’s work is very much unfinished in our own lives. And yes, it’s true that not everyone will be saved; where the peace of Christ is not freely accepted, it will be imposed. Jesus didn’t win the devil over, he conquered him. But though the conflict at the heart of creation continues, that’s only a temporary reality, until the victory of Christ is brought to full completion. The key point Paul wants to make is that the victory has already been won, the work of reconciliation and healing has already begun, and its completion is sure; even though we have not yet seen all things reconciled to God, we can speak of it as something that has already happened, because it’s a done deal. The forces of evil are like remnants of the Imperial Japanese army holding out on Pacific islands after the end of World War Two—they may still be fighting, but the war has already been decided.

If you want evidence of that, just look around: we are the sign of the coming kingdom, not in ourselves but in what our lives demonstrate. We are the vanguard of Christ’s victory, and the proof of what God has done, is doing, and will do through Christ. We were estranged from God, in rebellion against him, cut off from his love, and therefore estranged from each other, and from ourselves; our sin set up a barrier around us, crippling our efforts to relate to each other and making any attempt to reach out to God impossible, and that same barrier cut through our souls, keeping us from being who we were meant to be. Through his death on the cross, Christ broke down that barrier and ended our estrangement, bringing us back into relationship with God, back to his love and his life. The charges against us for all our evil were dismissed, and we were set free—set free to live in God.

This is good news, and reason for praise and thanksgiving. The one through whom the Father made the world, the one who holds it together, is the one who holds us together, as individuals and as a congregation. When sin pulls us away from God and we begin to grow distant from him, Jesus pursues us and draws us back. When old patterns and old ways of living reassert themselves, when we begin to act again as if we were still slaves to sin, Jesus sets us free. When the enemy attacks, seeking to use our own sins and the sins of others to break us down, Jesus builds us back up and shields us with his love. And when the devil seeks to use our sins and the sins of others to drive wedges between us, to break relationships and sever the sinews of the body of Christ, Jesus is at work there, too, bringing reconciliation. None of us is perfect; we all make mistakes, we all do wrong—you know I do, I know you do, you know each other do—and in the course of life, we’ve all hurt each other; but Jesus’ reconciling work continues, if we will only accept it, and will continue until he comes again. We are his disciples, we are his people, and whatever may come, and whatever we may do, he is right here with us, holding us together. That’s good news.

What ABC didn’t show you

Check out this article on the various pieces of Charlie Gibson’s first interview with Sarah Palin. Looking at the parts of the transcript that weren’t aired, it’s clear this wasn’t just editing for length—it was editing to put as bad a face as possible on Gov. Palin’s answers. No surprise, but if you really want to know how well Gov. Palin understands foreign policy, read the article—and then go on and read the transcript.It’s enough to make me think that Glenn Reynolds is right: politicians who agree to interviews should bring their own cameras and post the raw video themselves so that people can see what really happened.

Moral psychology and voting right (or left)

Dr. Johnathan Haidt, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, has written an absolutely fascinating article titled “What Makes People Vote Republican?” This isn’t another piece of boilerplate liberal condescension after the manner of Thomas Frank, or another disciple of George Lakoff peddling the idea that if Democrats just wrap liberal ideas in conservative language, people will all vote the way they ought to (i.e., for the Democrat). Rather, it’s a careful analysis using the language and tools of what Dr. Haidt calls “moral psychology” which aims to rebuke and replace those models:

Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is.

The model Dr. Haidt works with here is complex, though not complicated, but I think this paragraph summarizes the results of his research clearly enough:

In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at http://www.yourmorals.org/.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.

This produces a result with which many conservatives are familiar: as Dr. Haidt told the New York Times‘ Judith Warner,

Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view.

I’d always attributed that to the effects of the liberal echo chamber that is the MSM; it’s interesting to think that there’s something deeper and more significant to it. It’s also interesting, and encouraging and heartening as well, that Dr. Heidt offers hope and a possible way forward to address the problem he’s identified. It’s a remarkable article, and perhaps one which could have as great an effect as the work of Frank and Lakoff—only in, I think, a much more productive direction for our country. My thanks to Mark Hemingway and John Derbyshire for calling attention to it.

And the 2008 Zirnhelt Award* for Political Honesty goes to . . .

. . . Dr. André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Dr. Lalonde’s reaction to Sarah Palin’s emergence as a role model for mothers of Down Syndrome and other special-needs children:“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada.”In other words, he’s worried that that Gov. Palin’s example might “inadvertently influence” women to keep their Down Syndrome babies instead of aborting them, as he obviously feels they ought to do. (Though Dr. Lalonde tried to deny it, “Members of Canada’s Down syndrome community say that many of the country’s medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition.”) That rather takes the pro-choice mask off the pro-abortion lobby, doesn’t it?And no, before anyone reacts, I’m not saying that everyone who supports legal abortion wants to promote abortion; but a lot of those in the business, either as practitioners or as advocates, absolutely do, and hang anything that gets in the way—even basic public-health concerns.*For those unfamilar with David Zirnhelt, he’s a Canadian politician and former New Democratic Party cabinet minister in British Columbia who was known for his quick temper and uninhibited tongue; Minister Zirnhelt is probably best remembered for telling a group of reporters, “Remember, government can do anything.”HT: The AnchoressUpdate: Andrew Malcolm commented on this as well in his “Top of the Ticket” blog on the Los Angeles Times website; somewhat suspiciously, that post appears to be missing. Hugh Hewitt has a PDF copy of it available here.

Voices of the surge

While the opinions expressed in these ads are not universally held (I’ve spent enough of my life around the US military to know that it’s no more monolithic than any other organization), I’ve heard enough from folks to be confident that they’re generally representative. Incidentally, the soldier in the second video is a family friend of a member of my extended family.

Seven years ago today


Please take a few moments today to remember those who died on 9/11, and to pray for those they left behind; to give thanks for the courage and heroism of the passengers who took down the hijackers of Flight 93, and for those who gave their lives to save others in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon; to pray that those who plan such attacks would be brought to repentance; and to give thanks, in the words of Hugh Hewitt, for “the men and women of the United States military and their civilian counterparts who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to prevent another such attack.” (NB: the link is my addition.)

While I’m thinking of it

can we knock off the whole “gaffe hunting” thing? Barack Obama uses the words “my Muslim faith,” and some folks jump on it and claim he’s admitted that he’s really a Muslim. If you read the transcript or watch the video, it’s clear he didn’t do any such thing (though George Stephanopoulos didn’t help him any); rather, this was simply “a reference to those falsely imputing Islam to him,” if a clumsily-phrased one. And yet there are some trying to turn it into a gaffe, because that appears to be what we do in American politics these days: look for something we can misinterpret, and then pounce.Similarly, when Sarah Palin calls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “too big and too expensive to the taxpayers,” the cry goes up from the Left: “A gaffe! A gaffe!” Again, it wasn’t. Granted the technical truth of the statement that these institutions “aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies,” Gov. Palin was just responding to the same concern Sen. Obama had raised, that they “should either should either operate as public entities without profit, or as private companies that won’t be rescued if they fall into trouble.” As it is, as entities created and sponsored by the federal government, they’ve effectively been private companies backstopped by national taxpayers, free to do whatever was profitable in the short term in the assurance that they’d be bailed out if it all went sour. As is indeed happening, which is why the McCain/Palin ticket has them firmly fixed in the crosshairs as “too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.”Finally, the one most annoying to me, the whole kerfuffle over “lipstick on a pig.” I’m all for defending Gov. Palin from people going after her children, or phony attacks on her record, but honestly, this is just ridiculous. Sen. Obama used a standard Americanism, one which Sen. McCain has used before, as many, many Americans have; granted, he delivered it awkwardly, and the audience does seem to have taken it as a shot at Gov. Palin, but still, it’s just a standard bit of American lingo. Conservatives howl when liberals do this to us—why on earth dignify this tactic by using it ourselves? If some who see the video take it that way and get mad at Sen. Obama, then so be it, but I agree with Roger Kimball: “Palin Rule #1: No whining! (Give the pig thing a rest)” Let Gov. Palin come up with a wisecrack for her next couple stump speeches, and let it go. (Sen. Obama would be well advised to drop it as well, before he makes things worse.)Now, some have pointed out that if he didn’t intend the “lipstick on a pig” line as a shot at Gov. Palin, Sen. Obama was unwise to use it, and I think that’s true; that, plus the “Muslim faith” line, are definite signs that the golden tongue has gone a bit clumsy just at the moment. As someone pointed out to Hugh Hewitt in an e-mail, “he hasn’t had a ‘good communicator’ day since his acceptance speech,” which is deadly for a campaign that has depended on his ability to communicate—when you combine Sen. Obama’s recent infelicities with the walking gaffe track that is Joe Biden, you get a very bad day or two indeed; but while that may well be cause for some thoughtful analysis as to why his campaign is missing its mark, I don’t think it justifies attack ads and charges of sexism. Not even close.

Joe Biden crosses Barack Obama’s line

“I hope I am as clear as I can be. So in case I am not, let me repeat, we don’t go after people’s families, we don’t get them involved in the politics, it is not appropriate and it is not relevant. Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought it was somebody in the campaign that was involved in something like that they would be fired.”Barack Obama, 9/1/08“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?”Joe Biden, 9/9/08OK, at the time that Sen. Obama made his statement, I wrote, “Based on the way Sen. Obama has run his campaign so far, there’s no plausible reason to doubt his statement.” Let’s see if I can still say that in a day or two. Sen. Biden’s comment is clearly directed toward Sarah Palin, with her son Trig who has Down Syndrome, and is clearly intended to score a partisan political point; that would be in violation of Sen. Obama’s edict that “we don’t go after people’s families, we don’t get them involved in the politics, it is not appropriate and it is not relevant.” Clearly, Sen. Biden disagrees, and I think we can safely call him “somebody in the campaign.” Now, he’s not just an ordinary Joe in the campaign, and I’m not sure Sen. Obama actually can fire him—sure, he picked the guy, but the convention nominated him, and I really don’t know what the rules would be on booting him off the ticket now, or even if there are any; but still, if Sen. Obama is to be true to the principles he articulated, some sort of discipline should be in order, and a sincere public apology (i.e., not “I’m sorry if anyone was offended, because I wasn’t being offensive”) should be shortly forthcoming from Sen. Biden. I look forward to hearing it.HT: Jennifer Rubin

When ideology trumps thought

You may have seen Joe Biden’s statement today that the election of Sarah Palin as VP would be “obviously a backward step for women.” Beldar posted a response to Sen. Biden that is positively devastating:

It’s possible to become so thoroughly saturated with partisan politics that it turns one into a complete moron. Every question, every issue, must be answered in a fashion deemed “correct” and “acceptable” according to the entire spectrum of one’s party’s positions. When carried to extremes, this becomes so ridiculous that it’s actually quite funny, sort of like watching a drunk search for his missing keys only below the lamppost because that’s where the light’s better.I believe in equal opportunity regardless of race. Anyone who shares that belief can take satisfaction from the fact that a major party’s presidential nominee is black. Although I will campaign and vote against him, if he should be elected, I will nevertheless readily acknowledge that to be a historic symbolic event, and one that should provide further satisfaction to all who believe in equal opportunity regardless of race.Someone who denies the corollary of that historic symbolism for Gov. Palin’s potential achievement is not really a believer in equal opportunity regardless of sex. If accomplishment only “counts” when the accomplisher is a “right-thinking” (meaning here, “left-thinking”) woman, that’s just another variety of sexism—a particularly ugly one, because its premise is that a woman’s own decision about her beliefs on the entire remaining range of issues counts for less than a man’s.I say, then, with confidence, and as a committed believer in equal opportunity regardless of sex, and one who absolutely believes his two daughters ought to have the same opportunities as his two sons: If Joe Biden is elected to the vice presidency, that would obviously be a backward step for women.

I agree completely.