Kingdom. That's one of those words for us Americans that we only really use in spiritual terms these days. We have little understanding of how actual kingdoms work except to believe that they are not democracies, so probably not good.
Except where God is concerned. I mean, after all, the Bible talks a lot--especially Jesus--about God's kingdom or the kingdom of heaven. So when I say my mission is to stimulate redemptive living and kingdom investment, what does that word kingdom mean?
Let me first say that the two authors I'd most highly recommend on this topic are Dallas Willard and Shane Claiborne, specifically Willard's The Divine Conspiracy and Claiborne's Jesus for President. Both are excellent and challenging treatments of the idea. (side note, I'm looking forward to meeting Shane for the first time in person in a few weeks at our No Need Among You conference in Waco, see nnay.org for info).
So at the risk of writing a whole book, let me share a few short ideas about my understanding of what the kingdom of God is about. If I get too long-winded, I'll stop and pick it up in the next blog. There's a lot to say.
First, kingdom is about a King. That probably should go without saying, but alas, it doesn't. There is a King. I'm not him, although the truth be told, I act like it much of the time. We all do. Our allegiances are sometimes divided. Who is your king? Please ponder the question a little, because if Facebook is any indication, many who claim Jesus as King sure promote some un-Jesus-like stuff...living in the kingdom means our allegiance to Jesus is above all other things (see Colossians for some good theology on this): above country, above job, above sports team, above family, above everything. Above all powers of any kind. Is Jesus your King? Are you living as the King would have you live?
Second, the kingdom as it currently exists is a "not yet" kingdom. We live in middle-earth, somewhere between the innocence of sinlessness in the Garden of Eden, and the redemption into sinlessness that will come when there's a new heaven/earth/creation. Jesus launched the kingdom in a new way, but the fullness of it won't be here until he's back. So we are new creations, but still battle the "flesh." We (by faith) are seated with Christ in heavenly places but we're physically still here (see Colossians 3).
Third, for whatever reason, God has chosen to partner with us to make the current "not yet" more like the "someday will be". We pray it in the prayer Jesus taught: "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." This is our primary task: discipling people on how to live in God's kingdom now.
Finally, let me throw in one last point. It's not a key point in the defining of "kingdom" per se, but it is one powerful core value of the kingdom that I think of when I see the word in my mission statement. One of the core markers of the kingdom is cultural diversity. When the "not yet" becomes reality, there will be every tribe, tongue, people and nation gathered in a multicultural worship service like no other. I plan to write about this in more detail soon, but the basic summary is this: no earthly culture has it all right (or all wrong, for that matter). We need to be multicultural people to live in a multicultural kingdom. We need to learn other languages, other practices, other understandings of God's kingdom. Our churches need to stop being bastions of cultural protection and become places where cultural diversity is valued and practiced and lived out in grace.
The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Friday, September 06, 2013
Making a living
We've been spending some time talking about my mission statement:
Stimulating redemptive living and kingdom investment
What does "living" mean to you? We use the word in several ways:
How do you make a living?
Where are you living now?
This is a nice living room.
I'm glad to be among the living.
What makes something alive? Breath? No, gotta be more than that, because plants and single-cell organisms are alive, and they don't breath. Wikipedia (which is never wrong) says that scientists define life as "objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes" as opposed to objects who used to have those processes and no longer do (dead) or objects that don't have such processes.
That sounds to me more like a definition of surviving, not necessarily living.
Living is so much more than surviving. Living is embracing what really matters, and sucking the life out of it. Not like that boring acquaintance sucks the life out of a party, but more like the way I suck the melted ice cream out of the bottom of a DQ Blizzard. I do not want to waste a drop of that precious elixir.
That's the kind of life I want to live. And what I hope I stimulate in others. That full to the max, get all you can out of it kind of living.
So here's the deal, the way I see it. Jesus wants people to live. Not just make a living, not just to survive, but to have life. Real life, maximum life. Suck it dry and go back for seconds life. But there is a major hindrance to finding and living this life:
We want to do it on our own terms.
At first I was thinking that there are two ways, but really there's not. Just one, but it shows up differently in two broad ways: some people follow their own terms by looking for life in their own religious piety, and other people follow their own terms by looking for life in the stuff of the temporal. Jesus makes it clear in interactions with both types that neither will ultimately satisfy. We all want to be the doorway to our own happy life. But its only found in a real relationship with Jesus. He's the bringer of life.
Stimulating redemptive living and kingdom investment
What does "living" mean to you? We use the word in several ways:
How do you make a living?
Where are you living now?
This is a nice living room.
I'm glad to be among the living.
What makes something alive? Breath? No, gotta be more than that, because plants and single-cell organisms are alive, and they don't breath. Wikipedia (which is never wrong) says that scientists define life as "objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes" as opposed to objects who used to have those processes and no longer do (dead) or objects that don't have such processes.
That sounds to me more like a definition of surviving, not necessarily living.
Living is so much more than surviving. Living is embracing what really matters, and sucking the life out of it. Not like that boring acquaintance sucks the life out of a party, but more like the way I suck the melted ice cream out of the bottom of a DQ Blizzard. I do not want to waste a drop of that precious elixir.
That's the kind of life I want to live. And what I hope I stimulate in others. That full to the max, get all you can out of it kind of living.
So here's the deal, the way I see it. Jesus wants people to live. Not just make a living, not just to survive, but to have life. Real life, maximum life. Suck it dry and go back for seconds life. But there is a major hindrance to finding and living this life:
We want to do it on our own terms.
At first I was thinking that there are two ways, but really there's not. Just one, but it shows up differently in two broad ways: some people follow their own terms by looking for life in their own religious piety, and other people follow their own terms by looking for life in the stuff of the temporal. Jesus makes it clear in interactions with both types that neither will ultimately satisfy. We all want to be the doorway to our own happy life. But its only found in a real relationship with Jesus. He's the bringer of life.
Monday, February 04, 2013
What's your symbol?
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13.34-35 ESV
The cross is the most recognizable symbol of Christianity. No, it doesn't always represent Jesus, but if it wasn't for Jesus it wouldn't be much of a symbol. It has adorned steeples, shields, hospitals, emergency response organizations, vampire-hunters, necks...
...and at one time, my chest.
Yes, one of those crazy things I did working with youth in my younger days was shaving a cross in my chest-hair. The first time I did it was at Kanakuk in 1987, when I shaved out a cross. Then a few years later I shaved everything BUT a cross. That was really cool.
And yes, I have a picture. I suppose I could post it if you really wanted...
Nearly everyone in world recognizes the cross as a symbol of Christianity. And it's a fitting symbol, what with the sacrifice Jesus made on it on our behalf and everything. He called us to pick one up (symbolically? figuratively? literally?) and follow him.
But if the cross is the greatest symbol of Jesus, then there's a close second. One that I've never seen sold in James Avery, never seen anyone put in their family crest. It's not on the steeples of any church. But it should be.
That symbol? The towel.
In the story I quoted above, Jesus has just washed the disciples' feet. And told them that if he's really their Master then they will do the same (Jn 13.14). And just before they walk out the door and head to the garden, he tells them once more: Listen, I'm about to be gone. We've been together for a couple of years now, and let me just tell you plainly. I've got a new command. Love each other. Love each other with a "wrap a towel around your waist and get your hands dirty" kind of love. Forget status, forget success. Forget position, except to be on your knees washing each others' feet. That kind of love.
If I could just follow that one command...
So when you pick up a towel, think about Jesus. Then think about who you need to love. Who is your "other"? Who has dirty feet around you?
Let's make a towel a symbol of our love.
The cross is the most recognizable symbol of Christianity. No, it doesn't always represent Jesus, but if it wasn't for Jesus it wouldn't be much of a symbol. It has adorned steeples, shields, hospitals, emergency response organizations, vampire-hunters, necks...
...and at one time, my chest.
Yes, one of those crazy things I did working with youth in my younger days was shaving a cross in my chest-hair. The first time I did it was at Kanakuk in 1987, when I shaved out a cross. Then a few years later I shaved everything BUT a cross. That was really cool.
And yes, I have a picture. I suppose I could post it if you really wanted...
Nearly everyone in world recognizes the cross as a symbol of Christianity. And it's a fitting symbol, what with the sacrifice Jesus made on it on our behalf and everything. He called us to pick one up (symbolically? figuratively? literally?) and follow him.
But if the cross is the greatest symbol of Jesus, then there's a close second. One that I've never seen sold in James Avery, never seen anyone put in their family crest. It's not on the steeples of any church. But it should be.
That symbol? The towel.
In the story I quoted above, Jesus has just washed the disciples' feet. And told them that if he's really their Master then they will do the same (Jn 13.14). And just before they walk out the door and head to the garden, he tells them once more: Listen, I'm about to be gone. We've been together for a couple of years now, and let me just tell you plainly. I've got a new command. Love each other. Love each other with a "wrap a towel around your waist and get your hands dirty" kind of love. Forget status, forget success. Forget position, except to be on your knees washing each others' feet. That kind of love.
If I could just follow that one command...
So when you pick up a towel, think about Jesus. Then think about who you need to love. Who is your "other"? Who has dirty feet around you?
Let's make a towel a symbol of our love.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Book Review: Tea With Hezbollah
I have a new favorite Ted Dekker book.
The 3.5 faithful readers will know that Ted is pretty much my favorite fiction writer. Okay, so he's pretty much the only fiction writer I have read in the past 10 years. His writing, while fiction, is so stimulating theologically that I suck it dry when I read it.
But this new book is not fiction. Far from it. It's all too real.
Ted, and his friend Carl Medearis, travelled a few years ago to the Middle East, on one specific quest: to discover if the teaching of Jesus--that we are to love our neighbor as ourself--is being talked about, taught, or even followed. And specifically when that neighbor is your enemy, what then?
Ted & Carl sit down with many people that leaders here in the US (and can I say, most people who call themselves Christians) would clearly define as enemies. Muslim teachers and leaders. Hezbollah. Hamas. Regular people like cabbies and tour guides. And in between the great writing of Ted, they post verbatim what these "enemies" have to say about life, about what makes them laugh, and what they think about Jesus' teaching to love your enemy. And at the end they even get to meet some of the remaining 700 or so Samaritans still living in Israel.
This book is, as my friend Thom Wolfe said on the back cover, irreverent. But it is full of truth. And it point to Truth in the man from Nazareth.
Muslims, Jews and Christians have several things in common. A couple of them are (1) they claim to worship the God of Abraham; and (2) they by and large ignore the actual teachings of Jesus.
This book gets the coveted 5 bellybutton rating. 00000. Read it. And take another look at what Jesus calls us to.
The 3.5 faithful readers will know that Ted is pretty much my favorite fiction writer. Okay, so he's pretty much the only fiction writer I have read in the past 10 years. His writing, while fiction, is so stimulating theologically that I suck it dry when I read it.
But this new book is not fiction. Far from it. It's all too real.
Ted, and his friend Carl Medearis, travelled a few years ago to the Middle East, on one specific quest: to discover if the teaching of Jesus--that we are to love our neighbor as ourself--is being talked about, taught, or even followed. And specifically when that neighbor is your enemy, what then?
Ted & Carl sit down with many people that leaders here in the US (and can I say, most people who call themselves Christians) would clearly define as enemies. Muslim teachers and leaders. Hezbollah. Hamas. Regular people like cabbies and tour guides. And in between the great writing of Ted, they post verbatim what these "enemies" have to say about life, about what makes them laugh, and what they think about Jesus' teaching to love your enemy. And at the end they even get to meet some of the remaining 700 or so Samaritans still living in Israel.
This book is, as my friend Thom Wolfe said on the back cover, irreverent. But it is full of truth. And it point to Truth in the man from Nazareth.
Muslims, Jews and Christians have several things in common. A couple of them are (1) they claim to worship the God of Abraham; and (2) they by and large ignore the actual teachings of Jesus.
This book gets the coveted 5 bellybutton rating. 00000. Read it. And take another look at what Jesus calls us to.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Real Hope
The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing to the glory that will come.
If I died with Christ, then I have also risen with him. And my life is now hidden with him.
I have been adopted, but I eagerly await--along with all creation--for my full adoption as co-heir with Jesus. We wait for the sons and daughters of God to be revealed.
Pull back the curtain.
Tear down the curtain.
Sunday morning is almost here.
If I died with Christ, then I have also risen with him. And my life is now hidden with him.
I have been adopted, but I eagerly await--along with all creation--for my full adoption as co-heir with Jesus. We wait for the sons and daughters of God to be revealed.
Pull back the curtain.
Tear down the curtain.
Sunday morning is almost here.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Promise.
These were the best of times, these were the worst of times.
The Christmas season is chock full of feelings: peace, want, greed, rest, love, desire, passion, joy, celebration, excitement, disappointment...hope. As Irene Cara is singing right now on Music Choice, "What a feeling!"
But what's it really all about? Growing up in a non-liturgical tradition, I never knew much about the Christian calendar in general, and Advent in particular. But as an adult the rhythm of the Christian calendar has become an invaluable tool to pull me into more intentional relationship with God.
Advent means "coming". The One who "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" emptied himself into human flesh, baby human flesh at that. He grew up, lived, died, and came back to life, all to redeem you and me, all to display the love and glory of God.
Last Sunday was the first Sunday of Advent, the week of promise. I've always been amazed at Gabriel's inability to keep a secret. It was Gabriel who came to Daniel and announced a coming messiah. As a kid I wondered if he got in trouble for letting the cat out of the bag 400 years too early. Then there were whispers in the ears of the prophets, especially Isaiah (see chapters 7 and 9).
And then it was Gabe who got to meet Zechariah and Elizabeth, and tell them about their soon to be born son John. The forerunner of the messiah. The archangel then headed to the little town of Nazareth, to a young unmarried girl named Mary, and spilled out the whole story. And I'm sure Gabriel was included in the millions of angels who showed the shepherds where to find this newborn child.
What does the word "promise" mean to you? We live in a day where people don't always keep their word. Vows don't mean anything anymore. Contracts can be broken. Our word is no longer our bond. Promises have to be enforced by the courts. Then many church-going people "claim the promises of God" for their lives (while there are some great promises from God, most of the people who use this phrase claim some stuff that IMHO God never promised, but it's what they want so they claim it...but that's another post for another time). Promises--real ones, ones we believe in--change our lives. They change our feelings and our behaviors (just think of when you promise your kids something that they really want). They help put hope in our souls.
Ultimately Advent is about 2 promises, one fulfilled, one yet to come. The messiah did come (1st promise) and he will come again (2nd promise). He interjected redemption once, he will come again and set the whole thing right. He is coming.
He promised.
Maranatha.
The Christmas season is chock full of feelings: peace, want, greed, rest, love, desire, passion, joy, celebration, excitement, disappointment...hope. As Irene Cara is singing right now on Music Choice, "What a feeling!"
But what's it really all about? Growing up in a non-liturgical tradition, I never knew much about the Christian calendar in general, and Advent in particular. But as an adult the rhythm of the Christian calendar has become an invaluable tool to pull me into more intentional relationship with God.
Advent means "coming". The One who "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" emptied himself into human flesh, baby human flesh at that. He grew up, lived, died, and came back to life, all to redeem you and me, all to display the love and glory of God.
Last Sunday was the first Sunday of Advent, the week of promise. I've always been amazed at Gabriel's inability to keep a secret. It was Gabriel who came to Daniel and announced a coming messiah. As a kid I wondered if he got in trouble for letting the cat out of the bag 400 years too early. Then there were whispers in the ears of the prophets, especially Isaiah (see chapters 7 and 9).
And then it was Gabe who got to meet Zechariah and Elizabeth, and tell them about their soon to be born son John. The forerunner of the messiah. The archangel then headed to the little town of Nazareth, to a young unmarried girl named Mary, and spilled out the whole story. And I'm sure Gabriel was included in the millions of angels who showed the shepherds where to find this newborn child.
What does the word "promise" mean to you? We live in a day where people don't always keep their word. Vows don't mean anything anymore. Contracts can be broken. Our word is no longer our bond. Promises have to be enforced by the courts. Then many church-going people "claim the promises of God" for their lives (while there are some great promises from God, most of the people who use this phrase claim some stuff that IMHO God never promised, but it's what they want so they claim it...but that's another post for another time). Promises--real ones, ones we believe in--change our lives. They change our feelings and our behaviors (just think of when you promise your kids something that they really want). They help put hope in our souls.
Ultimately Advent is about 2 promises, one fulfilled, one yet to come. The messiah did come (1st promise) and he will come again (2nd promise). He interjected redemption once, he will come again and set the whole thing right. He is coming.
He promised.
Maranatha.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Vote for Jesus
Here's a great post by my good friend Keith Giles on our hopes for election results we like.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Melancholy blues
I have to admit, I was a little melancholy about last night's vote on health care reform. I am tired of the bickering and fighting, and quite frankly even now I'm concerned about the horrid...what's the word when a 10 year old starts acting like a 2 year old again? We're dredging up hatred and furor that hasn't been seen recently. I'm not naive enough to think it was gone, but I guess I was hopeful that it was progressing.
I guess I was wrong.
And I'm not even wishing that unbelievers could display love and compassion, although that would be nice. I am, however, ashamed at the actions of those who claim the name of Jesus in their lives.
So here I am, trying to therapeutically get some words out on the screen that will at least help me cope. I'm drawn as usual to the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, probably my favorite piece of Scripture.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." Mt 5.9 ESV
Certainly not blessed are the hatemakers. Or the warmongers.
And not even the peacelovers.
But peacemakers.
Let's do that.
I guess I was wrong.
And I'm not even wishing that unbelievers could display love and compassion, although that would be nice. I am, however, ashamed at the actions of those who claim the name of Jesus in their lives.
So here I am, trying to therapeutically get some words out on the screen that will at least help me cope. I'm drawn as usual to the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, probably my favorite piece of Scripture.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." Mt 5.9 ESV
Certainly not blessed are the hatemakers. Or the warmongers.
And not even the peacelovers.
But peacemakers.
Let's do that.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
What should offend Christians?
Recently an atheist group at UTSA in San Antonio conducted a "smut for smut" campaign, and traded pornography for Bibles or other religious literature. They admit it's a publicity stunt, and quite frankly it's kinda silly.
But when I read the article (find it here) I had a question pop into my head: what should offend believers? I think that this is an important question in our culture today. What should I find offensive? I'm not sure I have any definitive answers, but here's my first thoughts:
1. We need to remember that the gospel is inherently offensive to many of those enslaved by sin. It should not surprise us when others are offended. The Bible tells us it will be.
2. God is perfectly capable of defending himself. And the Bible. He does not need us in this regard. That's not to say he doesn't use us, cuz he does. But there seems to be a huge number of Christians who feel that if God or the Bible is attacked, it's time to "fight fire with fire."
3. Call me ungodly if you need to, but I just don't see how holding picket signs in protest--no matter how true their slogans--makes a dent in the power of sin on people's lives. When you hold up a sign saying that "Jesus loves atheists" it doesn't feel like demonstrating love to atheists, it feels like political protest. I'm pretty sure the atheist group didn't look out at the believers and think "man, those people love us."
So, I'm thinking that being offended over...
a. people being silly...
b. lost people acting like lost people...
c. people desperate for attention or looking for fame...
d. just about anything we disagree with...
...is just not a good idea. One of the most amazingly attractive things about Jesus is that he never seem to get offended at people, especially at people's "junk." Their sin never surprised him, never made him stand, mouth agape, dumbstruck that someone would act that way. He knew people. He understood sin, even though he had none himself. He never had to hold up a "I love sinners but hate the sin" sign.
He just loved on people. He never compromised the truth. But he never seemed to feel he had to join anyone at their gamesmanship in order to confront them.
So I'm thinking, Christians, don't be offended so easily. Just a thought.
But when I read the article (find it here) I had a question pop into my head: what should offend believers? I think that this is an important question in our culture today. What should I find offensive? I'm not sure I have any definitive answers, but here's my first thoughts:
1. We need to remember that the gospel is inherently offensive to many of those enslaved by sin. It should not surprise us when others are offended. The Bible tells us it will be.
2. God is perfectly capable of defending himself. And the Bible. He does not need us in this regard. That's not to say he doesn't use us, cuz he does. But there seems to be a huge number of Christians who feel that if God or the Bible is attacked, it's time to "fight fire with fire."
3. Call me ungodly if you need to, but I just don't see how holding picket signs in protest--no matter how true their slogans--makes a dent in the power of sin on people's lives. When you hold up a sign saying that "Jesus loves atheists" it doesn't feel like demonstrating love to atheists, it feels like political protest. I'm pretty sure the atheist group didn't look out at the believers and think "man, those people love us."
So, I'm thinking that being offended over...
a. people being silly...
b. lost people acting like lost people...
c. people desperate for attention or looking for fame...
d. just about anything we disagree with...
...is just not a good idea. One of the most amazingly attractive things about Jesus is that he never seem to get offended at people, especially at people's "junk." Their sin never surprised him, never made him stand, mouth agape, dumbstruck that someone would act that way. He knew people. He understood sin, even though he had none himself. He never had to hold up a "I love sinners but hate the sin" sign.
He just loved on people. He never compromised the truth. But he never seemed to feel he had to join anyone at their gamesmanship in order to confront them.
So I'm thinking, Christians, don't be offended so easily. Just a thought.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Subversive Power
A quote from Rock, Paper Scissors:
"But the truth, which screams at you from any newspaper, is that authority needs power, and those with power almost invariably use it to pursue their own interests. Benevolence, however much the powerful might preach it, is the last thing on their minds."
Touche. May those who follow Jesus prove him wrong.
"But the truth, which screams at you from any newspaper, is that authority needs power, and those with power almost invariably use it to pursue their own interests. Benevolence, however much the powerful might preach it, is the last thing on their minds."
Touche. May those who follow Jesus prove him wrong.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Worlds colliding
It's no secret I love Seinfeld.
I will watch it every time it's on tv, even though I've seen every episode probably hundreds of times. It has to be one of the cleverest sitcoms in history (albeit sitcoms have a short history in the overall scheme of things).
One of my favorite episodes is when Elaine starts hanging out with George's fiancee Susan, and Susan looks to be entering the circle of relationships that is the core of Seinfeld. George is extremely anxious about this. Like many men feel, he knows there is a difference between "relationship George"--the George that has to be a certain way when he's with Susan--and "regular George"--the fun-loving, conniving, partying guy he normally is. And he knows that when these worlds collide...
"Jerry, if relationship George walks through that door, he will kill regular George."
And then, in perhaps the greatest paraphrase of Scripture in sitcom history: "A George divided against himself, cannot stand."
I know the feeling of worlds colliding. We all do who attempt to follow Jesus. This morning I was tempted to post some heresy on my Facebook status, something like "Arnie is celebrating the best holiday this weekend...the Masters. Is something else going on?" But alas, in deference to "relationship Arnie", I chickened out. But truly, I would much rather watch the Masters coverage all weekend that watch "The Passion" again. Forgive my heresy.
The truth, though, is that worlds collide for those who want to follow Jesus. Our attempt to follow him collides with life--family life, work life, and in many cases, even religious life. Maybe especially religious life.
I will watch it every time it's on tv, even though I've seen every episode probably hundreds of times. It has to be one of the cleverest sitcoms in history (albeit sitcoms have a short history in the overall scheme of things).
One of my favorite episodes is when Elaine starts hanging out with George's fiancee Susan, and Susan looks to be entering the circle of relationships that is the core of Seinfeld. George is extremely anxious about this. Like many men feel, he knows there is a difference between "relationship George"--the George that has to be a certain way when he's with Susan--and "regular George"--the fun-loving, conniving, partying guy he normally is. And he knows that when these worlds collide...
"Jerry, if relationship George walks through that door, he will kill regular George."
And then, in perhaps the greatest paraphrase of Scripture in sitcom history: "A George divided against himself, cannot stand."
I know the feeling of worlds colliding. We all do who attempt to follow Jesus. This morning I was tempted to post some heresy on my Facebook status, something like "Arnie is celebrating the best holiday this weekend...the Masters. Is something else going on?" But alas, in deference to "relationship Arnie", I chickened out. But truly, I would much rather watch the Masters coverage all weekend that watch "The Passion" again. Forgive my heresy.
The truth, though, is that worlds collide for those who want to follow Jesus. Our attempt to follow him collides with life--family life, work life, and in many cases, even religious life. Maybe especially religious life.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anne Rice's "Christ the Lord"
Anne Rice is best known, at least by me, for "The Vampire Chronicles." But apparently a few years ago, she became a Christian, and wanted to write something about Jesus. The result is "Christ the Lord", a novel that describes the year before Jesus publicly announced his ministry.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It's a pretty easy read (I read it all yesterday in 4 hours of airplane travel). The plot involves Jesus' interaction with his family and kinsmen and the difficulties of being "Yeshua the Sinless", the name they (often derogatorily) call him. The absolute best thing about the book is the portrayal of Jesus' humanity without compromising on the deity. Jesus really struggles with the temptations of life--anger over people's treating each other poorly, desire for marriage and family, responding to untrue accusations, and the like. When the writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus being tempted in every way as a man but still without sin--Rice describes that in a real and understandable way.
I have always wondered what was on Jesus' mind as he grew up--what did he know and when did he know it? When he was 6 or 12 or 20, did he know everything about his calling and nature? If not, how did he learn it? Does having to learn it somehow deny his deity? The book approaches this from the standpoint of "choosing not to know" certain things, which I think is pretty good theology, and the story works well.
On the downside, I thought there were too many characters, none of which is developed as well as they could be. This is especially true as she introduces the first disciples of Jesus. For example, she talks about Jesus' renaming of Simon to Peter, and calling James and John the Sons of Thunder, but it's like he just made it up on the spot and there wasn't any meaning to it. I picture those nicknames being come up with in circumstances where everyone there understands why Jesus calls them that. But she apparently wanted to get them in, so that's all crammed into one short chapter at the end of the book.
Again, overall I really enjoyed it. It's definitely within Roman Catholic theological realms as it deals with Jesus, Mary, and their family situation, but non Catholics shouldn't find anything that makes the book disagreeable on foundational issues.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It's a pretty easy read (I read it all yesterday in 4 hours of airplane travel). The plot involves Jesus' interaction with his family and kinsmen and the difficulties of being "Yeshua the Sinless", the name they (often derogatorily) call him. The absolute best thing about the book is the portrayal of Jesus' humanity without compromising on the deity. Jesus really struggles with the temptations of life--anger over people's treating each other poorly, desire for marriage and family, responding to untrue accusations, and the like. When the writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus being tempted in every way as a man but still without sin--Rice describes that in a real and understandable way.
I have always wondered what was on Jesus' mind as he grew up--what did he know and when did he know it? When he was 6 or 12 or 20, did he know everything about his calling and nature? If not, how did he learn it? Does having to learn it somehow deny his deity? The book approaches this from the standpoint of "choosing not to know" certain things, which I think is pretty good theology, and the story works well.
On the downside, I thought there were too many characters, none of which is developed as well as they could be. This is especially true as she introduces the first disciples of Jesus. For example, she talks about Jesus' renaming of Simon to Peter, and calling James and John the Sons of Thunder, but it's like he just made it up on the spot and there wasn't any meaning to it. I picture those nicknames being come up with in circumstances where everyone there understands why Jesus calls them that. But she apparently wanted to get them in, so that's all crammed into one short chapter at the end of the book.
Again, overall I really enjoyed it. It's definitely within Roman Catholic theological realms as it deals with Jesus, Mary, and their family situation, but non Catholics shouldn't find anything that makes the book disagreeable on foundational issues.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Evangelicalism is dead, long live Evangelicals
So twice today I've been sucked into this story, summed up here on Out of Ur:
Evangelicalism is dead.
I say "yeah!"
The first conversation started with my friend Becki on Facebook. She linked to the Christian Science Monitor article mentioned on the Out of Ur blog. To be fair, it's a good article, but as the 3.5 of you who read this blog know, I've called myself post-evangelical for several years now. The death of Evangelicalism happened awhile back, so that's what I said in reply to her post.
I would suggest that Evangelicalism is already dead. Mostly because of #1 on this guy's list. And I think it needs to lay down in the casket, personally. What remains will be precisely those who truly follow Jesus. Me
She responded well: Merriam Webster defines Evangelical: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels, emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.By the definition above, it could also be said it is a sad day that it is dead and I would say that #2 played more of a roll in it. Had it stayed true to it's definition and remained about the authority of Scripture and Apostolic preaching of the Gospel that confronted people with what the the death of Jesus on the Cross represents and confronted with what their sin caused and its significance then there would be far less people dying and going to hell. Congregations big/small, church building/home churches, it doesn't matter, they are full of people are unconverted believers (of what they have been told and its not the gospel).
This is somewhat true, but not totally in my opinion. Here's my last entry on her comment page:
The word Evangelical is dead, what ole Merriam says (was she Daniel's wife?) is the definition of Evangelical was really a follower of Jesus, and those have been around for awhile now, and will continue to be around until he comes back. I guess they'll be around after that too, come to think of it. This is the problem with much of our vocabulary and even our ideas as followers of Jesus. We have words to describe something that is complex, but eventually if we're not careful we end up fighting for the word and not for the concept. Words like Trinity, incarnation, atonement, and Evangelical (and some day, the phrase "follower of Jesus") are used to describe complex theological thoughts and truths, but we begin to believe more in the use of the word than the truth it reflects. Words become litmus tests of who is in or out.Evangelicalism is dead. Long live the evangelical.
What an Evangelical truly was, when the word was originally coined, is not dead. Just the hollow shell that it had become. Let's let that shell die. It deserves to die. What rises in it's place--really what has been there in the midst of it all along--is authentic regenerated followers of Jesus.
Evangelicalism is dead.
I say "yeah!"
The first conversation started with my friend Becki on Facebook. She linked to the Christian Science Monitor article mentioned on the Out of Ur blog. To be fair, it's a good article, but as the 3.5 of you who read this blog know, I've called myself post-evangelical for several years now. The death of Evangelicalism happened awhile back, so that's what I said in reply to her post.
I would suggest that Evangelicalism is already dead. Mostly because of #1 on this guy's list. And I think it needs to lay down in the casket, personally. What remains will be precisely those who truly follow Jesus. Me
She responded well: Merriam Webster defines Evangelical: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels, emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.By the definition above, it could also be said it is a sad day that it is dead and I would say that #2 played more of a roll in it. Had it stayed true to it's definition and remained about the authority of Scripture and Apostolic preaching of the Gospel that confronted people with what the the death of Jesus on the Cross represents and confronted with what their sin caused and its significance then there would be far less people dying and going to hell. Congregations big/small, church building/home churches, it doesn't matter, they are full of people are unconverted believers (of what they have been told and its not the gospel).
This is somewhat true, but not totally in my opinion. Here's my last entry on her comment page:
The word Evangelical is dead, what ole Merriam says (was she Daniel's wife?) is the definition of Evangelical was really a follower of Jesus, and those have been around for awhile now, and will continue to be around until he comes back. I guess they'll be around after that too, come to think of it. This is the problem with much of our vocabulary and even our ideas as followers of Jesus. We have words to describe something that is complex, but eventually if we're not careful we end up fighting for the word and not for the concept. Words like Trinity, incarnation, atonement, and Evangelical (and some day, the phrase "follower of Jesus") are used to describe complex theological thoughts and truths, but we begin to believe more in the use of the word than the truth it reflects. Words become litmus tests of who is in or out.Evangelicalism is dead. Long live the evangelical.
What an Evangelical truly was, when the word was originally coined, is not dead. Just the hollow shell that it had become. Let's let that shell die. It deserves to die. What rises in it's place--really what has been there in the midst of it all along--is authentic regenerated followers of Jesus.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Praying in the name of Jesus
I've blogged about the National Prayer Breakfast before, so you'll have to search the archives for some background if you want it. It's an amazing event. This year was the 57th annual breakfast. The goal is prayer and fellowship in the name and spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.
Now that's really interesting. Many of the capital "E" Evangelicals I have been around during my 42 years have a pretty narrow view of what it means to pray and fellowship in the name of Jesus. And it has something to do with the words you say at the end of your prayer.
Ultimately it has nothing to do with that. Really, as Mike Breaux says, "in the name of Jesus, amen" really means, "I'm done praying." So he ends his prayers in the voice of Forrest Gump: "that's all I got to say about that."
In the name and spirit of Jesus is more about how our lives reflect on the name of Jesus. Violating the command to not take the Lord's name in vain is less about a cuss word and more about our character reflecting on his character. When our lives are full of words but empty on love and grace, our words invoking God take his name in vain.
It is not about words. It is about loving God and loving neighbor. That is living in the name of Jesus.
More to come about the breakfast...
Now that's really interesting. Many of the capital "E" Evangelicals I have been around during my 42 years have a pretty narrow view of what it means to pray and fellowship in the name of Jesus. And it has something to do with the words you say at the end of your prayer.
Ultimately it has nothing to do with that. Really, as Mike Breaux says, "in the name of Jesus, amen" really means, "I'm done praying." So he ends his prayers in the voice of Forrest Gump: "that's all I got to say about that."
In the name and spirit of Jesus is more about how our lives reflect on the name of Jesus. Violating the command to not take the Lord's name in vain is less about a cuss word and more about our character reflecting on his character. When our lives are full of words but empty on love and grace, our words invoking God take his name in vain.
It is not about words. It is about loving God and loving neighbor. That is living in the name of Jesus.
More to come about the breakfast...
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Happy New Year!
It's a good thing I don't make New Year's resolutions. If I did, I'm sure one of them would have involved blogging more often. And now it's already January 10th, and I haven't blogged at all.
I'm really not blogging today, I guess. Just randomly throwing some thoughts out on paper, er, screen as the case may be.
I'm amazed at the connectivity of Facebook. I continue to find and be found by friends that I haven't seen in years.
I remember someone once telling me not to say anything I would be embarrassed for my mom to hear. Now Mom is reading my blog and commenting. Should I be scared? (Welcome, Mom! Just don't slap me if I cuss in a blog or something...)
I am thinking about 2009, even if I don't make resolutions. I'm thinking about Paul telling us we're ambassadors of Jesus. Like, we represent him in our circle of relationships. And I'm thinking that's a pretty big deal. If I was Jesus I wouldn't have chosen me to represent him. Sometimes I think my family and friends worry about me representing them. But choose me he did, to be his ambassador.
And that's probably worth some resolutions. If I made resolutions.
I'm really not blogging today, I guess. Just randomly throwing some thoughts out on paper, er, screen as the case may be.
I'm amazed at the connectivity of Facebook. I continue to find and be found by friends that I haven't seen in years.
I remember someone once telling me not to say anything I would be embarrassed for my mom to hear. Now Mom is reading my blog and commenting. Should I be scared? (Welcome, Mom! Just don't slap me if I cuss in a blog or something...)
I am thinking about 2009, even if I don't make resolutions. I'm thinking about Paul telling us we're ambassadors of Jesus. Like, we represent him in our circle of relationships. And I'm thinking that's a pretty big deal. If I was Jesus I wouldn't have chosen me to represent him. Sometimes I think my family and friends worry about me representing them. But choose me he did, to be his ambassador.
And that's probably worth some resolutions. If I made resolutions.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Honduras, Hope and Home
Sorry to the 3.5 faithful--I came home with a bad sinus infection and have pretty much done nothing since arriving home from Honduras late Thursday night. I did watch the Steelers clinch the division this afternoon though...
I think I left off on Tuesday morning. We went to two homes that day, both of them large. The first was Emanuel, with about 120 kids. It was actually a pretty nice place for a group that size, and the children were very excited to see us. I spent most of that trip organizing shoes with Ruth Kramer. The leadership in Honduras had actually taken the time to put each child's name on a shoe that was--at least when they drew the outline of their foot--the right size. And probably 80% of the time it was great. It was that other 20 that would get chaotic. The last thing anyone wanted to do was to disappoint these kids, but when you had to say "espera" (wait) you could see the downcast eyes. Fortunately I think we were able to get shoes for everyone there.
Tuesday afternoon we went to the most challenging house of the trip for most of the group. Nueva Esperanza is a government home with almost 180 kids. 35 of them were babies in a nursery with only 2 adults supervising much of the time. Some cribs had 2 babies in them. It's a heartbreaking scenario, and you can't help but want to bring them all home with you. And it doesn't help at all when the orphanage is right next to a juvenile detention home with teenage boys in the trees shouting obscenities at the American women in our group. But the impact was so profound, that many of the group were considering giving up their recreation time on Friday to go back to Nueva Esperanza.
I actually spent a good part of that afternoon at the warehouse trying to get shoes together for the next day's 1.5 hour trip to Tela. I met Linda, a city councilwoman in San Pedro Sula, and she showed me much that their little NGO does there with 19 different orphanages, including gathering them all each May for a day in the park. 700 orphans in one park--that's got to be a fun day! We left the warehouse at 5:30 to pick up the group from Nueva Esperanza, and the trip that had taken 35 minutes a couple hours earlier now took an hour and a half, and ended with Manuel the bus driver backing the bus up a 200 meter dirt road to get to the orphanage. What fun!
Wednesday was a stop on the way out of town at a teen girls home, then we drove to Tela, another resort-ish community on northern shores. In fact, we had lunch at a resort, and walked on the beach a little. Then we drove to a home/school/community center where hundreds of kids had gathered. There was no time here for the VBS stuff, just handing out shoes and candy and love. We also spent some time with some foster parents in a program there. Several ladies keep multiple foster kids in their homes, one had 12!
A part of that foster meeting were 3 new friends from Shohanna's Hope, an organization that provides grants to adoptive families among other things. They had joined us--along with Buckner staff Randy Daniels, Leslie Chace and our director in Tegucigalpa, Yaneth--on Tuesday after touring several sites in Tegucigalpa, the capitol of Honduras. I had actually been on the flight from Dallas to Houston with them on Saturday. Wonderful people.
Wednesday night I stayed up late again with my new friends Jim and Susan Gray. I watched their kids show them the snow from Houston on Video Chat--amazing. The next day though I hated that snow when our plane from Houston was delayed almost 2 hours, making us 2 hours late getting there, and having to catch a later flight home. But that was better than Nick and Wendy from Shohanna's Hope; I think they had to spend the night in Houston.
I finally made it home around 11pm. Everyone was already asleep, but I gave kisses all around and went to bed myself. This was an incredible experience. Extreme poverty, disease, loneliness--all things to destroy hope. And yet hope was there. As we lifted through the clouds over San Pedro Sula and began our return home, I asked our Maker to not let these kids fade from my memory the way the city was fading from view. But I also ask that I see the same issues all around me here in the States, that I learn more how to identify the poor, to serve them, to learn from them. To see Jesus in them.
I think I left off on Tuesday morning. We went to two homes that day, both of them large. The first was Emanuel, with about 120 kids. It was actually a pretty nice place for a group that size, and the children were very excited to see us. I spent most of that trip organizing shoes with Ruth Kramer. The leadership in Honduras had actually taken the time to put each child's name on a shoe that was--at least when they drew the outline of their foot--the right size. And probably 80% of the time it was great. It was that other 20 that would get chaotic. The last thing anyone wanted to do was to disappoint these kids, but when you had to say "espera" (wait) you could see the downcast eyes. Fortunately I think we were able to get shoes for everyone there.
Tuesday afternoon we went to the most challenging house of the trip for most of the group. Nueva Esperanza is a government home with almost 180 kids. 35 of them were babies in a nursery with only 2 adults supervising much of the time. Some cribs had 2 babies in them. It's a heartbreaking scenario, and you can't help but want to bring them all home with you. And it doesn't help at all when the orphanage is right next to a juvenile detention home with teenage boys in the trees shouting obscenities at the American women in our group. But the impact was so profound, that many of the group were considering giving up their recreation time on Friday to go back to Nueva Esperanza.
I actually spent a good part of that afternoon at the warehouse trying to get shoes together for the next day's 1.5 hour trip to Tela. I met Linda, a city councilwoman in San Pedro Sula, and she showed me much that their little NGO does there with 19 different orphanages, including gathering them all each May for a day in the park. 700 orphans in one park--that's got to be a fun day! We left the warehouse at 5:30 to pick up the group from Nueva Esperanza, and the trip that had taken 35 minutes a couple hours earlier now took an hour and a half, and ended with Manuel the bus driver backing the bus up a 200 meter dirt road to get to the orphanage. What fun!
Wednesday was a stop on the way out of town at a teen girls home, then we drove to Tela, another resort-ish community on northern shores. In fact, we had lunch at a resort, and walked on the beach a little. Then we drove to a home/school/community center where hundreds of kids had gathered. There was no time here for the VBS stuff, just handing out shoes and candy and love. We also spent some time with some foster parents in a program there. Several ladies keep multiple foster kids in their homes, one had 12!
A part of that foster meeting were 3 new friends from Shohanna's Hope, an organization that provides grants to adoptive families among other things. They had joined us--along with Buckner staff Randy Daniels, Leslie Chace and our director in Tegucigalpa, Yaneth--on Tuesday after touring several sites in Tegucigalpa, the capitol of Honduras. I had actually been on the flight from Dallas to Houston with them on Saturday. Wonderful people.
Wednesday night I stayed up late again with my new friends Jim and Susan Gray. I watched their kids show them the snow from Houston on Video Chat--amazing. The next day though I hated that snow when our plane from Houston was delayed almost 2 hours, making us 2 hours late getting there, and having to catch a later flight home. But that was better than Nick and Wendy from Shohanna's Hope; I think they had to spend the night in Houston.
I finally made it home around 11pm. Everyone was already asleep, but I gave kisses all around and went to bed myself. This was an incredible experience. Extreme poverty, disease, loneliness--all things to destroy hope. And yet hope was there. As we lifted through the clouds over San Pedro Sula and began our return home, I asked our Maker to not let these kids fade from my memory the way the city was fading from view. But I also ask that I see the same issues all around me here in the States, that I learn more how to identify the poor, to serve them, to learn from them. To see Jesus in them.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The subversive Jesus
My friend Keith has done it again. Written some challenging and maybe provocative things, but some things that imho are spot-on. We have domesticated Jesus and made him into the Jesus of Bible stories for 4 year olds (come to think of it we've done that for the whole Bible, but I'm repeating myself.
The article is so good I asked Keith if I could reprint the whole thing here, and he agreed, as long as I linked back to the original and said nice things about him. Of course, when I think of Keith I can't get too far into it without remembering how he and I parodied a ventriloquist one night at a park revival, where I pretended Keith was the dummy. The wooden kind. And he was hysterically funny.
But I digress. Here's the article, and click on Keith's link to the left to see some other great thoughts from him. And don't forget to answer his question for reflection at the end.
[Subversive Underground] "My Subversive Jesus" by Keith Giles
This Sunday morning I was very challenged to read about how Jesus very directly and intentionally confronted the empty traditions of the Pharisees by what He said and did.
HEALING WITH MUD AND SPITTLE In John chapter 9, Jesus sees a man born blind. His disciples ask if this blindness is due to sin from his parents or his own sin. Jesus responds by saying that it is not because of anyone's sin but so that God's power may be displayed in his life. What Jesus does next is very subversive. He spits on the ground, makes a cake of mud and smears it on the man's eyes and tells him to wash his face in the pool of Siloam. When he does the man is healed. If you're like me you've probably always wondered why Jesus healed this man in such an unusual way. We know he could have simply spoken to him and restored his blindness, yet for some strange reason he performs this miracle in a very weird and, frankly, disgusting way. Want to know why? The answer reveals some of the intentionally subversive methods of Jesus. In the Mishnah, the first major work of Rabbinic Judaism, it says "To heal a blind man on the Sabbath it is prohibited to make mud with spittle and smear it on his eyes." (Shabbat 108:20) When Jesus decided to heal this man, on the Sabbath, using this exact same method prohibited by the Mishnah, he was publicly opposing this section of the Rabbinic Law and making a statement about the foolishness of a rule which prohibits healing someone from blindness. His actions are a deliberate attack on the established religious system of the day. If you read the entire passage in John 9 you'll see that this healing prompted an investigative tribunal by the Pharisees to determine how this person was healed, by whom and why. "They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see." Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." - John 9:13-16 Clearly the Pharisees were upset over this and did all they could to undermine the miracle and to condemn Jesus for his actions.
NEGLECTING TO WASH HANDS In Luke chapter 11 we read of another direct encounter with the Pharisees where Jesus publicly opposed their teachings by his acts of subversion. "When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you." - Luke 11:37-41 Again, the Mishnah clearly says, "One should be willing to walk four miles to water in order to wash your hands rather than to eat with unwashed hands" (Sotah, 4b) and "He who neglects hand washing is as he who is a murderer" (Challan, J, 58:3). Jesus knew he was breaking this rabbinical law when he and his disciples ate without washing their hands. He didn't forget to wash his hands, he intentionally walked past the line of people who were engaged in the religious hand washing ceremony and went over to the table and started to eat. Jesus pointed out how foolish it is to go through an outward ceremony of cleanliness when inside our hearts we are filthy. Jesus urged the Pharisees to give what they had to the poor rather than engage in outward displays of holiness.
WHY SO SUBVERSIVE? Jesus could easily have healed on another day of the week, and he could have easily healed without the spittle and mud cakes, and he probably should have washed his hands before he ate, but these were opportunities to demonstrate how foolish these laws were and how much more God cares for people than he does for rules and laws.
MY TURN NOW It made me wonder, what are the modern traditions that I need to oppose by my actions? How can I follow Jesus by standing against the ways of man and, at the same time, declare my allegiance to the things of the Kingdom? Quite honestly I haven't yet worked this all out, but I do feel that there may be a short list of things that I could do and say in my every day life that could condemn the empty religious rules of men in favor of the values of the Kingdom of God. Can you think of anything? -kg
** NOTE: Many thanks to Frank Viola for enlightening me on the Mishnah teachings in his excellent book, "Pagan Christianity".
** GREAT CONVERSATIONS Over at my main blog there are some pretty cool conversations going on. You should take a peek HERE
The article is so good I asked Keith if I could reprint the whole thing here, and he agreed, as long as I linked back to the original and said nice things about him. Of course, when I think of Keith I can't get too far into it without remembering how he and I parodied a ventriloquist one night at a park revival, where I pretended Keith was the dummy. The wooden kind. And he was hysterically funny.
But I digress. Here's the article, and click on Keith's link to the left to see some other great thoughts from him. And don't forget to answer his question for reflection at the end.
[Subversive Underground] "My Subversive Jesus" by Keith Giles
This Sunday morning I was very challenged to read about how Jesus very directly and intentionally confronted the empty traditions of the Pharisees by what He said and did.
HEALING WITH MUD AND SPITTLE In John chapter 9, Jesus sees a man born blind. His disciples ask if this blindness is due to sin from his parents or his own sin. Jesus responds by saying that it is not because of anyone's sin but so that God's power may be displayed in his life. What Jesus does next is very subversive. He spits on the ground, makes a cake of mud and smears it on the man's eyes and tells him to wash his face in the pool of Siloam. When he does the man is healed. If you're like me you've probably always wondered why Jesus healed this man in such an unusual way. We know he could have simply spoken to him and restored his blindness, yet for some strange reason he performs this miracle in a very weird and, frankly, disgusting way. Want to know why? The answer reveals some of the intentionally subversive methods of Jesus. In the Mishnah, the first major work of Rabbinic Judaism, it says "To heal a blind man on the Sabbath it is prohibited to make mud with spittle and smear it on his eyes." (Shabbat 108:20) When Jesus decided to heal this man, on the Sabbath, using this exact same method prohibited by the Mishnah, he was publicly opposing this section of the Rabbinic Law and making a statement about the foolishness of a rule which prohibits healing someone from blindness. His actions are a deliberate attack on the established religious system of the day. If you read the entire passage in John 9 you'll see that this healing prompted an investigative tribunal by the Pharisees to determine how this person was healed, by whom and why. "They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see." Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." - John 9:13-16 Clearly the Pharisees were upset over this and did all they could to undermine the miracle and to condemn Jesus for his actions.
NEGLECTING TO WASH HANDS In Luke chapter 11 we read of another direct encounter with the Pharisees where Jesus publicly opposed their teachings by his acts of subversion. "When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you." - Luke 11:37-41 Again, the Mishnah clearly says, "One should be willing to walk four miles to water in order to wash your hands rather than to eat with unwashed hands" (Sotah, 4b) and "He who neglects hand washing is as he who is a murderer" (Challan, J, 58:3). Jesus knew he was breaking this rabbinical law when he and his disciples ate without washing their hands. He didn't forget to wash his hands, he intentionally walked past the line of people who were engaged in the religious hand washing ceremony and went over to the table and started to eat. Jesus pointed out how foolish it is to go through an outward ceremony of cleanliness when inside our hearts we are filthy. Jesus urged the Pharisees to give what they had to the poor rather than engage in outward displays of holiness.
WHY SO SUBVERSIVE? Jesus could easily have healed on another day of the week, and he could have easily healed without the spittle and mud cakes, and he probably should have washed his hands before he ate, but these were opportunities to demonstrate how foolish these laws were and how much more God cares for people than he does for rules and laws.
MY TURN NOW It made me wonder, what are the modern traditions that I need to oppose by my actions? How can I follow Jesus by standing against the ways of man and, at the same time, declare my allegiance to the things of the Kingdom? Quite honestly I haven't yet worked this all out, but I do feel that there may be a short list of things that I could do and say in my every day life that could condemn the empty religious rules of men in favor of the values of the Kingdom of God. Can you think of anything? -kg
** NOTE: Many thanks to Frank Viola for enlightening me on the Mishnah teachings in his excellent book, "Pagan Christianity".
** GREAT CONVERSATIONS Over at my main blog there are some pretty cool conversations going on. You should take a peek HERE
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Jesus--the ultimate human?
There are broadly speaking 2 ways we tend to look at Jesus of Nazareth. There are those that tend to see him as Savior, and pretty exclusively speaking to the theological and moral issues of our day. In my estimation this is the dominant view in American Evangelicalism, and maybe in Christendom as a whole.
A second, lesser-held view is the idea that Jesus, as the God-man, is the ultimate human. He would have/could have been the the best at whatever he did. As my friend Rick Archer says, if Jesus had been an architect he would have been the greatest architect that ever lived. I like this theory, although I can see some obvious shortcomings. Jesus almost assuredly could not have been the best professional basketball player and the best horse jockey. At least not in the same incarnation.
But for me it brought up this question recently: what kind of politician would Jesus have been? More specifically, what would Jesus' foreign policy be like? There's been a lot of talk about foreign policy in our current presidential election, and given the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rightly so. Our standing in the world seems to have diminished recently.
Maybe a more pertinent question, since Jesus isn't president of the US, is what would he have our foreign policy be? How would the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth be applied to real world situations like foreign policy?
This is a difficult topic. It is what differentiates following the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth vs. letting Jesus save us and guide us in matters of personal morality, but not so much seeing his teaching and lifestyle impact societal, systemic thinking and acting.
At least anecdotally, you find more pacifists among New Testament scholars than other theological groups, purportedly because studying and focusing on Jesus' life leads to a "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" pacificistic view. But I'm not sure. Jesus wasn't a pure pacifist--just ask the money-changers in the temple. And there's no way Jesus was some milquetoast, as pacifists are often viewed. But what would he have done if he was president of the US on 9/11? Of course you could make the case that if we were the kind of society that would elect Jesus to office maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened in the first place. But that begs the question. How would Jesus lead in a post-9/11 world?
How do the teachings and doings of Jesus of Nazareth impact systemic issues like foreign policy?
A second, lesser-held view is the idea that Jesus, as the God-man, is the ultimate human. He would have/could have been the the best at whatever he did. As my friend Rick Archer says, if Jesus had been an architect he would have been the greatest architect that ever lived. I like this theory, although I can see some obvious shortcomings. Jesus almost assuredly could not have been the best professional basketball player and the best horse jockey. At least not in the same incarnation.
But for me it brought up this question recently: what kind of politician would Jesus have been? More specifically, what would Jesus' foreign policy be like? There's been a lot of talk about foreign policy in our current presidential election, and given the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rightly so. Our standing in the world seems to have diminished recently.
Maybe a more pertinent question, since Jesus isn't president of the US, is what would he have our foreign policy be? How would the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth be applied to real world situations like foreign policy?
This is a difficult topic. It is what differentiates following the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth vs. letting Jesus save us and guide us in matters of personal morality, but not so much seeing his teaching and lifestyle impact societal, systemic thinking and acting.
At least anecdotally, you find more pacifists among New Testament scholars than other theological groups, purportedly because studying and focusing on Jesus' life leads to a "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" pacificistic view. But I'm not sure. Jesus wasn't a pure pacifist--just ask the money-changers in the temple. And there's no way Jesus was some milquetoast, as pacifists are often viewed. But what would he have done if he was president of the US on 9/11? Of course you could make the case that if we were the kind of society that would elect Jesus to office maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened in the first place. But that begs the question. How would Jesus lead in a post-9/11 world?
How do the teachings and doings of Jesus of Nazareth impact systemic issues like foreign policy?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Despise a vile person
Today being the 15th I read Psalm 15, one of those easily preachable in America psalms because it has ready-made bullet points just like we like 'em.
[in the voice of a televangelist, however that sounds to you] "Who can ascend God's holy hill? Well right here are the 8 steps you have to take up that hill..."
So anyway, one of the steps or characteristics or whatever kind of sticks in my craw. Honestly I'm not sure where my craw is, but I hate it when things get stuck there. About halfway through you get this: "Who can dwell on your holy hill? He...in whose eyes a vile person is despised."
Now there are lots of psalms that get to me. I mean, am I really supposed to pray for my enemies to have their children dashed on the rocks? (yes, see Psalm 137). But I was particularly reflective this morning wondering this--do I let the "softness" and tolerance of my world affect my despising of evil-doers? Am I supposed to despise evil-doing people? Dictionary.com defines despise as to regard with contempt, distaste, disgust, or disdain; scorn; loathe. Is that how I'm supposed to feel? I don't, and I hope it's because I am following Jesus. He didn't seem to loathe or be disgusted at evil-doers. Quite the opposite actually.
[in the voice of a televangelist, however that sounds to you] "Who can ascend God's holy hill? Well right here are the 8 steps you have to take up that hill..."
So anyway, one of the steps or characteristics or whatever kind of sticks in my craw. Honestly I'm not sure where my craw is, but I hate it when things get stuck there. About halfway through you get this: "Who can dwell on your holy hill? He...in whose eyes a vile person is despised."
Now there are lots of psalms that get to me. I mean, am I really supposed to pray for my enemies to have their children dashed on the rocks? (yes, see Psalm 137). But I was particularly reflective this morning wondering this--do I let the "softness" and tolerance of my world affect my despising of evil-doers? Am I supposed to despise evil-doing people? Dictionary.com defines despise as to regard with contempt, distaste, disgust, or disdain; scorn; loathe. Is that how I'm supposed to feel? I don't, and I hope it's because I am following Jesus. He didn't seem to loathe or be disgusted at evil-doers. Quite the opposite actually.
Friday, May 02, 2008
If Jesus had a blog
Someday I want to meet Brant Hansen. He's funny. And clear. And like one of my all time heroes, Al Yancovich, he plays the accordian.
You have to read this post about what if Jesus had a blog.
You have to read this post about what if Jesus had a blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)