CAUTION: SPOILER AS TO "KUNG FU HUSTLE" AND "SIGNS."
True Christianity is the most radical compendium of concepts that exists. It is incredible. It is radical. It is counter-cultural. It attacks our human self-sufficiency. It attacks our view of the world. It attacks our view of God. This is why most Christian writers and other artists don't correctly express Christianity--they know that, if they do, no one will read them. Instead, it is non-Christians, or non-traditional Christians, who correctly express Christianity.
Last nite, I watched one of my favorite movies--"Kung Fu Hustle," by Stephen Chow. It is outrageously violent, comedic, and beautiful. The petty criminal becomes the hero--"strength from weakness." He is essentially resurrected. The hero exhibits grace, after the application of the law, to the "Beast" (the world's No. 1 killer), and the Beast calls him master. Finally, all of the events lead to the reuniting of the hero with a girl from his childhood--sovereignty. These are fundamental concepts of Christianity. Perhaps the Chinese get "it," because they have one of the oldest cultures in the world, and they understand how things work.
Although he doesn't consider himself a Christian, M. Night Shyamalan gets Christianity. He wrote the movie "Signs," which is overtly Christian. In the movie, he captures the Christian themes of "sovereignty," "grace versus law," and "strength in weakness" in all of their profundity. These themes are expressed in peculiar, even dreadful, events which work to save lives from the alien onslaught. "Signs" is filled with humor, grief, suspense, and joy.
One of my favorite scenes from the movie involves Mel and Joaquin sitting on the couch and discussing God. Mel says that there are two types of people in the world: a)those who think that there is someone out there who cares about us and intervenes for us; and b)those who think that, if there is a God, he is at best ambivalent towards us. Joaquin says he is Type A. He recalls a high school party where he was getting ready to kiss a pretty girl. Before he does, he turns away to take his gum out. In that moment, she vomits everywhere. So, yes, he believes in a good God who intervenes on our behalf. "Why, if I had kissed her when she got sick, I might never have kissed a girl again." The rest of the movie deals with situations in which it is much more difficult to find that God is good--such as the death of a spouse.
How do most Christian authors or movie-writers express Christianity? Well, they are antithetical to the themes of "sovereignty," "strength in weakness," and "grace, not law." Most Christian writers don't place God in charge of suffering and difficulties. Shymalan did--he uses the death of Mel's wife for salvific purposes. He has done this in other movies as well. Most Christian writers don't embrace weakness as being the place that God works. Most purport to show how God works through man's strengths. They praise God for health and prosperity, which we should. But, God's glory, His intervention in our world, is most powerfully expressed in the weak parts of our lives, not our strengths. Shyamalan get this. Just note the failings of each of the family members in "Signs" and how these are used to bring salvation and healing. Finally, most Christian writers believe in "tit for tat"--if you are good, God will bless you. Instead, God blesses us even when we are not good, even when our efforts are flawed--this is how we know that it is God at work, and not ourselves. "Signs" is shot through with mercy upon mercy revealed in man's weakness.
The fact that non-Christian artists comprehend Christianity speaks to its universality. The fact that Christian artists don't reflects the abysmal job being done by the church to express Christianity truly. However, if we believe God is sovereign, we can trust that He is at work drawing people to Him. It's just that the people being drawn to Him aren't the "usual suspects."
Isaiah 45:7 "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things."
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Christmas Day
"Jesus is multiply displaced, made peripheral to the important places in the world."--Garry Wills, "What Jesus Meant," p. 3.
As recounted by Wills, His displacements include:
1)he comes from a despised city and region--Nazareth;
2)his parents are displaced by "decree of an occupying power;"
3)Joseph has no relatives left in Bethlehem with whom they can stay;
4)there is no inn--even for a woman well-advanced in pregnancy;
5)He is born in a barn and laid in a hay trough.
What an undignified entry into the world for the Creator of the universe. Wills sums it up:
"Not only is he born into an oppressed people, and forced out of his parents' city, and excluded from their common shelter--now the oppressed person, the homeless person, the excluded person must become a fugitive, driven farther away from the familiar; the comfortable, into an exile [in Egypt] that recalls the wandering of the whole Jewish People." Id. at p. 4.
What a blessing Garry Wills is to Christendom! He so aptly captures the other worldliness of Christ.
One Christmas, I was reading one of Luther's Christmas sermons to my children. Mathis, age 7 or 8, said:
"Jesus was born lowly so that all could come to Him. " That well explains Christ' entry into the world. Had he been born in a palace, He would not have been approachable by the common man. Had he been born into luxury, he would not have been approachable by the poor. Had he been born into high social class, he would not have been approachable by the social outcasts. Had he not suffered and died on the Cross, we would not understand that God is empathetic and involved in our pain and suffering.
So, praise God for His radical entry into our world and our lives.
As recounted by Wills, His displacements include:
1)he comes from a despised city and region--Nazareth;
2)his parents are displaced by "decree of an occupying power;"
3)Joseph has no relatives left in Bethlehem with whom they can stay;
4)there is no inn--even for a woman well-advanced in pregnancy;
5)He is born in a barn and laid in a hay trough.
What an undignified entry into the world for the Creator of the universe. Wills sums it up:
"Not only is he born into an oppressed people, and forced out of his parents' city, and excluded from their common shelter--now the oppressed person, the homeless person, the excluded person must become a fugitive, driven farther away from the familiar; the comfortable, into an exile [in Egypt] that recalls the wandering of the whole Jewish People." Id. at p. 4.
What a blessing Garry Wills is to Christendom! He so aptly captures the other worldliness of Christ.
One Christmas, I was reading one of Luther's Christmas sermons to my children. Mathis, age 7 or 8, said:
"Jesus was born lowly so that all could come to Him. " That well explains Christ' entry into the world. Had he been born in a palace, He would not have been approachable by the common man. Had he been born into luxury, he would not have been approachable by the poor. Had he been born into high social class, he would not have been approachable by the social outcasts. Had he not suffered and died on the Cross, we would not understand that God is empathetic and involved in our pain and suffering.
So, praise God for His radical entry into our world and our lives.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Day 6
Sometimes seemingly innocuous events can have a monumental, lasting effect on your life--for example, a cocktail party. When Paul Zahl was invested as the president of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, a cocktail party was held in his honor, and someone created a cocktail napkin with three notations:
1)Law v. Grace; 2)Free Will? Not; and 3)Strength in Weakness.
That cocktail napkin gave me a framework for reading the Bible. When I read the scriptures through the lens of these three themes, the Bible became alive and it came to have remarkable continuity from Genesis to Revelation. Let me explain.
Law v. Grace
Christianity is the only religion that truly grasps that man cannot keep the law and, therefore, his only hope is grace. In Genesis, there is only one law in the Garden of Eden--"do not eat from the fruit of this tree." We all know that Adam & Eve broke this law--they couldn't keep just one, only one, law. How did God respond? Graciously. God killed the first animal to clothe them with skins, because they were ashamed of their nakedness and the leaves were not a very good covering. So, they couldn't keep the law, and God responded with grace. In fact, driving them from the Garden was also gracious, but I'll leave that for a later date. (Also, I don't believe in the 144 hour creation, so don't get wrought up about the Adam & Eve story. Whether this story is literally true or only allegorically true, it still exhibits a profound understanding of the fallen nature of man and the gracious nature of God.) Then, came the Ten Commandments, which the people couldn't keep--God responded graciously with the sacrificial system. Then, Jesus upped the ante by requiring perfection (not only pure actions, but pure hearts). Obviously, man violates this every minute. So, God responded graciously with the Cross.
Free Will? Not
Do we have free will, or is God sovereign? Theologians and philosophers have debated this forever and will continue to do so. Luther said that man has "free will" to sin, but not "free will" to do good. This arises from Christ's pronouncement that many good actions (those beneficial to mankind) arise not from a true heart of good will towards one's fellow man, but rather from a narcissistic desire to be thought well of by others. For instance, the story of the 40 years in the desert reflects that the Jews were bound to sin--they simply couldn't help it. We are the same way. How many bad habits have you tried to break? I never had any luck with my lust or anger by simply praying for it to be taken away--no matter how hard I prayed. Only when I began to understand the grace and beauty of God did these sins begin to take a back seat to better qualities. Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will" is a remarkable examination of the Biblical support for our bound wills. Knowing that man is "bound to sin" allows us to view our fellow man as fellow strugglers, not as villains or libertines.
Furthermore, even though we are bound to sin, the Bible is rife with stories that exhibit that God is over man's sin--such as the story of Joseph and the birth of Israel, and is most wonderfully expressed in the Cross. So, God's sovereignty trumps our sin. In other words, we can be free to make mistakes. What a wonderful God! One who loves us through our mistakes and even is over them.
Strength in Weakness
Islam and Christianity are two fundamentally different religions. Islam is about God working through our strength; Christianity is about God working through our weakness. The worst times of Christian history, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., all occurred when persons forgot that Christianity is a religion of weakness, not strength. Jesus himself died so that we might come to him. Mohammed converted others to his religion at the point of a sword. I'm not bashing Islam. I'm simply stating the two religions are fundamentally different.
The Biblical stories for weakness triumphing over strength are many--for example, David v. Goliath; Joshua and Jericho; and the Cross. What's more, the entire history of Israel is one of weakness triumphing over strength. When we see that weakness triumphs over strength, we realize that it is God triumphing, not us. This is key. When I win a case due to my legal skills, I can just as easily congratulate myself as thank God. But, when there is triumph in an area of weakness--such as my desire to control situations--then I know without a doubt that it was God and I am thankful. Thankfulness is the emotion which issues forth in love for God and our fellow man--the two most important commandments of Christ--ones which I cannot keep without experiencing the love of God myself.
These three themes allow me to evaluate not only Scripture, but to see Christian themes in art, books, and movies. "Signs" has all three of these themes. In fact, after seeing God's sovereignty and provision vis-a-vis his child, Mel's character returns to faith. Another favorite movie of mine which exhibits these characteristics is "Kung Fu Hustle." Perhaps being the oldest culture on earth allows the Chinese to understand these themes, because this movie is "chock full" of them. My copy of the movie contains an interview with the director, writer, and main actor--Stephen Cho. If you substitute "Holy Spirit" for "Chi Force" in his words, he sounds like a Christian.
As evidenced by "Kung Fu Hustle," these are universal themes, universal truths of how our world works. It's simply that Christianity, in its true form, acknowledges these universal truths, while other religions do not. There may be traces of these themes in other religions, but they are only embraced whole-heartedly in Christianity. In fact, these themes are so radical that they are not embraced by most persons who profess to be Christians. But, in my experience and, more importantly, the reported experiences of Joshua, King David, St. Paul, Augustine, Luther, and C.S. Lewis, they are true.
So, I am extremely thankful to whomever created those cocktail napkins with the three themes. It not only has allowed me to understand Christianity more profoundly, but has allowed me to express the beauty of Christianity to others and, importantly, to understand the views of those who do not embrace Christianity.
1)Law v. Grace; 2)Free Will? Not; and 3)Strength in Weakness.
That cocktail napkin gave me a framework for reading the Bible. When I read the scriptures through the lens of these three themes, the Bible became alive and it came to have remarkable continuity from Genesis to Revelation. Let me explain.
Law v. Grace
Christianity is the only religion that truly grasps that man cannot keep the law and, therefore, his only hope is grace. In Genesis, there is only one law in the Garden of Eden--"do not eat from the fruit of this tree." We all know that Adam & Eve broke this law--they couldn't keep just one, only one, law. How did God respond? Graciously. God killed the first animal to clothe them with skins, because they were ashamed of their nakedness and the leaves were not a very good covering. So, they couldn't keep the law, and God responded with grace. In fact, driving them from the Garden was also gracious, but I'll leave that for a later date. (Also, I don't believe in the 144 hour creation, so don't get wrought up about the Adam & Eve story. Whether this story is literally true or only allegorically true, it still exhibits a profound understanding of the fallen nature of man and the gracious nature of God.) Then, came the Ten Commandments, which the people couldn't keep--God responded graciously with the sacrificial system. Then, Jesus upped the ante by requiring perfection (not only pure actions, but pure hearts). Obviously, man violates this every minute. So, God responded graciously with the Cross.
Free Will? Not
Do we have free will, or is God sovereign? Theologians and philosophers have debated this forever and will continue to do so. Luther said that man has "free will" to sin, but not "free will" to do good. This arises from Christ's pronouncement that many good actions (those beneficial to mankind) arise not from a true heart of good will towards one's fellow man, but rather from a narcissistic desire to be thought well of by others. For instance, the story of the 40 years in the desert reflects that the Jews were bound to sin--they simply couldn't help it. We are the same way. How many bad habits have you tried to break? I never had any luck with my lust or anger by simply praying for it to be taken away--no matter how hard I prayed. Only when I began to understand the grace and beauty of God did these sins begin to take a back seat to better qualities. Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will" is a remarkable examination of the Biblical support for our bound wills. Knowing that man is "bound to sin" allows us to view our fellow man as fellow strugglers, not as villains or libertines.
Strength in Weakness
Islam and Christianity are two fundamentally different religions. Islam is about God working through our strength; Christianity is about God working through our weakness. The worst times of Christian history, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., all occurred when persons forgot that Christianity is a religion of weakness, not strength. Jesus himself died so that we might come to him. Mohammed converted others to his religion at the point of a sword. I'm not bashing Islam. I'm simply stating the two religions are fundamentally different.
The Biblical stories for weakness triumphing over strength are many--for example, David v. Goliath; Joshua and Jericho; and the Cross. What's more, the entire history of Israel is one of weakness triumphing over strength. When we see that weakness triumphs over strength, we realize that it is God triumphing, not us. This is key. When I win a case due to my legal skills, I can just as easily congratulate myself as thank God. But, when there is triumph in an area of weakness--such as my desire to control situations--then I know without a doubt that it was God and I am thankful. Thankfulness is the emotion which issues forth in love for God and our fellow man--the two most important commandments of Christ--ones which I cannot keep without experiencing the love of God myself.
These three themes allow me to evaluate not only Scripture, but to see Christian themes in art, books, and movies. "Signs" has all three of these themes. In fact, after seeing God's sovereignty and provision vis-a-vis his child, Mel's character returns to faith. Another favorite movie of mine which exhibits these characteristics is "Kung Fu Hustle." Perhaps being the oldest culture on earth allows the Chinese to understand these themes, because this movie is "chock full" of them. My copy of the movie contains an interview with the director, writer, and main actor--Stephen Cho. If you substitute "Holy Spirit" for "Chi Force" in his words, he sounds like a Christian.
As evidenced by "Kung Fu Hustle," these are universal themes, universal truths of how our world works. It's simply that Christianity, in its true form, acknowledges these universal truths, while other religions do not. There may be traces of these themes in other religions, but they are only embraced whole-heartedly in Christianity. In fact, these themes are so radical that they are not embraced by most persons who profess to be Christians. But, in my experience and, more importantly, the reported experiences of Joshua, King David, St. Paul, Augustine, Luther, and C.S. Lewis, they are true.
So, I am extremely thankful to whomever created those cocktail napkins with the three themes. It not only has allowed me to understand Christianity more profoundly, but has allowed me to express the beauty of Christianity to others and, importantly, to understand the views of those who do not embrace Christianity.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Day 5
Let's talk about one of the most confounding stories in the OT--the preclusion of Moses from the Promised Land and his death and burial. What's more, let's discuss this story in light of what we learned from Jesus.
I can't number the people that have said: "But it's not fair. It's not fair for Moses to die for a slight sin and, therefore, not enter the Promised Land." You recall the story. The people needed water, and God told Moses to speak to the rock and water would issue forth. Instead, Moses lost his temper with the people, struck the rock, and because of this, Moses was forbidden by God to enter the Promised Land. Then, Moses died before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. Fair or not fair? When one views this event from only a worldly perspective, it was unfair. However, when one views it from an other-worldly perspective, it's more than fair, it's gracious.
We learn from Jesus that there is a celestial kingdom--a palace with many rooms--that is our destination after death. Jesus says that there will be no more pain, sorrow, or grief in Heaven. In fact, Jesus tells us that there will be no sin of any kind in Heaven. In contrast, what awaited the Israelites in the Promised Land? The Israelites were going to have to fight to win the land. While God had promised the land to them, they were going to lose many people in fighting to obtain the land. So, instead of entering into a land filled with war, Moses entered into a sinless land. Jesus' Second Coming is a promise that, when our earthly existence is married with out eternal existence, everything will be made new, will be set right--all worldly unfairness will be made fair, will be vindicated.
What's more, the death of Moses served a couple of purposes vis-a-vis the Israelites. First, the Israelites virtually worshipped Moses. They thought so highly of him that it is said that God buried Moses' body so that the Israelites would not know its location. In other words, God was protecting the Israelites from the sin of idolatry. I elaborated on this problem--that we all want to elevate men--in a prior blog: "Call No Man Father."
Second, Moses' sin lifted a burden from the Israelites. We understand this once we consider Jesus' teaching about sanctification. Jesus makes it clear that, if we are to attain righteousness before God based upon our actions, then we must be perfect. But we can't be perfect. This causes us to fall on our knees and receive the mercy of God. We learn from Jesus that our righteousness is born out of a relationship with Christ, not out of our good deeds. This frees us from having to keep the law, from trying to keep the law, from having heavy burdens on our shoulders. Since leading the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses had led an exemplary life. If Moses had not sinned by striking the rock, the Israelites would have been left with a model for righteous living--the Israelites would have been left trying to live like Moses--they would have been bound under the law.
So, Moses' death and preclusion from the Promised Land becomes explicable when considered in light of the wonderful teachings of Christ--that earth is not our true home; and that our righteousness isn't based upon the burden of righteous living, but rather upon the sheer mercy of God. Reflecting upon Christ answers many of the questions that we have about the OT. As we come to know Christ more and more, the grace of God begins to leap forth from the pages of the OT. What once was a conundrum for me has become a wealth of pictures of the boundless grace of God.
One final reflection--the Gospel is alive in America. It has sputtered for many, many years under so-called Christian leaders whom I will leave nameless. There are even some Christians in the public sphere who have good words for us, but still don't capture the Gospel in all of its radically. Today, there is a new breath of true-Christianity issuing forth and receiving attention. Two of the preachers that God is using most are Timothy Keller and Tullian Tchividjian. Thanks to God both are now receiving national attention for their proclamation of the Gospel. So, be in prayer for these men. You can find Keller's sermons at his church's website--www.redeemer.com. You can find Tullian's blog at: www.thegospelcoalition.com. I commend both of them to you. Both will give you a greater love for God.
I can't number the people that have said: "But it's not fair. It's not fair for Moses to die for a slight sin and, therefore, not enter the Promised Land." You recall the story. The people needed water, and God told Moses to speak to the rock and water would issue forth. Instead, Moses lost his temper with the people, struck the rock, and because of this, Moses was forbidden by God to enter the Promised Land. Then, Moses died before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. Fair or not fair? When one views this event from only a worldly perspective, it was unfair. However, when one views it from an other-worldly perspective, it's more than fair, it's gracious.
We learn from Jesus that there is a celestial kingdom--a palace with many rooms--that is our destination after death. Jesus says that there will be no more pain, sorrow, or grief in Heaven. In fact, Jesus tells us that there will be no sin of any kind in Heaven. In contrast, what awaited the Israelites in the Promised Land? The Israelites were going to have to fight to win the land. While God had promised the land to them, they were going to lose many people in fighting to obtain the land. So, instead of entering into a land filled with war, Moses entered into a sinless land. Jesus' Second Coming is a promise that, when our earthly existence is married with out eternal existence, everything will be made new, will be set right--all worldly unfairness will be made fair, will be vindicated.
What's more, the death of Moses served a couple of purposes vis-a-vis the Israelites. First, the Israelites virtually worshipped Moses. They thought so highly of him that it is said that God buried Moses' body so that the Israelites would not know its location. In other words, God was protecting the Israelites from the sin of idolatry. I elaborated on this problem--that we all want to elevate men--in a prior blog: "Call No Man Father."
Second, Moses' sin lifted a burden from the Israelites. We understand this once we consider Jesus' teaching about sanctification. Jesus makes it clear that, if we are to attain righteousness before God based upon our actions, then we must be perfect. But we can't be perfect. This causes us to fall on our knees and receive the mercy of God. We learn from Jesus that our righteousness is born out of a relationship with Christ, not out of our good deeds. This frees us from having to keep the law, from trying to keep the law, from having heavy burdens on our shoulders. Since leading the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses had led an exemplary life. If Moses had not sinned by striking the rock, the Israelites would have been left with a model for righteous living--the Israelites would have been left trying to live like Moses--they would have been bound under the law.
So, Moses' death and preclusion from the Promised Land becomes explicable when considered in light of the wonderful teachings of Christ--that earth is not our true home; and that our righteousness isn't based upon the burden of righteous living, but rather upon the sheer mercy of God. Reflecting upon Christ answers many of the questions that we have about the OT. As we come to know Christ more and more, the grace of God begins to leap forth from the pages of the OT. What once was a conundrum for me has become a wealth of pictures of the boundless grace of God.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Day 4
CAUTION: THIS POST IS A SPOILER FOR ANYONE READING STEPHEN KING'S NEW BOOK: "11/23/63."
I owe this post to my good friend Mona. She has been posting about 3s--there is a peculiar phenomenon that things in our world happen in 3s. In fact, the most important year in my life was occasioned by the confluence of three events. But, more on that later. Today, I want to talk about 3s (harmonies) and whether they are evidence of a creator.
Another friend on FB, Luke, posted an article discussing mult-verses. Many scientists now are positing that there are multiple universes. They realize that the probability of life occurring on earth through some cosmic accident is so "de minimis" that only multiple universes--many, many different universes--can explain the random occurrence of life on earth. In other words, there must be many, many universes which are nothing like ours (and which we have never seen) in order for our universe to have life which comports with the probability that life would form on its own. Of course, there is another answer--intelligent design--God.
If there are multiple universes, and ours is simply the result of chance, would you expect to see harmony in our universe, or dis-harmony? In other words, would you expect to see that events are entirely random, or would you expect to see coincidences? In my experience, our world refutes chance and multi-verses.
In his latest book, Stephen King describes harmonies. His main character is a time-traveler bent on stopping the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Presumably, if he can stop the assassination of Kennedy, the present-day world will be a better place. In traveling between the present and 1963, he sees many events which appear to just be coincidences, but they are striking. In fact, he comes to see these coincidences as harmonies. Stephen King even intertwines this book with two of his previous books--harmonies. King captures the beauty of coincidence--those events that point not towards randomness, but towards harmonies--towards an intelligent designer--God. Interestingly, when King's protagonist stops the assassination of Kennedy and then returns to present day, the world is falling apart--there are earthquakes, the U.S. is in disarray politically, and society is crumbling. This man has upset the divine order, and the world is decaying into chaos. He then returns to the past again, allows Kennedy to be killed (in this book, time can be re-set) and when he returns to the present day, things are once again in order. King is right--there is a harmony to life set in place by God, which sinful man tries to destroy--sometimes with the best intentions.
For what it's worth, "11/23/63" is also a beautiful love story. It truly expresses the unselfish love that can exist, although rarely, in our world. The master of horror also captures the existence of God and the beauty of love. Some would say that his stories of horror reflect that the world is under the control of Satan. But virtually all of his books also reflect the light of God which shines into the horrors of this world.
My favorite harmony from the Bible is the birth of the nation of Israel. It all began when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Then, Joseph was wrongly imprisoned due to the lies of Potiphar's wife, where he met the pharaoh's cup-bearer. Due to having met the cup-bearer, Joseph met the pharaoh and interpreted his dream. (Both the baker's and cup-bearer's dreams were of 3s.) The pharaoh exalted Joseph to the number two position in Egypt, which allowed Joseph to make provision for the famine. Due to this, Joseph's family was saved--from whom the twelve tribes were birthed. The Egyptians were saved, and over time the Jews became slaves in Egypt. (The slavery in Egypt allowed the Jews to go from being nomads to having a stable life, which allowed them to multiply. From some 60 men at the time of Joseph, they grew to some 600,000 men at the time of the Exodus--a true nation.) But, as God does, He takes these many actions which were meant for evil and turns them into good. From the slavery and imprisonment of Joseph, to the salvation of his family, to their imprisonment in Egypt, the nation of Israel was birthed some 400 years later. I was telling this story to James when he was 7. James' response: "Oh my gosh, we are God's chess pieces." Kids get it--they understand that God is in charge and that He loves us. That is why Jesus placed such importance on children.
This post itself is the result of a harmony--it results from the confluence of three events: 1)my just having read "11/23/63;" 2)Mona's posts about the triple deaths of terrorists; and 3)Luke's post which discussed multi-verses. In my experience, things do happen in 3s--reflections of the Trinity.
I owe this post to my good friend Mona. She has been posting about 3s--there is a peculiar phenomenon that things in our world happen in 3s. In fact, the most important year in my life was occasioned by the confluence of three events. But, more on that later. Today, I want to talk about 3s (harmonies) and whether they are evidence of a creator.
Another friend on FB, Luke, posted an article discussing mult-verses. Many scientists now are positing that there are multiple universes. They realize that the probability of life occurring on earth through some cosmic accident is so "de minimis" that only multiple universes--many, many different universes--can explain the random occurrence of life on earth. In other words, there must be many, many universes which are nothing like ours (and which we have never seen) in order for our universe to have life which comports with the probability that life would form on its own. Of course, there is another answer--intelligent design--God.
If there are multiple universes, and ours is simply the result of chance, would you expect to see harmony in our universe, or dis-harmony? In other words, would you expect to see that events are entirely random, or would you expect to see coincidences? In my experience, our world refutes chance and multi-verses.
In his latest book, Stephen King describes harmonies. His main character is a time-traveler bent on stopping the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Presumably, if he can stop the assassination of Kennedy, the present-day world will be a better place. In traveling between the present and 1963, he sees many events which appear to just be coincidences, but they are striking. In fact, he comes to see these coincidences as harmonies. Stephen King even intertwines this book with two of his previous books--harmonies. King captures the beauty of coincidence--those events that point not towards randomness, but towards harmonies--towards an intelligent designer--God. Interestingly, when King's protagonist stops the assassination of Kennedy and then returns to present day, the world is falling apart--there are earthquakes, the U.S. is in disarray politically, and society is crumbling. This man has upset the divine order, and the world is decaying into chaos. He then returns to the past again, allows Kennedy to be killed (in this book, time can be re-set) and when he returns to the present day, things are once again in order. King is right--there is a harmony to life set in place by God, which sinful man tries to destroy--sometimes with the best intentions.
For what it's worth, "11/23/63" is also a beautiful love story. It truly expresses the unselfish love that can exist, although rarely, in our world. The master of horror also captures the existence of God and the beauty of love. Some would say that his stories of horror reflect that the world is under the control of Satan. But virtually all of his books also reflect the light of God which shines into the horrors of this world.
My favorite harmony from the Bible is the birth of the nation of Israel. It all began when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Then, Joseph was wrongly imprisoned due to the lies of Potiphar's wife, where he met the pharaoh's cup-bearer. Due to having met the cup-bearer, Joseph met the pharaoh and interpreted his dream. (Both the baker's and cup-bearer's dreams were of 3s.) The pharaoh exalted Joseph to the number two position in Egypt, which allowed Joseph to make provision for the famine. Due to this, Joseph's family was saved--from whom the twelve tribes were birthed. The Egyptians were saved, and over time the Jews became slaves in Egypt. (The slavery in Egypt allowed the Jews to go from being nomads to having a stable life, which allowed them to multiply. From some 60 men at the time of Joseph, they grew to some 600,000 men at the time of the Exodus--a true nation.) But, as God does, He takes these many actions which were meant for evil and turns them into good. From the slavery and imprisonment of Joseph, to the salvation of his family, to their imprisonment in Egypt, the nation of Israel was birthed some 400 years later. I was telling this story to James when he was 7. James' response: "Oh my gosh, we are God's chess pieces." Kids get it--they understand that God is in charge and that He loves us. That is why Jesus placed such importance on children.
This post itself is the result of a harmony--it results from the confluence of three events: 1)my just having read "11/23/63;" 2)Mona's posts about the triple deaths of terrorists; and 3)Luke's post which discussed multi-verses. In my experience, things do happen in 3s--reflections of the Trinity.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Day 3
The parable of the prodigal son is a favorite amongst many preachers and S.S. teachers in the South. It is taught as a mushy, sentimental statement that the "black sheep" of the family can always come home once he comes to his senses, repents, and seeks forgiveness. Unfortunately, this is not an accurate telling of the parable. The actual meaning of the parable is far more beautiful and profound. Until I heard it taught by Tim Keller, I had never heard it properly taught. The state of preaching and Biblical learning in the Bible Belt is simply abysmal.
In my experience with many churches, most preachers focus on the prodigal son and the beautiful reunion between the prodigal and his father. Unfortunately, most of these preachers also believe that, unless and until we forgive others, we won't be forgiven by God. These preachers teach that, once you ask forgiveness, the father will forgive. However, the prodigal portion of this parable directly refutes this.
The father (God) doesn't wait for the prodigal son to ask for forgiveness. Instead, the father runs, simply throws convention and propriety aside, and runs to his long-lost son. The son doesn't have to ask for forgiveness first--the son is already forgiven by the father. It works the same way with us. Only when we know that we are "a priori" forgiven will we truly confess and truly repent. If we have to repent first, we always wonder whether we will be forgiven; therefore, our confession and repentance is guarded at best. Just think about your relationship with your spouse. If you know that your spouse is going to forgive you, you readily confess and repent. If, on the other hand, you don't know whether you will receive forgiveness, you may cover up your misdeeds. So, most times, the portion of the parable dealing with the prodigal son is mis-taught--it is taught that forgiveness is waiting on our confession. Instead, forgiveness leads to confession. This is a principle that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
What is almost never taught is that the elder son, the Pharisee, the self-righteous one, is the one that was the farthest from God. The son who squandered his inheritance, consorted with whores, wound up eating with pigs, i.e., completely dishonored his father--still had a closer relationship with the father than the elder son. Jesus directed this parable to the Pharisees (the church people of their day) to illustrate their distance from God. Surely the son who dishonored his father is the one who should be farthest from the father's heart, not the son who stayed home, raised the cattle, and kept the home fires burning. So, Jesus' parable was a huge affront to the self-righteous religious people. Jesus had a radical view of humanity. It is not the outwardly righteous who have a relationship with God, but those who have had their hearts transformed. Unfortunately, in order to have a heart transformation, we must learn that deep down we are sinners. This usually is occasioned by some type of fall or impasse. This is why the prodigal son had a loving relationship with his father, while the elder brother did not.
The younger son had come to the end of himself, he had encountered a "merciful imasse" as Paul Zahl teaches, and thereby learned that he was a sinner. In contrast, the elder brother did not realize that he was a sinner. The elder brother thought that he was a righteous fellow and deserved his father's good will. The younger son understood that he deserved nothing from his father. When we understand that God is not in our debt, but that we are in his debt, then (and only then) can we begin to understand the depth of the father's love for us. Then, and only then, can we experience the freedom to forgive, to love, and to begin to be the persons that God created us to be.
So, this Christmas, let's consider the true Jesus--the God-man who turned upside down the apple carts of religious people like me.
P.S. I once taught the parable of the prodigal son just like everyone else. Then, by God's grace, I heard Keller teach it about 10 years ago. When I point the finger at the self-righteous, I must first point it at myself.
P.P.S. Praise God for the few preachers, the very few, such as Zahl, Tchividjian, Keller, Capon, and Rosenbladt, who truly understand the Gospel and proclaim it in all of its radically--regardless of the personal consequences to them.
In my experience with many churches, most preachers focus on the prodigal son and the beautiful reunion between the prodigal and his father. Unfortunately, most of these preachers also believe that, unless and until we forgive others, we won't be forgiven by God. These preachers teach that, once you ask forgiveness, the father will forgive. However, the prodigal portion of this parable directly refutes this.
The father (God) doesn't wait for the prodigal son to ask for forgiveness. Instead, the father runs, simply throws convention and propriety aside, and runs to his long-lost son. The son doesn't have to ask for forgiveness first--the son is already forgiven by the father. It works the same way with us. Only when we know that we are "a priori" forgiven will we truly confess and truly repent. If we have to repent first, we always wonder whether we will be forgiven; therefore, our confession and repentance is guarded at best. Just think about your relationship with your spouse. If you know that your spouse is going to forgive you, you readily confess and repent. If, on the other hand, you don't know whether you will receive forgiveness, you may cover up your misdeeds. So, most times, the portion of the parable dealing with the prodigal son is mis-taught--it is taught that forgiveness is waiting on our confession. Instead, forgiveness leads to confession. This is a principle that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
What is almost never taught is that the elder son, the Pharisee, the self-righteous one, is the one that was the farthest from God. The son who squandered his inheritance, consorted with whores, wound up eating with pigs, i.e., completely dishonored his father--still had a closer relationship with the father than the elder son. Jesus directed this parable to the Pharisees (the church people of their day) to illustrate their distance from God. Surely the son who dishonored his father is the one who should be farthest from the father's heart, not the son who stayed home, raised the cattle, and kept the home fires burning. So, Jesus' parable was a huge affront to the self-righteous religious people. Jesus had a radical view of humanity. It is not the outwardly righteous who have a relationship with God, but those who have had their hearts transformed. Unfortunately, in order to have a heart transformation, we must learn that deep down we are sinners. This usually is occasioned by some type of fall or impasse. This is why the prodigal son had a loving relationship with his father, while the elder brother did not.
The younger son had come to the end of himself, he had encountered a "merciful imasse" as Paul Zahl teaches, and thereby learned that he was a sinner. In contrast, the elder brother did not realize that he was a sinner. The elder brother thought that he was a righteous fellow and deserved his father's good will. The younger son understood that he deserved nothing from his father. When we understand that God is not in our debt, but that we are in his debt, then (and only then) can we begin to understand the depth of the father's love for us. Then, and only then, can we experience the freedom to forgive, to love, and to begin to be the persons that God created us to be.
So, this Christmas, let's consider the true Jesus--the God-man who turned upside down the apple carts of religious people like me.
P.S. I once taught the parable of the prodigal son just like everyone else. Then, by God's grace, I heard Keller teach it about 10 years ago. When I point the finger at the self-righteous, I must first point it at myself.
P.P.S. Praise God for the few preachers, the very few, such as Zahl, Tchividjian, Keller, Capon, and Rosenbladt, who truly understand the Gospel and proclaim it in all of its radically--regardless of the personal consequences to them.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Day 2
The test for whether a prophet is a true or false prophet is simple--do his or her prophecies/predictions come true? It is said that the entire OT is about Jesus. I once thought this was stretching the truth. Now, I think differently. Not only was Jesus prophesied by Isaiah, but Jesus was even prophesied by Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis.
Isaiah is considered one of the greatest Old Testament prophets, both because his short-term prophecies came true, and because his prophecy of the Messiah came true. In Isaiah Ch. 53, we are told that the Messiah will have the following characteristics:
1)no form or comeliness, no beauty that we should desire him;
2)despised and rejected by man;
3)a man or sorrows, acquainted with grief;
4)like one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised;
5)he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows;
6)yet we considered him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God;
7)he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities;
8)by his stripes we are healed;
9)he was oppressed, yet he was submissive and opened not his mouth;
8)like a lamb, he was led to the slaughter, and he opened not his mouth;
10)he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgressions of his people
11)he was assigned a grave with a rich man;
12)although he had done no violence;
13)neither was there any deceit in his mouth.
Do these sound like the characteristics of a Messiah, of one who was sent to save his people, of one who was sent to save and renew the world? No, they don't. That is one reason why he was rejected by the religious people of his day--he did not throw the Romans out. But, had he thrown the Romans out, the religious people would have only become more religious, more self-righteous, and less sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden.
When my son Mathis was in Second Grade, we were going over this scripture and the characteristics of Christ. Mathis said: "If Jesus had thrown the Romans out, the Jews would only have become more smug." "Smug" was a word that was being frequently used in Mathis' class to describe kids who thought a lot of themselves. By the way, this is no more an indictment of the Second Temple Jews than it is of modern American Christians. I have no doubt but that, if Jesus came today, he would be rejected by the church people of America, just as he was rejected by the Jews.
Before Christ comes in victory, he had to come in defeat. Before we can experience victory, we must experience defeat. Such is the human condition based upon our will to sin--the chief sin of which is narcissism.
Was Moses, or the author of Genesis, a prophet? In Genesis Chapter 3, God tells the serpent:
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he will crush your head, but you will bruise his heel."
If the serpent is Satan, which is a belief of Christians, who can defeat Satan (who can crush his head)? Only another supernatural being, only God. But, this God is also going to be the offspring of a woman--this God is going to be human as well. So, the author of Genesis is prophesying that God will take human form and thereby defeat Satan, but that Satan will hurt God (bruise his heel), but not kill him.
I have never thought of Moses as a prophet, but he, or whoever wrote Genesis, clearly was.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Reflections on Jesus--Day 1
Emmanuel--God with us. No other religion makes this outlandish claim. No other religion claims that God cared enough to share life with his created beings. In all other religions, God is "other," he is not us. How many people have you heard say: "Well, I would believe in God if he appeared to me." Yet, this is exactly what Jesus did--he lived amongst us to confirm his existence.
The life of Jesus (his actual name was Yeshua) is well attested, not only by Christian sources, but also by Jewish and Roman sources. There is no doubt that Yeshua of Nazareth lived. There is no doubt that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Those facts are irrefutable. But, was Jesus God?
First, employing logic strongly suggests that Jesus was God. While many want to think of Jesus as merely a wise man, Lewis points out that a wise man does not claim to be God. Think about it. If Jesus were alive today, living as a nomad, and claiming to be God, we would send him to the closest homeless shelter, not venerate him as a wise man. (What do you think about the guy on the street corner with the placard claiming the world is ending. You don't call him a wise man.) So, you can't claim that Jesus was wise when he made the outlandish claim that he was God. So, either he was a lunatic, or he could have been a con man (although it's unclear what he gained from being one), or he was God.
Second, at the time of his crucifixion, all of his friends abandoned him except for the women. Yet, after the purported resurrection, all of the apostles, save one, were martyred for their beliefs. They changed from cowards to courageous men--the best explanation for this is the Resurrection. (By the way, the story of the empty tomb seems true, because if it was a "made up" story, the creator of the story would have had men find the empty tomb, not women.) Not only did the apostles change from cowards to courageous men, but many, many Christians were martyred rather than recant their faith. The Romans used Christians for all type of blood sports--had them fight gladiators, had them fight wild animals, crucified them, and even lit them as torches. Still the Christian faith spread. The Christian faith spread even with the threat and reality of violence done to the early believers. (In sharp contrast, Islam has always spread by violence--by the point of a sword. In Christianity, the violence was done to the Christians because they professed allegiance to Christ. In Islam, the violence was done to persons to force them to profess allegiance to Mohammed. The two religions couldn't be more different.) So, the early believers persisted in their faith in Christ, and the resurrection, even in the face of death. If the Resurrection happened, as they believed to their death, then Jesus was God.
Finally, Jesus' teachings were unique--they went beyond anything that any man had ever taught insofar as ethics. No other religious teacher ever contended that the Law is so perfect that men cannot keep it. No other religious leader attacks man's thoughts to the degree that Jesus did. Jesus knew that, if you could change hearts, you could change actions. Jesus knew that grace, not compulsion or duty, is the only true change agent. Jesus taught these things, and they went against the grain of all existing religious orders.
So, this year at Christmas, take a new look at Jesus. Set aside what they are teaching you in church--about how to live holy lives or how to have your best life now. For heaven's sake, don't let the religious teachers and preachers convince you that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Instead, read the New Testament as if you have never read it before. Look at the people that Jesus consorted with--the downtrodden, the social outcasts, the non-religious. Look at what sharp, penetrating words Jesus had for the religious people. You can't help but, at the very least, desire for Jesus to be God, if not decide that he was God.
The life of Jesus (his actual name was Yeshua) is well attested, not only by Christian sources, but also by Jewish and Roman sources. There is no doubt that Yeshua of Nazareth lived. There is no doubt that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Those facts are irrefutable. But, was Jesus God?
First, employing logic strongly suggests that Jesus was God. While many want to think of Jesus as merely a wise man, Lewis points out that a wise man does not claim to be God. Think about it. If Jesus were alive today, living as a nomad, and claiming to be God, we would send him to the closest homeless shelter, not venerate him as a wise man. (What do you think about the guy on the street corner with the placard claiming the world is ending. You don't call him a wise man.) So, you can't claim that Jesus was wise when he made the outlandish claim that he was God. So, either he was a lunatic, or he could have been a con man (although it's unclear what he gained from being one), or he was God.
Second, at the time of his crucifixion, all of his friends abandoned him except for the women. Yet, after the purported resurrection, all of the apostles, save one, were martyred for their beliefs. They changed from cowards to courageous men--the best explanation for this is the Resurrection. (By the way, the story of the empty tomb seems true, because if it was a "made up" story, the creator of the story would have had men find the empty tomb, not women.) Not only did the apostles change from cowards to courageous men, but many, many Christians were martyred rather than recant their faith. The Romans used Christians for all type of blood sports--had them fight gladiators, had them fight wild animals, crucified them, and even lit them as torches. Still the Christian faith spread. The Christian faith spread even with the threat and reality of violence done to the early believers. (In sharp contrast, Islam has always spread by violence--by the point of a sword. In Christianity, the violence was done to the Christians because they professed allegiance to Christ. In Islam, the violence was done to persons to force them to profess allegiance to Mohammed. The two religions couldn't be more different.) So, the early believers persisted in their faith in Christ, and the resurrection, even in the face of death. If the Resurrection happened, as they believed to their death, then Jesus was God.
Finally, Jesus' teachings were unique--they went beyond anything that any man had ever taught insofar as ethics. No other religious teacher ever contended that the Law is so perfect that men cannot keep it. No other religious leader attacks man's thoughts to the degree that Jesus did. Jesus knew that, if you could change hearts, you could change actions. Jesus knew that grace, not compulsion or duty, is the only true change agent. Jesus taught these things, and they went against the grain of all existing religious orders.
So, this year at Christmas, take a new look at Jesus. Set aside what they are teaching you in church--about how to live holy lives or how to have your best life now. For heaven's sake, don't let the religious teachers and preachers convince you that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Instead, read the New Testament as if you have never read it before. Look at the people that Jesus consorted with--the downtrodden, the social outcasts, the non-religious. Look at what sharp, penetrating words Jesus had for the religious people. You can't help but, at the very least, desire for Jesus to be God, if not decide that he was God.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Hitchens, Tebow, and Victory/Defeat
Okay, you can't have a blog that deals with Christianity and not comment on Christopher Hitchens' untimely death. And, given Tebow's immense popularity and public profession of faith, he's a worthy topic as well. What a contrast between the two men and their lives.
When Tebow was at Florida, I wasn't a Tebow fan. I wondered whether he only praised God when he was victorious. This is the problem with most people who publicly thank God--they only thank Him for achievements. But, the thing about Tebow is that I don't believe his faith would be altered by losing. He professes his faith with apparent humility. He continued to proclaim his faith even when things weren't going well for him. Time will tell, but I think Tebow is genuine about his faith. Genuine faith is that which acknowledges that God is good whether one is experiencing victory or defeat, joy or sorrow, easy street or impasse. Genuine faith causes one to continue to praise the creator of the universe even when things turn sour. So, I have changed my mind about Tebow. I'm betting that, like Job, Tebow will praise God even when he encounters difficulty.
Hitchens, with much vitriol, rejected the existence of God. Like most atheists, Hitchens believed that man's belief in God was merely a panacea--merely "wishful thinking." Of course, Hitchens wasn't the first to make this argument. Freud made this argument and used his understanding of psychology to support it. Was Freud any happier than Hitchens? Not according to Harvard professor, Armand Nicholi, who wrote a book comparing Freud's life to Lewis' life--"The Question of God." The book illustrates the joy that Lewis experienced in life (even though he didn't have an easy life), while Freud's life was filled with depression and misery. One could do the same between Tebow and Hitchens--their lives couldn't be any more different.
Nicholi notes that Freud had two principal reasons for rejecting God: 1)he believed that mankind created the idea of God because the world is a difficult place, and man longs for a protector, a helper, i.e., the existence of god is merely wishful thinking; and 2)he believed that the degree of suffering and pain in the world meant that there could be no higher power. "The Question of God," p. 41. These ideas have been batted around for centuries and are batted around today.
Lewis responded that the "wishful thinking" is actually evidence that we were created for a "different world: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." Lewis believed that earthly blessings were designed to arouse in us a desire for another world, but could never satisfy that desire. So, Lewis believed that the "wishful thinking" was actually a God-given desire for our true home.
Insofar as the argument for human suffering and difficulty proving the non-existence of God, the Bible suggests that only difficulty and suffering can pry the things of this world from our grasping hands. While this is a difficult pill to swallow, it certainly has been proven in my life. So, the existence of difficulty and suffering, rather than suggesting that God doesn't exist or that God is against man, actually proves God's love for man. When we finally let go, at least to some degree, of seeking earthly blessings, God reveals himself in a powerful way, which leads to love, love, love for one's fellow man.
So, this is one of the reasons that the Cross is so powerful. The Cross is God's expression that He, like us, wishes the world was different, but that, given man's self-will to sin and man's complete narcissism, the only loving response is to open our eyes through suffering. This doesn't mean that we should seek out difficulty and suffering. Instead, it will find us right where we are. One caveat is that I have not experienced the degree of suffering that many have--so it is easier for me to make this statement than for many. One of my best friends, who is Jewish, finds God to be merciful even though he lost his brother and mother early in his life. My friend's faith in a merciful God, despite his own suffering, is a wonderful picture of faith.
Insofar as my feelings about Hitchens, I can't express my thoughts any better than a dear friend, Michael Dennis, did. Today, Michael posted:
"However foolish or insignificant it may be to the world and the modern atheist, I'd bet everything I had on the reliability and truthfulness of God's word in its three forms: oral, written, and sacramental. I don't think people who believe in God are any better than those who don't, but I am convinced that gambling against and rejecting God in Christ has extremely dire and irreversible consequences. I will miss Christopher Hitchens. He made me think deeply. At times he infuriated me and at times he made me laugh uncontrollably. I can only hope that God extended mercy to him and triumphed over his resistance and animosity. Lord, have mercy upon us all."
When Tebow was at Florida, I wasn't a Tebow fan. I wondered whether he only praised God when he was victorious. This is the problem with most people who publicly thank God--they only thank Him for achievements. But, the thing about Tebow is that I don't believe his faith would be altered by losing. He professes his faith with apparent humility. He continued to proclaim his faith even when things weren't going well for him. Time will tell, but I think Tebow is genuine about his faith. Genuine faith is that which acknowledges that God is good whether one is experiencing victory or defeat, joy or sorrow, easy street or impasse. Genuine faith causes one to continue to praise the creator of the universe even when things turn sour. So, I have changed my mind about Tebow. I'm betting that, like Job, Tebow will praise God even when he encounters difficulty.
Hitchens, with much vitriol, rejected the existence of God. Like most atheists, Hitchens believed that man's belief in God was merely a panacea--merely "wishful thinking." Of course, Hitchens wasn't the first to make this argument. Freud made this argument and used his understanding of psychology to support it. Was Freud any happier than Hitchens? Not according to Harvard professor, Armand Nicholi, who wrote a book comparing Freud's life to Lewis' life--"The Question of God." The book illustrates the joy that Lewis experienced in life (even though he didn't have an easy life), while Freud's life was filled with depression and misery. One could do the same between Tebow and Hitchens--their lives couldn't be any more different.
Nicholi notes that Freud had two principal reasons for rejecting God: 1)he believed that mankind created the idea of God because the world is a difficult place, and man longs for a protector, a helper, i.e., the existence of god is merely wishful thinking; and 2)he believed that the degree of suffering and pain in the world meant that there could be no higher power. "The Question of God," p. 41. These ideas have been batted around for centuries and are batted around today.
Lewis responded that the "wishful thinking" is actually evidence that we were created for a "different world: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." Lewis believed that earthly blessings were designed to arouse in us a desire for another world, but could never satisfy that desire. So, Lewis believed that the "wishful thinking" was actually a God-given desire for our true home.
Insofar as the argument for human suffering and difficulty proving the non-existence of God, the Bible suggests that only difficulty and suffering can pry the things of this world from our grasping hands. While this is a difficult pill to swallow, it certainly has been proven in my life. So, the existence of difficulty and suffering, rather than suggesting that God doesn't exist or that God is against man, actually proves God's love for man. When we finally let go, at least to some degree, of seeking earthly blessings, God reveals himself in a powerful way, which leads to love, love, love for one's fellow man.
So, this is one of the reasons that the Cross is so powerful. The Cross is God's expression that He, like us, wishes the world was different, but that, given man's self-will to sin and man's complete narcissism, the only loving response is to open our eyes through suffering. This doesn't mean that we should seek out difficulty and suffering. Instead, it will find us right where we are. One caveat is that I have not experienced the degree of suffering that many have--so it is easier for me to make this statement than for many. One of my best friends, who is Jewish, finds God to be merciful even though he lost his brother and mother early in his life. My friend's faith in a merciful God, despite his own suffering, is a wonderful picture of faith.
Insofar as my feelings about Hitchens, I can't express my thoughts any better than a dear friend, Michael Dennis, did. Today, Michael posted:
"However foolish or insignificant it may be to the world and the modern atheist, I'd bet everything I had on the reliability and truthfulness of God's word in its three forms: oral, written, and sacramental. I don't think people who believe in God are any better than those who don't, but I am convinced that gambling against and rejecting God in Christ has extremely dire and irreversible consequences. I will miss Christopher Hitchens. He made me think deeply. At times he infuriated me and at times he made me laugh uncontrollably. I can only hope that God extended mercy to him and triumphed over his resistance and animosity. Lord, have mercy upon us all."
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Goonies, Stand by Me, and True Happiness
Paul Zahl says that nostalgia is longing for a time of emancipation. When were you truly emancipated--when you were playing with your grade school friends. These feelings of emancipation and playfulness are wonderfully captured in movies like: The Goonies, It, Stand by Me, and recently Super 8.
About a dozen years ago, I purchased a road bide. It wasn't for exercise (at least not primarily)--it was to try and recapture the wonderful times that I experienced with my grade school friends. We each had 10 speed bikes, and we went on many trips--often up to 25 miles. Our parents didn't know where we were going. In 1970s Tuscaloosa, our parents probably didn't need to know where we were going. My memories of the camaraderie and adventure with my friends still warms my heart, still conjures up a longing for those times. Am I unique in this? I don't think so.
Every time that I have seen these friends again, what do we talk about? We talk about all of the times that we got together and rode. We don't talk about disappointments that came later in high school--we talk about those wonderful times of freedom, camaraderie, and adventure.
When my middle son, James, was 8 or 9, I bought him a road bike. Unfortunately for James, none of his friends had road bikes. (How come so many adults have road bikes, but kids do not? Maybe many of the adults are hankering for their childhood, like me.) Since none of his friends had road bikes, James rode with me. We had many good times together, but it wasn't the same for him as it was for me when I was a kid. You see, James was riding with his dad, and not his friends. No matter how good our father/son relationship was, it couldn't provide the camaraderie and adventure of being with friends. So, as James became 11 or so, our rides together became less and less frequent. (By the way, kids probably don't have road bikes today, because we as parents are afraid to allow them the freedom due to traffic.)
So, what does this have to do with "true happiness." By the Bible's definition, true happiness arises from our fellowship with God and man. True happiness doesn't come from achievement in life. We want our children to follow their dreams, but dreams are always, always "dead ends." My dream was to be a respected attorney and partner in a fine law firm. What happened when I achieved that--I had daily thoughts of suicide for a year! I wondered--"Is this all there is to life?"
This led me to re-focus my primary attention on my family and friends and, by God's grace, on Him. This has led to freedom to be a lawyer, not duty. This has caused me to be a better lawyer. My dream is now reality, but it came from relinquishing that dream and embracing relationships. Most importantly, this has brought me happiness through my fellowship with God and man (my wife, my children, my co-workers, my wonderful friends on Facebook, and my brothers and sisters in Christ.) My current relationships remind me of, and point me back to, those wonderful times with my grade school friends, and they point me forward to the new heaven and earth that we will experience when we leave this life.
About a dozen years ago, I purchased a road bide. It wasn't for exercise (at least not primarily)--it was to try and recapture the wonderful times that I experienced with my grade school friends. We each had 10 speed bikes, and we went on many trips--often up to 25 miles. Our parents didn't know where we were going. In 1970s Tuscaloosa, our parents probably didn't need to know where we were going. My memories of the camaraderie and adventure with my friends still warms my heart, still conjures up a longing for those times. Am I unique in this? I don't think so.
Every time that I have seen these friends again, what do we talk about? We talk about all of the times that we got together and rode. We don't talk about disappointments that came later in high school--we talk about those wonderful times of freedom, camaraderie, and adventure.
When my middle son, James, was 8 or 9, I bought him a road bike. Unfortunately for James, none of his friends had road bikes. (How come so many adults have road bikes, but kids do not? Maybe many of the adults are hankering for their childhood, like me.) Since none of his friends had road bikes, James rode with me. We had many good times together, but it wasn't the same for him as it was for me when I was a kid. You see, James was riding with his dad, and not his friends. No matter how good our father/son relationship was, it couldn't provide the camaraderie and adventure of being with friends. So, as James became 11 or so, our rides together became less and less frequent. (By the way, kids probably don't have road bikes today, because we as parents are afraid to allow them the freedom due to traffic.)
So, what does this have to do with "true happiness." By the Bible's definition, true happiness arises from our fellowship with God and man. True happiness doesn't come from achievement in life. We want our children to follow their dreams, but dreams are always, always "dead ends." My dream was to be a respected attorney and partner in a fine law firm. What happened when I achieved that--I had daily thoughts of suicide for a year! I wondered--"Is this all there is to life?"
This led me to re-focus my primary attention on my family and friends and, by God's grace, on Him. This has led to freedom to be a lawyer, not duty. This has caused me to be a better lawyer. My dream is now reality, but it came from relinquishing that dream and embracing relationships. Most importantly, this has brought me happiness through my fellowship with God and man (my wife, my children, my co-workers, my wonderful friends on Facebook, and my brothers and sisters in Christ.) My current relationships remind me of, and point me back to, those wonderful times with my grade school friends, and they point me forward to the new heaven and earth that we will experience when we leave this life.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Why Jesus Came--To Reveal God
Why did Jesus come? In church, the most common explanation for why Jesus came is penal substitutionary atonement (PST)--which is one way of understanding why Christ came. But, is it the most important understanding of Christ's purpose in coming to earth?
Recently, at a party, I was speaking with a non-practicing Jew (who, by the way, was a lovely man exuding humor and grace) who I believe questions God's existence in large part due to his understanding of the OT. His understanding is taught by many who purport to be Christians--that (before Christ) God was interested mainly in the Jews; and that God instructed the Jews to wipe out peoples for the benefit of the Jews. In other words, many Christians proclaim a God of "ethnic cleansing." But, is that God's true character? What does Christ's advent say about God's character? Perhaps this is the most important understanding of why Christ came.
Before we get to that, let's look at the most widely held doctrine of why Christ came--PST. It's a shorthand way of describing that Christ came to die to make peace between man and God. It's one way to understand what the angels said: "Peace on earth, good will to men." The angels weren't proclaiming world peace; rather, the angels were proclaiming peace between God and man. Through the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, we understand that Christ's death set things right between God and man--His death (penal) instead of us (substitutionary) resulted in peace between God and His children (atonement). And, I believe in this doctrine, but I think there is a more helpful way of understanding why Christ came.
When one reads the Old Testament, we see that the Jews believed that God was relating primarily to one group of people (them). We see that the Jews believed that God directed them to kill other ethnic groups for the benefit of the Jews. But, there are portions of the OT which refute these ideas.
In Gen. 14:18-20, Abraham gives tithes to Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, the King of Salem (Jerusalem is the "new" Salem). Christ is even referred to as a type of Melchizedek. Heb. 7:1-22. In the Book of Jonah, we see an unwilling preacher sent to proclaim God's mercy to the Ninevites. So, it is clear that God was relating to others besides the Jews--that God was interested in all peoples, not just the Jews.
As to the "bloodthirsty" God, many of the peoples that the Jews killed practiced child sacrifice and other evil religious practices. So, one can view the Jews as the instruments of God's justice. But, one also might view God as one who promotes "ethnic cleansing." The God of "ethnic cleansing" is belied by such passages as Exodus 22:21 and Lev. 19:33-34, where God commands the Jews to be gracious to strangers. So, the OT may provide an unclear vision of God--does He love or hate strangers (non-Jews)? God sent Jesus so that there could no longer be any ambiguity in our interpretation of God's character.
When we focus on Christ, we see that He embraced all peoples. In fact, Jesus socialized with the non-religious people--those who appeared least deserving of God's mercy. So, Christ's appearance makes it clear that Christ came for all peoples--not just the Jews who were practicing religion. In fact, the religious people were shown to be the farthest from God.
When we focus on Christ, we see that He did not come on a white charger to kill the Romans and liberate the Jews. If God was the God that so many find in the OT, a God who kills other people for the benefit of the Jews, then this is what Christ would have done. Instead, Christ let the religious people and the Roman authorities kill Him!
What kind of God is Christ--a God that makes it clear, once and for all, that He is for all people and that His works are carried out in a non-violent fashion.
Recently, at a party, I was speaking with a non-practicing Jew (who, by the way, was a lovely man exuding humor and grace) who I believe questions God's existence in large part due to his understanding of the OT. His understanding is taught by many who purport to be Christians--that (before Christ) God was interested mainly in the Jews; and that God instructed the Jews to wipe out peoples for the benefit of the Jews. In other words, many Christians proclaim a God of "ethnic cleansing." But, is that God's true character? What does Christ's advent say about God's character? Perhaps this is the most important understanding of why Christ came.
Before we get to that, let's look at the most widely held doctrine of why Christ came--PST. It's a shorthand way of describing that Christ came to die to make peace between man and God. It's one way to understand what the angels said: "Peace on earth, good will to men." The angels weren't proclaiming world peace; rather, the angels were proclaiming peace between God and man. Through the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, we understand that Christ's death set things right between God and man--His death (penal) instead of us (substitutionary) resulted in peace between God and His children (atonement). And, I believe in this doctrine, but I think there is a more helpful way of understanding why Christ came.
When one reads the Old Testament, we see that the Jews believed that God was relating primarily to one group of people (them). We see that the Jews believed that God directed them to kill other ethnic groups for the benefit of the Jews. But, there are portions of the OT which refute these ideas.
In Gen. 14:18-20, Abraham gives tithes to Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, the King of Salem (Jerusalem is the "new" Salem). Christ is even referred to as a type of Melchizedek. Heb. 7:1-22. In the Book of Jonah, we see an unwilling preacher sent to proclaim God's mercy to the Ninevites. So, it is clear that God was relating to others besides the Jews--that God was interested in all peoples, not just the Jews.
As to the "bloodthirsty" God, many of the peoples that the Jews killed practiced child sacrifice and other evil religious practices. So, one can view the Jews as the instruments of God's justice. But, one also might view God as one who promotes "ethnic cleansing." The God of "ethnic cleansing" is belied by such passages as Exodus 22:21 and Lev. 19:33-34, where God commands the Jews to be gracious to strangers. So, the OT may provide an unclear vision of God--does He love or hate strangers (non-Jews)? God sent Jesus so that there could no longer be any ambiguity in our interpretation of God's character.
When we focus on Christ, we see that He embraced all peoples. In fact, Jesus socialized with the non-religious people--those who appeared least deserving of God's mercy. So, Christ's appearance makes it clear that Christ came for all peoples--not just the Jews who were practicing religion. In fact, the religious people were shown to be the farthest from God.
When we focus on Christ, we see that He did not come on a white charger to kill the Romans and liberate the Jews. If God was the God that so many find in the OT, a God who kills other people for the benefit of the Jews, then this is what Christ would have done. Instead, Christ let the religious people and the Roman authorities kill Him!
What kind of God is Christ--a God that makes it clear, once and for all, that He is for all people and that His works are carried out in a non-violent fashion.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
How Al DelGreco Made Me Weep
I grew up as a rabid Alabama football fan--it came from my mother. When a game came on TV, my father and sister would not watch the game with me and my mother, because we became so emotional--either good or bad depending upon how the game was going. Obviously, this should have revealed to me that I had a problem. But, I was blind. I was blind until my problem was revealed to me by grace. It's always that way--grace is what truly reveals the state of our hearts, not the law. Let me explain.
Since I was a red-blooded, dyed-in-the-wool Alabama fan, I hated Auburn. Maybe hate is too strong, but probably not. I wanted Auburn to lose. I wanted Auburn to be sanctioned for cheating. Sadly, Auburn began beating Alabama during the last 20 years pretty regularly. Sadly, even though Auburn players and Terry Bowden said that Auburn players were paid, little to nothing was done by the NCAA. Where was justice? I wanted justice. So, when the story about Cam came out, I thought that Auburn was finally going to get its comeuppance. I thought that Auburn fans knew about, and were okay with, cheating to win.
Guess what. They are not. My Auburn friends want any cheating to be rooted out. My Auburn friends want to win, but not by cheating. I discovered all of this during the Cam scandal, and it was illuminating. What's more, one of my rabid Auburn friends congratulated me on the Alabama victory in the Iron Bowl. He didn't make excuses, didn't say: "We'll get you next year." He just gave an unqualified congratulations. Wow! That is grace--that is what changes the human heart--my cold, dead heart.
Then, I was listening to the Opening Drive with Jay, Al, and Tony this past week. For years, I have heard Alabama fans claim that Jay is too gracious towards Auburn. In the past, I felt the same way. Then, the grace of my Auburn friends began changing me. I then became thankful that Jay was so measured in his statements, was so gracious towards Alabama's chief rival. Then Al made me weep.
I was listening to an interview on the OD with an LSU fan, perhaps a sportswriter. Al, Jay, and Tony wished him luck in the SEC Championship game. Then, Al made a comment that I probably won't ever forget. He said: "We are looking forward to a rematch in the BCS Championship game." Al said: "we." I have never been a big fan of Al's (obviously due to my long-held hard-line Alabama fanship), but I will forever view Al in a different light and look forward to hearing what he has to say.
P.S. Sorry for another blog dealing with my Alabama fanship, but, as you can tell, it has been an issue for me.
Since I was a red-blooded, dyed-in-the-wool Alabama fan, I hated Auburn. Maybe hate is too strong, but probably not. I wanted Auburn to lose. I wanted Auburn to be sanctioned for cheating. Sadly, Auburn began beating Alabama during the last 20 years pretty regularly. Sadly, even though Auburn players and Terry Bowden said that Auburn players were paid, little to nothing was done by the NCAA. Where was justice? I wanted justice. So, when the story about Cam came out, I thought that Auburn was finally going to get its comeuppance. I thought that Auburn fans knew about, and were okay with, cheating to win.
Guess what. They are not. My Auburn friends want any cheating to be rooted out. My Auburn friends want to win, but not by cheating. I discovered all of this during the Cam scandal, and it was illuminating. What's more, one of my rabid Auburn friends congratulated me on the Alabama victory in the Iron Bowl. He didn't make excuses, didn't say: "We'll get you next year." He just gave an unqualified congratulations. Wow! That is grace--that is what changes the human heart--my cold, dead heart.
Then, I was listening to the Opening Drive with Jay, Al, and Tony this past week. For years, I have heard Alabama fans claim that Jay is too gracious towards Auburn. In the past, I felt the same way. Then, the grace of my Auburn friends began changing me. I then became thankful that Jay was so measured in his statements, was so gracious towards Alabama's chief rival. Then Al made me weep.
I was listening to an interview on the OD with an LSU fan, perhaps a sportswriter. Al, Jay, and Tony wished him luck in the SEC Championship game. Then, Al made a comment that I probably won't ever forget. He said: "We are looking forward to a rematch in the BCS Championship game." Al said: "we." I have never been a big fan of Al's (obviously due to my long-held hard-line Alabama fanship), but I will forever view Al in a different light and look forward to hearing what he has to say.
P.S. Sorry for another blog dealing with my Alabama fanship, but, as you can tell, it has been an issue for me.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Stewarship in the IC
Thesis 1--Preachers generally only preach about money during stewardship campaigns.
If Jesus spoke so much about money, which He did, why don’t preachers address money more than once during the year?
Are we to give money to those less needy? Of course. Don’t we see others throughout the year who need our help? So, preachers should preach about money throughout the year, not just during stewardship season. When preachers only address money during a stewardship campaign, they lose credibility in speaking about money, because everyone sitting in the audience knows that the pastor is speaking about money in order to loosen his audience’s purse strings to benefit his church.
On the other hand, if you address money and greed in a proper way throughout the year, then people’s hearts are open to helping others and to giving to the church.
Thesis 2—The 10% tithe has no application to the IC or to the ecclesia.
From an exegetical basis, read the commandments in the OT about tithing in the context of a theocracy and try to apply them to modern day America. The use of the tithes for each family to have a celebratory meal with God and their fellow citizens in God’s nation simply doesn’t translate to today (Dt. 14:22-29). Unless, of course, you read this command to use our tithes to support July 4th celebrations. That is the closest that I can come in seeking to translate to today’s reality, and that would probably be a ludicrous result. We already place too much emphasis on America as being a Christian nation. America is not a theocracy and won’t be until Jesus comes back.
From an exegetical basis, read the commandments in the OT about tithing in the context of a theocracy and try to apply them to modern day America. The use of the tithes for each family to have a celebratory meal with God and their fellow citizens in God’s nation simply doesn’t translate to today (Dt. 14:22-29). Unless, of course, you read this command to use our tithes to support July 4th celebrations. That is the closest that I can come in seeking to translate to today’s reality, and that would probably be a ludicrous result. We already place too much emphasis on America as being a Christian nation. America is not a theocracy and won’t be until Jesus comes back.
The 10% tithe in “every third year” prescribed in Deuteronomy 26:12 was designed to provide for the livelihood of one of the twelve tribes, the Levites, as well as the poor. The Levites were charged with constantly praying and working for the spiritual benefit of the Nation of Israel. The Levites made up about 3% of the population. (Num. 1-3) So, one-thirtieth of the population was being supported by the 10% given every third year. If this command has application to the NT church, then it is only for 3% per year, not 10%. (John MacArthur points out that the total giving each year was 23%, which he analogizes to our current tax structure. Remember the Nation of Israel and the religious structure were "one and the same.")
Thesis 3—Today's church has no comparison to the NT church.
What’s more, the early church met in the homes of believers—there was very little overhead. Now, our churches have become institutions with multi-millions of dollars in overhead. To be good stewards of our money, perhaps churches should re-think the church model. Rather than erecting buildings which are only fully utilized for a few hours during the week, perhaps churches should lease space or erect multi-purpose buildings. Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple, and I don’t think Jesus is going to be any happier with our generation for spending billions of dollars on church buildings. (Read Garry Wills' thoughts about this in his wonderful book: "What Jesus Meant."
Thesis 4--How much should you give to a local church.
First, it is helpful to remember that Jesus did not come to form an institutional church. Institutional churches sprang up, because humans always institutionalize things. Humans are unwilling to rely upon the Holy Spirit to create community and to proclaim the Gospel, so we create institutions for community and to proclaim the Gospel. Further, institutional churches are a way for us to feel like we are doing God's work, without our really having to become personally involved in God's work.
Second, I heard a preacher proclaim how exciting it would be to live sacrificially, i.e., giving beyond our means and then waiting expectantly on God to meet our needs. Obviously, this preacher did not think the institutional church and its leaders should embrace this excitement, because they want a "pledge." I am not against pledges--but people are called to responsible with their money, just as churches are. St. Paul was very clear about this.
Third, budget the money which God has given to you. Give to the local institutional church, if you have found one which proclaims the Gospel. If the church doesn't proclaim the true Gospel in all of its radicality, then is it really any different from giving to a mosque?
Thesis 5--Giving is to be from the heart.
Jesus turned everything on its head when he changed the focus from our outward actions to our hearts. Jesus knew that one's actions can only be changed by changing one's heart. Once our hearts are changed by the Gospel (if you are fortunate enough to hear the Gospel proclaimed or made known to you), giving will become second nature. Your giving won't just be to the IC, but to real people that you bump into in your daily lives. So, when your preacher prescribes a formula for your giving, say: "No thanks preacher. I'm a child of god. My direction comes from the Scripture and the Holy Spirit, not from man."
First, it is helpful to remember that Jesus did not come to form an institutional church. Institutional churches sprang up, because humans always institutionalize things. Humans are unwilling to rely upon the Holy Spirit to create community and to proclaim the Gospel, so we create institutions for community and to proclaim the Gospel. Further, institutional churches are a way for us to feel like we are doing God's work, without our really having to become personally involved in God's work.
Second, I heard a preacher proclaim how exciting it would be to live sacrificially, i.e., giving beyond our means and then waiting expectantly on God to meet our needs. Obviously, this preacher did not think the institutional church and its leaders should embrace this excitement, because they want a "pledge." I am not against pledges--but people are called to responsible with their money, just as churches are. St. Paul was very clear about this.
Third, budget the money which God has given to you. Give to the local institutional church, if you have found one which proclaims the Gospel. If the church doesn't proclaim the true Gospel in all of its radicality, then is it really any different from giving to a mosque?
Thesis 5--Giving is to be from the heart.
Jesus turned everything on its head when he changed the focus from our outward actions to our hearts. Jesus knew that one's actions can only be changed by changing one's heart. Once our hearts are changed by the Gospel (if you are fortunate enough to hear the Gospel proclaimed or made known to you), giving will become second nature. Your giving won't just be to the IC, but to real people that you bump into in your daily lives. So, when your preacher prescribes a formula for your giving, say: "No thanks preacher. I'm a child of god. My direction comes from the Scripture and the Holy Spirit, not from man."
Friday, November 25, 2011
Jesus and Friends
"Jesus and Friends" is a TV show on the TV show, South Park. Why does Jesus have a TV show on South Park? Are the writers being sacrilegious? Are the writers demeaning who Jesus was, i.e., why would the son of God have a TV show? I don't think it's any of those things. I think, by giving Jesus a TV show, the writers of South Park are saying that we wouldn't recognize him as the son of God, just as the first century Jews didn't. We want to think that, if Jesus showed up at our church or at our front door, we would warmly welcome him. I'm just not sure this is true. The writers of South Park are saying that, if Jesus was alive today, he would need to introduce himself to us, because we would not recognize him for who He really is.
So, why didn't the Jews recognize him, and why wouldn't we? First, the Jews thought that the Messiah would come on a white horse and liberate Israel from the Romans. They were expecting someone who would exact worldly victory. We think that, if Jesus came back, he would heap blessings on America--that He would make America the "shining city on the hill." Instead, Jesus came and was killed by the religious people of his time. The non-religious types, the Romans, actually tried to save Him, but the religious people wouldn't have it--Jesus was an affront to their view of God. If Jesus was God, then there would be no earthly victory for Israel, no earthly victory for the religious people. If Jesus came today, He wouldn't be about saving America--the religious people of America wouldn't like this or put up with it any more than the first century religious people did.
Second, Jesus hung around with the social outcasts. He hung around with the tax collectors, the poor--the non-religious people. If He came today, who would he hang out with--the religious people or the non-religious people? Recently, I was attending a funeral with my daughter. She wanted to prepare me to meet some of the young people that would be there. She said: "You know dad, there will be a transgender person, a friend of mine." At the funeral, I met several of my daughter's friends and acquaintances. They asked her whether she was going to sit with them or with her dad. I overheard and asked why they didn't think I would sit with them. "Oh, you probably wouldn't like us very much." I am sure that I looked like just another religious person to them. But, in God's grace, I got to have a nice chat with them. It really brought home to me again how religious I can be at times. Jesus did not come to found a religion or a church--Jesus came to bring solace to sufferers. If Jesus showed up at our churches with persons of different sexual orientation, would we let Him in? If Jesus showed up with Abraham (a man who offered his wife sexually to another man), with David (an adulterer and murderer), with the "rag tag" prophets, would we let Him in?
So, why didn't the Jews recognize him, and why wouldn't we? First, the Jews thought that the Messiah would come on a white horse and liberate Israel from the Romans. They were expecting someone who would exact worldly victory. We think that, if Jesus came back, he would heap blessings on America--that He would make America the "shining city on the hill." Instead, Jesus came and was killed by the religious people of his time. The non-religious types, the Romans, actually tried to save Him, but the religious people wouldn't have it--Jesus was an affront to their view of God. If Jesus was God, then there would be no earthly victory for Israel, no earthly victory for the religious people. If Jesus came today, He wouldn't be about saving America--the religious people of America wouldn't like this or put up with it any more than the first century religious people did.
Second, Jesus hung around with the social outcasts. He hung around with the tax collectors, the poor--the non-religious people. If He came today, who would he hang out with--the religious people or the non-religious people? Recently, I was attending a funeral with my daughter. She wanted to prepare me to meet some of the young people that would be there. She said: "You know dad, there will be a transgender person, a friend of mine." At the funeral, I met several of my daughter's friends and acquaintances. They asked her whether she was going to sit with them or with her dad. I overheard and asked why they didn't think I would sit with them. "Oh, you probably wouldn't like us very much." I am sure that I looked like just another religious person to them. But, in God's grace, I got to have a nice chat with them. It really brought home to me again how religious I can be at times. Jesus did not come to found a religion or a church--Jesus came to bring solace to sufferers. If Jesus showed up at our churches with persons of different sexual orientation, would we let Him in? If Jesus showed up with Abraham (a man who offered his wife sexually to another man), with David (an adulterer and murderer), with the "rag tag" prophets, would we let Him in?
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Burden of Karma
I listened to one of Tullian's sermons this morning about our inability to exact justice in this world. Often, we convict innocent people. Often, the guilty go free. In addition to the inadequacy of our criminal justice system, we experience non-criminal injustices every day, such as not being loved by our spouses, being slandered by co-workers, not receiving promotions, being gossiped about at church, etc. Of course, per Christ's diagnosis of sin in the Sermon on the Mount, we are guilty of these same things, both in actions and in our hearts. Praise God, the injustices of this world will ultimately be made right. Because of Christ, the justice that should be exacted against us has already been borne by Him.
Tullian went on to address karma, which I found fascinating. Tullian said that Eastern religions posit that, if we do more good than bad, then we will receive more good than bad in this life. He then went on to say that we Christians believe the same thing. We believe that, if we get up and pray and read our Bible first thing in the morning, that God will bless the rest our of day--that good things will befall us. We believe that, if we don't, bad things will befall us. What a LIE and TRAP of Satan. This type of thinking puts us right back under the burden of the law. We return to struggling to keep the law to please God and thereby make our lives better. This struggle leads either to self-righteousness (when we think God is rewarding us for being good) or despair (when we think God is punishing us for being bad). God doesn't want us to be self-righteous or despairing. God wants us to experience the liberty found in His unqualified, unconditional love. When we get this, when we know that God loves us even when we don't read our Bibles or pray, then we are free to be good, not bound to be good. Then, we run to our Bibles and to prayer to experience the unconditional love of God.
So, thank you Tullian. Thank you for your boldness in proclaiming the Gospel in all of its radically.
Tullian went on to address karma, which I found fascinating. Tullian said that Eastern religions posit that, if we do more good than bad, then we will receive more good than bad in this life. He then went on to say that we Christians believe the same thing. We believe that, if we get up and pray and read our Bible first thing in the morning, that God will bless the rest our of day--that good things will befall us. We believe that, if we don't, bad things will befall us. What a LIE and TRAP of Satan. This type of thinking puts us right back under the burden of the law. We return to struggling to keep the law to please God and thereby make our lives better. This struggle leads either to self-righteousness (when we think God is rewarding us for being good) or despair (when we think God is punishing us for being bad). God doesn't want us to be self-righteous or despairing. God wants us to experience the liberty found in His unqualified, unconditional love. When we get this, when we know that God loves us even when we don't read our Bibles or pray, then we are free to be good, not bound to be good. Then, we run to our Bibles and to prayer to experience the unconditional love of God.
So, thank you Tullian. Thank you for your boldness in proclaiming the Gospel in all of its radically.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Call No Man Father
Jesus didn't command many things, but He did tell us to "call no man father, since your father in heaven is your only father." Jesus, obviously, wasn't referring to our physical fathers, but to those that we might view as our spiritual fathers or perhaps mentors. Why this commandment? Aren't we to revere or elevate other persons?
No, the answer is: "No!" When we revere others, we create huge problems for that person and for ourselves. Pastor and author Steve Brown notes how we place preachers on pedestals. The revered person is put under pressure to perform, pressure to live up to expectations. This inevitably leads to their fall. When they fall, we lose faith in what they stood for.
A friend, Paul Zahl, said that his parishioners always wanted to call him "father" when he was an Episcopal priest. Paul did his best to discourage this, but to no avail. Only after he received his doctorate did they stop calling him "father," then they began calling him Dr. Zahl. Paul probably wouldn't think that that was any better.
When a person is revered, they lose touch with reality. Their identity becomes the one that others place upon them, instead of their God-given identity. This leads time and time again to horrific consequences. The most public recent fruit of such reverence is the story about "Joe Pa" and Penn State. Had Paterno not been so revered, I suspect that Sandusky would have been brought to justice more than a decade ago--many fewer children would have been molested. This appears to be confirmed by the fact that Sandusky was arrested only one week after "Joe Pa" became the winningest coach. This hardly appears coincidental.
This message is also for me. When Bear Bryant died, I cried, really cried. I was 22 when he died. I didn't know him personally. Therefore, I had no reason to grieve except for the fact that I revered his success as the Alabama football coach. I robbed him of his identity in Christ, just as many PSU fans robbed "Joe Pa" of his God-given identity. It is perhaps noteworthy that Bear died within 2 months of retiring as football coach. You have to wonder whether his reason to live was gone? Was his identity gone?
So, who do you revere? Your pastor, a football coach, an actor, a rock star, a co-worker, a mentor. Let's be fair to such persons. Instead of revering them, let's love them. Let's treat them like anyone else. Let's free them from the bondage of our expectations.
No, the answer is: "No!" When we revere others, we create huge problems for that person and for ourselves. Pastor and author Steve Brown notes how we place preachers on pedestals. The revered person is put under pressure to perform, pressure to live up to expectations. This inevitably leads to their fall. When they fall, we lose faith in what they stood for.
A friend, Paul Zahl, said that his parishioners always wanted to call him "father" when he was an Episcopal priest. Paul did his best to discourage this, but to no avail. Only after he received his doctorate did they stop calling him "father," then they began calling him Dr. Zahl. Paul probably wouldn't think that that was any better.
When a person is revered, they lose touch with reality. Their identity becomes the one that others place upon them, instead of their God-given identity. This leads time and time again to horrific consequences. The most public recent fruit of such reverence is the story about "Joe Pa" and Penn State. Had Paterno not been so revered, I suspect that Sandusky would have been brought to justice more than a decade ago--many fewer children would have been molested. This appears to be confirmed by the fact that Sandusky was arrested only one week after "Joe Pa" became the winningest coach. This hardly appears coincidental.
This message is also for me. When Bear Bryant died, I cried, really cried. I was 22 when he died. I didn't know him personally. Therefore, I had no reason to grieve except for the fact that I revered his success as the Alabama football coach. I robbed him of his identity in Christ, just as many PSU fans robbed "Joe Pa" of his God-given identity. It is perhaps noteworthy that Bear died within 2 months of retiring as football coach. You have to wonder whether his reason to live was gone? Was his identity gone?
So, who do you revere? Your pastor, a football coach, an actor, a rock star, a co-worker, a mentor. Let's be fair to such persons. Instead of revering them, let's love them. Let's treat them like anyone else. Let's free them from the bondage of our expectations.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Man's Love for Institutions
The story unfolding at Penn State brings sharply into focus our irrational love for institutions. So, does the ESPN movie: "Roll Tide/War Eagle." So, does our devotion to the plethora (95%) of churches where the Gospel is not preached. Why do we venerate our institutions? Because we are looking for something bigger, greater, and better than ourselves to grasp onto for our identity. It is our search for God. Before there were institutions, societies created gods from earthly materials (stone and metals). They were hoping to grasp onto and obtain favor from something greater. Now, our stone and metal idols are the universities, churches, businesses (Apple) which give us identity.
I am a fairly rabid Alabama fan. I recall when the news about Cam Newton first hit the airwaves, and I was exultant. I thought: "Finally, Auburn's cheating is going to come out." As I began seeing the hurt that this was causing my Auburn friends, I came to repentance. My love for Alabama should not trump my love for my fellow man. I am now glad that Auburn wasn't found to be guilty--it would have devastated my Auburn friends.
Similarly, the rioting students at Penn State appear to be placing their feelings for their institution above their fellow man. It appears that the coaches and administration at Penn State did so as well. I can't come up with any reason for their inaction unless it was to preserve their good names and the good name of their institution. If this is what was going on, it is a most stark example of venerating our institutions over man.
What I have found over time is that only the Suffering Servant will satisfy my craving for identity with something bigger, greater, and better. Instead of trying to preserve His good name and His reputation, the Son of God gave up His good name, gave up His reputation, gave up His life for us, for me, for all of us who seek our identity in institutions, rather than Him. What a God! What a Savior!
I am a fairly rabid Alabama fan. I recall when the news about Cam Newton first hit the airwaves, and I was exultant. I thought: "Finally, Auburn's cheating is going to come out." As I began seeing the hurt that this was causing my Auburn friends, I came to repentance. My love for Alabama should not trump my love for my fellow man. I am now glad that Auburn wasn't found to be guilty--it would have devastated my Auburn friends.
Similarly, the rioting students at Penn State appear to be placing their feelings for their institution above their fellow man. It appears that the coaches and administration at Penn State did so as well. I can't come up with any reason for their inaction unless it was to preserve their good names and the good name of their institution. If this is what was going on, it is a most stark example of venerating our institutions over man.
What I have found over time is that only the Suffering Servant will satisfy my craving for identity with something bigger, greater, and better. Instead of trying to preserve His good name and His reputation, the Son of God gave up His good name, gave up His reputation, gave up His life for us, for me, for all of us who seek our identity in institutions, rather than Him. What a God! What a Savior!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)