Yeshua was beautifully weird (My favorite "Christian" movies--"Signs" and "Kung Fu Hustle")

As Christians, it is difficult to step outside our religious upbringing and see the beauty and weirdness of Yeshua (Jesus).  That is why I absolutely love "Kung Fu Hustle" and "Signs."  While one of the main characters in "Signs" is a priest who loses, and then regains, his faith; the sic-fi nature of the film allows the religious scales to fall from one's eyes and to see Jesus for the first time or, at least, through fresh eyes.  "Kung Fu Hustle" doesn't haven't any Christian characters--it is a sub-titled Kung Fu movie by Stephen Cho.  Yet, it is vastly more "Christian" than most overtly Christian movies.  I don't know whether Shymalan is a Christian, but he clearly understands Christianity.  Stephen Cho is not a Christian, but Chinese culture embraces the below-described Christian themes.

SPOILER ALERT--I WILL DISCUSS THE PLOT OF THESE MOVIES IN SOME DETAIL

By the way, both of the movies have hilarious moments, as well as violent and frightening moments.  Some of the scenes may be scary for young children and even some adults--my wife for instance.

Each of these movies illustrates three of the anti-religion, counter-cultural tenets of Christianity:  1)Grace, not law, is the only true change agent  (God is love);  2)Everything works together for good (God is sovereign);  and 3)Weakness triumphs over strength (God became weak (incarnate), then allowed Himself to be hung on a cross).  Each of these themes finds its home in non-religious Christianity.  Shymalan attended Catholic schools, where he obviously learned these principals.  As to Cho, his understanding of these themes is derived from his culture.  Since the Chinese culture is the world's oldest, it stands to reason that they might be able to view the "way that the world works."  The world "works,"  and "still exists," because of these tenets of Christianity and Taoism.  If you get the DVD version of "Kung Fu Hustle," listen to the interview of Cho after the movie.  If you replace "qi" with "holy spirit" in his description of how the world works, you have Christianity.

Grace, not Law

In Signs, Mel's priest character treats everyone with grace, not law.  His brother is welcomed into the family fold after failing in the big leagues since, while he could hit the ball a mile, he also was a strike-out king--"It just never felt right not to swing."  Mel also embraces the weirdness of his children--they are fascinated with aliens, and his daughter constantly leaves half-full glasses of water around the house.  Not big  issues, but I would be telling my kids that aliens aren't real and would be making sure the glasses were picked up.

In Kung Fu Hustle, the principal character is locked in a life and death struggle with the "world's greatest killer."  When he finally appears to have bested him, the "world's greatest killer" feigns surrender only to try and kill with a multi-bladed device like a stiletto.  The protagonist takes the weapon and turns it into a flower.  The killer falls to his knees and calls him "master."

Sovereignty

In Signs, Shymalan uses the death of Mel's wife to save the entire family from the aliens.  This is a recurrent theme in Shymalan's movies.  In "Wide Awake," the death of the boy's grandfather leads him to God.  In "Lady in the Water," the apartment manager's entire family had been killed.  So, he left his doctor's practice, became an apartment manager and was there to save "the lady in the water."

In Kung Fu Hustle, the protagonist literally goes from very near "death" to "life" and thereby goes from being a petty criminal (who wants to be a gangster) to a kung fu master.  The resurrection scene is remarkable.  He becomes a force for good and saves "Pig Sty Alley" (where he lives) from the true gangsters.

Strength in weakness

In Signs, this is one of the most beautiful themes.  The wife's death, the daughter's half-full glasses of water, the brother's being a "strike-out king," and the son's asthma (all negative things by worldly standards) are used to save the family.

In Kung Fu Hustle, the residents of Pig Sty Alley turn out to be Kung Fu masters, and use their gifts in protecting the residents of Pig Sty Alley from the gangsters.  However, each of these Kung Fu masters (except one--the resurrected one) is eventually defeated by the gangsters.  Only one (born of low repute), killed, then resurrected is finally able to deal with the "world's greatest killer," and he does it, in the end, with grace.

I can't help but think that, if more churches embraced the weirdness of Jesus rather than harping on the morality angle, then many, many more people would be drawn to Jesus.

Shazam--Part 2--should the OT be part of the Bible?

"The holy-inspired, inerrant word of God."  When most preachers proclaim this, they have no idea why they're saying what they're saying.  In fact, I have heard this phrase misused, misexplained, and misapplied so many times over the years that I'm sick of hearing it.  What does it mean anyway?  What does it mean to say that the Bible is inerrant when the God of the OT is pictured as a blood-thirsty, genocidal maniac, and Jesus says: "turn the other cheek;  if someone takes your cloak, give him your other possessions."  What gives?  Is the God of the OT really the same as the God of the NT?  Were the church fathers correct when they included the Torah and the Tanech as part of the Bible?

Without the benefit of Jesus, most persons interpreted their relationship with God to be based upon what they brought to the equation, to be based upon living "good" lives.  There were a few that realized that our relationship to God is grace-based, not works-based.  Typically, they were so few that they were called the "remnant."  (Even today, with the benefit of Jesus, most of us interpret our relationship with God in this way.  In fact, Scofield compares the true, invisible church to the "remnant."  For that matter, for many more years than not, the visible church has placed its emphasis on the works of man, rather than the grace of God.)  The Jews also believed that, if God was on their side, then He would destroy their enemies.  These two profound misunderstandings were dispatched by Jesus.

Jesus told us that, if we were going to get to God based upon our works (as the Pharisees were trying to do), then we must be perfect, letting us know that we can never get to God through our own efforts.  Our response is to give up, fall on our knees, say "Uncle," and then simply receive the love of God.  This is referred to as grace--God's disposition towards man is to always be gracious.  Jesus also let us know that God wasn't about killing our enemies.  Jesus told us to "love our enemies."  That is completely antithetical to what the Jews believed.  As I mentioned in a prior blog, it is the fact that Jesus broke with the teachings of Moses that resulted in Him being placed on The Cross.

So, were the Jews errant when they wrote the books of the OT?  Were the books of the OT "holy-inspired" or not?  Given that Jesus referred time and time again to the books of the OT, we must give careful attention to the OT.  If we do, we see that the Jews got it, but didn't get it entirely.  They got it to the degree that God wanted them to get it.  It is Jesus' life and teachings, juxtaposed against the legalism of the religion into which He was born, that gives Christianity its remarkable vitality and insight into the nature of man and the love of God.

First, God told Abraham to be perfect.  So, the standard was the same.  However, it appears that most Jews interpreted the Ten Commandments as legalistic requirements that could be fulfilled, rather than a mirror to reveal our imperfections and turn us to God's grace.  Yet, the stories of the OT are filled with stories of broken people being loved and rescued by God--Abraham (tried to give Sarah to the Pharaoh for sex;  seriously considered sacrificing his son, only to be stopped at the last minute by God);  David (adulterer and murderer);  Sampson (and Delilah);  and it goes on and on.  It appears to have been God's plan for the Jews to be legalistic so that Jesus' advent and teachings (that He came to satisfy the Law) would be that much more radical, that much more glorifying to God, and that much more life-changing for us.  The same is true of the visible church today--it's legalism (and corresponding hypocrisy) is a foil for true Christianity--which is comprised of sinners living solely by the grace of God.  In other words, if Jesus had simply been a foil for an immoral religion, His teachings would have lacked profundity.  Instead, Jesus was a foil for a religion based upon morality.  He was, and is, the most radical person to have ever lived.  His love, for the sinners and outcasts, is the most radical love ever expressed.  His love for man is the same love that we see reflected in the OT.

Second, the Jews lived in a violent age.  It was natural for them to view success in battle as a blessing from God.  Sometimes, as a people, we have no choice but to fight.  In our age, World War II was such a situation.  If you view the events of World War II, and the miraculous resolution of the European Theater and the Asian Theater, it sure appears that a divine hand was at work for good in the world.  So, maybe the Jews weren't mistaken that God was fighting their battles.  Interpreted in this light, Jesus is teaching that, deep down, we are really no different from our enemies.  So, we should be loathe to institute violence.  We may need to respond to violence in a violent fashion, but the violent response should be our last recourse, not our first.

So, maybe now, I can quit wincing when I hear the phrase--the "holy-inspired, inerrant word of God."  Maybe I can exult in this phrase--I sure have come to exult in the stories (and the metanarrative) of the Bible.

Shazam!--For unto you a Child is born.

I recently saw twice "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever" put on by Birmingham Park Players--a community acting group.  It produced many laughs, but also a renewed appreciation for the wonder of the Christ's advent.  It involved the transformation of the typical church Christmas play from a "ho hum" matter into one with real Gospel significance.  The Heardman kids--"the worst kids in town"--bullied their way into the chief acting parts--Mary, Joseph, the wise men, and the Angel--only to become overwhelmed by the Christmas story.  Their awe over "baby Jesus" was best expressed by the Angel speaking to the shepherds:  "Shazam--for unto you a Child is born."

Jesus' advent was a "shazam" moment in time.  I have written before about the continuity of man's understanding of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament with God being:  a)gracious to sinners,  b)in control, and c)working through the weakness of men.  But there is also a huge discontinuity between the OT and the NT--How do you square the God who sent the Jews into the Promised Land to take it by force with the God who:  a)said "turn the other cheek;"  b)said: "whosoever calls another man a fool has committed murder;"  and c)submitted to death on the Cross.  As Paul Zahl has said:  "You may can find the ethic of a first-strike war in the OT, but certainly not in the NT."  So, why this discontinuity?

The Bible represents the divinely inspired efforts of man to understand the relationship between himself and the Creator of the universe, which necessarily involves efforts to understand God's character.  The significant discontinuity in the theme of violence results from man's further understanding of God's character which was manifested in Christ.  Christ's advent was momentous in more ways than one, but certainly this new understanding of the ethic of non-violence illustrates a real shift in man's understanding of God's character and man's nature.  If one is to respond with non-violence, it means several things:  1)human life is so very precious to God;  2)we all are sinners--rarely does one of us actually have the "moral high ground;"  and  3)violence towards another doesn't change that other person's heart.  It is man's heart which God is after.

The discontinuity of Christ also applies to our daily relations with others, not just with the question of war.  In the OT, violence and control were used to achieve "God's plan."  One was able to actualize one's desires or needs by exerting control over others--at least this is one way to read parts of the OT.  Christ's life makes it clear that we are not to use violence, or any other means, to subjugate other's to our will--whether we think it is God's will or not.  As a spouse and parent, it is not okay for me to force, bend, or cajole my wife or children to my will, regardless of whether I think it is God's will.  Once I realized this, it transformed my marriage and family.  In the OT, the exercise of control by the patriarch rarely worked out.  Indeed, the OT is a study of the harsh results of man's exercise of his will.  So, actually the OT is a confirmation that Christ's laying down of control is the only way to life.

So, thank you God for further revealing yourself in your Son that we might better understand Your character, our nature, and thereby be able to relate to one another in a way that brings life to
relationships, not death.

"You Can't Do Anything Wrong"--Love God

Two of my favorite preachers--Paul Zahl and Tullian Tchividjian--are criticized from both sides of the aisle.  Some criticize them for focusing too much on the gracious nature of God.  Others criticize them for focusing too much on the sinful nature of man.  Some critics say:  "God isn't all grace.  If we don't live in a pious/correct fashion, God will be punish us or, at a minimum, be disappointed in us.  We will lose His favor."  (Just think about all of the people who want America to turn from its sins so that we can receive God's blessing.)  Other critics say: "Man isn't totally depraved.  Once we are saved by trusting in Christ, we are a new being."  The fact that they are criticized by both sides of the aisle--by the so-called conservative arm of the church and by the so-called liberal wing of the church--means that they are on to something.  This something is the Gospel.

From Genesis onward, the picture revealed in the Scripture is that of sinful man.  Adam and Eve (whether literal or emblematic) couldn't keep even one law.  They weren't asked to keep ten laws.  (Moses)  They weren't told that they had committed murder when they thought ill of their brother.  (Jesus)  They were asked to keep only one law.  The fact that mankind is pictured from Day One as being incapable of keeping even one law is entirely consistent with Jesus' proclamation that we are too be perfect--the standard (apart from faith in God) is perfection.  So, even after one believes in Christ (and we become a new being in terms of being better able to love others), one remains a sinner.  One is totally depraved in the sense that every area of our lives is sinful.  Are we as bad as we could be?  Thankfully no.  But we do remain sinful until we die.  Just think about all of the times that you have screwed up in parenting or in trying to love your parents or siblings.  If this doesn't reveal your sinful nature, then you're lying to yourself.

Thankfully, we aren't called to get it right the next time.  How many resolutions have you made that you won't screw it up when given another chance?  How many times have you failed in this regard?  When you fail, you don't incur God's ire, wrath, or even displeasure.  God isn't looking down upon you and frowning.  Because when God looks down upon you, He doesn't see you and your sin.  He sees His Son living in you.  His disposition towards us is that of a gracious father.  How do we know this?  Just follow the trail of sinners in the Bible, and God's gracious treatment of them.

Abraham (tried to give his wife to Pharoah for sex to save his own life).  Yet God promised that he would make Abraham the father of many nations.

Isaac (committed the same sin as his father).  Yet God gave Isaac two sons--one of whom would be the father of Israel).

Jacob ("the trickster"--cheated his brother out of his birthright--fled his family to live with pagans--married a pagan).  Yet God blessed Him with twelve children, and God graciously renamed him Israel.

Joseph (a huge braggart--to the extent that his brothers wanted to kill him).  He was used by God to save the Egyptian people and his own family, and thereby created the nation of Israel.

Judah (denied his daughter-in-law the marriage with his third son, and then impregnated her himself).  He was blessed by Israel on his death bed.  From the tribe of Judah came David and Jesus.

Moses (murderer)  Led the Jews out of Israel to form a nation that was to proclaim YHWH to all nations.

David (murder and adulterer)  The greatest king of Israel--a "man after God's own heart."

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea.  "You can't do anything wrong."--Love God.

The Feast of Tabernacles, Heaven, and Butch

On the 15th day of the 7th month, the practitioners of Judaism celebrate the "Feast of Tabernacles (Booths)."  In the olden times, their celebration involved thankfulness for two things: 1)the fall harvest; and 2)the liberation from Egypt.  The tabernacles were small tents or booths which represented the living conditions from the 40 years in the dessert.  For 8 days, the Jewish people live in these booths as a means to foster remembrance of God's deliverance of them.

At the "Transfiguration," Jesus had gone up the mountain with three of his disciples.  Jesus' appearance was transfigured--He shone with a holy light.  His disciples saw Jesus talking with Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (prophecy).  Not only was Jesus transfigured, but he also appeared with two of the Jewish patriarchs--Moses and Elijah--and He was speaking with them.

The disciples' response seems unusual to us--they wanted to erect tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.  They wanted to celebrate.  They had just seen further confirmation that Jesus was possibly the Messiah, and they saw that their patriarchs still lived on in relationship with Jesus.  That would certainly be a call for celebration.  If one believes the New Testament, this seems to be significant evidence of life beyond our earthly lives.

One of my best Jewish friends believes that heaven is a concept created by Christians to try and make people act right.  I have to admit that, in some churches, the concept of heaven is used in this fashion.  But the concept of heaven (put aside for a moment whether it's real) is a much more radical concept than merely a "carrot" to change people's conduct.  The concept of heaven is based upon a concept of a loving God that wants to be in relationship with His created beings.

I was re-reading the creation account in Genesis recently.  The author of Genesis saw God as having a direct relationship with His created beings--walking with them in the cool of the day.  No other religion has such a gracious concept of God.  In other religions, the gods may use humans for sport, or the gods may be disinterested.  But the concept of a direct loving relationship between man and God is unique to Christianity (and its Jewish heritage).  If God's disposition towards man is as described in the Bible, then certainly God would want to be in relationship with man for eternity, because God (by definition) is an eternal being.

So, as we eat our turkeys in thankfulness for this country, we can have confidence that our deceased loved ones are in relationship with God.  This Thanksgiving will be our first without my children's godmother, Butch, who died last Saturday.  Butch was such an integral part of Thanksgiving that we even contemplated canceling Thanksgiving.  One of my children asked: "What do we have to be thankful for?"

We are thankful for the fact that she was a loving part of our family for 22 years, ever since Debbie and I moved in next to she and her husband, Roy, on Gran Avenue.  We are thankful that she loved Debbie and me and our three children unconditionally (and that's a huge thing--especially as to me).  She and Roy adopted us into the wonderful Smith clan--they have four children and eight grandchildren that they love dearly, and they treated us no differently.

We are thankful for her being there when our children were young, and Debbie needed help.  We are thankful to she and Roy for being there for "Grandpal's Day" in elementary school.  We are thankful to her for attending endless sporting events for our children.  Just last month, she and Roy drove to Decatur to see James and Mathis play soccer.  The week before James had asked whether Butch made it to his game in Birmingham.  Since she hadn't, they drove to Decatur.  After his game, James wanted to stay with Roy and Butch in Decatur for Mathis' game rather than ride home with me  (James doesn't usually attend Mathis's games, so it's obvious that he wanted to be with Butch and Roy).  We came to find out that James had been discussing some issues with her that he had not discussed with us.  

I could go on and on about Butch's contributions to our family (and to other families).  (In fact, she was so involved in our lives that virtually all of our friends knew her.)   But her most important characteristic was that she knew Jesus.  Butch came from a difficult childhood.  With the love of Christ, she soared beyond her upbringing and distributed to others the love that God gave to her.  So, as we experience our first Thanksgiving without Butch, we do take comfort knowing that she is in direct relationship with the loving creator of the universe--she is walking in the cool of the day with Jesus.  Praise God!

The grace of losing--Moses and Saban

We are so fortunate that Moses wasn't, and Saban isn't, perfect.  If they were, the results would be disastrous for them and for us.

I am so thankful that Moses didn't make it into the Promised Land.  At first glance, Moses' being kept out of the Promised Land for striking a rock seems grossly unfair.  At second glance, God's purposes become clear.  First, God was gracious to Moses.  The entry into the Promised Land was marked by war upon war.  Moses didn't have to endure this.  Moreover, eternity with God is obviously superior to the Promised Land even had there been no wars.

Second, God was gracious to the Jews.  If Moses had not sinned, Moses would be an exemplar--someone to whom the parents and preachers could point to urge the people to good works.  (It is noteworthy that many preachers and parents do so anyway--they point to David as an exemplar for defeating Goliath.  This is fallacious preaching given that only a few chapters later in the Bible David commits adultery and murder.)  We already are innately under the burden of perfection--thank goodness there is no human exemplar in the Bible to further burden us.  Furthermore, even though Moses had sinned, God still hid his body so that the people couldn't build a shrine and worship Moses.  God was protecting the Jewish people from the demand of being perfect and from idolatry.

So, thank goodness that Alabama lost to A&M.  This removes Saban as an improper exemplar, but makes him a proper exemplar.  A proper exemplar is one who is faulty, but who perseveres.  That is what we are called to do as humans, as Christians--to recognize that we are faulty and to persevere.  Sometimes, in fact always, it takes a loss to teach us this. 

What we Christians can learn from "Gangnam style?"

My father preached his last few years at the Partlow State Home for the mentally retarded.  I mention this, because my father was not your typical preacher--he actually understood grace.  "Ellis, if you are not happy, who wants to be around you.  If you are not happy, what does that say about your God?"  That's what Christians can learn from "Gangnam style"--joy, and more particularly, an experience of communal joy.

I have recently discovered Jonathan Haidt, who is one of my favorite thinkers.  Haidt is an agnostic social pscyhologist who postulates that religion is the product of evolution.  He sees religion as a good thing--it draws mankind together communally which leads to social progress.  Certainly, living in communities and sharing work loads has led to the development of civilization.

Haidt says that mankind has always sought self-transcendence through religious activities.  He notes that different societies have employed different methods--corporate worship, meditation, dancing, drugs, and notes that self-transcendence occurs peculiarly in war.  All of these different efforts to achieve self-transcendence are designed to get us beyond ourselves to experiencing a commonality, a feeling of comraderie, with our fellow men and women.  This leads to selfless acts which benefit society as a whole.

Haidt recognizes that, in modern America, we are living far more individually than previously.  He talks about us retreating to our "home entertainment theaters."  Haidt says that the product of our working together communally has been un-paralleled industrial and economic development which has led to easy lives, which has led to us living as individuals, rather than communally.  He recognizes the emptiness of these individual lives.  He says that we need to transcend ourselves.  He says that, for time immemorial, man has sought to transcend his self--whether through meditation, drugs, dancing, or religion.  Transcending the self leads to lives that are lived more for others than ourselves.

That's right--Haidt mentions dancing, raves in fact, as one means of self-transcendence.  That is why Gangnam style has been so hugely popular--it showcases and engenders a communal experience of joy.    Paul Zahl talks about being present at a church hall in England when he and Mary first heard "Waterloo" by Abba.  Paul said that the youth were engaged in a sort of frenetic line dancing, and Paul similarly fell in love with the song.  This caused me to reflect on communal events that I fondly remember.

I have wonderful memories from a gay dance club in downtown Birmingham called Club 21 which I attended with co-workers.  Thursday nites were so-called "straight nites."  There was a mixed crowd of gay and straight, a wonderful dance floor, terrific music, and floor to ceiling windows which were left open during cooler weather--these were some wonderful nites of communal joy.  Of course, hedonism worked its way in some times, but, for the most part, it was a safe place to dance without folks trying to "hook up."  My co-workers and I also have great memories of beach trips with our former law firm.

Concerts also produced lasting memories of shared joy.  I saw Avett, Mumford, and the Decemberists with my daughter at Jazzfest.  My first Mumford concert is one of my favorite religious experiences.  (I wept with joy.)  I saw Mumford again with three of my best friends in Bristol, Virginia.  I saw numerous concerts with my sister growing up--Kiss, Van Halen, Alice Cooper, etc.  Those bands obviously weren't Christian (well Alice is a Christian), but the concerts were communal experiences of shared joy.

More recent memories involve having drinks with good friends--whether believers or not.  We discuss football, family, Jesus, politics, and every other topic imaginable.  Last weekend, a couple from our "life group" at church held their annual Alabama/Auburn tailgate at their home.  We talked and laughed for hours.  Amy and Chad, and their friends, are at the top of my list for genuine, unmasked living.  What joyous times!

Thankfully, I have some wonderful memories of communal worship experiences.  The Christmas programs at our old church in Homewood had none of the performance-driven sermonizing that Sunday worship services involved.  Our music minister, and many of the choir members, understood grace.  When Paul Zahl was invested as head of Trinity Seminary, and Paul Walker preached, the service was amazing.  Christmas and Easter services at the Advent are amazing.  Communion at Cahaba Park Church was amazing--it ended with joy, not sorrow.  Services where the preacher proclaims the radicality of God's grace also produce a shared joy.  So, worship can be joyous as well when it is not tainted with performance-driven sermons--a rare, rare occasion in most churches.

Growing up in a performance-based church, I was taught that Christian living was pious living.  Pious living invariably becomes self-focused living.  If you are to be pious, then you must constantly look at "how am I doing?"  This leads us to isolate ourselves--to retreat to our "home entertainment theaters," where no one can evaluate "how we are doing."  Now, I understand, like my father did and PZ and Haidt do, that Christian living is to be joyous living.  God is not a dour killjoy, but One who has created a world for the communal pleasure of His created beings.  

Why "The Killers" make me cry---the grace of broken dreams

I'm writing this post to try and understand why The Killers make me cry.  Last week, their new album was free for listening on Itunes for a day so I was listening to it before going to bed.  Debbie was lying next to me reading a book.  I started crying and then tried to act like I wasn't crying.  We've been married 25 years, but still it's embarassing to be crying before your wife--particularly over a rock n' roll album.  I know that my wife thinks I'm weird, and she's right.

So, what is it about The Killers?  They understand that life on earth is filled with broken dreams (obviously, this is not rocket science--we all get this--eventually).  We start out with dreams of "being all that we can be."  We want to find a truly satisfying relationship.  We want to have good jobs.  We want to have families.  We think that we are going to be something special.  Then, we find out that we're not as special as we think.  We have success in one area of life--but the others escape us.  We wind up with broken dreams.  That is the law and grace--the bad and good--of life on earth.

Paul Zahl says that the greatest obstacle to "real life" is the ego's fight against its own dissolution.  Zahl says that death will be wonderful--it will release us from the bondage of our egos.  He's so right.  My prayer is to be released from the bondage of my ego--at least a little--before I die.  Our only hope for this is the defeat of our dreams.

So long as our dreams are being met, we plunder along trapped in our egos.  These egos of ours insulate us from the reality of life.  They insulate us from seeing the truth about ourselves.  We lie to ourselves about our capabilities so that our egos remain strong.  They insulate us from true relationships with others.  While our egos are alive, our relationships with others are always based upon what they can do for us.  This inhibits true love.

The Killers get this.  They capture the dreams of man--where we all start in our youth. They capture the brokenness that befalls man in this world as he encounters life.  But, they get something more--they understand that the response of the Creator to our brokenness is grace, refuge, and rebirth.  It is this juxtaposition of the grace and refuge of God against our brokenness that breaks down our egos.  It is this soft landing for our broken dreams that leads to freedom.  Without grace, our egos just keep fighting.  With grace, our egos are free to fall before the onslaught of our broken dreams.  This fall of the human ego is the greatest gift of God...it melds us with Him.


I'm not talking about
Deadlines and commitments
Sold out of confusion
There is a place
Here in this house
That you can stay

Catch you, darling
I'll be waiting
I am on your side

Laying down of arms--in marriage and football

For years, my wife and I saw only the bad traits in one another.  I'm sure that we saw each other's good qualities, but we focused on changing the bad qualities.  How do you think this went?  Not well, not well at all.  We went from being friends to thinly veiled enemies.  But, we're no different than anyone else.  This is the way that humans work--we want others to be like us and we want to be like others.  This leads to warfare--warfare designed to bring the other person in line with who we want them to be.  Or warfare designed for our views to triumph.  When the warfare gets bad enough, divorce results.  The antidote comes in learning to appreciate the other's good qualities, and accepting the bad qualities.  Often the "bad" qualities are really just good qualities taken to an extreme.  When acceptance occurs, the other person becomes free to let the good part of the "bad" quality reign.  For me, it was anger.

PLEASE NOTE THAT SOMETIMES MORE THAN MERE ACCEPTANCE IS REQUIRED.  I AM NOT SAYIN TO JUST LIVE WITH SOMEONE WITH AN ANGER PROBLEM.  OFTENTIMES OUTSIDE HELP IS REQUIRED.

Does this idea of accepting others as they are, and accepting ourselves as we are, have any application to the war between Alabama and Auburn?

Alabama fans want to feel superior to Auburn, and Auburn fans want to tear down Alabama's football program or at least beat Alabama.  This is nothing short of insanity.  Football, football, football.  I've written recently about the humor that Jesus expresses in reflecting upon the human condition of the Pharisees.  Well, we Alabama fans (in general) are clearly the Pharisees--the elder brother.  The Auburn fans (in general) are clearly the Prodigal--the younger brother.  We need to see the humor in putting so much of ourselves into football.  (This applies equally to me--I bleed Crimson.)

How do we go about changing our minds?  Well, Debbie and I began looking at the good qualities in one another.  Debbie is a wonderful mother--much more relational than me.  I didn't like her lack of order.  I am the more orderly one, but often I would put order ahead of relationships.  As we have begun appreciating the good traits in one another, order has lost its pre-eminence, and I have become more relational.  For Debbie, now order has become much more ingrained in her life.

What can Alabama appreciate about Auburn?  Well, they feed us.  They put astronauts in space.  Are food and the conquering of space more important than football?  If you don't think so, then you might be the one needing outside help.

What can Auburn appreciate about Alabama?  the law school and medical school.

Where has this war led us?  too much time, effort and money wasted on football.  The mere existence of the Paul Finebaum show is an indictment of the State of Alabama.  I'm not for dismantling either school's football program, but I am for putting football into its proper perspective.  I am for healing differences so that Alabama, 48th or 49th on most lists, can actually move forward for the sake of its citizens.  So, Roll Tide and War Damn Eagle--not as battle cries--but as salutes to what these schools bring to the State outside of football.

Jesus' humor--exposing the comedic nature of our egos

In one of his recent podcasts, Paul Zahl says that "this facade of human existence is in fact a comedy...an elaborate role play of egos that are trying to find a place to stand in a secondary object whether it be a career, a woman, a child...it's all on sand." He notes that so few ever see this. He said that it makes him view death in a good light, because he will be liberated from his petty ego--"I want to leave behind Paul Zahl...ugh."

Jesus tried to bring this insight to people's attention. He regularly pointed out the humor and irony in what so many believed about themselves and this life. Take for example his reply to the Pharisees about fasting. Jesus first told them that his disciples did not fast, because He, Jesus, was present. If fasting is meant to be a way to grieve over our sins which distance us from God, how could you grieve when God is actually in your presence? Last nite, when I was reading this account, I finally got the humor and comedy of his comment. In other words, if you folks really realized who I am, you would be partying (like the wedding feast), not fasting in an effort to show your piety. Jesus does this time and time again, trying to help us dissociate ourselves from our egos, from our need to be right, from our self-importance, from our self-righteousness, from our self-absorbed piety. 

When, from time to time, I actually grasp this secret, actually see the desires of my ego as comedic, I experience true joy. Being liberated from the bondage of the ego, both in this life and the next, is the greatest gift that one can receive.

Eminem, a Belittling of the law, and the murder of relationships

It won't surprise you that I'm not a fan of rap music.  But Eminem--that's another story.  Particularly, "When I'm Gone."  Nor am I a fan of country music.  But Johnny Cash--that's another story.  Particularly, "Hurt."  Both of these songs involve the artist removing his mask, staring straight into his own failings (into the human condition), and proclaiming those shortcomings to the world.  Eminem and Johnny get the impossibility of keeping the law.  They don't believe that it's easy to live a good life.  They don't believe that they can love others appropriately.  When we do think the law is capable of being kept, we place demands upon ourselves and others which leads to the death of those relationships.  I've been there.  I can say with Eminem:

Have you ever loved someone so much, you'd give an arm for?
Not the expression, no, literally give an arm for?
When they know they're your heart
And you know you were their armour
And you will destroy anyone who would try to harm her
But what happens when karma, turns right around and bites you?
And everything you stand for, turns on you to spite you?
What happens when you become the main source of her pain?
"Daddy look what I made", Dad's gotta go catch a plane



Like Eminem, I would have given an arm for my wife and kids.  So, how did I go from there to having my wife tell me that she was "plotting her escape" from me?  The belittling of the law.

I was raised believing that I could keep the law.  When I speak of the law, I don't just mean the Ten Commandments, I mean the expectations for our conduct that arise from our innate moral ideas, from societal and cultural views, from our churches, from our parents, from our friends, etc.  This "little 'l' law" is crippling.  It's crippling, because we believe that we can keep it.  We all think that we can keep certain parts of the law.  I think I can be an ethical, upstanding father, church member, and citizen.  My wife thinks she can be a loving, relational person.  When we believe that we can keep the law, we then expect ourselves and others to keep the law.  The following is perhaps a trivial example, but it had a profound effect on my relationship with my wife.

I thought my wife should keep a neat, orderly house.   I believed that an orderly house would benefit all of us.  So, I would say: "Debbie, please pick up the house."  The next day, I would say:  "Debbie, why haven't you picked up the house?"  Then, the next day:  "Debbie, pick up the damn house."  As you can imagine, this wasn't good for our marriage.  Why did I feel free to condemn Debbie for the way that she kept the house?  Because I thought I was doing a good job at providing for my family and being a good leader of the family.  I was so blind.  When I finally learned about grace, I began helping Debbie to pick up the house.  When we shouldered the burden together, it began building trust and love between us.

Similarly, I never shared my work with Debbie.  I didn't want her to know that my job was difficult (maybe to protect her, but most certainly so that she wouldn't think that I lacked competence).  When I finally began to share my work with her, it transferred the burden to both of our shoulders and similarly developed love and trust between us.

So, when we think that the law is capable of being fulfilled, we expect ourselves and others around us to keep it.  This places life-robbing, relationship-destroying demand upon us and others.  What's the answer?  The answer is the demand for perfection expressed by God to Abraham and by Jesus.  When faced with a demand for perfection, we then can't keep the law.  We can't measure up.  This opens us to being empathetic to others when they don't keep the law.  But the true healing power comes from the grace that God meets us with when we time and time again fail to keep the law.  This is the one needful thing--the one true change agent in the world.  As Scotty Smith says, "Before we can say Abba to God, we first have to say 'Uncle.'"

I want to thank Tullian Tchividjian for his faithful proclamation of the grace of God.  One of his sermons was the genesis of this post.

The Dude, a Governor, and Cramped Aircraft Seating

I've had some terrific plane flights of late.  Obviously, since we're packed in like cattle with only tiny windows, it wasn't the flights themselves, but the people that I met on those flights--folks that you "meet along the way." (T.D. Jakes)  Three people really stood out--a spry 86 year old man who professes to love women, a 23 year old recovering addict, and a non-practicing Catholic woman.  The 86 year old man was returning from Aspen.  Two of his daughters flew out to Aspen to surprise him--they obviously care deeply for their father.  The 23 year old was coming home to see his family after several months in rehab, and he was so excited about seeing them.  The woman spoke lovingly about her children, and how she and her Jewish husband were raising them.  Each person expressed hurts, but also a belief in a supernatural being which intervened in the affairs of this world in a good way.

The 86 year old began our conversation by joking that he was an odd Alabama graduate since he liked women more than Alabama football.  It came out that he currently has a 70 year old girl friend and that he has been divorced since age 50.  After having told me about his love for women (and we agreed that most men have polygamist tendencies), he told me "out of the blue" to stay with my wife.  I told him that Debbie and I had just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary and, thanks solely to God, were very happily married.  What had come out was his enduring love for his first wife and his regrets over his divorce.  His love for her trumped any polygamist tendencies.  When I asked him about religion, he said that, at age 12, a preacher told him that, if he would accept Jesus as his savior, he would be spared from Hell and that he would stop sinning.  He told me that he stopped sinning for two weeks, but that when he returned to sinning, he knew that the preacher had been lying to him.  However, he believed that there was a supernatural "governor" which kept humanity from destroying itself and the world.  So, he believes in the depravity of man and the necessity for a supernatural being to restrain the consequence of man's depravity--very profound thoughts.

I was praising the 23 year old man for his success in rehab.  He told me that it really wasn't him that was successful, but a higher power.  He told me that AA teaches that you are incapable of changing, incapable of conquering the addiction, without the intervention of a higher power.  He said that they told him that he can give the higher power any name that he wanted, so he chose "the Dude."  He then told me that he loved to cook and was seeking a degree in restaurant/entertainment management at UofA.  However,  he was concerned that that dream was over given that his addiction had prevented him from obtaining his college degree.  I asked what he was doing, and he is cooking in a restaurant, because it is what he knows how to do and enjoys.  He was concerned about taking a job at a restaurant given the prevalence of drug use in that industry.  However, the Dude had given him a boss who was 14 years sober!  He saw it as a "god-thing."

Finally, the woman and I were discussing God, the church, and grace.  She told me that her husband is Jewish, so they were trying to determine whether to get their children involved at a church or synagogue.  I told her that, from my reading of the Bible, it is all about understanding that God is a god of grace towards sinful man.  I told her about one of my best friends who believes that God is gracious, even though my friend lost his 13 year old brother to a brain tumor.  She then told me that she had lost one of her brothers at age 13, as well, and had recently lost a nephew at age 10.  She said that we were the ones to be pitied, since her brother and nephew were both in a better place.  She and my friend have true faith!

These remarkable conversations were convicting.  These non-church-goers all believed in a supernatural power that intervened in this world for the good of mankind.  So many of us in the church tend to discount the views of people who are not church-goers.  We tend to think that God loves the church-goers and not others.  But, Jesus never rebuked the non-church people.  Instead, he continually rebuked the church-goers.  What's more, if Jesus is calling upon us to "love our enemies," He certainly can do no less.  He can't be calling upon us to do something that He is not doing.  Accordingly, Jesus is loving non-church-goers.  If only we church-goers would do likewise.

Opposing Views and the Human Condition

In our current society, we all place ourselves in groups.  Are you white or black or now Latin?  Are you male or female?  Are you LGBTQ or straight?  Are you a Republican or Democrat?  These categories, while informative about our beliefs, are superficial.  These categories separate and segregate us.  We believe that our group has the truth, while the other group doesn't.  As Jonathan Haidt, a noted social scientist says, we can hardly ever bring someone to our point of view.  When we speak to someone from the other group, we are speaking as a "press secretary."  A press secretary, by definition, is someone who tries to place his views in the best light, regardless of the truth. Only when we go to the profundity of what it is to be human can we actually see our commonality and perhaps see the truth in the other group's views.

What is it to be a human?  As Paul Zahl says, we truly know the human condition when we awake at 3 a.m. full of anxiety, fear, and stress.  This is what it means to be human.  We all want freedom from these negative emotions.  We all want to experience, instead, love, acceptance, and happiness.  When you realize this, you realize that that is what each group is seeking--love, acceptance, and happiness.  It's just that each group has a different view of how to get there.  Going to Jonathan Haidt again, he says that each group is the bearer of some truth, and it is the juxtaposition of the beliefs of the opposing groups that leads to the truth.  He is so right.  In order for me to be able to listen to, and hear from, the other group, I have to go to our common human experience--sinners, sufferers seeking love and grace.

In one of Jonathan Haidt's recent interviews, he said that he started as a liberal and has now come out of the closet as a centrist.  Well, I need to do the same.  For years, I have said that I was a Republican who could vote for the right Democrat.  Now, I'm coming out of the closet--I'm a centrist.  As we live longer and experience more fully the human condition (suffering, setbacks, etc.), we experience empathy and see more clearly the truth held by both political parties, the truth held by opposing groups, as well as their flaws.

Cormac McCarthy and Stephen King--Bearers of Good News?

Cormac McCarthy and Stephen King write about violence and horror.  In fact, one of McCarthy's books is so graphic that many can't read it.  So, how can they be the bearers of the Good News--the Evangel--that God has come to man (bringing true liberty), not that man is working his way to God (a never-ending burdensome journey)?

As I learn more and more about science and history, my belief that:  a)there is a God; and b)that He is accurately reflected in His son, Jesus Christ,  becomes more and more rational.  However, my friend, Paul Zahl, keeps reminding me that we come to God through the irrational, not the rational.  Only when we come to God, can we then see that science and history support our belief in God.  As McCarthy demonstrates so powerfully in The Sunset Limited, no amount of rational discourse will bring someone to faith.  This explains why McCarthy uses violence and King uses horror--they are both trying to access our irrational impulses, not our rational minds.

As we were watching The Sunset Limited last nite, my wife gasped when Jackson was telling his story of a jailhouse assault.  It was graphic.  The Road is graphic, No Country is graphic, and Blood Meridian is the most graphic of all.  These books make us wince.  They offend our sensibilities.  Yet, they reach our irrational, they prepare us to receive the message that Jackson so eloquently states in The Sunset Limited, for the light in The Road and No Country, and, well, as to Blood Meridian, I'm not clever enough to figure it out.  To me, McCarthy is a much better evangelist than most any authors who claim to be Christian authors.

The same is true for King.  In the Green Mile, the horror of the murder of two young girls, the horror of death row, prepare us for the miraculous healing wrought by John Coffey (note his initials).  In Desperation, person after person is brutally murdered by the devil-inhabited Sheriff, preparing us for Johnny's conversion to Christ and his sacrifice to save the others.  The Stand begins with the extermination of most people in the U.S. through a virus designed for biological warfare which sets the stage for a marvelous tale of the struggle between good and evil and of a God who intervenes, who remembers His people.  Interestingly, King's daughter is a universalist minister.  As I become more and more aware of my sinful nature, I desire more and more for God to save everyone.  It could be that Jesus was a universalist--not in the sense that there a multiple pathways to God--but in the sense that through Christ, God is setting the entire world right.

As a minister friend of mine said after reading King's "11/22/63:"  "we'll see him in heaven."

Truly Charismatic, not Truly Reformed (what really got Jesus killed)

One of my new favorite preachers was explaining that the Ascension was a great thing, because Jesus' bodily absence from one location, resulted in His presence world-wide for every believer through the Holy Spirit.  When one is spirit-filled, one is truly charismatic.  "Charisma" means spirit-filled.  He began talking about what bodies of believers looked like when they were truly "spirit-filled"--they were filled with love and grace towards one another and towards their neighbors.  He said that, in the PCA tradition, there was a moniker--TR--which meant "truly reformed."  He said that these churches which focused so much on doctrine tended to be "mean."  He said that, while doctrine is obviously important, he wanted their church to be TC (truly charismatic), not TR (truly reformed).  I knew that he was right--churches which focus so much on doctrine do tend to be mean-spirited and judgmental.  However, I hadn't focused on why until I was listening to PZ this morning.

Zahl was talking about Jesus' teachings which were antithetical to Judaism.  I had always thought that Jesus was killed, because he claimed to be God.  I knew also that he angered the Pharisees by pointing out their legalism.  But, Jesus went farther.  Jesus actually said that His teachings superseded those of Moses.  We know how venerated Moses was in the time of Second Temple Judaism.  (In fact, in this writer's opinion, the reason that God refused to let Moses go into to the Promised Land for a seemingly minor infraction was so that the Jews would know that Moses was a sinner, so that they wouldn't worship Moses.)  Jesus said:  "Moses said, but I now say."  This would have infuriated the Jews.

In fact, this infuriates all of us who focus on concepts, rather than people.  Zahl illustrated this through Jesus' teaching on the Sabbath--"the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath."  In other words, man trumps concept.  The concept of the Sabbath, and the Law, is trumped by man's needs.  (Remember the story of King David eating the ceremonial bread, i.e., his needs trumped those of the Jewish tradition.  So, this idea is present in the OT, but just not as explicit as in the NT.)

Zahl gave a wonderful example of his college friend who headed various action groups focused on helping people, i.e., he loved the concept of helping the needy and disenfranchised.  But when Zahl desperately needed a ride from this friend, he declined to do it.   I realized that I had been guilty for so many years, and still am, for elevating ideas over people.  In other words, I would focus more on the truth of doctrine, than on loving people.  When Jesus turned the tables, and elevated man over the Law, over the sacrificial system, over man's religion, He was killed.  It's plain to see what got Jesus killed.  Other people claimed to be God, but they weren't killed.  It was Jesus' attack on what man held to be his road to righteousness that got Him killed.  It's a lot easier to focus on externalities, rather than internalities.  It's a lot easier to focus on keeping the Law, rather than looking into one's heart and trying to discern why one doesn't love one's family members or neighbors.  But, it is only the internal heart-change that actually brings one into union with God.

So, I'm praying that I will become more and more TC, and less and less TR.

Communion--It finally has meaning for me

My experience with Communion has been less than satisfactory.  Of course, this is probably my problem, and not the church's.  I know that many people are really blessed by Communion, such as my wife.  I am hopeful that my new thoughts about Communion will allow me to be blessed by it as well.

In Baptist churches, which I attended for approximately 35years, we were told to remember Christ's death on the cross and then to "depart (the service) in solemnity."  There was no recognition of the joy or thankfulness that should flow from Communion.  Then, I went to a PCA church where they actually did a good job with Communion.  We had time to contemplate our sins, then we had Communion, then we were told to depart in joyful appreciation for God's mercy towards us.  This Communion actually evoked an emotional response which was Christian--thankfulness.  My third example is from another PCA church where there is constant emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit during Communion.  My understanding is that, because I have Christ, the Holy Spirit is always present in me--not just during Communion.  One might think that this emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit during Communion is a way of saying that the church is a "holy place" where we get to commune with God.  At the Baptist church where we belonged for so long, there was expressed an idea that the church space was holy.  Of course, according to Christ, this simply isn't true.  When He died, the Temple curtain was torn in two, clearly expressing the idea that there is no longer any special "holy place."  In Second Temple Judaism, the "holy of holies" was reserved for the priest.  This tearing of the curtain was a radical statement that: a)there is no place that is any more holy than any other (if I were designating a holy place it would be the slums of India where Mother Theresa loved the poorest of the poor);  and b)access to God is now direct for everyone, not just the priests.

So, as you can see, out of my many years of church attendance, I've only had a positive (what I deem Christian) experience with Communion for approximately two years at one church.  Accordingly, I've been very skeptical about Communion.  I had reached the conclusion that true Communion is having dinner and drink with my friends (both Christian and non-Christian).  For me, this has been a time to discuss my failings as a human, and the remarkable mercy of Christ.  These actual meals have evoked Christian responses in me of joy and thankfulness.  Again, insofar as churches, this only really happened at one church.  So, am I crazy?  Is Communion for the birds?  What gives?

Yesterday, it struck me that Communion is a profound theological statement on several fronts.  First, Christ is the meal.  In the OT, perfect animals were sacrificed--blood was spilt acknowledging their sin, then the non-edible portions of the animal were burned evincing man's atonement with God, and finally the people ate the rest of the food as a communal meal with God.  But, instead of an animal, Christ is the meal.  Remember that the early Christians were accused of cannibalism, because of this unique teaching.  So, this idea is truly radical--God is the meal.  God is our sufficiency.  God sustains us as food sustains us.  Without food, we die.  Without God, we are already dead.  God so cares for us that He denigrated himself to become our meal.  God made Himself lowly, rather than elevating Himself, which appears antithetical to the First Commandment.

Second, a human, Jesus, was sacrificed, not a mere animal.  This was contrary to God's admonition that we should not kill.  In OT times, many religions practiced human sacrifice in order to appease the gods.  If spilling animal blood was good, then the spilling of human blood must be better.  Of course, God made it absolutely clear to Abraham that He was different from other gods in this respect.  As Abraham was preparing to sacrifice Isaac, God provided the ram for the sacrifice, demonstrating to Abraham that the shedding of human blood was undesirable, not efficacious.  Then, Jesus came and allowed Himself to be sacrificed.  So, this God who abhorred human sacrifice sent His own son to be sacrificed--God caused a human to be sacrificed!  Again, this is antithetical to the Ten Commandments.  What an expression of love!

Third, the sacrificial system did not make man right with God, but reminded man that God was gracious towards man in his sinfulness.  But this reminder never seemed to stick with mankind.  God's chosen people would worship God in thankfulness for what He had done.  Then, they would quickly forget His grace and seek other gods.  This straying from God is repeated time and time again in the OT.  (Of course, I'm not much different, in terms of how I forget God's grace.)  In sending Jesus to the Cross, God gave us an emphatic statement about the sinfulness of man (that we would crucify a perfect man) and the boundless mercy of God towards sinful man.  So, we can never again wonder about whether God's disposition towards mankind is gracious...mankind can never forget.  Jesus went the whole way, not just the extra mile, but the extra infinite miles, in making man right with God.  

I hope this is helpful for any of you who might be having issues with Communion as well as for any of you who are already blessed by Communion.

Reflections on Father's Day--Jesus' radical comments on fatherhood

Jesus made some pretty radical statements about fatherhood.  He didn't tell fathers to be kind and humble towards their children.  He didn't tell fathers to be a good leader for their children.  He didn't tell fathers to run a good Christian home.  Instead, Jesus pointed out the radical inadequacy that we all have to be fathers, leading us to die to our own fathering abilities and to call on God's endless mercy.

What did Jesus say?  "Call no man father, for you only have one true father."  "If a man doesn't hate his mother and father, he can't be a follower of mine."  Those don't sound like the teachings of the kind, gentle hippie Jesus that is often described by the liberal preachers.  Nor does it sound like the teachings of the conservative, morality-loving Jesus that is often described by the evangelical preachers.  Maybe, just maybe, Jesus is other than He is commonly described...He is truth and mercy.  He loves us knowing full well our inadequacies, even our inadequacies as parents.

As an aside, it is these incorrect depictions of Jesus that incite so much hatred towards Christians.  The preachings of the liberal preachers cause persons to view the church as non-consequential, i.e., they don't really have anything significant to say other than "be nice to others."  The preachings of the evangelical preachers cause persons to view the church as unloving and judgmental.  As noted on Mockingbird recently, the comments in response to the article "The Gospel in Stephen King" showed hatred and ignorance towards the church from those accusing the church of ignorance and hatred.

What can we draw from Jesus' teachings that will allow us to be better fathers or father-figures?  It's not just blood fathers, but also coaches, pastors, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc., who serve as father-figures.  Sometimes, coaches have a much greater influence on young peoples lives than their actual fathers.  So, this written to all who serve in fathering roles.

Perhaps it  would be good to start with my own failure as a father.  I was raised in a Southern Baptist background and was taught what a good Christian family should look like, and I set about trying to achieve it.  Unfortunately, my efforts to create a good Christian family weren't just ineffectual, but were harmful.  I tried everything to get my wife and kids to walk and talk like good Southern Baptists (who I thought at one point were good Christians).  I tried being gracious, setting appropriate rules, being a role model, rewarding...you name it, I tried it.  But, all to no avail.  About 12 years ago, my wife told me that, if it weren't for the children, she would leave me.  She told me that she was: "plotting her escape."  I was completely blind-sided.  I had no idea at how poor I had been as a husband and parent.  As Debbie recently said:  "We often cause pain and harm when seeking good things for others."

Thankfully, Debbie finally told me what she thought about my parenting.  Thankfully, God allowed me to hear her comments without rejecting them.  Thankfully, as I realized that I was completely inept as a parent, God's grace began to infuse me.  As I began to understand God's grace, I began to apologize to my children when I did wrong; I began to seek their ideas;  I began to allow them to choose what they wanted to do;  I began to set boundaries in a loving, non-self-righteous fashion.  I'm still not the best dad, and never will be.  I can now admit this, without thinking that I will become less in the eyes of my children.  In fact, I have become greater in their eyes.  As I no longer try or pretend to be the "perfect dad," they now can love me as I am.  Hopefully, I am no longer a hypocrite in their eyes, or not as big of a hypocrite as I once was.

So, "you only have one father."  In other words, only one person, God, displays the attributes of fatherhood with perfection.  Only God is perfect truth and grace.  So,we need to counsel our children to look to Jesus for perfection, not us.  This not only will bless our children, but it will take the burden of being a perfect father off of our backs.  Loosed from this burden, we can much better love our children.

So, "hate your father and mother."  We need to counsel our children that our love, in comparison to the perfect love of God, is greatly deficient.  Furthermore, it is God's fathering love that imbues us, as parents, with the humility and grace needed to be parents.  Our efforts at being fathers will always involve mistakes, but if we acknowledge our mistakes and point our children towards the boundless love of God,  maybe, just maybe, our children will grow up to be integrated, loving people.  At the very least, they will have much a much better chance of doing so.

American Depravity (Consumerism) and Free Grace

In 2004, one of my favorite theologians likened American consumerism to Naziism.  I thought he was grossly overstating the problem.  But he was right.  Naziisim brought down Germany, and consumerism brought America to the brink of collapse, which may still occur.  Thankfully, consumerism didn't result in the death of millions of people, although one could argue that it does.  Consumerism leads to us spending money on ourselves, rather than meeting the needs of the needy who are dying worldwide by the thousands on a daily basis.  So, maybe consumerism is worth looking at.

Some 25 years ago, I began coming to Sandestin for legal seminars.  At that time, there were two towers of condos and the Sandestin Hilton.  Now, there are seven additional towers on the beach side‼!  Seven new towers‼! Twenty-five years ago, there were some small boutiques in the Market Shops of Sandestin which fronted Highway 98, along with a small restaurant for breakfast and light lunch.  My wife did her shopping there and always found a cute outfit.  We ate many small meals there.  Now, those shops are largely vacant, except for the chains—Starbucks, Columbia Clothing, and Beef O’Bradys. This parcel of real estate—these shops—probably meets the definition for blighted.  But hold on, there was plenty of room across Highway 98 to build newer and better shops, so they did.  In America, everything always needs to be bigger and better.

At the same time, people are starving in Africa.  I know this is trite, but it’s true.  At the same time that we are building more and more vacation spots, and more and more shops in America, children in America are living in broken homes, they are living in dangerous neighborhoods, they are receiving little to no education, politicians are bashing one another, the government has become “Big Brother,” and the middle class is dying.  At the same time that we Americans are relying upon consumerism for an economic revival, the middle class is being destroyed, and the poor have no hope.  But the problems are worse in other parts of the world: people are starving, countless people in Africa have AIDS, warlords are reigning, men are subjugating women, and pedophilia is accepted (Kite Runner). 

Maybe, just maybe, we as Americans need to examine our hearts, our priorities, and fall on our knees in repentance.  Maybe, just maybe, we as members of the human race who get to vacation at Sandestin and get to shop in the newest shops, need to ask for God’s grace to change our hearts in a radical fashion…to perform heart surgery through the radicality of His grace.  But what is radical grace?  It's free, absolutely free.

Free Grace.  This terminology give apoplexy to most people, including most so-called Christian preachers and theologians.  Free Grace—favor bestowed simply because God chooses to, not because of anything we have done.  But free grace is rejected by most everyone.  You always hear:

“If God’s grace is free, then what incentive do people have to live good lives?”

“If God’s grace is free, then won’t I just sin more?’

“If God’s grace is free, won’t people just become more and more selfish?”

No, it doesn’t work that way.  Contrary to every other religion and contrary to most forms of so-called Christianity, true Christianity says that “free grace” is the only thing that actually leads to selfless, not selfish, deeds.  If it is true that your only reason for doing good deeds is fear of retribution or a desire for reward, then your good deeds are done for selfish reasons.  Many of my Jewish friends believe that Christians only do good deeds so that they will be blessed by God and accepted into heaven.  This is a fair critique.  This is true for most persons who profess Christ.  But this is Selfishness 101.  No matter how good the actions may appear outwardly, they are tainted inwardly if done for reward or to avoid punishment.  So, by definition, our good deeds are bad.  How can one’s deeds ever become good?  Only when one believes in free grace.

When we believe in free grace, then we know that we can’t earn acceptance from God, and we also know that we won’t face retribution for our bad deeds.  This freedom from self-righteous living and from fearful living places us in a state of thankfulness to God, which issues forth in good deeds which are not just outwardly good, but also inwardly good.  When our hearts desire to exhibit grace to others because of the grace which God has exhibited towards us, then our deeds are more selfless than selfish.

When we get free grace, then we can build houses for Habitat for Humanity, feed the poor, and be more community-minded without patting ourselves on the back or looking down on others for not doing it.  Then, we can take vacations that are less extravagant and bypass the shops more often that not.  Then, we have hope for truly righteous, not self-righteous, living.  

But the only, and I do mean the only, hope that we have for truly good deeds is the free grace of God. Oh what a Savior!  Oh what a God!  Oh what a Lord!

The Amazing Grace of God--He's not your kindly grandfather

God is always good, but not always kind.  When we travelled to DC recently and approached the Lincoln Memorial, my wife had a flashback.  She recalled seeing the memorial when she was four or five, and ever since has viewed God as sitting on his throne.  When we see God as sitting on his throne, we typically either view him as sitting in judgment (with a finger wagging in chastisement) or as a kindly grandfather (loving, to the exclusion of truth).  Thankfully, neither view is correct.  Instead, God is entirely "other."  In the OT, Moses is only allowed to view his "backside," God appears as a tornado to Job, and a dark cloud to the Jews.  He is other.  He can't be captured as a king sitting on his throne--whether he be a judgmental king or a kindly king.  This is one of the main reasons why God revealed himself through his son--so that we would have an accurate picture of who God is, so that we might know Him and have a relationship with Him.  Let's take a look at Christ--He's not someone with a wagging finger, nor is He a kindly grandfather who never speaks a harsh word.

Jesus hangs out with the prostitutes, wine-bibbers, and tax collectors.  So, if Jesus was going to "wag his finger" at someone, He had plenty of opportunities.  But, He doesn't.  Instead, Jesus loves the unlovely.  He embraces the social outcasts, and in Second Temple Judaism, there was no one more reviled than the tax collector.  The tax collector was a "turncoat," a Jew who was assisting the Roman oppressors.  Yet, Jesus ate dinner with him--the other Jews wouldn't even extend social graces to him.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talks about separating the sheep from the goats.  Importantly, the goats appear outwardly to be following Him.  They call Him "Lord, Lord," and they "heal and prophesy in His name."  Yet, Jesus tells them that He never knew them.  This is one of the most chilling passages in the bible.  Then, when Jesus is sending out his disciples to certain persecution, He warns them to be mindful of the One who can kill both body and soul, not to relent to the persecutors who can only kill their bodies.  Jesus doesn't sound like any grandfather that I know.

So, Jesus' disposition towards man is "other"--it's often incomprehensible.  But, then, Jesus steps into our lives and makes himself known.  His harsh words are actually words of life.  Jesus desires for us to turn from our will for our lives to His will for our lives.  When I reached 40, I finally realized that I had no control over my life and that, to the extent that I did, I would screw my life up.  In fact, I had screwed my life up seeking good things--seeking to provide well for my family, seeking to ensure that my wife and children were orderly, well-mannered, well-appearing persons, so that they might have success in this world.  As my wife has said, "Many times we are hurt by each other's good goals."  I was trying to love my wife and children, but I was getting it all wrong.  Coming to the "end of myself" allowed God to begin working change in me.  That's the difference between the goats and the sheep.  Are we still "hell bent" on having our way (creating my wife and children in the image that I had for them), or are we bent on Christ's way?  The problem is that many times Christ's way doesn't appear good--it appears "other."  But, His "other"ways always are good.

I want to address Christ's otherness on a "macro" and "micro" level.  One of my favorite seminary professors has said that, but for God's intervening hand, the world would already have been destroyed.  I knew that we came to the brink of nuclear annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis, but we actually came closer in 1983.  In 1983, the Russian leaders, a group of elderly paranoid men, became convinced that Reagan was going to institute a nuclear first strike.  Reagan had called Russia that "evil empire,"  America had stepped up preparedness at all of its military installations due to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, and NATO was engaging in a nuclear war game.  The Russian leaders told their KGB agents to look for signs that America was preparing for a first strike.  As one Russian agent said:  "If you were told to look for those signs, you better come back with them."  And, there were the afore-mentioned signs.  The Russian leaders moved to their equivalent of Def-Con 2, they fueled their missiles, got the navigation systems "spun up," prepared their mobile launchers, and moved their subs under the arctic ice so that they would then be prepared to launch further strikes after the first strike was over.  The world was on the precipice of nuclear annihilation.

Then, Reagan saw a movie about the end of the world.  Reagan had not previously been particularly squeamish about nuclear war.  Now he realized that he could never allow it to happen.  So, they changed the NATO war game so that Reagan would not be involved.  The war game had originally called for them to send the final request to Reagan to initiate the strike.  They decided that the Russians might intercept this communication and believe that it was real.  Many believe that this movie, and the change in the NATO war game to exclude Reagan, is what saved the world.  So, a TV movie may have saved the world--karma or the "otherness" of God?  So, God's "otherness" works in a macro sense, but He also works in a micro sense.

My sons have played soccer for our town's soccer club for 9 and 8 years, respectively.  Every year there is some drama due to the way that the club is run.  Many families have been impacted, but then it happens to you.  Perhaps this is true for all soccer clubs, perhaps not.  Two years ago, my son, Mathis, played football in the fall season, and not soccer.  When the spring season rolled around, Mathis tried out for the soccer team.  He and I were told by the Soccer Director that the coach wanted to keep the same team together from the fall, so there was no place for Mathis on the team.    Mathis was plenty good to make the team, and did so the next fall when open tryouts were allowed.  Mathis played full-time in the fall on the team that he didn't make in the spring.

Low and behold, it then happened to Mathis' younger brother James, this current soccer season.  (Given Mathis' previous issues with the club, he was able to offer empathy, love, and encouragement to his younger brother.  This bodes well for their future relationship.)  James had played in Fall 2011 with a Homewood team with a coach that none of the kids liked, and the majority of the parents were seriously dissatisfied with.  The Homewood Soccer Director was informed of the parents' and kids' issues with the coach, but were told that he was a good coach and would be returning in the spring.  Nevertheless, the kids decided to try out for the team again, because they wanted to play together.  In the meantime, last spring, while the kids were playing for the high school rather than club ball, the coach had found a group of players that he utilized to form a team.  Many club programs discontinue teams in the spring when their players are playing for their schools.  Not so with Homewood.  So, when time came for Fall tryouts, instead of having open tryouts, the coach determined that he wanted to keep this group of 8-9 kids together--they essentially come as a group.  If you want the good players from this group, I understand that you have to take all of them.  So, just as with Mathis, James was not given the opportunity to really try-out.  It had been pre-determined that these kids would fill the defender slots, which is James' position.  (So, the try-out wasn't really a try-out.  Perhaps this is defensible--to pre-select players--but, if so, it should be adopted as the club's policy.)  We even gave Homewood the opportunity to place James on a U16 D2 team, where he was better than many on the team, but they didn't.  Then, God stepped in.  (By the way, given the way that James and another defender, his friend Tommy, were treated, three excellent players, including perhaps the best U15 keeper in the state, decided not to play for Homewood.)

After James had been rejected for the U15 and U16 Homewood games, we received a call from the father of one of the Hoover players who had rejected Homewood's offer.   Hoover was still having tryouts, and the Hoover parent had told the Hoover coach about James and Tommy, and he remembered them.  So, we drove directly from the Homewood tryout (where James and Tommy had been rejected on two teams) to Hoover where he and Tommy made a U16 D1 team.  Hoover regularly beats Homewood.  So, James and Tommy were rejected on a U15 D1 team and a U16 D2 team in Homewood, only to be accepted by a U16 D1 team at another club--arguably a better club.  God works in mysterious ways.  He certainly wasn't a kindly grandfather when James and Tommy were rejected by two Homewood teams, but a kindly grandfather is not what we, as humans, need.  We need a God that moves us out of "comfort zone" so that we can recognize his grace.  But for the rejection by Homewood, we would not have had the opportunity to experience God's grace.  God's actions may not appear loving in the first instance, but ultimately they are.

Genesis--Book of Cursing or Love

Growing up in the institutional church, I thought that the book of Genesis was filled with "bad news"--the Fall of Man, the banishment from the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and many other stories of God's cursing of man.  Instead, the book of Genesis is filled with "good news"--it tells of God's gracious response to the sin of man.  This was brought home to me once again this past week through an Internet sermon and a discussion in a brewery tap room.

At my 25th law school reunion, one of my good friends told me about her pastor's sermon on Jacob and Esau and how God blessed the second son (not the first) who just happened to be a trickster.  So, thinking this fellow might understand the Bible, I looked him up on the Internet and listened to several of his sermons.  I was not disappointed!  He proclaimed that, when Adam and Eve sinned, God clothed them with animal skins, a better covering for their shame than what they had made for themselves--a garment of leaves.  He preached that, even though God had said that they would "surely die on the day that they ate of the tree," God let them live, and indeed the woman was named "life."  He then showed how God allowed Cain to live even though he was a murderer.  So, God favors life over death for mankind.  God is gracious to sinners--even murderers.  In one of his sermons, he pointed out that, sometimes, discipline from God is the kindest thing that He can do.  So, God is gracious, but also just.  His justice in the form of discipline is usually, if not always, for our benefit.  This is brought home most beautifully in one's understanding of the curses which God ordained in response to the Fall.

In response to the Fall, God ordained that man would encounter thorns and thistles in man's tilling of the field.  So, man's agricultural efforts (his means of sustaining his and his family's life) would now be filled with difficulty.  With respect to women, God ordained that women would have pain in childbirth.  What gives?  Neither of these curses sounds like "good news."  But, is it true that God's discipline is loving?

The measure of God's love in ordaining these curses was confirmed by my taproom conversation with two divorce attorneys.  I told them that, once I learned that God was a god of love and not condemnation, 

I began to read the Bible differently.  We discussed the various curses in Genesis including the two in response to the Fall.  I told them my belief that God cursed work, because man is inclined to place his work above his family, God, and everything else.  I told them that I believed that God cursed childbirth, because women tend to put their children above their husbands, God, and everything else.  The two divorce attorneys looked at one another, and one said:  "that is brilliant."  They both then began to discuss how, in their practice, the women always complain that their husbands are wed to their work, and the men always complain that their wives are wed to their children.  So, both sexes are guilty of putting other matters above God and their spouse.  God's curse, therefore, was gracious.  God gives men difficulty in their work, and gives women difficulty in child-bearing and rearing, so that they won't find their ultimate identity in those endeavors.  God's curses are designed to open us to the possibility of relationship with Him, and thereby with our spouses, children, and everyone else in our lives.  

To me, the profundity of Genesis confirms its divine origin.  How could the writer of Genesis have thought that working too hard in growing food for his family was a bad thing?  How could the writer of Genesis have thought that placing too much emphasis on the children (when children were everything to the Jews) was a bad thing?  The book of Genesis is "simply brilliant."

P.S.  One of the divorce attorneys grew up in a SBC church.  She is now an agnostic.  She said that, while she loved the Jesus described in the Gospels, she did not like St. Paul.  I told her to focus on Jesus, and to read the Bible for herself, rather than relying upon what she had been taught in the IC.  Presumably, for her, Paul was a "bearer of bad news," as he had been for me until I truly began to understand God's character.  

Jesus was a political enigma

My Republican and my Democratic friends both claim that Jesus would be a member of their political party today.  How is this possible?  How can both claim him?  They can both claim Him, because he was a political enigma.  They can both claim Him, because he held views which are held by each party.  But, importantly, neither party can claim Him exclusively if they can claim Him at all.  What's more, Jesus did not become embroiled in the political goings-on of his day, so I don't think he would become embroiled in the American political mess that we find ourselves in.

The Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah for several reasons, but one of the most significant was that he did not provide a resolution to their political problems.   The Jews believed that the Messiah would deliver them from the political bondage of Rome.  So, when Christ did not do this, they deemed Him not to be the Messiah.  As my son Mathis said in Second Grade:  "The Jews were smug.  If Jesus had thrown the Romans out, the Jews would only have become more smug."  Mathis was right.  Jesus' main complaint against the religious people of his day was that they were self-righteous.  So, liberating Israel from Rome would have been a negative consequence towards the sanctification of the Jews.

This is the same today.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that they hold the moral high ground, as advocated by Jesus.  The Democrats claim that, by upholding social programs, they are carrying out Jesus' admonition  to "feed the poor."  But, these programs don't seem to be delivering what they promise, and they are bankrupting America.  So, I don't think Jesus would be a Democratic social activist.  What's more, if Jesus were a Democrat, the Democrats would become more insufferable in their claim to the moral high ground.

But the same is true for the Republicans.  The Republicans want to claim Jesus as the moral authority for regulating the conduct of American citizens.  They want to claim that the churches should help the poor, and not the government.  Yet, there are valid social programs which should "help those who cannot help themselves."  I don't see the churches stepping up and fulfilling this role.  What's more, the middle class Republicans are "shooting themselves in the feet" by protecting more wealthy Republicans from paying higher taxes.  We all look back on the Clinton presidency and long for those days of financial strength.  Yet, most Republicans steadfastly refuse to go back to the tax structure which produced that prosperity and fiscal stability.  Oh, by the way, Jesus doesn't want us to have higher taxes--this is what so many  claim.  Yet, Jesus took the Roman coin and said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

So, it's fair to say that Jesus would not be a Democrat nor a Republican.  As Americans, we need to stop claiming that only our political party holds the truth and moral high ground.  We need to shed our political smugness and treat others with respect in our political dialogue.  Then, and only then, can we lay claim to  Christ.

Abba, Living Life, and the Third Use of the Law

There are two theories of life--one is much more prevalent than the other and insidiously wrong.  The first is what is theologically termed the "third use of the law."  Some examples: "God helps those who help themselves."  "Run the good race."  "Fight the good fight."  (By the way, I'm not denigrating St. Paul.  I just think his words are very often mis-taught.)  These are religious affirmations that I grew up with.  These are American ideals that I grew up with.  "Now that you are a Christian, live the holy, pious, upstanding life."  What an unbelievable burden!  This is how we control others, or attempt to control others.  This is how most preachers try to make their congregations look "just and upright." Jesus chastised the religious folks of his day for heaping burdens on others.  According to Jesus, the antithesis of this is love.

These affirmations are fundamentally flawed, flawed to the core (at least in the way that they are customarily taught).  If you have any doubt about the fallacy of these statements, consider death, the grim reaper, the cessation of your life, and the fact that no one will remember your "good deeds" for long after your death.  Think about it--by the time of your great, great grandchildren, most memories of you will be gone.  No one will remember whether you "fought the good fight" or not.  In other words, our "good deeds" are but chaff in the wind (at their best.)  More importantly, at their worst, our good deeds and our efforts to have our loved ones live "good lives" are strangling, murderous impediments to love.  What will be known, if not remembered, is the extent that you loved and passed along love.  Your grandchildren will either be the victims of your living "the third use of the law" or the beneficiaries of your living a life of love.

My grandchildren, if I'm fortunate enough to have any, won't be discussing whether I was a successful lawyer.  They won't be ruminating over whether I had a vibrant Sunday School class or was a church leader.  What they will be considering--if anything--is the degree to which I have passed along generational curses.  To the extent that our lives are filled with achievement, or efforts to achieve, that is the extent to which we will pass along generational curses.  To the degree that our lives are filled with love and grace, that's the degree to which we can defeat generational curses.  Our capacity to love arises only when we truly suffer defeat, when we lose rather than win by this world's standards.

The second theory of life was expressed by Abba in its wonderful song, "Waterloo."  Thanks once again to PZ for prompting many of these thoughts with his recent Podcast about Abba.  He discusses the lyric from Waterloo--"I feel like I'm winning when I lose."  Loss in this life turns us from the  baubles, glamor, and promises of this world to something higher and more real--the eternal love of our Creator.  Of course, some people simply become embittered by loss.  But, if you recognize the value of loss, recognize that it diverts our attention from seeking the pleasure and recognition of this world, it frees us to pursue and find what is truly eternal.  Fortunately for mankind, God has revealed his true nature through his Son.  He has revealed his eternal, unchanging character.  He loves the sinner (which is all of us), while he upbraids those who are religious--those who think they are living righteous lives.  This is such wonderful news--it truly is "Good News."  (Jesus and St. Paul both lived lives which reflected this second theory.)

Our knowledge of God's character frees us from our efforts to be good.  It causes us to fall on our knees, to lift up our voices, in thankfulness to God.  It causes us to experience joy that was once incomprehensible.  When we experience this thankfulness, our failures at work, in parenting, in relating to our wives become opportunities to repent and love more.  When we are working to be good, we either ignore our failures or we become despondent rather than thankful.  For years, I ignored my sins, and their impact on my wife and children, because I thought that I was a "good person," living an otherwise "good life."  Since I was a "good person," I expected my wife and children to be "good people."  What burdens I was heaping on them!  My wife wasn't free to live or to love, because she thought that she wasn't a "good person."  (She couldn't measure up to my expectations.) This caused her to live just as shallow of a life that I was living.  This is how we pass along generational curses--by placing expectations on one another and thereby stifling love.  Once liberated from having to do good, I was free to confess my sins, to repent, and to seek forgiveness.  More importantly, I was free to love.  I was free to love my wife and children whether they were "good people" or not.  Once liberated from having to do good, my wife was freed from shame and guilt and able to express love more deeply and truly.

Similarly, Christ has freed us from God's expectations.  God doesn't expect us to "run the good race" or to "fight the good fight."  God expects us to sin, and to sin, and to sin.  This is why He sent His son--to liberate us, not just in the after-life but in this life as well, from the sin that He knew we would commit.  Christ spoke in no uncertain terms of His expectations if we tried to be good--we must be "perfect" if we try to be good.  Or, we can simply acknowledge our fallenness, give up on being good, and embrace His overwhelming, life-altering love.  This frees us from expectations.  This allows us to actually love others, without expecting anything in return.  This allows us to live lives that actually look "better."  This is how we "win when we lose."  This is how we "run the race" of life.  This is how our lives can live on, probably not in memory, but in our impact on the generations to come.