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  Jesus actually said that His teachings superseded those of Moses.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.