So what have we done, so far, in transitioning from Washington to Michigan?
The first point to make is that I’m a pastor and my move from Washington to Michigan was occasioned by my accepting a pastorate here. So the first step in transition was the candidating process itself.
Initially, I was contacted by the leadership of this church about an application that I’d sent to them. All that I knew about the area was that it was north of Detroit, Michigan. I did know a bit about the church from its website. Helpfully, the church had pictures of the building and people so I could get some sense of what the surrounding neighborhood was like. I had no idea what the area was really like when I sent the application. When I was contacted, I immediately attempted to orient myself to the area.
One of the first steps was looking up the city the church is in – Sterling Heights – in Wikipedia.
I then looked at satellite pictures using Google Earth. I found out, for example, that Sterling Heights is home to a couple of automotive and aerospace assembly plants. So that tells me that there is a manufacturing base to the local economy.
I then found out that Sterling Heights (#61) was on the Money magazine’s list of the top 100 medium-sized cities in the United States (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/snapshots/PL2676460.html ). That was fortunate as that article let me know about the city’s strengths and relative weaknesses. I then began to appreciate that Sterling Heights was a mid-sized suburban city within the state of Michigan.
I then caught some news and was interested to see that the McCain-Palin campaign stopped for a major event in the city – which told me that the city had some importance in the area.
I started doing some searches using Google maps such as “banks,” “restaurants,” “school,” and even “church.” I learned that there was a clear shopping district, that the area seemed solidly middle-class, and there were several churches nearby. Barb and I joked about seeing some of our favorite restaurants were nearby.
So I constructed a tentative 'mental model' of what Sterling Heights was like. Of course, after collecting such raw “data,” the key thing was the first visit where I could see with my own eyes what the place was like and adjust my model. I was pleased – the place seemed even better than I’d thought. After meeting the people and joking about being a west coast boy out of his element, that actually helped to bring out – in natural conversation - potential differences and points of adjustment.
A couple of first impressions:
1) this place is flat. On the west coast, there’s always a mountain range in view and so it is pretty easy to get your bearings. Here, you have to be a bit more aware of the sun’s position and how the streets are laid out.
2) The road surfaces are not very good. Now the reason is plain – this part of the country regularly gets freezing weather and develops pot holes and cracked concrete.
3) Drivers are more aggressive here. This is actually a welcome change. I grew up in the Los Angeles basin where, it was once quipped, “you’re either the quick, or the dead.” Washington and Oregon drivers, by comparison, drive like old ladies. I appreciate driving in a place where people actually seem to want to get somewhere.
So the first phase of our transition was just getting good information about the place.
20090420
20090416
Michigan Transitions - A
Several of my friends have been asking and asking again about how are we adjusting to life in Michigan.
For Barb and me, this seems like such an odd kind of question. It is asked so frequently that it almost seems like some sort of group obsession. Right there, I’m trying to understand why people are so very interested.
The first thing is that some people just can’t understand moving such great distances. There are some people for whom great change is a very frightening prospect. I remember when we were living in Santa Maria, California in the late 1980’s and I’d made the decision to move to the Thousand Oaks area to attend law school at nearby Pepperdine University. One of our friends, who couldn’t have been 30 years old yet, was simply amazed that we would move “so far” to do something “so different.” This guy was so rooted to the area – even the valley – that he was born in that he couldn’t imagine relocating. I was struck by the thought that this 28 year old guy was already thinking like an old man.
Even when we candidated for this church, one of the questions that was asked was, “How can you move so far away from your friends and family??” That is, from Washington to Michigan. There are several answers to that question, but the primary one was that Jesus wanted us to. Beyond that, the reality is that real friends stay your friends. Our society is more connected over farther distances than at any other time in history. It is a relatively trivial thing for me to be in immediate contact with a friend in Southern California. Distance isn’t the issue. Actually, time zones present the greatest challenge!
Additionally, we are located nearer the bulk of our family now than when we were on the west coast. The hardest thing, in terms of family, is that both of our daughters are on the west coast. As parents, we can no longer respond as quickly or immediately as we were accustomed to. However, that separation has more to do with our daughters’ stage in life relative to our own. We are becoming empty-nesters.
Even more so, unlike my young old-man friend above, Barb and I have always had an adventurous streak in us. We have always relished travel and the challenge of adapting to new places and people. We’ve moved several times now and realize that, wherever we go, we’ll make new friends, keep the old ones, and enjoy the new place. We’re pretty resilient.
The other part of the insistent question, "how are you adjusting?" is just the nature of relationships here in Michigan. The vast majority of people that we know here are in our church – the church where I’m a pastor. They really can’t ask about my work because I can’t tell them that much. They can complain about the jerks and idiots who they work with. I can’t complain. (snicker) That last sentance is pretty ambiguous!
Additionally, lots of what I do can be confidential in nature and there’s only so much I can share. Even if I chat with people socially, they tend to steer away from talking about my ‘work.’ So what’s left to talk about? Well, I’m new to the area so … “How are you settling in?”
I’ll blog a bit more about our transition as time goes on.
For Barb and me, this seems like such an odd kind of question. It is asked so frequently that it almost seems like some sort of group obsession. Right there, I’m trying to understand why people are so very interested.
The first thing is that some people just can’t understand moving such great distances. There are some people for whom great change is a very frightening prospect. I remember when we were living in Santa Maria, California in the late 1980’s and I’d made the decision to move to the Thousand Oaks area to attend law school at nearby Pepperdine University. One of our friends, who couldn’t have been 30 years old yet, was simply amazed that we would move “so far” to do something “so different.” This guy was so rooted to the area – even the valley – that he was born in that he couldn’t imagine relocating. I was struck by the thought that this 28 year old guy was already thinking like an old man.
Even when we candidated for this church, one of the questions that was asked was, “How can you move so far away from your friends and family??” That is, from Washington to Michigan. There are several answers to that question, but the primary one was that Jesus wanted us to. Beyond that, the reality is that real friends stay your friends. Our society is more connected over farther distances than at any other time in history. It is a relatively trivial thing for me to be in immediate contact with a friend in Southern California. Distance isn’t the issue. Actually, time zones present the greatest challenge!
Additionally, we are located nearer the bulk of our family now than when we were on the west coast. The hardest thing, in terms of family, is that both of our daughters are on the west coast. As parents, we can no longer respond as quickly or immediately as we were accustomed to. However, that separation has more to do with our daughters’ stage in life relative to our own. We are becoming empty-nesters.
Even more so, unlike my young old-man friend above, Barb and I have always had an adventurous streak in us. We have always relished travel and the challenge of adapting to new places and people. We’ve moved several times now and realize that, wherever we go, we’ll make new friends, keep the old ones, and enjoy the new place. We’re pretty resilient.
The other part of the insistent question, "how are you adjusting?" is just the nature of relationships here in Michigan. The vast majority of people that we know here are in our church – the church where I’m a pastor. They really can’t ask about my work because I can’t tell them that much. They can complain about the jerks and idiots who they work with. I can’t complain. (snicker) That last sentance is pretty ambiguous!
Additionally, lots of what I do can be confidential in nature and there’s only so much I can share. Even if I chat with people socially, they tend to steer away from talking about my ‘work.’ So what’s left to talk about? Well, I’m new to the area so … “How are you settling in?”
I’ll blog a bit more about our transition as time goes on.
20090413
Easter 2009 (Deleted Scenes)
I’d mentioned last month that I was trying to figure out how to restructure my blogging activity. I came up with one thought, which was also confirmed by my friend, Doug, of writing on “deleted scenes” from sermons I would deliver. The idea is that there are several thoughts that I developed in preparation for my eventual sermon that, for various reasons, didn’t make it into the ‘final cut.’ Some of these ideas aren’t completely thought out so are a bit raw.
This blog is on the ideas that didn’t get into the Easter sermon.
Easter Isn’t About “Church”
One of the things that people get confused about Easter is that it’s a ‘holiday’ rather than a “holy day.” Easter, properly understood, is not truly about clothes, candy, or even “church.” For most Christians, they can see the first two points but get confused about the last: “Wadda mean, Easter isn’t about church?” Well, the first thing to get straight is that Christianity itself isn’t about church, it’s about Jesus. Once I put it that way, nobody’s going to disagree.
But here’s where Easter becomes “religious.” There are make-believe “Christians” who have no living relationship with Jesus (though they for bizarre reasons still call themselves “Christians”), who really believe that if they merely attend church on Christmas and Easter, that’s “good enough.” This is so mind-boggling to me that I don’t even know where to start. Christianity is not about attending church. While authentic Christians do attend church, their relationship to God is not about their church attendance but their relationship to the real savior, Jesus. So called “Twice-A-Year ‘Christians’” are not real Christians. That’s what I mean when I say that Easter is not about “church.”
Pagan Easter
There’s a lot of virtual ink spilled on the web about the pagan influences upon Easter. Several will spout the party line that Christians just glommed on to pagan springtime festivals and created Easter from whole cloth. Unfortunately, they just don’t have the historical facts. While it is true that the church took the then-nasty “Saturnalia” festival and redeemed it into a celebration of Jesus’ birth [see blog post on 10Dec2009], the exact opposite occurred with Resurrection Day.
Now it is clear that there are pagan Vernal Equinox celebrations. And it is also clear, in hind-sight, that some of the elements of those celebrations have made their way into the holiday we now know as Easter. As with Christmas, there are both pagan and Christian elements associated with the holiday. But no thoughtful Christian will say that the centrality of Easter lies in the Bunny, eggs, flowers, or mere “rebirth of nature.”
It is a clear fact when Jesus rose from his death by execution. It was early morning on the first day of the week after the Passover. The calendar for the Passover was very clear at that time and relied on the Vernal Equinox for its calculation. The date for Jesus’ resurrection is a very specific day of the week and season of the year. What has been annoying is to see a variety of pagan practices worm their way into this celebration. I am frequently tempted to refer to the pagan-secular part of the holiday as “Pseudo-Easter” and the authentic Christian celebration of Jesus’ resurrection as “Resurrection Day.”
Prayer
One of the things I’m surprised still occurs in church life is the weird way people pray. they don’t pray as if Jesus were real. There are people who still pray using “King James” pronoun language: Thee, Thou, Thine, and other phrases. It is as if the people who pray in this way believe that unless they use these kinds of ‘special words,’ God will not be pleased with them. This is very much like the thinking behind magical incantations: if you say the right words, in the right way, in the proper sequence, then you can manipulate the spiritual world.
If we believe that Jesus is real, then it seems to me that should change our “prayer language.” Prayer, for the child of God, is not magical incantations but family talk. The pagans, who don’t know God as Father, have every reasonable expectation that God is not happy with them. Pagans live in fear of a capricious god who needs to be appeased and may Zap them if they do the least little thing wrong. Christians should see God as their Father and talk to them as such. That was the instruction that Jesus gave his disciples about their prayer life: “Our Father, who is in heaven…”
Never in my life did I ever approach my own father, Warren S. Messelt, with words like this: “Oh my father, that thou would live forever! I beseech thee for thy good grace to bestow upon me thine favor and that thou wouldest bless me with thy good gift. I petition thee that thou wouldest grant me thy blessing and permit me to operate thy automobile this evening that I mayest fellowship with my companions. So be it.” If my dad heard me say something like that, he’d be pretty ticked.
I think that our prayer life indicates our relationship with God. Now I am not advocating disrespectful prayer such as: “God-Dude – I need a car!” When Jesus said we should pray to God, we should address God respectfully. But to use language that is foreign to us is to slip into an attitude about prayer that is very un-Christian.
This blog is on the ideas that didn’t get into the Easter sermon.
Easter Isn’t About “Church”
One of the things that people get confused about Easter is that it’s a ‘holiday’ rather than a “holy day.” Easter, properly understood, is not truly about clothes, candy, or even “church.” For most Christians, they can see the first two points but get confused about the last: “Wadda mean, Easter isn’t about church?” Well, the first thing to get straight is that Christianity itself isn’t about church, it’s about Jesus. Once I put it that way, nobody’s going to disagree.
But here’s where Easter becomes “religious.” There are make-believe “Christians” who have no living relationship with Jesus (though they for bizarre reasons still call themselves “Christians”), who really believe that if they merely attend church on Christmas and Easter, that’s “good enough.” This is so mind-boggling to me that I don’t even know where to start. Christianity is not about attending church. While authentic Christians do attend church, their relationship to God is not about their church attendance but their relationship to the real savior, Jesus. So called “Twice-A-Year ‘Christians’” are not real Christians. That’s what I mean when I say that Easter is not about “church.”
Pagan Easter
There’s a lot of virtual ink spilled on the web about the pagan influences upon Easter. Several will spout the party line that Christians just glommed on to pagan springtime festivals and created Easter from whole cloth. Unfortunately, they just don’t have the historical facts. While it is true that the church took the then-nasty “Saturnalia” festival and redeemed it into a celebration of Jesus’ birth [see blog post on 10Dec2009], the exact opposite occurred with Resurrection Day.
Now it is clear that there are pagan Vernal Equinox celebrations. And it is also clear, in hind-sight, that some of the elements of those celebrations have made their way into the holiday we now know as Easter. As with Christmas, there are both pagan and Christian elements associated with the holiday. But no thoughtful Christian will say that the centrality of Easter lies in the Bunny, eggs, flowers, or mere “rebirth of nature.”
It is a clear fact when Jesus rose from his death by execution. It was early morning on the first day of the week after the Passover. The calendar for the Passover was very clear at that time and relied on the Vernal Equinox for its calculation. The date for Jesus’ resurrection is a very specific day of the week and season of the year. What has been annoying is to see a variety of pagan practices worm their way into this celebration. I am frequently tempted to refer to the pagan-secular part of the holiday as “Pseudo-Easter” and the authentic Christian celebration of Jesus’ resurrection as “Resurrection Day.”
Prayer
One of the things I’m surprised still occurs in church life is the weird way people pray. they don’t pray as if Jesus were real. There are people who still pray using “King James” pronoun language: Thee, Thou, Thine, and other phrases. It is as if the people who pray in this way believe that unless they use these kinds of ‘special words,’ God will not be pleased with them. This is very much like the thinking behind magical incantations: if you say the right words, in the right way, in the proper sequence, then you can manipulate the spiritual world.
If we believe that Jesus is real, then it seems to me that should change our “prayer language.” Prayer, for the child of God, is not magical incantations but family talk. The pagans, who don’t know God as Father, have every reasonable expectation that God is not happy with them. Pagans live in fear of a capricious god who needs to be appeased and may Zap them if they do the least little thing wrong. Christians should see God as their Father and talk to them as such. That was the instruction that Jesus gave his disciples about their prayer life: “Our Father, who is in heaven…”
Never in my life did I ever approach my own father, Warren S. Messelt, with words like this: “Oh my father, that thou would live forever! I beseech thee for thy good grace to bestow upon me thine favor and that thou wouldest bless me with thy good gift. I petition thee that thou wouldest grant me thy blessing and permit me to operate thy automobile this evening that I mayest fellowship with my companions. So be it.” If my dad heard me say something like that, he’d be pretty ticked.
I think that our prayer life indicates our relationship with God. Now I am not advocating disrespectful prayer such as: “God-Dude – I need a car!” When Jesus said we should pray to God, we should address God respectfully. But to use language that is foreign to us is to slip into an attitude about prayer that is very un-Christian.
20090410
Jesus, Man for The Nations
A few days back I was thinking about how great Jesus is. There is a translation that says that Jesus is the “desire of the nations.” That is, that all people find in Jesus the highest, best, and most valuable. I started thinking along these lines:
For the nature lover, Jesus as the creator, is responsible for natural beauty
For the nerds, Jesus as sustainer of the universe, is keeper of quarks, bosons, and the atomic forces
For the emotionally mature, Jesus is lover of our souls and forever faithful
For the busy, Jesus accomplishes all that he intends to do
For the environmentalist, Jesus is the redeemer of creation
For the elitist, Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords
For the socialist, Jesus is the son of a working-class family
For the artist-writer-musician, Jesus is the theme of the greatest creative efforts our culture
… and so forth. You get the idea: Jesus is example, guide, teacher, and hero. Jesus is frequently treated in this way - which is right - but Jesus is more than just a hero. We properly admire a hero but realize that 'veneration' or 'worship' of a hero is wrong. When we make Jesus into just a hero, we rob him of his rightful place and role as person worthy of real worship.
Some years back I realized that I’d come to view Jesus merely as a hero. Sure, Jesus was really smart, all “together,” insightful, courageous, compelling, the kind of guy people liked to be around, etc. But then I was confronted by my low view of Jesus. This is devastating for someone who calls themselves a “Christian.”
You see, everybody likes Jesus. Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, intellectuals, and even Jews admire Jesus. Why? Because they see Jesus as a "hero." But that picture – while certainly accurate – is not complete. Those very people – very much – want to ignore all the things that Jesus said and did that they don’t like. This is weird but it has come up often. Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian, liked many of the things that Jesus said. But the things that Jefferson didn’t like? Well, Jefferson didn’t merely ignore those things, or even just cross out those parts from his Bible; Jefferson physically cut those passages out of his personal bible.
Wow.
For a couple of hundred years now, so-called ‘scholars’ (with increasingly less actual evidence to support this), have claimed that the un-popular bits of what Jesus said were just made up by his followers to advance their own agenda. This is very postmodern as it feeds into the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that helps define postmodern thought. Think of “The DaVinci Code” and you’ve got the picture. More recently, a group of Christian scholars assembled and voted as to which of Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament were truly authentic to Jesus. I believe the current count, according to this group, is only 18% that is “really” Jesus. Bizarrely, they began with the assumption that what’s recorded in Jesus’ biographies is inherently unreliable. What is not widely known is that while this project, called the “Jesus Seminar,” was initially represented by reputable scholars, those people rather quickly abandoned the ship and the project has become the laughing-stock of even scholars hostile to Christianity. Basically, Jesus Seminar people are just making it all up as they go along.
The point of all this is to show that the “Jesus As Merely Hero” movement has been quite popular to the ‘chattering classes’ for a while now.
Here’s the thing: Christians don’t think of Jesus as their hero. That is, while he is their hero, he is so very much more. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus should be worshipped. Jesus should be venerated. But even more, Jesus should be loved and obeyed.
Now lots of people “love” Jesus, but they suddenly get cold feet when it comes to actually obeying him. And, for their excuse, they will frequently claim that Jesus is “misunderstood.” Again: Wow. The moment that their hero actually makes a claim on their lives – to live differently, think differently, relate to people differently – well, their story changes.
So, as a Christian, when I reduced Jesus to mere hero I was also reducing his claim to my life. I was removing his right to judge me and expect me to live the way he wants me to. That isn’t Christian – that’s pagan. When I realized that I my functional theology about Jesus was becoming rather pagan-like, I realized that I had a choice: What do I really believe about Jesus?
As a complete geek-analytical type and a lawyer, I reviewed the evidence. It came out even more compelling for me: Jesus’ rightful place is as boss of my life. And that recommitment to the supremacy of Jesus has significantly fueled my spiritual growth for the last several years.
So should you, as a non-Christian – but especially if a Christian - have thought that Jesus was merely a hero; then I would challenge you to examine that conclusion even more. A really bright man who died when I was a 'wee tyke' said something to this effect: “Let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
(for a detailed review of the ‘trilemma’ argument, I found this to be interesting: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html)
For the nature lover, Jesus as the creator, is responsible for natural beauty
For the nerds, Jesus as sustainer of the universe, is keeper of quarks, bosons, and the atomic forces
For the emotionally mature, Jesus is lover of our souls and forever faithful
For the busy, Jesus accomplishes all that he intends to do
For the environmentalist, Jesus is the redeemer of creation
For the elitist, Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords
For the socialist, Jesus is the son of a working-class family
For the artist-writer-musician, Jesus is the theme of the greatest creative efforts our culture
… and so forth. You get the idea: Jesus is example, guide, teacher, and hero. Jesus is frequently treated in this way - which is right - but Jesus is more than just a hero. We properly admire a hero but realize that 'veneration' or 'worship' of a hero is wrong. When we make Jesus into just a hero, we rob him of his rightful place and role as person worthy of real worship.
Some years back I realized that I’d come to view Jesus merely as a hero. Sure, Jesus was really smart, all “together,” insightful, courageous, compelling, the kind of guy people liked to be around, etc. But then I was confronted by my low view of Jesus. This is devastating for someone who calls themselves a “Christian.”
You see, everybody likes Jesus. Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, intellectuals, and even Jews admire Jesus. Why? Because they see Jesus as a "hero." But that picture – while certainly accurate – is not complete. Those very people – very much – want to ignore all the things that Jesus said and did that they don’t like. This is weird but it has come up often. Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian, liked many of the things that Jesus said. But the things that Jefferson didn’t like? Well, Jefferson didn’t merely ignore those things, or even just cross out those parts from his Bible; Jefferson physically cut those passages out of his personal bible.
Wow.
For a couple of hundred years now, so-called ‘scholars’ (with increasingly less actual evidence to support this), have claimed that the un-popular bits of what Jesus said were just made up by his followers to advance their own agenda. This is very postmodern as it feeds into the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that helps define postmodern thought. Think of “The DaVinci Code” and you’ve got the picture. More recently, a group of Christian scholars assembled and voted as to which of Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament were truly authentic to Jesus. I believe the current count, according to this group, is only 18% that is “really” Jesus. Bizarrely, they began with the assumption that what’s recorded in Jesus’ biographies is inherently unreliable. What is not widely known is that while this project, called the “Jesus Seminar,” was initially represented by reputable scholars, those people rather quickly abandoned the ship and the project has become the laughing-stock of even scholars hostile to Christianity. Basically, Jesus Seminar people are just making it all up as they go along.
The point of all this is to show that the “Jesus As Merely Hero” movement has been quite popular to the ‘chattering classes’ for a while now.
Here’s the thing: Christians don’t think of Jesus as their hero. That is, while he is their hero, he is so very much more. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus should be worshipped. Jesus should be venerated. But even more, Jesus should be loved and obeyed.
Now lots of people “love” Jesus, but they suddenly get cold feet when it comes to actually obeying him. And, for their excuse, they will frequently claim that Jesus is “misunderstood.” Again: Wow. The moment that their hero actually makes a claim on their lives – to live differently, think differently, relate to people differently – well, their story changes.
So, as a Christian, when I reduced Jesus to mere hero I was also reducing his claim to my life. I was removing his right to judge me and expect me to live the way he wants me to. That isn’t Christian – that’s pagan. When I realized that I my functional theology about Jesus was becoming rather pagan-like, I realized that I had a choice: What do I really believe about Jesus?
As a complete geek-analytical type and a lawyer, I reviewed the evidence. It came out even more compelling for me: Jesus’ rightful place is as boss of my life. And that recommitment to the supremacy of Jesus has significantly fueled my spiritual growth for the last several years.
So should you, as a non-Christian – but especially if a Christian - have thought that Jesus was merely a hero; then I would challenge you to examine that conclusion even more. A really bright man who died when I was a 'wee tyke' said something to this effect: “Let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
(for a detailed review of the ‘trilemma’ argument, I found this to be interesting: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html)
20090406
Pastors, Maturity or Elitism?
“But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not ready…” 1 Corinthians 3:1-2
Spiritual elitism is a subtle sin. It is sin because a significant component of elitism is pride. Pride, said one of Christianity’s greatest thinkers, is the first – maybe even the root – sin.
One of the factors that brought me into vocational ministry in mid-life was a season of spiritual renewal that started about ten years ago. Several things converged together to create a storm that re-awakened my love for Jesus, my desire to serve him at a greater level, and to sharpen my biblical-theological understanding. In summary, my spiritual life ramped up.
As I entered into this new ‘neighborhood’ of faith, I had to realize that not everyone around me was in the same place. I had to fight the idea that I was in a “better” spiritual place than my other friends. In fact, one of the minor frustrations that some of my other pastoral mentors have admitted to is a relative lack of faith in their congregations and even in church leadership. Certainly, your average spiritually-healthy full-time vocational pastor should be more spiritually mature and is committed to living a life of faith in service to Jesus than most of his congregation. But that can be frustrating. The pastor says: ‘I see the blessings that can come into your life if you’d trust God more fully, but you don’t want to really do that.’
I wonder if Paul was a similarly frustrated: “I’d really want to get you folks to a greater level of maturity, but you are acting like babies. Since you aren’t ready to go further, I can’t treat you like grown-ups so that’s why I treat you like babies.” Ouch.
Now I think there is a distinction between understanding that your spiritual journey is a bit farther down the road than some others of your friends, and the sin implied in thinking that you are better than those who haven’t travelled as far. Paul was also careful to recognize this sin – especially in the context of church leadership – when he refers to Proverbs 16:18 (‘Pride goes before a fall’) in his first letter to Timothy (3:6). And again, Paul says this to every Christian when he warns us to understand ourselves rightly (Rom. 12:3) – not too high or too low.
I’m still coming to grips in understanding this distinction because this is an area where I fall into sin. But I think the distinction is this: a proper pastoral concern for his flock’s relative immaturity focuses on them; but spiritual elitism is self-centered and is much more about the sinner’s reputation, esteem, and ‘position.’
This is where Paul’s frustration comes in: he cares very much for his friends at the church he planted and wants them to enjoy more blessings in Jesus. But they are so distracted by personality cults, ‘toleration’ and moral relativism, dysfunctional conflict, weird ideas about marriage, superstitions, money, church time, spiritual gifts, and a confused understanding about the gospel. All of these problems are preventing many of the folks in the church from living the lives that God wants for them. This is frustrating!
This would be like a parent who watches his children divide up Halloween candy and get into a terrible fight over one piece of Tootsie Roll while completely missing the pile of candy that they each have in front of them. The mature parent doesn’t point out the silliness of their fight because he or she wants to appear wise and morally superior; no, the mature parent realizes that the kids are missing the overwhelming blessings of a sugar-induced coma because of a very minor thing. They want their kids to learn perspective: don’t focus on the little thing, consider the big pile in front of you – especially when the little thing is keeping you from the big pile.
So from this section of scripture, I see some interesting pastoral applications. And my conclusions is this: a pastor has to be just a tad set apart to help people along on their spiritual journey. As Eugene Peterson says: “It is the pastor’s responsibility to keep the community attentive to God.” (Working the Angles, 2).
Spiritual elitism is a subtle sin. It is sin because a significant component of elitism is pride. Pride, said one of Christianity’s greatest thinkers, is the first – maybe even the root – sin.
One of the factors that brought me into vocational ministry in mid-life was a season of spiritual renewal that started about ten years ago. Several things converged together to create a storm that re-awakened my love for Jesus, my desire to serve him at a greater level, and to sharpen my biblical-theological understanding. In summary, my spiritual life ramped up.
As I entered into this new ‘neighborhood’ of faith, I had to realize that not everyone around me was in the same place. I had to fight the idea that I was in a “better” spiritual place than my other friends. In fact, one of the minor frustrations that some of my other pastoral mentors have admitted to is a relative lack of faith in their congregations and even in church leadership. Certainly, your average spiritually-healthy full-time vocational pastor should be more spiritually mature and is committed to living a life of faith in service to Jesus than most of his congregation. But that can be frustrating. The pastor says: ‘I see the blessings that can come into your life if you’d trust God more fully, but you don’t want to really do that.’
I wonder if Paul was a similarly frustrated: “I’d really want to get you folks to a greater level of maturity, but you are acting like babies. Since you aren’t ready to go further, I can’t treat you like grown-ups so that’s why I treat you like babies.” Ouch.
Now I think there is a distinction between understanding that your spiritual journey is a bit farther down the road than some others of your friends, and the sin implied in thinking that you are better than those who haven’t travelled as far. Paul was also careful to recognize this sin – especially in the context of church leadership – when he refers to Proverbs 16:18 (‘Pride goes before a fall’) in his first letter to Timothy (3:6). And again, Paul says this to every Christian when he warns us to understand ourselves rightly (Rom. 12:3) – not too high or too low.
I’m still coming to grips in understanding this distinction because this is an area where I fall into sin. But I think the distinction is this: a proper pastoral concern for his flock’s relative immaturity focuses on them; but spiritual elitism is self-centered and is much more about the sinner’s reputation, esteem, and ‘position.’
This is where Paul’s frustration comes in: he cares very much for his friends at the church he planted and wants them to enjoy more blessings in Jesus. But they are so distracted by personality cults, ‘toleration’ and moral relativism, dysfunctional conflict, weird ideas about marriage, superstitions, money, church time, spiritual gifts, and a confused understanding about the gospel. All of these problems are preventing many of the folks in the church from living the lives that God wants for them. This is frustrating!
This would be like a parent who watches his children divide up Halloween candy and get into a terrible fight over one piece of Tootsie Roll while completely missing the pile of candy that they each have in front of them. The mature parent doesn’t point out the silliness of their fight because he or she wants to appear wise and morally superior; no, the mature parent realizes that the kids are missing the overwhelming blessings of a sugar-induced coma because of a very minor thing. They want their kids to learn perspective: don’t focus on the little thing, consider the big pile in front of you – especially when the little thing is keeping you from the big pile.
So from this section of scripture, I see some interesting pastoral applications. And my conclusions is this: a pastor has to be just a tad set apart to help people along on their spiritual journey. As Eugene Peterson says: “It is the pastor’s responsibility to keep the community attentive to God.” (Working the Angles, 2).
20090402
Nehemiah Thoughs
I was chatting with one of our people here at the church about the sermon series we’re doing on the book of Nehemiah. We’ve been studying Nehemiah since the first of the year and are just about to finish it up.
One of the things that we chatted about was the implication that the Ark of the Covenant – the golden box that symbolized God’s relationship with the Jews – was missing. The Ark seems to have been a casualty of war when the Jews were taken to Babylonia. Not only is the Ark not mentioned after the Jewish exile, but it is notably absent from the depiction of Emperor Titus’ sacking of Jerusalem contained on the Arch of Titus in Rome.
The tragedy of this loss is profound. The Ark was the symbol of God’s relationship to the Jews and presence among them. After they returned to Jerusalem, rebuilt the Temple, and even rebuilt the walls, they must have been excruciatingly disappointed that their Temple was – in essence – empty.
That is the real judgment of God upon Israel and Judah. After hundreds of years of God telling his people (through his ‘prosecuting attorneys,’ the prophets) that the people should “shape up, or ship out.” The people did not shape up. So God shipped them out. Now the death, destruction, and displacement of The Exile is one sort of judgment. But after rebuilding Jerusalem, the true horror of God’s judgment becomes apparent: God is no longer with us.
And this is affirmed in the structure of Isaiah’s prophecy. The first 39 chapters are Isaiah’s statement that the Jews are 'hardened, blatant sinners headed off to exile and death.' Then, suddenly, Isaiah begins chapter 40 with words of comfort. And he signals when that comfort would come in verse 3: “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.’” For Christians, it’s pretty clear whose voice this is: John the Baptizer (Matthew 3:1-3). So what does this mean? There are two descriptions of historic periods given by Isaiah. The first is the Exile given in chapters 1 through 39. The second is the coming of Messiah heralded by John the Baptizer in chapters 40 through 66. Note there is – for Isaiah – silence about God’s dealing with the Jews from the point of the Exile to the point of Messiah’s coming.
A Psalm (22), recognized at the time as being about Messiah, begins with these thoughts: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.” Several hundred years prior to the Exile, King David had connected a sense of separation from God with a promise of Messiah.
And that’s the true judgment of God for the Jews: a partial separation. For Ezra, Nehemiah, and the others of this period, things look very bleak. Of course, several hundred years after the Exile, Jesus – on the cross – uttered the opening sentence to show that he was the fulfillment of that promise.
Still, some interesting things happen during that post-Exile time. First, the people – recognizing the severity of their judgment – resolve “Never again!” There forms a revival movement to obedience of God’s commands. The reasoning is clear: “If God judged us because of our disobedience, then we will make absolutely sure that we obey from now on!” This movement led to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
At the same time, many scholars believe that Ezra restored the scriptures, re-instituted Temple worship and sacrifice, and generally provided the intellectual leadership to revitalize Judaism. The difference is so striking that today scholars refer to “Second Temple Judaism.” From the time of Ezra to the time of Jesus, Judaism never again fell into the idolatry that plagued them from the time of Solomon’s death until The Exile (“First Temple Judaism”).
Additionally, Temple worship became so consistent and coherent that another movement arose that recognized and affirmed the power of Temple worship – Sadducees. While Pharisees emphasized Bible and obedience, Sadducees emphasized the Temple. These are gross generalizations, but my intent is to help you understand why the two groups formed and what they became by the time Jesus came around.
My point here is to recognize that this time of Ezra and Nehemiah seemed – to the people that lived it – a depressing, tragic, and empty time. But in fact, it was the seeds for a revival of Jewish religion that remained strong even after the Jews were crushed by Rome in 70 A.D.
One of the things that we chatted about was the implication that the Ark of the Covenant – the golden box that symbolized God’s relationship with the Jews – was missing. The Ark seems to have been a casualty of war when the Jews were taken to Babylonia. Not only is the Ark not mentioned after the Jewish exile, but it is notably absent from the depiction of Emperor Titus’ sacking of Jerusalem contained on the Arch of Titus in Rome.
The tragedy of this loss is profound. The Ark was the symbol of God’s relationship to the Jews and presence among them. After they returned to Jerusalem, rebuilt the Temple, and even rebuilt the walls, they must have been excruciatingly disappointed that their Temple was – in essence – empty.
That is the real judgment of God upon Israel and Judah. After hundreds of years of God telling his people (through his ‘prosecuting attorneys,’ the prophets) that the people should “shape up, or ship out.” The people did not shape up. So God shipped them out. Now the death, destruction, and displacement of The Exile is one sort of judgment. But after rebuilding Jerusalem, the true horror of God’s judgment becomes apparent: God is no longer with us.
And this is affirmed in the structure of Isaiah’s prophecy. The first 39 chapters are Isaiah’s statement that the Jews are 'hardened, blatant sinners headed off to exile and death.' Then, suddenly, Isaiah begins chapter 40 with words of comfort. And he signals when that comfort would come in verse 3: “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.’” For Christians, it’s pretty clear whose voice this is: John the Baptizer (Matthew 3:1-3). So what does this mean? There are two descriptions of historic periods given by Isaiah. The first is the Exile given in chapters 1 through 39. The second is the coming of Messiah heralded by John the Baptizer in chapters 40 through 66. Note there is – for Isaiah – silence about God’s dealing with the Jews from the point of the Exile to the point of Messiah’s coming.
A Psalm (22), recognized at the time as being about Messiah, begins with these thoughts: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.” Several hundred years prior to the Exile, King David had connected a sense of separation from God with a promise of Messiah.
And that’s the true judgment of God for the Jews: a partial separation. For Ezra, Nehemiah, and the others of this period, things look very bleak. Of course, several hundred years after the Exile, Jesus – on the cross – uttered the opening sentence to show that he was the fulfillment of that promise.
Still, some interesting things happen during that post-Exile time. First, the people – recognizing the severity of their judgment – resolve “Never again!” There forms a revival movement to obedience of God’s commands. The reasoning is clear: “If God judged us because of our disobedience, then we will make absolutely sure that we obey from now on!” This movement led to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
At the same time, many scholars believe that Ezra restored the scriptures, re-instituted Temple worship and sacrifice, and generally provided the intellectual leadership to revitalize Judaism. The difference is so striking that today scholars refer to “Second Temple Judaism.” From the time of Ezra to the time of Jesus, Judaism never again fell into the idolatry that plagued them from the time of Solomon’s death until The Exile (“First Temple Judaism”).
Additionally, Temple worship became so consistent and coherent that another movement arose that recognized and affirmed the power of Temple worship – Sadducees. While Pharisees emphasized Bible and obedience, Sadducees emphasized the Temple. These are gross generalizations, but my intent is to help you understand why the two groups formed and what they became by the time Jesus came around.
My point here is to recognize that this time of Ezra and Nehemiah seemed – to the people that lived it – a depressing, tragic, and empty time. But in fact, it was the seeds for a revival of Jewish religion that remained strong even after the Jews were crushed by Rome in 70 A.D.
20090330
Repentance and Over-reaction
We've been going through the book of Nehemiah since the first of the year. It has been a good study and we've seen some interesting perspectives preached from our team. One of the frustrations I've had in preaching is that I feel like I've come across some great thoughts but - because of time constraints - couldn't preach them.
Other times, like now, I think over a passage I just preached and suddenly realize something about the passage that didn't occur to me until *after* I've supposedly fully preached on it.
Of course, that is one thing a blog can be useful for: communicating some ideas that didn't quite make it into the final cut of the sermon. This is one of those times.
On March 1st, I preached on Nehemiah 9. The passage is very powerful. In summary, the people gather for 'church' and read the Bible for three hours straight. Then, for the next three hours they confessed their sins and worshipped God. One point I made in my sermon (which is good to repeat) is that the people first got Bible input, next they confessed, then they could properly worship.
But this got me thinking, two weeks later, about their confession and repentance. There are several instances when this pattern occurs. It seems to be a pattern of revival: the Bible is 'rediscovered,' read, and people realize that they have completely ignored the requirements that God expects of them. They realize that they have been living in utter rebellion to the righteous judge of the universe. This is a bad situation! Then they confess their sin, make changes to repent, and even make restitution for the wrongs they've committed, all so that they will be reconciled to the loving and gracious God, Yahweh.
This happens most notoriously in the reign of king Josiah when they actually stumble across the Bible while doing a periodic remodeling of the Temple - apparently nobody really cared much about the Bible in times previous (2Chr. 34). It happens again in Ezra (chapter 9 and 10), a couple of times in Nehemiah (Neh. chapters 8 and 9).
Here's a weird thing: when we read stories about how the people read their Bibles, then were profoundly convicted, made a big scene of confession and declare repentance; we are tempted think "over-reaction." Really! In our sophisticated, hyper-suspicious post-modern perspectivalistic meta-narrative; we think those people back then were all about the drama and making a big deal about what certainly are minor issues. Clearly, we believe in all our post-modern smugness, they were over-reacting and really needed to chill.
Well, here's our problem. The Bible says that all *those* folks actually reacted properly. According to the Bible, this means that they got it right and we've got it wrong.
I'm thinking about that. What would it mean about my own personal sensitivity to God's holiness and my own sinfulness if I felt so guilty (heavens! there's a word we don't use today) about my wickedness that I would actually feel compelled to wail (who "wails" these days?), throw dirt all over myself, and tear my clothes?
By the way, why *did* they tear their clothes? Well, clothes were invented a Very Long Time Ago (Gen. 3:7) for the express purpose of hiding our 'real' selves - to hide our sinfulness. From that time to this, clothing has been a way of hiding our true natures and making ourselves somehow to appear better than we are. When people 'rent their garments,' it seems to me that they were actually making a very powerful statement of their confession: "Lord, here I really am: I've been hiding behind these clothes (and other things) - be merciful to me, a sinner!"
Back to the point: what kind of confession and resulting repentance would that really mean if I were so humbled by God's holiness that I would authentically wail out loud at my sinfulness? Well, people around me would certainly consider that rather awkward. That would definitely be "not cool."
Hmmmm. I wonder at which attitude God regards more? The attitude that says, "Dude; chill out! Man, you don't see me getting all emo and narcissistic about all my issues, do you?" or "God be merciful to me, a sinner." Look at Luke 18:10-14 for the answer.
All this tells me that I am not as convicted about my sin as I should be.
Other times, like now, I think over a passage I just preached and suddenly realize something about the passage that didn't occur to me until *after* I've supposedly fully preached on it.
Of course, that is one thing a blog can be useful for: communicating some ideas that didn't quite make it into the final cut of the sermon. This is one of those times.
On March 1st, I preached on Nehemiah 9. The passage is very powerful. In summary, the people gather for 'church' and read the Bible for three hours straight. Then, for the next three hours they confessed their sins and worshipped God. One point I made in my sermon (which is good to repeat) is that the people first got Bible input, next they confessed, then they could properly worship.
But this got me thinking, two weeks later, about their confession and repentance. There are several instances when this pattern occurs. It seems to be a pattern of revival: the Bible is 'rediscovered,' read, and people realize that they have completely ignored the requirements that God expects of them. They realize that they have been living in utter rebellion to the righteous judge of the universe. This is a bad situation! Then they confess their sin, make changes to repent, and even make restitution for the wrongs they've committed, all so that they will be reconciled to the loving and gracious God, Yahweh.
This happens most notoriously in the reign of king Josiah when they actually stumble across the Bible while doing a periodic remodeling of the Temple - apparently nobody really cared much about the Bible in times previous (2Chr. 34). It happens again in Ezra (chapter 9 and 10), a couple of times in Nehemiah (Neh. chapters 8 and 9).
Here's a weird thing: when we read stories about how the people read their Bibles, then were profoundly convicted, made a big scene of confession and declare repentance; we are tempted think "over-reaction." Really! In our sophisticated, hyper-suspicious post-modern perspectivalistic meta-narrative; we think those people back then were all about the drama and making a big deal about what certainly are minor issues. Clearly, we believe in all our post-modern smugness, they were over-reacting and really needed to chill.
Well, here's our problem. The Bible says that all *those* folks actually reacted properly. According to the Bible, this means that they got it right and we've got it wrong.
I'm thinking about that. What would it mean about my own personal sensitivity to God's holiness and my own sinfulness if I felt so guilty (heavens! there's a word we don't use today) about my wickedness that I would actually feel compelled to wail (who "wails" these days?), throw dirt all over myself, and tear my clothes?
By the way, why *did* they tear their clothes? Well, clothes were invented a Very Long Time Ago (Gen. 3:7) for the express purpose of hiding our 'real' selves - to hide our sinfulness. From that time to this, clothing has been a way of hiding our true natures and making ourselves somehow to appear better than we are. When people 'rent their garments,' it seems to me that they were actually making a very powerful statement of their confession: "Lord, here I really am: I've been hiding behind these clothes (and other things) - be merciful to me, a sinner!"
Back to the point: what kind of confession and resulting repentance would that really mean if I were so humbled by God's holiness that I would authentically wail out loud at my sinfulness? Well, people around me would certainly consider that rather awkward. That would definitely be "not cool."
Hmmmm. I wonder at which attitude God regards more? The attitude that says, "Dude; chill out! Man, you don't see me getting all emo and narcissistic about all my issues, do you?" or "God be merciful to me, a sinner." Look at Luke 18:10-14 for the answer.
All this tells me that I am not as convicted about my sin as I should be.
20090323
Wisdom and Foolishness
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor. 1:18
I was reading this passage and it struck me anew. For the past six months I've been reminded (and irritating my friends) time and time again by saying that "God is smart and we are stupid." My purpose in repeating this near-mantra is to remind my friends - but especially myself - of a simple reality. Life's issues are hard and complex. That's why we need Jesus (who is the smartest man whoever lived and - oh, by the way, also God) to help us. Rather than rely on our own cleverness, we need to develop the kind of relationship with Jesus that allows him to help us through life's problems.
This passage also strikes at the whole "are-you-really-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?" thing. When we look at Paul's analysis (and Paul was no mean intellect) both here and other places, we see how very clever God was in using the apparently foolish, weak, low, and non-existent to bring forth something that now is clearly wise, strong, high, and obvious - at least, to those who are being saved.
I've had the interesting experience of rubbing elbows with some pretty smart people. Truly, when you go through law school you really do meet 'scary smart' people and the 'debaters of this age.' And I've met other smart people: physicians, scientists, engineers, business leaders, political operatives, etc. They really understand how things work and can put ideas and facts together to make sense of the world. They understand how this world works.
But - and here's the problem - this world, as it works today, is "not the way it's supposed to be." The world, in this sense, is in profound rebellion to the benevolent judge who created it. And that's utterly ironic as these clever people just don't get it. They are the very ones who ought to be the most perceptive in understanding and discerning what is obvious about God from just observing the created world around them. Paul, in his letter to Romans, makes the case that both the observers of nature and the ethical "moralists" have deliberately ignored the obvious: that God exists, is moral, is personal, and will judge wrong-doing.
Why? Why should such clever people miss the obvious? Well, over in that letter to Romans Paul states that it is not an intellectual issue as much as a issue of the will - they just choose to go the other direction. Back in this passage in 1 Corinthians, Paul give us another insight: "For since (in the wisdom of God) the world did not know God through wisdom ..." (1:21). That is, God cleverly constructed the world in such a way that knowledge about him couldn't be gained through only the intellectual elite.
So - and this is part of "the wisdom of God" - it turns out that very normal folks like you and me can "get it." And it really is very simple: Jesus is good and deserves all the good things, I am bad and deserve all the bad things, Jesus (because he is Really Good) willingly took the punishment that I deserved and gave me his good things. Now that's pretty good news and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to appreciate that. If for no other reason than the science of rocketry wasn't invented until 2000 years later. :-) Back to my point: the good news ("gospel") is pretty easily understood by anyone from five to ninety-five. That's one thing that makes God cleverer than the world.
It is helpful, I think, to note that Paul doesn't bash on intellectuals just because they are smart. Notice he does say that the church, while it doesn't have loads of clever and powerful people in it, apparently does have a few (1Cor. 1:26). I think the point here is that God opposess "elite-ism;" whether "elite" because of worldly power or "non-elite" because lack of seeming influence. God has little regard for power politics. "God is opposed to the proud..." (Prov 3:34; Ps 138:6; Jas 4:6, 1Pt 5:5).
I was reading this passage and it struck me anew. For the past six months I've been reminded (and irritating my friends) time and time again by saying that "God is smart and we are stupid." My purpose in repeating this near-mantra is to remind my friends - but especially myself - of a simple reality. Life's issues are hard and complex. That's why we need Jesus (who is the smartest man whoever lived and - oh, by the way, also God) to help us. Rather than rely on our own cleverness, we need to develop the kind of relationship with Jesus that allows him to help us through life's problems.
This passage also strikes at the whole "are-you-really-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are?" thing. When we look at Paul's analysis (and Paul was no mean intellect) both here and other places, we see how very clever God was in using the apparently foolish, weak, low, and non-existent to bring forth something that now is clearly wise, strong, high, and obvious - at least, to those who are being saved.
I've had the interesting experience of rubbing elbows with some pretty smart people. Truly, when you go through law school you really do meet 'scary smart' people and the 'debaters of this age.' And I've met other smart people: physicians, scientists, engineers, business leaders, political operatives, etc. They really understand how things work and can put ideas and facts together to make sense of the world. They understand how this world works.
But - and here's the problem - this world, as it works today, is "not the way it's supposed to be." The world, in this sense, is in profound rebellion to the benevolent judge who created it. And that's utterly ironic as these clever people just don't get it. They are the very ones who ought to be the most perceptive in understanding and discerning what is obvious about God from just observing the created world around them. Paul, in his letter to Romans, makes the case that both the observers of nature and the ethical "moralists" have deliberately ignored the obvious: that God exists, is moral, is personal, and will judge wrong-doing.
Why? Why should such clever people miss the obvious? Well, over in that letter to Romans Paul states that it is not an intellectual issue as much as a issue of the will - they just choose to go the other direction. Back in this passage in 1 Corinthians, Paul give us another insight: "For since (in the wisdom of God) the world did not know God through wisdom ..." (1:21). That is, God cleverly constructed the world in such a way that knowledge about him couldn't be gained through only the intellectual elite.
So - and this is part of "the wisdom of God" - it turns out that very normal folks like you and me can "get it." And it really is very simple: Jesus is good and deserves all the good things, I am bad and deserve all the bad things, Jesus (because he is Really Good) willingly took the punishment that I deserved and gave me his good things. Now that's pretty good news and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to appreciate that. If for no other reason than the science of rocketry wasn't invented until 2000 years later. :-) Back to my point: the good news ("gospel") is pretty easily understood by anyone from five to ninety-five. That's one thing that makes God cleverer than the world.
It is helpful, I think, to note that Paul doesn't bash on intellectuals just because they are smart. Notice he does say that the church, while it doesn't have loads of clever and powerful people in it, apparently does have a few (1Cor. 1:26). I think the point here is that God opposess "elite-ism;" whether "elite" because of worldly power or "non-elite" because lack of seeming influence. God has little regard for power politics. "God is opposed to the proud..." (Prov 3:34; Ps 138:6; Jas 4:6, 1Pt 5:5).
20090316
Blogging Shift
It is a bit funny to me, once I realized what has happened.
When I was in school (seminary) I had the opportunity to interact with all these great ideas about the faith, how to live it out, how God tells us to live through the Bible, and all that. Well, the way I used to ‘metabolize’ those things was to write them out in the blog. Writing the blog helped me to grapple with the issues and engage with the ideas a bit more.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the pastorate. Now that I’m in a full-time pastoral role, I don’t have the need to express all those ideas or write a blog to help me metabolize them. Nope, I’m getting lots of opportunities to put those ideas into practice right here on the job.
Then there’s just the raw time element. I haven’t yet structured my work week and days to carve out time to do blogging.
And, more significantly, there is the confidentiality thing. Some of what I could blog about are things that are happening in the church itself. But that presents some problems. Because even if I start telling stories that happened to me in lay ministry twenty years ago, somebody just might think I was writing about them here and now.
I’m still trying to sort out how to make lessons I’ve learned public without unduly embarrassing somebody who was involved in my learning that lesson. As far as embarrassing myself: I’ve done that plenty of times before so that’s not a big issue. :-)
So for those few folks who follow my blog, please be patient with me as I figure out how to do this in the context of vocational ministry.
Blessings!
When I was in school (seminary) I had the opportunity to interact with all these great ideas about the faith, how to live it out, how God tells us to live through the Bible, and all that. Well, the way I used to ‘metabolize’ those things was to write them out in the blog. Writing the blog helped me to grapple with the issues and engage with the ideas a bit more.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the pastorate. Now that I’m in a full-time pastoral role, I don’t have the need to express all those ideas or write a blog to help me metabolize them. Nope, I’m getting lots of opportunities to put those ideas into practice right here on the job.
Then there’s just the raw time element. I haven’t yet structured my work week and days to carve out time to do blogging.
And, more significantly, there is the confidentiality thing. Some of what I could blog about are things that are happening in the church itself. But that presents some problems. Because even if I start telling stories that happened to me in lay ministry twenty years ago, somebody just might think I was writing about them here and now.
I’m still trying to sort out how to make lessons I’ve learned public without unduly embarrassing somebody who was involved in my learning that lesson. As far as embarrassing myself: I’ve done that plenty of times before so that’s not a big issue. :-)
So for those few folks who follow my blog, please be patient with me as I figure out how to do this in the context of vocational ministry.
Blessings!
20090304
Courage and Vision
Our church is considering an exercise that will allow us to discover God’s unique vision and calling for us in our community. But there is a cost. It will take time, effort, and more sensitively, money. We, like many churches now, are in a state of “resource challenge.”
Do you all remember the difference between the urgent and the important? The urgent are those things that jump at you and demand your attention. They are immediate, insistent, pressing, and seem utterly critical. But the so-called, urgent can actually be distracting from the important. The important is significant, long-term, strategic, central, ultimate, essential, and even visionary. The important is, well, important! But the urgent is merely urgent.
Here’s how I see things: the budget shortfall is an urgent problem, our lack of coherent vision is an important problem. I’m not – in any way – suggesting that our lack of resources is not painful, hard, or insignificant. But I really do think that if we have a coherent vision from God, the resource challenge will eventually work itself out with a happy ending. That’s the horse before the cart. But if we unduly concentrate on resources, then we will be stuck there.
Let me illustrate that. Guys who ride motorcycles well will tell you that you always keep your gaze on the end of the curve, not on the roadway immediately in front of you. They tell you that when something goofy goes on (lose traction, avoid something on the roadway, etc.), if you keep your eyes on where you should be going you’ll probably come out all right. But if you shift your gaze on where the bike is actually pointed, you’ll get yourself into big trouble - and it will hurt. And that is NOT easy! It takes real mental discipline and a radical courage and trust in the process – and your tires - to not panic. The point from this motorcycling analogy is that it seems to me that we should keep our eyes on where God wants us and follow that line. It takes real leadership discipline and courage, to trust God’s process and not panic.
This is not theoretical, impractical, or “blah-blah” – scriptures are clear: without vision, people are destroyed. This “vision stuff” is practical, pragmatic, and concrete. If we don’t have a true, clear, and focused calling from God, it will destroy us. Do we need a sense of urgency? Then consider what a couple years of drift, indecision, thoughtless, laziness, and ‘business as usual’ will do to any church. That church will either start to die, actually die, or become a zombie-church: dead, but still moving around causing harm.
Let me address the resource thing a bit more. The world’s values and ethos tells us – because we’ve all lived and worked in it – that if we don’t have the resources, then we can’t do good work. I think the Bible tells us something differently. I think the Bible tells us to do God’s work and then the resources will find their way to us. Not only do I really believe that, I’ve seen that happen time and again.
The definition of success that I like the best is this: One, find out what God wants you to do. Two, do it. From my perspective, the more important thing is to get a true, clear, and focused vision from God on what our church is suppose to be doing. And then do it. Neither one of those two things is easy. They both take leadership discipline and courage.
Do you all remember the difference between the urgent and the important? The urgent are those things that jump at you and demand your attention. They are immediate, insistent, pressing, and seem utterly critical. But the so-called, urgent can actually be distracting from the important. The important is significant, long-term, strategic, central, ultimate, essential, and even visionary. The important is, well, important! But the urgent is merely urgent.
Here’s how I see things: the budget shortfall is an urgent problem, our lack of coherent vision is an important problem. I’m not – in any way – suggesting that our lack of resources is not painful, hard, or insignificant. But I really do think that if we have a coherent vision from God, the resource challenge will eventually work itself out with a happy ending. That’s the horse before the cart. But if we unduly concentrate on resources, then we will be stuck there.
Let me illustrate that. Guys who ride motorcycles well will tell you that you always keep your gaze on the end of the curve, not on the roadway immediately in front of you. They tell you that when something goofy goes on (lose traction, avoid something on the roadway, etc.), if you keep your eyes on where you should be going you’ll probably come out all right. But if you shift your gaze on where the bike is actually pointed, you’ll get yourself into big trouble - and it will hurt. And that is NOT easy! It takes real mental discipline and a radical courage and trust in the process – and your tires - to not panic. The point from this motorcycling analogy is that it seems to me that we should keep our eyes on where God wants us and follow that line. It takes real leadership discipline and courage, to trust God’s process and not panic.
This is not theoretical, impractical, or “blah-blah” – scriptures are clear: without vision, people are destroyed. This “vision stuff” is practical, pragmatic, and concrete. If we don’t have a true, clear, and focused calling from God, it will destroy us. Do we need a sense of urgency? Then consider what a couple years of drift, indecision, thoughtless, laziness, and ‘business as usual’ will do to any church. That church will either start to die, actually die, or become a zombie-church: dead, but still moving around causing harm.
Let me address the resource thing a bit more. The world’s values and ethos tells us – because we’ve all lived and worked in it – that if we don’t have the resources, then we can’t do good work. I think the Bible tells us something differently. I think the Bible tells us to do God’s work and then the resources will find their way to us. Not only do I really believe that, I’ve seen that happen time and again.
The definition of success that I like the best is this: One, find out what God wants you to do. Two, do it. From my perspective, the more important thing is to get a true, clear, and focused vision from God on what our church is suppose to be doing. And then do it. Neither one of those two things is easy. They both take leadership discipline and courage.
20081210
Reason For The Season?
So it’s the Christmas season once again. The older I get, the more Christmas annoys me. Don’t get me wrong, I love many aspects of the holiday. I like the “Happy Birthday, Jesus!” part. I like the lights, smells, food, and fun that go with it.
The thing that presses my hot button is the commercialism. For decades now, we’ve been inundated with nonsense about the “True” meaning of Christmas. When I was a kid back in the 1960’s, the line was that the “True” meaning of Christmas was “brotherhood.” Really? Then we got into the 80’s and 90’s where the “True” meaning of Christmas was family. That got to be such a cliché that we’d make jokes: “Christmas; it’s all about the children!” Gag me. The current favorite, with all its deliberate ambiguity, is that the “TRUE” meaning of Christmas is “giving.” That line isn’t on your T.V. because of theologians; it’s there because of credit card companies.
First, let me tell you what most of you already know. Christmas is a bit of a confusing holiday. For some time the early church paid little to no attention to the birthday of Jesus. The church was busy trying to do what Jesus actually told them to do: make disciples as you’re going about living your life, love God and people, assemble together regularly – and do all that “until I come again.”
Now, historically, a couple things happened. The church started losing its Great Commission and Great Commandments focus – that’s bad enough. The other thing was that the society around them was getting more and more corrupt and degenerate. There was a Roman holiday called “Saturnalia” that happened each year in December. Initially, it was a celebration of the god Saturn and included feasting, drinking, and candles. Why? Because it was the cold and dark time of year. What happened is that this holiday got more and more out of control such that it became a threat to public safety – it had already compromised public morality. By the way, instead of greeting each other with “Merry Christmas!” they would greet each other with a hearty “Io, Saturnalia!”
Well here’s where the church stepped in. They recognized the need for people to celebrate the winter time (who doesn’t like a party?) and they had some pretty good evidence that Jesus was born about that time (see other folks research on that). The church did what it has done many times since. It redeemed that holiday and re-shaped it to a time to honor Jesus. And - this is the wild thing - the church was successful! Yay! And that's obvious; after all, not many people greet you with "Io, Saturnalia!" this time of year. Well; or any time of year, for that matter....
Now that’s actually a good thing. But it does call into question those bumper stickers: “Jesus is the reason for the season.” Why? Because, originally, that wasn’t the case. Of course Jesus is the reason for every season. But that’s another topic.
Again, do not get me wrong here. Jesus IS the reason for the season for Christians. But for others; not necessarily. For your average guy coming home drunk from a “Christmas Eve” party; well, as a functioning pagan, that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. When people don’t acknowledge Jesus for who he is, they just revert to their pagan roots. It’s nothing more sinister than that.
Here’s the problem: when Christians approach Christmas with exactly the same attitude, motivation, and behaviors as the pagan winter-feast celebrator, then we’ve got no claim to state what the True Meaning of Christmas is.
Here’s my claim: he who does not have Christ in his heart will not find Christmas under the tree.
The thing that presses my hot button is the commercialism. For decades now, we’ve been inundated with nonsense about the “True” meaning of Christmas. When I was a kid back in the 1960’s, the line was that the “True” meaning of Christmas was “brotherhood.” Really? Then we got into the 80’s and 90’s where the “True” meaning of Christmas was family. That got to be such a cliché that we’d make jokes: “Christmas; it’s all about the children!” Gag me. The current favorite, with all its deliberate ambiguity, is that the “TRUE” meaning of Christmas is “giving.” That line isn’t on your T.V. because of theologians; it’s there because of credit card companies.
First, let me tell you what most of you already know. Christmas is a bit of a confusing holiday. For some time the early church paid little to no attention to the birthday of Jesus. The church was busy trying to do what Jesus actually told them to do: make disciples as you’re going about living your life, love God and people, assemble together regularly – and do all that “until I come again.”
Now, historically, a couple things happened. The church started losing its Great Commission and Great Commandments focus – that’s bad enough. The other thing was that the society around them was getting more and more corrupt and degenerate. There was a Roman holiday called “Saturnalia” that happened each year in December. Initially, it was a celebration of the god Saturn and included feasting, drinking, and candles. Why? Because it was the cold and dark time of year. What happened is that this holiday got more and more out of control such that it became a threat to public safety – it had already compromised public morality. By the way, instead of greeting each other with “Merry Christmas!” they would greet each other with a hearty “Io, Saturnalia!”
Well here’s where the church stepped in. They recognized the need for people to celebrate the winter time (who doesn’t like a party?) and they had some pretty good evidence that Jesus was born about that time (see other folks research on that). The church did what it has done many times since. It redeemed that holiday and re-shaped it to a time to honor Jesus. And - this is the wild thing - the church was successful! Yay! And that's obvious; after all, not many people greet you with "Io, Saturnalia!" this time of year. Well; or any time of year, for that matter....
Now that’s actually a good thing. But it does call into question those bumper stickers: “Jesus is the reason for the season.” Why? Because, originally, that wasn’t the case. Of course Jesus is the reason for every season. But that’s another topic.
Again, do not get me wrong here. Jesus IS the reason for the season for Christians. But for others; not necessarily. For your average guy coming home drunk from a “Christmas Eve” party; well, as a functioning pagan, that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. When people don’t acknowledge Jesus for who he is, they just revert to their pagan roots. It’s nothing more sinister than that.
Here’s the problem: when Christians approach Christmas with exactly the same attitude, motivation, and behaviors as the pagan winter-feast celebrator, then we’ve got no claim to state what the True Meaning of Christmas is.
Here’s my claim: he who does not have Christ in his heart will not find Christmas under the tree.
20081104
Election Perspective
So I’m writing this on Election Day with the intent of it being posted on the day after. I was thinking about some things I read recently from one of my heroes, Mark Driscoll.
First, congratulations to the winners - what a big day for you! Second, my condolences to those who didn't win this one - there will be another chance in the future.
Today, if there is not another protracted legal battle for election results, there will be some disappointed people in this country. Some will have “won” and others will have “lost.” The unfortunate thing, from my perspective, is that many Evangelical Christians will be too invested in the results.
Here’s my concern: too many Christians are bought into an insidious form of idolatry. It is the problem of political messiah-ship. During this season, too many Christians have been enticed away from the raw fact that Jesus is not Republican and he’s not Democrat; he is the Lord.
Far too many Christians in both parties have been seduced into bad theology: “The country is going to Hell in a hand-basket if the election doesn’t come out my way.” This is, seems to me, a dangerous denial of God’s sovereignty.
Of course it’s important to vote, to be in the political process. My dad, as well as numerous civics teachers, impressed upon me that voting is not a privilege but a positive duty. For those of us in the United States, it seems to me that Romans 13:1a - “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” - applies to our duties as citizens. If the Constitution (our governing authority) gives a duty to vote, then our Christian obligation to the governing authority is to fully engage in the political process.
Still, there are too many, who should know better, that take their duty to participate to such an extent as to become idolatrous. They invest their time, treasures, talents and even spiritual well-being into politics to such a level that can only be compared to worship.
It seems to me that such a posture, for a Christian, is wrong. We worship Jesus; not our party, candidate, ideology, or political position.
For some of us, after seeing our candidate lose, we will need to repent of our sin of idolatry. Others of us, who have seen our candidate win, will need to repent of our sin of idolatry and resist the temptation to continue in that sin.
Others may talk of political history, cultural healing, "unifying the nation;" but there is a spiritual issue in how we've allowed politics to become our 'functional savior.'
That’s how it seems to me.
First, congratulations to the winners - what a big day for you! Second, my condolences to those who didn't win this one - there will be another chance in the future.
Today, if there is not another protracted legal battle for election results, there will be some disappointed people in this country. Some will have “won” and others will have “lost.” The unfortunate thing, from my perspective, is that many Evangelical Christians will be too invested in the results.
Here’s my concern: too many Christians are bought into an insidious form of idolatry. It is the problem of political messiah-ship. During this season, too many Christians have been enticed away from the raw fact that Jesus is not Republican and he’s not Democrat; he is the Lord.
Far too many Christians in both parties have been seduced into bad theology: “The country is going to Hell in a hand-basket if the election doesn’t come out my way.” This is, seems to me, a dangerous denial of God’s sovereignty.
Of course it’s important to vote, to be in the political process. My dad, as well as numerous civics teachers, impressed upon me that voting is not a privilege but a positive duty. For those of us in the United States, it seems to me that Romans 13:1a - “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” - applies to our duties as citizens. If the Constitution (our governing authority) gives a duty to vote, then our Christian obligation to the governing authority is to fully engage in the political process.
Still, there are too many, who should know better, that take their duty to participate to such an extent as to become idolatrous. They invest their time, treasures, talents and even spiritual well-being into politics to such a level that can only be compared to worship.
It seems to me that such a posture, for a Christian, is wrong. We worship Jesus; not our party, candidate, ideology, or political position.
For some of us, after seeing our candidate lose, we will need to repent of our sin of idolatry. Others of us, who have seen our candidate win, will need to repent of our sin of idolatry and resist the temptation to continue in that sin.
Others may talk of political history, cultural healing, "unifying the nation;" but there is a spiritual issue in how we've allowed politics to become our 'functional savior.'
That’s how it seems to me.
20081031
Parabolic Interpretation
I was privileged to preach twice in the last two weeks and it so happened that my biblical texts for both sermons were Jesus’ parables. In the first sermon, there were two parables: the parable of the friend at midnight and the one about the evil judge. In the second sermon, the primary text was the so-called parable of “the Good Samaritan.”
One of the interesting things I learned in seminary was how to interpret the Bible better. Rather than relying on what my favorite radio (or podcast) preacher tells me, or what I read in a book (devotional or commentary), or whatever interpretive prejudices I might bring to the text; the point is to let the text speak for itself. The whole science of interpretation (“Hermeneutics” is the technical term) is to prevent, as much as possible, those potential errors of interpretation and get at what the original authors really meant.
Parables can be really tricky to interpret. In any good work on hermeneutics, there’s usually a short laundry list of the “rules” (more like strong guidelines) to interpret parables. Other forms of literature found in the Bible (narrative, poetry, etc.) have their rules but Parables seem to always get special treatment.
But here’s the Number One, Primary, Unalterable Rule of Parabolic Interpretation: If Jesus or the gospel writer actually gives the interpretation of the parable, then that’s the interpretation.
So, what if you go through a parable and come up with a significantly different interpretation of the parable than Jesus gave? Well, let’s just say that you need to go back and do your homework again.
Now - can you believe it? - there are actually people who would disagree with that principle of interpretation. They believe that they can fragment the text, sever the parable from the interpretation given by the parable’s author, and do with the parable whatever they want to. Oddly enough, these people who want to fragment the text are postmodernists in love with “deconstruction.” So the postmodern deconstructionists are actually giving themselves permission to make stuff up as they go along, seems to me.
The approach I gave to parabolic interpretation additionally affirms the canonical approach to Biblical theology: look fully to the text before you use external resources to aid your interpretive task.
So let’s look at a couple of the examples. The friend at midnight parable is found in Luke 11:5-8. The parable is squarely connected to Jesus’ teaching on prayer in the previous four verses. After Jesus tells the parable, he spends then next five verses explaining the parable. There you are – there’s the interpretation.
In the parable of the widow and unjust judge, found in Luke 18:2-5, the writer (Luke) gives the point and interpretation of the parable in the introduction in 18:1. The point of the parable is that we should pray and not give up. There it is, that’s the parable’s interpretation. After the parable, Jesus gives some interesting teaching about God’s love for his people and justice, the nature of faith, and affirms that he’s coming back.
Even the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35) yields the same result. What’s the point of the parable? Within the context of obeying the great commandments (10:25-29), Jesus’ point is crystal clear: “Go and do likewise” (10:37). There it is – right in front of us.
So the point here is that while parables can sometimes be tricky to interpret; there are several parables where that hard work is already done for you.
Sometimes you don’t have to look for the answer; you just have to see it.
One of the interesting things I learned in seminary was how to interpret the Bible better. Rather than relying on what my favorite radio (or podcast) preacher tells me, or what I read in a book (devotional or commentary), or whatever interpretive prejudices I might bring to the text; the point is to let the text speak for itself. The whole science of interpretation (“Hermeneutics” is the technical term) is to prevent, as much as possible, those potential errors of interpretation and get at what the original authors really meant.
Parables can be really tricky to interpret. In any good work on hermeneutics, there’s usually a short laundry list of the “rules” (more like strong guidelines) to interpret parables. Other forms of literature found in the Bible (narrative, poetry, etc.) have their rules but Parables seem to always get special treatment.
But here’s the Number One, Primary, Unalterable Rule of Parabolic Interpretation: If Jesus or the gospel writer actually gives the interpretation of the parable, then that’s the interpretation.
So, what if you go through a parable and come up with a significantly different interpretation of the parable than Jesus gave? Well, let’s just say that you need to go back and do your homework again.
Now - can you believe it? - there are actually people who would disagree with that principle of interpretation. They believe that they can fragment the text, sever the parable from the interpretation given by the parable’s author, and do with the parable whatever they want to. Oddly enough, these people who want to fragment the text are postmodernists in love with “deconstruction.” So the postmodern deconstructionists are actually giving themselves permission to make stuff up as they go along, seems to me.
The approach I gave to parabolic interpretation additionally affirms the canonical approach to Biblical theology: look fully to the text before you use external resources to aid your interpretive task.
So let’s look at a couple of the examples. The friend at midnight parable is found in Luke 11:5-8. The parable is squarely connected to Jesus’ teaching on prayer in the previous four verses. After Jesus tells the parable, he spends then next five verses explaining the parable. There you are – there’s the interpretation.
In the parable of the widow and unjust judge, found in Luke 18:2-5, the writer (Luke) gives the point and interpretation of the parable in the introduction in 18:1. The point of the parable is that we should pray and not give up. There it is, that’s the parable’s interpretation. After the parable, Jesus gives some interesting teaching about God’s love for his people and justice, the nature of faith, and affirms that he’s coming back.
Even the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35) yields the same result. What’s the point of the parable? Within the context of obeying the great commandments (10:25-29), Jesus’ point is crystal clear: “Go and do likewise” (10:37). There it is – right in front of us.
So the point here is that while parables can sometimes be tricky to interpret; there are several parables where that hard work is already done for you.
Sometimes you don’t have to look for the answer; you just have to see it.
20080904
Thoughts on Hebrews 11
I’ve been thinking about that famous chapter of the book of Hebrews, chapter eleven, frequently called the “Hall of Fame.” The chapter begins with a discussion of the nature of faith. The writer of Hebrews (we don’t really know who that is) does something that neither John, Paul, nor James do – he defines the word “faith.” And, wouldn’t you know?, he uses the word a tad differently than the other guys (who all use the word differently from each other – a topic for another day). Faith, for the writer, is both a rational thing and an action thing.
ByTheWay, no Biblical writer ever suggests that faith is a “blind leap” like wishful thinking. That is a completely un-Biblical understanding of the word.
The point of this whole section (and the writer has been working up to it throughout the book) is that faith is what saves. Hebrews 11:2 “For by it the people of old received their commendation.” That is, the idea of salvation by faith is not some new-fangled idea invented by John or Paul. It’s been around from the Very Beginning.
There are some really interesting things to notice in the chapter. First, the writer seems to emphasize a ‘declaratory’ nature to faith in the time before Moses. People are commended, speak (4, 14), are warned, are called, condemn, receive promises, bless, and make mention. These are all words related to speech, to declaring something. At the same time, notice that these people also are doing things. Kinda a ‘speech-act’ notion. Interestingly, after Moses faith is demonstrated pretty much only by action.
But then Moses comes along. There are three Great Heroes to the Hebrew people: Abraham (Father - identity), Moses (Prophet), and David (king). The writer deals with two of them, Abraham and Moses. Like Paul and James, the writer affirms that Abraham was not justified by the Law, but by vital faith. Even more startling to the readers (Hebrews) is that "The Law Giver," Moses, was approved before God because of his faith – not his ability to keep the Law! Even today we refer to that governmental, sacrificial, and ethical complex of rules as “The Law of Moses.” But the writer slaps that down pointing out that even Moses wasn’t justified because of The Law that bears his name.
But the REAL agenda that the writer wants to emphasize is that it is only Jesus who is the standard, source, and object of faith. It is clear that every person mentioned in the so-called “Roll Call of Faith” was a sinner; some of them notoriously so. But Jesus is the perfect example of faith. The writer says, in 12:1-2, (pardon my paraphrase): ‘While you have all of those examples of so-called “Great Faith,” you’re looking in the wrong direction. You need to look at Jesus – he’s the Real Deal.’
So the writer’s argument is that it is faith in a proper object, from a proper source, and actually relied upon that saves. And it has always been that way.
ByTheWay, no Biblical writer ever suggests that faith is a “blind leap” like wishful thinking. That is a completely un-Biblical understanding of the word.
The point of this whole section (and the writer has been working up to it throughout the book) is that faith is what saves. Hebrews 11:2 “For by it the people of old received their commendation.” That is, the idea of salvation by faith is not some new-fangled idea invented by John or Paul. It’s been around from the Very Beginning.
There are some really interesting things to notice in the chapter. First, the writer seems to emphasize a ‘declaratory’ nature to faith in the time before Moses. People are commended, speak (4, 14), are warned, are called, condemn, receive promises, bless, and make mention. These are all words related to speech, to declaring something. At the same time, notice that these people also are doing things. Kinda a ‘speech-act’ notion. Interestingly, after Moses faith is demonstrated pretty much only by action.
But then Moses comes along. There are three Great Heroes to the Hebrew people: Abraham (Father - identity), Moses (Prophet), and David (king). The writer deals with two of them, Abraham and Moses. Like Paul and James, the writer affirms that Abraham was not justified by the Law, but by vital faith. Even more startling to the readers (Hebrews) is that "The Law Giver," Moses, was approved before God because of his faith – not his ability to keep the Law! Even today we refer to that governmental, sacrificial, and ethical complex of rules as “The Law of Moses.” But the writer slaps that down pointing out that even Moses wasn’t justified because of The Law that bears his name.
But the REAL agenda that the writer wants to emphasize is that it is only Jesus who is the standard, source, and object of faith. It is clear that every person mentioned in the so-called “Roll Call of Faith” was a sinner; some of them notoriously so. But Jesus is the perfect example of faith. The writer says, in 12:1-2, (pardon my paraphrase): ‘While you have all of those examples of so-called “Great Faith,” you’re looking in the wrong direction. You need to look at Jesus – he’s the Real Deal.’
So the writer’s argument is that it is faith in a proper object, from a proper source, and actually relied upon that saves. And it has always been that way.
20080824
"Grey" Scripture
One of the questions that was brought up during this last course was a question about the concept of the "sufficiency of scripture." One of my classmates provocatively asked whether the Bible speaks mostly in guidelines, suggestions, and is mostly "grey" rather than being "black and white." That got me thinking.
We learn, in Bible classes, the Interpreting Scriptures course, and the theology classes that the Bible is "sufficient." But we don't spend a lot of time poking at that idea.
I'm going to quote a guy named Ken Myers:
We don't hear much about the "insufficiency of Scripture." But it is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about Christianity and culture. Scripture does not present itself as the only source of truth about all matters. It does not even present itself as a source of some truth about everything. It presents itself as the only authoritative source of truth about some things, and they are the most important things.
So, seems to me that the issue is whether the Bible presents the down-to-the-last-detail truth about those important things. In agreement with the folks posing the "grey" question, I think the answer is occasionally: "no." That is, not all the details of how to live life are filled in by the Bible in such a way that we in our modern (or post-modern) mindset would like. I think that God does grant us the dignity of discovery and wants us to work a bit at connecting the dots that he's laid out.
As to the not-as-important-things? For example: the Bible doesn't directly speak to whether I should buy and use a Mac or PC - much less whether I should use electricity. From that, I would conclude that issue (Mac or PC) is not really as important as stuff like: what's our relationship to The Creator; do we understand that we have a HUGE sin problem; do we see that the answer is Jesus; do we connect with a well-done church; do we do (as well as believe) a true gospel? Those are The Important Issues and the Bible speaks clearly to them. Though not even those matters are always covered in complete detail.
While I am, even now, going through a thought experiment about the concept of biblical "ambiguity" (in a technical sense) I'm not at all comfortable with the thought that most of the Bible is 'grey.'
I'm going to quote a guy named Ken Myers:
We don't hear much about the "insufficiency of Scripture." But it is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about Christianity and culture. Scripture does not present itself as the only source of truth about all matters. It does not even present itself as a source of some truth about everything. It presents itself as the only authoritative source of truth about some things, and they are the most important things.
So, seems to me that the issue is whether the Bible presents the down-to-the-last-detail truth about those important things. In agreement with the folks posing the "grey" question, I think the answer is occasionally: "no." That is, not all the details of how to live life are filled in by the Bible in such a way that we in our modern (or post-modern) mindset would like. I think that God does grant us the dignity of discovery and wants us to work a bit at connecting the dots that he's laid out.
As to the not-as-important-things? For example: the Bible doesn't directly speak to whether I should buy and use a Mac or PC - much less whether I should use electricity. From that, I would conclude that issue (Mac or PC) is not really as important as stuff like: what's our relationship to The Creator; do we understand that we have a HUGE sin problem; do we see that the answer is Jesus; do we connect with a well-done church; do we do (as well as believe) a true gospel? Those are The Important Issues and the Bible speaks clearly to them. Though not even those matters are always covered in complete detail.
While I am, even now, going through a thought experiment about the concept of biblical "ambiguity" (in a technical sense) I'm not at all comfortable with the thought that most of the Bible is 'grey.'
But I sense that's not the core of the question. It seems my classmate is responding to an overly-literalistic tradition. And to that, I certainly agree that scripture gives us more freedom and liberty in Christ than some of our Fightin' Fundies brothers and sisters are willing to admit.
20080817
Acts 2:42 - Not the ideal for the church
I've also occasionally wondered at our use of that Acts 2 passage as an example of the perfect church. Or, for that matter, of our attempts to become "like the first century church."
The thing we like (and should like) about the church of that time was their rootedness in the "Apostles teaching" (that's 'Bible' to us), their influence by and general obedience to the Spirit, their zeal for both growing in Christ and sharing Christ (eventually), and so forth.
But, while I certainly applaud my brothers and sisters as they followed Jesus 1,900 years ago; it is obvious "that was then and this is now." Even Paul touched on this when he stated that David served his generation and then went to be with his Lord (Ac 13:36). My Bible survey professor keeps hammering on us that The Apostolic Age was pretty unique in church history.
So these, and a recent semester of church history, lead me to tentatively consider that there may not be some Golden Model of Church. In fact, it may be that church is far more a child of its culture and time than we are comfortable with (I ruminate on this here).
And I'm not the only one that may be questioning this Acts-2-church-is-the-perfect-church idea. There's a whole church-planting network out there called Acts29. The idea behind the name is what-if the book of Acts continued on past chapter 28 to record the expansion of the Kingdom in our own time? That would become the '29th' chapter of the book of Acts.
I think the big idea is that the church holds tightly to the gospel and is in firm contact with its culture; not some idealized way of doing church from "The Golden Age." To even suggest that the Church had a "golden age" is to dismiss that the church's best days are yet to come.
The thing we like (and should like) about the church of that time was their rootedness in the "Apostles teaching" (that's 'Bible' to us), their influence by and general obedience to the Spirit, their zeal for both growing in Christ and sharing Christ (eventually), and so forth.
But, while I certainly applaud my brothers and sisters as they followed Jesus 1,900 years ago; it is obvious "that was then and this is now." Even Paul touched on this when he stated that David served his generation and then went to be with his Lord (Ac 13:36). My Bible survey professor keeps hammering on us that The Apostolic Age was pretty unique in church history.
So these, and a recent semester of church history, lead me to tentatively consider that there may not be some Golden Model of Church. In fact, it may be that church is far more a child of its culture and time than we are comfortable with (I ruminate on this here).
And I'm not the only one that may be questioning this Acts-2-church-is-the-perfect-church idea. There's a whole church-planting network out there called Acts29. The idea behind the name is what-if the book of Acts continued on past chapter 28 to record the expansion of the Kingdom in our own time? That would become the '29th' chapter of the book of Acts.
I think the big idea is that the church holds tightly to the gospel and is in firm contact with its culture; not some idealized way of doing church from "The Golden Age." To even suggest that the Church had a "golden age" is to dismiss that the church's best days are yet to come.
20080810
Communicating Gospel Cross-culturally
Seems to me that given the general biblical illiteracy of the culture we find ourselves in, as well as the general inability of most people to think critically (most thinking seems to be more bumper-sticker or sound-bite polemic), we can't go to the Bible very quickly when we attempt to communicate the gospel to our Post-modern culture and society.
I read a Christian thinker a few years back who suggested that we need to become better Natural theologians rather than better Systematic theologians. What he meant by that is that we should get a better grip on Thomas Aquinas' massive thought-experiment that we now call Natural Theology. Aquinas' experiement went like this: we know Paul says in Romans 1 that everybody knows some pretty basic things about God. So using the evidence we have before us and our own reasoning power, just how far can we get along into our theology without having to rely on Jesus, the Apostles, or scripture? Aquinas got pretty far along, and while others that followed him thought he resorted to a couple of logical cheats to get there (unintentionally), still he made lots of interesting points.
The guy I read said we ought to do a similar, though not as intense thing. Can we converse with a dude in the epicenter of Portland "wierdness" (say on Hawthorne) about the existance - not of God - but of basic good and evil? Can we argue about the sanctity of life - not from Psalms - but from our own feelings towards children and infants? Can we argue about a creator - not from Genesis - but from the amazingly balanced world around us? And then, from there, can we make the move to point them to God, human uniqueness, and creation?
And even to a moral standard? Consider this exchange:
PoMo: "Dude, your metanarratives don't do it for me. I don't need somebody doing their power trip on me; telling me what's right and wrong."
XnDude: "OK, so let me ask you; do you have a sense of right and wrong?"
PoMo: "Sure I do."
XnDude: "Do you, according to your own standards, ever fail those standards?"
PoMo: "Yeah, 'course I do."
XnDude: "Then you -right there - agree with me that you are a 'sinner.'"
The thinker's point (who I mentioned before) was that if our culture denies us the use of scripture, we are not left without authority to speak. God has still given us an ordered world in which he is displayed. We can use that and build upon it to bring the specific good news about Jesus, salvation, and redemption.
What do you think? Would that play in the espresso shop on Hawthorne?
I read a Christian thinker a few years back who suggested that we need to become better Natural theologians rather than better Systematic theologians. What he meant by that is that we should get a better grip on Thomas Aquinas' massive thought-experiment that we now call Natural Theology. Aquinas' experiement went like this: we know Paul says in Romans 1 that everybody knows some pretty basic things about God. So using the evidence we have before us and our own reasoning power, just how far can we get along into our theology without having to rely on Jesus, the Apostles, or scripture? Aquinas got pretty far along, and while others that followed him thought he resorted to a couple of logical cheats to get there (unintentionally), still he made lots of interesting points.
The guy I read said we ought to do a similar, though not as intense thing. Can we converse with a dude in the epicenter of Portland "wierdness" (say on Hawthorne) about the existance - not of God - but of basic good and evil? Can we argue about the sanctity of life - not from Psalms - but from our own feelings towards children and infants? Can we argue about a creator - not from Genesis - but from the amazingly balanced world around us? And then, from there, can we make the move to point them to God, human uniqueness, and creation?
And even to a moral standard? Consider this exchange:
PoMo: "Dude, your metanarratives don't do it for me. I don't need somebody doing their power trip on me; telling me what's right and wrong."
XnDude: "OK, so let me ask you; do you have a sense of right and wrong?"
PoMo: "Sure I do."
XnDude: "Do you, according to your own standards, ever fail those standards?"
PoMo: "Yeah, 'course I do."
XnDude: "Then you -right there - agree with me that you are a 'sinner.'"
The thinker's point (who I mentioned before) was that if our culture denies us the use of scripture, we are not left without authority to speak. God has still given us an ordered world in which he is displayed. We can use that and build upon it to bring the specific good news about Jesus, salvation, and redemption.
What do you think? Would that play in the espresso shop on Hawthorne?
20080804
Immediate or Delayed Baptism
As I may have mentioned before, I've been doing lots of thinking about baptism in the last three or more months. I've also been looking at baptism from a church history perspective.
The very early church (within 100 years of the Ascention) practiced 'delayed' baptism. The ritual was performed after a period of training as they saw baptism partly as an 'initiation.' Before the convert was to be accepted by the local church, they needed to get some basic training (replacing their previous pagan background with what we might now call 'a biblical world-view') and show real commitment ("Do you truly renounce the world, the flesh, and the Devil?").
Post-convert-pre-baptism folks were called "catechumans" (because they were in the process of "catechesis," or training). There actually were some of these catechuman guys who delayed getting baptized for years because they weren't *quite* ready to seriously renounce the world, flesh, and works of Satan. One of our early Best-And-Brightest guys, Augustine once quipped, "Lord, give me chastity - but not quite yet." Of course, Augustine eventually got with the program.
Anyway, all of that just gets me thinking about folks who we may allow to become members of our churches.
Let's be clear about this historic position of 'delayed' baptism - it is not necessarily saying that these converts were converted only when they were baptized There is some confusion on that point. Still, the emphasis was on, as we put it, "affirming by an outward sign an inward reality."
So that was the argument for 'delayed' baptism - the local church wanted to see a level of evidence that the convert really had engaged the gospel. In this view, the Ethiopian (Ac. 8:27-38) clearly already had a biblical world view - he was reading a personal copy of Isaiah so knew the OT pretty well and was asking good interpretive questions. The Ethiopian already had a good 'biblical world-view.' So Philip, goes this reasoning, could baptize the Ethiopian immediately. Again, the Phillipian jailer (Ac. 16:25-33) got training and instruction directly from an Apostle (16:32) so he and his family - after showing evidences of conversion and commitment - could be baptized very quickly by that Apostle.
These don't capture all the arguments for 'late' baptism, but it is worth reflecting on the issue. The very early church faced the same problems that we do: so-called "believers" who turned out to have been admitted into the local body too soon. The result, for those true believers long ago, was severe persecution and death by 'turncoat Christians.'
Is it possible that allowing unprepared "believers" into church membership too early could cause harm to our local churches? Is that a risk we run today?
So, some suggest that the Biblical model is immediate baptism Why don't we go back to that? My response is to challenge whether 'indiscriminate' early baptism truly is the Biblical model. The very early church did not seem to think so.
The very early church (within 100 years of the Ascention) practiced 'delayed' baptism. The ritual was performed after a period of training as they saw baptism partly as an 'initiation.' Before the convert was to be accepted by the local church, they needed to get some basic training (replacing their previous pagan background with what we might now call 'a biblical world-view') and show real commitment ("Do you truly renounce the world, the flesh, and the Devil?").
Post-convert-pre-baptism folks were called "catechumans" (because they were in the process of "catechesis," or training). There actually were some of these catechuman guys who delayed getting baptized for years because they weren't *quite* ready to seriously renounce the world, flesh, and works of Satan. One of our early Best-And-Brightest guys, Augustine once quipped, "Lord, give me chastity - but not quite yet." Of course, Augustine eventually got with the program.
Anyway, all of that just gets me thinking about folks who we may allow to become members of our churches.
Let's be clear about this historic position of 'delayed' baptism - it is not necessarily saying that these converts were converted only when they were baptized There is some confusion on that point. Still, the emphasis was on, as we put it, "affirming by an outward sign an inward reality."
So that was the argument for 'delayed' baptism - the local church wanted to see a level of evidence that the convert really had engaged the gospel. In this view, the Ethiopian (Ac. 8:27-38) clearly already had a biblical world view - he was reading a personal copy of Isaiah so knew the OT pretty well and was asking good interpretive questions. The Ethiopian already had a good 'biblical world-view.' So Philip, goes this reasoning, could baptize the Ethiopian immediately. Again, the Phillipian jailer (Ac. 16:25-33) got training and instruction directly from an Apostle (16:32) so he and his family - after showing evidences of conversion and commitment - could be baptized very quickly by that Apostle.
These don't capture all the arguments for 'late' baptism, but it is worth reflecting on the issue. The very early church faced the same problems that we do: so-called "believers" who turned out to have been admitted into the local body too soon. The result, for those true believers long ago, was severe persecution and death by 'turncoat Christians.'
Is it possible that allowing unprepared "believers" into church membership too early could cause harm to our local churches? Is that a risk we run today?
So, some suggest that the Biblical model is immediate baptism Why don't we go back to that? My response is to challenge whether 'indiscriminate' early baptism truly is the Biblical model. The very early church did not seem to think so.
20080728
Gal. 1:15; Election To Salvation and Mission
So the great Calvinist-Arminian debate...
First, I'm going to annoy some people and suggest that the debate has been shaped a bit unfairly. For one, the debate has been shaped by "Reform" writers who seem to ignore that Jacob Arminius was, in fact, a Reform theologian. For two, the debate (again, from the side of "Reform" writers) describes "Calvinism" (rather than what Calvin explicitly taught) and "Arminianism" (which casts Finney-ism as the straw man, rather than the Weslyan tradition). So the whole thing is a bit of a set-up.
Second, The Debate goes (very simplistically) like this: either God pre-ordaines and decrees people to be saved before any consideration as to how those people might choose, which smacks of fatalism; or God is a bit dense (or powerless) and has to look forward to save those people who actually will respond to the gospel.
Dr. Breshears, in an attempt to square the circle on this matter, suggests that when faced with an intractible apparent contradiction we should look for an untested assumption. He suggests that such an assumption exists in the election issue. The assumption is that God always acts exactly the same way with all people. Is that assumption warrented?
Maybe God acts differently with different people. Maybe some people are persuaded and others are decreed. That popped into my head as I read Galatians 1:15: "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ..."
What's interesting about Galatians 1:15 is that Paul only speaks for himself. He says that he was called apart even before he was born. Why didn't he say the same thing about all the other believers in Galatia?
Now the traditional view of this text is that Paul is talking about his calling to preach the gospel to Gentiles - to a specific ministry. But the grammar here is a bit uncertain. There seems to be room to read that as, "God (the same who called me to salvation) was pleased to reveal Jesus to me in a way that would allow me to do this special ministry to the Gentiles." That is, Paul was affirming two callings: (parenthetically) one to salvation, the other (the main point) to a special ministry. "set me apart..." and "called me through his grace" seem to be subordinate clauses to the main thought: "But when God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might (do this special mission)."
So that gets me wondering about the nature of election. Do we assume - presumptively - that God must act with everyone in exactly the same manner?
First, I'm going to annoy some people and suggest that the debate has been shaped a bit unfairly. For one, the debate has been shaped by "Reform" writers who seem to ignore that Jacob Arminius was, in fact, a Reform theologian. For two, the debate (again, from the side of "Reform" writers) describes "Calvinism" (rather than what Calvin explicitly taught) and "Arminianism" (which casts Finney-ism as the straw man, rather than the Weslyan tradition). So the whole thing is a bit of a set-up.
Second, The Debate goes (very simplistically) like this: either God pre-ordaines and decrees people to be saved before any consideration as to how those people might choose, which smacks of fatalism; or God is a bit dense (or powerless) and has to look forward to save those people who actually will respond to the gospel.
Dr. Breshears, in an attempt to square the circle on this matter, suggests that when faced with an intractible apparent contradiction we should look for an untested assumption. He suggests that such an assumption exists in the election issue. The assumption is that God always acts exactly the same way with all people. Is that assumption warrented?
Maybe God acts differently with different people. Maybe some people are persuaded and others are decreed. That popped into my head as I read Galatians 1:15: "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ..."
What's interesting about Galatians 1:15 is that Paul only speaks for himself. He says that he was called apart even before he was born. Why didn't he say the same thing about all the other believers in Galatia?
Now the traditional view of this text is that Paul is talking about his calling to preach the gospel to Gentiles - to a specific ministry. But the grammar here is a bit uncertain. There seems to be room to read that as, "God (the same who called me to salvation) was pleased to reveal Jesus to me in a way that would allow me to do this special ministry to the Gentiles." That is, Paul was affirming two callings: (parenthetically) one to salvation, the other (the main point) to a special ministry. "set me apart..." and "called me through his grace" seem to be subordinate clauses to the main thought: "But when God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might (do this special mission)."
So that gets me wondering about the nature of election. Do we assume - presumptively - that God must act with everyone in exactly the same manner?
20080723
Acts 17 - Paul's Seeker Sensitivity: Rebuttal
So one of my friends gave me some good-natured push-back about my line of reasoning that Paul was "seeker sensitive" and "culturally relevant" (see the post on 20080708). My friend poked specifically at the Mars Hill discourse at Athens. The line of reasoning goes like this: Paul's attempt to be culturally relevant was ineffective: not many converts, no recorded church in Athens, and The Bible tells us so - look at the text! Therefore, we should jettison all this "culturally relevant" garbage and Preach The Word!
OK - certainly we should preach the Word. I'm not in any disagreement with that. But let's take another look at the text.
First, the evidence actually in the text doesn't support the proposition that Paul's cultural engagement was ineffective. Some people in Athens were converted, there were requests to hear more from Paul, and it's not surprizing that no church was recorded planted as Paul's mission wasn't to plant in Athens - he was on his way and Athens was a lay-over while he waited for Silas and Timothy. Finally, the scripture doesn't signal or otherwise indicate that Paul's work on Mars Hill was bad, ineffective, or inappropriate.
The real, larger, question that my friend is raising (of course) is one of 'cultural engagement.' Is Christ against culture, above culture, accomodated to culture, or in culture? Several of you will recognize those phrases as the premise of the book, "Christ In Culture" by R. Niebuhr - a very important work. His answer is that the best - and especially the most Biblical - answer is Christ in culture: the church engaged in society.
So, my friend's arguement - seems to me - is not as compelling as advertised and the larger issue (as well as the best Biblical answer) is that Paul was right to do what he did. By the way, my friend doesn't really hold his argument, he'd heard it from a mis-guided fundamentalist.
Those are my thoughts.
OK - certainly we should preach the Word. I'm not in any disagreement with that. But let's take another look at the text.
First, the evidence actually in the text doesn't support the proposition that Paul's cultural engagement was ineffective. Some people in Athens were converted, there were requests to hear more from Paul, and it's not surprizing that no church was recorded planted as Paul's mission wasn't to plant in Athens - he was on his way and Athens was a lay-over while he waited for Silas and Timothy. Finally, the scripture doesn't signal or otherwise indicate that Paul's work on Mars Hill was bad, ineffective, or inappropriate.
The real, larger, question that my friend is raising (of course) is one of 'cultural engagement.' Is Christ against culture, above culture, accomodated to culture, or in culture? Several of you will recognize those phrases as the premise of the book, "Christ In Culture" by R. Niebuhr - a very important work. His answer is that the best - and especially the most Biblical - answer is Christ in culture: the church engaged in society.
So, my friend's arguement - seems to me - is not as compelling as advertised and the larger issue (as well as the best Biblical answer) is that Paul was right to do what he did. By the way, my friend doesn't really hold his argument, he'd heard it from a mis-guided fundamentalist.
Those are my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)