Dear Theophilus

"James with a 'Y'" - The story of a name!

2012-02-10T01:45:00.000-08:00

Everyone is always intrigued by the ‘y’ in my first name… ‘Jaymes.’

I am always a little hesitant to tell the story I was told but the story goes like this:

“My parents said that I was always going to be ‘James’ but a few days before I was born they were down by the river drinking wine coolers. They noticed the brand was ‘Bartles and Jaymes’ and thought it was a cool spelling. And so… I was born… Jaymes.”

That’s right...

My full name is Jaymes Grady Lackey. The 'Grady' comes from my dad's name. It is actually his middle name, but it is the name he has gone by since birth. My brother and I both share this middle name.

Some people in my family (Mom) wanted me to give Titus my middle name. I figured that 'Lackey' was enough of a connection to scar him for life. So, as I received my Father's name as my middle name, Erin and I gave Titus my first name: Titus Jaymes.

So, 'Bartles and Jaymes' lives on at least one more generation.

Try and BEAT THAT!!!!! No really, what are your name stories, mispronunciations, traditions...

Mormonism and Christianity - Last Post

2012-02-10T00:07:00.000-08:00

This is my last post for a while discussing the debate about the whether or not Mormons and Christians are the same.

I find the debate interesting because Mormons seemed more convinced than ever that they are Christians and I can't think of a single prominent Christian denomination that would affirm such an idea.

Here is an article discussing just this very issue: http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-01/are-mormons-christian-its-complicated

Some interesting quotes:

"Whatever it is, Mormonism is not Christianity," Land said. "They do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, they do not believe in God the Father as he is recognized in the orthodox Christian faith, and they believe that 'As man now is, God was once.' The only thing right about that sentence from the orthodox Christian perspective is the punctuation."

But even Catholics and more liberal Protestants, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Methodist Church, do not consider Mormon baptisms valid.

"The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by self-definition, does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith," the Methodists wrote in 2000.

For example, arguing that Mormons are not Christians because they do not recite the Nicene Creed would leave Jesus and his disciples outside the Christian fold as well, argues Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles. And, Holland says, the idea of a flesh-and-blood God should not sound strange to Christians, who, after all, believe in the bodily birth and resurrection of Jesus.

Christians who insist on a single, closed canon forget that Catholics and Protestants use different versions of the Bible, argues Stephen Robinson, a professor of religion at Mormon-run Brigham Young University in Utah. And didn't differing interpretations of the Trinity contribute to the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in 1054?

What do you think? Should we even be determining who is in and out? Do you find the argument that Mormon's don't accept Christian baptisms and vice versa compelling?

My Commentary on 1 John 4:7-12

2012-02-01T02:16:00.000-08:00

Jaymes Lackey

November 29, 2011

Commentary of 1 John 4:7-12

Translation of the Text

(7) Beloved, let uslove one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of Godand knows God. (8) Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.
(9) God’s love was revealed to us in this way: God sent God’s only Son into theworld so that we might live through him. (10) This is love: it is not that weloved God but that God loved us and sent the Son to be the atoning sacrificefor our sins. (11) Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to loveone another. (12) No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abidesin us, and God’s love is perfected in us.

2. Exegetical Idea:

God loves us. When we know God we are transformationallyborn of God to be able to love in the example of Jesus Christ, God’s only Son.When we love each other this way, though God has never been seen, God isrevealed through our love towards each other.

3. Exegetical Outline

1. We love each other because we are born of God(7-8)

2. We know God’s love because God sent Jesus (9-10)

3. When we love each other God is made known.(11-12)

4. Commentary

(7) Beloved, let us love oneanother, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knowsGod.

Agaphtoi’’ is thenoun form of that agape love that everyone knows about. This word sets the tonefor what is coming, namely that “God love us” repeated twice in vv. 10 and 11;the crowning proof of which is that the Father sent the Son. The church isbeloved not because the author loves those who have held fast to the apostolicwitness, but because God sent Jesus “to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins”(10). Judith Lieu points out thatthis is the beginning of the “we”/“us” inclusive language. This “continuesemphatically through the rest of the chapter, and the author does not directlyaddress his readers again as “you” until the letter draws to a close (5:13).”[1]

The word “allelouj”(“one another”) shows up again. Thisword by itself should be the clearest expression of what kind of love this is.This love is not love of enemies or even a general neighborly love reported inthe Gospels. This agape love is the Christians love for other Christians. Thelove of Christians is to be directed towards one another because we are inGod’s community. Love is the direct result from being born of God. When aChristian knows God, the key mark of the person is love because it is one ofthe key marks of God (v. 8). The character of the God’s community needs to belove for others in the community.

“…born of God and knows God”: Being born of God, inreiteration, is a transformational quality that makes us God’s children. Thisis not adoption as Paul sometimes talks about, this is much stronger language,this is having God’s DNA in us. We are the beloved of God, God’s children whoare able to have the characteristics of God and know God. We love because wehave been transformed by God’s love to love.

Knowing God is also a result of transformation. Knowing hasa very clear meaning for the author of 1 John. It is not just knowing of God,for James would say, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demonsbelieve—and shudder” (2:19). As for both, this context and the context of James,knowing God requires: (1) obeying Jesus’ commandments (cf. 2:3-5) and (2)loving the community of believers (4:7). This definition of knowing God mayaccount for much when it comes to the object of our love. Following Jesus’commandments will certainly allow for us to love our neighbor and our enemy. Lovingneighbors and enemies is a love we do, whether we want to or not, out ofobedience. Loving the community of believers comes from comes from beingtransformed by the God who is Love.

(8) Whoever does not lovedoes not know God, for God is love.

V. 8 is a parallel of v. 7 but in the negative form. Itbecomes a measuring stick for who is really born of God and who isn’t. Itparallels v.7 in that those who love, they know God. The reverse is true andreiterated that way.

V. 8 also contains the strongest equation of God and lovethat is possible; “God is love.” In this pericope, God is love because: (1) God is the progenitor of loveto both the world (v. 9) and to God’s loving children, Christians (v. 10), (2)God is the example of love in (a) sending Jesus (v. 9) and (b) the Son dyingfor our sins (v. 10).

This phrase certainly parallels the earlier statement that“God is light” (1:5). The marks of God theologically mean something about Godand transfer to be marking characteristics of his Children. In God there is nodarkness. God sacrifices God-self for us, to be our Father and we God’schildren. Likewise, God’s children are to be marked with holiness, purity andrighteousness. God’s children are to be marked with love for their siblings,the community of God. These are the traits we inherit from our heavenly Father.As God’s children bearing God’s seed, we get God’s qualitative marks. Insteadof having God’s nose or eyes, we get transformation into holiness and love.

It does need to be stated that love is not God. Lieu says itthis way, “…the author is not engaged in abstract definitions of God… stillless is he concerned with idealizing love… Love is not an abstract idea but isknown through what God has done toward women and men; it finds its goal in theshared life of those who are formed by what God has done….”[2]

(9) God’s love was revealedto us in this way: God sent God’s only Son into the world so that we might livethrough him.

God’s love is centered on the Son and his appearance to us.Jesus becomes the example both of God’s sacrificial love and how we are tolove. The “we might live through him” is an enigmatic passage. “Zesomen” isused only once in 1 John. “Through him,” in my opinion, is both (1) seeingJesus as an example and (2) through the power of the transformation in beingGod’s children. Lieu points out that death isn’t mentioned here. For theauthor, it is the sent Son that is important. Atonement theories don’t seem tobe important to the author of 1 John.[3]

It is interesting to note that with all the language of Christiansbeing God’s literal children through transformation, bearing God’s seed andqualitative marks of holiness and love, Jesus is still regarded as God’s oneand only Son. Maybe “only” shouldn’t be the translation. Maybe “unique” or“one-of-a-kind” or even “only-begotten.” “Monogenh/”is the term here. It is used primarily in the Gospel of Luke and John. Hebrewsmay be the key to this passage. In Hebrews 11:17 the word is used of Isaac asthe “monogenh/” of Abraham. ClearlyAbraham has another son, Ishmael. Isaac is the unique son of the promise, of the covenant and so maybe we shouldsee Jesus in this light. Jesus is the unique Son of God in natural birth,covenant relationship and mission, but we are now children of God throughChrist. St. Paul says it this way, “When we cry, ‘Abba!^*Father!’ ¹⁶it is thatvery Spirit bearing witness^* with our spirit that weare children of God, ¹⁷andif children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact,we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8). Wereceive the same reward and punishment with Christ and children.

Lieu concludes that Jesus could be “monogenes” because hewas sent. The authority of messengers as relating to the sender sets Jesusapart from us as children because Jesus was sent and was Son. Ultimately sheconcludes that there is nothing in 1 John that invites further reflection asthe uses are probably formulaic.[4]

Yarbrough also wants to make a connection between“monogenes” and being sent. Though Yarbrough wants to uphold “one and only”which to me negates qualitative state of the believers. He, in passing, usesthe word “unique” which may be a better translation preserving Jesus’ positionbut allowing believers to be totally transformed.[5]

Lieu and Smalley disagree on the word “world”. Lieu suggestthat “kosmos” throughout 1 John is in reference to humankind and theirsinfulness and therefore Jesus is sent to the world in this sense (cf. 2:2)[6].Smalley suggest that it is neutral referring to Jesus as the incarnate onecoming to the earth in time and space. He seems to think that is the context ofv. 9 as expounded through the word “revealed”.[7]Though I see Smalley’s points, I think Lieu is the most consistent with thecontext of the word “kosmos” in 1 John and find that Jesus was sent for allpeople.

Wall wants to point out that the revealed one, the incarnation,is the basis for the apostolic witness. The apostle’s have seen and touchedthis Jesus who came to the earth. This Jesus is the greatest and highestexample, the definition of God’s love and is the very same who the apostleshave known.[8]

(10) This is love: it is notthat we loved God but that God loved us and sent the Son to be the atoningsacrifice for our sins

This scripture defines love for us: God sacrifices God’sson. Jesus’ death is how we know that God loves us. This is not the first actof love, as the time sequence in the passage may seem to imply, but it is thegreatest act of love. Nothing else compares to this.

“ ,Ilasmon” shows up again here(cf. 2:2). This translation cannot be propitiation, which implies a wrathfuldeity being satisfied. Here, clearly there is a loving deity. God is defined aslove. More than being love, this pericope is holding God up as the example oflove in sending Jesus to be a sacrifice. The sacrifice is not in response toGod’s anger but for the world’s (kosmos) sake, that the works of the devil maybe destroyed in us (3:8).

(11) Beloved, since Godloved us so much, we also ought to love one another.

Here we have a reiteration of what has been said before (vv.7-8) but with the elucidation of vv. 9-10. God loves us by sacrificing and thisshould be the example of our love towards one another (allelous). This love isnot just a feelings love but an action love. It requires that we love others inthe community of God at the expense of ourselves and everything we have (cf.3:16-18). Lieu agrees that 3:16 is “the nature of authentic love… defined.”[9]

(12) No one has ever seenGod; if we love one another, God abides in us, and God’s love is perfectedin us.

“No one has ever seen God…” certainly this is true in onesense. No one has seen God the Father. Even those who have seen parts of Godhave not seen the full glory of God. But we have seen the Son. The apostolicwitness in 1:1-4 makes this clear that Jesus was here, touched and seen. Theauthor wants to shock the audience a bit in that the Father does abide in theworld. The Father is revealed in the community as each one loves the other. Goddwells there, the Father abides in the love of the children for each other. Thestatement is conditional, it is only when we love that God shows up. God isonly manifested when the children love one another. This may be the church’s greatestattribute and evangelistic tool.

“Teteilome,nh” is aninteresting word worthy of a vast more research. In a small sense, it meanscompleted, perfected, a goal reached. In the four uses found in 1 John (cf.2:5, 4:12, 4:17, 4:18) it should be noted that each occurrence is coupled withthe context of love. For 1 John it would seem that the end result of God’s loveis for us to love another. This is the goal of God’s love. It is the highestand best thing we can do as the beloved children of God. There is nothing worthierof our time and attention.

Lieu makes claim that this verse says that a lovingcommunity is the “most certain experience of God.”[10]

5. Theological Reflection

The community above all is the most important thing in thecosmos. God’s love has reached its perfect goal when we love each other inChristian community. This is the end all, be all of our faith. There are somepresuppositions to this. We must know God, which implies that we will followthe commandments of Christ. That implies our Christian walks. Also, this lovefor each other is not open to interpretation but is clearly defined for us in4:9-10. It must be a love like the one God has shown us through Christ, namelyself-sacrificing love.

The community’s love for one another is the highest end ofGod’s love this side of resurrection. Though God has never been see, this isthe way that God the Father is present in the world.

6. Lesson Plan for Preaching

Title: Our UltimateLife’s Goal!

1. Intro: What is our ultimate life’s goal. Whatdoes scripture tells us about what our greatest work in life is to be?

2. We love each other because we are born of God(7-8)

a. We are God’s children… we have his inheritedtrait of love.

3. We love in the example of God sending Jesus(9-10)

a. God’s love is our example

i. God’sexample is self-sacrifice

ii. Weneed to love each other in this way, through Christ.

4. When we love each other God is made known andLove’s highest goal is reached. (11-12)

a. This is God’s love reaching its highest goal inthis world.

i. Byloving each other we are living into “our ultimate life’s goal”

b. This is how God the Father chooses to manifestin the world.

i. Itis when we love one another through Jesus bringing us new birth, empowered bythe Holy Spirit, that God abides.

1. The Father abides in the community!

5. Conclusion: Are we playing church or are webeing the church? Is this time of a gathering and the highest expression ofGod’s love perfected or something else? Have our lives been about us and ourindividualism, being by ourselves in pursuit of our individual life’s goal orhave we joined God’s family, for better or worse, to live into the fullestexpression of God’s love here on earth?

Bibliography

Craddock, Fred B., Luke Timothy Johnson, David L. Bartlett,Duane F. Watson, C. Clifton

Black, and Christopher C. Rowland.1998. The New interpreter's Bible: Theletter to

theHebrews, the letter of James, the first and second letters of Peter, the first,

second,and third letters of John, the letter of Jude, the book of Revelation.Volume

XII. Nashvville, Tenn: Abingdon.

Lieu, Judith., I, II,& III John: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 2008.

Smalley, Stephen. 1,2, 3 John. World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51. Thomas Nelson, 2007.

Balz, Horst. ed. ExegeticalDictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans,1993.

Schunack, G. “τύπος, ου, ὁ” Pages 372-6 in vol. 3 ofExegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz. 3 vols. GrandRapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1993.

Yarbrough, Robert W. 1-3 John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: BakerAcademic, 2008.

Wall, Rob. TheCatholic Epistles of John. Disseminated through Blackboard as an inclass

handout.

[1] Leiu, I, II, III John: A Commentary, 176.

[2] Lieu, 177.

[3] Lieu, 180.

[4] Leiu, 183.

[5] Yarbrough,238.

[6] Lieu, 180.

[7] Smalley, 1,2,3, John: World Biblical Commentary,240-242.

[8] Wall, 24.

[9] Lieu, 177.

[10] Leiu, 186.

Creation for Everyone - except Atheists I guess...

2012-01-27T02:43:00.000-08:00

What do you think about Paul Rudnick's depiction of the creation accont:

Day No. 1:
And the Lord God said, “Let there be light,” and lo, there was light. But then the Lord God said, “Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy, sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I design will look younger?”
“I’m loving that,” said Buddha. “It’s new.”
“You should design a restaurant,” added Allah.

You should read the rest of the days!

Mormonism and Christianity - Jesus, Salvation and Evangelization

2012-01-27T02:03:00.000-08:00

I have to make myself clear at the front. I am a Christian. I have some very close Mormon friends, closer than family. And I am not fighting for who is "right," I am merely trying to explore the truth claim that Christianity and Mormonism are the same. It is my contention that they are different in hugely significant ways that make it untenable to say that they are one in the same.

Jesus is another significant source of contention between Christians and Mormons.

First, the term 'Christian' seems to be a source of contention here. Christian is derived from the greek and means 'little Christs.' People have been called Christian since the book of Acts, (ch. 11). These are people who both (1) claim that the Christ has come and (2) imitate and follow his teaching. For Christians, the Christ has come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth; hence Jesus Christ.

So, in one sense, Mormons are Christians. Their sacred writing depict a Christ coming to both Israel and the Americas. He atones for their sins through suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane (sweating blood mentioned in Luke 22 only!) and the cross and then leads the example of good works that helps his followers make it to heaven to be with their families and the Heavenly Father forever.

In another sense, I think it is really hard to say that they are the same type of Christians that my tradition claims to be. Besides the biggest difference that I discussed earlier, there seems to be some major differences between the Mormon Christ and the Christian Christ, according to the Christians:

Jesus atones for our sin by dying on the cross...

Mormons claim that it is both Jesus' suffering on the cross and in the Garden of Gethsemane. The main event of atonement happens in the Garden, according to Mormons. For Christians, this idea is not even explored because (a) the blood sweating is mentioned in only one of the Gospels (Luke) and (2) the rest of the New Testament is only concerned with the cross. The Garden is never again mentioned outside of the Gospel accounts. If the sweating of blood is the cornerstone event in the atonement of all sin, one would think that it would be mentioned in more than one Gospel. As it goes, the cross remains the central action and symbol for the earliest Christians atonement:

"For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Paul - Galatians 6:14)
"For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ..." (Philippians 3:18)

"...God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1:20)

This goes on and on. There is no mention of the Garden of Gethsemane in the rest of scripture after the Gospels; not once. The Gospels nor Epistles never connect the Garden and atonement.
This may seem inconsequential, but the crucified Jesus is one of the most important parts of Jesus' example to Christians. John Howard Yoder, in The Politics of Jesus, says it this way, "Only at one point, only on one subject --- but then consistently, universally --- is Jesus our example: in his cross" (95, referring to the writing of the rest of the NT writers).

Jesus never went to the Americas...

Now, negatives are harder to prove. By this I mean, it is hard (impossible??) to prove that something didn't happen. I will give it my best shot according to scripture.

Acts 3:19-21: "Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah^* appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets."

Here Peter is giving a sermon to those around the temple. He clearly saw Jesus ascend into heaven and believed that the next time Jesus would return it would be to bring about the end of history as everyone knows it. The earliest Christians have always believed that Jesus' next coming could not be missed by anyone, for it would be on clouds and everything would be literally changed by the melding of heaven and earth and the resurrection of the dead.

Salvation is provided through Jesus by grace and not by works...

Orthodox and historic Christian faith has always affirmed that salvation is a gracious gift of God, unmerited and undeserved, offered out of the grace and love of God, through God's one and only Son, Jesus Christ. This differs from Mormonism where salvation requires good works. Now, good works are important in the Christian faith as well, but always as a fruit of true salvation and sanctification and never, ever, ever, ever as requirement of salvation. The LDS Church officially says this: "to inherit eternal life requires our 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel'" The phrase in quotes comes directly from the LDS Church's official articles of faith.

It is kind of like two friends talking:

Person A says, "Oh, your from from Chico, CA? do you know Joshua C.?"
Person B says, "Yeah, I totally know him. He is a huge mentor to me. I have his biography memorized. I can't believe you know him, how do you know him?
A says, "He is a brother to me and a mentor. I love him more than anything and have his biography and journals memorized."
B, "Don't you just love the way he helps everyone? He gave me a place to live when I was at my worst."
A, "Me too... I stayed with him and he gave me his car. Awesome!"
B says, "Wow! This is awesome! I can't believe this! Don't you just love his wife too?"
A replies, "He doesn't have a wife. What are you talking about?
B explains, "Sharon? You have never met Sharon? He met her in Mexico 25 years ago and they have been married ever since?!?!"
A, "Nope, never happened. I talk to him everyday. Not only is he not married, he has never been married and never ever been to Mexico!"

Now, as irreverent as my little parable might be, this seems to be exactly what is happening with Mormons and Christians. A normal conclusion to a conversation to the above scenario is, "Well, we must know different people."

To prove that something like this happens, almost this exact scenario has happened to me. I knew a man in my hometown church. His last name was Fernandez. I told him that he had the same last name as my mom, Victoria Fernandez. I told him that my mom's maiden name actually derives from Portuguese and originally ended in 's' but was changed upon immigrating to the US to the more Hispanic version with the 'z.' He said the same was true with his. I told him that my mom's grandfather ended up in San Francisco. He exclaimed that his family did too. I told him that my great grandfather's name was Charles Fernandez. He said that not only was San Francisco the same place his family ended up, but his dad's name was literally Charles Fernandez... His family eventually ended up moving further north in CA and settling there and my side remained in SF. For a split second I had visions of the two of us being related in that my great grandfather had multiple families all over the state, but I know that my great grandfather passed in SF where he lived and worked daily. I could only arrive at one conclusion, they had a lot of similarities, but were different people.

This little parable serves the purpose to show that Mormons and Christians are different. There are some similarities to the 'Jesuses' we each claim to follow, but the differences are substantial - substantial enough for me, and most Christians, to conclude that Christianity and Mormonism are different in a significant way.

My final proof comes in the form of a very simple and mundane question: why do Christians and Mormons continue to try and convert each other?

It seems that if we all agreed that Christianity and Mormonism were the same, there would seem to be no need to try and proselytize each other. Christians continue to try and evangelize to the Mormons because Christians feel that Mormons are mistaken on some very core, basic beliefs about God, Trinity, Christ, Salvation, etc... Mormons continue to try to convert Christians because they believe that they have a fuller revelation of Jesus Christ (Book of Mormon) and are the truer church. Either way, each acts as if the other is not the same.

So where does this idea come from? I think it comes from Mormons. One of their beloved Presidents is quoted as saying:

We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior...the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement.

Mormons have taken great steps to give the impression that they are Christians like all other Christians. Asking any member of the LDS church if they are Christians and they will say yes. There are a lot of similarities. We agree on a lot of what is said in the above quote. It is the last line that I am concerned about and makes all the difference in the world. Hinkley says that The Book of Mormon gives new/alternative/different teachings and doctrines on Jesus, the way he is God ("His divinity") and the way his gift of salvation transpires and is extended ("His Atonement"). That is enough to make the two almost similar institutions completely unalike.

There is a lot each tradition could learn from the other. There are a lot of very good things about each. Each should dialogue with and respect the other. There should be love across the lines. But it is just untenable to say they are the same. They are too different on too many core doctrines.

Mormonism and Christianity - Differences and Similarities

2012-01-25T02:59:00.000-08:00

Thereis a rumor going around that people think Mormons and Christians are the same.This could not be further from reality. I have heard this many times and itusually comes from Mormons and people who overvalue tolerance at the expense oftruly understanding. President Hinckley of the Mormon church personally taughtthis to all of the Mormon church and is it found on their official site.

Let'sget a few things straight at the start. I love my Mormon friends. I considersome closer than family. I think they are mistaken about some things, but lovecertainly triumphs over differences here.

Second,this post is completely unpolitical. I could care less if a Mormon ispresident. I could really care less about politics at all in this point in mylife.

Ok...that being said, there are some huge differences between Orthodox Christianityand Mormonism. Differences that cause each group to be outside of the otherstent - if that makes sense.

The biggest and most consequentialdifference has to be centered around the theology of God. Mormonism, theirscripture, and doctrines teach that God was once man and has now been exaltedto be God. This man and his wife have become Heavenly Father and HeavenlyMother. The official Mormon website, which does not go into all these things, says this about God the Father, "He has abody that looks like ours..." This certainly deviates from Christianity

More so, any idea of the Trinity is completely out the window in the Mormonreligion. The heavenly Father is completely different from Jesus Christ who areboth completely different from the Holy Spirit. The Mormon church has this toofficially say about the Holy Spirit, "The Holy Ghostis one in purpose with the Father and the Son, but is a separate being."Any oneness that exist is in purpose but not in being.

This is all very, very different fromChristianity. God is the Trinity. God is both Trinity and Unity. God is one inthree and three in one. Most Christian traditions affirm the major churchcreeds. The Nicene, Athanasian,and Chalcedonian Creeds all affirm the Trinity. Withrespect to my brothers and sisters in traditions that are non-creedal, theystill completely affirm the Trinity. My use of the creeds is to show that theTrinity is an essential belief for the last 1700 years.

Nicene:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father..."

God is one, and yet The Father and Jesus exist. Jesus is God in every way, not in being a deity but in being one in substance with the Father.
Jesus is affirmed to be fully God before he is affirmed to be man (Chalcedonian creed).

Athanasian:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated..."

Catholic, here, means universal...
This goes on and on describing the Trinity and unity of God.

Though the Trinity is mysterious andhard to explain (if not impossible), it is one of the central tenets ofChristianity. The Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are one and yet 3 at the sametime. They are not only one in purpose, the creeds make it absolutely clearthat they are one in substance, essence, personhood.

An interesting set of questions usuallyarises from this: (1) The doctrine of Trinity is absent from most of the first300 years of Christianity, what about those Christians who lived then? (2) Isthe doctrine of Trinity required for salvation?

Yes, it is true that the officialdoctrine of the Trinity is not formed until about 325, but ideas of the Trinityexisted from the beginning. The church quickly came to agreement on thisdoctrine and spent the next few hundred years defining and defending it.

As to the salvation question, (1) Idon't think it is beneficial that we boil everything down to salvation, (2) Iam not God, only God judges in these matters, and (3) the point is not aboutsalvation requirements, the point is about the centrality of the Trinity inChristian doctrine. The Trinity encompasses the central tenets of Christianityand as one of my professors has said, it is the most interesting thing aboutChristianity. No other religion or philosophy has anything like it.

So, on this point alone, Mormons arenot Christians and Christians aren't Mormons. Mormons aren't even monotheists(like Christianity, Judaism, Islam) in that they affirm the Resistance of manygods and that they themselves become gods someday.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a Jew, totally has this to say about this issue:

Mormons themselves contend that “Christis at the center of our worship, study, service and faith,” as a statementreleased by the church after Jeffress’s comment put it.

But theological honesty demands that werecognize that Romney would be the first president to be so far outside theChristian denominational mainstream.

There is much in Mormonism that standsin opposition to Christian doctrine, including the belief that the Book ofMormon completes the Christian Bible. Christianity had an established creedabout 1,500 years before Joseph Smith appeared in upstate New York with a newtruth, codified in the Book of Mormon, which he said was revealed to him by anangel named Moroni.

“The Nicene Creed and the Apostles’Creed settled the basic ideas of Christianity,” said Michael Cromartie, anevangelical who is vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center inWashington. “The canon was closed, and then Joseph Smith comes along and saysthat there’s a new book, an extra-biblical addition to the agreed-upon canon.”
Nothing in Mormonism is quite as aliento Christian thought as the core assertion that God and man are of the samespecies.

“This is a canonical belief of Mormons,and it stands in radical opposition to the beliefs of the monotheisticreligions,” Richard J. Mouw, the president of the evangelical FullerTheological Seminary in California, told me. “Your people” -- that is, Jews --“and my people would say that the fundamental sin here from the biblical pointof view is that God is God and we’re not. There’s an ontological gap betweencreator and creation.”

Mouw, who is a leader in the deepeningdialogue between evangelical Christian and Mormon theologians, said he believesthat many Mormons are moving toward more Christ-centered modes of worship. TheMormons who, in the Salt Lake City vernacular, tend to “go planetary” -- whoembrace some of Mormonism’s more idiosyncratic folk beliefs -- are dwindling innumber. But Mouw said he isn’t ready to accept Mormonism as branch ofChristianity."

The greater context of this article above isabout the political realm, which is not my aim. I show this article to showthat even someone of a different faith outside of Christianity or Mormonism canplainly see this fact. The theology of God is completely important and adistinguishing characteristic of each.

So, let us be clear, Christians andMormons vary wildly about the doctrine of the God we each claim to follow,serve and worship. To me, that seems to be enough to differentiate us. If ourGods our different, then logically the institutions are as well. We can say alot of things, but let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that these twoare one and the same.

Blessings!

Global Wesleyan Alliance and Free Methodism

2011-12-28T15:57:00.001-08:00

In the news in my circles is the forming of a new alliance known as the Global Wesleyan Alliance. This is a group of denominations that have a shared heritage deriving from John Wesley and the revolution that spawned from his ministry.

Wesleyans are an interesting bunch, namely in diversity. We can be as diverse as possible in Christianity with a range from heretical hyper liberal theologies all way down to the strictest, legalistic of heretical conservative theology. I am talking a range of literally "anything goes" down to "everything is sinful."

The merger seems to be of Wesley-inspired denominations that are middle of the road or more conservative. "The 11 denominations include the Free Methodist Church USA, Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, Church of God (Anderson), The Evangelical Church, Evangelical Methodist Church, Churches of Christ in Christian Union, The Missionary Church, Congregational Methodist Church, Church of Christ Holiness USA, and Pilgrim Holiness Church." The stated goals of this merger are as follow:

"Cooperative ministry ventures.
Sharing pastors and making transfer and appointment of clergy across denominational lines more easily attainable.
Sharing and promoting materials and events aimed at advancing shared Kingdom concerns.
Increasing community among leaders at all levels.
Collaborating together in compassion and justice ministries.
Leveraging voice and contributions on matters commonly important to all groups.
Convening events to promote the holiness message and experience, discipleship, church health, compassion and justice ministries, leadership development and networking."

In many regards, I am very excited about this merger as I really think that Christians need to be closer, bound together as family. We need to be in alliance and cooperation. Collaborating on justice and compassion is a fantastic use of this this type of group. Having a local community of support for pastors is another great idea, potentially helping fix one of the major pitfalls of ministry.

For the reasons above, I think maybe we didn't go far enough in our alliance. There was talk of merging some denominations but "...it was concluded that an alliance would better serve the aims of each group and eliminate the cumbersome cost, complexity and administrative hardship required by merger." Without getting on my soapbox, to me, if the only thing holding some groups back from merging is cost and "administrative hardship" then there should have been a merger a long time ago. Division in the body of Christ should be by necessity only and I am not so sure the reasons listed are good enough. Something to reconsider for another time.

Another thing that I am excited about is the promotion of holiness in conjunction with Wesleyanism. Holiness, though fallen out of favor due to the legalism that came about in the early to mid 1900's, is a vital distinctive of our tradition and something that I think the world is desperate for. The holiness that I hope comes back into favor is a one that stresses that transformation we have been given through Christ and sanctification through the Holy Spirit to do the good work of reconciling all creation to God as we become more and more like Christ through the love of the Father.

I am a little concerned about alliances with denominations that don't allow women in ministry. Not that I think that this issue needs be divisive, but I do think it is a fundamental distinctive of our denomination and most of the holiness tradition. I have to assume the Church of Christ Holiness USA (COCHUSA) must be ok in teaming up with us in that they seem to be one of the only groups listed that doesn't ordain women.

I don't want to sound like I am criticizing this merger because I do think it will be for the best. I think ultimately I am little nervous about over-identifying with our theologically conservative roots. I admit that we have these roots and I am in agreement with many of the convictions that this side holds, I just feel that this side has had too much attention for too long. The church and world are in the midst of massive change. Christendom is coming to an end. No longer are the church and state so tied together in the US. The center of the church is shifting from North America to South America and Africa. These types of changes often create fear in people and many times the consequences are for people to clamp down, close off, polarize and police orthodoxy. It becomes very important about who is in and who is out.

I already feel like my Free Methodist (FM) family consists of two different groups. There is one that seems a little afraid of the future, maybe a little dispensational, over identifies with strong, theologically reformed personalities, and is far too interested in patriotism/politics/legislation in an attempt to hold on to Christendom. The other seems a bit more progressive, highlights missional theology, more social-justice minded, and ready to embrace the next epoch of church history in a culturally relevant way. I feel like the first group represents the majority of FM churches but is further away from traditional FM theology and praxis than the second group. The second groups seems closer to the roots of FM but this groups seems to want to disassociate itself from the brand of FM. I am hoping for the second group to reclaim more holiness teaching and embrace its identity, helping to shape the church and world as we move forward.

I bring these two groups up because, in my humble opinion, I identify and am rooting for the second group. I love the FM church and desire to see her reclaim her radical roots so that she may be a voice in the current discussions. I am not divisive about my denominationalism, but I do think that if there are going to be denominations, our traditions should have something to say, a reason to exist. I believe that the FM church has a voice that the world needs to hear. A voice that calls out injustice. One that reclaims our identification with the poor. One that frees the slaves. One the promotes the equality of women and non-white ethnic groups. One that proclaims a gospel of transformation and sanctification that our lives may be lived in holy simplicity in promotion of our neighbors and our brothers and sisters around the world with less resources to the glory of the Christ through the Father's love. My only fear about the alliance recently formed is that this FM voice will be quieted. I fear that there will be an over-identification with our theologically conservative side and our radical voice will not be heard.

For now I will NOT wait and see who is going to influence who. I will NOT think of strategic ways to get the others to be more like us. For now I think we should enjoy a new found fellowship with old sisters and brothers.We should take a posture of submission and listening. We should hold fast to our distinctives all the while promoting an atmosphere of unity in essentials and understanding everywhere else.

May God be blessed in our unity!

The Sandal of Christmas!

2011-12-24T21:57:00.000-08:00

Baby Jesus, lying in a manger. Swaddling cloth. Animals. We know it. We can recite it from memory, even those who are not ardent believers.

But Christmas is scandalous in the highest degree.

The Creator of the universe became one of the creatures. Where does the One who holds all things together choose to be born? In an animal living space, feces and all. Who was there? No one important.

That is the mind-blowing part to me. No one important is at the Savior's birth. There is a man who works with his hands as a simple carpenter. Smelly, bottom-of-the-working-class shepherds living in fields came at the behest of angels. The wise men (immigrants) didn't show up until a while later. And, finally, there was young woman, pregnant out of wed-lock.

No one important attended the most important event the universe had ever seen. No kings. No philosophers. No beautiful people. No businesses. No one! Christmas belongs to the no-ones.

At the news that Mary is to bring forth the savior of the world, she sings the Magnificat, which is a beautiful song that reflects how Jesus' coming effects nobodies:

‘My soul magnifies the Lord,
   and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
   Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
   and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
   from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
   he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
   and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
   and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
   in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
   to Abraham and to his descendants for ever.’

Scattering the proud, bringing down the powerful and sending the rich away hungry. There is a change in the way the world operates. A new economy is revealed; God's economy. In Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection we see what God values. We see what is important to God. And what do we see: the first shall be last and the last first. Those who are humble will be exalted. Those who are are hungry, persecuted, mourning, poor are blessed.

This is NOT because God loves those who suffer, but because God loves to save those who are hurting. God is in the business of making everything right, bringing down all injustice and destroying every evil. John the Baptist announces Jesus this way:

"‘The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord,
   make his paths straight.
Every valley shall be filled,
   and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall be made straight,
   and the rough ways made smooth;
and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

Does your Jesus topple the mountains of power and injustice? Does he fill in the valley of mourning, death and depression?

May we follow a Christ who truly brings Peace on Earth and goodwill to all people!

One of my Favorite Christmas Albums of all Time!

2011-12-18T20:15:00.001-08:00

One of my favorite Christmas albums of all time is by The Choir at your Door's album with the same name. It is absolutely free and you can get it HERE! You would be a fool to not pick up this album.

This album is mostly original Christmas songs. The songs are such that one can listen to it year round - and I do!

This album is a project of Aaron Roche and Nathan Phillips. Both of these artist are independently some of my favorite indie singer/song-writers. They both play under their own name but Nathan used to write under The Winston Jazz Routine (too many gigs people showed up expecting actual jazz and so he changed the name). His album "Sospiri" is one of my all-time favorite albums - if not the one.

They both seem to be writing with a Christian spirituality that permeates their music. There are lines, prayers and snippets in their albums that move me to deep worship. In this album, there is a BEAUTIFUL song about a man who has lost his job at Christmas time. Not only is the song written well, the man utters a prayer to God that brings me tears ("Father punish me but spare my family"). But ultimately, after the brass interlude, Phillips and Roche sing a part of the old Christian chorus from "As the deer" that just takes me to another place.

The stand-out song for me is "Will You Find Me?" The song features both artists singing from the perspective of God and Mother Mary soon-to-be pregnant with Jesus. There is a back and forth between the two, I believe Nathan is singing the part of God and Aaron is singing Mary.

The lyrics are:

"Will you find me?
Will my heart see?
Mother Mary
Am I to Carry?
Christ the Savoir
Who we wait for?
In a manger (???)
Are you Crazy?

La la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la

Will you find me?
Will our hearts see?
When I call you
Will we answer?
Will you seek me?
Will we love you?
Will you receive?
Will we believe? (x2)

Will you find me?
Will our hearts see?
Will you find me?
Will we answer?
Will you find me?
Will we love you?
Will you find me?
Will we believe?

Here is this track on youtube... but, again, get the whole album to get the full taste. It is free and fantastic! You can't beat that.

Maximus the Confessor on incarnation and the Word of God

2011-12-06T13:09:00.001-08:00

"Just as our human word which proceeds naturally from the mind is messenger of the secret movements of the mind, so does the Word of God, who knows the Father by the essence as Word knows the Mind which has begotten it (since no created being can approach the Father without him), reveal the Father whom he knows. As the Word of God by nature he is spoken of as the 'messenger of the great council.'"

Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Knowledge, paragraph 22.

Garageband Tricks: 3/4 Drum loops and low volume exporting!

2011-11-26T23:57:00.001-08:00

For those who are looking for some answers about garageband, I have found two:

(1) For those who have low volume output when exporting, here is what I learned:

The problem is with Garageband '09.
Go to preferences -> Advance -> uncheck the box that says "Export songs at full loudness" or something like that. I know, it seems contradictory, but it works. You may want to increase the master volume as well.

(2) For those who want drum loops in 3/4 time (waltz) and can't find any, here is what I did.

I made my song, in 3/4. I set my tempo where I wanted it.
I then went to the bottom center display and cycled through until I got to the tempo and time signature. I moved the 3/4 to 4/4.

I then picked a drum loop that I liked, that fit my style.
I then switched the song back to 3/4 with the drum loop in the song.
I then cropped the drum loop to make it a 3/4 beat.

I did this by chopping a beat off.
This is the place to explore. Chop ends or beginnings off. Copy and paste the remainder back to back. See how it feels. Mine turned out great. I used a smooth drum loop like Lounge jazz or something like that. Worked like a charm.
If the loop is 8 beats, you may be able to squeeze out two 3/4 measures and put them back to back.

Ok... comment if you have questions! Trial and error and what not.

Blessings!

What does Facebook even mean to me? Is "Unfriend" even a word?

2011-11-18T02:24:00.001-08:00

To be honest and upfront, I am a people-pleaser by nature. I am working on it. Christ will restore me through it. But, for the meantime, it means that I can sometimes over-react, over symbolize and take things the wrong way. You be the judge!

Lately I can't get this out of my head. Someone I greatly admire, someone I hold with the utmost respect, someone who embodies all that I thought was maturity, someone who is wise UNFRIENDED me on facebook! Really! Straight up, without warning, unfriended me.

Now, I didn't have the closest relationship with this person but we have certainly had some strong bonds. Also, this person added me to begin with. Either way, my feelings are kind of hurt. This person never talked to me about any issue. Never told me that they were having issues with me.

I am wrestling with some reasons why this could have happened:

Honest to goodness technical glitch

Maybe, but what are the chances?

I moved away to Seattle for school and this person only keeps facebook friends with whom they closely interact.

I know this isn't true, there are other long-distant friends

because of a spat on facebook that we had...

Now, as a people pleaser I am thinking about what I did wrong. The last negative interaction I remember having was over a joke that I told. The joke wasn't dirty or inappropriate. It may have seemed personally pointed but after I apologized profusely and over many times and reassured my innocent intentions, not inferring anything about anyone, just joking, I thought the matter had been resolved. I ate my words, apologized, deleted the post and moved on. This was some time ago.

Now maybe you're thinking that I just offended this person and they're mad. Maybe... I would just hope that someone would talk it out with me. I desire relationship over everything else. I can be crass. I can be controversial. I can seem pretentious and arrogant (I am working on this too), but certainly I would hope that I am approachable. I have never turned down a good conversation. I value constructive criticism very highly, regarding it dear to my moral character building.

What irks me more is that it is stupid facebook. I mean, really? Why am I going to get offended over facebook? It is so small and insignificant. I have had people completely disassociate themselves with me. And yet this seems more offensive. At least the other people made a stand, said their peace and walked away. They don't like me. I get it. They're absolutely wrong, but I understand. We have an understanding: I understand that they have the right to be wrong. Carry on! BUT THIS just seems ludicrous. Facebook?!?! Is this a passive aggressive way to let someone know someone is upset without actually doing the right thing of sitting down and talking it out?

Maybe facebook friendship isn't as insignificant as I thought. Maybe it points to a bigger reality. No more drifting apart, now I can just unfriend you. Clean break. Can't see my wall, posts, or general life happenings. Where is the dignity in digitally terminating a friendship? What ever happened to the falling away from each other and running into each other at the grocery store acting all "oh-hey-how-are-you?-yeah-sorry-I-forgot-to-email-you-back-about-that-thing-2-years-ago.-Yeah,-things-have-just-been-so-busy" excuse? The "I've just been so busy" excuse is perfect. We're all let down gently. No one has to feel bad. No one has to feel like it is their fault. We can blame it on life circumstances. It is so much easier to blame it on life circumstances.

I mean, where is the facebook etiquette? Even my enemies don't unfriend me. Have the decency to just hide me and all my posts. It is easy... on my next post, click the arrow in the upper right hand corner of my post. On the drop down you can limit the number of my posts to "only important" or even "unsubscribe from status updates from Jaymes" altogether. It is that simple. We will still be "friends" but you won't be annoyed by me anymore. This is far more passive aggressive without hurting people's feelings.

I MEAN have you ever unfriended someone? It is like playing "Where's Waldo?" in a candy-cane lovers and blue jeans convention (c'mon, give it to me, I am making it up as I go - that is original material). Facebook is like a gang, we are friends4life according to them. You can't just go to someone's page and find an unfriend button. You can't even go to your own homepage and unfriend them. You have to go all the way to your own page (not very intuitive) to get to your own "friends" on the left hand column then search their name or scroll all the way down (because facebook alphabetizes by first letter of first name... I know, ridiculous) and then click the icon next to their name that says "friends" and then click "unfriend" at the bottom of the pop-down menu. I know, that issssssss a lot of work. It would be easier to be room-mates at this point then do all those steps. But one thing it does mean is that when you unfriend someone, you are mad enough to perform a facebook triatholon just to do it. It is not a simple flip of the wrist. It is not by accident. For people who are older, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a call to the children or grandchildren to figure it out. This is a multi- sticky note instruction kind of a thing.

So, in all honesty, (1) my feelings are genuinely hurt if the action was performed on purpose, (2) I think there should have been some dialogue about this if I offended you that much, and (3) I probably made matters worse by joking around in this post... oh well, can't please everyone.

What do you think? Should I be offended? Should I let it go? Should I bring it up with that person? You decide, ABCD.

Blessings!

Aaron Roche - Etude

2011-11-16T13:58:00.001-08:00

Aaron Roche is one of my favorite artists in the music biz. He kills it all the time. Everything he touches is gold. And he is so smart, so intuitive. The songs sound poppy but the lyrics will blow you away if you peel back the the layers...

One of my favorite songs of his on his latest EP is called "Etude." The music is epic with a trio of trumpets, some gong, and steady folksy drums.

The lyrics center around a Galatians passage where Paul is concerned for his children. The lyrics are word for word Galatians 4:19-20 (NIV), " My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!"

The music builds and swells like a woman in labor. It starts and stops alternating lyrics. When the word "childbirth" rings out, the music interlude is longer and has much more dissonance. Heavy distortion from electric guitars and trumpets. Very classical, very modern.

After the dissonance of child-birth, the vocal line is brighter and more melodic. There is a resolve in the synth/strings even though the language is not necessarily positive.

On "you" a contemporary chord progression takes over on a clean electric guitar. The lyrics are still religious in theme but now turn to a poem by Emily Dickenson called, "The Sun and Moon Make their Haste." The line that Roche sings is "But for the zones of Pradise the Lord alone is burned." He repeats this a few times. It is only slightly off from Dickenson's, "For in the Zones..."

One commentator says that this poem is about the marriage of Heaven and Earth on the final day. The Sun and Moon must leave because in this eschaton the Lord is the only light we will need (1). Whether or not this is the meaning that Roche is ascribing to is debatable. It is not entirely implausible. The connection between Christ finally formed in us and being together could gel very well with the notion of consummation in the end where all things are new and restored and right. Where we are all together in the City of God where God alone is burned as our light and we could all be together. When God births new creation.

Roche ends with a middle eastern sounding riff, with a faint eight note driving drum beat and a single tone drone. The lyrics seem to be riffing the Galatians verse above. The drums build for a measure to explosion and the completely cutting out which the end of the song follows shortly.

Great song... buy the rest of the EP "!BlurMyEyes"!

(1) Dorothy Huff Oberhaus, "Emily Dickinson's Fascicles: Method & Meaning" (82).

Bernard of Clairvaux on Basic Love and the Poor!

2011-11-16T01:36:00.001-08:00

Bernard is describing 4 loves that humans can experience.

What was most interesting to me was that when Bernard was describing the four loves possible by humans, the very basic one that he thought all people should be characterized by was a love that involved Justice. He describes it as loving ourselves for our own sake but he says, "Should a man feel overburdened at satisfying not only his brethren's just needs but also their pleasures... He can be indulgent as he likes for himself providing he remembers his neighbor has the same rights... Then your love will be sober and just if you do not refuse your brother that which he needs of what you have denied yourself in pleasure. Thus carnal love becomes social when it is extended to others" (On Loving God 8.23) (This is quoted from Tamburello, 95)

This is the basic of all love. It is the first stage. It is the most selfish. It is most marred by a life of sin and yet Bernard still believes that it is characterized by denying ourselves so that our neighbors can have their needs met. He doesn't specify whether or not this neighbor is believer or non-believer. I would venture to guess that it is all people as scripture usually interpret neighbor as anyone. He did warn that it could lead to self-indulgent sin, but mostly thought that it was the first step towards a greater love, even more unselfish love.

If only the church loved like this!

Notes: Bernard is writing this as a monk writing in the years 1120 - 1130.

What's up with "Xmas"?

2011-11-14T11:48:00.001-08:00

The church is the first to use "Xmas"as the short-hand for Christ's Mass. The reason is because Christ in Greek is spelled "Xristos." The X gets a Ch sound that is found in the beginning of "Ch"rist.

That is why the Christian fish (ICHTHYS)< has an X as well, "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ." The second word is Christ. Pronounced it is Iesous Christos, Theou Hyios, Soter or "Jesus Christ, God's Son and Savior"

We shouldn''t let the world's rejection of Christ cause us to negate beautiful church history. Our own ignorance shouldn't be the basis for our reaction.

Going further, I think that Christians shouldn't care if society rejects Christ from Christmas. Going to church one time a year and trying our hardest to be "nice" to everyone and going into debt to buy material object presents does not a Christian society make. Furthermore, hoping that people keep Christ in Christmas does not Christian evangelism make.

Christ's call to Christmas living, to incarnational living (being the body of Christ in the world today), isn't the imposition of religious holy-days on non-believers. This seems to be more Pharisaical Judaism and imperial paganism then loving Christianity. More so, St. Paul in Romans 14 makes it clear that we aren't to judge those for the days they observe or don't observe. To me, it even seems imply that those who exalt certain days over others are weaker in their faith, "Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord." This coupled with Colossians 2 allows me to read the implication.

Don't get me wrong! The Incarnation of God as a human baby is one of the greatest things about our faith. It is one of the most defining, most loving, most awe-some things about Christianity. It is the defining moment in history. It is just that annoyingly pushing this into the faces of non-believers is not the best way, at least in my opinion.

Also, it is not that I think Christians shouldn't engage culture, I just think that cultural imperialism is not the best way. Legislation and being loud, in word, seems to not be the way of Christ. "Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him..."

Judging customs and days is not the way of Christ, even in Christian communities between Christians. No, the way of Christ is embodying the Trinity in the world, loving each other in community, spreading that love in anticipation of the Lord's second advent.

Question and thought of the day - 11/8/2011

2011-11-08T01:29:00.000-08:00

Do you ever feel like you just understand the world better than everyone else and if everyone else just thought the same way you did, the world would be such a better place in general?

Sometimes I do that. I think that the world is so screwed up and if people just did, thought, loved the way I think we all should, it would be so much better.

Partly I am right. The world is screwed up in deep ways.

But otherwise I am wrong. I am wrong in untold and profound ways. I am at the height of pride, hubris and arrogance to think that my feeble way is the best. That my way should be every one's way. That everyone should think my way.

I think when we get to the point where everyone else is just stupid/ dumb/ incomprehensibly ignorant/ so completely backwards, really it is 'we' that needs the adjustment.

I think the problem is that everyone thinks they are right. I mean, if someone thought they were wrong, they would change their mind, right?

But ideas and concepts and truth all have real consequences. Thoughts are very real things providing us lenses to view our very real world. They are important.

How do we get to the point where just assume the other side, the other person, the other faction, the other party is just blind?

What do you think? Do you ever feel like everyone else is just a blind idiot? How does it benefit you to feel that way? How does it hurt you?

Should we just go on thinking they're wrong? Can we at least try to understand that their side has its own logic and reasoning, probably not much better than our own? Maybe even it is a both/and situation.

It seems like we are conditioned/ socialized to value different things. It is the valuing of certain things that really determines our ideas, right? Stances are really determined for us by those we respect, right? That is why peer pressure is so coercive, we value our peers and therefore adopt seemingly unhealthy actions to conform with those we respect. We may have a grandpa or a mom or a teacher. They may say something that makes alot of sense, but is it because we have respected them first. They can not speak into our lives unless we let them, right? Nothing can... nothing can speak into our lives unless we like them. Is it to be determined, then, with our ideals? Are our ideals shaped by those we respect?

Can we really be so harsh with people who have different ideals when most of ours, most of everyone's, are just shaped by a community that we trust?

Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I neither? Am I both? Does it matter?

Review of Surprised by Hope: 5th and Final Part

2011-10-27T01:43:00.000-07:00

Here is Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4:

This is the final part of my review of one of my favorite books. This book explains a comprehensive view of Christianity based on a proper eschatology (end-times) centered around resurrection. Highly recommend that you all buy this book! You can borrow mine, but I want it back because it is autographed... :)

Chapter 13

Thischapter is titled “Building for the Kingdom.” Inherently in the title, Wrightwants to make clear that we don’t build the Kingdom; we build for it. God isalways the architect. He has a great analogy about stonemasons carving outdifferent pieces for the construction of a cathedral. The mason probably hasn’teven seen the blueprints but his work will go towards the final project (p.210). This analogy is couched in an admittedly mysterious truth that our workwill not be in vain (1 Cor. 15), that our work will be apart of the newcreation, that our labor and work for the Lord will be apart of the future.

For Wright, thisall points to the idea that we must be at work at once. Resurrectionmeans we live the future hope now. We work, we minister, we alleviatesuffering, we are missional now. He finds three areas in which this needs tomost prominent and expressed: (1) Justice, (2) Beauty and (3) Evangelism.

Justiceis the work of making things right. It is what God is going to do at the end. Itis the work of the church now. If resurrection means living now what God isgoing to do then, then justice must be apart of our daily lives. For Wright,this means the remission of third-world debt, but it can and should be a myriadof other things. Not only does it mean patching up the broken and hungry, butsetting right the systems and institutions that made the injustice possible (p.231).

Beautyis an interesting one here, and I originally thought it to be the odd man out,but Wright incorporates it... well... beautifully. His conjecture is that Beauty must beapart of building for the Kingdom. Beauty, to him, is defined as “highlightingthe glory of creation and the glory yet to be revealed” (p. 232). He believesthe beauty should be a huge part of the church, the music, the art, thepassion, the living out of the end now. Wright draws an interesting analogybetween Christianity and Marxism: Marxists see the end and fight for nothingless now and we should do the same through beauty. It is the expressions ofbeauty that will give people the hint to fuller life and questiontheir own existence.

Andfinally, Evangelism comes to the forefront. Not the scary, embarrassingevangelism of generations past, but the declaration of the Gospel andinvitation to live it together. Wright says it better than I could, “The powerof the Gospel lies… in the powerful announcement that God is God, that Jesus isLord, that the powers of evil have been defeated, that God’s new world has begun…Of course, once the gospel announcement is made, in whatever way, it meansinstantly that all people everywhere are gladly invited to come in, to join theparty, to discover forgiveness for the past, an astonishing destiny in God’sfuture, and a vocation in the present” (p. 227). I cannot articulate how muchthis chapter, and the last, impacted me. I have always chalked it up togenerational differences in my disdain for the practices of the church ageneration or two above me (which would fall into theconservative/rapture/disembodied heaven camp). It seems, if Wright is correctand I do think he is, that it has been a theological problem all along.

Chapter 15

Thisis chapter is surprisingly long for not a whole lot of new information given.The chapter is entitled, “Reshaping the Church for Mission (2): Living theFuture.” Essentially, this chapter can be summarized as saying that everythingwe say and do should be understood and filtered through this Hope Wright hasoutlined.

Wrightbreaks it down a little further. First, Easter needs a makeover, especiallycoming off 40 days of Lent. He laments the practice of Easter as the one-daycelebration after 40 days of sadness and thinks we should go all out. This isall apart of Wright’s idea for the church to reclaim Space, Matter and time.

Spacehas to do with the idea of having sanctuary and church, but this spilling outinto the public life of school boards, soup kitchens, city councils, thefactory and so on. The church, according to Wright, needs to bridge the gapbetween the future, past and present, which will bridge the gap between secularand sacred worlds.

Matterhas to do with creation; the idea that we are not dualists. God deemed hiscreation good. We can get on board with that. Creation care andenvironmentalism can be apart of this, but also for Wright, the sacred elementshave a lot to do with worship; especially the Eucharist.

Timehas to do with celebrations, meetings and dates. Wright makes a big deal aboutthe date tracing back to Jesus birth. But more than this, the Church gatheringon the first day of the week speaks volumes about who are. Jesus is resurrectedon this day, becoming the firstborn of creation and this allows us to hope andtaste the future resurrection. The Time aspect embraces past, present and future.

Wrightgoes on to identify 6 sacraments that he believes the church would do well tofilter afresh through the lens of new creation/ resurrection hope. He startsthe discussion with Baptism. Baptism is a place where new creation and oldcreation meet for Wright. “Baptism is not magic, a conjuring trick with water.But neither is it simply a visual aid. It is one of those points, establishedby Jesus himself, where heaven and earth interlock, where new creation,resurrection life, appears within the midst of the old” (p. 272). His reframingof baptism has deeply changed the way I view this ceremony.

TheEucharist comes next. For Wright, Eucharist is relatable to the Jewish feasts.It is not simply a story retold, nor is it an overly spiritual ceremony done bypriests, but more a way of becoming part of the story, both past and futurewhile still being in the present. Just as the Jewish understanding of“remember” comes to play with Jesus’ death, so we must also imagine the futurehope and dwell richly there.

Prayer,for Wright, needn’t be a way of appeasing God or even some kind ofexperiential/ nature mysticism, but a way partaking in the New Creationrelationship Jesus offers us through his resurrection. More than this, it is away to regain the Psalmist tradition of expressing frustration with the tensionof how things are and how we know they should be.

Scriptureis next up. Wright says that Scripture reading is not just a way of getting a listof rules for our lives but a way of reading ourselves into the story. Hereminds us that we live after the Book of Acts and before Revelation. That allof scripture up to our point tells of Gods plan to bring about New Creation andRevelation is our hope for what the looks like.

Nextafter Scripture is Holiness. For Wright, holiness is the best characterized bythe struggles of the Corinthian church as outlines in Paul’s letter to thatchurch and also Wright’s understanding of Romans. He ultimately says that it isthe transformation of the mind that needs to happen in the holiness process;moralism simply won’t do.

Andfinally Wright talks about Love. Wright spends a great deal of time talkingabout the Love chapter in 1 Corinthians 13. Wright links it to chapter 15, theresurrection chapter, with some less than solid transitions, but all in all the pointis well made. Love is the language, food, dress, culture of the Hope that is tocome. We are practicing now for it. We love now to practice and prepare for the future.Love is the way we live. Wright seemingly, to me, sidetracks into forgivenessas a very important expression of love and then ends the book.

Myonly problem with this chapter is that Wright talks about the emerging andupcoming generation of churches, church leaders, etc… as moving away form thesacraments and finding them too traditional and not helpful. If anything, I feelmy generation is doing the opposite. We are asking questions like, “why do weonly take communion once a month but offering every week?” etc… If anything mygeneration sees themselves as rescuing the sacraments from a dark period of lowchurch that made everything a symbol. But, the point is well taken, thesacraments need to be encouraged in the church and are great expressions of new creations.

Essentially, for Wright, a proper eschatology will produce aproper mission and disciplines. The quote from Wright that most suggests thisto me is found on page 264, “I remain convinced that the way forward is torediscover a true eschatology, to rediscover a true mission rooted inanticipating that eschatology, and to rediscover forms of church that embodythat anticipation.” For Wright, having a firm, correct understanding of ourultimate hope will guide and direct mission and church. It is the foundationthat all others must follow. Interestingly he adds mission before church... a good thing to think about in our work as the keepers of a great Hope that does not disappoint.

Review-ish of Surprised by Hope: Part 4 Chapters 11 & 12

2011-10-19T02:00:00.000-07:00

Here is Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3:

This is a small, reviewish type piece about a book I adore. I like to mostly summarize and quote, so not really a critical review, but whatever! Surprised by Hope is fantastic, hopefully you are inspired. Read it:

Chapter 11

The11^th Chapter is entitled “Purgatory, Paradise, Hell.” For such ahuge undertaking, there are not a lot of surprises. In tackling purgatory, hetackles the medieval (and earlier) idea that there is a hierarchy of Christians.There is: the Church Triumphant or those saints who already made it to heaven,the church expectant are those who are in purgatory or are awaiting heaven andfinally the church militant which are those still alive “fighting the goodfight of the faith” (p. 165). Wright finds this hierarchy and also Purgatory tobe a complete misunderstanding of Scripture. He is adamant and a little pointedabout this (“I think with great respect that you ought to see not a theologianbut a therapist” in regards to those who read Paul and come away with anypurgatory notions (p. 170)). Another great reason for rejecting Purgatory isthat he quotes two conservative Catholic thinkers, Rahner and Ratzinger (thecurrent POPE), as moving away from a traditional purgatory or away frompurgatory altogether.

Paradiseis a short section for Wright. He sees no reason why paradise and heaven couldn’tbe called the same thing (p. 172). This is the place, for him, where Christiandwell when they die and are waiting for the resurrection. I wish he would havegone more into this, but instead he chooses to talk about consciousness andwork. He believes that the departed saints are fully conscious of heavenly andearthly things but they are not active in ministry or work in their state. Heeven says that they take communion with us. He believes that we shouldn’t askthem to do anything, namely intercede on our behalf, mostly because we havedirect access to the father and nowhere in scripture or early Christianity dowe see anyone asking saints to do this.

Andfinally we get to hell, which has been a hot-button issue as of late with RobBell and his debacle. I am mostly surprised at how uneasy Wright is about thissubject, “’What about Hell?’ This question really demands a book in itself, andI am torn between my lack of desire to write such a book and my recognitionthat one must at least say something” (p. 175) and “I am well aware that I havenow wandered into territory that no one can claim to have mapped… The lastthing I want is for anyone to suppose that I (or anyone else) know very muchabout all this. Nor do I want anyone to suppose I enjoy speculation in themanner” (p. 183). Wright seems nervous and unsure, which is ok just surprising.As to his speculation, Wright commands a bit of annihilationalism andtraditional eternal punishment. He speculates that when people worshipsomething else beside God, the Imago Dei diminishes. They begin to have theimage of the thing they worship. So, the thing that ends up in eternal punishmentis not even human or recognizable and doesn’t elicit any sympathy (p. 182-183).He also mentions universalism, which he doesn’t even give the light of day. Itseems that universalism is the bad word of our current evangelicalism. Not that I am a universalist, but thereare certainly some interesting verses for everyone to deal with no matter whatside they take. Wright does touch on the mystery of it all in the finalsection. He chooses not to end with a discussion of hell because God doesn’t.And God’s version of the end is mysterious and beautiful and should keep us onour toes. “This is not to cast doubt on the final judgment… It is to say thatGod is always the God of surprises” (p. 184).

FinalThought: Wright blew me away with his final gem. That Israel was obsessed withbeing saved and being restored. We are like Israel, we are obsessed with who isgoing to be saved and go to heaven when the real question for Wright is: “Maybewhat we are faced with in our own day is a similar challenge: to focus not onthe question of which human beings God is going to take to heaven… but on thequestion of how God is going to redeem and renew his creation through humanbeings and how he is going to rescue those humans themselves as a part of theprocess…” (p. 185). Changes everything.

Chapter 12

Chapter12 gets the party started and doesn’t let down for a moment. Entitled“Rethinking Salvation: Heaven, Earth, and the Kingdom of God” you know it isgoing to be good. Essentially Wright moves from theology lesson to application;from the 'here’s what' to the 'so what'? Future Resurrection is a nice concept forall of us. It is when God puts all things straight. It is when evil is judged,when all the wrongs are made right, when the redeemed shall be raised imperishableand rule with the Lord forever in a new heaven/ new earth hybrid lacking indecay, disease, and evil. The reason that this effects the now at all is oneevent: Jesus was resurrected in our time and space.

Thisis Wright’s assertion of what the Kingdom of God/ heaven is. Though Kingdomtheology has been abused or rejected by a lot of people, it is the reclaimingof creation, all creation, by God for His rule and will. Jesus’ resurrection isthe new creation, God’s will and rule (Kingdom) breaking in and starting therevolution.

Thismeans that our hope isn’t a future one, distant and waiting. This means thatwe, the children of God, new creations, saved, are to acts as agents ofreconciliation/new creation for the rest of creation. That when Jesus was healing/saving,it wasn’t isolated social work from a compassionate God, it was the work of newcreation and the real meaning of Salvation (salvation, Wright reiterates, isnot disembodiment destined for heaven, but new creation and resurrection). I amreally surprised that Wright hasn’t used 2 Corinthians 5 yet, it seems like aclear choice for this book, maybe he is waiting.

Ourmission, our goal, as individuals, as a church, as God’s new creation childrenis to usher in the future hope into the present. New creation must alleviatethe suffering of present reality. We do this by actually getting our handsdirty and doing something and by seeing people become rescued and helping thembecome rescuers.

Thebest evidence and line for me was about 1 Corinthians 15: “Paul, we remindourselves, has just written the longest and densest chapter in any of hisletters, discussing the future resurrection of the body in great and complexdetail. How might we expect him to finish such a chapter? By saying,‘Therefore, since you have such a great hope, sit back and relax because youknow God’s got a great future in store for you’? No. Instead, he says,‘Therefore, my beloved ones, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in thework of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not invain.’” (p. 192). How much more proof do we need?

"Surprised by Hope" Review: Part 3

2011-10-15T02:10:00.000-07:00

Here is Part 1 and Part 2:

This is a small, reviewish type piece about a book I adore. I like to mostly summarize and quote, so not really a critical review, but whatever! Surprised by Hope is fantastic, hopefully you are inspired. Read it:

Chapter 7

ThisChapter entitled “Jesus, Heaven, and New Creation” seemed a bit disconnected.And though I am loving this book tremendously and think it should be requiredreading by all Christians, this chapter could use a rewrite.

Wrightbegins by talking about the importance of the Ascension. This is the eventrecorded mostly by Luke, where Jesus floats ‘up’ and disappears behind a cloud.There appears besides the Apostles two men dressed in white (angels?) and theyask why they are standing and staring into the sky and then reveal that Jesuswill come back the same way.

Thesignificance of the story that Wright is portraying to us is multi-fold: (1)That Jesus is in bodily form in Heaven and didn’t just assume back into theFather again after resurrection, (2) this body is a new creation body whichallows him to enter heaven and earth, (3) that heaven is located in the samespace-time location we are and heaven certainly isn’t up (and adversely hellisn’t below), (4) Heaven is the “control room” for earth where Christ is rulingthe cosmos and will eventually bring that rule directly to earth in thefinality of things.

Itis Wrights belief that when we have orthodox Ascension views, that all otherthings fall into place like the Trinity, communion, mission, end-times(eschatology). He also believes and points out, in somewhat of tangent, thatthe Ascension will correct our perception of what the church is and is not. Thechurch is not Jesus as Jesus is alive, in physical body, controlling theheavens and the earth. He believes that this means the church can be theservant instead of being God. He thinks that when the church goes about settingup a theocracy-system either politically or ecclesially, then we puff ourselves up. The counter to not having Ascension in our belief is a form ofpurposelessness. Wright assertsthat after we believe in the literal Ascension and all the correlating truths,“…only then are we rescued from both the hollow triumphalism and shallowdespair” (p. 113).

Wrightmoves from Ascension into Eschatology. He defines it for us as “…the entiresense of God’s future for the world and the belief that [the] future hasalready begun to come forward to meet us in the present” (p. 122). His views onthe end times will become clearer in the next chapters, but first Wright setsfirmly that he is in neither extreme that faces us today. He challenges bothLiberalism in their assault on the Second coming/Resurrection/Ascension and the conservative contagion of Dispensational/RaptureTheology. I sure hope he destroys these two. I personally find Rapture theologyto be one of worst, if not the worst, unscriptural theologies damaging thechurch currently. I am glad to read from Wright that it is mostly a NorthAmerican disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.

"... and I'm a Mormon"

2011-10-14T02:09:00.000-07:00

Mormonism / The faith of Latter-Day Saints has been in the news recently and I have been thinking about all my mormon friends.

On top of the media excitement, for months I have been seeing these web commercials showing three scenes of a person, living life in a happy and exciting way concluding with "... and I'm a Mormon." A lot of times these ads feature people of color or people who seem to be near the extremes socially (i.e. hard-core motorcycle riders, hippie looking grandmothers).

Now I am seeing commercials of the same brand, often back to back.

Hawaiian Surfer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pjNWvEMYwo
Free-spirited mother, artist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaEgGZnZcos&feature=pyv
High-speed motorcycle rider: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hr75CYmHI8
A "Black Mormon" urban school teacher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OtpU_YC7n4

It even made the news: http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-new-im-a-mormon-ad-campaign-to-hit-seattle-20111003,0,2124694.story

To me, and I am being honest here, it seems like LDS faith leaders are trying paint their members as 'normal.' The "Hey! We're totally normal people..." seems very off-putting to me. Not that I don't think Mormons are awesome, fantastic people. I have close friends who are mormon. But by saying that someone is totally normal and by spending millions of dollars to get that message out to the whole world oddly seems to paint the opposite. When someone tries that hard, our society seems rather distrusting of overt expressions like this.

But more troubling to me, by far, is not the trying to cast a light of 'normal' around it as an institution and around its members but trying to convey a notion of being cool. Clearly these tactics go beyond socializing normalization and acceptance of the LDS faith, but seem to be selling it like a brand. Surfers, singers, artists, action seekers, mayors, etc... it all seems a bit forced. I am part of a faith tradition. My tradition has a lot of old white men making decisions and running things and I know this is true, even more so, for Mormons. And nothing destroys cool like old white dudes calling things cool. As a person who will be an old white male, old white dudes are the death of cool.

But thinking beyond how to achieve 'cool' I think another conversation should be had: should religion be cool? Or even less controversial, should it be normal? Again, as a evangelical who desperately wants to cast off negative stereotypes that society holds, I certainly don't think that my church will ever be normal or cool. Nor do I think it should be. My faith is radical declaration to the world that I no longer play by its rules. I no longer look to it for direction or validation. I know longer call Caesar Lord or am transformed by it. I realize that living in some commune out in the desert is not an option for faith. Neither is embracing the world full on. The tension between these two is a tight-rope. But where are the lines? Do these ads cross it?

So, in humility and with a posture of being willing to learn and listen I am asking you all, especially my Mormon friends, what do you think? Am I wrong? Is this embarrassing for any of you? Is it encouraging to you know that your church is evangelizing? Are you hoping that it removes the stigma that you feel surrounds you or your faith?

To those in other faiths, how would you feel if your particular faith tradition did this? If you are catholic, how did you feel when your tradition did the "Welcome Home" campaign?

Very curious.

Blessings!

Surprised by Hope Review Part 2

2011-10-11T00:23:00.000-07:00

Here is PART 1 if you are so inclined...

Again, this book has been amazing! Loved it.

I am skipping chapters 3 and 4 and heading right to 5 and 6:

Chapter 5

Wrightbegins that chapter with a discussion on where we are to begin. He explainsthat in the medieval period a greater emphasis was placed on the individual.There is a reward for individuals, he says, but he suggests that we should, andare going to in this book, start with a much bigger question: “What is God’spurpose for the world as a whole?” (p. 80).

Wrightthen describes myths that we currently have in society and why they are ineffective. Hetitles the first one, “Evolutionary Optimism,” he subtitles this one with “themyth of progress.” The premise is that evolution is a much broader thing thenbiology and it has given us an idea that progress is good and will eventuallylead to some sort of utopia. Marxism, Darwinism, technology, politics all playon this worldview. Wright then tells us that “the real problem with the myth ofprogress is… that it cannot deal with evil” (p.85). He suggests three reasonswhy this is true: (1) “It can’t stop evil” (p. 86), (2) Utopia doesn’t addressall the past suffering and evil (ibid).(3) The third one is harder to find but I think it is, “because itunderestimates the nature and power of evil itself…” (p. 87).

Thesecond myth Wright believes is hindering our accepting of biblical resurrectioneschatology is what he calls, “Souls in Transit.” This myth, in my opinion, isthe one the church deals with the most, which is namely that theheavenly/spiritual realm is far superior to this physical one. We have becomePlatonist/ Gnostics and have made a hierarchy where God has not made one:namely that physical is somehow “worldly” and bad and spirit is good.

Chapter 6

Thischapter begins with Wright summarizing some of his past thoughts about thedirection of the future and recapping the evolutionary optimism and platonicsoul escapism ideas. He then identifies and describes three elements that helpus build a biblical view of hope. (1)”Goodness of Creation” (p. 94). He works out some basic theology ofcreation for us: Creation is good, it is other than God therefore not divine, itreflects God especially in humans as image-bearers.

(2)“The nature of Evil” (p. 94). Here Wright gives a great understanding of evil:it is not created, it is not a matter of material and spirit, it is not eveninherent in the idea of things being other than God, “Evil then consists… inthe rebellious idolatry by which humans worship and honor elements or thenatural world rather than the God who made them” (p. 95).

(3)“The plan of redemption” (p. 96). The bulk of the argument falls heavily on theterm and meaning of redemption. Redemption, for Wright, can’t mean destructionfor the thing to make a newer better thing, for that isn’t redeeming at all.And it can't mean escaping the old thing for something else, because that isabandonment. For Wright, redemption is “…the remaking of creation, having dealtwith the evil that is defacing and distorting it” (p. 97).

Withthese three foundationally in place, Wright then explores 6 themes he finds inthe New Testament that are vitally important in developing this Christian hopeof ours: (A) “Seedtime and Harvest:” this is a discussion of 1 Corinthians 15and its relation to Passover and Pentecost and their ideas of farming. ThatJesus is the firstborn, the firstfruits, over the dead and creation, whichimplies many more will follow. The words of 'seed' and 'sown' are images todescribe this resurrection and are to be understood as not two things or bodiesthat are completely other than each other, but transformed from old to new (p.98).

(B)“The Victorious Battle:” Wright continues with 1 Corinthians but moves to a differentmetaphor; one of King and Kingdom. The idea that Jesus must reign until allevil, power, and eventually death comes under his will and rule is a sure signthat Paul is discussing new creation.This becomes Wright’s main thrust for arguing for a physical resurrection ofChrist, that if it wasn’t a physical body, but something other and spiritual ormetaphoric, than death could never actually be defeated, but re-assigned orre-named (pp. 99-100).

(C)“Citizens of Heaven, Colonizing the Earth:” Wright asserts that historicallycitizenship was a focal point of Roman life and Christians/people were very familiar with theterms. Paul’s use of the term inPhilippians 3 should be subsumed under these contexts. Roman cities andcitizens were under or promised a PaxRomana which didn’t mean that all citizens would move to Rome someday, butthat the current place would be changed. This is the interpretation we shouldread in Phil. 3 according to Wright, that we don’t go to heaven, but that ourLord, Savior, King would transform us and creation around us. This seems to bea weak or underdeveloped point, but the more I chew on it, the more cohesionthe point has (pp. 100-101).

(D)“God will be all in all:” This is a weird point for me and hard to understand.That creation was an act of Love and God intends to fill the whole earth,literally, with his love. The most beautiful and descriptive quote for me was:“We might suggest, as part of a Christian aesthetic, that the world isbeautiful not just because it hauntingly reminds us of it creator but alsobecause it is pointing forward; it is designed to be filled, flooded, drenchedin God, as a chalice is beautiful not least because of what we know it isdesigned to contain or as a violin is beautiful not least because we know themusic of which is it capable” (pp. 101-102).

(E)“New Birth:” Here Wright focuses on Romans 8 and Paul’s use of the “birthpangs” metaphor. New Creation is no smooth evolutionary process nor completedisconnect/ abandonment of the old; it is “…traumatic, involving convulsionsand contractions and the radical discontinuity in which mother and child areparted and become not one being but two. But neither is a dualistic rejectionof physicality as though, because the present creation is transient and full ofdecay and death, God must throw it away and start over again” (pp. 103-104).

(F)“The Marriage of Heaven and Earth:” Taking his climatic point from the end ofScripture, Wright focuses in on Revelation 21-22. That just like women and menbeing joined together as one in marriage, so heaven comes down to earth at thefinality of all things. That polar opposites were made for each other andmaterial isn’t disregarded for spiritual but the two join in completeness andharmony (pp. 104-106).

Wrightsummarizes the chapter with what he thinks is his crowning scripturalproof. He discusses Colossians 1 and the poem found therein. The summarizingline, to me, for this chapter is, “What creation needs is neither abandonmentnor evolution but rather redemption and renewal; and this is both promised andguaranteed by the resurrection of the Jesus from the dead” (p. 107).

Questions to consider: What is God's purpose of the whole? How have you/the church fallen for 'evolutionary optimism'? How do we resist the urge to value the spiritual realm over the physical world?

If the Christian hope is literally a physical resurrected body in a redeemed creation, how should this shape our theology, church practices, and personal actions/beliefs?

Read Revelation 21-22 and pay attention to what Heaven and Earth does. 1 Corinthians 15 is the great resurrection chapter if you want more proof. There are many more... if you would like them, just ask!

Blessings!

Review-ish of N. T. Wright's "Surprised by Hope"

2011-09-28T00:31:00.000-07:00

This is by far one of my favorite theological/ Christian books ever! I cannot be misunderstood. There is no hyperbole in my statement. This book rocked my world.

I mean, I love C. S. Lewis. "Mere Christianity" changed my life. But if I can be a little blasphemous against Lewis, this book is better. It is better at framing a Christian Worldview and the entirety of the Christian life than the above mentioned. It also clears up the murky waters of Death, Dying and the after-life and what Wright wants to call something like "life after death after life." Basically this is a book about the Ultimate Christian hope (Resurrection into New Creation) and how that hope impacts our lives now! These are the types of questions Lewis sometimes missed on.

I have two critiques. (1) I wish there was more scripture actually quoted. I know the verses he alludes to. I know many more that he doesn't. But more is better when you are challenging 200 years of Dispensationalism and 2000 years of Gnosticism. And (2) His ending is a little scattered and weak. I kind of understand why it is that way, but he could have spent another 5 minutes and made it better. Maybe I am wrong...

Anyways, I am going to be posting some of my review, interaction, favorite quotes from the book in a series that will highlight a couple chapters at a time. I will not highlight every chapter, but I will most. I hope you enjoy!

Chapter 1
Wright describes events, disasters, cultural practices that bring death, and our beliefs about death, to the forefront of our thoughts. With events like 9/11, WWII, tsunamis, hurricanes and the death of beloved celebrities, we expose that our beliefs vary and are extremely far away from Orthodox Christianity. Wright also gives the thesis statement for his whole book, which he dedicates to answer 2 questions that he finds pertinently linked: "First, what is the ultimate Christian hope? Second, what is there for change, rescue, transformation, new possibilities within the world in the present" (p. 5). It is our answer to these orthodoxological questions that will shape other orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the greatest way.

Chapter 2
Wright pointedly makes crystal clear that our theology on heaven, resurrection, the soul and the final things may be the most unclear thing about Christianity. That we have such divergent views and he attributes it to what he calls “Folk Theology.” He gives a very fair share of the blame to Platonism, (e.g. the earth is a shadow of the real heaven/forms of which is our destination). Also in this chapter he gives a more thorough overview of the rest of the book then the one sentence thesis statement in Chapter one. One of the assertions that keeps coming forth is the idea the heaven took center stage in our theology somewhere in the 1800’s and possibly before this we had a resurrection theology. As a Wesleyan, I certainly know that Wesley was optimistic about the future and our role in it (much like Wright speaks now), but also Wesley seemed to shy away from these types of things. I wonder why Heaven took the place of resurrection in this time. Plato had been dead some 2000 years. I wonder if science and manifest destiny brought it about. We were conquering the west; we were running out of land to be explored. And possibly the height of the Enlightenment, and subsequently what Durkheim calls the demystification of the known world, caused the Western World to start dreaming. Dreaming not about new lands or unexplained mysteries here, about another place. Certainly this would also explain a rise in Science fiction and the seeming angel worship of the Victorian Era.

Question for you: What is the ultimate Hope of Christianity? If your answer is "Heaven" you need to buy this book because you would be surprised to know that you are probably wrong as I was...

Understanding Worship, Justice and the Missio Dei in Missional Contexts

2011-09-27T00:03:00.000-07:00

Below is one of the first major papers I have had to write for my schooling. It is an integrative between two week long classes, the first being about worship and the second about Justice and Mercy. I wish I could have had about 5 more hours with it. Please feel free to critique ideas... I am not so interested in grammar and punctuation :)

Faith without Works is Dead

In finding the connection betweenacts of Justice/Mercy and the Acts of Piety, I feel there is a tendency toover-play the connection. Many Christians and churches and even scholars wantto convey an idea of consequence; that proper worship will beget propermission. I feel that this tendency is so strong it has been a lens throughwhich I have read the readings and interpreted the theologians. But thescholars aren’t completely guiltless in forming this causal relationship. Thereseems to be a purposed set of scholarship that is fighting for a middle waybetween the conservative individualism that has plagued most of the reformationand the liberal stream that has sacrificed piety and transformation forJustice. In forging this middle way the missional church and scholars haveconnected Justice and Piety in some proper ways, in ways that reclaim a more completegospel, but I just hope that they haven’t fed into the individualist notionthat one leads to the other. A careful assessment will show that there isambiguity, but ultimately I believe the material leans toward an equalstressing of both Piety and Justice in the living out the Missio Dei.

Acts of Piety, or the practicingof the means of grace, are the spiritual disciplines Christians use believingthat God is working an inward grace. John Wesley says of the means of grace,“By ‘means of grace’ I understand outward signs, words, or actions, ordained ofGod, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby he mightconvey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.”[i]Wesley believes that the most common and important are prayer, the reading ofscripture and communion or Eucharist though he admits to there being many more.[ii]An individual can practice these alone or as part of a church setting. Thequestion posed is how does piety and Justice relate to Missio Dei. I think definitions of both Justice and Missio are needed before we can answer.

Acts of Justice and Mercy arecentral themes in Scripture, specifically the Old Testament where they areoften paired together. No other passage makes this clearer than the muchdiscussed Micah passage, chapter 6 verse 8, “He has shown you, O mortal, whatis good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercyand to walk humbly with your God” (NIV). Justice and Mercy are attributes thatthe Lord requires of us but they are also attributes that God defines God-selfby. We see this in Jeremiah 9:24, “’but let the one who boasts boast aboutthis: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, whoexercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these Idelight,’ declares the LORD” (NIV). John Perkins describes justice in an easyway and a not-so-easy way. His view of justice is finding the cause of thosewho have been under the oppression of injustice and taking up that cause. Butmore than that, Perkins believes that in Christian downward mobility andrelocation, the cause of the ones under injustice literally becomes our cause.He says, “In once again living among our people, their needs became our needs.Our shared needs, then, became the starting point of our ministry.”[iii]Justice is defending the cause of the widow, the orphan and the stranger. It isreleasing the oppressed and fighting the cause of the poor.

The Missio Dei is simply “God’s Mission” or “Mission of God” in Latin.The implications of the Missio are,however, much wider and deeper. Darell Guder states that the Missio Dei involves a “Theocentricreconceptualization” or in laymen’s terms, a God-centered rethinking ofmission. He says, “We have come to see that mission is not merely the activityof the church. Rather, mission is the result of God’s initiative, rooted inGod’s purposes to restore and heal creation.”[iv]God is the one with the mission. God is sender. God has the goal. It is toGod’s ends that all is done. This may seem like an obvious idea, that God isthe doer and giver of all good things, but for centuries the church has assumedthat mission was its job and not God’s action. Lesslie Newbigin says about thechurch, “[The Church] is sent, therefore, not only to proclaim the kingdom butto bear in its own life the presence of the kingdom.”[v]The very idea that the church is sent conveys that the church is a part ofGod’s mission and that mission does not belong to the church. The Missio Dei is always outside the church,but the church exists to live into the Missio.

But the Missio Dei is not just the abstract idea that God is awesome andinventor of the concept mission. MissioDei is not even only the idea that mission is God centered and not churchcentered. Missio Dei is abouteschatology. Wesley wants to point out that the “means of grace” are actuallynot ends in and of themselves when he says, “Remember also to use all the meansas means; as ordained, not for theirown sake…”[vi]It has to be noted that our worship and our mercy has an ends. This isn’t someargument about ethics for ethics sake. If the Missio Dei does anythingit points us to the end. Newbigin says, “Mission, seen from this angle, isfaith in action. It is the acting out by proclamation and by endurance, throughall the events of history, of the faith that the kingdom of God has drawn near.It is the acting out the central prayer that Jesus taught his to disciples touse: ‘Father, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earthas in heaven.’”[vii] The end ofthe Missio is that Earth is full ofGod’s Kingdom. As N. T. Wright suggests, the biblical echoing of “… the waterscover[ing] the sea” (Isaiah 11, Habakkuk 2) is God’s end to the Missio. He says, “As it stands, that isa remarkable statement. How can the waters cover the sea? They are the sea. It looks as though Godintends to flood the universe with himself, as though the universe, the entirecosmos, was designed as a receptacle for his love.”[viii]The end of the Missio is the Heavenand Earth renewed and wedded. God’s ends is to be perfectly and completely withus without injustice, evil and corruption. Guder says, “A missionalecclesiology is eschatological. Our doctrine of the church must bedevelopmental and dynamic in nature, if we believe that the church is the workof the creating and inspiring Spirit of God and is moving toward God’s promisedconsummation of all things.”[ix]

To the question at hand, How doesthe Missio Dei shape my personal actsof piety, my church and my acts of justice and mercy? My initial thought is tosay that my personal connection to Christ through piety will inform my acts ofJustice. The mission will follow worship. I am even tempted to generalize thisto the whole church, to say that communal worship will guide our mercy. I wantto use some evangelical cliché to say something like, “when my cup is filled tooverflowing, then it can spill out to those around me.” These types of clichésare justification for deeper worship and individual piety, holiness of theheart. I could easily read into some of the scholars and find justification forsuch beliefs as well. Guder says, “By its very existence, then, the church bringswhat is hidden into view as sign and into the experience as foretaste. At thesame time, it also represents to the world the divine reign’s character,claims, demands, and gracious gifts as its agent and instrument.”[x]By describing the church, he places great importance and value on the church;as it should be. Newbigin says, “I have come to feel that the primary realityof which we have to take account in seeking for a Christian impact on publiclife is the Christian congregation… that they have power to accomplish theirpurpose only as they are rooted in and lead back to a believing community.”[xi]Newbigin seems to be the first one to say “…the mission is God’s”[xii]yet here in this quote he indissolubly links church and mission, and more thanthat, as the church as one of the only options for mission. Wesley says thatthe most important means of grace are prayer, reading scripture and communion.These acts are all worship done alone or in church. He goes on to say,“According to this, according to the decision of Holy Writ all who desire thegrace of God are to wait for it in the means which he hath ordained…”[xiii]Who doesn’t want the grace of God? Why wouldn’t we prioritize personal andcorporate worship over mission, justice and mercy? In the questioning of my assumptionsI began to ask a deeper question: do the two, piety and justice, have to be sointimately paired in a causal relationship? I have known very devoutworshippers who have, for all intents and purposes, forsaken the call to actjustly and mercifully. On the other hand I have known people who have a deepdesire to do justice and mercy and have had poor worshiping lives. The latteris probably my own journey.

The answer to the question of howdoes justice and piety relate to each other and ultimately to the Missio Dei comes in John Wesley, N. T.Wright and scripture. These provide the lens that helps me make sense of therest of missional reading. John Wesley says in On Zeal, “Are you better instructed that to put asunder what Godhas joined? Than to separate works of piety from works of mercy? Are youuniformly zealous for both?... that consequently no outward works areacceptable to him unless they spring from holytempers, without which no man can have a place in the kingdom of Christ andof God.”[xiv]Piety and Mercy are to be equally stressed in the life of the church andbeliever. Wesley wants to point out that works done without faith are useless,but the Epistle of James would equally stress “faith by itself, if it has noworks, is dead” (2:17, NRSV). Either way, both scripture and Wesley understandthat works and piety are separate entities that are completely dependent oneach other and with out each other the other would perish. C. S. Lewis says itthis way, “Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads theChristian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really tospeak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking whichblade in a pair of scissors is most necessary.”[xv]I do not feel compelled at this time to pick which blade is more important, butultimately find them bound together. If they are bound, I have a hard timesaying which one leads to the other.

The synthesis of piety and justicemay be wrapped up in something larger than itself as it relates to the Missio. Wright says, “I remain convincedthat the way forward is to rediscover a true eschatology, to rediscover a truemission rooted in anticipating that eschatology, and to rediscover forms ofchurch that embody that anticipation.”[xvi]Wright suggests that maybe eschatology will be the overarching mechanism neededto make sense of how piety and mission relate to the Missio. If we know what the ends of Missio Dei are then we can talk about mission and then church.Interestingly, Wright finds that mission will be the first thing effected bycorrect eschatology and spawning out of mission church practice will be formed.

But ultimately every scholar, fromWesley (On Zeal) to Wright (Surprised by Hope) must conclude thatthe way Missio Dei relates to piety,both in church and personal, and justice is through Love. If truly the greatestcommandment is to “’love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with allyour soul, and with all your mind [worship].’ And a second is like it: Youshall love your neighbor as yourself [justice/mercy/mission]’” then maybe thesynthesis of the two really is love. But not in the way we think. Jesus isequally commanding both. He is commanding worship and he is commanding mercy.He stresses both equally by saying that the second is like the first (o’’”`moi,a). Piety and justice are separatebut both equally important bound together by love which, in his synthesis ofpiety and mercy, Wesley says love is “the queen of all graces, the highestperfection of heaven or earth, the very image of the invisible God…” in On Zeal.[xvii]

If the Missio Dei is God’s mission towards a consummated end where heavenand earth reside together as one, where God floods the earth like the “…waterscover the sea” then certainly the church has a role. But the church’s role isnot to be the doers of mission or even the keepers of the mission, but createdout of God’s mission to be the embodiment of God’s mission. The Church’sworship/piety is to love God. But Wright puts this love into eschatologicalperspective, “…love is not our duty; it is our destiny.”[xviii] Wrightbelieves that our worship in love is a reflection of the future reality. We asa present reality people live into a future reality in the kingdom by ourworship. Our worship orients us to the future reality. It reminds us that the Missio has an end, that we have aglorious end. Our work of justice and mercy is the living out those ends. Wework towards the “Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven…” We work to wipeout poverty, to heal up the broken hearted, to release the oppressed, to setthe captive free, to defend the cause of the orphan and widow and strangerbecause this is the end of the hope we live into. We live into this hope withsuch assurance and present reality now that we shape the things around us tobecome more like what the whole world will become. And the whole thing is heldtogether by love. The Love of God which continually calls us out of thispresent reality and into the future hope and the love of neighbor as self whichcalls us out of the future to be present. The two cannot be separated but thetwo cannot be confused: Piety and mercy are one in love.

[i]Albert C. Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater, edit., John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology (Nashville: Abingdon Press,1987), 160.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] John Perkins, With Justice for All (Ventura, CA: Regal Press, 2007), 61.

[iv]Darell L. Guder et al., Missional Church: A Vision forthe Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998), 4.

[v]Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: AnIntroduction to the Theology of Mission, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),48-49.

[vi]Outler, Wesley, 170.

[vii]Newbigin, Open, 39.

[viii]N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, theResurrection, and the Mission

of the Church, (New York: HarperCollins,2008), 102.

[ix]Guder, Missional, 11-12

[x] Ibid.,102.

[xi] Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1989), 227.

[xii]Newbigin, Open, 18.

[xiii]Outler, Wesley, 162.

[xiv] Ibid., 473.

[xv] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (San Francisco: Harper Collins: 2001), 148.

[xvi] Wright, Surprised, 264.

[xvii] Outler, Wesley, 473.

[xviii] Wright, Surprised, 288.

Bibliography

Guder, Darrell, Lois Barrett, Inagrace T. Dietrich, GeorgeR. Hunsbeger, Alan J. Roxbrgh,

Craig Van Gelder. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in NorthAmerica. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Lewis, C. S. MereChristianity. San Francisco: Harper Collins: 2001.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospelin a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Newbigin, Lesslie. TheOpen Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Outler, Albert C. and Richard P. Heitzenrater. edit. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology.

Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987.

Perkins, John. WithJustice for All. Ventura, CA: Regal Press, 2007.

Wright,N.T. Surprised by Hope: RethinkingHeaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission

of the Church. New York: HarperCollins,2008.

Thought of the Day: "The Journey"

2011-09-08T23:51:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder if "The Journey" of Christianity is just an excuse for us, Christians, not to get our hands dirty and take this thing seriously...

I mean, if everything is always a journey then their is no time-frame on arrival. Arrival is a goal, but spiritual journeys allow for a cheap grace to manifest our lives. It is a grace we extend ourselves and others in not expecting anyone to do anything except travel.

Also, I am fairly sure that there are infinite things in Christianity that require a long-term journey mind-set.

But... just bear with me... what if this shallow grace isn't something Jesus is interested in giving? Don't get me wrong, Jesus is infinitely grace-giving, but what if there are areas he doesn't give or accept this shallow grace? For instance:

We pray the Lord's prayer and we ask God to forgive us as we forgive others... Is this something we mean? Does this need a journey? Is this forgiveness something we need to grow up into or is Jesus serious about this now?
We are to be marked with a love for our neighbors that is like the way we love and take care of ourselves? Do we even know our neighbor's name? Do we have any intention of taking this command serious now or ever?
We are not to worry about tomorrow but do at every instance of our lives? When shall we cease to worry about tomorrow? Tomorrow? When I am older?
When will stop storing up treasures on earth and serving two masters? Do ever really intend to take this seriously or is this something we relegate to the future, after retirement, or even further into the world of the ideal?

More than these instant commands that Jesus expects of his followers now, does our ideal of church and being a Christian destroy the reality that is now? Dietrich Bonhoeffer says in "Life Together" that our ideal of Church will crush the present reality of being family in Christ. If we have an ideal and try to force it that way, towards a goal, do we love Christ or really ourselves and are we really faithful to the reality of being family through Christ instantly upon conversion?

Bonhoeffer has an amazing point about community but I am taking it more personally. Does our ideal of what it means to be a Christian destroy the present reality of what it means to be a Christ-follower? We are children of the King (John 1), indwelt with the presence of God in the Holy Spirit, more than conquerors through Him who loves us (Romans 8). Surely we can live in that reality, obeying Christ through his strength.

What a miserable existence it is to dwell in some idea or future notion really never achieving anything except the overlooking of present realities. "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today... ‘Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand.The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!" (Jesus, Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6-7).

Do we hear the words and act or do we hear and wait for some ambiguous time in the future where we think we will be mature enough to do?

And, ultimately, let us encourage eachother forward with infinite patience and grace as we all figure out what it means to be a disciple. We can't be doing nothing but we don't have to be perfect. Wrestling, experiencing, dwelling and trying are all great places to be!

What do you think? Am I too harsh on journeying or is it time to get our hands dirty?

Blessings and Peace!

Sound Track to my Life over the last 5 years!

2011-09-07T01:36:00.000-07:00

I composed a "Faith-Based" Music list to my life's soundtrack for a professor... I geeked out and went overboard. Thought I would publish it here so (1) people could see what my life sounds like (2) get inspired and pick us some great tunes (3) may add on to a genre that I am missing... Hope you enjoy!

"...I promised myself that I would only listen to faith inspired music and have thus made it my goal to find the best of the best.

If you are looking for some down tempo folk, I echo the above that Jon foreman's solo stuff is soooo good. I enjoy "Instead of a Show" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrY1-gPM0KY) or "House of God Forever" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoXWIK1lfyo).

If you like some rock, especially a little thought rock with sometimes a hint of a smidgen of reggae with always great rhythm, you might like Edison Glass. So many favorites here so I will throw out the hits, "Let Go" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zegFxCxes0U) & "forever" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyeOVGdiqyE). [Edit: both albums are great all the way through... definitely check out "This House" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLYmBRgO7uU&ob=av2e) and see if your face doesn't melt].

My favorite is some super indie awesomeness from a little band called "The Winston Jazz Routine." They don't play jazz at all and this created a ton of confusion so he changed his name to Nathan Phillips. Anyway, I love some "William and Betsy" (http://youtu.be/xvPJVHPGHR4) & "The Physician" (http://youtu.be/ATa5z-zC5G8). The Physician builds to this wonderful fall out at 4:10 that melts me with "over and over I try/ My fallen state still weak/ only the Son of Man/ Only the Great I am/ can know all my failures and cover them..." The whole album "Sospiri" will break your heart. [Edit - probably my favorite album of all time!!! No joke...].

I echo Ben Shive - especially the song "Rise Up." His music can be a bit Beatles-esque. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQx-Cv_X_hU).

If you want to take it back a century while still being modern, The Welcome Wagon is awesome. "But for You Who Fear My Name" is superb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytwcC1kbl0Q). The whole album is great. Hymn like. Try "Hail to the Lord's Anointed" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUbXRMaocQI).

This is going to take forever so I am going to go quicker:

Arthur Alligood - Presbyterian Minister with an Acoustic Guitar/ Really indie/ underproduced/ Free album on website/ "Keep your Head Up" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUFR_vOHIzY)

Besides Daniel - Indie/Acoustic/Honest/ "The Field" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjDaNwW-Hlc)

Winston Audio - Rock/ kinda like Foo Fighters/ lyrics are introsepective and melancholy/ Free album on website/ "On My Trail" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UET0Bbg5oU) will hit you hard... SOOOOOOO GOOOOOOODD!!!

Aaron Roche - Acoustic/ Pop/ Indie/ "June, June" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oy_rUrf_xg). [Edit - I absolutely love the album "Travel", so key in my listening experience. Also, Roche and Winston Jazz Routine teamed up to do "The Choir at your Door", makes me cry every time at how good they are...].

Half-Handed Cloud - Really Random Indie/ almost every song is under 2 minutes/ Acquired taste/ Old Testament stories that are shortened, modernized and put to song/ "Jael Peg Caper" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P0o1dUFjCg) & "Quail" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8MSROpEkZs)

And finally, Sufjan Stevens - I love Sufjan but a lot of people don't:
~Seven Swans
~~ "The Transfiguration" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnGEPoH-HyM)
~~ Abraham (http://youtu.be/Rz36oR4SmhM).

~ Michigan
~~ "for the widows in paradise, for the fatherless in ypsilanti" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59BRCOiQVKI)
~~ "Oh God Where are you Now?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-E3a6kW6LI)
~~ "Vito's Ordination Song" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgcFmoolJqg)

~Illinois
~~ "John Wayne Gacy Jr." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otx49Ko3fxw)
~~ "Chicago" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azGIf74ICmw)

Sorry to geek out. I completely understand that this is far too much music to even get close diving into. If you have to pick, definitely check out the Sufjan and Jon Foreman."

So there you have it... Listen to all of these, then buy the albums, then listen to all the songs, then get back to me!!!

Peace!!!

Judgementalism, desert fathers, beauty

2011-07-25T22:39:00.000-07:00

While reading this: http://oboedire.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/desert-wisdom-non-judgement/

All I could think was this:“what beauty God has showered on us as his children and image bearers to the world!”

Free Methodist General Conference 2011!

2011-07-15T15:37:00.000-07:00

I am such a nerd.

I am a total Free Methodist (FM) fan-boy. I love it. I love the past. I am impressed by parts of the present and am overjoyed at the potential of the future.

I love Free Methodism because: (1) I think the roots cannot be beat, (2) the consequence and theology of the roots provide for a fantastic potential for revolution and revival.

Free Methodism begins in 1860. Before this year we were apart of the Methodist church. But there was a growing number of us who decided that the church needed to re-center itself on the poor, broken, marginalized, disenfranchised populations. Specifically this meant that our churches should be open to any one and not charge for seats like many churches were at the time (freedom of seats). Specifically this means that we desired to see women allowed to pursue her gifts and abilities and the call God puts on her life to do any function, task, job or calling in the church or home. Specifically it looked like pulling away from high-church liturgy where worship is scripted, stifled, priest-centric instead of open, fresh and Spirit lead. Specifically it was drawing a line in the sand about slavery in the 1800's. The Church, Methodist and otherwise, was generally unwilling to take a stance as to not create a division in its membership (freedom for the slaves). It is hard for us to understand now that slavery was a super divisive issue and that many of us would have been supporters of slavery, but Free Methodists planted their flag firmly in the equality camp. And I take great pleasure in being part of this same organization that is leading the Church in the fight against modern day slavery which includes forced labor, both agriculturally and factory, and Human Sex Trafficking.

We have our flaws, I will certainly be the first person to call the church to her face in repentance. But in this, the General Conference (meets every 4 years) that is celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Free Methodist Church TONIGHT!!!, I cannot help but be overwhelmed, encouraged, empowered and inspirited.

So, you ask, why am I nerd?

I feel like a nerd because when I am here, I am overwhelmed by the magnanimity that wells up in me when I meet notable FM's. It is like meeting super-stars to me. It is like seeing my favorite bands in concerts. But it is even bigger: I am meeting women and men who have forsaken their own lives, their own comforts, their own homes and families to spread peace, hope and love to the world by witnessing about Christ.

I walk into Hale Auditorium here at Roberts-Wesleyan College (B.T. Roberts - founder of Free Methodism & John Wesley - founder of Methodism a 100 years before) and I see all these amazing people. There's Phyllis Sorter, missionary to Nigeria, taking the country by storm and meeting every challenge with all the strength and poise of a saint. There's the Williamses, missionaries and school teachers to Thailand. There's Al and Diane Mellinger, missionaries to Bulgaria. They just completed a huge project called Love Bulgaria that spreads Jesus' love in an amazing way.There's Joel and Janette Miller and their 4 kids, who have both served in Mexico for a long time as medical missionaries and are now moving to Burundi to help medical students fuse their vocation and faith.

There's Steve Fitch, former superintendent who now serves as director for "Eden Reforestation Projects" planting trees in South America and Africa to restore the environmental damage that is being done and bring poverty relief through job creation and farm land recovery. There's Bishop Emeritus Don Bastian who wrote the fantastic book "Belonging" still used in our education requirements. There's Stephen Gray, master church planter and supt. of the Arizona conference, he planted a ton of churches and a bunch have gone to a thousand. There's Brandon Hatmaker, a Pastor at Austin New Church, who is actually doing everything I have only talked about. There's Christy Winckles, fighting to keep in front of the church her original declaration of women's equal place in the church.

And even more personally exciting: there is John Hay, former urban pastor and now minister through International Child Care Ministry (a ministry of the FMC that does the work of child sponsorship in other countries). His vision and view have let me know that I am not alone. There's Doug Newton, former editor of the denominational magazine ("Light and Life") that continually brought justice issues to the forefront of the church and highlighted creative, succesful, vibrant ministries caring for those. There's Howard Snyder, the prophet of our church. He is a scholar, a missionary, a pastor and an author. He has written books like "The Radical Wesley," "The Problem of Wineskins," "Populist Saints" and his newest book coming out this month or next "Salvation Means Creation Healed."

Then there are our bishops. Bishop, in our church, is the highest office you can hold in the whole denomination. We have three and they are amazing. Bishops Kendall, Thomas and Roller have, almost single-handedly, given the church a new vision and direction and provided the necessary structure for that vision to be implemented. I believe that it is in their term that I have experienced the most hope for our beloved church. The future is limitless. The boundaries are pushed. The Free in Free Methodist is certainly alive and well. Our church is on the brink of revolution and this is across the board. The older generation and the younger ones are finding common goals and language to break unfruitful tradition and move ahead to meet our generation head on.

These are just the few I knew before I came, I met some new heroes while here, like: (1) Pastor Natura, who went to the police chief and asked where the highest crime part of the community was, planted a church there, and crime has subsided. The police chief is now on staff as a pastor at that church. (2) Pastor Amy, who read Snyder's book, "The Radical Wesley," abandoned traditional ministry and opened an organic farming community that rehabilitates ex-convicts being reintroduced to society. (3) Denny Wayman, a psychologist/counselor/Pastor/Supt. extraordinaire, who lead our group with a soft hand and stern vision. (4) Celeste Cranston, a pastor who works in the Theology department at Seattle Pacific University (FM school), heads the Lectio program and is a strong leader and communicator in all of the areas I have seen her.

And finally, I am impressed by so many in my generation. We have a heart, a passion, a drive to continue and make drastically better the work of the previous generations. We seem to be approaching our future with a seriousness of focus, maturity and a radical desire to restore the Whole Gospel for the Whole World starting with the Whole Person.

May God continue to bless our church! May he NOT see our work and smile at it, but LEAD us into the work he wants us to do. May our little Church continue to seek his ways and may we have a huge impact everywhere around us. May we still believe today what B. T. Roberts said over a hundred years ago, "The Free Methodists are a nation by themselves. God raised them up to be such. Wherever they are true to their calling, they prosper..." in fulfilling their call!

Blessings and Peace!

The Church's Struggle for a Story

2011-06-02T15:24:00.000-07:00

This Sunday is the day where the Church (capital 'C') all over the world is going to celebrate the Ascension of our Lord into the heavenly realm. The church has celebrated this occasion for almost two millenia. Unfortunately, I think the American church is going to miss it.

And in missing it, they're really going to miss it.

This year I refrained from my usual Patriotism rant. My rant about patriotism taking over the church. My rant about how I think the church is almost idolatrous with the flag and glorifies violence when Jesus specifically lived and taught a counter-example. I refrained from it because (1) it is such a hot button issue in the church that I have destroyed relationships over it. This is an atrocity to which I pray for restoration, and (2) I feel there is something much bigger at stake.

Patriotism is just a symptom. We, as humans, long for significance and meaning. We long for a story that defines us, that brings meaning to our actions. We desire a story that dispels meaninglessness and solitude. We long for something that we can hold on to, to tell us that is ok to be... us, just as we are.

Unfortunately the church needs the same thing. We need identity.

God is great at shaping identity. The Old Covenant is filled with stories about God setting up feasts and holy-days and rests and fasts. God made a calendar around his saving actions to help us remember and to create us as a testimony through our identity.

I learned about the word 'remember' from a wise man and mentor. We have lost the cultural significance of the word re-member. The Jews definitely have a better understanding of it. They read the history of their people as if they were there. "Then God parted the Red Sea for us..." and so on. They re - member, they piece it back together. A human body can be dismembered. We do the opposite when we re-member. We restore the ideas, the events, and apply them to our lives, because it is the same God and we are his people. Thanksgiving is probably the closest thing we have to this, gathering like the pilgrims for a feast of Thankfulness, though still not exactly.

We have lost our ability to remember. We are losing our identity as God's people. We are scrambling for a life story, for a cultural story. And I am afraid that the church is filling it with patriotism. Patriotism is safe in the world's eyes. Every one wants to be seen as patriotic. No one wants to be accused of being unpatriotic. Patriotism and Memorial day and Veteran's day and the Fourth of July and the Flag all have great significance. Their meaning is huge and their sacredness is almost palpable.

I am not a super-patriot. I don't get worked up over National things, but one time I had to put some flags up around the church for Memorial Day. You should have seen me fumbling to not let the flag touch the ground. I didn't know if I was allowed to touch it with my hands. When it was time to take it down, I didn't know how to fold them. I had to research flag rules on the net. I was a wreck. This thing has great significance. The problem for me was that a month earlier, I had to put up some crosses for Good Friday and Easter and I didn't have near the meltdown or even handle them with near the respect. I had a lot of soul searching to do about why I do the things I do. Why I am not worried about standing to worship but stand every time, without thought, for the national anthem?

Patriotism is the second best substitute for our story. It has tons of meaning. It has tons of sacredness. It is a noble thing. But it is not our story.

Our story is not about a military who goes in guns-a-blazing and wins by might. Our story is about a King who sacrificed incomprehensible riches to take on the flesh of man forever, to win the war that wages in this world and in our souls by sacrificing his life on the cross. Our story is not about a military who loses some good men and women along the way to victory and calls them heroes. Our story is about a King who purposely lays down his life, not as a casualty, but victoriously. Our story is not about an empire who desires to see all its enemies crushed, but about a Kingdom who desires to see all its enemies loved.

Our story is about a King who rises from the grave and ascends to Heaven in bodily form to sit at the right hand of God. The Ascension has great meaning for us:

Jesus' physical departure means that God can come live in us, all of us.

"I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father...'" (John 14).

Through Jesus' leaving we get the Holy Spirit. Jesus says that we are to rejoice at his departure because God now dwells in us.

Jesus uses the Ascension as his crowning proof of his divinity on trial for his life...

"The high priest stood up and said, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, ‘I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?’ They answered, ‘He deserves death.’" (Matthew 26)

Jesus' ascension means assurance in a reconciled relationship with God...

"For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" (Romans 5).

Jesus watches over us and guide's us as we spread his light and love and welcomes us home in times of peril...

"When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen.^* ⁵⁵But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’ ⁵⁷But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. ⁵⁸Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him... ⁵⁹While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ ⁶⁰Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 7).

Jesus is now in charge of EVERYTHING, there is no greater authority for us, then or now...

"God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1).

Jesus is the go between for us and God, he is the one who guards the New Covenant of Grace...

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all
—this was attested at the right time. For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying)..." (1 Timothy 2).
"But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises" (Hebrews 8).

Jesus' ascension is vitally important. It is the hope to which we were called, and validates our life story. It defines us and gives us the boldness and courage to live the adventure we have been called to in his Kingdom. Patriotism, of any country, pales in comparison to the salvific work of our Lord.

Until we define ourselves by God, his Kingdom and his work, we will always substitute something that is second best and miss what God has called us to. We need to look at God's calendar. We need to reorient our life so that our heroes are the ones who sacrificed for His Kingdom; our examples are the ones who made it their goal to look like Jesus.

What is your story? What defines you? What tradition or history gives your life boundaries and meaning? Is it one that is wrapped up too much in the things of this world or is it one that will not spoil, rot or fade?

In two weeks we should all celebrate Pentecost. Do some research as to why it is important. Incorporate a little of the significance into your worship tradition and/or sabbath. Decorate your house accordingly, even if it is a candle at dinner.

Blessings on this journey!

Attempting "Romulus" - Learning Banjo!

2011-05-27T02:33:00.000-07:00

Here is my attempt at "Romulus" by Sufjan Stevens. Hope you enjoy!

Once when our mother called,
She had a voice of last year's cough.
We passed around the phone,
Sharing a word about Oregon.
When my turn came, I was ashamed.
When my turn came, I was ashamed.

Once when we moved away,
She came to Romulus for a day.
Her Chevrolet broke down.
We prayed it'd never be fixed or found.
We touched her hair, we touched her hair.
We touched her hair, we touched her hair.

When she had her last child

Once when she had some boyfriends, some wild.
She moved away quite far.
Our grandpa bought us a new VCR.
We watched it all night, but grew up in spite of it.
We watched it all night, but grew up in spite of it.

We saw her once last fall.
Our grandpa died in a hospital gown.
She didn't seem to care.
She smoked in her room and colored her hair.
And I was ashamed of her

Dispensing with Dispensationalism and Leaving Behind “Left Behind”

2011-05-25T12:18:00.000-07:00

I had a few more people ask me some questions about the rapture so I am undertaking my most concise, clear cut effort to do away with rapture theology.

Let’s start by saying that not one church father over the last 2000 years has believed in any thing like the rapture. There are no church creeds that affirm a taking away of Christians to heaven. There are no denominations that officially uphold rapture theology that were created before 1830.

Rapture came about in the late 1700’s and find it’s foothold in the 1830’s. John Nelson Darby, considered the Father of Dispensationalism, spread his rapture theology around Plymouth Brethren circles for years. This culminated with some other false beliefs about prophecy, future, one-man anti-Christ, and so on. These ideas found there way in Matthew Henry’s Commentaries and into the Scofield Reference Bibles. The idea gained more and more popularity. Dallas Theological Seminary grabbed hold of the theology and some of their presidents wrote books supporting it. Dallas Theological Seminary has had a huge impact on very outspoken conservative evangelicals. I consider myself evangelical, but a different flavor than these folks.

In our generation, the biggest proponent of this thought has been the “Left Behind” series. This is a series of books wildly popular, especially in America. They have popularized this unbiblical/ untraditional End Times scenario to such a degree that this is where our biblically illiterate Christian culture gets its information about Jesus and His return. There are also tons and tons of dispensational preachers claiming to have all the answers.

In fact, until I went to seminary, I believed that Heaven was our ultimate destination. I believed that rapture would take us away and we would live in some spiritual existence forever. This dualism is a very common understanding of death and afterlife in many evangelical churches. Then I started reading about pastors and leaders of churches and professors who think that our rapture and heaven beliefs are ridiculous. I had to ask myself, “How has the church gotten so off base from scripture and orthodoxy? And why do those who know most about scripture, like know Greek and Hebrew fluently, consider these beliefs rubbish?” The only answer that I can come up with is that these things, the things of heaven and afterlife and even the bible in general in many respects, are vague and require years of growth and study and sitting with and chewing on over and over and still maybe not come to an answer. But people don’t want the disciple’s route; they want fast answers and everything to be in black and white.

Fast answers, even if wrong, are one of the problems with Americans. We want black and white answers, even when there aren’t any. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his ground breaking study on the birth of our nation, noted that we were very practical, very pragmatic, that we weren’t philosophizers. He said, “In America the purely practical part of science is admirably understood, and careful attention is paid to the theoretical portion which is immediately requisite to application. On this head the Americans always display a clear, free, original, and inventive power of mind. But hardly anyone in the United States devotes himself to the essentially theoretical and abstract portion of human knowledge. In this respect the Americans carry to excess…” (Democracy in America, Chapter 10). I fear he was right both 200 years ago and now. Basically he said, Americans are awesome at inventing and applying knowledge to situations. They study things for themselves and even put their discoveries in common language for all to understand. But there is a deeper, higher thought that has little practicality but is still “essential” or necessary for a society. He says, “Nothing is more necessary to the culture of the higher sciences or of the more elevated departments of science than meditation…” (ibid). Unfortunately, understanding religion, especially harder concepts of self-denial, the Kingdom of God, and Eschatology (The study of End Times) all deserve a lot of meditating, of chewing, or thinking without a lot of application. So, I believe Rapture Theology and Dispensationalism are so popular because we all have these questions in us of “what happens when we die?” “Where did my loved ones go?” “Jesus said he is coming back to make all things right and to dwell with us forever, what does that look like, why and when?” These questions are meant to drive us closer to Christ. They aren’t solvable in a day. Yet Dispensationalists will tell you point blank what they think they have interpreted correctly. They have an answer that is easy to understand and is very black and white. Unfortunately it is often wrong and more than that, it robs God and His Word of its beauty and inherent mystery that he purposely leaves. Again, my professor, world-renowned New Testament scholar Ben Witherington loves to say, “God has revealed enough about the future to give us hope, but not so much that we do not have to live by faith every day for the rest of our lives."

In fact, in the end of “The Challenge of Jesus” the great N. T. Wright says that he thinks the End is going to be a lot like the Road to Emmaus and the Two Disciples with Jesus. When Jesus had died and just after his resurrection, there were two unnamed disciples on the road to Emmaus. They were sad at the news of Jesus and his death. Jesus showed up in disguise and talked with them. After a while scripture says that Jesus showed them that all of the scriptures, the law and the prophets pointed to his death and resurrection, that this was the plan all along. Their eyes were opened and they rejoiced. Wright thinks that this is what the end will be like. Jesus will show up at the end and show us exactly what he meant and he will open our eyes, but until then, there will be a certain amount of mystery. This whole idea should be our first sign of false teaching. When someone has all the answers, and even a date for the end, then it is time to pack things up and go disciple under someone else.

But Rapture folks aren’t without scripture to give a little credence to their beliefs. Again, Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are the two main passages they use to back up their ideas. In fact, I don’t think I have seen any other support passages except the repeat of Matthew 24 in Mark 13 and Luke 17. Unfortunately, good bible study isn’t done by having an idea AND THEN looking up verses to support them but by reading scripture and letting it form ideas. The first way is called Eisegesis and is bad, using religion and scripture to support our ideas. The second is Exegesis and is good. Let’s look at these passages in depth:

Matthew 24 says, “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other... ‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." (Matthew 24: 30-31 & 36-42).

The conversation usually revolves around the last few verses: “Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.” This was the scenario I was presented with as a young man and many other kids and people believe that this is the rapture. There is even a Christian-ese way of just alluding to this passage and we all know what you’re talking about, “two men in a field, one will be taken…” Ask most evangelicals about just that snippet and they will say rapture. The problem is the context gives an exact opposite meaning:

The verse immediately preceding the men in the field says, “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.” NOAH IS THE CONTEXT. Almost everyone knows that story of Noah, but if not, you can read it in Genesis 6-11. Genesis is the first book in the bible, so go to the very beginning and skip ahead to the 6^th chapter. You could probably watch “Evan Almighty” to fill in the blanks :). The story goes something like: (1) Man has turned evil and rebelled towards God, (2) God is going to bring judgment on the people by destroying everyone except one righteous family to start over with (3) Noah is chosen to build the Ark therefore preserving the whole animal species and humans through all those on the ark.

The questions are: Who is taken? Who is left behind on earth? Why did God have Noah build such a big ark? What does God say about creation?

Who is taken?: The wicked… the evil who are being destroyed. “The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). Literally Matthew 24 says, “and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Do you see? Those in the flood are swept away. They are the ones who depart. The flood takes them away. So it will be when Jesus comes, those taken away will be like the ones lost in the flood. The ones left are the ones who are righteous.

Who is left behind?: Noah, his family and the rest of creation… This is God’s favored line. This is his chosen way to restart creation. It is actually good to be left behind!

Why such a big ark?: God is saving creation too, animals and all, except unicorns, they out because they so arrogant.

What does God say about Creation: it is good! (Genesis 1)

What does Revelation 21 (the second to last chapter in the whole bible) say, “²And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. ³And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘See, the home^* of God is among mortals. He will dwell^* with them; they will be his peoples,^* and God himself will be with them;^*⁴ he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away’” (vv. 2-4, emphasis mine).
So, all of those things comes together to show us that God loves creation, he loves the world that he created. When Noah was to start the whole thing over, he was left behind here with the pairs of animals. “…so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Jesus doesn’t want to whisk us away to heaven to live in some sort of weird spirit realm; in fact, Revelation 21 says that God’s spirit realm is coming here, to earth, so that He will dwell with us. The new heaven and new earth is Heaven and Earth combined.
Some questions you may have:
What is heaven? - We don’t totally know but we do know that it is the realm of God and that when we die BEFORE the End Times, we are with God in heaven. But heaven isn’t our final home, just a temporary place until the resurrection?
What is the Resurrection? - Read 1 Corinthians 15 – we are all going to receive new, physical bodies that aren’t susceptible to disease, death, decay. Again, no endless spiritual realm, but a physical realm with new bodies that do no perish. We all get to have our own personal Easter!
What of heaven and Earth? - They will be judged and refined like gold passing through fire. They aren’t literally going to be melted like dispensationalist’s interpretation of Peter, but refined like figuratively. All injustice will be stomped out. All hunger and disease and pollution will be forever gone. All will be fully reconciled to God and restored to original glory.

I hope all that makes sense, because now we have to move into a more philosophical passage; 1 Thessalonians 4. This passage has received a bulk of the weight for supporting Rapture Theology. It is tired of carrying all the weight they have put on it. Hopefully we can unburden it. Before we read it though, let me say, it is a mysterious verse. This whole topic is flooded with super-natural acts and insights. I am not trying to make the super-natural like the natural. I am not trying to bring the things of faith into the things of science, only provide reason in the things of faith. So yes, these things sounds weird, and are weird, but that is ok, I am not trying to explain away their weirdness, only add reason for why they are weird and let them be that way.

“For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

So, let me first acknowledge the rapture ideas present in the text:

Yes, Jesus shows up
Yes, there is language that involves rising...
Yes, there is even this tricky passage about being caught up in the clouds together in the air and then being with the Lord forever.

I kind of feel like Houdini, locked in a straight jacket, getting plunged into some water and then having to appear on the other side unscathed. This passage seems to support rapture if any ever did. But the experts agree, there is no rapture hiding underneath here.

But first, before we explain away the rapture here, the experts want you to read another passage; Psalm 24, “Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in. ⁸Who is the King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord, mighty in battle. ⁹Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah” (vv. 7 – 10).

This is a scene of a King returning. This scene happened all over the world for millennia. Kings would return from battle or diplomacy and the gates would be lifted. There would even be a committee that would go out of the city and usher him back into town.

Both Ben Witherington and N. T. Wright have the same interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18. They both think that those being caught up into the air in the clouds are the welcoming committee of the King, going out (or up) to usher Him back to town. This certainly makes the most sense when we re-read Revelation 21 (above). They both say:

“What is envisioned here was a rather common scene. A king has been away, perhaps away in a far country fighting battles. He, his entourage, and his army return to is own capital city” (Witherington, Referring to Psalm 24 in his book “Revelation and the End Times,” pp. 17-18) He connects this to 1 Thessalonians 4, “The difference, of course, was that Christ is envisioned as returning from heaven, trailing clouds of glory, not kicking up clouds of dust on a war charger. But still the imagery used is that of a returning triumphant king, adopted and adapted to the circumstances New Testament writers believed would occur when Christ returned. Here is how Paul describes that great and fearsome Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18… [see above for verse]… First of all, notice what Paul says about the Lord coming down from heaven with a loud cry of command – in the entrance liturgy [Psalm 24] this would be a cry for the gates to open. In this version of the entrance liturgy, it is the cry for the gates of the land of the dead to open and the command for the dead in Christ to arise and come forth to the Lord. Second, there is clarification that the person doing the heralding is, in fact, the archangel who descends with Christ blowing a trumpet loud enough to wake the dead! Hark the herald angels, indeed! Thus, in this scenario, first the dead in Christ will arise, then those Christians alive at the time will rise up to meet Christ in the air with the departed saints. This is the traditional greeting committee going out to welcome the king back into his realm or dominion. Everyone listening to these words would know what comes next – the King with the greeting party descends back to the earthly realm, where they will be together evermore and Christ will reign on earth forever.” (p. 21, emphasis mine).

The brilliant Bishop, N. T. Wright, says basically the same thing in his paper “Farewell to Rapture.” He says, “Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people ‘meeting the Lord in the air’ should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world. Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere” (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm, emphasis mine, everyone should read the whole thing, sooooo good).

For my more reformed friends:

Here is R. C. Sproul on this passage, “Though passages like the one for today’s study are sometimes appealed to as proof of a secret rapture, the Bible is quite clear that there is but one return of Jesus and that all will see it. On that glorious day, as Paul tells us, the dead in Christ will rise and the faithful still living will join them ‘in the air’ to meet the Savior as He returns to earth to bring His kingdom to consummation (1 Thess. 4:16–17). Our hope in the return of Christ is not a hope that we will escape great persecution and suffering. Rather, it is a hope that on the glorious day of Jesus’ return all of our suffering will be reversed and that we will be vindicated as the people of God. We will meet Christ in the air and share visibly in His triumphal reign over all” (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/rapture/, emphasis mine)

So, 1 Thessalonians 4 is an interesting passage. I am not claiming that the case is solved on that pericope, but I think Witherington’s and Wright’s interpretation fits best with the overall ideas of the End Times.

Also, if we look at the passage, yes there is a meeting of the Lord in the air, but some key rapture pieces are missing:

First, the passage says air and clouds, not heaven… this is the earthly realm.
Second, it is not a secret rapture as there are trumpets and loud commands with clouds being swirled about.

The Rapture is a new idea and its biblical support is lacking. The support it does have is from ambiguous, mysterious verses that I would be leery about establishing any doctrine on. I think it is time to do away with dispensationalism and rapture. The church has been plagued by it for too long. It provides easy answers for complex situations. At best, it over-simplifies God’s word in a wrong direction and at worst it is heresy, providing an escapism from this world that Christ died to redeem. At worst, it causes Christians to take delight in the injustices of the world because it means “Jesus is that much closer.” At worst, it causes us to miss the Kingdom gospel of Jesus restoring all creation with the ending being a reconciliation of Earth and Heaven when Heaven comes to earth.

Can you hear the Fat Lady singing?

2011-05-19T01:38:00.000-07:00

"Ideas have consequences... The hope of impending departure can lead believers to abandon interest in the world and its problems. The expectation of deteriorating conditions prior to the soon-approaching rapture is morally corrosive, encouraging pessimism, fatalism, and the forsaking of political responsibility. Disengagement from the problems of the world is ethically indefensible, but it is all too common among today's prophecy elite. Their books tell us that nuclear war is inevitable, that the pursuit of peace is pointless, that the planet's environmental woes are unstoppable, and so on."

Craig Hill, In God's Time

So, Harold Camping is predicting the end of the world.... AGAIN? What's new... but this time it seems to be in my face everywhere.

Since this has become common knowledge now, I thought I would spell out a few things from my studies for the people around me trying to get a grasp on the situation.

This will be a historical/ theological lesson, so I apologize in advance for people who aren't as nerdy as I am, but this is my love. Hopefully it can help you and I can make it interesting enough.

First and foremost, THERE IS NO RAPTURE. For those who don't know what the rapture is, it is the idea that Jesus comes and takes all true believers away to the special place known as heaven. This theory has sooooo many flaws, I don't even know where to begin (See below for more detail). So, I am sorry to all the politico conspiracy theorists and pessimists and "Left Behind" fans, but there just isn't evidence for a rapture in scripture.

Rapture was invented in the 1830's by a young girl who had a vision. Then a guy named John Nelson Darby took up the cause of spreading this girl's vision of rapture. There are many causes that led to its great popularity today, (Scofield Reference Bible, Moody and his media outlets, Dallas Theological Seminary which impacted leader after leader until we got such names as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the LeHayes). Unfortunately it has reigned too long and has caused untold damage. But I will say with utter confidence that not a single church or church leader before 1830 believed in a rapture. It is an entirely new theology and it is entirely awful.

Almost every Christian leader believes that Jesus is coming back to restore all things, to bring justice to every broken situation, to destroy death and to judge all wicked and righteous. Even Muslims believe something similar about Jesus. so my contention isn't with Jesus coming back, but coming back to steal Christians away to leave the world to rot.

This flies in the face of all we hold dear. Christ comes and inaugurates his Kingdom. A kingdom that spreads throughout creation, the same earth that the Father declares "good" upon creating. The Kingdom that is taking over every square inch of the planet so that peace and love can rule and injustice can be banished. So that brokenness can cease. A place where new life and the restoration of all things can begin. Jesus died for his life's work, redeeming creation to the Father, and then in rapture it seems to be all for not. That we, Christians, leave right in the thick of it. How does that make sense?

Jesus is in the middle of a mass restoration of all things to its original glory, to the way it was first created. He has created his Church, his body, to carry on this work through his direction, love and strength. And then he is going to take us all away? If anything, we are going to be in the midst of this whole thing as it goes down.

But more than rapture, the idea that someone is going to call it done, is telling us that the fat lady is singing is just mind boggling to me. First, Jesus is very clear he is coming back but more than hazy on details. He says that even he doesn't know when it will go down, "‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24). Why would someone take it upon themselves to do such a thing? It isn't very Christ-like as Jesus even refused to do it.

Secondly, there is one set of characteristics that are repeated over and over in context of Jesus' return: it is going to be sudden and unexpected. Jesus, in Matthew 24, says that his coming will be like a thief coming in the night. No one expects a thief and no one will be able to expect Jesus. This exact phrase is repeated by a multitude of authors throughout the New Testament. "For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:2). "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief..." (2 Peter 3:10). Jesus even reiterates this in the apocalyptic literature of Revelation, "Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed" (16:15).

It is my contention that billboards and a million dollar ad-campaign is not "like a thief in the night." I mean, these people can't even say that they are some voice of the Lord preparing the way, Jesus doesn't want a prepared way, he is coming suddenly with great surprise. (sidenote: Honestly, I would be totally surprised if Jesus did come back on Saturday... maybe that is the perfect day to come back. We're all thinking about it so much, that we're not thinking about it... think about it! Genius....).

Mostly I see it as total arrogance to assume that we are the 'end all.' How self-centered does one have to be to think that our generation or country or (insert current delineation or sub-group) is the one in whom will be raptured or cause of God to end all things and come back? It takes a total lack of the knowledge of history to assume somehow that we have arrived, that we are the peak, or even that things are so bad that God has to step in fix it.

People have been doing this for a thousand years and probably even before that. I am embarrassed by this man's example of Christ to those around me but Christianity has suffered through much worst. I'll meet you on Sunday for hamburgers. We are having church in the park. You're more than invited as I am sure we will all still be here.

My professor Ben Witherington III from Asbury Theological Seminary wrote a book a year or so ago that is absolutely necessary reading for interested in these types of things. It is entitled "Revelation and the End Times." He is an amazing, world renown scholar of the New Testament. He has some fantastic quotes just for such an occaision as the someone predicting the End Times, the Rapture and what not:

"Let me be as clear as I can: There is no encouragement in the New Testament itself to speculate about the timing of the return of Christ. What is said about the matter is that it will come at an unexpected time, and come suddenly. No one knows when Christ will return. Therefore, the church must always be ready, always be the church expectant" (p. 25).
"God has revealed enough about the future to give us hope, but not so much that we do not have to live by faith every day for the rest of our lives" (p. 28).
"Nothing that is happening now in human history can force this return of Christ to transpire any sooner or later than God decides. None of the events transpiring now lead up to the return of Christ in such a fashion that we could read the signs of the times and tell when it will happen. On the contrary, Christ will come like a thief in the night" (p. 56).
"... there is no theology of rapture to be found in the New Testament anywhere, never mind the term itself" (p. 91).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Super Nerdy Dissection of Rapture~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wesleyans have a thing called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" to help us interpret and understand things. The four parts of the Quad are: Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience. These are super useful tools to help guide us. Scripture is supreme and the rest kind of support the scripture aspect with tradition and reason fighting for second spot and experience being pertinent but a wild card. Experience is super important and is one of the markers of John Wesley's legacy. More on that later, but trust me, you would love it...

So, as to the Rapture, it fails almost all criteria:
Scripture is silent on this issue. There are some scripture Rapture people ('Dispensationalist') use, but it is ambiguous or just plain badly interpreted. There are two main scriptures used for Rapture; Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4.

The part in Matthew 24 that Rapture folks use would be a great support passage except the context gets in the way. As a great man once said, "A text without a context is a sure sign you're getting conned." So here is the text from Matthew 24:

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other... ‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." (Matthew 24: 30-31 & 36-42).

So overall a strange passage. Some scary elements, some beautiful ones.

There very clearly is an idea here that people are being taken and that Jesus is doing it. I will give you all that, but Jesus sets the context quite clearly, "For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." Ok, so what happened with Noah again? Did God take the true believers away to somewhere special and all the people being judged get 'left behind'? No, we all know the story, Noah and his family built an ark and God took the bad people. So, when there are two in the field or grinding meal, the one taken is the one being judged. The ones left are the righteous.

More than all of that, Dispensationalists do something funny (peculiar not haha) with prophecy that blinds them from most of it being fulfilled. Most scholars believe that tons of prophecy were already fulfilled, and most of Matthew 24 is no exception. Ben Witherington, a NT scholar, professor of NT at Asbury and hero of mine, said this, "Only a minority of what is said in Matthew 24-25 or Mark 13 has any bearing on current or future events as we view them in the beginning of the twenty-first century, precisely because they already happened in the debacles leading up to and including the Jewish war with Rome in a A.D. 70 when the temple and all Jerusalem were utterly destroyed" (Revelation and the End Times, p. 8).

1 Thessalonians 4 is a bit more ambiguous. The doctrine of the Rapture is that Christ will come and secretly takes us away to heaven. 1 Thess. 4 has some elements of this, but where is speaks to rapture, it is also weirdly silent:

"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

This passage is just plain weird and I don't even pretend to understand it. Certainly it says that we, Christians, will meet Jesus during his return in the air and clouds. And even that we will be with him forever after this event. It is an odd/awesome passage. The problem is that it doesn't say anything about leaving earth and going to heaven. Witherington believes this passage is like a royal band-wagon where a returning king would be greeted by his subjects and ushered back into his kingdom. He says it this ways:

"...those Christians alive at the time will rise to meet Christ in the air with the departed saints. This is the traditional greeting a committee going out to welcome the king back into his realm or dominion. Everyone listening to there words would know what comes next - the King with the greeting party descends back to the earthly realm, where they be together evermore and Christ will reign on earth forever. Paul ends by saying that the Thessalonians, currently persecuted and facing difficult times, should encourage each one another with this promise of the return of the King. During the last almost two hundred years of church history, a very different interpretation of this text has arisen in some conservative Protestant circles called dispensationalism. These people say that this text is the 'rapture' of the church out of the world before or during the final period of great tribulation upon the earth. So far as I can tell, this interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4 did not exist before 1820..." (p. 22).

Witherington may be right or he may be wrong, I certainly like his work on the passage, but either way, the passage is ambiguous and is not something that either side should be basing there theology on, especially the crux of their theology as do dispensationalists."

As you can see, we have discussed scripture passages, used reason to deduce the rapture goes against the narrative of Christ's Kingdom plan and talked about tradition in that this idea is not anywhere present in almost 2000 years of church history save a century and a half.

There will be a day when all is made right and death is flung into the depths of destruction. There will be a day when Christ comes to reign forever, when we receive our resurrected bodies and are made new to dwell in God's new heaven and new earth. When all brokenness will be restored and when all injustices will be trampled under. Let us look forward to that day when we experience everlasting peace and our hope is fulfilled, but let us not be so arrogant and foolish to assume we can know when or follow after men blindly who lead us nowhere.

Here is a blog post from Witherington written yesterday about this very thing.

Heavy laden thoughts on Bin Laden

2011-05-02T01:56:00.000-07:00

The news came... it lit up twitter like a fire storm. The people wanted to know but the mystery mixed with hope was palpable. CNN was so sure of themselves. And then Obama speaks; it's true.

I was overjoyed, but... This 'but,' this tension. Dig deeper. What is it? All my friends are excited. All my Christian friends are quick to throw the first stone.

I responded, "Let not death nor violence be glorified but may justice and peace be long lived."

This remains true. Death and Violence should never be glorified. When Jesus said, "...all who draw the sword will die by the sword" he wasn't just speaking about how his disciples weren't supposed to use violence or merely waxing eloquently, he was speaking a profound truth: when violence is used against violence, only violence wins, only violence is exalted. Will he be replaced? Will Al Qaeda retaliate? Will this make Al Qaeda stronger? Or does it dissolve it?

But what about Bin Laden? Surely if any deserved it, he did. This argument isn't without biblical support. Romans 13 says, "But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer" (v. 5). This passage clearly states that the state has the God-given right to used the sword, and may even be just when using it against evil. (sidenote: it is entirely unclear whether or not Christians are to be a part of the state and most of scripture would be against it). Even the saint Dietrich Bonhoeffer has to come to mind. A Jesus pacifist at heart, he felt it necessary to assassinate Hitler, or at least attempt to. The plan horribly failed and he was martyred for his faith.

So what about Bin Laden? What is the nagging tension we feel about this or at least should feel about this? A brother posted this verse:

"Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways" (Ezekiel 33).

What shall we say then? Who gets to smugly be pleased at the thought of hell or rejoice in death?

Bin Laden's death comes a week after our celebration of Holy Week in the Christian calendar. How quickly we forget. How quickly we forget that Jesus proclaims victory through dying a revolutionary's death on the cross. How quickly we forget the Last Supper dialogue:

When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;^* ²¹and while they were eating, he said, ‘Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.’ ²²And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, ‘Surely not I, Lord?’ ²³He answered, ‘The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. ²⁴The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.’ ²⁵Judas, who betrayed him, said, ‘Surely not I, Rabbi?’ He replied, ‘You have said so.’
While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the^* covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Don't you see? Jesus calls Judas out as his betrayer, as the evil one. How does he do it? He says that it is the same one that is dipping in his bowl. The one who would've been sitting closest to Jesus was the betrayer. I like to believe that Jesus sat next Judas precisely because he was wicked.

More than that, Jesus doesn't ask him to leave or go outside and then lock the door, he serves him communion. Judas was likely the first person in history to drink from the wine that symbolized Jesus ' forgiveness of sins and eat the bread the symbolizes the body broken. Judas is the main catalyst for spilled blood and body broken and yet he, in all likelihood, receives the first grace of the New Covenant.

Jesus has to be producing fruit from an inner spring of love and a firm conviction that he meant what he said, "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." Do we believe it? Do we believe that evil isn't to be overcome by evil but be overcome by good?

The tension is present because we are wrong to take delight in vengeance. God specifically declares all vengeance his. We are wrong because we have failed to love our enemies and pray for them and bless them. I admit, I didn't pray for Bin Laden. The tension is trying to pull us in Christ's direction, the Kingdom direction instead of the Empire's direction.

May peace be sought, may violence damned and may we be drawn to Christ!

Blessings!

Scot McKnight on the meaning of Easter!

2011-04-28T12:23:00.000-07:00

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/28/what-difference-does-easter-make/

Scot McKnight, a new testament scholar, poses some great thoughts about Easter. I love the opening question and think every Christian and church should have to answer it:

We tend to be Good Friday in our gospel: Jesus died for us.
We tend to be Good Friday Christians too: my sins are forgiven.
What good is Easter? What difference does the resurrection make for life today?

The church is decisively Good Friday... it is when the church can answer and live out the question at hand, then we will move beyond this rut we're in.

Happy reading and blessings!

Treatise on Easter: What the Resurrection is all about!

2011-04-25T00:12:00.000-07:00

Today is Easter, the celebration of the anniversary of Jesus raising from the dead. I am not going to spend significant time trying to convince anyone that the resurrection happened. I am assuming either you believe it or you don't. Though, I do believe that any student of life should honestly seek the validity of the claim. There are a lot of reasons to believe that it happened and only one to believe it didn't and "It's too mind blowing" isn't a good enough reason to dismiss it.

Let's begin, rather, with what the Resurrection means.

Resurrection is an interesting idea in itself. First, we have little to no information about it in the Old Testament (before Jesus). In the Old Testament the death/ end times scenario was pretty basic. There was a place called Sheol. Every single person went there, good or bad. There were glimmers about being with God. The Psalms talk of it, Elijah was raptured to it, and a few other occurrences, but basically sheol was the land of the dead ones. We even see the prophet Samuel being channeled by a medium out of Sheol to council King Saul (1 Samuel 28).

Somewhere in the inter-testimonial time (the 400 years between the Old Testament and Jesus) this whole idea of resurrection sprang up. For some strange reason we left off with Sheol and then all the sudden resurrection is the current idea. The Pharisees and the Sadducees have a long standing disagreement with each other over it of which Paul uses to his advantage. We even have a peculiar interchange with Martha and Jesus just before Lazarus is raised from the dead (which is definitely different than resurrection, more below) (found in John 11). Jesus makes a statement, "Your brother will rise again!" to which Martha responds, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." WHAT!?!? How does she know this? We left off with Sheol and now common women know all about resurrection. If this question is plaguing you, N. T. Wright has done some fabulous work on the resurrection, but we will move past it.

It seemed to be common belief that resurrection would happen with a decree from God. Then all the righteous would be raised. All the great heroes of the faith were supposed to rise. The only problem, "there is no one who is righteous, not even one" (Romans 3, Ecclesiastes 7). At least, there wasn't anyone righteous until now.

Jesus shows up on the scene. He brings his Kingdom, the inbreaking of God's dominion into human history. He lives the example and teaches the ways of God. He is the face of God revealed to us. He is the fullest expression of God. At one point fully human, at another fully God. He commits no sin. He dies an unjust death on a rebel's cross and is buried in a tomb. We will discuss the scandal of the cross for the messiah during another post, but know that is was crazy talk to have a dead messiah, especially in light of current ideas about resurrection.

But then, from out of nowhere, Jesus is resurrected. He is the only one righteous. On the one hand, it isn't so hard to believe. He told us numerous times that it was going to happen. On the other, it is so amazing, so fantastic, that it has to be a wishful thinking. Jesus defeats death and brings a myriad of other good news to the table.

So, what does resurrection mean?
Death has been defeated. Death doesn't get the final word. Jesus says in Revelation 1:17-18, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive for ever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades." Jesus has the keys, death has been defeated. And at the final judgment, it will be completely destroyed. St. Paul says it this way, "‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’ ‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’"

Jesus says something super convoluted unless seen through the eyes of faith, "Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die." What?!? You just said that we will die, but live on, but never die. Through Jesus, The Resurrection and The Life, death has been defeated.

Another thing is that God is bringing about New Creation. By new creation, we mean that God is going about restoring all things to their original glory, the way he originally made them. The evidence for this is a little more buried but there.

God, on the first few pages of scripture, creates the heavens and the earth. He loved his creation. It was all good. He creates man to bear his image and to tend his garden; Adam and Eve. The serpent and the fruit and the rebellion and the fall. The fall brings separation. Humans are separated from God. Man is separated from Woman. Humans are separated from the earth. Romans 5, in all the doom and gloom about the human condition (fallen and on path to death) has some really beautiful passages. We see Jesus compared to Adam, "Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all." Adam brought corruption, Jesus brings something else. But even the idea of Jesus being compared to Adam shows that God is bringing new creation, starting over per se. All the divisiveness (between God, us, each other and nature) is vanished. "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Romans 5). Reconciliation!

Wright points out that the Gospel of John makes it a point that Jesus was raised on the first day (Sunday). But the significance is not just to clarify what day it was, but that new creation is begun. This is furthered by the idea the Mary sees Jesus but supposes him to be the gardener. It is the first day and Jesus looks like a gardener. This new Adam has come to start all of creation anew. This is clearly amplified by the way John 1 parallels Genesis 1 and gives all credibility to Jesus as the creator and mediator of creation. New creation, a restoration of all things!

This is the greatest and best thing about the Resurrection; Reconciliation. We are a reconciled people. No longer does sin plague us (being wiped out in Jesus' death), but more than that, we have resurrection power for reconciliation. We are reconciled to God. We are in right relationship with him. This should trickle down through to the rest of our relationships. No longer should there be strife between people (men and women) who dwell in this resurrection. No longer should there be division between us and creation in this resurrection. We are a reconciling people. Our relationship with family, friends, neighbors should all be healthy. "Live in harmony with one another... if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12).

All creation will be restored, including and especially us. "[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1, emphasis added).

Another pertinent thought to the resurrection has been alluded to. Jesus was the only one righteous and therefore the only one resurrected. There were plenty of people raised from the dead in scripture. This differs from resurrection because all those raised from the dead still went on to lead relatively normal lives. They got sick, hungry, sinned, and died. Resurrection is a new body. "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power" (1 Corinthians 15). The amazing grace of God is that this happens to us as well. We all get our own Easter. Jesus' righteousness is transferred to us through faith in him.

So, if your faith story tells you that Easter is about the salvation of souls, you are hearing Gospel-lite. We in Christianity have boiled down God's good news to 'going to heaven.' Salvation is seen as only being saved from hell. I profess to you good news of great joy, that you aren't 'saved from' anything, you are 'saved to' reconciliation with God. If hell and death and sin are the focal point of our 'good news' then we miss it.

I think of it like a movie. No one watches "Nightmare on Elm Street" and says, "wow, that movie was great, really edifying." Even though Freddy is stopped in the end and the people are reasonably safe, no one is at all believing that this is the good news. No, the Gospel is better than that but people still try to sell this story as gospel. They focus so much time and effort on winning souls, avoiding hell and sin's effects on our lives that the destruction of Freddy Krueger is good news, that not going to hell becomes the best news.

The Good news is Cinderella. A woman in broken relationships redeemed at the end by her savior. The Good News is Charlie, in poverty and brokenness with his community, receiving the golden ticket, meeting Willy Wonka and eventually inheriting the whole chocolate factory. The good news saves us to reconciliation between us and God, us and each other, us and nature. Though certainly there is hell, judgment and sin to be leery of, these things are secondary to the good news of Christ our Lord and his resurrection.

What does it mean: We live in community. (1) Communion with God reconciled with him and (2) community of the church as humans reconciled to each other. As the body of Christ (the church) we live out the final implications of the resurrection; we live out reconciliation.

We fight against injustice, poverty and violence because they are all counter to the resurrection reconciliation. Poverty is a disease of broken relationship with community.
We fight to preserve creation and the environment because we do not expect to have our souls fly away to some 'other' place. This is God's place, his heaven will merge with this earth. As agents of reconciliation, we reduce our impact on the earth, for this is our home in the future resurrection.
We protect life as sacred and valuable and part of creation. We are being restored to original glory. We understand more than anyone the Image of God in our lives. This includes children, those discarded as useless, the least of these and victims of violence and war.
We promote peace at all cost, even our own lives, for we know the future hope of resurrection and the defeat of death. Peace makers are the truest children of God.
We embrace simple living as a means to love our neighbor and not be seduced into pursuing reconciliation through anything else.
And on and on...

Resurrection is the lens through which all of life must be viewed. The new thing which God did and is doing is at work in the world today. We need to get on board. We need to stop focusing on souls and heaven and start focusing on reconciliation, restoration and resurrection. We need to stop focusing on hell and death and start focusing on light and life. We need to stop looking for the living among the dead, Jesus is risen!

Extra-Reading and Watching:

Ben Witherington quoting another about Resurrection. Here is another, older, post from Ben.

N. T. Wright interesting video:

Rob Bell on Easter:

Good Friday & Psalm 22

2011-04-22T18:17:00.000-07:00

When I became a Christian, I read the New Testament immediately and all the way through. I couldn't get enough. Christ revealed himself to me in ways unimaginable. I was forever blessed.

I had a great mentor who allowed me to ask many questions. There were a few that stuck with me for a very long time. Good Friday has one of the biggest. It wasn't until 2 years ago I found my answer.

My question dealt with reconciling Jesus' words on the Cross with his mission. He predicted his own death, even death on a cross, yet when he was on the Cross he screams out, "Eloi, Eloi lema Sabachthani?!" Which translated means, "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?!"

How could Jesus decide the God had forsaken him? Jesus knew he was going to die like this? I could understand crying out in pain. I could even understand crying out for mercy or even to be released. But concluding that God had abandoned him, that seemed like he was calling the whole thing off.

Until I read Psalm 22.

The footnotes in scripture had pointed to Psalm 22, but lets be honest, there are a lot of footnotes. Finally, almost 10 years into being a Christian, I heard someone explain that Jesus was making a bigger statement.

The people would have sung the Psalms. They knew all of them by heart and they were probably songs that people sung. There are many scholars who believe that Jesus was revealing to the people, again, that the Psalms were about him, especially 22. So when Jesus cries out "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" (the opening words to Psalm 22) he would have alluded to the whole Psalm.

I like to think that after Jesus cries out this great cry of pain and anguish, all the Jews around would have continued singing it and that their voices would be a comfort to him on the cross and the connection of Jesus to the Psalms would have given them a better understanding of who he was.

Compare Matthew 27 with Psalm 22 (below):

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
   Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer;
   and by night, but find no rest. ²

Yet you are holy,
   enthroned on the praises of Israel.
In you our ancestors trusted;
   they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried, and were saved;
   in you they trusted, and were not put to shame. ³⁴⁵

But I am a worm, and not human;
   scorned by others, and despised by the people.
All who see me mock at me;
   they make mouths at me, they shake their heads;
‘Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver—
   let him rescue the one in whom he delights!’ ⁶⁷⁸

Yet it was you who took me from the womb;
   you kept me safe on my mother’s breast.
On you I was cast from my birth,
   and since my mother bore me you have been my God.
Do not be far from me,
   for trouble is near
   and there is no one to help. ⁹¹⁰¹¹

Many bulls encircle me,
   strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
they open wide their mouths at me,
   like a ravening and roaring lion. ¹²¹³

I am poured out like water,
   and all my bones are out of joint;
my heart is like wax;
   it is melted within my breast;
my mouth^* is dried up like a potsherd,
   and my tongue sticks to my jaws;
   you lay me in the dust of death. ¹⁴¹⁵

For dogs are all around me;
   a company of evildoers encircles me.
My hands and feet have shrivelled;^*¹⁶
I can count all my bones.
They stare and gloat over me;
they divide my clothes among themselves,
   and for my clothing they cast lots. ¹⁷¹⁸

But you, O Lord, do not be far away!
   O my help, come quickly to my aid!
Deliver my soul from the sword,
   my life^* from the power of the dog!
   Save me from the mouth of the lion! ¹⁹²⁰²¹

From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued^* me.
I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters;^*
   in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
   All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him;
   stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
For he did not despise or abhor
   the affliction of the afflicted;
he did not hide his face from me,^*
   but heard when I^* cried to him. ²²²³²⁴

From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
   my vows I will pay before those who fear him.
The poor^* shall eat and be satisfied;
   those who seek him shall praise the Lord.
   May your hearts live for ever! ²⁵²⁶

All the ends of the earth shall remember
   and turn to the Lord;
and all the families of the nations
   shall worship before him.^*²⁷
For dominion belongs to the Lord,
   and he rules over the nations. ²⁸

To him,^* indeed, shall all who sleep in^* the earth bow down;
   before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
   and I shall live for him.^*²⁹
Posterity will serve him;
   future generations will be told about the Lord,
and^* proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
   saying that he has done it.

May you grow a deeper understanding of Christ and his action this day so many years ago. May you come to see that the pain he endured was for you. And let all the people say that he has done it/ It is finished!

³⁰³¹

The Continued explorations for good Christ-inspired music!

2011-04-22T01:42:00.000-07:00

About once a month I stay up late to find music that I can fall in love with. My life can be altered by a great band. Most of the time... I am disappointed.

My quest is a ridiculous one, set before by my own high standard: to find Christian or Christ-inspired music that isn't awful. I know... but I assure you there is some out there. It is my firm belief that Christ followers, who have been revealed the mysteries of the deepest things of God, should be able to create some of the greatest art the world has ever seen. I refuse to give up this dream. And so, as some sort of fast-like-thing, I refuse to listen to completely secular music, even if it is fantastic. I do this not because my religion says so, but because of my own personal journey. I do not judge those who listen to secular music, I envy them for their lighter yoke. I want to be the biggest Mumford and Son's fanboy of all time, but I can't. I want to fall in love with the Freelance Whales, but I refrain. My mission is clear, their must be some somewhere.

Tonight's adventures have brought me into contact with some potentials, but nothing has grabbed my heart all the way. I mostly search the indie scenes for my particular brand. They are:

#3 - Starting Small with their album "Asleep at the Oars; Dreaming of Freedom":

This band has some great potential. There is some good stuff. A lot of piano. A little too main stream for my taste. I like a little more folksy (most of the time). His voice can be pitchy. But other than that, a pretty good band with alot of drums and guitar

#2 - Over the Ocean with "Paper House":

This band is almost awesome. A lot of guitar but still pretty indie. Very clean guitar leads. Unabashedly Christian (which I love). Huge dynamic changes. There is a lot of repetition, which can be annoying. These guys can hit some pretty rockin' spots, which I can definitely love if they build up to it. My biggest con for this group is the singer. I am not a fan of the lower voiced male singers most of the time. So, all in all, I like the band but not the vocals. This guy does hit some high stuff in a few tracks like (untitled). All in all I think "Everything Will Change" is my favorite.

My #1 choice for the night is the sweet stylings of Arthur Alligood with "I have not seen the Wind"

He is so close for me. A pastor and an artist. My biggest con for this guy is that he is a little more country than I want in my indie-folk; not the biggest fan of slide guitar. He has definite Christian themes but isn't so overt. His voice is pure but not always getting all the way to the notes, but that is ok in this style. The style is almost hymn-like in syntax: Not always a chorus, but always resolves similarly where a chorus would be. Will definitely be listening to more to see if it grows on me. Most definitely check out the FREE ep with the song "Hold On," it is a very good song.

So I continue my epic search for amazing music that is "Christian." Be on the look out and send me a link or two if you think I will like it.

Blessings!

Movie Review: Exit through the Gift Shop

2011-04-19T02:05:00.000-07:00

I am a pretty susceptible person. I have an over-active empathy which allows me to see the validity of all sides and want to be a part of a lot of movements. When Matt and I watched "8 Mile" I wanted to battle rap. When I saw "The Parking Lot Movie" I wanted to work at a parking lot as an attendant. These things especially happen when I watch documentaries and see some sort of injustice or counter-cultural revolution going on.

Tonight, on a recommendation from Ryan Rayome (who has never steered me wrong), I watched "Exit Through the Gift Shop." First, let me say that this movie was fantastic. Second, let me say that I had no idea the direction it was going in the beginning. A total surprise for me, which could be my ignorance of the scene or just interesting film making. Third, I want to graffiti stuff now :).

The movie starts off introducing us to a frenchmen named Thierry. He lives in Los Angeles and is selling designer clothes. His one passion in life is filming. He filmed everything but that is as far as it went. He never made movies, just filmed.

One vacation, while visiting Paris, he was hanging out with his cousin who was a famous street artist who made tile graffiti of characters from Space Invader. He filmed him hanging these up all over town and it was awesome. Therry began following all kinds of famous street artist. He even meets up with Banksy, which before this movie I had never heard of. Anyways, he follows them all, telling them he is going to make a documentary.

Through some interesting turns involving a badly made movie and street art becoming high art and selling for tons of money, Therry is convinced to become a street artist. He refinances everything he owns, hires a huge team, changes his name to Mr. Brain Wash and opens a gallery. He seems to let it all go to his head while seemingly being genuine in his attempt to be apart of the counter-culture. The whole thing is a mess. I did NOT see it coming...

The journey is a blast. Should definitely see it. Streaming on Netflix right now. I want to go graffiti something right now... probably some Casino billboards. Run time is 86 minutes, it is rated R for language and it is "A Banksy Film." There is speculation that this whole movie was a hoax, or the Thierry Guetta was a hoax, pranking the art world for spending hundreds of thousands on art slapped together by some French videographer, but it seems that the majority of the people fall on the side of it all being real. Loved this review.

The part that makes it all the more interesting to me is that I knew this cool cat going the Sociology degree with me at Chico State. He was closer to 30 and somewhat of a professional student. He was a great guy with peculiar interest, folk wisdom and a love for street art. I asked him what kind of music he was in to. He told me, "non-religious reggae." An answer like that told me that this guy knew what he wanted. Now, I knew nothing of the counter-culture and everything I do know I just learned from this documentary. I tried probing this guy on some info, but he was pretty secretive accept about his latest tags. I asked him, realizing now how foolish it was, if he would put some work down on a canvas and I would buy it. He was really cool about it, but didn't want to do his art in that kind of way. He gave me a lot of grace in my ignorance, but know what I know now, it was a pretty foolish request. Anyways, great guy...

As a Christian it reminds me of how subversive Jesus' message really is. Jesus dealt with icons all the time. Even this Holy Week, we see Jesus in this light: riding into Jerusalem as a King or emperor would. Though we hold a high Christology now, this act was very much a counter-culteral move where Jesus proclaiming a better way. The way Jesus dies on a cross as a rebel through a revolutionaries death. The cross of the Roman World, reserved for the most despised of the empire, became the cultural icon for victory in the Kingdom come. The way the church hijacked empire rhetoric and used it for our own way of subversion. Instead of "Caesar is Lord" we demanded that "Jesus is Lord." We stole the word church (ekklesia) and used it for our functions where we proclaimed one King alone. Instead of the Pax Romana, we declared that there was one Prince of Peace, that there was no other name under heaven which one could be saved. The church is missing this element. We have made bed-fellows with the empire and it has been to our demise. Let us reclaim with all its original meaning that Jesus is Lord.

So, let's get the revolution started, I'll meet you at Kinkos.

Palm Sunday Reflection!

2011-04-15T00:11:00.000-07:00

I had an 'Aha!' moment, though explaining it so far has been difficult.

I have been reflecting on the problem of the Palm Sunday. The commemoration of Jesus riding into Jerusalem so many years ago. I know a ton of facts about the event: that the Jews would have been singing the Hallel Psalms on their way up to the Passover Feast, that Jesus was making a ton of statements with his donkey, the symbolism of the Palms especially in connection with the Maccabees, Jesus as the Solomonic figure (but better) (Witherington, Commentary on Matthew), etc... There was still one problem that plagued me.

We as Christians have used the praise of the people to symbolize our praise of the risen Lord. We have celebrated with them, as it seems. My problem is that those people didn't understand Jesus and his message. They thought he was making a move for the throne, or a land grab, or some other geo-political action. "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee" the crowds said. A prophet in the middle of the huge crowd spelled trouble.

But Jesus doesn't ride in victorious in the way the people wanted. He isn't some sort of fulfillment of a Maccabean revolution. He isn't some King with a fixed, earthly Kingdom. This whole thing doesn't seem Triumphal at all.

Adding all the more to the confusion, the crowd in Jerusalem, not 4 days later, called for Jesus execution on the cross. Peter denies, Judas betrays, the disciples sleep and Jesus is left alone, holding the cup.

The whole scene didn't add up. Why do we as Christians, who understand a whole lot more of Jesus' mission, use the praise of a people who had all the wrong motives, as our celebration? Two things made me stay with the problem: (1) Jesus never rode anything in the Gospel's before (which is interesting in it's own right about Jesus not placing himself over others) and (2) in the Lukan account, Jesus is specifically ordered by the pharisees to have the praise stopped and he says one of the most beautiful lines in all of scripture, condoning the actions of the worship; even of a people who terribly misunderstood him.

Why would Jesus accept their praise? Why does he allow them to worship under false pretenses? Why does he reinforce a negative stereotype (of the messiah)? YET, obviously something more is going on here. He is obviously meaning something with the colt/donkey/ riding into the city.

And then God gave it to me as if I had always had it. As if it were plain as day. Obviously Jesus is a King with a Kingdom and his resurrection firmly establishes it. I see the connection to the resurrection and the Kingdom of God, but God opened up Palm Sunday to me in Jesus' death.

It is through the Cross that Jesus is victorious, "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2). It is through the cross that Jesus defeats death, sin, the yoke. The passover psalms become his psalms. He, the passover lamb, whose blood would be spilled so that the people could live; victory.

Yes, Jesus is King and has his Kingdom. Yes, the people's misunderstandings still are present in the text. But we assume their praise this day for they understood Jesus as the way to victory. They desired it, we live it. They saw it coming, we breathe it constantly. This King who rides in victoriously, dies a rebel's execution, and that's the good news, "we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son" (Romans 5).

May you find victory in the cross. May you see Jesus triumphant over death, holding the keys of Hades. May your shame, guilt, sin, depression, arguments, competitiveness be nailed to the cross. And may you embrace the cross, always seeing it as the greatest way of being triumphant over all things.

Song of the Day: David Crowder*Band covering Sufjan's "The Transfiguration"

2011-03-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

Love me some Sufjan, love me some David Crowder*Band and when their powers combine =

http://onjoyfulwings.bandcamp.com/track/the-transfiguration

Song of the Day: Ben Shive and Rise Up...

2011-03-29T00:43:00.000-07:00

This song is exactly what I needed to hear - beautiful, non-produced songs of the Lord... I will get into my music oddities later, as for now, be blown away:

P.S.
Ben, if you read this, bravo... I wish you would write a whole album like this.

Bleach: Alive Again!

2011-03-27T22:03:00.000-07:00

(Before reading, go to the youtube video below and press play... enjoy said music whilst you you peruse).

Bleach is one of my favorite bands. They were influential for me when I became a Christian about 10 years ago... They had some killer songs that were also cool. It was some of my first flavor of Christ-inspired music outside of worship and it was awesome.

The other thing I was into at the time was a thing we called nerd rock. It was big, slammin' electric guitar with clean singing vocals with lyrics about everyday life all the way to the nerd scene. Probably the most famous band in this style was Weezer, but faith inspired for me would have been Bleach.

They are doing some shows (no where around CA :( ) but hopefully I will get to see them. Until then, here is their website: http://www.bleachisalive.com/

I will leave you with one of my favorite songs from them, though the whole album "Again, For the First Time" Amazing. He is one of my favorite lines, "Hey Josh, how's the service? All this talk of war makes me nervous. Vin Diesel is coming to the show, tell me something I don't know."

It comes from the album above titled "Andy's Doin' Time":

The Radical Wesley: Wesley's Roots (Ch. 1)

2011-03-24T23:11:00.000-07:00

This Chapter of The Radical Wesley is mostly about Wesley's travels to America coming out of the Holy Club at Oxford.

My wife took this picture when we visited Oxford

This is where the term Methodist was derived from his detractors calling names. It was a term to make fun of them for being so methodical. "The members of the Club spent an hour, morning and evening, in private prayer. At nine, twelve, and three o'clock they recited a collect, and at all times they examined themselves closely, watching for signs of grace, and trying to preserve a high degree of religious fervour... they frequently consulted their Bibles, and they noted in cipher [that is, coded] diaries, all the particulars of their daily employment. One hour each day was set apart for meditation... They fasted twice a week, observed all the feasts of the Church and received the sacraments every Sunday."

Do we know anyone like this? Who takes the faith so seriously?

Part of me yearns for something like this, for a discipline in group for accountability and mutual edification. The other part of me thinks that this is too much... that the faith should be more relevant than this. I lean mostly toward the former.

So they set off for America to settle a colony. Wesley desires to bring the gospel to the Native Americans but also, "to save his own soul and learn he true meaning of the gospel..." (Snyder's words, p. 20). While on board, there is another description of what the mini Holy Club did. It was made up of John, his brother Charles and two friends who were in their early 20's. The description of praxis is this: "The little band followed a strict discipline including private prayer from four till five each morning, joint Bible study from five to seven and public prayers from eight till nine. From nine till noon Wesley usually studied German (so he could converse with the Moravians on board) while the other three were variously employed in study or teaching. The four met at noon for prayer and discussion and again at eight. The afternoons were spent teaching the children and adults who would listen, while the hour from five to six was devoted to private prayer. The four went to bed between nine and ten in their two adjoining cabins" (p. 20).

Very methodical... but was it effective. We know John had his conversion experience much later (2-3 years). Was the method to make up for a lack of righteousness felt, or is it s gateway to piety and holiness? Either way, I think it would have been awesome. The 5 hours of sleep concerns me... :).

There is some great words in here about Susannah Wesley (John's mother) who lays into her husband about teaching a bible study that blew up from 30 to 200. I would love to spend 6 months on Susannah alone.

The thoughts that have been coming to my mind lately is that we, as Christians, spend a lot of time on defining Orthodoxy. And I admit, I still have a lot of study to do. But I would love to cease the endless debates about right belief and focus on Orthopraxy. What are the right actions. I am tired of hiding behind the curtain of right belief. "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder" (James 2). Most Christians agree that faith is to lead to works and that faith without works is dead (reciting this same passage). But do we believe it? Do we live it?

The Great Commission, which seems to be perverted by those who want to uphold their evangelistic and church enterprises, does say to go into all nations, baptizing them in name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But the other, equally important part is always undervalued and under expressed "... and teaching them to obey all my [Jesus] commandments..." We have to live it. We have to live it. It has to make a difference in our lives. It has to, or the faith is dead both personally and culturally.

My rabbit trail comes because I see Wesley doing these things. He is starting schools, discipling people to serve in an era where clergy did all, and he is desiring to live biblical church lives. He is doing something. It may seem radical, but it is something, and for THAT I yearn. For that I crave...

At the end of my fast on Tuesday, the Lord gave me a prayer, "May I hunger for your word and way as much as I do for food now. May I hunger for your presence in my life and for that to manifested to the community as much as I do for physical things now." May it be so!

The Radical Wesley: Introduction...

2011-03-24T01:30:00.000-07:00

I am most definitely reading a book that should blow my mind. It has been in my sights for a long time and now I have a chance. It is "The Radical Wesley & Patterns for Church Renewal" by Dr. Howard Snyder.

Howard Snyder is a Free Methodist thinker who tends to be on the more radical side himself. He is deeply involved in the creation-care movement. He was involved in South American church life for years. He currently teaches Wesley Studies at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Canada. All in all, a prophet, who wrote way before his time.

Recently I had a chance to sit down with him. When I visited Asbury Theological Seminary in an attempt to decide if I would relocate there to finish the M.Div., I had a short list of three that I just had to meet. I was bold and emailed all three and all three were gracious enough to give me some time. I wanted to meet Donald Demaray (our signals got crossed and we didn't meet), Dr. Ben Witherington (my intellectual hero) and Howard Snyder (A Radical Free Methodist who modeled something close to what I desire).

Snyder was gracious and confident. We sat in a small library (the size of an office) with a closed door. We had never met and I am 45 years his minor yet we talked for nearly an hour and half... well, mostly me asking him questions and trying to glean the wisdom being offered. I asked him about pastoral ministry, how to cope with living out a radical gospel in a world and denomination that despises radical, his diagnosis of the future or the church (denominationally and otherwise). Sincerely, without over-idealizing the situation, it was a fantastic opportunity and time together.

My dilemma was that I had only read articles from him, which can be found on his website here. He has had some acclaimed books out (on my list to read), "The Problem of Wineskins" and "The Radical Wesley & Patterns for Church Renewal." I should probably read Wineskins first, but I'm a radical :). Also, I have his biography on B. T. Roberts "Populist Saints: B. T. and Ellen Roberts and the First Free Methodists" but am too afraid of the massive leviathan that awaits :).

So here is my interaction with the introduction.

It starts off wonderfully with a story about John Wesley ("the small man") preaching. This moves quickly into Wesley's impact on history and personality. There is great content in this introduction. I am glad I didn't skip it like I do with most books.

We see, already, a brilliant separation of Wesley's organizing ability from his evangelizing. "Wesley, the master organizer, never built a great evangelistic organization" (p. 2). It is pointed out that the organizing was done for Christians and evangelism for non-believers. This is mind blowing. That Wesley, who was so A-type, probably to the point that none of us would actually like him for a friend, yet a personal hero of mine, was so organized but didn't let that get in the way of his evangelism. It wasn't a Billy Graham or Louis Palau type thing, where thousands of mailers were sent out, phone calls made, add a sick concert on the front and then preach a sermon with a massive altar call. This was one man, riding into town on horse back, starting to preach in the town square and thousands would literally be drawn to the Holy Spirit.

I thought Snyder made a great remark about the western brand of Christianity when he said, "Perhaps the church today can learn new things from John Wesley. People, even the born-again kind, are notoriously weak at holding together paradoxes which belong together - like the Spirit and the Word, the private and the social, or 'things old and new' (Mt. 13:52). Yet true renewal in the church always weds the new insights, ideas and methods with the best elements from history" (p. 3). This seems to get at the fundamental issue for me found in modern evangelicalism. The holding together of paradox. The least shall become greatest. Life is found in the sacrifice of life. Christ is victorious through the cross and death. It is paradox that we try to explain away and with it goes our faith. I believe is was Chesterton who attributed part of his conversion to paradoxes. That since there were paradoxes in the Christian faith, he found something beautiful and truthful in it. You can read about Chesterton's writings about "The Paradoxes of Christianity" in his book "Orthodoxy."

Next, Snyder defends Wesley, mostly from the devouring of his people, who "have sometimes been rather apologetic about Wesley's theological work..." (p. 4). He contends that Wesley was both a "practitioner" and "theologian" and that "both really were one" (ibid).

My only contention with the book/introduction so far is that Snyder seems to have widely different thesis statements for the book. He seems to suggest that the book is about varying topics, seemingly unrelated:

(As stated above) "This book looks at Wesley both as practitioner and as theologian."
"The key question is: What is the shape of our life together as the people of God? I believe that Wesley can help us precisely at these points. So this book examines John Wesley - not just Wesley the Anglican but also Wesley the radical. My aim is to understand Wesley better by viewing him from an angle too often ignored and to search for insights needed in the contemporary church."
Between the connection of Methodism and Anabaptism: "This book suggests that significant relationship does in fact exist, and that is hinges primarily on ecclesiological questions rather than on historical continuity. The purpose of this book is, in part, to explore the purpose of this relationship."
"In these pages I delve into Wesley's view of the church and Christian discipleship to see not only what Wesley believed, but also how his views may help earnest Christians today."

I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but it seems like 3 unique hypotheses, (1) that Wesley was more than a pracitioner, he was a great theologian, (2) that we will be exploring what life looks like in the church through radical Wesley and (3) we will also be exploring the connection between two sub-groups of protestantism without much historical connection. I don't think I could pull off a great book with these three as my aim, but maybe that is why he is the teacher and I am the student. Also, he doesn't assume this will be easy, especially in the connecting of the two traditions. He conveys it this way, "The relationship between early Methodism and Anabaptism remains largely unexplored. Since two hundred years and major cultural differences separate the two movements and there are almost no direct historical links..." (p. 6). The author seems to know that this is going to be a difficult task, I'll be watching to see how he does.

One final awesome quote:

"Part of Wesley's problem -- or rather, our problem with Wesley -- is that he doesn't fit the molds in which we place him. We are not used to a popular mass evangelist who is also a university scholar, speaks several languages, knows classical and Christian authors by heart, and publishes his own English dictionary. Nor are we any better prepared to handle an evangelist who is also a social reformer or a theologian who preaches several times daily, develops his own discipling and nurturing system, sends out teams of traveling preachers, and publishes a home medical handbook that goes through twenty-some editions!" (p. 7).

If I am going to make it through this book interaction, I really need to stop quoting large sections from every page :). Hope you enjoy...

Blessings!

A weird happening with an even weirder coincidence!

2011-02-25T18:23:00.000-08:00

So, I accidentally bought the same book twice from half.com. I think it was cheap, don't tell my wife just in case. That is the weird happening.

The book is "Listen to Luther: Selections from Martin Luther's Table Talk" by a Free Methodist phenom named Donald Demaray. I bought the book(s?) because I have a meeting with him in Wilmore, KY this coming week and I wanted something to talk with him about (shhh... I also bought a book of his on homiletics and one about the denomination, I know, I'm a geek).

The weird coincidence part is that in the inside cover there were two notes written:

Left picture says, "Dear Ricki, We have shared so much the last year. I am glad you are here. I hope you will enjoy this book like I do. Its like a treasure chest f gems or a box of rich candy. A little is alot! It is fun to read & think about. May your heart be encouraged as you encourage so many!! Love, Sara <3"

Right picture says, "To my husband on our first Valentines Day. Love always (can't tell - Gina? Lisa?)"

Now, I know it is not uncommon for people to write well-wishings in books, but these (1) seem very intimate. Not sexually, but certainly on another level of friendship, maybe intellectually (2) given at a time that seems rather important.

I mean Ricki (girl?) obviously means alot to Sara. Sara is sharing a beloved intellectual comfort with her friend who seems relatively new but they have gotten to know each other rather quickly, which kind of seems like it might have been a hard time in one of their lives, I am thinking Sara's.

Lisa is giving her husband a book... for Valentines Day... their first Valentines Day together as a married couple. Either he is a book nerd and she is an awesome wife, or there is something else. I want to imagine a couple. He is going through seminary, maybe even a new pastor. Maybe both. He needs this book for some reason. School, job, ordination. They are poor. So she scrimps and saves and picks up pennies. She buys him this book for their first valentine's day.

But after both of those intimate, happy stories, all I can think about is that they are both over. I am admittedly a pack rat, and Erin knows that she can throw away all my clothes and child-hood memories but I want my books. I want them. We spent long nights together jumping over the miles of hurdles it took for me to graduate and I enjoy them and so thank you very much but I am keeping them. The Lord himself would have to audibly speak to me for them to part. But these books were sold for less than a buck a piece. One dollar. How poor do you have to be to trade priceless family memories and a great book for one dollar? All I can think is that the friendship/marriage has dissolved.

It is probably something more simple than this. It was probably a move that caused people to decide what they should bring and book weight and space was at a minimum.

So, to all of you, find these people and give them back their books. I will mail them free of charge. I am thinking that Sara or Ricki might have been a youth leader some years ago, maybe in a Lutheran church. Find them...

This post got really Unsolved Mysteries on me quickly. Didn't mean for that happen. RIP Robert Stack...

On the Didache...

2011-02-25T02:36:00.000-08:00

I had to answer these questions:

What kind of a document is it? (A letter? A sermon? A hymn? A manual? A creed? A church law?)
What are the theological and/or practical issues at stake in the document? What is the problem which God’s people are facing?
How does the author suggest that the problem be resolved?
How do these issues relate to today? How can they shape or reshape my ideas of theology of ministry?

The Didache was an early church document, considered for canonization, but ultimately rejected as unispired. It is still used by scholars today for historical and social meaning. Also, there is far more awesomeness in this short book about Christian life than these questions gave me room to explore, especially considering it was a 2-3 page paper double-spaced (hence my weak-sauce ending; I ran out of room, but I don't care because I am a rebel).

The Didache (which means 'teaching' as in the "The Teaching of the Apostle") needs to be explored more for its social and missional implications, especially involving poverty and a Christian's role.

Didache Reflection

In reading the Didache, I fell in love. It is exactly what I wanted it to be and more. Admittedly I struggle with law over grace and love rules. But as I see a church, time and time again, forgetting her mission and diakonia, my heart is gladdened by this teaching.

I see this document as primarily a manual. It seems to be giving practical advice for Christian life. Noll says in his book on Church history called Turning Points, “The Didache was used for teaching converts the basics of Christian faith and practice as the church moved out of the Mediterranean World” (p. 45). We can also gather this evidence internally when it gives instructions on routine to its readers. After the Lord’s prayer, the Didache instructs, “Pray this way three times a day” (VIII, v. 3). This conveys a manual style teaching that is instructing basic behavior to its audience. We see a similar event on weekly practices, “Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays” (VIII, v. 1). Even outside of chapter 8 we have similar occurrences, “On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure” (XIV, v. 1). These two weekly observances are instructions for the new believers life.

The Theological issues at stake seem to be of vital importance, literally, at least in the metaphysical sense. The first six chapters, out of 16, contain ways to attain life and avoid death. The book begins, “There are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death and there is a great difference between the two Ways” (I, v. 1). The next 4 chapters are how to attain life. It is summed up in what is popularly called the “greatest commandment” with an addendum of the Jesus’ version on the golden rule, “The Way of Life is this: ‘First, you shall love the God who made you, secondly, your neighbor as yourself; and whatsoever you would not have done to yourself, do not do to another" (I, v. 2). Then a list of rules and observances are listed. A lot are scriptural taking a lot from the Sermon on the Mount and the OT. The “way of death” is much shorter but follows a similar pattern.

Some problems this book attempts to correct Church praxis and leadership. In the Didache, we get a great view of the practice of church by the early church. We have in detail readings about how the Lord’s supper should go, the words to be recited, and who could partake (IX). We even have the post-meal blessing to be said (X). As far as baptism goes, we get a great picture of the churches practice, and even “back-up” plans incase certain elements aren’t available. We are told to baptize, “in running water, but if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water three times on the head…” all of which is to be done in the name of the Trinity and with fasting for baptizer and baptizee (VII). This passage is only on of many that highlights the detail in which this manual goes to teach churches and early believers the way of the church.

As far as leadership goes, this book is solving the problem of how to learn, who from and how they are set apart. Though there is a lot of spiritual elements to these processes (i.e. “Do not test or examine any prophet who is speaking in a spirit… [XI, v.7]) there are some rather practical steps of how to decide who is a teacher and how to honor them. “Whosoever then comes and teaches you all these things aforesaid, receive” (XI, v. 1). More specifically, if someone is preaching this gospel with this teaching, they are reliable. This serves a double function of reinforcing the legitimacy of this document as well as selecting good teachers. Their pay was to be different than mere travelers, who were to take up a craft (XII, v. 3), a teacher/prophet/apostles pay was to be from the people he taught, “Therefore you shall take the firstfruits… and give them as firstfruits to the prophets, for they are you highpriest” (XIII, v.3). Earlier we receive this bit about honoring the prophet, “My child, you shall remember, day and night, him who speaks the word of God to you, and you shall honor him as the Lord…” (IV, v. 1). The prophets, the organizers and teachers of the early church, were to be honored and cared for, commended highly by the people.

One of my favorite lines comes when there is an absence of a teacher, “But if you have not a prophet, give to the poor” (XIII, v. 4). It is probably a straight forward line about looking out for the “least of these” but it can be taken so much deeper in spiritual way when compared to the rest of the Didache’s teachings about the believer and poverty. Almost as if the poor are the teacher and the teachers are to be poor.

As far these issues relate to us today, there are many. I think the debate about praxis in baptism can be quenched a little bit with the witness of the early church. For me personally, it has cleared some questions I had about prophets and apostles carrying on beyond the book of acts, and more specifically, what is the role of prophets in the modern church, after Christ.

I think it stresses on us the importance of works of compassion to the early church and how we should be moving back to that path as the richest church on earth here in America.

But most importantly, I think it demonstrates that church praxis was a fluid thing, not exactly like the book of Acts and not exactly like now and that’s ok. That God’s story is still being written and his people have room to explore what he desires from us as far as liturgy goes.

Works Cited

Readings in World Christian History, John W. Coakley & Andrea Sterk, eds. (Maryknoll, New

York: Orbis Books, 2004)

Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, Mark A. Noll. (Grand Rapids:

Baker Academic, 2000)

Preaching...

2011-02-24T23:07:00.000-08:00

"... is to proclaim a Mystery before which, before whom, even our most exalted ideas turn to straw. It is also to proclaim this Mystery with a passion that ideas alone have little to do with. It is to try to put the Gospel into words not the way you would compose an essay but the way you would write a poem or a love letter - putting your heart into it, your own excitement, most of all your own life. It is to speak words that you hope may, by grace, be bearers not simply of new understanding but of new life both for the ones you are speaking to and also for you"

(Frederick Buechner, Telling Secrets, 1991 quoted in James Hampton's book Worship Centered Teaching)

Americans and Entitlement! / Church In-fighting and Know it alls!

2011-02-17T02:08:00.000-08:00

Love my professors. Here is one rant. I could listen to him teach all day:

link to blog

Another great blog (from Don Miller) about people wanting to get real and relevant but being subject to know-it-alls with a dash of uncomfortableness going on:

Link to blog

It seems like cheating to keep linking to other people's blogs, but really, when they say it better, I will be their messenger; so don't shoot!

TITUS WALKING!

2011-02-06T00:30:00.001-08:00

So pumped about my son walking...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWO_UMa3A0U

A beatiful glimpse...

2011-02-04T12:34:00.000-08:00

Christians protesters in Egypt protecting their Muslim countryfolk's prayer time...

http://www.good.is/post/protesters-are-awesome-look-at-this-beautiful-photo-of-christians-protecting-praying-muslims-in-egypt/

Got this from another good blog by another M. Div student named Kurt Willems.

Moving and Seminary

2011-02-04T02:33:00.000-08:00

Erin, Titus and I are thinking about moving for my schooling. Currently I am attending Asbury Theological Seminary online but we are getting ready to make the move to a physical campus.

We have boiled it down (for now) to two schools. Seattle Pacific University and Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY. We are going to be physically visiting both in the next month.

I am interested in Seattle for the city. The M.Div program is relatively new but the city life is attractive. I have always wanted to live in a big city. We would also be closer to home. Driving distance at that. One of the pluses of the newness of the program is that could lend a sense of more contemporary ministry training. The school is also much more Free Methodist and I do like the idea of being apart of the heritage. I choose this one for the city and Free Methodism.

Asbury definitely has the long-standing tradition of excellence that I know I can bank on. I have seen the fruits of the program and am blown away. I have been attending there for a year already. I know some of the professors and greatly respect them. Erin really enjoys an activist/author who lives in the same town. But it is sooooo far away. Kentucky is a long ways away. We would be 3 hours difference time zone wise. I choose this one for the excellence in academics and I am already enrolled and have fulfilled classes.

Be praying for us! We visit Seattle February 7 through the 9 and Asbury February 27th through March 3rd!

Excited and sad at the same time, with the realization that God is working in mighty ways!

Obama's Faith

2011-02-04T01:53:00.000-08:00

Interesting article on Obama, his faith, and the National Prayer Breakfast from one of my professors:

http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/02/03/the-president-at-the-prayer-breakfast-on-his-christian-faith/

A great line from the article... “It was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods, that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior” -Obama

Whatever your view, this is a thoughtful article from a brilliant scholar of the New Testament.

P.S. Edit: Scot McKnight did a similar article today (2/4/11): http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/02/04/the-presidents-faith/

2011-01-20T15:17:00.000-08:00

One of the best articles I have read about the equality of women in scripture:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2009/10/why-arguments-against-women-in-ministry-arent-biblical.html

I read that article after I learned of a new book out called: "How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals"

you can read more about here, at Scot McKnight's site: http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/01/17/how-they-changed-their-mind-about-women/

someone should buy it for me :)

If you have Wesleyan heritage, this is something you should wrestle with as most Wesleyan churches uphold the equality of teaching (i.e. Methodist, Free Methodist, Nazarene, etc...). Even if you agree, there are some pretty tough passages that you should get an answer to.

Martin Luther King Jr.: The man behind the holiday

2011-01-18T02:45:00.000-08:00

"The tough mind is sharp and penetrating, breaking through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false. The tough-minded individual is astute and discerning. He has a strong austere quality that makes for firmness of purpose and solidness of commitment.Who doubts that this toughness is one of man's greatest needs? Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

(~ Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love,1963)

The single most irksome thing to me about Martin Luther King Jr. day and his portrayal by society is the blatant cover-up of the man and his ideas.

He is portrayed as this wonderful figure who was just "ahead of his time." Who met an untimely, tragic fate at the hands of evil men. But "we" love him. "We" would have joined him. Aside: it reminds me of Americans and the way they talk about the civil war. "We" won. "We" would have fought for the slaves. It was America vs. America; how did "we" win? And how do "we" know what side we would have been on?

I say this because not only should "we" not accept the watered down version of this brilliant man, but "we" don't like him, his beliefs or his causes. In fact, we hate him.

And I am ok with that. I am not advocating for his thoughts, actions or anything of the like. My aim is to merely reflect on his work and show the fractured view we hold.

He was labeled by the FBI:

"...the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country"

Hoover, head of the FBI, said this:

"...the most notorious liar in the country."

He stood proud for non-violence as the way of our Lord in love:

"I say to you today that I still stand by nonviolence. And I am still convinced that it is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice in this country. And the other thing is that I am concerned about a better world. I'm concerned about justice. I'm concerned about brotherhood. I'm concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer but you can't murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that."
"It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence."

He spoke out against war and Vietnam in particular, not as an isolated event which he thought his political leanings should be shared, but as one and the same cause, namely that non-violence be the only path to real victory:

"Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live."
"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves."
"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated."

He spoke out against poverty and the system the produces and upholds it:

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

He spoke out against America and asked Christians to have right understanding of their nationalism:

"Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America 'you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore.' I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore."

He criticized the church:

"I must admit that I have gone through those moments when I was greatly disappointed with the church and what it has done in this period of social change. We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation. This is tragic. Nobody of honesty can overlook this."

Not to mention his unswerving dedication to the racial issue plaguing America and the world...

Are those our values? Any of them? All of them? Do we even think those should be values of our national heroes? To be #1 on the FBI's most dangerous list, to speak out against all violence but especially in the case of war, to speak out against America, the church, and capitalism in certain issues.

I can't imagine many in the average evangelical church endorsing this type of person. Most Christians I know would not be comfortable around this guy. With his references to Socrates and Nietzsche. With his acceptance of science as an ally. With his 'extreme' stances and jail time.

But another rewriting of history plagues King's legacy. It is the single most important key to understanding King and it is being left out. Martin Luther King Jr. was a disciple of Christ Jesus and the scriptural commands left by him.

More than that, King had a Ph. D in Systematic Theology after receiving a Bachelor of Divinity. He was devout and committed Christian and Pastor; it was his source of thought and action.

Growing up I had known that King was a minister, but it was always presented in such a way that seemed inconsequential. Unlike Ghandi who always seemed to be linked to his religious underpinnings, King always seemed to be a civil rights leader and a Christian, and two never met in between.

And this, to me, is the great paradox of the man. We accept the side of him that we like the most. For Christians, it is his Christianity. For non-believers, it is his social action. When we choose portions, we miss the good stuff; we miss the prophet. We lose it all. We aren't forced to wrestle with King and his ideas, but turn him into grandpa. Dr. Cornel West calls this the "Santa Clausification" of King. He says, "We have to resist the ‘Santa Claus-ification’ of Martin Luther King. I don’t want to sanitize Martin Luther King. I don’t want to deodorize Dr. Martin Luther King. I don’t want to disinfect Dr. Martin Luther King, and we’re not gonna domesticate Dr. King.”

We have to wrestle with him. One side can't choose all his good works and hail him as a hero and discount the source of his crazy love and the other side can't discount his genius and thoughts rejoicing in the idea of his Christianity. Both sides betray him by fragmenting him.

Sources:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/01/17/3114379.htm?topic1=home&topic2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

Reflecting on Creation Care

2011-01-16T00:04:00.000-08:00

Blessed Earth, led by Dr. Matthew Sleeth and his wife Nancy, has a website that will keep anyone up-to-date on biblical environmental stewardship. He is the author of "Serve God, Save the Planet" and his testimony is amazing in how creation and Christianity interweave.

They have posted, under the resources, some scripture that I love to reflect on. But there is one passage that has particularly impacted me:

"Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel;
   for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land.
There is no faithfulness or loyalty,
   and no knowledge of God in the land.
² Swearing, lying, and murder,
   and stealing and adultery break out;
   bloodshed follows bloodshed.
³ Therefore the land mourns,
   and all who live in it languish;
together with the wild animals
   and the birds of the air,
   even the fish of the sea are perishing.

⁴ Yet let no one contend,
   and let none accuse,
   for with you is my contention, O priest"

~(Hosea 4).

Because of our action, creation is "perishing." Because of our sin, creation has been fractured. Creation care goes so much further than just a nice application of Christian do-good. It is fractured because of sin; our sin.

Not only does it seem right and good to take on these issues, but as a way of dealing with our sin, both on a personal level and as a people. To fully claim salvation through the suffering savior, we must repent, we must turn from our broken way.

What role does this play in my life?
How can I apply this to my life as a "priest" and example to the community?
How do I convict other Christians without offending?
Does offense come so easily because of creation's connection to our sin, both personally and as a people group?
What is my role and responsibility in the blame and how can I help?

Creation and Salvation: One Argument for Creation Care

2011-01-11T14:53:00.000-08:00

(a facebook conversation that I thought was particularly interesting: here is my side... and sorry for the rushed tone)

Jesus' death and resurrection weren't just for Humans, it was for creation. All creation is being restored through Christ. Humans are a major part of God's creation, but creation none-the-less, was God's aim!

"For the creation ...waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Romans 8).

Creation was cursed as well as Humans and groans in anticipation for the final things so that it to will be released from decay.

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation... For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Colossians 1).

Jesus is the firstborn over "...ALL creation" (emphasis mine). All creation is being reconciled, recovered and restored through the cross.

"The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small— and for destroying those who destroy the earth" (Revelation 11, emph. mine).

This is intimately linked with saving work of Christ and will be held against humanity in the last days.

So, from a purely theological point, creation is of utmost important to God as in, the point of the death of his Son was to reclaim and restore creation (another great article from an Free Methodist thinker: http://www.wineskins.net/pdf/creation.pdf).

More to your point about helping others, creation was intimately tied to helping others:

The year of Jubilee in Leviticus 25 was a canceling of all debt, letting the land rest, redistributing wealth AND land. All land purchased was given back and all debt was wiped clean.
Every 7 years the land was to be unplowed, left to heal and restore. Not following this is one of the major reasons the Israelites were sent into Babylonian Exile.
The sabbath, every seven days, was to be a rest for both land and people. All three of these examples are intimately tied to God's creating work in Genesis 1; God rests, we rest, the land rests.
Also, the Israelites were commanded to not harvest their whole fields. The land wasn't to be pillaged and abused and the remaining food was to go to the poor. The corners of the field were left for orphans and widows.

The point is, the longest speech given by God in all of scripture is at the end of Job. God doesn't show up and say, "here are the sins you committed" or "here is a new deep theology to grasp," he goes on and on about how he delights in his creation. How he has made everything and he is God. He birthed and floods and waters and grows and takes care of creation and if he wants to do what he wants to do to Job, that is his prerogative.

Right now, creation is fractured. Hurricanes that have been hitting the gulf coast for hundreds of years are now wreaking total havoc because of the wetlands being destroyed around it. The desertification in Africa is causing millions of environmental refugees to flee ancient lands to find new ones causing strife between warring communities. The deforestation of Ethiopia is making the land unusable for farming and crop production, making it one of the most desolate places on earth. ect... etc..

So, a good full theology will encompass creation and creation care. Since humans are a major part of creation, then they are a major part of creation care. A great theology of the Kingdom of God will encompass all of those aspects. The first job of humanity was to tend the garden, we have not been relieved of that yet, and more than that, we are failing.

Witherington, Noel and Me: Women in Ministry!

2011-01-05T02:59:00.000-08:00

Witherington:

http://vimeo.com/14172103

The Noel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7s38-8gzzQ

My response

Midterm

2009-11-07T01:53:00.000-08:00

Here are my answers to two laid back midterm questions in one of my classes. The books I quote, I highly recommend. For mission read Newbigin (also for Marxism, injustice). For Jesus-Centered Discipleship, unlike most discipleship in the church today (also for Yoder style pacifism, anti-militarism).

1. What is the significance of Jesus in the overall context of the biblical narrative and what is essential in reflecting on the implications of that for a post-modern culture?

The question posed is of Jesus’ contribution to the Bible’s overarching story and what is the relevance for post-modernism. Most of the answer to this question will come from N. T. Wright’s, “The Challenge of Jesus.”

Jesus’ contribution to the biblical narrative is, first, to be firmly seen in context of the 1^st Century Israel/ Judaism. The Jews of the time were living under Roman occupation. There were many groups of Jews who had been taken sides. There were those who adopted the customs of the culture and enjoyed great favor (i.e. Hellenistic Jews). The Septuagint was a great offspring of this culture within a culture.

On the opposite side were groups of revolutionaries (i.e. Pharisees). They fought for their Jewish traditionalism and desired a pure society. These tensions had really come to a head in the intertestimental period.

This problem of occupation and revolution is not something new and is a consequence from early in the biblical narrative. We know that God blessed the line of Abraham and that his seed will be the one of which great things will happen. Then the Promised Land and kingdoms are set. Israel is disobedient and exiled. Judah remains faithful. In the exile the prophets speak of future events. One will come and reconcile and recreate all things. But Wright claims that even though the Jews are back in Israel, from the exile, there is still a since of exile and Diaspora remains scattered. The hope of the prophets becomes the hope of the people, that one; a messiah (anointed one) would come back and fix their problem.

Jesus, obviously the Christ Messiah, comes in the middle of turbulence and strife and suffering and exile. The people want satisfaction of their immediate needs. He does not give them so little a solution as fixing current problems. The Christ comes, not to promote rebellion or acclimation, but a third way, the way of the cross. He reminds Israel that they are to be the light of the world, the truly blessed seed of Abraham. He models the sacrificial responsibility of being the light of the world by dying on the cross at the hands of men. His death and, more importantly, his resurrection reconciles all things and makes all things new. He did not shallowly relieve physical exile and reunite the Diaspora, but ushered in the Kingdom of God by removing the exile between God and man, reuniting us with Him forevermore. Jesus’ story is the climax of all history.

The implications of Jesus, his death and resurrection are in the foundation that he is. Wright believes that we live in a great eschatological in-between. Christ’s work in the 1^st century is the end of time coming to the middle which is the climax of history, but there is also going to be an end of time where Jesus comes and does an amazing final transforming thing. We live in between these two and our goal is to build. Wright says that we cannot do nothing, for this forsakes the work of Christ. He also reminds us that we cannot build the Kingdom of God all by ourselves.

Though I don’t think Wright intended it, these two opposing sides seem to parallel 1^st century Judaism. The side that wants to do nothing is like the side that accepted exile to the point of actually becoming acculturated. The side that thinks that they can and should do it all seems analogous to the Pharisees and revolutionaries who thought that their actions could redeem Israel and remove the occupation. Instead, Wright proposes the post-modernism needs to sees themselves as workers. They are working for the eschatology of finality to come but only on the foundation of Christ in the past. That this work must be a reshaping of the world and in doing so we will become, as heirs in Abraham’s blessing and now children of God, the light of the world.

It seems that Wright is countering two groups in his implications for post-modernity. He seems to be bringing to the center, two groups who have fallen to the extreme. There are those who put all their hope in the final things to come and miss so much of Jesus. There are also those try to build the kingdom all themselves and miss Jesus in his own teaching and actions. I tend to fall in the latter and have had my paradigms shaped already in this course.

2. Discuss the meaning of, and show the relationships between, the following four concepts: church, mission, Trinity, Wesleyan theology.

Church, Mission, Trinity and Wesleyan Theology all have great meanings and unifying bonds of which will be explored and discussed, mainly through the central theme of “the Great Commission.”

The Church is the body of Christ. We are the redeemed of God, of who he has poured his love and peace into. We are also the means in which he has chosen to do a saving work and a distributing of grace. As the video entitled “The Great Commission” conveyed, Christ has very clearly given us a task to be about. This Commission is recorded in the Matthew and tells us to make disciples through baptism and teaching, and of course, by his power and strength. The video also explains that this is an act of love from God, through the redeemed to the unredeemed. This initial act of wanting to give love to the lost is, in Wesleyan Theology, called Prevenient Grace.

This Prevenient Grace explores the idea that God loves the world and offers all people the chance at salvation and reconciliation by providing a way for all to come to him. This is the mission, or commission, as we know it: to take the love of Christ and his reconciliation to the world. In fact, as the video puts it, this mission is Trinitarian in nature. It is initiated by the love of the father sending his son to reconcile us back to him. The mission to tell the world about it is promulgated by the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:8 says in the NIV, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

The church is charged with this great commission but the means to achieve are a bit fuzzy. Many attempts at spreading Christ’s kingdom have been made and some better than others. Lee Camp in “Mere Discipleship” tells of some forceful, bloody and simply unchristian ways. He tells the stories of the brutality that incurred after Christianity fell in love with the empire. When the church untied with empire, many leaders used violence and death to convert whole peoples to Christianity. One lesson from our dark history is that the means to be faithful to the great commission are hazy. I enjoy Lesslie Newbigin’s approach to the church and her means to fulfilling the mission.

In “The Open Secret,” Newbigin makes clear the relationship between church and mission and trinity. He says, “The Christian mission is thus to act out in the whole of life of the whole world the confession that Jesus is Lord of all” (p. 17). Newbigin then tells us that there us just one problem, who is Jesus Christ? In answering the question of Christ, he reveals that the nature of the mission is in the trinity. He says, “The fundamental belief is embodied in the affirmation that God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Spirit. I shall therefore begin by looking at the Christian mission in three way – as proclaiming the kingdom of the Father, as sharing in the life of the son and as bearing witness of the Spirit” (p. 29).

But the thing I find most refreshing in Newbigin is the acceptance of action in response to injustice being a primary means of the mission. There are those who want to only proclaim the Gospel of Christ, the miss out on key opportunities to share. We are to share in the tribulations of our Lord. In doing so we find liberation. Our freedom allows us to fight the injustice for our neighbors.

This idea of justice seems to be naturally occurring in Wesleyan theology and church life, at least in the beginning. In reading Wesley’s, “A Plain Account of the People Called Methodist” we read of people so liberated by Christ that they can’t help but fight the injustices of their neighbors (sickness, food, schools, clothes, elderly care). The actions of the early Methodists spread the gospel so far it is credited as stopping revolution. It’s belief in prevenience allowed working with all, for all, in a way that attracts all.

Blessings and Peace!!!!

Pledge of Allegiance... to whom????

2009-10-11T00:03:00.002-07:00

This last week, I had a high school student ask me if the pledge of Allegiance to the USA was an ok expression in response to his undying allegiance to Christ. He felt it was probably unwise and generally not ok but he wanted my opinion.

What Faith. To deny the Pax Romana (Roman Peace used as a symbol for The Empire offering Peace, USA) and follow only our Lord. I wish we all had this faith. Most of us follow the empire with the great exemption "unless it crosses or defies God's word." The problem is: (1) this assumes that the country is or has followed God's will and (2)we are to always and only to follow Christ.

What do we do in response to this faith?

N. T. Wright's "The Challenge of Jesus"

2009-10-02T23:39:00.001-07:00

I had to read N. T. Wright's The Challenge of Jesus and then had to answer these 3 questions in response in only 200 words for all three. The book shifted my paradigm of the gospels and I highly recommend it to anyone thinking about the Historical Jesus and what he means to us, to anyone thinking about our mission in response to Jesus, to anyone wanting to expand their faith!

(1) if Jesus remains anchored in the first century Judaism, as Wright suggests, does not his relevance for us today diminish? If I were to answer question one in reading only the first three chapters, I would have to say, “Yes, Jesus' relevance is diminished being so firmly rooted in the 1^st century.” Wright portrays a Jesus that is solely for his day. He gives Jesus a mission and passion for 1^st century, second-temple Israel that simply cannot be scripturally denied but is fully present in our gospel narrative. I very much lamented Wright's conclusions to come after reading these chapters only to be fully raptured by Wright's re-definition of our Christ-centered vocation.

(2.) What, according to Wright is, and is not, the significance of the resurrection for understanding Jesus? Resurrection did not signify that one had had some sort of personal experience and that everything was going to be ok because our Messiah had died and is spiritually in heaven. Rather, it meant the climax of exiled Israel being freed. It meant that Jesus was physically re-embodied as the 1^st century Jews believed the righteous would be, but there is only one who is righteous. It meant the beginning of God's new creation.

(3.) What is the relationship between our present work in reshaping our world, and the future world that God intends to make? It is not simply to hold a dualistic approach in which God has set everything good, but it will fail again, so we sit idly by and wait for the end (Dispensationalism). Rather, it means that we are to be engaged in society and the world, letting Jesus' redemption shine. We are to build on the Jesus foundation, continually pointing to Jesus' new creation, free from exile and forgiven.

Be Blessed and peace be with you!