| |
|
|
| |
|
April
1, 2007
The narrow gate, watch for false
prophets, and the House on the Rock
“Therefore everyone
who hears these words of mine and
puts them into practice is like a
wise man who built his house on the
rock. The rain came down, the
streams rose, and the winds blew and
beat against that house; yet it did
not fall, because it had its
foundation on the rock. But
everyone who hears these words of
mine and does not put them into
practice is like a foolish man who
built his house on sand. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the
winds blew and beat against that
house, and it fell with a great
crash” (Matthew 7:24-27).
Ever notice that sermons
on the house built on sand or
rock usually lean toward the
scare-tack or are negatively applied and
illustrated? When sermons on the
house built on sand or rock
are preached, it seems that the preacher
tends only to reach back to the “narrow
gate” comments in verses 13 and 14 for
the context. Very convenient for them.
So, I start there:
It should be noted that
the narrow gate implies few find it.
According to Jesus, elsewhere and here,
there was no expectation that throngs
would show up at the gate to enter,
meaning only a small gate to enter into
God’s kingdom is needed. The path (or
road, depending on the translation) is
wide and the gate wide that lead to
destruction, not because there are more
things that are evil or immoral to end
one in destruction, but because there
will be more to show up at that
gate—more will find it, thus needing a
larger gate. Consequently, the
narrowness is not our standards—the gate
is not narrow because of our personal
standards (of how to dress, who to hang
with, what music or TV or media to
enjoy, what habits are good vs. bad),
nor our judgments and loathing of
cultural and social habits. The
narrowness of the gate, its width, does
not refer to some narrow, yet
“allowable” cultural involvements that
Christians may participate in. Thank
goodness. This now begs my comments on
how Matthew’s version of the Sermon on
the Mount ends and what we are to make
of it.
Shoddy exegesis and poor
exposition is often hidden and disguised
through clever (and often passionate),
cliché-filled sermonizing and harsh
rhetoric. I have rarely heard a message
on this passage that actually expounds
what’s there and promotes Jesus’ (and
Matthew’s) intended meaning. What I
usually hear are two things: a pompous
account of how righteous the preacher is
(through multiple references and
illustrations of and about himself or
herself) and, I hear, not a sermon, but
an agenda. One learns more about the
preacher than the text (or what God is
saying through the text) in many such
sermons.
I find it odd, and of
course overlooked by many a preacher,
that the Sermon on the Mount’s ending is
preceded by a number of commands, even
before the descriptions (of gates,
paths, roads, trees, fruit, houses,
sand, rocks, false prophets, wise and
unwise builders) are laid out. The
Sermon on the Mount stretches from
Matthew 5:1 through the end of chapter
7—we should not ignore this. Generally
speaking chapter 5 is a description of
living a blessed life as one who
understands and acts according to the
fact that the Kingdom of Heaven has
arrived. The series of commands just
prior to the close of the Sermon on the
Mount reaches back to Matthew 6:1 and
is, indeed, an interesting set that
preachers of this passage should heed
and take serious note:
Beware of practicing
your righteousness before men to be
noticed by them; otherwise you have
no reward with your Father who is in
heaven” (6:1).
And then, the cousin of
this command to refrain from being
self-righteous is given in Matthew 7:1:
"Do not judge, or you too
will be judged.” I suggest these two
commands should dissuade preachers from,
well, being so judgmental and
self-righteous in how and what they say
about the wise and unwise house builders
and its implications on the audience.
To be frank, how we preach this text
should be seriously guided by the very
words of Jesus Himself in 6:1 and 7:1
less we fall under the same warning and
caveat found in 7:2ff and be called a
hypocrite ourselves.
“For in the same way
you judge others, you will be
judged, and with the measure you
use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of
sawdust in your brother's eye and
pay no attention to the plank in
your own eye? How can you say to
your brother, ‘Let me take the speck
out of your eye,’ when all the time
there is a plank in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the plank
out of your own eye, and then you
will see clearly to remove the speck
from your brother's eye” (vv 2-5).
It is interesting, as
well, that the Sermon on the Mount’s
final teaching contains a command to
watch and measure prophets to see if
they be false or not. Furthermore,
there is no appeal to faulty Christians,
or less fervent followers, or even nasty
outsiders (i.e., the lost) here. But,
to the hearers of the Sermon on
the Mount. My take on this is, part of
hearing God’s word and building one’s
house upon the rock must be related to
whom we listen to, whether there
is the producing of the fruits of the
Kingdom (i.e., that’s chapter 5!) or not
in who preaches (or in the workers,
so-called, who claim to follow Jesus).
The command here is not that we
might be false-prophets bearing bad
fruit, but that we should watch out for
them. Look out! They will be those who
look like good prophets who do miracles
and call Jesus “Lord, Lord,” but they
are not producing the fruit that stems
from a life that resembles Chapter 5 of
the Sermon, nor do they refrain from
judging and displaying their
righteousness (which is a false
righteousness).
Read chapter six, it is
mostly addressed to those whom we are to
following—that is Church leadership.
One builds his or her house on a rock,
if they watch out for false prophets.
If someone is trying to get the speck
out of your eye, my guess is that person
is a false prophet. Watch out for them!
Finally, a comment on
building that house on the rock. Jesus
clearly says in Matthew 7:24 that it is
those who hear these words
(meaning all the words of the
Sermon on the Mount!), these are the
ones who build on the rock and are able
to withstand the rain and winds for
misfortune. If someone sets themselves
up as the authority, with a direct line
to God, who tells more about their
status and righteousness than speaks of
the text, who claims to be
prophetic—watch out, this one is a false
prophet even if he or she is using every
spiritual catchword in the language.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
November 26, 2006
Sharing the tithe with the poor (Malachi
3, the threat, and distribution of the
tithe)
The tithe in the Malachi 3 passage so
often quoted to beef up congregational
giving (to pay the bills, pay for
pastoral salary, for 401K retirement
plans, for even “spiritual” (so-called)
endeavors to support church growth,
etc.) is not only mis-quoted, but
unfaithfully twisted from its context.
Pastors who use this verse to get their
congregations to tithe, that is to give
at least 10% of their before-taxes
income, are remiss to point out that
such a tithe concept in Malachi is build
on the tithe concept of the Pentateuch:
The income brought in by the people’s
tithe was to be share with the poor of
the land. Now, how many pastors do
this, or are willing to do this? So how
are we robbing God? In the tithes not
shared with the poor.
“Will a
man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me!
But you say, ‘How have we robbed
You?’ In tithes and offerings. You
are cursed with a curse, for you are
robbing Me, the whole nation of you!
Bring the whole tithe into the
storehouse, so that there may be
food in My house, and test Me now in
this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I
will not open for you the windows of
heaven and pour out for you a
blessing until it overflows. Then I
will rebuke the devourer for you, so
that it will not destroy the fruits
of the ground; nor will your vine in
the field cast its grapes,” says the
LORD of hosts. “All the nations
will call you blessed, for you shall
be a delightful land,” says the LORD
of hosts. “Your words have been
arrogant against Me,” says the LORD.
“Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken
against You?’ You have said, ‘It is
vain to serve God; and what profit
is it that we have kept His charge,
and that we have walked in mourning
before the LORD of hosts? So now we
call the arrogant blessed; not only
are the doers of wickedness built up
but they also test God and
escape.’” (Mal 3:8-15)
I
make note of this in my paper on Mark
12:38-44: What should also strike the
reader, after the context of Malachi 3
is taken into consideration. For
immediately before the “tithing” text of
Mal 3:8 we heard:
“Then I
will draw near to you for judgment;
and I will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers and against
the adulterers and against those who
swear falsely, and against those who
oppress the wage earner in his
wages, the widow and the orphan, and
those who turn aside the alien and
do not fear Me,” says the LORD of
hosts (Mal 3:5).
The charge, in Mal 3:8,
is against the leadership of Israel, and
specifically the temple establishment.
It is they who have disregarded God’s
“statutes” (Lev 5, et. al.?). They are
charged with “robbing” God’s temple
through the misappropriation of tithes
and offerings. Interestingly, the
priests who received the tithe was to
share it with the poor—“When
you have finished paying all the tithe
of your increase in the third year, the
year of tithing, then you shall give it
to the Levite, to the stranger, to the
orphan and to the widow, that they may
eat in your towns and be satisfied” (Dt
26:12; cf. Dt 14:29; Lv 27:30).
“Robbing God” was then related to the
misappropriation of the widow’s
share of the tithe, that is refusing to
correctly distribute it among the
poor—neglecting to share the tithes and
offering with the poor. Imagine a
pastor preaching his or her willingness
to share his annual income with the
poor, or giving direction to the budget
committee to ensure that the offerings
collected during the year will be shared
with the poor. Could you imagine
how God would open up the widows of
heaven and rain His blessing on the
congregation that shares the tithe and
offerings in this way?
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
September 1, 2006
An obligatory tithe?: the problem with
the primary prooftext
Let’s start
with the primary prooftext found in
Hebrews 7:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem,
priest of the Most High God, who met
Abraham as he was returning from the
slaughter of the kings and blessed
him, to whom also Abraham
apportioned a tenth part of all the
spoils, was first of all, by the
translation of his name, king of
righteousness, and then also king of
Salem, which is king of peace.
Without
father, without mother, without
genealogy, having neither beginning
of days nor end of life, but made
like the Son of God, he remains a
priest perpetually. Now observe how
great this man was to whom Abraham,
the patriarch, gave a tenth of the
choicest spoils. And those indeed of
the sons of Levi who receive the
priest's office have commandment in
the Law to collect a tenth from the
people, that is, from their
brethren, although these are
descended from Abraham. But the one
whose genealogy is not traced from
them collected a tenth from Abraham
and blessed the one who had the
promises. But without any dispute
the lesser is blessed by the
greater. In this case mortal men
receive tithes, but in that case one
receives them, of whom it is
witnessed that he lives on. And, so
to speak, through Abraham even Levi,
who received tithes, paid tithes,
for he was still in the loins of his
father when Melchizedek met him.
Now if perfection was through the
Levitical priesthood (for on the
basis of it the people received the
Law), what further need was there
for another priest to arise
according to the order of
Melchizedek, and not be designated
according to the order of Aaron? For
when the priesthood is changed, of
necessity there takes place a change
of law also [Hebrews 7:1-12].
The first and
primary problem is that there is no
context here in this text to naturally
assume or lead to a command that sounds
something like,
“Abraham,
who proceeded Levi, the founder of
the first redemptive priesthood,
gave a tenth of his captured spoils
to Melchizedek, who is a type of
Christ and foreshadowed the present
redemptive era, which is better [the
language of the writer of Hebrews],
ultimate, and final, therefore you
are, as a Christian are obligated to
give a tithe of your earned income
before taxes.”
Not. This
type of command simply does not follow
the line of thinking in the Hebrews
text. If one argues that the “tithing
of Abraham” was before the law and the
temple and as such does not come to an
end as does the law and the temple, then
why not other things such as sacrificing
that happened before the temple?
In fact, Abraham sacrificed as well—does
this mean we should be obligating
Christians to make such sacrifices
still, even though the temple and law
are finished? I think not. Such
argumentation is both unbiblical
(certainly not exegetical from the text)
and it is silly. This text is there to
establish that Jesus belongs to a
priesthood that is eternal. The command
that follows (in application to) this
text is: “Be faithful and do not abandon
your commitment to Christ.”
In fact, the
writer of Hebrews gives us his main
point:
Now the main point in what has been
said is this: we have such a high
priest, who has taken His seat at
the right hand of the throne of the
Majesty in the heavens, a minister
in the sanctuary and in the true
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched,
not man [Hebrews 8:1-2].
Part of a longer argument that reaches
to Hebrews 10:18, and then, in verse 19,
we hear the application, the “therefore”
of this argument regarding Jesus’
supremacy as the consummate head of an
eternal priesthood:
Therefore,
brethren, since we have confidence
to enter the holy place by the blood
of Jesus…Let us hold fast the
confession of our hope without
wavering, for He who promised is
faithful; and let us consider how to
stimulate one another to love and
good deeds, not forsaking our own
assembling together, as is the habit
of some, but encouraging one
another; and all the more as you see
the day drawing near [Hebrews
10:19ff].
The writer wants the new
community of believers to know who they
are and that they, despite opposition,
persecution, the “things of this world,”
and death, are indeed the true community
of an eternal city not made with hands.
This text is about perseverance, not
tithing, and certainly not for
recreating a building-centered religious
bureaucracy made with
hands
that replaces the temple made with
hands. Supporters of tithing as a
Christian obligation need to look
elsewhere for “proof” of its biblical
authority (if there is one). (Again,
please note, this is not to argue that
giving to one’s local church is wrong or
should be withheld. Ultimately I will
discuss what the context and content of
“giving” ought to be.)
more on this
subject>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
July 26, 2006
It is not about the money, stupid
In His teaching He
was saying: “Beware of the scribes
who like to walk around in long
robes, and like respectful greetings
in the market places, and chief
seats in the synagogues and places
of honor at banquets, who devour
widows' houses, and for appearance's
sake offer long prayers; these will
receive greater condemnation.” And
He sat down opposite the treasury,
and began observing how the people
were putting money into the
treasury; and many rich people were
putting in large sums.
A poor widow came and
put in two small copper coins, which
amount to a cent. Calling His
disciples to Him, He said to them,
“Truly I say to you, this poor widow
put in more than all the
contributors to the treasury; for
they all put in out of their
surplus, but she, out of her
poverty, put in all she owned, all
she had to live on.” (Mark
12:38-44)
Mark (and Luke) both lead
their material on the “end times,” the
destruction of the temple, and the
persecution of the faithful (Luke 21;
Mark 13) with the famous—and most
abused—story of the widow who gives her
last two coins to cover the temple tax
so she may enter into the temple. The
majority of the popular interpretations
of this text—really application, for
interpretation of this text is most
often eschewed, ignored, or worse,
manipulated—posit a positive spin on the
occasion. “Yes, despite the bad scribes
who ‘devour widows’ homes’ and fake
righteousness, there is still faithful
people, pious individuals; despite the
hypocritical religious system of the
wayward Jewish temple, see people still
give sacrificially. See that widow, she
gave ‘till it hurt. She gives
everything she has to live on. Look how
faithful. How pious. How trusting she
is of God.” And then, the preacher uses
this story to get you and me to “give
‘til it hurts,” to give sacrificially to
the temple—oh, I mean to the church or
parachurch budget. This application is
most definitely turning this text
up-side-down, literally turning it on
its head. This use of this text places
this widow story, in my opinion, in the
top of the most-abused texts by
so-called Christian preachers, teachers,
and leaders. Awful doesn’t even
come close to the term to say here.
Blasphemous, is more like it. Sure
the comparison is there (between the
robbing, malicious scribes and this poor
widow). And, the comparison between the
value of the gift weighted by the
heavenly scale and the larger sums being
placed in the trumpet-like jars, of
course, is being made: she did give more
because she had less. This isn’t a
hidden, mysterious spiritual truth.
Nothing mysterious here. Actually, this
is just good math (Jesus’ comment that
the widow gave more in her last two
coins than the rich who put in out of
their riches). Proportionally she did
give more—in this case all she had. I
would contend that someone giving out of
their riches at even 10% of their income
is not giving as much as someone who is
giving 100% out of the poverty. The
comparison doesn't need math or
accounting expertise; but it (the
comparison) needs leadership-eyes,
humble Christian eyes to see that it
reveals that we place the burden of the
church-concept (not a New Testament
concept, or for that matter any teaching
of Jesus) of tithing, or giving ‘till it
hurts—sacrificial giving is a burden
placed upon us disproportionately and
inequitably. The so-called tithe might
be a tenth of someone’s income, but that
tenth is not equal in terms of actual
value and need to each individual person
or family (one income or two to make
ends meet). And, we haven’t even
considered the issue of the widow giving
to a temple, made with hands that will
be destroyed. This story is a final
verdict against those who had corrupted
God’s system of righteousness, grace,
forgiveness, and God-beauty. This story
is not about sacrificial giving, but the
taking advantage of the most vulnerable
among us to pay for the appearance of
righteousness. This “sacrificial”
giving was actually wasted giving—not a
praise from Jesus’ lips, but actually a
lament, even a sarcastic comment. This
widow was forced to contribute to the
very system that had already “devoured”
her home (probably the reason she had
only two last coins). The ironic thing
is: the only hint of church financial
offering as part of community life of
the congregation was related, not to
sustaining its staff, utility bills,
401k retirement plans, or new chairs for
the sanctuary, but for the poor and
those hit by unfavorable times (I Cor
16; 2 Cor 8-9). It should not surprise
us that the first conflict in the
Church’s young history was over taking
care of widows (Acts 6:1ff), nor should
we just read hesitantly over James 1,
where there is an issue of rich versus
poor in how one was treated over
another, and not far was the reminder of
taking care of the orphaned and the
widowed. So, it is not about the money:
it is about supporting a new system (the
coming of the kingdom of God and the
arrival of the end of times) where
resources are not wasted on “things to
be destroyed” and where righteousness is
indicated by the public advocacy of the
most vulnerable among us, not taking
their money.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
June
7, 2006
Nonbiblical-bible literalists and
consumeric marketers on the same page
Here is wisdom: Let
him who has understanding calculate
the number of the beast, for the
number is that of a man; and his
number is six hundred and sixty-six
(revelation 13:18).
All day, from many
differing sources, I had to listen to
those making the observation that June
6, 2006 was 666 day. NO IT WASN’T!
Even if you write it in it’s abbreviated
form, it was 6606 day—that’s 6/6/06 or
6/6/2006, not 666. But true to form we
had nonbiblical-bible literalists and
consumeric marketers all on the same
page for a day (which came and went, by
the way, as any other day on the
planet). The remake of the Omen
opened on June 6, 2006 (not 666) and
countless end-time watchers utilized the
coincidental date to promote their brand
of poor bible teaching. Listen folks,
even the Biblical reference in
Revelation 13 is figurative—666 is
figurative—and points to a person or
persons not a date. (I lean toward
persons anyway, but we can argue that
elsewhere.) In fact, 666 is, without
question, a gematria, that is, a number
representing the spelling of a word or
name. No one disputes that Nero’s
gematria is 666 (the adding up of
corresponding letters-to-numbers adds to
666). Also, if you look closely at good
translations, there is a textual
footnote in many Bibles that indicates
that some manuscripts actually have
616. That’s because Nero is spelt two
ways (Neros,
NeroV
and Nero,
Nero)
in Greek, each with differing gematria
results—616 and 666. Although the
emperor Nero is the obvious referent,
Saint John’s intention was probably to
harness the anti-Christian stance of
Nero’s king-of-the-world position and
symbolically simply point to humanity
(anti-messiah humanity) as a whole. I
am not convinced that 666 or 616 points
to a specific person at all. The last of
verse 18 is often translated, “for the
number is that of a man,” giving the
impression the beast = a man. But the
Greek can be as well translated “for the
number is that of humanity.” In fact,
if you search the Revelation for all the
references to the word “number” or to
numbers themselves, every single one,
with no exception, is always figurative
and symbolic. In fact, when the word
“number” (ariqmoV)
is used, it most often means
“uncountable.” When the once
boiled-in-oil, left on a prison-isle,
Apostle John was faithfully portraying a
heavenly message to convince the Church
on the mainland to be remain faithful, I
am sure of one thing: John was not
portraying the anti-Christian and
anti-messiah beast in Revelation 13 so
it could be used to market movies,
promote books, or (and especially) scare
and control church people. Now that’s a
mark of the beast!
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
April
4, 2006
What are you wasting? (Part Two)
Now when Jesus was in
Bethany, at the home of Simon the
leper, a woman came to Him with an
alabaster vial of very costly
perfume, and she poured it on His
head as He reclined at the table.
But the disciples
were indignant when they saw this,
and said, “Why this waste? For this
perfume might have been sold for a
high price and the money given to
the poor.” But Jesus, aware of
this, said to them, “Why do you
bother the woman? For she has done
a good deed to Me. For you always
have the poor with you; but you do
not always have Me. For when she
poured this perfume on My body, she
did it to prepare Me for burial.
Truly I say to you, wherever this
gospel is preached in the whole
world, what this woman has done will
also be spoken of in memory of
her." (Matthew 26:6-13).
This story in the life of
Christ, as mentioned in the previous
Gemara,
deals with a latent sense of false
righteousness that can easily be passed
off by the community of faith as a
righteous, separatist stand on purity.
“We don’t associate with that kind!”
This attitude hits at two unrighteous
levels of expression: First, the
rejectionist, self-righteous attitude of
purity cuts across the truth of the
Kingdom of God, namely that all have
access to God through Christ’s gracious
gift of His death. This should hit hard
at our view of the disciples and
so-called righteous spiritual
leaders—they didn’t get it as to why
Jesus was here; however, this rejected,
sinner, prostitute of a woman, she gets
it. This woman understands that Jesus
is to die, for we read that she pours
the perfume on Jesus as a sign, a
preparation for His burial. What a
scene. The tables are turned. The one
being most rejected from the table of
the Kingdom is the one who understands
Jesus must die. Secondly, the
self-righteous comments about the
“costly perfume” being sold and the
funds being distributed to the poor have
an ironic, even comic side to it. Jesus
cuts the self-righteous attitude into a
million little pieces of dung with his
comment, “For
you always have the poor with you.”
This ironic thing was, they had someone
poor right there in their midst—this
sinful woman! The comment should have
been: “This woman has humbled us, for
she has understood why Jesus came to
earth. Someone make sure she is
clothed, fed, and has a job (and health
care!). That phrase “For you always
have the poor with you” is often used to
justify why it is futile to tend to the
needs of the poor. But this is hardly a
comment about the availability of the
poor—their continued abundance. No.
This is a comment that the poor will
always be associated with the Christian
community—they will always be in its
midst, just as this woman is now in
their midst. As someone reminds the
Christian community, we take care of the
poor to humble us, to remind us of the
grace given to us. Problem is, our
self-righteousness will be a barrier to
this Kingdom principle. That is why
this woman will be remembered far longer
than all the self-righteous so-called
spiritual people that are in her midst.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
April
2, 2006
What are you wasting? (Part One)
Now when Jesus was in
Bethany, at the home of Simon the
leper, a woman came to Him with an
alabaster vial of very costly
perfume, and she poured it on His
head as He reclined at the table.
But the disciples
were indignant when they saw this,
and said, “Why this waste? For this
perfume might have been sold for a
high price and the money given to
the poor.” But Jesus, aware of
this, said to them, “Why do you
bother the woman? For she has done
a good deed to Me. For you always
have the poor with you; but you do
not always have Me. For when she
poured this perfume on My body, she
did it to prepare Me for burial.
Truly I say to you, wherever this
gospel is preached in the whole
world, what this woman has done will
also be spoken of in memory of
her." (Matthew 26:6-13).
Odds are, the vast
majority of times this passage is
preached, taught, read, or heard, we are
apt to want to identify with the “woman”
who is accepted by Jesus. In Luke’s use
of the story (Luke 7:37-39), we like
that the women (who is a “sinner”) is,
in the face of rejection, snide
comments, and judgments, forgiven by
Jesus. Whereas we like to find
ourselves touched by the story in that
we, too, are accepted by Jesus and can
receive his gracious offer of
forgiveness, Matthew and Luke (as well
as Mark in 14:3-9) wants us to identify
with the judging Pharisees and, as well,
the too-quick-to-judge disciples (yes,
they’re culpable, too, here!). I can’t
find in any of the passages, whether in
Matthew’s version or Luke’s or even
Mark’s, one hint that we are to see this
story as one to point out how loved and
accepted we are and how free God’s
forgiveness is (although all true for
sure, but that’s not the point). We
hear this story from the life of Jesus
and we act (in applying it) as if it
were meant to warm the hard of sinners
(“you, too, can receive Jesus’
forgiveness) or it was told to affirm to
our own hearts that though we might be
judged and rejected, Jesus loves us and
accepts us “just as we are.” This is a
poor reading of this text. I believe
many Christians like Christianity
because we can tell others how “I” am
supposed to be treated—“see God says so
in the Bible.” We have this backwards.
Christianity, that is following Christ,
is all about how we are to treat
others. That’s why we read (hear) this,
and parables like it, backwards. This
parable, as most are, are in our canon
in order to define whom us, the
community of faith, that is, who we are
supposed to be. We are to be wasting
our selves on the undesirable. As my
pastor said (and I agree), we all too
often place sins like adultery
(apparently what made this woman a
“sinner”) as worse than
self-righteousness. The authors of our
Gospels want us to identify ourselves in
the community who was judging this
woman, and once recognized as
self-righteous we are to redefine
ourselves as a community of faith that
understand the Gospel is for all people,
especially the undesirable. For in the
end, it will indeed happen, that the
self-righteous will be the truly
undesirable and they will not have
access to the Kingdom of God.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
January 30, 2006
He who has ears to hear—why I am glad I
wrote “The Sower who sows”
“That day Jesus went
out of the house and was sitting by
the sea. And large crowds gathered
to Him, so He got into a boat and
sat down, and the whole crowd was
standing on the beach.
And He spoke many
things to them in parables, saying,
‘Behold, the sower went out to sow;
and as he sowed, some seeds fell
beside the road, and the birds came
and ate them up. Others fell on the
rocky places, where they did not
have much soil; and immediately they
sprang up, because they had no depth
of soil. But when the sun had
risen, they were scorched; and
because they had no root, they
withered away. Others fell among
the thorns, and the thorns came up
and choked them out. And others
fell on the good soil and yielded a
crop, some a hundredfold, some
sixty, and some thirty. He who has
ears, let him hear” (Matthew
13:1-9).
I knew I’d be frustrated,
itchy, uncomfortable. Here we go again,
I said to myself—applying the parable of
the Sower who sows as if Jesus was
actually telling me, and other “poor
soiled” people, to change our soil
(i.e., change our hearts). “Be good
soil.” Simply put: ain’t there in the
text—nowhere, nada,
isn’t even hinted at. Totally made up.
And I don’t care who says it, whether it
is John MacArthur (whom I have heard
preach it that way), my own pastor, or
my best friend. Such a view of Matthew
13:1ff
(and Mark 4) is a grid—an idea—placed on
the text, not one derived from the text.
You can read my
Rough Cut
exegesis of Mark 4 , “The
Sower who sows,” for
yourself. I also believe the same
exegetical conclusions can be made of
the Matthew 13 text—and even more so.
What interests me here is the way the
following six parables, all in chapter
13, are almost totally ignored as to
what Jesus (and Matthew) is getting at.
And, when they are considered, there is
little attempt to make a connection
between the “interpretation” of the
first (i.e., the parable of the Sower)
with the “interpretation” or obvious
conclusions of the last six.
The following six
parables are about the harvesting or the
value of the Kingdom—the end product of
the age of “sowing,” the way the kingdom
spreads despite difficulties and enemy
sowing, the wideness of the reach of the
Kingdom, and the value of the Kingdom (a
value often hidden), and a separation of
the harvest what is bad and what is
good. The parables are: Tares among
wheat, vv 24-20, 36-43; the mustard
seed, vv 31-32; the leaven, vv 33-35;
hidden treasure, v 44; a costly pearl,
vv 45-46; and a dragnet, vv 47-52. Each
parable helps explain the nature of the
others, and it is said, “If you don’t
get the first one” (i.e., the Sower),
how can you get any of them. If read in
context, without placing a “heart” or
“change your soil” grid over the text
(which isn’t there in the first place),
the hearing is for disciples to
participate in the actions of the Sower—to
follow the mission of the Sower. And,
to add to the tension, the drama of the
gospel story, Matthew records an
immediate encounter as “Jesus Revisits
Nazareth” (vv 52-58) and finds “poor
soil” among His own family and
hometown. Why didn’t he just tell them,
“Change your soil?”
Even my wife said today
as she was reading through the Matthew
text, “I see it, just sow the seed no
matter what. It is about the sowing.
We’re not to determine what kind of soil
we are sowing on.” The one who has ears
to hear, let him (or her) hear. We
need to hear from this text, that is we
who are Jesus' followers, His disciples,
that we, too, are to be about the
business of His Kingdom, sowing the seed
of the Gospel, despite obstacles and
enemy sowing, and let God care for the
soil. The Master Sower knows what
He is doing; for those who have ears to
hear, we follow the Master Sower.
Rough Cut,
"The Sower who sows"…
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
January 2, 2006
Answering the right question from
widow’s two small coins story
“And He sat down
opposite the treasury, and began
observing how the people were
putting money into the treasury; and
many rich people were putting in
large sums. A poor widow came and
put in two small copper coins, which
amount to a cent. Calling His
disciples to Him, He said to them,
‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow
put in more than all the
contributors to the treasury; for
they all put in out of their
surplus, but she, out of her
poverty, put in all she owned, all
she had to live on’” (Mark
12:41-44).
I have begun drafting a
paper I hope to present at the next
Evangelical Theological Society annual
meeting (in ’06), which just happens to
be in Washington DC and on “Christianity
in the Public Square.” Right up my
vocational alley. I have decided I want
to write a paper that demonstrates how a
text of Scripture should mold the local
church’s presence, community action, and
voice in the public square. My
working title is:
“Widows in our Temple
Courts (Mk 12:41-44): Molding the
local congregation for the public
square”
Obviously I am working
with the Mark 12 story of the poor widow
whom Jesus compares to the wealthier
givers. Although I will develop the
paper through the exegesis of this text,
I am struck by the popular
interpretation that most have of this
passage. Most seem to understand Jesus
to be illustrating, through the widow,
how we are supposed to be more committed
to “giving” money to the church. In
fact, this text is often used to provoke
more giving or at least more guilt in
order to provoke us to give more—and
usually give more of to the church
budget. Pastors and preachers are more
utilitarian in their approach to
interpreting the sacred text than they
are biblical or exegetical. Nothing at
all in this text suggests that is how
Jesus intends this story to be applied.
Nothing. Not a hint. In fact, both
times the same story is used by Mark and
Luke (chapter 21), it immediately
precedes the passage on the destruction
of the temple. The widow is offering
all she had to a system that 1) is
corrupt, 2) religiously flawed and would
ultimately reject and kill the Messiah,
3) offers little protection, civically, to
the vulnerable (like the widow), and,
most notable in the text, 4) would soon
be destroyed.
“As He was going out
of the temple, one of His disciples
said to Him, ‘Teacher, behold what
wonderful stones and what wonderful
buildings!’ And Jesus said to him,
‘Do you see these great buildings?
Not one stone will be left upon
another which will not be torn
down’” (Mark 13:1-2).
Contextually, the “you
should give sacrificially to the church”
is not in the text—in fact I find such a
rationale for church giving turns the
text on its head. The text screams
out—she isn’t supposed to be giving, she
shouldn’t have to. The widow’s life
would soon be dismantled for the system
she supports with her sacrificial
offering will soon be destroyed. This
text should mold the local
congregation. The story bridges the
section where Messiah Jesus answers a
series of questions which point out how
wrong the keepers of the system are and
the destruction of the temple with
Jesus’ teaching on faithful obedience.
The story of the widow is meant to move
the local church in Rome toward a
faithful, obedient, believing community,
molded by the aims of the Gospel, not
the sustaining of a new religious system
that utilizes earthly structures to
maintain itself. The question for the
church (and by this I mean the local
expression of the church, i.e., the
church community within a municipality)
is not, how much are we to give to the
church system, but what are we making
the vulnerable among us pay for? What
system are we supporting, and does that
system take advantage of the poor and
place undo burdens on them? Hearing
these questions arise from this story
places the church within the public
square and if answered biblically,
offers God’s voice in that public
square. Hearing this text in its own
setting moves us to different
application, less on how we pay for
church and more on who we are in the
public square.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
October 30, 2005
Turning curse into blessing—to the ends
of the earth
“Now the
LORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from
your country, and from your
relatives and from your father's
house, to the land which I will show
you; and I will make you a great
nation, and I will bless
you, and make your name great; and
so you shall be a blessing;
and I will bless those
who bless you, and the
one who curses you I will curse and
in you all the families of the earth
will be blessed’”
(Genesis 12:1-3).
Andreas
Kosternberger and Peter O’Brien, in
their book Salvation to the Ends of
the Earth: A biblical theology of
mission, make the observation that
in Genesis 1-11, the word curse is used
five times and that these five “curses”
are met with the five times “blessing”
is used in Genesis 12:1-3, Abram’s call
to go. We should be thankful that there
are those who discover and observe what
might be glossed over in causal
reading. We have here “in the summons
of Abram [soon to become father
Abraham]…the divine response to the
human disaster of Genesis 3-11."
“The
LORD God said to the serpent,
‘Because you have done this,
cursed are you more than all
cattle, and more than every beast of
the field; on your belly you will
go, and dust you will eat all the
days of your life’” (Genesis 3:14).
“Then to
Adam He said, ‘Because you have
listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten from the tree about
which I commanded you, saying, “You
shall not eat from it”; cursed
is the ground because of you; in
toil you will eat of it all the days
of your life’” (Genesis 3:17).
“Now you
are cursed from the ground,
which has opened its mouth to
receive your brother's blood from
your hand” (Genesis 4:11).
“Now he
called his name Noah, saying, ‘This
one will give us rest from our work
and from the toil of our hands
arising from the ground which the
LORD has cursed’” (Genesis
5:29).
“So he
said, ‘Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants He shall
be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25).
God, through
the calling of Abraham, would make “His
blessings flow far as the curse is
found” as the Christmas Hymn “Joy to the
World” reminds us. The effects of the
devil (i.e., the serpent), the
consequence of sin on the workings of
the world, and the results of sin in the
heart and outcomes of man find their
reversal in God’s redemptive narrative,
actuated in the call of Abraham and
moved through human history. The
calling of Abraham is both promise and
prophecy. God promises to bring
redemptive blessing through the human
narrative—through history, culminating
in the cross and resurrection of Jesus
Christ—and has indicated that His
mission is to bring salvation to the
ends of the earth—to all the families of
the earth.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note... |
|
October 25, 2005
Taking the poor and meek out of the poor
and meek, Part II
“Blessed are the poor
in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).
“Blessed are the
gentle, for they shall inherit the
earth” (Matthew 5:5).
Previously on October 23,
I suggested two overlooked aspects to
consider when reading Matthew 5, verses 3
and 5. Now for numbers 3 and 4…
3) I use the New American
Standard Bible above, where in Matthew
5:5, the word under consideration is
translated gentle. The New
International Version and the King James
Version render the Greek, meek.
NIV—“Blessed are the
meek, for they will inherit the
earth”
KJV—“Blessed are the
meek: for they shall inherit the
earth.”
The Message, which is not
a translation, but a paraphrased
interpretation—and sometimes a poor one
at that—destroys all of Jesus intention
and causes barriers to any original
understanding or historic meaning:
TM—“You're blessed
when you're content with just who
you are--no more, no less. That's
the moment you find yourselves proud
owners of everything that can't be
bought.”
The TM rendering makes me ill, actually.
Not only does it take the poor out of
pour and the meek out of meek, it tells
them to accept their status. The more I dig, the more
these verses really deserve a
Rough Cut
exegetical essay—but, still, for another
time. The word used here for meek/gentle
is prays (πραΰς) and its Old
Testament (Hebrew) equivalents are ΄ānî
and more generally ΄ānāw. The
sense for both the Hebrew and the Greek
is poor,
afflicted, humble, and
meek. Never strong, nor strong
under control. The connotation is
one who is disenfranchised, without a
voice to advocate on one’s behalf,
without means, and functionally, one who
lacks owned property. An OT example is
found Psalm 37, verses 11 and 14:
“But the humble will
inherit the land and will delight
themselves in abundant prosperity”
(v 11).
“The wicked have
drawn the sword and bent their bow
to cast down the afflicted and the
needy, to slay those who are upright
in conduct” (14).
The Hebrew understanding
gives the sense that the poor and
meek were those in Israel who
were without property. They are wrongly
disinherited and deprived of status,
even of God’s blessing. They are often
victims of exploitation (Isaiah 32:7,
Job 24:4, and as mentioned already, Ps
37:14). In OT language, the poor
and meek change from being the
earth’s needy to those who humbly cry
out for the help only God can give, or
the ones who have found that help. In
Matthew, some commentators have posited that the
poor of verse 3 and the
gentle/meek of verse 5 are both
actually the poor (I agree
actually).
4) We
understand that Jesus became poor on our
behalf. In Matthew He also explains
that he is “gentle” (meek) and “humble
in heart” (11:29), and by yoking
ourselves with Him and learning from Him
we will “find rest for our souls”
(probably a reference to Isaiah 66:2).
The attributes of humility and meekness
attributed to Jesus are, not because He
is strong, yet controlling His
attitudes, but because, in His messiah
status, He too is without inheritance,
with no place to lay His head. Like
Jesus, those who follow Him, that is,
His disciples, will find that they might
be bereft of status and place in this
life, but theirs is the Kingdom of
Heaven and they will inherit the earth.
This is why they are blessed,
namely because eyes of flesh and the
pride of life offer place and status in
this life, but those—even those who are
without status and place—who follow the
Messiah and His ways will find ultimate
reward in the end of days.
The Sermon
on the Mount turns everything in this
earthly life on its head. I am
wondering why we keep turning it back?
I believe we, as modern
American Christians, are so far from the intentions of Jesus'
words here that we need
to take out the sting and replace it
with modern, more comfortable concepts.
Perhaps we are afraid that these verses
might not apply to us because we are the
opposite of poor and meek--namely we
prize and treasure ownership of the
things or earth and crave the status we
have "in the flesh."
See October 23,
2005
Gemara for Numbers 1 and 2...
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
October 23, 2005
Taking the poor and meek out of the poor
and meek, Part I
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
(Matthew 5:3).
“Blessed are the gentle, for they
shall inherit the earth” (Matthew
5:5).
Deserving a more thorough Rough Cut,
suffice here to say, it is wrong to take
the poor out of the poor in
spirit and to make the meek
anything but the meek. In recent times
I have heard from those speaking in
God’s place that the “poor in spirit”
referred to by Jesus on that hill far
away were not really poor (economically)
but those who are poor in their
spirit, that is “blessed are the poor in
spirit who are depressed and feeling bad
about themselves, for the kingdom of God
belongs to them.” And to make matters
worse, I heard that the meek referred to
by Jesus on that same hill were really
not the meek but “the strong who are in
control of their attitudes” who will
inherit the earth. Changing Jesus’
meaning and now intended to be
understood:
“Blessed are those who feel bad
about themselves for the kingdom of
God belongs to them…Blessed are the
strong who control their attitudes
for they will inherit the earth.”
This poor interpretation and exchanging
of the meanings of poor and
meek turns Jesus’ words on their
head, making them actually the opposite
of their original intention. A few
factors are overlooked, forgotten, or
ignored in hearing these texts.
1)
First, we know from Luke’s account, the
“Sermon on the Mount” took place as
Jesus was finishing up some
direct-contact ministry:
“Jesus came down with them and stood
on a level place; and there was a
large crowd of His disciples, and a
great throng of people from all
Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal
region of Tyre and Sidon, who had
come to hear Him and to be healed of
their diseases; and those who were
troubled with unclean spirits were
being cured. And all the people were
trying to touch Him, for power was
coming from Him and healing them
all. And turning His gaze toward
His disciples, He began to say,
‘Blessed are you who are poor, for
yours is the kingdom of God…’” (Luke
6:17-20).
We know from Matthew’s
own account that Jesus had attracted
crowds that followed him, multitudes
made up from the sick, those suffering
from diseases and pain, those
possessed, and invalids.
Both accounts tell us that there were
even those from gentile (pagan)
territories such as Tyre and Sidon and
Syria:
“Jesus was going throughout all
Galilee, teaching in their
synagogues and proclaiming the
gospel of the kingdom, and healing
every kind of disease and every kind
of sickness among the people. The
news about Him spread throughout all
Syria; and they brought to Him all
who were ill, those suffering with
various diseases and pains,
demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics;
and He healed them. Large crowds
followed Him from Galilee and the
Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan” (Matthew
4:23-25).
The crowds who listened in that day
would have been surprised to find out
that Jesus wasn’t speaking to the or
about them, nor promising them anything.
2)
Jesus wasn’t speaking to a 21st
century audience of self-reflecting,
introspective Americans. No, he was—as
above indicates—speaking to the crowds
of people who were attracted to his
ministry and words who lived in that day
and time. We know the crowds were the
people of the land, the politically weak
and powerless, the voiceless, and
economically dependent on the alms of
two governments with powerful structures
for the elite and privileged (i.e.,
Roman and Sanhedrin). These who gladly
heard His voice were those who didn’t
own a stake in the land and who were
without landed property. It would be to
them the kingdom of God belongs and it
was promised to them that they’d inherit
the earth. It was to them, and their
poor and humble status, that Jesus spoke
of a new kingdom for which there would
be a place for them. Jesus promised
that they’d “inherit the earth,” not the
rich and powerful. Jesus, the new king,
would turn everything on its head.
Numbers 3 & 4 in Part II…
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
October 14, 2005
Jesus came to his own, and we didn’t
receive Him
“He came to His own, and those who
were His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them
He gave the right to become children
of God, even to those who believe in
His name, who were born, not of
blood nor of the will of the flesh
nor of the will of man, but of God”
(John 1:11-13).
I
am struck by these words. Always have
been. I know, many Christians memorize
John 1:12-13 as life verses or verses of
assurance of salvation. I certainly did
when I was a young Christian. But,
that’s not what these verses are for.
In the first verse above, verse 11 adds
an interesting spin to consider. (Some
Greek here.) Literally John uses the
word “own” in two distinct ways to
actually give the sense
“He came to His own place,
and those who were His own people
did not receive Him.”
This in itself isn’t
shocking: we know the story. Jesus came
from heaven to the land of Israel and
the people, the Jewish people didn’t
acknowledge Him as the messiah. We know
that. Now think about it: the people in
that place were the one’s who thought
they had assurance of salvation by
virtue of being born in that place—in
Israel as Israelites—and acting the
part. Their “not receiving” Jesus
however put that assurance in jeopardy.
Now, for why John is writing this in the
first place: We must remember that John
is not writing a history lesson. And, I
highly doubt the apostle penned verses
12 and 13 as assurance of salvation
verses to memorize (especially by us
contemporary Christians). John writes
to a Christian community that apparently
is having a hard time believing who
Jesus is and why He came. As if Jesus
comes now to His own church (the use of
“own place” by John here might even
suggest a particular church for
application) and His own people (i.e.,
Christians) didn’t/don’t receive Him.
Now that’s shocking. But we,
evangelicals feel safe—or should we be?
My reading and rereading on church
growth, the practices and principles, as
well as the poor theology stemming from
the mix (I am including all contemporary
types in this general sweep), draws me
back to these verses on a regular
basis. I am not opposed to reforming
how we “do” things, nor against
up-dating what we do. But our modern,
mechanical, often staged methods of
evangelism, worship, and outreach are
more like the Baal worship and beliefs
of ancient non-Israelites than of
biblical roots. We act out what we want
God to do. But John reminds me that it
is those who receive Him by His doing,
not by being born into the place, not by
the will of our fleshly methodologies,
but by the will of God. Rethinking
church and ministry and “growth” should
at least include these verses of
caution.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
October 5, 2005
Speaking for God when he is silent, very
dangerous
"Now
when he had spent everything, a
severe famine occurred in that
country, and he began to be
impoverished. So
he went and hired himself out to
one of the citizens of that
country, and he sent him into
his fields to feed swine. And
he would have gladly filled his
stomach with the pods that the
swine were eating, and no one
was giving anything to him. But
when he came to his senses, he
said, 'How many of my father's
hired men have more than enough
bread, but I am dying here with
hunger!'" (Luke 15:14-17).
When God is silent, we
should not assume we can supply His
Word. This is why exegesis is so
important (vs. the danger of eisegesis,
reading into the text), and why
application should follow exegesis and
should not be confused with
interpretation. I heard Rick
Warren (of Purpose-Driven Life
fame) on Sean Hannity yesterday (but it
could have been any supposed TV
Christian personality) when he made a
comment about "tough love" being applied
to substance abuse addicts. I have
to ponder more whether I agreed with his
approach to addiction, but it was his
"God would have us show tough love"
comment and that he received that
principle from the Prodigal Son story in
Luke's Gospel. Warren said we have
a prime example in what the father did
not do: when the son was eating with the
pigs as a result of leaving the family
and living a sinful, fast life, "the
father didn't send care packages."
How do we know that?
Whether he did or didn't? How does
Warren know?
Can we make principles out of what
the father didn't do? Problem is,
we do not have an exhaustive story--we
don't know what the father did and
didn't do other than being sure of what
is described in the story. The text
doesn't say whether the father searched
for the son or not. It doesn't
tell us whether he sent him "care
packages" or not. Jesus, the story
teller, is silent on this. If we
want to assume anything, we could assume
that the Father did search for his son,
since the previous two stories
(parables) show the
principle characters as ones who
searches for what is lost. But I
personally would not go there since I
don't know. I wasn't so much
thinking about what the parable of the
Prodigal Son meant (although I certainly
have an interpretation in mind and it
surely isn't one suggesting anything
remotely related to father-son
relationships or tough love). I
was concerned about how casually, on
public radio, speaking to millions of
people, someone could pull a word from
God from a place in Scripture where God
is silent--a word not from the text of
Scripture. I recall a chapel
speaker once who made a point in his
sermon from Genesis 12 A, the chapter he
assumed was there between Genesis 12 and
Genesis 13. We are in dangerous
waters, no matter how popular one is, no
matter how many copies of one's book has
been sold, not matter how big one's
church is, when we speak for God,
claiming His voice from places in
Scripture where He is silent. This
was very bothersome to me. Happens
all the time--just rarely on a secular
radio talk show.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
September 30, 2005
Have we heard? What are we listening to?
“God, after He spoke long ago
to the fathers in the prophets in
many portions and in many ways, in
these last days has spoken to
us in His Son, whom He appointed
heir of all things, through whom
also He made the world” (Hebrews
1:1-2).
I
hadn’t caught it before as I should
have. One would think I would,
especially for reading it at least a
hundred times, studying it, and
preaching through it in earlier days.
The writer of Hebrews (who I believe to
be Luke, Paul’s companion) is concerned
about our hearing and the
outcomes of hearing in our lives. I
don’t think our pastor was making the
connection—and I don’t even remember why
he was quoting or referring to the verse
in Hebrews, but that’s when I heard the
connection.
“See to it that you do not refuse
Him who is speaking. For if
those did not escape when they
refused him who warned them on
earth, much less will we escape who
turn away from Him who warns
from heaven” (Hebrews 12:25).
As
pastor referred to Hebrews 12:25, I
noticed the speaking connection
between the author’s introduction and
what amounts to his “theological”
concluding remarks in Hebrews 12.
(Hebrews 13 is really a postscript and a
rather lengthy benediction or
farewell.) All throughout Hebrews the
writer encourages us to hear the “many
ways” and various “portions” of God’s
voice from the Old Testament. These
voices (OT quotes, allusions, and
themes) spoke about God’s final voice,
His final Word, namely His Son. I have
preached it this way too—in earlier
days—but we tend to minimize, shrink the
“sin” that so “easily entangles us”
(Hebrews 12:1) to just the privatized or
the personnel sins we commit. And as we
do so, we miss the larger, more
important aspect the writer indents:
Hearing how God spoke through His Son
and what that implies. The sin
is abandoning God’s final voice, his
penultimate spoken Word; replacing,
changing, exchanging that voice for the
multiple voices that clutter our hearing
and make it difficult to obey.
Listening to the final Word puts us at
odds with the world. Shoot, it puts us
at odds with much of our own faith
community.
What was spoken was passed down, passed
on:
“For this reason we must pay much
closer attention to what we have
heard, so that we do not drift
away from it. For if the word
spoken through angels proved
unalterable, and every transgression
and disobedience received a just
penalty, how will we escape if we
neglect so great
a
salvation? After it was at the
first spoken through the
Lord, it was confirmed to us by
those who heard” (Hebrews
2:1-3).
We are to heed
the final voice.
“Remember
those who led you, who spoke
the word of God to you; and
considering the result of their
conduct, imitate their faith”
(Hebrews 13:7).
And now the way others
hear the final voice is through the
faith and conduct of those who lead and
“speak the word of God to you.” We are
to consider what the outcomes of their
hearing have produced and imitate their
faith. What onus on church leadership.
Are their outcomes just a result of
civic faith, popular Christianity, an
American life? What cloud of witnesses
makes up church leadership today?
Hebrews might very well be a warning,
not just to average Christians to “give
up privatized sins of the flesh,” but a
warning to church leaders that the
church community follows their lead.
And what they hear decides what we
imitate. What do they listen to? What
do our church leaders hear? And then,
consider the result of their conduct and
imitate their faith. That's what
we should be listening to.
PS
Hebrews, moved away from responding in
our privatized, personal way, has
implications about the nature of the
church and its mission. I think it
is time we start listening better.
A fresh and perhaps a more appropriate
hearing of this sermon (i.e., Hebrews)
needs unpacking. I have to listen
better.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
September 27, 2005
Our arrogant
misunderstanding of our insightfulness
“For
you are still fleshly. For since
there is jealousy and strife among
you, are you not fleshly, and are
you not walking like mere men? For
when one says, "I am of Paul," and
another, "I am of Apollos," are you
not mere men? What then is Apollos?
And what is Paul? Servants through
whom you believed, even as the Lord
gave opportunity to each one. I
planted, Apollos watered, but God
was causing the growth. So then
neither the one who plants nor the
one who waters is anything, but God
who causes the growth. Now he who
plants and he who waters are one;
but each will receive his own reward
according to his own labor. For we
are God's fellow workers; you are
God's field, God's building” (1
Corinthians 3:3-9).
These verses should
humble every leading evangelical church
growth “expert” and guru and wannabe.
Every pastor. Every undershepherd of
the flock. It sure humbled and
convicted me as a Christian college
professor. Always pontificating as if I
am right, as if my words were next to
God’s, as if I received them straight
from the Spirit Himself. Acting as if I
got, the right insight, and everyone
else is missing it. Don’t get me
wrong. I have deep convictions about
the Word and what the original authors
through the Holy Spirit meant when they
wrote down their words. I have deep
convictions about the Word’s
application, especially for the
up-to-date- church. I certainly don’t
mean to say I should be more wishie-washing
on interpretation of sacred text, or
that I should be more open-minded. I am
talking about confessing my arrogance.
We picture Martin Luther taking his
stand before the Council as strong,
prideful, maybe even defiant.
“Unless I am
convinced by proofs from Scriptures
or by plain and clear reasons and
arguments, I can and will not
retract, for it is neither safe nor
wise to do anything against
conscience. Here I stand. I can do
no other. God help me. Amen.”
Yet earlier, the great
reformer pleaded with God, confessed a
desire to just go home and live in
peace, not troubled by the stand he must
make against, who he called, wise
counsel and elders, more learned, and
stand for his conviction of the
supremacy of God’s Word. So his words
before the Council were more humble,
contrite, even reluctant. These words
from the Apostle Paul should strike at
our heart, pierce through our
misunderstanding of the nature of the
Church. Reggie McNeal is right in his
book, The Present Future, when he says:
“…we have the best
churches men can build, but we are
still waiting for the church that
only God can get credit for” (p.
23).
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
September 25, 2005
The church isn't 98th and Vine
Do you
not know that you are a temple of
God and that the Spirit of God
dwells in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16).
The English word “you”
and our contemporary western concept of
individualism moves us to interpret
verses addressed to “you,” like I
Corinthians 3:16, as meaning “me.” We
don't bother looking up the Greek word
Paul uses--it is plural, not singular.
We also don’t take into consideration
context—which Paul has already pointed
to as being “the church” as a whole.
The Apostle wrote in verse 9, “For we
are God's fellow workers; you are God's
field, God's building.” The “we” are
the apostolic church plants in Paul’s
entourage and the “you” is the Church at
Corinth. I am not denying the Holy
Spirit’s indwelling of the believer—He
does indeed. But, that’s not what this
text is about, and a forced privatized,
individualistic reading of text’s like
this leads us away from both the text’s
meaning and robs us of God’s intentions
for His Church. I am planning a Rough
Cut on this text in the near future—at
least before I am 50!. But for now, my
thoughts are simple: We should read
this text…
“Do you,
the Church at Corinth, not know that
you, the whole Church that inhabits
the City of Corinth, are a temple of
God and that the Spirit of God
dwells among you [a way better
understanding of Paul’s grammar
here]?”
We think of
Church as 300 North Benson Road or the
Church at 98th Street and
Vine. Or we think of Church as those
who attend Trinity Baptist or those who
attend the First Congregational Church.
We think geographically narrow with
displaced members shattered at addresses
in the area. We think singularly. We
have a pastor or pastoral team and we
are a church in the area--that makes us
a church. Paul on the other hand sees
the church wholly, the Church of…name
that city like Corinth or regional like
Galatia. Paul thinks of building; we
translate that into God builds “our”
church. Paul thinks of foundation
laying and God building the church as a
temple where God’s presence dwells. The
picture of “growth” here that God causes
is one where the foundation expands, and
as a result the temple (with all the
connotations of God as King and ruler,
the One who has the right and authority
to rule) enlarges to cover more ground
and God who dwells in this temple
expands His Kingly presence in new
territory, both geographically and in
people's lives. I believe we need a new
theology of the church, one that is not
built on our western individualism, and
certainly, not one built on the
new-up-to-date praxis of hip and trendy
redefiners of church life (which is
again, only built on what American's a
like today as opposed to what they were
like yesterday). But one build on the
text of Scripture.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
August 15, 2005
Redemptive reversal: The 3000
“He said to them,
‘Thus says the LORD, the God of
Israel, “Every man of you put his
sword upon his thigh, and go back
and forth from gate to gate in the
camp, and kill every man his
brother, and every man his friend,
and every man his neighbor.’” So
the sons of Levi did as Moses
instructed, and about three thousand
men of the people fell that day.
Then Moses said, “Dedicate
yourselves today to the LORD--for
every man has been against his son
and against his brother--in order
that He may bestow a blessing upon
you today” (Exodus
32:27-29).
“‘Therefore let all
the house of Israel know for certain
that God has made Him both Lord and
Christ--this Jesus whom you
crucified.’ Now when they heard
this, they were pierced to the
heart, and said to Peter and the
rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren,
what shall we do?’
Peter said to them,
‘Repent, and each of you be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins; and you
will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit. For the promise is for you
and your children and for all who
are far off, as many as the Lord our
God will call to Himself.’ And with
many other words he solemnly
testified and kept on exhorting
them, saying, ‘Be saved from this
perverse generation!’ So then,
those who had received his word were
baptized; and that day there were
added about three thousand souls”
(Acts 2:26-41).
I
share these two texts from Exodus and
Acts with you this morning, first
because I am so proud of my daughter
Amanda, and second, there is a nice
connection here to be seen. Yesterday,
my daughter, who is twelve, told me
about the sermon she heard at church.
The preacher was making a connection,
she said, between the 3,000 saved on the
day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and the 3,000
slain by Moses when he returned with the
ten commandments and found Israel
playing with idols at the foot of the
mountain (Exodus 32). As a father, I
was so impressed that she, one, would
have been paying attention enough to the
sermon to remember that (at the end of
the day) and, two, that she would find
that an interesting observation.
And is is an interesting one!
For a long time I have
understood the occasion of Pentecost had
a connection to “the giving of the
Law.” But I never made a
promise-fulfillment the connection
between the two events, nor a connection
with the 3,000 until my daughter pointed
it out to me yesterday afternoon. It
was like discovering a redemptive
reversal. The newly formed
Israelite community, after passing
through the divided waters of the Red
Sea (even Paul mentioned this context in
1 Corinthians 10 as
promise-fulfillment), soon betrayed
their Savior God by turning to idols and
worshipping them (Exodus 32). Moses had
been up on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten
Commandments, and after he “descended”
(another noted parallel with the
descending Spirit) the Mountain, while
approaching the Israelite camp, heard
the sounds of playing (i.e., strange
worship)…and you know the rest of the
story…3,000 lives were cut short to
indicate the seriousness of the offense
to the One God who had just rescued them
from slavery. Afterward Moses makes a
promise:
“The next day Moses
said to the people, ‘You have
committed a great sin. But now I
will go up to the LORD; perhaps I
can make atonement for your sin’”
(Exodus 32:30).
The parallel and
fulfillment of that promise is now made
at Pentecost: God’s final redemptive
Exodus had come in its fullness, the
Spirit “descended,” a call of repentance
is issued, and 3,000 respond and are
saved and baptized. Promise
fulfilled.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
August 8, 2005
There continues to be famine in our
midst
“Behold, days are
coming,” declares the Lord God,
“When I will send a famine on the
land, not a famine for bread or a
thirst for water, but rather for
hearing the words of the
Lord. People will stagger
from sea to sea and from the north
even to the east; they will go to
and fro to seek the word of the
Lord, but they will not find
it. In that day the beautiful
virgins and the young men will faint
from thirst” (Amos 8:11-13).
In a current book on
bible promises, you won’t find this
promise. This promise is staggering.
Hopeless. Devastating. And yet, we
bring it on ourselves. How so? We
exchange the words of the Lord for our
words every Sunday morning, from the
very place where there should thunder a
Word from the Lord. We might use the
bible, a text or two, a bible story or
narrative, but it (the text) isn’t
explained—exegeted—it is used to bounce
into our thoughts and appeals. For
sure, some of the things we hear from
the Sunday morning pulpit is filled with
good things, even right things, but
unless the outcome of the preacher’s
words are built on and through the text
of Scripture, that’s all they are, “the
preacher’s words.” The sermon is
replaced with a message, a speech. We
are in the midst of a continued famine.
We die a little more each Sunday. The
problem isn’t that we—from time to
time—have good words (good speeches)
from our preachers, with words and
nuggets of truth for us. Here’s the
problem: When we, no matter how
insightful and “applicable” or
“relevant” the preacher’s words (i.e.,
speech) might be, there is a consequence
for using a text and not explaining
(i.e., exegeting) a text. First there
is no God-given authority (no “thus
sayeth the
Lord); second because of the
ability of the preacher there might be
sentimental response—which usually does
not last or make for a lasting change in
the hearer, sort of like just getting an
“Amen” from the crowd; third, anyone, a
politician, spiritual guru, self-help
speaker, professor, journalist can get a
response from insightful or motivating
words—so what!; and finally, here’s the
real problem, a crap-shoot in the
meaning of the preacher’s own message as
understood by the hearers. What do I
mean by this last comment? The preacher
gets the same result from his listeners
as he has shown in how he has used the
text of Scripture. If a text can mean
anything a preacher wants it to mean,
then their words and message (i.e.,
sermon) will be received the same way:
the audience will give whatever meaning
they want to the preacher’s message.
They same approach the preacher gives to
proof-texting, word-attraction, bouncing
off the text an idea—call it what you
may—will be the same approach the
audience will give to the “sermon.”
That means there will be loads of
meaning given to the “message.” I can
do whatever I want with the preacher’s
words, give it any meaning I desire.
The result, a continued famine of the
Word of the
Lord in our midst. I included
verse 13, “In that day the beautiful
virgins and the young men will faint
from thirst,” because the ultimate,
devastating consequence of a famine of
the Word is the malnourishment and lack
of stamina for our next generation
(i.e., virgins and young men), which
results in their inability to maintain
faithfulness to the
Lord.
Afterthought: If I took
my pastor’s message and retold it, made
it whatever I wanted it to mean, I
wonder if the preacher would appreciate
that, or would he (or she) say, “No,
that’s not what I mean, you need to
explain what I intended my words,
syntax, grammar, context, to mean.”
What an awful mess we have. I am so
thirty!
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
July 27, 2005
Is
it good for poor people?
For if a man comes
into your assembly with a gold ring
and dressed in fine clothes, and
there also comes in a poor man in
dirty clothes, and you pay special
attention to the one who is wearing
the fine clothes, and say, “You sit
here in a good place,” and you say
to the poor man, “You stand over
there, or sit down by my footstool,”
have you not made distinctions among
yourselves, and become judges with
evil motives
(James 2:2-4)?
I know. My hobbyhorse.
My soup box. There Chip goes again.
But between Jesus who reminded His
followers that they always be associated
with the poor and James here, we might
want to consider that every Christian
must include in their thinking the poor
and how they relate to them. A
respected Board member yesterday told me
something I thought a good test of
character. She said, “I have often told
my grandchildren that it all basically
boils down to one thing and if you keep
this in mind, you’ll always make the
right decisions in life: Is it good for
poor people?” I added: “It is good for
those who don’t have a voice or who
aren’t allowed to have a voice?” Now
this nice Board member and I might
disagree on the details of how a
decision might be good (or bad) for the
poor—that’s for sure. I would tend to
believe in long-range decisions (how in
the long run will this effect the
poor?); some would prefer short and
immediate decisions (how will this
effect the poor now, today, and the
next?). (I know somehow it needs to be
both.) And I know these verses here are
about the church and its practices.
But, what of it? How many poor are in
places of honor at (in the) church?
Decision-making? Leadership? Or does
economic standing determine spirituality
and Christian maturity? Let’s be honest
here. My Board member’s comment made me
think about more than just politics and
human services. I was wondering what my
church’s record will be like on that
final day if Jesus asks, “Was it good
for poor people?” He just might you
know.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
July
21, 2005
Connecting the dots and visiting
prisoners (Hebrews 10 and Matthew 25)
“But remember the
former days, when, after being
enlightened, you endured a great
conflict of sufferings, partly by
being made a public spectacle
through reproaches and tribulations,
and partly by becoming sharers with
those who were so treated. For you
showed sympathy to the prisoners and
accepted joyfully the seizure of
your property, knowing that you have
for yourselves a better possession
and a lasting one” (Hebrews
10:32-34).
Sometimes, interpretive
insight is simply “connecting the
dots.” Hearing a text read and
remembering another text that sounds
similar. Just plain paying attention
helps, too. And becoming familiar we
the content of Scripture (for immediate
recall and recollection) doesn’t hurt
the “insight potential” either. (Just
remember, not every text with the same
words are meant to interpret each
other.) This happened a few Sundays ago
while Pastor was reading a text from
Hebrews. The above verses were the ones
that caught my attention. My mind
immediately went to Jesus’ words in
Matthew 25: “I was in prison, and you
came to Me” (Matt 25:36) and “When did
we see You sick, or in prison, and come
to You?” (v 39). I have always been
bothered that the Matthew verses were
used to get people involved with prison
ministries as if that’s what Jesus was
saying. Of course Christians should be
involved with prison ministries, but
that was not the point in Matthew
recording the words. (Again, this is
worth a Rough Cut—some other time.
Here, I am just connecting the dots…) I
have always believed that Jesus’ words
on visiting prisoners went with the
overall theme of Matthew’s Gospel: There
was a certain portion of the church that
did not want to work at incorporating
Gentiles into the fold, opposed such
activities, and refused to believe that
was the intent of the promises of the
kingdom—that is to include the
outsiders, the Gentiles. There were
those who took this task seriously and
it put them in “legal” jeopardy, and for
some, jail. The Matthew text has been
used to say that Jesus is in even the
criminals in jail—and that in visiting
them, you visit (or not visit) Jesus.
(I think this got Tony Compolo in
trouble with the Evangelical community a
while back.) The Hebrews text indicates
that the current (church) faithful
identified with the faithful of the past
who had been jailed because of their
faith. Later the writer of Hebrews
says:
Remember the
prisoners, as though in prison with
them, and those who are ill-treated,
since you yourselves also are in the
body (Hebrews 13:3).
In Matthew, chapter 25
starts with parables of the in-breaking
of the kingdom and how people respond
(and not respond) to this new redemptive
era. The juxtaposition of the parables
(i.e., unfaithful bridesmaids who were
not prepared and the unwilling servants
to bring about the desired end of the
master) and the judgment at the end of
the chapter (where our Matthew “visit
the prisoners” text is found) suggest
that the parties involved are related to
what it means for the kingdom to be
present and what the followers of Christ
are to now invest (do). Hebrews 10 and
Matthew 25 might be talking about the
same thing, suggesting that the
prisoners in Matthew 25 are there
because of their faithfulness to the
promise of the kingdom.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
July 15, 2005
How to find well-being in exile
“But seek the welfare
of the city where I have sent you
into exile, and pray to the
Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your
welfare” (Jer 29:7).
Someone recently said
that Christians in the last century
divided into two groups, a sect
concerned primarily about salvation
(“winning souls”) and the other more
concerned about social justice and the
welfare of others. Often treated as if
these are two mutually exclusive
outcomes, these two sects of the
Christian community are also apt to shun
each other. In the midst of these two
there have always been those who
believed and acted in a way that
indicated both outcomes were true,
Biblical, part of the Christian faith.
(A.B. Simpson, for one, in the late
1800’s and early 1900’s as the founder
of the Christian and Missionary Alliance
and my good friend Rev. Yordon…see
his essay in
The Other Side.)
We, my friends, as the Christian
community, are in exile
ourselves—although it seems we are
striving not to be seen as exiles and
aliens in a foreign land, but as
citizens of this world—this culture,
this society. But we are “in” not “of”
this world—well, we’re supposed to be,
anyway. Peter in his first Epistle
says: “To those who reside as aliens,
scattered [those, literally, in exile]
throughout” Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1).
James likened the Christian community in
his Letter to those “dispersed abroad”
(1:1), language indicative of the
scattered, alienated Israelite tribes in
captivity. The much of the Christian
community and evangelicals in particular
are attempting to live in two worlds at
a time—setting roots in captivity and
attempting to find ways our faith makes
us comfortable in exile, while at the
same time carrying on with “soul
winning” activities and often with
disregard for the “welfare of the
city.” However, the key to living in
exile is as the Lord commands through
the prophet Jeremiah, that is, to seek
the welfare of the city where we are
exiled. Walter Brueggemann captured
this in his book
The Land—Place
as Gift, Promise, and Challenge:
“What a way to
welfare, that hated Babylon is the
place of well-being. Thus exile is
not only the place of unexpected
word. It is also the place of
unexpected unacceptable
vocation—exiles seeking welfare for
others! Seek only justice and
righteousness, even in anxiety, and
get the kingdom (Matt 6:33). Seek
shalom, and you’ll get the land”
[reflecting on Jeremiah 29:7, p
126].
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
July 11, 2005
No trivial
pursuit
“Jesus was going
throughout all Galilee, teaching in
their synagogues and proclaiming the
gospel of the kingdom, and healing
every kind of disease and every kind
of sickness among the people
(Matthew 4:23).
“But seek first His
kingdom and His righteousness, and
all these things will be added to
you” (Matthew 6:33).
Back on
June 29th
(in
CommonPlace)
I quoted from the book
In the Margins
by Rick Mckinley:
“The love of Jesus
doesn’t come to make us fit into
American culture; it’s here to make
us fit into heaven” (In
the Margins,
p 39).
I am not against
creativity in worship, nor against
creative methodologies for “outreach.”
My big beef is that our chief aim ought
not to be to build or expand our
church—you know increase the numbers of
attendees and volunteers for “ministry
at church,” but to seek the
kingdom of God and to influence our
world with the gospel of the kingdom of
God. For crying out loud, we aren’t
supposed to be building a social group
in competition with other social
groups. We’re to pursue the kingdom of
God and His righteousness. And—just in
case we missed it, that is how the
“proclamation of the gospel of the
kingdom” is carried out. The gathering
of the saints ought to be—certainly for
fellowship, worship, and learning the
teachings of the apostles (Acts
2:42)—but we can get so focused on
meeting in the (our) temple, that
we neglect spreading out and moving the
gospel of the kingdom and being Jesus’
witnesses in the world. Problem
is: those who get so temple-focused
(building-focused) and self-absorbed
with spirituality that is culturally
comfortable will eventual lose their
light (as did the churches in Asian
Minor, Rev 2-3); or if God has mercy,
He’ll send persecution on those who sit
waiting in the temple (Act 8:1) in order
to forcefully spread us out into the
world.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
June 17, 2005
The
Garden Commission
It
all started in a garden. The first
deception was in the garden. Jesus
prayed, was betrayed, and after being
crucified, was buried in a garden-tomb.
And the finale, the end of the story,
depicts a restored garden where the Lamb
of God and the Father, the Lord of
Heaven and Earth shine their light and
reign with His people, safe and secure,
forever and ever.
The LORD God planted a garden toward
the east, in Eden; and there He
placed the man whom He had formed
(Genesis 2:8).
While He was still speaking, behold,
a crowd came, and the one called
Judas, one of the twelve, was
preceding them; and he approached
Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said
to him, “Judas, are you betraying
the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke
22:47-48).
At the place where
Jesus was crucified, there was a
garden, and in the garden a new
tomb, in which no one had ever been
laid (John
19:41).
Then he showed me a
river of the water of life, clear as
crystal, coming from the throne of
God and of the Lamb, in the middle
of its street. On either side of
the river was the tree of life,
bearing twelve kinds of fruit,
yielding its fruit every month; and
the leaves of the tree were for the
healing of the nations.
There will no longer
be any curse; and the throne of God
and of the Lamb will be in it, and
His bond-servants will serve Him;
they will see His face, and His name
will be on their foreheads. And
there will no longer be any night;
and they will not have need of the
light of a lamp nor the light of the
sun, because the Lord God will
illumine them; and they will reign
forever and ever (Rev 22:1-5).
One can read throughout
the Old Testament of a multitude of
passages that depict (promise) that God
will restore His throne and rightful
place among man, and many—if not all—of
these passages are crafted in the
language of a sanctuary-garden. The
garden imagery isn’t without
significance, for in the ancient world
kings and the politically wealthy and
powerful all had gardens that in
miniature depicted their reign and rule
over their territory. Many of these
gardens represented the place, the
garden-sanctuary, of their god(s). Also
depicted in Scripture are the ungodly,
anti-theocratic (anti-Yahweh) kings and
nations who build gardens to represent
their reign and rule, power and
authority and might. One example is
Assyria in Ezekiel 31:3-16. Here is the
rub. The stewards or vice-regents of
the original Garden in Eden were
commission to extend the borders of
God’s garden outward in order to
encompass the untamed (pagan, untilled)
remainder of the earth. Adam, and
eventually Israel who received the same
commission, failed. But in the vacuum
created by disobedience there rose
illegitimate-potentates,
counterfeit-gods and their nations who
took up the commission to build and
extend their gardens (their rule and
authority). W. A. Gage, in The
Gospel of Genesis, points out that
such endeavors, the “planting of
gardens” by unbelieving kings and
empires, are counterfeit and
illegitimate expressions of the Adamic
commission given by God to His people.
The unbelieving plant gardens “to enjoy
the aesthetic without ethic” and they
“collectivize themselves…to seek a
community without a covenant.” This
continues today in our world where many
leave the God of the universe out,
foreign, distained, uninvolved in their
public and national discourse. Empires
are built—small and large, personal and
geographic. Our own society seeks to
enjoy the aesthetic without ethic and
attempts to build community without
covenant. It is the Church, not to
nation-build, but to express the kingdom
of God, to extend God’s garden (His rule
and reign) over territories of public
domain, both local and national, where
God’s rule is absent or left to the weed
pile. If the Church doesn’t do this, we
like Adam, relinquish our commission and
allow the rise of unbelieving gardeners.
*see G.K. Beale's The Temple and the
Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of
the Dwelling Place of God (IVP) for
a fuller discussion on the topic of
God's garden and Adamic commission.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
June 9, 2005
The
future belongs to…
Though all the
peoples walk each in the name of his
god, as for us, we will walk in the
name of the LORD our God forever and
ever. “In that day,” declares the
LORD, “I will assemble the lame and
gather the outcasts, even those whom
I have afflicted. I will make the
lame a remnant and the outcasts a
strong nation, and the LORD will
reign over them in Mount Zion” (Micah
4:5-7).
Ronald Reagan, on “Great
Speeches” lists has more entries than
any other single person. On
January 28, 1986, after
the world was shocked at watching on
live TV the space shuttle Challenger
explode on its path upward to the
heavens, President Reagan gave one of
his greatest and most elegant
speeches—written by one of my favorite
writers, Peggy Noonan. However—and
forgive me Ms. Noonan—Reagan got one
thing backwards, as we all seem to do.
He said, actually referring to a set of
common words used of many, “The future
does not belong to the faint-hearted.
The future belongs to the brave.” As a
speech line, a motivational quip it is
encouraging and moving. But is it
true? After listening again to that
speech from a “Speech Website,” and now
many years later—some years filled with
church ministry and some filled with
human service to our vulnerable
populations—I heard them differently. I
responded, that's backward, for the
future is for the feeble, the weak, the
disadvantaged, the vulnerable, and
that’s why we need brave men and women,
boys and girls to step forward and up to
the plate, to make sacrifices, to redeem
events and moments, to move us beyond
ourselves. I thought about the number
of promises about the future from
Scripture and I recalled Micah 4 where
it is clear the future belongs to the
lame and outcasts and the afflicted.
God promises to make the lame a remnant
and the outcasts a strong nation. If I
was smart enough back then and Peggy
Noonan had asked me to review Reagan’s
Challenger speech, I would have
suggested only one change:
The future belongs to
each one of us, the weak and the
strong, the noble and the outcast,
the fearless and the fainthearted.
But it is men and women like
Judith
Resnik, Francis Scobee, Michael
Smith, Ronald McNair, Ellison
Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Sharon
Christa McAuliffe
who count the cost and sacrifice
everything for those who can’t. It
is men and women like the crew
aboard the Challenger who make the
future possible for everyone.”
Of course, Ms. Noonan
would have made the words sing a little
better, and hopefully she would have
agreed with my view of the future.
(If anyone knows Ms. Noonan or how to
email stuff to her, I hope someone will
cut and paste this margin to her.)
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
June
6, 2005
Romans
1:16-17 and the overlooked gar
I find it still amazing
that both popular exposition and noted
commentary assert, but do not
exegetically demonstrate, that 1:16-17
is Paul’s thematic statement for his
exposition in the Letter to the Romans.
It seems more reasonable, both
exegetically and thematically to see
Paul utilizing his opening as his
thematic—what its all about—statement
(1:1-6). For a further explanation of
this, see my article, "Rom
1:1-5 and the Occasion of the Letter:
the Solution to the Two-Congregation
Problem in Rome" (Trinity Journal,
Sp '93). But what is the
function of Romans 1:16-17?
I am
not ashamed of the gospel, because
it is the power of God for the
salvation of everyone who believes:
first for the Jew, then for the
Gentile. For in the gospel a
righteousness from God is revealed,
a righteousness that is by faith
from first to last, just as it is
written: “he righteous will live by
faith.”
These
verses actually come in a series of
statements or propositions that
grammatically begin with the Greek word
gar (gar), usually
translated for. In fact,
interestingly enough, in Romans 1:16,
the New International Version
“forgets” to render the gar—it is
left out of the English rendering of
verse 16. But it is there—and should be
translated—as do most of the more
literal translations. Nonetheless, it
seems the gar (the for) is
still overlooked in how we understand
the place and function of these verses.
Gar, the Greek word, carries a
transitional tone and mostly functions
in a “why…because” connotation. The
statement, I pray, followed by
for God is listening, shows the
idea, and is totally understandable even
in English. Why do I pray? Because
God is listening.
Verses 16 and 17, as
significant as they are to our
Christian, especially reformed,
tradition, these verses are part of the
reason the Apostle seeks to go to Rome,
to visit the Church in the capital of
the world, and to “impart some spiritual
gift to make [them] strong” (1:11). (I
use the NIV here since that’s the
version with the missing gar.)
First we read that Paul has a remote
relationship with the Church in Rome and
now seeks to visit them:
God,
whom I serve with my whole heart in
preaching the gospel of his Son, is
my witness how constantly I remember
you in my prayers at all times; and
I pray that now at last by God's
will the way may be opened for me to
come to you (vv 9-10).
Then Paul
allows us to see his heart’s desire, a
statement—a prepositional statement—that
sets up this long string of gap
statements, answering why he wants
impart some spiritual gift that will
make them strong (vv 11-13):
I
long to see you so that I may impart
to you some spiritual gift to make
you strong—that is, that you and I
may be mutually encouraged by each
other's faith. I do not want you to
be unaware, brothers, that I planned
many times to come to you (but have
been prevented from doing so until
now) in order that I might have a
harvest among you, just as I have
had among the other Gentiles.
Then Paul
moves into the why-because series…“Why
do I want to preach in Rome, i.e., come
to you to impart some spiritual gift to
make you strong, because…”
I am
obligated both to Greeks and
non-Greeks, both to the wise and the
foolish. That is why I am so eager
to preach the gospel also to you who
are at Rome (vv 14-15).
Why,
because…
16
[For] I
am not ashamed of the gospel, because it
is the power of God for the salvation of
everyone who believes: first for the
Jew, then for the Gentile.
Why,
am I not ashamed of the Gospel, because…
17
For in
the gospel a righteousness from God is
revealed, a righteousness that is by
faith from first to last, just as it is
written: “The righteous will live by
faith.”
Why,
because…
18
[For] The wrath of God is being revealed
from heaven against all the godlessness
and wickedness of men who suppress the
truth by their wickedness,
19
since what may be known about God is
plain to them, because God has made it
plain to them.
Why,
because…
20
For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities--his eternal
power and divine nature--have been
clearly seen, being understood from what
has been made, so that men are without
excuse.
Why,
because…
21
For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to
him, but their thinking became futile
and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22
Although they claimed to be wise, they
became fools
23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal
God for images made to look like mortal
man and birds and animals and reptiles.
As a
consequence…
24
Therefore God gave them over in the
sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
impurity for the degrading of their
bodies with one another.
25
They exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, and worshiped and served created
things rather than the Creator--who is
forever praised. Amen.
26
Because
of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts.
Why,
because…
[For] Even their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones.
27
In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed indecent acts with other men,
and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion.
28
Furthermore, since they did not think it
worthwhile to retain the knowledge of
God, he gave them over to a depraved
mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29
They have become filled with every kind
of wickedness, evil, greed and
depravity. They are full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They
are gossips,
30
slanderers, God-haters, insolent,
arrogant and boastful; they invent ways
of doing evil; they disobey their
parents;
31
they are senseless, faithless,
heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know God's righteous
decree that those who do such things
deserve death, they not only continue to
do these very things but also approve of
those who practice them.
Paul is
eager to go to Rome so he may assist
their Christian growth and make them
strong because he is not ashamed of the
Gospel because it is the revealed
righteousness of God and that man is
under the wrath of God. Although I
find that Paul's thematic statement
comes in 1:1-6, Paul's rhetorical devise
here in 1:9ff not only connects him to
his audience, it begs the question: why
does Paul need to go to Rome to make the
Church strong and receive a harvest "of
Gentiles" among them as he has in other
churches.
See my Romans article
for an answer to this question...click.
See my
comments in
Reviews and Resources...click.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
May 31, 2005
Called
and commissioned
And Jesus returned to
Galilee in the power of the Spirit,
and news about Him spread through
all the surrounding district. And He
began teaching in their synagogues
and was praised by all.
And He came to
Nazareth, where He had been brought
up; and as was His custom, He
entered the synagogue on the
Sabbath, and stood up to read. And
the book of the prophet Isaiah was
handed to Him. And He opened the
book and found the place where it
was written,
The Spirit of the
Lord is upon Me, because He anointed
me to preach the Gospel to the
poor. He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives, and
recovery of sight to the blind, to
set free those who are oppressed, to
proclaim the favorable year of the
Lord.
And He closed the
book, gave it back to the attendant
and sat down; and the eyes of all in
the synagogue were fixed on Him. And
He began to say to them, "Today this
Scripture has been fulfilled in your
hearing.” And all were speaking
well of Him, and wondering at the
gracious words which were falling
from His lips; and they were saying,
"Is this not Joseph's son?" (Luke
4:14-22).
Either Luke is being
selective or ironic in recording the
words of the crowd, “Is this not
Joseph’s son?” Either way, Luke leaves
us with the perception that the crowd,
after hearing Jesus announce that the
great day of God’s salvation had
arrived, the crowd was only asking about
Jesus’ pedigree—and as you and I know,
they were pointing out the issue of
Jesus’ illegitimate birth. Not only was
salvation at hand, but God’s
Son-Redeemer-Servant-King was right
there in front of them—the eyes of
all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
But his commission, the message, and who
He really is passed right by them. I
find that ironic, twisted, and all too
familiar. Now Luke didn’t right that so
we can disparage the crowd who didn’t
get it, but to unmask the Church’s
tendency to not get it. The call
to turn the world up-side-down—to preach
to the poor (who can’t tithe or support
the work) and to work for justice (where
we are aligned with those marginalized
in society)—is ignored. And we forget
that Jesus started out with the mark of
illegitimacy and scandal. Maybe we are
scared the crowds from town will only
notice our weaknesses, faults, and
family background. What are we so
afraid of, that we ignore or marginalize
the church's call and commission?
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
May 23, 2005
The future of our town—the capacity of
the gospel
Now to Him who is able to do far
more abundantly beyond all that we
ask or think, according to the power
that works within us, to Him be the
glory in the church and in Christ
Jesus to all generations forever and
ever. Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21).
Often quoted as a
benediction at the end of a Sunday
morning worship service. I heard it
again this Sunday morning, but I heard
it differently than I have for the past
twenty-seven years. This past morning
was about world missions. Although,
ultimately, the missionaries who spoke
want people on their field to come to
the knowledge of Jesus Christ, they
mostly spoke on changing things in the
towns and villages and cities where they
serve—hygiene, the water supply,
educating children were among the topics
and their “missionary activities.” They
were talking about the futures of the
places where they do missionary work.
When Ephesians 3:20-21 was quoted as the
benediction of the service, it struck
me: of course God will do far most
abundantly beyond all that we ask or
think because He is about filling the
heavens and earth with His will, namely
“the summing up of all things in Christ,
things in the heavens and things on the
earth” (Eph 1:10). Our existence as
a Church is not about our growth,
expanding our buildings and budgets,
offering “relevant” church ministries to
attract the unchurched—nor is it about
competing for customers. It is about
the future of the town, village, or
cities our church community is within.
The goal of God’s activity in and
apparently through the Church is related
to His activity in summing up all things
in Christ—it is about the future and
bringing that future into existence.
The benediction is about God and His
capabilities to bring about His ends, it
is not about our undersized, puny, and
trivial requests to get people to
church, build our church budgets, or
make us more successful. Paul’s
benediction ought to drive us to
consider the future and asking God to
develop in us the capabilities and
capacity to bring about His future in
the town, village, or city with live in.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April
25, 2005
Proof-texting can keep us safe from
scary applications
For we are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
for good works, which God prepared
beforehand so that we would walk in
them (Ephesians 2:10).
No argument. Each one of
us, individually, as Christian should do
good. Certainly we are redesigned, born
again, changed into a new creation,
indwelt by the Spirit of God and now
under obligation to do good deeds. How
can anyone argue against that? But
Ephesians 2:10 isn’t a text promoting an
individualistic approach to the idea of
“random acts of kindness” nor simply
being committed to “intentional good
deeds.” But then again, one can wrench
any verse out of its context and make
application anyway one wants, especially
if the words of that text (I should say,
the English words) fit what application
one wants to get the audience to do. It
seems neglected that the text applies to
a group, “we.” Who is the “we”?
Applying this text in the attempts to
gain more workers, volunteers “at
church” exchanges the inherent power of
the church’s counter-cultural existence
for a marketing plan for volunteer
development. Don’t get me wrong—every
church has the need for its
congregation’s free time to be given up
in both random and intentional acts of
good deeds. Especially today, where we
have church buildings and a myriad of
“in house ministries” to meet needs and
to be attractive to the church-shopper.
(Please forgive my notable sarcasm; my
beef is the continued intentional
refusal to do good exegesis.) This
text, Ephesians 2:10, although the words
are attractive for appealing for church
volunteers for “in house” ministries,
this verse and its context have a
somewhat larger implication. Just a
little hint: look at the context.
First, the is a corporate text, one that
should be applied to the church for its
implications have a defining aspect to
it. Paul has been defining WHO the
church is—and such defining should guide
and even limit application. Perhaps we,
in our comfortable suburban churches are
afraid to place this text back into
Paul’s context and want to stay away
from the following verses' implications.
Therefore remember
that formerly you, the Gentiles in
the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision"
by the so-called "Circumcision,"
which is performed in the flesh by
human hands—remember that you were
at that time separate from Christ,
excluded from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers to the
covenants of promise, having no hope
and without God in the world (Eph
2:11-12).
From beginning to end,
this text (Eph 2) is about who makes up
the household of God, the Church, and
how it is that “those far off,” i.e.,
Gentiles can now be non-strangers in the
commonwealth of Israel and non-strangers
to the covenants of promise. Scary—this
text might be more applicable to how the
church is to be a model, a demonstration
of racial reconciliation, not simply a
proof text for man made (although good)
in-house activities volunteers. Could
you imagine if all the energy that is
expended on “ministries in the church”
were turned outward on “ministries in
the world” (in the community)?
But that’s scary and more
uncontrollable.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April
21, 2005
At
whose door do we protest?
"But as for Me, I
have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
"I will surely tell of the decree of
the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
'Ask of Me, and I will surely give
the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as
Your possession (Psalm 2:6-8).
We confess that Jesus is
Lord, God’s “installed” king, Lord of
the nations. What does this
confession—the reality of it all—mean?
Ah, a question for Ph.D. dissertations
and volumes of books. What does it mean
that “the Son” received the nations as
an “inheritance” and “the very ends of
the earth as” His “possession”? Again,
many lengthy tomes are necessary to
unpack this question and reference in
Psalm 2. What I am after here is
simple, however. A seasoned pastor and
social advocate quoted Jesus’ words,
“The poor you will always have with
you.” Then he said, “Jesus is reminding
us to keep knocking at the governor’s
door until the kingdom comes.” When we
pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it
is in heaven,” what are we praying for?
It is interesting that in Matthew 6
where Jesus instructs us to pray these
words—and he commands us to “seek first
the kingdom of heaven”—it is assumed his
listeners will be giving to the poor:
“So when you give to the poor” (v 2).
In fact Jesus repeats this again in v
3. The problem Jesus is addressing is
that we want people to “watch” us give,
to take note, to be deemed righteous
because we give, not that we give to the
poor. So what does this have to do with
Psalm 2? It occurred to me yesterday
that if the government isn’t supposed
to, as many evangelical and conservative
Christians say, take care of the poor,
spend money on the poor, provide
programs and services for the poor—who
is? At whose door, then, should we protest? I
have an idea—yes it is crazy. Instead
of protesting at the governor’s door,
maybe we should do it at the door of our
nearby evangelical church. Imagine
throngs of people, carrying placards,
bus loads of protesters showing up ay my
church’s front door and demanding that
our finance committee not exclude the
poor from our annual budget; or, with
shouts and songs demand that we feed the
poor, and make sure our budget has
enough for job training, child care, and
medical coverage for children of
vulnerable families. “I can only
imagine.” So, at whose door do we
protest? Ps. 2 came to mind…the
governors…why? Because he or she is the
guest in that chair. It belongs to
Jesus. And, while my earthly governor
is a guest in that position, he or she
is responsible to carry out the
righteousness that comes from the King
of Kings. That’s why we protest at the
Mayor’s door, the Governor’s, the
President’s. Unless of course you’d
prefer they come to our church door and
protest.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April 17, 2005
Kids’ soccer games, drug
dealers, and
Tetramachus
“Do not be overcome
by evil, but overcome evil with
good” (Romans
12:21)
Paul’s words here in
Romans are not easy. Nor, is the
overcoming of evil so readily apparent
or perceived as actually the result of
doing "the good." The penultimate good
(i.e., the cross) certainly didn’t look
like it had overcome evil. Nonetheless,
this is a principle, though difficult,
is one that should be applied to the
Church’s strategies of outreach and
evangelism. Like the Christian named
Tetramachus, in 404 AD, who freely
jumped into the Colosseum in Rome as
gladiators were facing off in the
ultimate fight, and as his fellow
Christians were being beaten by
gladiators, eaten by lions, and impaled
on stakes, "the good" may require a
final sacrifice. As Tetramachus was
pleading to the crowds and with shouts
to the Emperor to “In the name of God,
stop,” the gladiators pierced through
this innocent and dissenting lone
voice. But history does tell us that
Emperor Honorarius was so shaken by this
one single act that gladiator combat was
banned. What does this have to do with
kids’ soccer games? The Romans 12:21
principle of overcoming evil with good.
Until recently the park outside the back
of our main office was vacant, unused as
a park, but was a place for drug
activity and wasteful loitering. We
could see daily drug interactions right
out our office windows. Calling the
police only temporarily stopped the
activity. The next day, it was right
back—sometimes it only took an hour or
so for the illicit activities to
resume. One of my staff however worked
with a local soccer league to implement
a young soccer league on the field in
the park—just the right size for a small
children’s field to be outlined. Now,
Monday through Friday evenings and on
Saturdays, dozens, maybe even close to a
hundred young kids, their parents, and
their coaches are practicing and playing
soccer. We’ve even noticed that more
teens are playing basketball in the
courts next to field. Parents in their
lawn chairs line the sides of the soccer
field. Toddlers, the future players,
are kidding balls around as they are
learning to walk. Police are
offering their very visible presence as
well. The illicit activities haven’t
come to a complete halt, but they are
being squeezed out by good—and the
presence of life, positive life wins the
day. What would happen if Churches
applied similar “good” to their
strategies for reaching their
neighborhoods and cities with the
ultimate Good (News)?
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April
13, 2005
What awaits us?
Hear this word, you
cows of Bashan who are on the
mountain of Samaria, who oppress the
poor, who crush the needy, who say
to your husbands, “Bring now, that
we may drink!” The Lord GOD has
sworn by His holiness, “Behold, the
days are coming upon you when they
will take you away with meat hooks,
and the last of you with fish hooks”
(Amos 4:1-2).
What’s my responsibility,
as a Christian? What will we, as a
Christian community, be accountable for on
the last day? I have been involved with
evangelical church traditions that
narrow the focus of Christian evangelism
and responsibility to “witnessing,” that
is sharing with someone the Gospel,
which is in turn narrowed down to
pointing out someone’s sinful condition
and their need for a personal Savior—all
true, but not the definition of the
Gospel given in Scripture. Over the
past eight years I have worked in
“secular” agencies that seek to help
alleviate the causes of poverty and that
seek to provide paths for individuals
and families to move away from poverty
and toward self-sufficiency (meaning,
less dependence on Government
assistance, and more independence to
meet their own needs). Personally, this
journey has made an impact on my own
spiritual life and me as a person. My
evangelical community’s selective
reading of Scripture and its tendency to
accentuate personal sin and ignore
social sins has always bothered me. On
the one hand this approach to the
Christian life allows many American
Christians to be comfortable in our
surrounding, upward mobile, capitalist,
pluralistic culture and at the same time
feel right with God. Don’t get me
wrong, there is much I appreciate in
this upward mobile, capitalist,
pluralistic culture—and some that gives
me advantages and blessings I would not
have otherwise. I am not a
self-loathing American Christian by any
stretch of the imagination. What the
last eight years has taught me is how
narrow my own definitions of evangelism,
outreach, ministry, and of the Gospel
have been. Ignored texts have become
more visible. Now texts like Amos 4:1-2
cause me to wonder how much time we have
left to get our act together as American
Evangelical Christians, and preach and
do the whole Gospel—namely that
the Kingdom of God has arrived in Christ
Jesus and that a new age has begun
(which is the point of Paul’s words in 1
Cor 15, that Christ has died and has
risen and will come again).
PS The "cows of Bashan"
is most likely a reference to wealthy
women.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April 11, 2005
Priests or priesthood? (1 Peter 2)
And coming to Him as
to a living stone which has been
rejected by men, but is choice and
precious in the sight of God, you
also, as living stones, are being
built up as a spiritual house for a
holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ…But
you are
a chosen race,
a royal
priesthood,
a holy nation,
a people for God's
own possession, so that you
may proclaim the excellencies of Him
who has called you out of darkness
into His marvelous light…(1 Peter
2:4-5, 9-10).
In a book of the Bible
that supposedly infers that each
Christian is a priest, it is strange
that the author would also make
reference to leaders—a hierarchy of
sorts--and their roles and
responsibilities.
Therefore, I exhort
the elders among you, as your fellow
elder and witness of the sufferings
of Christ, and a partaker also of
the glory that is to be revealed,
shepherd the flock of God among you,
exercising oversight…(1 Peter
5:1-2a).
No. What 1 Peter 2 is
describing—teaching—is the fulfillment
of promises made that God would call a
faithful people to Himself. Again,
being caught up and singling out words
rather than sentences, ideas, concepts,
thought (and following the actual text),
we narrow the borders of what God is
saying through a text of Scripture. I
understand that if we are priesthood,
then it seems reasonable that there must
be priests. My fear isn’t that we’d
think less of everyday Christians, all
who are to have equal access to God and
equal relationships with Jesus, but
that, because we posit something that
isn’t actually in the text of First
Peter (i.e., every Christian a priest),
we will think less of Christian
leadership who are supposed to lead and
set the example (i.e., the point of 1
Peter 5). Peter makes this portion of
his book on the suffering community of
God very clear: it is the “house” and
the “priesthood” that is the topic,
i.e., the community of God and who we
are in this world, who we are in our
community. Peter reaches back to the
first day after the exodus and utilizes
terms describing—defining—who God’s
people are. Peter does the same here,
defining God’s people and then reminding
them that they are called out of
darkness and into His marvelous light.
This whole text describes how the
community of God is defined and then how
it is to deal with living in a hostile
environment. Like its Head—the
choice and
precious corner stone—who is
rejected, the community of God, “the
living stones,” lives in a world that
does not readily accept it (1 Peter
6-8). At growth group on Friday, I
mentioned that its not so much that each
one of us is a priest, but collectively
(which is the only thing inferred by
Peter that’s for sure) the community of
God is a royal priesthood who are
“aliens and strangers” (1 Peter 2:11),
they (we) are to “Keep” (guard) our
“behavior” among the unbelieving, “so
that in the thing in which they slander
you as evildoers, they may because of
your good deeds, as they observe them,
glorify God in the day of visitation (v
12). However, once interpreted as “each
believer a priest,” and since this is
not in the text, usually preachers
need to go everywhere else in Scripture
to show us what priests do—which most
definitely feeds our American
self-interests and need to be
individually special. However, if we
just stick with the text, we find no
placating of the American psyche. It is
what makes the community of God
deferent, “peculiar,” that matters…what
sets us apart from every other “peoples”
in the community? And as Peter’s own
words in chapter 5 clearly teach, the Church
leadership is “paid” (actually, called)
to demonstrate, guide, and shepherd the
people of God in this calling.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April 7, 2005
Not in my time; let my kids face it
(Isaiah 39)
At that time
Merodach-baladan son of Baladan,
king of Babylon, sent letters and a
present to Hezekiah, for he heard
that he had been sick and had
recovered. Hezekiah was pleased,
and showed them all his treasure
house, the silver and the gold and
the spices and the precious oil and
his whole armory and all that was
found in his treasuries. There was
nothing in his house nor in all his
dominion that Hezekiah did not show
them.
Then Isaiah the
prophet came to King Hezekiah and
said to him, "What did these men
say, and from where have they come
to you?"
And Hezekiah said,
"They have come to me from a far
country, from Babylon."
He said, "What have
they seen in your house?"
So Hezekiah answered,
"They have seen all that is in my
house; there is nothing among my
treasuries that I have not shown
them."
Then Isaiah said to
Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD
of hosts, 'Behold, the days are
coming when all that is in your
house and all that your fathers have
laid up in store to this day will be
carried to Babylon; nothing will be
left,' says the LORD.
'And some of your
sons who will issue from you, whom
you will beget, will be taken away,
and they will become officials in
the palace of the king of Babylon.'"
Then Hezekiah said to
Isaiah, "The word of the LORD which
you have spoken is good " For he
thought, "For there will be peace
and truth in my days" (Isaiah 39).
It’s probably only a
mid-life crisis moment…make that a
post-mid life crisis moment. It is
bothering me that I have less time left
to do the things my heart and mind are
contemplating. What makes matters
worse—at least for me—I begin thinking
what kind of life is in store for my
kids. Will they have enough time to do
the things, now only, beginning to rise
in their hearts and minds? Without
going into detail—and rambling on and
on—it is beginning to occur to me that
the world will be vastly different when
my daughter is facing 50. The list of
potential and probably differences is
extensive. But what entered my mind on
Sunday morning during worship bothered
me: While I face, maybe, 15, 20 years of
productive life left, I wonder if my
children are going to be able to face
the foes, changes, and forces that are
now rearing their ugly heads. And these
forces are no longer local (as 9/11
awakened us to), but are global and real
as if right next store. We mask the
very real problems that will indeed
spread—masked by a mostly peaceful
environment, a host of playful choices,
spare time, TV, entertainment, etc.
So what has this to do
with Isaiah 39? As a thought about my
approaching 50s and the thoughts of what
it will be like for my kids as their
fiftieth mark approaches them, my mind
went to Hezekiah’s words in Isaiah 39.
The forces for evil had knocked on his
door, and he literally let them in. As
a result, the prophet Isaiah warns that
such action indicated that the king was
foolishly unaware of the rising
malevolence forces that would destroy
his kingdom. The king quickly responds
with what appears to be contrition. So
the Word of the Lord relents in a small
measure, pushing off the inevitable
destruction and turmoil to the future,
indicating its full effect will occur in
the next generation—for his children.
Hezekiah then rejoices and considers
this a good Word. What in the world is
this guy thinking! He is saying,
“Great, this destruction will not happen
in my time, but will come for my kids.”
Not in my time, but in my children’s
time. Some parent. Some national
leader this guy is.
Isaiah 39 stands as the
hinge of the book of Isaiah. Chapters
1-38 are reminders of pending judgment
because Israel had neglected its
calling—but the judgments were pending,
for the future, to occur during the time
of their future generation (their
children). On the other side of the
hinge are chapters 40-66, indicating
that the future judgments had come and
now the nation and the world needed
God’s redemption. I have often wondered
why a slice of history from Kings and
Chronicles was placed in Isaiah’s
prophetic book. I wonder if it was to
remind future generations that if the
predictions and forth-tellings of
pending judgments go unheeded, our
future generations will indeed live
Babylonian captivity. The hinge king
(and parent) and his reaction is a
warning: good, I like that peace and
prosperity will continue in my day; let
my children pay the consequences. I
felt on Sunday morning, we might be
doing the same thing in our generation.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April
6, 2005
My emerging struggle: Who checks the
context, especially texts from Leviticus
and Deuteronomy?
"The Levite, because
he has no portion or inheritance
among you, and the alien, the orphan
and the widow who are in your town,
shall come and eat and be satisfied,
in order that the LORD your God may
bless you in all the work of your
hand which you do.” (Deut 14:29)
In surveying the
beard
(Lev
19:27; 21:5)
and
altar
(Exodus
20:25;
Deuteronomy
27:5-6) texts, I realized that
there were contexts…ah, how about that?
Some dismiss such Leviticus and
Deuteronomy texts as applying to Israel,
“that’s the old covenant,” or simply
“they apply to a works-related religious
system of sacrifices.” Well, that’s
convenient. Granted, the Leviticus and
Deuteronomy texts are “older”
revelation, nonetheless they still
speak. My interest in them revolves
around the nature of the Christian
community and it’s relationship to the
surrounding culture. Such texts like
the
beard and altar texts
indicate that there were to be
differences “inside” the Israelite
community (i.e., the community of God).
Although resembling surrounding
people-groups, they were to be separate, different.
Yet, in
essence they were to be a holy people,
defined by their relationship to YHWH,
the creator-God. We read:
"For you are a holy
people to the LORD your God, and the
LORD has chosen you to be a people
for His own possession out of all
the peoples who are on the face of
the earth” (Deut 14:2).
The context of the
beard and altar texts, both
in Deuteronomy and Leviticus,
nonetheless, indicated that “aliens”
(non-Israelites) had access to and were
to be welcomed in and among the
Israelite community. The walls of
separation might have been distinct and
high, but they had plenty of gates--there
was plenty of access. It
was anticipated that “strangers” and
“aliens” would find refuse among the
community of God.
“Now when you reap
the harvest of your land, you shall
not reap to the very corners of your
field, nor shall you gather the
gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall
you glean your vineyard, nor shall
you gather the fallen fruit of your
vineyard; you shall leave them for
the needy and for the stranger. I am
the LORD your God” (Lev 19:9-10).
“When a stranger
resides with you in your land, you
shall not do him wrong. The
stranger who resides with you shall
be to you as the native among you,
and you shall love him as yourself,
for you were aliens in the land of
Egypt; I am the LORD your God” (Lev
19:33-34).
The differences (e.g.,
untrimmed beards, altars of uncut
rock—and if you read Leviticus and
Deuteronomy there are many other
illustrated differences) would stand out
to the alien and stranger. YHWH’s
people are “peculiar,” their habits,
religious structure, and way of relating
to themselves and the aliens among them
are different, all pointing to truths
about who they were and about their God
and His universe. If the 21st
century church doesn’t know its own
differences (and “peculiarities”) and
doesn’t “habit” them, we will confuse
our message and what the stranger is to
see, hear, and learn of our God
and Gospel will be,
at least distorted, if not neutral and
look just like the culture round us.
See
My emerging struggle, Part 1 Margin...click
here
More ...
April 5, 2005
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April 5, 2005
My emerging struggle with cultural
accommodation: Beards & altars (Part 2)
"You
shall not round off the side-growth
of your heads nor harm the edges of
your beard" (Lev 19:27).
"They
shall not make any baldness on their
heads, nor shave off the edges of
their beards, nor make any cuts in
their flesh" (Leviticus 21:5).
"If you
make an altar of stone for Me, you
shall not build it of cut stones,
for if you wield your tool on it,
you will profane it" (Exodus 20:25).
"Moreover,
you shall build there an altar to
the LORD your God, an altar of
stones; you shall not wield an iron
tool on them. You shall build the
altar of the LORD your God of uncut
stones, and you shall offer on it
burnt offerings to the LORD your
God" (Deuteronomy
27:5-6).
"...just
as Moses the servant of the LORD had
commanded the sons of Israel, as it
is written in the book of the law of
Moses, an altar of uncut stones on
which no man had wielded an iron
tool; and they offered burnt
offerings on it to the LORD, and
sacrificed peace offerings" (Joshua
8:31).
It is a silly argument to
think it possible to totally resist
culture and to be untouched by one’s
surrounding culture. The question is,
it seems to me, what parts of our
surrounding culture causes effects
(i.e., experiences and outcomes) that
are antithetical to the arrival of the
Kingdom of God and the nature of the
Gospel? Of course, we participate in
culture, through culture as a church. I
have always understood the beards and
altar commands (noted above) to be a
paradigm for understanding how I am to
respond, benefit from, utilize, and/or
resist my surrounding culture. Within
the framework of God’s design for
Israel, priests were to have beards just
like the pagan, goiim, gentile priests
of the surrounding, already established
priests of non-Israelite peoples.
Israel could build altars out of rocks,
just like the altars of the
non-Israelite (anti-YHWH) cultures that
surrounded them. But…there would be a
difference…beards couldn’t be cut
(trimmed) and rocks could not be shaped
by hand (wielding iron), but laid plain
in a pile (al’ natural as it were).
This change and rearrangement of
activity, approach, use—whatever one
wants to call it—would recreate the
religious experience and thus Israel’s
experience to foster a Godward,
non-man-centered system—that pointed to
truths about redemption, life, creation,
the nature of God and the nature of
human existence. This created a
cultural experience that would fashion
thinking (i.e., habits of the mind)
and social habits (of the heart)
that promoted a theocentric worldview.
The uncut beard represented a priest
called and fashioned by God and an
uncut, pile of rocks indicated a
God-made “religion” where sacrifice (the
center of religious activity) replied on
God’s acts of creation, not man’s. The
experiences we have through our culture
result in a functioning worldview that
either promotes or opposes the arrival
of the Kingdom of God. This is where
the Christian message ought to shed its
light, and made sure that the church
resists those cultural aspects that are
antithetical to the Gospel. Our
experience through our culture will
either promote or opposed a worldview
and lifestyle based on the definition
and nature of God’s Kingdom and His
Gospel. I am all for harnessing what
our times and culture have (the spoils
of Egypt) to offer for use in the
Kingdom; but our discipleship should
also teach us where the faith is
countercultural. It seems to me, we
are, that is leaders are, too
accommodating and under-critical of our
adoption of American cultural and
values.
See
My emerging struggle, Part 1 Margin...click
here
More ...
April 6, 2005
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
April 3, 2005
Don’t trust you eyes (2 Corinthians
5:16-17)
“Therefore from now on we recognize
no one according to the flesh; even
though we have known Christ
according to the flesh, yet now we
know Him in this way no longer.
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he
is a new creature; the old things
passed away; behold, new things have
come” (2 Corinthians 5:16-17).
I
held off seeing Mel Gibson’s The
Passion of the Christ for almost six
months. I have written about this
before, so I won’t belabor why, but
simply to say two things 1) I don’t like
following and being caught up in hype
(of any kind) and 2) I resist image-ology,
my made up word for one’s need for an
image to foster belief. Even though the
Passion film provoked sensitivity
toward Christ’s passion, the image on
screen adds or subtracts from the Words
of Scripture simply by the nature of the
medium itself. Enough said on that…I
saw the film (video) on Psalm Sunday at
church with my family. The scene most
powerful for me was one in which Gibson
took license on the actual story, but
conveyed a most powerful biblical truth:
Jesus has been flogged and beaten and
ridiculed, leaving him bloodied and
physically weak. He is bearing His
cross through the streets of Jerusalem.
The scene goes back and forth between
this death walk, His mother trying to
catch up to him, and a childhood scene
where Jesus falls and His mother
comforts her son. Jesus then falls
under the weight of His pain, weakness,
and His cross. His mother sees Him and
runs to comfort Him. She pushes through
the crowd, reaches down to show her
presence. Jesus raises His head and
says to His her, “Mother, behold, I make
all things new.” I lost it right
there. Whatever the intention (and
theology) Gibson was attempting for that
visual moment…it was all true. What my
eyes (Mary’s eyes) saw wasn’t the total
truth, wasn’t the real story, wasn’t the
end of the story. I gave my wife a CD
of a compilation of songs that various
Christian artists put together based on
Gibson’s movie. One of the songs, most
likely based on this scene, brought the
emotions and vivid truth back: Sara
Evans and Brad Paisley sang the words:
Whatever happens...whatever you
see...
Whatever your eyes tell you has
become of me
This is not...
Not the end...
I am making all things new again
Paul’s words in 2
Corinthians are the theological
statement of this reality. Paul most
likely, when he was a young Saul,
rabbi-in-training, heard of or even saw
the spectacle of Jesus’ death walk and
crucifixion. I believe these words
imply that he did. What his eyes of
flesh saw only gave a partial and even
deceiving view of a man covered in
blood, a blasphemer who made himself out
to be God in the flesh, a traitor of the
Jewish faith. The earthly, fleshly
scene before Saul’s eyes—and the host of
onlookers—affirmed the lies of the
world, the flesh, and the devil, and the
lies we prefer over the truth of God’s
Word. The scene in the Passion
and the song on the CD re-imprinted
Paul’s words and the truth that God’s
highest redemptive move—putting His Son
on a cross—offered the ultimate truth
and paved the way to “make all things
new.” We should never take what our
eyes see over what God wants us to hear.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
March 29, 2005
Mark’s gospel, a harbinger of our
mission
The beginning of the
gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
(Mark 1:1).
Now after John had been taken into
custody, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the
gospel
of God, and saying, “The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is
at hand; repent and believe in the
gospel”
(Mark 1:14-15).
Mark wrote the shortest Gospel narrative
among the four. I am one of the few
today that doesn’t think the Gospel of
Mark was the first written. I side with
more than 1900 years of Christian
scholarship and early church testimony
that believes that Matthew’s Gospel was
first. More on this at another time.
However, this is significant. Matthew’s
Gospel sets the pace, stretching the
story from Birth to Resurrection. Luke
the same. John has another purpose in
mind. Mark, cuts to the chase and
leaves out the birth and genealogical
settings of Jesus’ arrival into this
world. This suggests a more theological
purpose to Mark’s presentation. Mark’s
gospel seems to be for a church on the
edge of suffering, disarray, and perhaps
even close to slumbering away. Mark
gets to his point in such an obvious way
that we overlook it…we press on to the
stories and familiar territories that
are similar to the other Gospel
narratives. Mark’s Gospel is about,
well, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His
kingdom and its first penetration
(invasion) into the world—and how it
faired and ended up. The opening is a
theological statement, wrapped in
historical moments. We can see this in
how Mark borders off his introduction
before moving into Jesus’ adult
ministry, His first mission of calling
people to Himself and announcing the
arrival of the Gospel of God, that is
the Kingdom of God.
Mark 1:1 and Mark 1:14-15 (quoted above)
form bookends to Mark’s introductory
remarks concerning Jesus’ arrival and
what it implies: the kingdom of God has
arrived. The narrative from 1:16
through chapter 12 involves how the
Gospel of the Kingdom first invades
Israel, its gentile territories, and how
this good news began to even penetrate
beyond the borders into the gentile
world. This good news, according to
Mark was met with some acceptance and
much rejection, and in the end, hung its
chief advocate and promoter on a cross.
It was a disappointment…but the empty
tomb, despite the horrific ending of the
crucifixion, at the end of the story
suggests, as one author put it, Jesus
was no let loose in the world…
There is no doubt that Mark intended his
work to promote a worldwide invasion of
the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
Before the end of time, “The
gospel
must first be preached to all the
nations” (13:10). The expansiveness of
this mission is even hinted at in how
Jesus remarked about the woman “wasting”
her perfume on His feet: “Truly I say to
you, wherever the
gospel
is preached in the whole world, what
this woman has done will also be spoken
of in memory of her” (14:9). And
finally, after the cross proved not to
be the end, the early church understood
that Mark’s Gospel was a portrait, an
inspired harbinger of the church’s
worldwide work, for we read in Mark
16:15: “And He said to them, ‘Go into
all the world and preach the
gospel
to all creation’.”
See my new
Rough Cut
essay on Mark’s parable of the Sower
(Mark 4)...click
here
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
March
23, 2005
The prayer of a righteous ruler (Ps
72)
Give the king Your
judgments, O God,
And Your
righteousness to the king's son.
May he judge Your
people with righteousness
And Your afflicted
with justice (vv 1-2).
Psalm 72 is a prayer
describing a righteous ruler.
It calls upon God to:
May he vindicate the
afflicted of the people,
Save the children of
the needy
And crush the
oppressor (v 4).
Although most certainly
this Davidic prayer was a reflection of
King David’s heart, namely that he
sought to be a righteous leader of God’s
people, Israel, it also prophetically
points to the final King David, the Son
of God, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. This
is seen in the universal allusions
throughout the Psalm. Thus, Psalm 72
for all time is a call to discipleship,
especially a call directed at rulers
(leaders), political and spiritual.
This does not diminish that the king of
any land, its political head ought to
promote righteous actions on behalf of
the needy. It is interesting that, in
the prayer, before the king’s reign is
established (“from sea to sea”, v 8) and
before the king is blessed by foreign
nations (v 17), the king is to establish
righteousness in his own reign—and
apparently under the inspiration of the
Spirit, this starts with advocating for
the vulnerable and saving the children
of the needy. “Crushing the oppressor”
is indeed a part of a righteous king’s
reign, but as verse 4 indicates, its at
least only one of three things that
should occupy the mind of the political
ruler, and at the most, the last to
receive emphasis.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
March 20, 2005
Our neighbors are at the ends of the
earth (Acts 1:8)
"but you will receive
power when the Holy Spirit has come
upon you; and you shall be My
witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in
all Judea and Samaria, and even to
the remotest part of the earth"
(Acts 1:8)
We’d stay, “Mountain Home
isn’t the ends of the earth, but you can
see it from here.” When I was a young
twenty-year-old Air Force recruit, I was
stationed in Mountain Home, Idaho, for
two years. It really wasn’t that bad at
all. But as a newcomer to the base and
a young man it seemed like I was
stationed in the middle of no-where.
The base was right in the middle of a
sagebrush desert. Little to nothing
stood in the way of this base for nearly
50 miles all around. The Rocky
Mountains were not home there; you could
barely see them to the west on a good
day. I called the place, Mountain View
On A Good Day, Idaho. Years later I
would come to realize that Mountain
Home, Idaho was indeed at the ends of
the earth. In fact, my neighborhood
right here in the Black Rock section of
Bridgeport, Connecticut is at the ends
of the earth. Your neighbors are at the
ends of the earth.
But we don’t usually hear that,
especially when Acts 1:8 is mentioned or
preached on. We usually place a rather
spiritualized metaphorical grid over the
verse that is foreign to its original
setting and the author’s original
intent. This verse deserves its own
Rough Cut
exegetical study. Perhaps in the
future. But for right now some brief
comments.
Usually one hears this
verse explained this way:
“Jesus is telling us
to be witnesses first in
‘Jerusalem,’ your neighborhood and
home town; then you should have a
concern for your ‘Judea and
Samaria,’ that is the region or
outlying towns; and finally, you
should support missions to bring the
good news to the ‘ends of the
earth’.”
I’d say, when Jesus
actually spoke it—and for that matter,
when Luke decided to incorporate it into
his Acts—Jerusalem actually meant
Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria
actually meant (get ready for this)
Judea and Samaria and the last
geographical identifier, the ends of
the earth, carried the connotation
of “every where else” and particularly
the far reaches of the Gentile world.
In fact the actual flow of Luke’s Acts
of the Apostles implies this: The word
of the Gospel and the church start in
Jerusalem (chps 1-7) and then spread to
Judea and Samaria (8-9) and then to the
far reaches of the Gentile world and
Rome, its capital (10-28). The “ends of
the earth” throughout Scripture,
particularly in the Old Testament was an
identifier for the non-Israelite
territories, i.e., the Gentile world.
If this is true—which is it—our
neighbors, right next store are at the
“ends of the earth.” Perhaps our
churches, and us personally, should have
the attitude: “We will go to the ends of
the earth for our neighbors.”
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
March 6, 2005
Mark 4:30-34: Vision of a good society
“And He said, "How shall we picture
the kingdom of God, or by what
parable shall we present it? ‘It is
like a mustard seed, which, when
sown upon the soil, though it is
smaller than all the seeds that are
upon the soil, yet when it is sown,
it grows up and becomes larger than
all the garden plants and forms
large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF
THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.’
With many such parables He was
speaking the word to them, so far as
they were able to hear it; and He
did not speak to them without a
parable; but He was explaining
everything privately to His own
disciples” (Mark 4:30-34).
Definitions of the Kingdom of God are
multiple. My favorite is something Os
Guinness once said. My memory isn’t the
best, but here’s a close recollection:
The Kingdom of God is all about
space and time: Over what space and
in what time does God’s authority
and rule have preeminence?
The answer should be all space—all
things—and at all times. Certainly,
each individual must answer this as a
matter of obedience. One’s answer also
illustrates one’s view of God and the
world. Mark’s picture (i.e.,
definition) of God’s kingdom is one of a
small seed producing a large plant with
many branches which eventually is home
to the “birds of the air” so they may
find “shade” (i.e., protection).
Although Jesus is quoting Daniel 4, we
know from an Old Testament parallel
found in Ezekiel 31:6, “the birds of the
air” represent the nations of the
world. The Christian community, I
believe, does well at understanding the
“nations” aspect, the mission
implication implied by this parable. I
am not so convinced we have a good
grasp, a practical outworking of the
“shade” imagery, that is the idea of the
Kingdom of God having a vision for a
good society that will protect and
nurture those in its “branches.”
(Actually, I think we do this well
overseas.) I quoted John Leo’s essay,
“Liberalism: Can
it Survive?” in a
CommonPlace
Thought post on March
4, 2005, making reference to our own,
that is the evangelical community’s lack
of a public philosophy. I can’t help
but read Mark’s reference to Jesus here
in this parable as a kingdom call to
obedience to have a public philosophy,
namely a vision of a good society. We
better be careful: evangelicals are
claiming new voter- and political-power,
but we are not being inspired by, as Leo
puts it, “any vision of the good
society.” This parable follows the
implications of one of our favorite
quotable verses, Matthew 6:33:
“But seek first His
kingdom and His righteousness, and
all these things will be added to
you.”
“His righteousness”
implies that we are to seek right
standing among others. We trade away
the power of God for political power.
However, can you imagine the power of
the evangelical community, if we had a
public philosophy and applied that to a
vision of a good society right where we
live? Expressed in the community in
which we are attempting to demonstrate
the arrival of the kingdom of God?
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
February 28, 2005
Mark 1:41-45:
Move with compassion in unpopulated
areas
“Moved with
compassion, Jesus stretched out His
hand and touched him, and said to
him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’
Immediately the leprosy left him and
he was cleansed. And He sternly
warned him and immediately sent him
away, and He said to him, ‘See that
you say nothing to anyone; but go,
show yourself to the priest and
offer for your cleansing what Moses
commanded, as a testimony to them.’
But he went out and began to
proclaim it freely and to spread the
news around, to such an extent that
Jesus could no longer publicly enter
a city, but stayed out in
unpopulated areas; and they were
coming to Him from everywhere” (Mark
1:41-45).
In Mark chapter one,
Jesus is at the height of his
popularity. And yet, he does
everything contrary to pop-church
growth principles, sound marketing, and
just plain commonsense if one wants to
advertise or promote one’s ideas or, in
this case good news. I am surprised all
over again by these verses in Mark.
Jesus could have capitalized on both his
popularity and the neat healing tricks
(let’s call them the advertising
gimmick, the lure, the thing that would
attract new people). But he didn’t.
Everything Jesus did to move his message
to capture the world was against the
book of our modern conventional wisdom
and know-how. After all these years, I
am still amazed at this. The next thing
you know, Jesus moves his ministry into
“unclean territories” as described by
Mark in chapter 5. It seems that the
premier Sower of the Seed likes to waste
it in places we are most likely to find uncultivated, rocky, and worthless
soil. Hardly a model for modern church
ministry—or is it?
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
February 23, 2005
Deut
24:19-22:
Church budgets and the ‘moral value’
vote
"When you reap your
harvest in your field and have
forgotten a sheaf in the field, you
shall not go back to get it; it
shall be for the alien, for the
orphan, and for the widow, in order
that the LORD your God may bless you
in all the work of your hands. When
you beat your olive tree, you shall
not go over the boughs again; it
shall be for the alien, for the
orphan, and for the widow. When you
gather the grapes of your vineyard,
you shall not go over it again; it
shall be for the alien, for the
orphan, and for the widow. You
shall remember that you were a slave
in the land of Egypt; therefore I am
commanding you to do this thing"
(Deut 24:19-22).
Moral values. That’s all
we heard for weeks, now even months
after the 2004 Presidential elections.
“The country voted for moral values.”
After the President’s budget and my
Governor’s budget were presented, I am
trying to figure out what morals and
what values did we vote for. The call
is for sacrifice. I don’t mind
sacrifice, but it seems both budgets
protect the wealthier from sacrifice and
those who are most vulnerable are the
one’s being called to sacrifice. Ah,
the vulnerable aren’t being asked to
sacrifice; they are actually more akin
to the sacrifices that are made in order
to keep “everyone” from having to
sacrifice. Actually, if the budgets are
moral documents—which they are—then they
tell us what kind of “moral values” we
got for our vote. Obviously I am
concerned about the moral values we want
and the moral values portrayed in our
national and state budgets. But I am
concerned about something bigger. I’d
like to see every church’s, to be more
specific, every evangelical church’s
annual budget. That will tell me what
we value and what “moral values” we
actually have. Since the evangelical
church boasts of its voting power and
has claimed the status of king-maker
(President-maker), I’d like to see what
our moral values actually are. Maybe I
am wrong—and many evangelicals will
email me to say so. But I can bet my
annual salary that 80%, 90%, maybe even
95% of this year’s budgets from
evangelical churches never even hinted
at some form of ministry, assistance, or
concern for the poor, the widow, orphan
or alien. My Bible has verses like
these. Do our budgets reflect them?
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
February 11, 2005
Isaiah 10:1-3:
Two wars at the same time (Bush’s
budget)
Woe to those who
enact evil statutes
And to those
who constantly record unjust
decisions,
So as to deprive the
needy of justice
And rob the
poor of My people of their rights,
So that widows
may be their spoil
And that they
may plunder the orphans.
Now what will you do
in the day of punishment,
And in the
devastation which will come from
afar?
To whom will
you flee for help?
And where will
you leave your wealth? (Isaiah
10:1-3)
Yesterday, I was
thoroughly reprimanded, even kind of
yelled at, by friends, good friends. I
voted for Bush. They were angry about
being in Iraq. I agreed with the
President on Iraq, on America doing what
it did there. They didn’t care a higher
percentage of eligible Iraqis voted in
their first free election than Americans
do in November of each year. What they
care about was that the President made
sever cuts in funding that will
most definitely effect the poor and
vulnerable here in America. They asked
me what was I going to do about it. I
am responsible. I do feel responsible.
I had good reasons I could not support
Bush’s democrat opponent, which I will
not go into here. But, I believed
Bush’s word about Iraq. (And those who
say he lied are simply wrong; everyone
from Clinton to Kerry to Biden all
thought there was WMD there. Why are
Bush’s critics so disappointed the WMD
are not there, or worse, missing?) But
I also believe Bush’s word on his
Christian heart and compassion. I know
he has told anti-poverty leaders he is
committed to alleviating poverty. A
wartime budget. That’s what he is
calling it. I understand sacrifices
need to be made to win the efforts
against terrorism (and yes Iraq and
terrorists are linked, well, were
linked). But why are the poor, the
working poor, and other vulnerable
populations here in America the only
one’s being called to sacrifice, or
rather are being sacrificed. I am, as I
mentioned yesterday, disappointed in
Bush’s budget. One reason we are a
strong nation and able to fight on
behalf of others is that we,
collectively, as a nation seek ways to
help our own poor. President Bush had,
I think, a good State of the Union
address. After his budget was submitted
I became bothered by the contradiction
in one particular line, referring to the
purpled finger-tipped Iraqi voters, “As
you stand for your own liberty, America
stands with you.” The President’s
budget, as a moral document, indicates
two things to me: 1) As the American
poor and vulnerable stand on the ground
of the freest nation on earth, the Bush
administration does not stand with them;
and 2) if we cannot protect our most
vulnerable and defend our poor
(including the working poor) here in
America, we will not have the national
moral character to do the same for those
in another country. Budgets like this
will cause many Americans to rise up,
with their own purple-tipped finger, on
November 4, 2008 to vote for the person
that considers their interests, their
security, their future, their liberty as
a priority; the person who knows how to
fight two wars at the same time—the war
on terrorism and the war on poverty. It
is hard sometimes being a Republican.
Oh, the Isaiah text: This
was God’s judgment against Israel for
not taking care of their own vulnerable
populations. God used the Assyrians to
destroy and conquer Israel. Don’t think
for a moment that America will be exempt
from this kind of judgment. Mr.
President: It is always two wars at a
time, two at a time. As we
acknowledge a previous republican
President's birthday, Lincoln's,
we should ponder, "Wasn't that two wars
at the same time." Fighting to
save the Union and the rights of, what
were they called, oh yes, slaves.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
February 10, 2005
Proverbs:
Our budgets are off the prophetic mark
“He who
gives to the poor will never want,
but he who shuts his eyes will have
many curses” (Proverbs 28:27).
“The
righteous is concerned for the
rights of the poor, the wicked does
not understand such concern”
(Proverbs 29:7).
“If a
king judges the poor with truth, his
throne will be established forever”
(Proverbs 29:14).
“He who
oppresses the poor taunts his Maker,
but he who is gracious to the needy
honors Him” (Proverbs 14:31).
Some times I wonder if we
are all reading the same Bible. I am
disappointed in the President’s budget
proposal; primarily because there is a
disconnect between his rhetoric about
the poor, poverty, and compassion and
his budget. People make it about Red
vs. Blue, liberal vs. conservative.
Christians make it about social gospel
vs. preaching the word. But, as
Christians, we are held to a higher
standard—aren’t we? As Christians, I
find that the Bible—God’s inspired
word—tells me that we need to stand up
for the poor as the Community of God
and, as well, hold “rulers” accountable
for the same. As Christians we are
Biblical when our own budgets reflect a
concern for the vulnerable populations
that surround us (which is a living
prophetic word) and when we hold our
“rulers” accountable to make good on
their promises to address poverty. I
think we can’t do that because our own
church budgets are off the prophetic
mark, too.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
February 9, 2005
We like the stories, we don't like who
they suggest we invite to our house
We like the Gospel stories, the
vignettes drawn from Jesus’ teachings.
They become treasures, slices of His
teaching to warm our hearts, instruct
our days, and comfort our tough times.
Although important to know they are from
Jesus, more important, however, is how
the inspired Gospel writers link
them—the vignettes—together. They are
strung together to give impact on a
theme or teaching. Treasured in and of
themselves, one at a time, will often
draw the reader—you and me—away from the
inspired lesson to be learned. In
Matthew 21 there is a string of
vignettes linked with Jesus teaching
that should have an impact to stir our
hearts—not just warm them—to warn us and
to provoke us—not just comfort us. Here
is a part of that string:
And Jesus entered the
temple and drove out all those who
were buying and selling in the
temple, and overturned the tables of
the money changers and the seats of
those who were selling doves. And He
said to them, "It is written, 'MY
HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF
PRAYER'; but you are making it a
ROBBERS' DEN."
And the
blind and the lame came to Him in
the temple, and He healed them. But
when the chief priests and the
scribes saw the wonderful things
that He had done, and the children
who were shouting in the temple,
"Hosanna to the Son of David," they
became indignant and said to Him,
"Do You hear what these children are
saying?" And Jesus said to them,
"Yes; have you never read, 'OUT OF
THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING
BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR
YOURSELF'?" (Matthew
21:12-16).
Seeing a lone fig
tree by the road, He came to it and
found nothing on it except leaves
only; and He said to it, "No longer
shall there ever be any fruit from
you." And at once the fig tree
withered. Seeing this, the
disciples were amazed and asked,
"How did the fig tree wither all at
once?" And Jesus answered and said
to them, "Truly I say to you, if you
have faith and do not doubt, you
will not only do what was done to
the fig tree, but even if you say to
this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast
into the sea,' it will happen. And
all things you ask in prayer,
believing, you will receive."
(Matthew 21: 19-22).
"But what do you
think? A man had two sons, and he
came to the first and said, 'Son, go
work today in the vineyard.' "And
he answered, 'I will not'; but
afterward he regretted it and went.
The man came to the
second and said the same thing; and
he answered, 'I will, sir'; but he
did not go. Which of the two did the
will of his father?" They said, "The
first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I
say to you that the tax collectors
and prostitutes will get into the
kingdom of God before you. For John
came to you in the way of
righteousness and you did not
believe him; but the tax collectors
and prostitutes did believe him; and
you, seeing this, did not even feel
remorse afterward so as to believe
him.” (Matthew 21:28-32).
This string begins with
Jesus entering the temple and sees that
the leaders had exchanged the purpose of
the temple for commerce, religious
commerce. He warns them and reminds
them of the temple’s purpose, that is,
to be a house of prayer. Other Gospel
writers add, “for all people.” Here
Matthew just give us the history, “the
blind and the lame came to Him in the
temple, and He healed them.” Then Jesus
tells us “at least the children get it
right.” Then Matthew connects this
story with the withered fig tree. The
tree, not producing its fruit, dies. We
wrongly disconnect this living parable
from the above teaching about God’s
house being a house of prayer. For when
Jesus says, “all things you ask in
prayer, believing, you will receive,”
Matthew wants us to connect the dots and
remember the purpose for which we’ve
been redeemed—the purpose for which the
house of God, the Christian community
exists. And then Jesus tells a story
about two sons, one that looked good
because he mouthed the right words and
one that was doing wrong and repented.
As soon as Jesus finishes the parable of
the two sons, he teaches, saying that
the down and out, the most vulnerable
and seemingly reprobate will make it
into the kingdom of heaven before the
seemingly righteous. The first son is
obviously those that make church look
good on the outside, but are turning it
into a den of thieves; the second son,
well, is the list of people we’d prefer
not to be guests, let alone living, in
our house.
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
February 3, 2005
Micah 6:1-6:
Heeding Micah
“Hear
now what the LORD is saying, ‘Arise,
plead your case before the
mountains, and let the hills hear
your voice. Listen, you mountains,
to the indictment of the LORD, and
you enduring foundations of the
earth, because the LORD has a case
against His people; even with Israel
He will dispute.
My people, what have
I done to you, and how have I
wearied you? Answer Me. Indeed, I
brought you up from the land of
Egypt and ransomed you from the
house of slavery, and I sent before
you Moses, Aaron and Miriam. My
people, remember now what Balak king
of Moab counseled and what Balaam
son of Beor answered him, and from
Shittim to Gilgal, so that you might
know the righteous acts of the
LORD. With what shall I come to the
LORD and bow myself before the God
on high? Shall I come to Him with
burnt offerings, with yearling
calves? Does the LORD take delight
in thousands of rams, in ten
thousand rivers of oil? Shall I
present my firstborn for my
rebellious acts, the fruit of my
body for the sin of my soul? He has
told you, O man, what is good; and
what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?’”
(Micah 6:1-6).
I
was going to comment on Jim Wallis’ new
book, God’s Politics, but Micah,
the Old Testament minor prophet, kept
yelling at me. How can anyone
who calls him or herself an evangelical
Christian (let alone simply a Christian)
ignore these words? I shouldn’t have to
comment on them. They are
self-explanatory. What does God
require? Not the paraphernalia of our
worship. But bringing our lives before
him, lives that emulate justice, the love of
kindness, and a life that walks humbly
with God. Sounds simple enough. But
then we tinker with the text and demand
definitions. What is justice? What
justice? Whose justice? I agree, the
term justice gets manipulated (even
Wallis does that) and the term is often
left undefined and used as a catch
phrase or code for a political, special
interest agenda (Wallis does that,
too). But there, nonetheless, is some
self-defining here in Micah’s words.
Justice is related to our love that is
to demonstrate kindness and humility.
Micah came from a small
village 20 miles southwest of
Jerusalem. He lived under the kings
Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah around 750–700
BC and was a contemporary of Isaiah,
Hosea and Amos. When Micah prophesied,
foreign enemies surrounded Jerusalem.
The Assyrians had already attacked and
defeated the northern kingdom of Israel
in 722 BC. The people were brought into
Assyrian captivity (see Micah 1 and
5:5ff). Here’s the interesting
part—about 100 years later, the southern
kingdom faced a similar fate.
Surprisingly, the prophet Jeremiah
related the 625 BC situation to the
previous plight of the northern
kingdom. Listen to Jeremiah on the eve
of Babylonian captivity:
“Micah of Moresheth
prophesied in the days of Hezekiah
king of Judah; and he spoke to all
the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus
the LORD of hosts has said, ‘Zion
will be plowed as a field, and
Jerusalem will become ruins, and the
mountain of the house as the high
places of a forest’” (Jeremiah
26:18).
I take it that the
southern kingdom of Israel didn’t heed
Micah. They didn’t do “what God
required of them.” They thought time
was on their side. I, like Wallis,
believe our national leaders have a
responsibility and we have, as
Americans, a national interest in
alleviating the causes of poverty. And
I am open to debating how this should be
done. But, I am ultimately sure, it
will not be our civil leaders who are at
the head of the line of judgment for
neglecting the poor and the
vulnerable—it will be our church
leaders. Wallis, and those like him,
feel called to call our leaders to
account. This is a fine work. But, who
among us is making the charge against
our evangelical leadership: “What have I
done to you, and how have I wearied
you?” asks our God. Wouldn’t it make a
loud statement of authenticity if just
evangelical leaders and churches
leveraged their capacities on behalf of
the vulnerable populations in their
communities rather than invest in bigger
buildings, fatter church budgets, higher
paid clergy, 401ks, or filling up the
pews? When the prophets spoke, indeed
they spoke to “national” leadership.
But don’t let that excuse or exempt our
church leadership. For, we must realize
that the national leadership of their
day was the leadership of the people of
God, not some form of democratically
elected officials gathered in a nation’s
capital. Micah, first and foremost,
speaks to church leadership. Church
leadership ought to heed his voice—or
years down the road another prophet
might be telling us on the eve of
foreign captivity, “You should have
listened and heeded the prophet Micah.”
If you appreciate the
muse,
please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
January 24, 2004
Church leadership: more than behavior
“It is a trustworthy
statement: if any man aspires to the
office of overseer, it is a fine
work he desires to do. An overseer,
then, must be above reproach, the
husband of one wife, temperate,
prudent, respectable, hospitable,
able to teach, not
addicted to wine or pugnacious, but
gentle, peaceable, free from the
love of money” (1 Timothy 3:1-3).
“The
Lord's bond-servant must not be
quarrelsome, but be kind to all,
able to teach, patient when
wronged, with gentleness correcting
those who are in opposition, if
perhaps God may grant them
repentance leading to the knowledge
of the truth…” (2 Tim 2:24-25).
“For this reason I
left you in Crete, that you would
set in order what remains and
appoint elders in every city as I
directed you, namely, if any man is
above reproach, the husband of one
wife, having children who believe,
not accused of dissipation or
rebellion. For the overseer must be
above reproach as God's steward, not
self-willed, not quick-tempered, not
addicted to wine, not pugnacious,
not fond of sordid gain, but
hospitable, loving what is good,
sensible, just, devout,
self-controlled, holding fast the
faithful word which is in accordance
with the teaching, so that he will
be able both to exhort in sound
doctrine and to refute those who
contradict” (Titus 1:5-9).
Something my mentor and
Crown College theology professor, Dr.
Don Alexander, once said has stuck with
me, etched in my memory. It came first
in the form of a question: “By what
means does the New Testament teach a
church grows? Through spiritual gifts
or leadership?” He went on to explain
and concluded the answer lies in
“leadership.” Although this is for
another time and another Margin, we’ve
been, ad nauseam, hearing about the
importance of spiritual gifts, finding
our spiritual gifts (I always thought
the NT taught they were given, not
sought), using our spiritual gifts for
over a decade and a half. There have
been some voices on leadership, but most
of them just mimic of the business
world. As my church approaches its
annual meeting and the election of new
leaders, my mind has been whirling with
thoughts on leadership. This is not a
critique of my church’s process—in fact
the current men and women leaders and
the one’s soon to be nominated are very
good people, active in our church, and
faithful. One area, however (and there
is always a however), over the years of
my Christian life, that I have found
minimalized and made a marginal, but is
a loud part of biblical leadership is
can the leader teach? A church leader,
at least deacons and elders, ought to be
able to teach sound doctrine and refute
unsound doctrine. When the NT writer
uses “teach” (didaskw),
it carries the weight of “apostolic
teaching.” In other words, church
leaders need to be able to teach the
apostolic truth of the Gospel to their
generation of believers in order to keep
the church strong, faithful, and alive.
Size doesn’t matter. It didn’t in the
NT—and as far as I can tell, the canon
hasn’t been reopen and their isn’t a new
redemptive era upon us with more
revelation to be included in the canon
on church growth and church leadership.
Size doesn’t mean the church is being
faithful to Scripture or to its Lord.
What matters is: can leaders teach? Can
they guard the Gospel? That’s the
legacy of leadership.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
January 19, 2005
While on the subject of prayer
“The king's heart is
like channels of water in the hand
of the LORD; He turns it wherever He
wishes (Proverbs 21:1).
“Whatever you ask in
My name, that will I do, so that the
Father may be glorified in the Son”
(John 14:13).
“If you abide in Me,
and My words abide in you, ask
whatever you wish, and it will be
done for you.” (John
15:7).
“You
did not choose Me but I chose you,
and appointed you that you would go
and bear fruit, and that your fruit
would remain, so that whatever you
ask of the Father in My name He may
give to you”
(John
15:16).
I joined a Christian Yahoo discussion
group not too long ago. Over the past
week a long and rather heated thread on
God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge,
Calvinism and man’s free will has ensued
as the chief topic. I only joined in
the discussion because someone said that
the Calvinist’s God is an insecure God
and is afraid that His will would not be
accomplished. I thought this was a
curious argument or premise. I entered
the fray only at a minimum to address
the fallacy in that logic. But, to no
avail. I am not equipped to define
Calvinism (I suspect that long standing
theological framework will outlast us
and this Yahoo Group discussion). It
was thrown out that if God predestines
at all why does He have us pray? I do
not have a sift answer, nor a new
theological twist to explain God’s
sovereignty and man’s (apparent) free
will. I am not that cleaver, nor
theological astute. But one cannot
escape that we have verses in the
Scripture, especially on prayer, that
demands that we place confidence in an
all-powerful, self-willed, sovereign God
who is not subject to the will of men.
Like the verse from Proverbs that gives
me confidence that even our rulers are
in God’s hands to turn whichever He
chooses, prayer promises me a God who is
capable of delivering answers and can
make good on promises. I found it an
ironic thing that John 15:16 linked
being chosen by God, appointed by God,
and the promise of “whatever you ask.”
I understand Christian’s reluctance in
accepting the Calvinistic theological
framework, but attacking Calvinism or
those who find Scripture supports a God
who is all-knowing and all-sovereign
with a straw-god (one who is insecure
and afraid) seemed to me a bit much.
From Genesis to Revelation, I am
commanded to pray and have confidence
that God is able to answer based on His
character. If one thinks God is limited
by human will and cannot or will not
bend it, or is limited in His knowledge
(foreknowledge), that God is too small
and undermines the confidence we are to
have in the God of Scripture.
Recent Margin
comment on prayer...click
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
January 16, 2005
Isaiah 44:
The ultimate big-guy, I am on his side
“Thus says the LORD,
the King of Israel and his Redeemer,
the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first
and I am the last, and there is no
God besides Me. Who is like Me? Let
him proclaim and declare it; yes,
let him recount it to Me in order,
from the time that I established the
ancient nation. And let them
declare to them the things that are
coming and the events that are going
to take place. Do not tremble and
do not be afraid; have I not long
since announced it to you and
declared it? And you are My
witnesses, is there any God besides
Me, or is there any other Rock? I
know of none’” (Isaiah 44:6-8).
Because I have been out
of the “scholarly” circles now for about
seven years, I forget the heated debates
that rage among the wide-range of
evangelicals. I joined a Yahoo-group
called Christian Reflections last month
and have been reintroduced to such
debate, not so scholarly, but just as
heated. One such debate I bumped into
centers on God’s sovereignty and
foreknowledge. In other words how much
does God predestine and control the
events of history. And in light of the
devastating tsunami in Asia, these
questions are on the short list of many
reflecting Christians. (See my 1/4/05
CommonPlace comment,
Some
doubt, some stand up.)
It is a good subject, no doubt. I fall
on the side of believing the Scriptures
support an all-knowing, all-sovereign
God. The thing that gets me is: those
who say God is limited, or not
all-knowing. There are those who
actually posit that God has limits to
his sovereignty. I know each side’s
proof-texts. And there is no way to set
the argument up within this posting, but
I don’t know how those who limit God (or
even say God limits himself) square with
the God of the prophet Isaiah. I used
to teach Isaiah at the college level and
I was always impressed with his view
that God was incomparable, and even
somewhat incomprehensible, and was
“Bigger” than any other god or
self-proclaimed deity in the universe.
I can’t imagine a lesser-god in light of
verses like Isaiah 44:6-8, declaring a
God who knows the beginning from the end
and announces future events that are
going to take place. I taught my
students in five years of Isaiah
courses, YHWH, Israel’s God, stacks the
deck from the very beginning. He not
only predicts the future, He brings it
about. He challenges—the God of the
Universe challenges all to this
ability. I tell my daughter, it’s
always nice when the big-guy in the
crowd is on your side. Here we have the
ultimate big-guy, the Most High,
sovereign of all creation and in this
case, I choose to be on His side.
Soon: a comment on prayer
and the problem of a limited God
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
January 10, 2005
Romans 8:
Now no
condemnation
"Therefore there is
now no condemnation for those who
are in Christ Jesus. For the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
has set you free from the law of sin
and of death.
For what the Law could not do, weak
as it was through the flesh, God
did: sending His own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin
in the flesh, so that the
requirement of the Law might be
fulfilled in us, who do not walk
according to the flesh but according
to the Spirit" (Romans 8:1-4).
Sunday morning, we sang
one of my favorite hymns (most favorite
of any kind of Christian song for that
matter): Charles Wesley’s “Amazing
Love,” or as some hymnals list it, “And
can it be.” The chorus and final stanza
read:
And can it be that I
should gain
an interest in the Savior's
blood?
Died He for me, who caused His
pain--
for me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! how can it be
that Thou, my God, shouldst die for
me?
No condemnation now I
dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine!
Alive in Him, my living Head,
and clothed in righteousness
divine,
Bold I approach the eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ
my own.
These words never cease
to amaze me, enduring centuries,
outliving choruses that come and go with
the winds of trends and fashion. These
words, ever since the late 70’s when I
began my Christian life, have been a
deep source of reality for me. I always
sing the words and my mind flips the
pages of the Bible until I re-read (from
memory) Paul’s words in Romans 8: “There
is now no condemnation for those who are
in Christ Jesus…for what the Law could
not do…God did.” Did you know our
English translations supply the word
“did”? Thus helping us read, “God
did…” This is okay, but you should know
the word “did” isn’t in the original.
In fact the word “theos” (qeoV,
God) is left without a verb.
Translators supply the verb (“did) to
make it readable. But Paul was looking
for impact. After the horrible
condition as a sinner that Paul had
discovered himself to be in (as the
apostle describes in Romans 7), he
cries, O, wretched man that I am, who
can save me from this body of death?”
Then Paul’s words shout at us: “THERE IS
NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN
CHRIST JESUS!” And to emphasize the
mysterious way of God in the world, Paul
stresses the point that the Law never
had the ultimate ability to bring this
“No condemnation” state of being into
existence by simply contrasting it with
one word: God.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
December 14, 2004
Luke 2:
Part two, exchanging commercialism for
the wonder
"But the angel said to them, 'Do not
be afraid; for behold, I bring you
good news of great joy which will be
for all the people; for today in the
city of David there has been born
for you a Savior, who is Christ the
Lord. This will be a sign for you:
you will find a baby wrapped in
cloths and lying in a manger.' And
suddenly there appeared with the
angel a multitude of the heavenly
host praising God and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and
on earth peace among men with
whom He is pleased.
"When the angels had gone away from
them into heaven, the shepherds
began saying to one another, 'Let us
go straight to Bethlehem then, and
see this thing that has happened
which the Lord has made known to
us.' So they came in a hurry and
found their way to Mary and Joseph,
and the baby as He lay in the
manger. When they had seen this,
they made known the statement which
had been told them about this
Child. And all who heard it
wondered at the things which were
told them by the shepherds (Luke
2:10-18).
We are
way too used to the Christmas story.
Too familiar with its details. We are
now accustomed to juxtaposing the
revealed story with the commercialism,
tinsel, and lights of a holiday season
made for our economy rather than our
souls.
Although American can still boast of a
vast population of believers, society as
a whole would prefer that we keep our
“religion” and Jesus out of the public
life—out of school boards, out of
government, out of the bedroom, etc.
But not out of the major retail season
of the year. Here they want just enough
belief to treasure the concepts and
images of a virgin birth, angelic
choirs, and that baby in swaddling
cloths in a manger.
In an
article entitled, "The History of
Christmas," G.
K. Chesterton describes how it is that
modern man has exchanged the wonder of
the Christmas story for commercialism:
Moving step by step, in the majestic
march of Progress, we have first
vulgarised Christmas and then
denounced it as vulgar. Christmas
has become too commercial; so many
of these thinkers would destroy the
Christmas that has been spoiled and
preserve the commercialism that has
spoiled it.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
December 13, 2004
Luke 2:
Taming the Christmas story
“In the same region
there were some shepherds staying
out in the fields and keeping watch
over their flock by night. And an
angel of the Lord suddenly stood
before them, and the glory of the
Lord shone around them; and they
were terribly frightened” (Luke
2:8-9)
Sometimes, translations
like to mask the bluntness of the
original. Sometimes our English
versions attempt to tame it. But, not
here. Almost every version—even the
paraphrases—leaves this text as it
should be, blunt. These shepherds were
frightened, afraid, and as the Greek
indicates, “They feared a great fear.”
I don’t imagine a bunch of skinny,
youngsters, mulling around the
hillsides, cute staffs in hand, warming
their hands over an open fire. These
were shepherds, men ready to fight off
wolves, lions, and bears. The text
doesn’t say they were startled, or
caught by surprise, or even wow-ed.
They saw the Angel of the Lord and
“feared a great fear.” I don’t know
about you, but I would have been afraid
to say the least, and I am hardly a
burly shepherd. We know the Christmas
story all too well. Our version is
tame, cute, winsome, merry. I call
our version the Hallmark Card gospel
story of Christmas. It was going to
take a lot to alleviate these shepherds’
state of being afraid. The Angel knew:
They needed a sign. Something big.
Something bigger than their fear. “This
will be a sign for you: you will find a
baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a
manger.” You have to be kidding!
There is a puzzle to the real Christmas
story, a riddle, even some perplexity.
The contrast is staggering. The burly
Shepherds are to be relieved of their
initial fear of the appearance of the
Angel of the Lord by a baby lying in a
trough in some barn in Bethlehem. Now
that’s amazing. That’s how the original
Christmas story is introduced. No
tinsel or cute cherubs. No warm living
room with presents under a decorated
tree. No wonderful Christmas concert or
pageant. We’ve come a long way in
presenting the Christmas story, in
taming it and relieving it of its
mystery (its puzzle and irony, its
realness). That’s not a good thing.
~Part One
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
November 23, 2004
Ecclesiastes:
Not
learning from history
There is no remembrance of
earlier things;
And also of the later things
which will occur,
There will be for them no
remembrance
Among those who will come
later still. (Eccl 1:11)
Almost everything
fades--especially our memories. The
fifteen minutes of fame comes and goes.
Worse, as someone said at our growth
group, it is apparent that
we don’t learn from our
collective body of knowledge and
experience. I said, “Yeah, you would
think that after all these years we’d
get it: greed is bad, hatred is bad,
stealing is bad.” But—we don’t learn.
The writer of Ecclesiastes wrote on this
centuries ago. The endless cycle of
human history where one closes God out
of the picture is doomed to repeat its
sins over and over. Steve Turner, an
English poet wrote:
History repeats
itself.
Has to.
No-one listens.
On Sunday morning, during
worship, I watched and listened to our
wonderful children's choir, knowing
full-well that they were singing words
beyond their time. But words of hope,
nonetheless. They sang, “Give us pure
hearts, give us clean hands, let us not
lift our soul to another" (based on
Psalm 24). The only way to keep from
this endless cycle of repeating sins
generation after generation is for these
children to discover, early, these words
in their youth. No wonder the aged
writer of Ecclesiastes began his
conclusion:
Remember also your
Creator in the days of your youth,
before the evil days come and the
years draw near when you will say,
"I have no delight in them" (Eccl
12:1).
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
November 7, 2004
Ecclesiastes 1:
The
scandal of the mundane
Our Growth group is studying together
Ecclesiastes. My wife and I are so
privileged. The insightfulness and
honest desire to hear God and walk a
faithful Christian walk is both
refreshing and excellent. Some thoughts
on Ecclesiastes 1:
The words of the Preacher, the son of
David, king in Jerusalem: "Vanity of
vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of
vanities! All is vanity."
What advantage does man have in all his
work,
Which he does under the sun?
A
generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises
there again.
Blowing toward the south,
Then turning toward the north,
The wind continues swirling along;
And on its circular courses the wind
returns.
All the rivers flow into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full.
To
the place where the rivers flow,
There they flow again.
All things are wearisome;
Man is not able to tell it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
That which has been is that which will
be,
And that which has been done is that
which will be done.
So
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is
there anything of which one might say,
"See this, it is new"?
Already it has existed for ages
Which were before us.
There is no remembrance of earlier
things;
And also of the later things which will
occur,
There will be for them no remembrance
Among those who will come later still.
(Ecclesiastes 1:1-11)
The writer gives the impression that
life is cyclical, mundane, routine, and
as a result, meaningless. He sets the
stage: Man is caught in en endless cycle
of repetition, but more so, in a closed
universe where there is no door to the
heavens, to God. This is significant in
that King Solomon is the writer-reflecter
here. He rules during a time of peace;
unlike his father, King David, who begun
his reign “on the run,” and at war with
his mentor King Saul and with Israel at
war with the Philistines, and then later
experienced conflict with his son
Absalom. David was even referred to as
a man of bloodshed. Solomon, however,
ruled during prosperity and peace. It
is his life as king questioning the
significance of life. David didn’t have
time to get sucked into complacency,
dullness, extravagance, and plenty. He
had to trust his God every day, every
second, and at every turn of events.
David saw God in action all the time.
He had to. Solomon is telling us that
this endless cycle during a time of ease
produces a mindset where life can seem
repetitive and meaningless. Sometimes
it good to have crisis, disaster, to
have life—one’s life—shook up a
bit—that’s when you see God in action.
Ecclesiastes is not about life in
crisis, but life caught in the endless
cycle of everyday-life. Is it any
wonder that we have numerous Psalms from
David’s pen where he is reflecting on
God in the midst of trouble and rarely
any from Solomon? God doesn’t seem to
mind honest struggling with His ways and
purposes while we face crisis. What
troubles the heavens is that ease
doesn’t make us struggle with God, it
makes us struggle with life—it puts the
emphasis on the seen, on life. I know
we don’t like it, but it is a good thing
God feels free to inject our lives with
various forms of crisis and trouble.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
October 28, 2004
Joel 2:
Making my world bigger, catastrophic
"It will come about
after this that I will pour out My
Spirit on all mankind; and your sons
and daughters will prophesy, your
old men will dream dreams, your
young men will see visions. Even on
the male and female servants I will
pour out My Spirit in those days. I
will display wonders in the sky and
on the earth, blood, fire and
columns of smoke. The sun will be
turned into darkness and the moon
into blood before the great and
awesome day of the LORD comes. And
it will come about that whoever
calls on the name of the LORD will
be delivered; for on Mount Zion and
in Jerusalem there will be those who
escape, as the LORD has said, even
among the survivors whom the LORD
calls (Joel 2:28-32).
The kids had permission
to stay up and watch the lunar eclipse
last night. They periodically checked
until it was about ¾ covered, then the
boys started a 10:45pm card game, our
oldest was already under the covers, and
our Amanda was in bed asking for
night-time prayers so she, too, could
just go to sleep. I don’t even think
they got to see the “blood” color phase
of the fully, earth-shadow covered
moon. I did. The kids lost interest.
The moon will be there tomorrow. For
me—and probably many others who have
been watching these periodic lunar
eclipses since childhood—it is an event
I can see. What I mean is, I see the
shadow slowly progressing across the
bright moon and in my mind I can step
back to a more universal look and see
what’s happening: I see the sun, the
moon, and the earth hanging in space. I
see the moon actually passing through
the earth’s shadow, blocking the sun’s
rays that hit the moon. For a split
second, a brief moment, my universe is
big—bigger than just me standing at my
sliding-glass porch door viewing a lunar
eclipse. The Joel passage and Peter’s
citing it in Acts 2 is worthy of a Rough
Cut someday (and that will come), but
neither time nor stamina allows it at
this time. But last night I did think
about the “moon turning to blood” as I
watched the moon go from bright white to
dull reddish-orange. I do believe Peter
is referencing Joel in order to say the
prophecy of Joel is being fulfilled (ah,
the reason for a future Rough Cut!).
Peter does say, this is what was
spoken of through the prophet Joel
(Acts 2:16). What can be plainer than,
“This IS what” the prophet Joel
spoke about; this what you see and hear,
the coming of the Spirit, is what the
prophet Joel predicted would happen.
The moon turning to blood and its poetic
parallel the “sun will be turned into
darkness” forces the hearer to think
big, beyond, large, even catastrophic.
The Christ-event and the coming of the
Spirit should continue to make us think
bigger than ourselves. The larger, mega
church doesn’t have anything over the
small rural or storefront urban church:
they all are part of a catastrophic,
worldwide invasion of God on planet
earth. Just as my small world, standing
there watching the lunar eclipse last
night, became far bigger—almost
uncontrollably so—I need to see the
grand impact of God’s shadow of
salvation pass over the face of this
world.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
October 26, 2004
Deut 17: Molded by
God’s Law
“Now it shall come
about when he sits on the throne of
his kingdom, he shall write for
himself a copy of this law on a
scroll in the presence of the
Levitical priests. It shall be with
him and he shall read it all the
days of his life, that he may learn
to fear the LORD his God, by
carefully observing all the words of
this law and these statutes, that
his heart may not be lifted up above
his countrymen and that he may not
turn aside from the commandment, to
the right or the left, so that he
and his sons may continue long in
his kingdom in the midst of Israel.”
(Deuteronomy 17:18-20)
Dr. Gary Allen, the
Founder of The Christian Mission for the
United Nations Community, was a guest
speaker at our Church a few weeks back.
He read for us this passage from
Deuteronomy. Although some think that
God never intended for Israel to have an
earthly king, this passage in
Deuteronomy certainly indicates God
expected one. He makes provisions, sets
up guidelines for that king. (I’d like
to ask the Premier of Israel, now, how
his government and Israel understand
this passage in their old law.) Making
application of this text now would be
hard, at least difficult for the Church
that doesn’t crown an earthly king, but
follows a heavenly one. Nonetheless I
ponder God’s instruction: “he shall
write for himself a copy of this law on
a scroll.” My best friend, Eric Marx
and I used to play a game while we drove
back to Crown College (then St. Paul
Bible College) from a small church we
pastored in southern Minnesota. We’d
try to make it as far as possible,
starting in Genesis One, summarizing
what each chapter was about (Gen 1, then
2, then 3…Exodus 1, then 2, then 3---you
get the idea). Not a bad exercise for
future ministers of the Word. The point
for the king—or for future
pastors—wasn’t just penning the Words on
a scroll. It was to be molded by the
Word. I don’t know if this can be or
even should be repeated by earthly
non-Israelite Presidents, Premiers, and
national leaders (of course it won’t
hurt). But it certainly is instructive
for those in Church leadership. The
context of Deut 17 indicates that God is
concerned that his future king would not
be molded by the way of the nations
(molded by the surrounding cultural
values), but molded by God’s law. This,
in my humble opinion, is the penultimate
instruction to the Church leader, the
pastor.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
October 15, 2004
Isaiah 2:
Worship is a political matter
Let's
start with hearing God's voice through
the prophet Isaiah:
"The word which Isaiah
the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and
Jerusalem.
"Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of
the Lord
Will be established as the
chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the
hills;
And all the nations will
stream to it.
"And many peoples will come and
say,
'Come, let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of
Jacob;
That He may teach us
concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His
paths.'
For the law will go forth from
Zion
And the word of the Lord
from Jerusalem.
"And He will judge between the
nations,
And will render decisions for
many peoples;
And they will hammer their
swords into plowshares and their spears
into pruning hooks.
Nation will not lift up sword
against nation,
And never again will they
learn war" (Isaiah 2:1-4).
Worship is a political
matter. One reason why worship,
church-life, and the Christian faith are
not supposed to be nationalized, molded
by any culture, or formed to fit any
nation’s lifestyle or form of government
is that it should be a reflection of a
kingdom that is not of this world. As a
Christian, you should be accepted and
made to feel at home in a worship
service here in American as well as one
in China, Iraq, Israel, Chile, Cuba… I
can’t help but read passages like Isaiah
2 and see that Christian worship of the
triune God is an answer to the conflicts
that plague our international day-to-day
life. I wonder if anyone is actually
praying that extreme Islamic terrorists
find Christ? (I am certainly going to
start praying in that direction.) I
know it sounds simplistic. And,
conversion to Christ should not negate
any civil punishment for killing
innocent human beings, but there was
Paul (who was first Saul)...
When they had driven
him [Stephen] out of the city, they
began stoning him; and the witnesses
laid aside their robes at the feet
of a young man named Saul (Acts
7:58)
Saul was in hearty
agreement with putting him to death.
And on that day a great persecution
began against the church in
Jerusalem, and they were all
scattered throughout the regions of
Judea and Samaria, except the
apostles (Acts 8:1)
Now Saul, still
breathing threats and murder against
the disciples of the Lord, went to
the high priest (Acts 9:1).
Worship is a political
experience, at least according to
passages like Isaiah 2 where we find all
the nations streaming to the mountain of
the Lord in order to hear from God
concerning His laws. Have you ever
thought about it—worship as a solution,
a counter to terrorism and international
strife? When nations gather together
for worship, there is neither time nor
cause to “learn war” anymore. What
strikes me about the Isaiah 2 passage
cited above is the contrast between
verses 1-4 and 6-8. Why did Isaiah give
this message? Why did God allow a peak
into His future when nations gather to
worship the Lord Most High? It was to
contrast how His people had turned from
God’s ultimate goal of gathering the
nations under His rule and authority and
exchanged that mission for becoming like
the nations. As the nations were to
come to the Lord and “walk” in His paths
(which they would learn in worship),
God’s people were then re-called to
“walk in the light of the Lord”
(v 6). Read on.
"Come, house of
Jacob, and let us walk in the light of
the Lord.
"For You have abandoned Your
people, the house of Jacob,
Because they are filled with
influences from the east,
And they are soothsayers like
the Philistines,
And they strike bargains with
the children of foreigners.
"Their land has
also been filled with silver and gold
And there is no end to their
treasures;
Their land has also been
filled with horses
And there is no end to their
chariots.
"Their land has also been filled
with idols;
They worship the work of their
hands,
That which their fingers have
made."
Here is another reason
why we shouldn’t confuse, on any given
Sunday, our gathering as the church with
the gathering of Americans going to
church. Our worship should SHOUT “our
God reigns” and be an invitation for
every nation under heaven to “Come, let
us go up to the mountain of the Lord...that
He may teach us concerning His ways and
that we may walk in His paths." We
make our worship so small when we come
just to affirm our American-ness.
If you appreciate the
muse, please pass it on...click here
Any comments, good,
bad or ugly? ...send me a note...click
here |
|
|
|
|
