(WARNING: Some may not agree with me on this one...)
I am no longer excited by music simply because it is wears a 'christian' label, but there are a few bands that I like. I saw one of these bands play recently at a Christian event. They were sounding awesome. And then...
The lead singer began a rant in which he told people to have 'faith' that God was going to 'do' something that night, and that they needed to have 'faith' that it would happen. The crowd was told to get rid of 'cynicism' or anything else that would keep them from having this faith. He then invited them to 'receive' the healing (physical) power of God. Moments later he whispered into the microphone, speaking something that wasn't english (or any other language, I suspect).
Regardless of what you believe concerning physical, miraculous healing or speaking in 'tongues' (in my view, the 'tongues' in Scripture are the 'other languages' of the Gentiles), my concern was not so much that the lead singer had a different view than me, but rather the effect his words could have on others.
It is no secret that the body of Christ is not in agreement on these issues. The crowd he was speaking to would have been largely divided on them. Doing what he did was disrespectful to the plethora of views in the crowd. Not only this, I think it was greatly unhelpful (perhaps even harmful) to new Christians who can be easily persuaded.
I'm sure that people who agree with him were very excited by what he did (given the scattered "woo-hoo's" that I heard), but I was thinking about a different group of people... namely, those that didn't agree. He was quite blatantly de-valuing their belief as not being as good or spiritual as his. Particularly, I felt for the new, un-grounded, insecure Christians who were likely to be left feeling that they must not be very 'spiritual'.
I know this sounds like the very cynacism that the lead singer told the crowd to get rid of, but honestly, my main concern is for these easily mis-led Christians.
There is ground that we all stand on as Christians (the death/burial/resurrection/divinity of Christ to name a few), but these secondary issues need to be dealt with more carefully. All too often, we mis-handle them in at least two main ways.
1) We NEVER talk about them. This is bad, because it prevents us from sharpening each other. It only solidifies us in our own opinion, and allows pride to fester. It is only in respectful debate and dialogue that we will be able to learn from one another and have our beliefs both challenged AND strengthened. True, disrespectful arguments are a waste of time, but much can be gained from healthy debate.
2) We talk about them in in inappropriate contexts. This can be unhelpful in several ways, but the above example was particularly unhelpful because not only was it a context in which people weren't permitted (nor encouraged) to disagree, but they were instead presented with a bully-like attitude if they didn't. The underlying feeling was, 'If you don't agree, then you're just not spiritual.'
Which brings me to my main and final point. We need to be discerning as Christians. Indeed, 'discernment' is seen by others as 'cynicism'. We need to be able to discern between (as one Christian author puts it) between 'heat and light'.
Light is characterised by love. Love is the ultimate expression of Spirituality. Indeed, the Spirit can express Himself in many ways, but He will stay true to His personality as described in Scripture (perhaps the best example of the Personality of the Spirit is seen in Pauls abbreviated list in Galatians 5:22-23).
Discernment is needed to distinguish between that which is light and that which is simply 'heat.' Many things are thought of and/or said to be 'spiritual', but can sometimes be simply lights, smoke, mirrors, emotions or some combination of them. Don't be bullied by people (including me, of course) who insist you must believe what they do (especially if it isn't a basic Christian doctrine).
The light of love is un-mistakable. It is light against the darkness. It is love against hatred. It is justice against injustice. It is peace against fighting. It is protection against attack. It is honesty against dishonesty. It is reconciliation against separation. It is provision against poverty.
5 February 2007
heat v. light (2-7-07)
30 January 2007
covenental confusion (2-1-07)
A friend and I was checking out the various ministry booths at a Christian music festival this past weekend. We encountered two ministries that were very similar. Both of them were what you could call 'pro-Israel' ministries. Now, I don't think we should be 'anti' Israel, but I do think their understanding of the covenant(s) is reflective of the 'covenental confusion' right through Christianity.
If you are not familiar with the topic, the 'pro-Israel' position emphasises all things Jewish. They do so with good intent and with the appearance of good reasons. After all, Jesus (and most of the early church) was indeed Jewish.
The 'pro-Israel' people will usually teach (or encourage) the observance of various Jewish festivals and rituals (Passover, Sabbath, Days of Unleavened Bread, and much more). They will often point to the various examples of the Jewish-ness of the early church (Synagogue attendance, etc.) and various verses of the New Testament to demonstrate that the early Jewish simply carried on in their Jewish-ness, and to support their suggestions that Christians today need to do these Jewish things as well.
This discussion is vast, (and I'm generalising to keep it short) but I'll try to explain my understanding of it as simply as I can.
Part of the difficulty is that the Bible wasn't written in the same style as, for example, a theological encyclopedia. Since the New Testament is not a Covenant Theology handbook, we often see the details of Covenant as we read in-between-the-lines of what the writers are communicating (having said that, you don't have to read between the lines much in the epistle to the Hebrews!). Another thing to remember: we can see from Acts 15 and Galatians 2 that the Apostles didn't always see eye to eye about everything. Paul disagrees with Barnabas and Peter at various times.
Having said that (and trying to keep this short), let's look at the issue further.
Everyone agrees that Jesus ushered in the New Covenant, but the question is this: How is the New different from the Old? What changes to the lifestyle/belief of believers did it make?
OK. Here's how I see it.
God is a covenental and promise-making God. He doesn't break His covenants or His promises. As for any and all of the promises of God, Paul is emphatically clear (and I make a point not to be this dogmatic very often) that they are 'Yes' in Jesus. In other words, God keeps all His promises, and He keeps them in His way - namely, the Jesus kind of way.
As for the covenant(s), the way I like to say it is this: the 'Old' covenant was 'baptised' and became the 'New' Covenant. Baptism is, of course, a symbol of death and resurrection - of dying and rising. There are too many points of detail, but basically, all of the various aspects of the Old Covenant (the Land, the Temple, the Sacrifice, the Passover, the Sabbath, the Law, etc.) were 'baptised' and raised anew. All of their meaning and significance was now found in not a place, time or event, but a Person - namely, Jesus.
The implications of this were huge. Gentiles could 'come to Jerusalem' by simply 'coming to faith in Christ.' Their circumcision was not of the flesh, but of the heart, and so on...
The Old system was tired, worn and fruitless. God was bringing judgement on Israel. This judgement, however, was going to be like no other. But thankfully, with God, judgement always is one side of the 2-edged sword... the other being blessing. Judgement for fruitless and nationalistic Israel, and Blessing for believing/spiritual Israel.
12 January 2007
for we know in part (1-13-07)
"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will be abolished; whether there are other languages, they will stop themselves; whether there is knowledge, it will (also) be abolished. For we know in part and we prophecy in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end... For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, 12
How true.
A friend of mine and I have been studying biblical eschatology (the study of 'last things') in the past few months and I must say, though it's been worth it, it's been very challenging.
The extremes of belief and interpretation (even among those who love, serve and follow Jesus) are quite far apart! Some expect a universe-ending event to come in our future and point to current events as bringing this event to pass (of course, some have gone as far as predicting the very year in which this 'end' will come... and have been quite wrong!). At the other end, some interpret the 'end' having already happened when the Temple was destroyed in the year AD70 (including 'resurrection', 2nd 'coming' of Jesus, 'new Heaven and new Earth').
This current 'study' of eschatology is just one area of biblical debate I've listened to in my few years as a Christian. Personally, I find such debates to be very helpful and educational. I'm committed to the goal of interpreting the Bible as faithfully as possible (being as aware of my biases as I can be), and such debates are great ways of observing how a particular pattern of interpretation stands up to scrutiny.
As an aside, if a person gets angry or abusive in a debate, it can often be due (as my Dad and I both have observed) to the fact that his/her position (or at least his/her grasp of it) is less than strong.
As another aside, for me, 'debate' is not a dirty word, and I lament that levels of respect and relationship/trust are often not high enough for constructive debate to take place as much as I think it ought to.
Which leads me to my point. If we take on board the truth in the above verse (the truth that we 'know in part') it doesn't mean that we are so ignorant that we shouldn't bother debating with one another, but rather we ought to do so with appropriate humility. This humility can guard against someone thinking for a moment that their knowledge is anything more than 'in part'...
Furthermore, I would desperately like to see more (to coin a phrase) 'interpretive humility' in Christian circles. I am weary of people saying 'this verse clearly says'... or 'it is obvious from this verse'... etc. If it were so 'clear' or 'obvious' then why have so many people seen it in different ways? I'm not talking about pagans or atheists either! I'm talking about people that love the Lord and want to be faithful to Him in all of their lives! We simply need to be less arrogant in the assertion our interpretations.
In my experience, the most dogmatic 'scholars' end up being far less credible than those whose qualifications would justify them being dogmatic, but who still choose not to be.
In closing, there is a certain amount of urgency needed in the pursuit of this humility. When Christians are unable to debate respectfully, they become more and more isolated from one another. This is bad. We end up only talking to those whom we agree with, which simply results in the exchange of a few 'high-fives' and produces absolutely no growth or sharpening.
If iron is to sharpen iron, then both pieces of iron must agree that they merely know in part.
Happy sharpening.
12 December 2006
love the world? (12-13-06)
"The Christian calling is to know the world with a knowledge that approximates to love. And the point about love - the epistemology which love generates - is that love both affirms the other-ness of the object (objectivity) while remaining in deep, rich and close subjective (subjectivity) relationship to it. Love transcends the objective-subjective divide."
Indeed. Love - true love - is a beautiful marriage of objectivity and subjectivity. It is not merely objective. That kind of 'love' would be distant, detatched, indifferent and irrelevant. Also, it it not merely subjective, either. That kind of 'love' would be spine-less, scared, watered-down and weak.
Objectivity can't handle interactions with things that are not like 'it'. Objectivity remains detatched and protects its own 'other-ness', lest it become 'corrupted' from interaction with the alien 'other'. Because it remains detatched, it will never make a difference. It either escapes altogether, or watches from a distance.
Likewise, subjectivity will never make a difference. It is so interactive with the 'other' that it takes on the very nature of the 'other' and is therefore no longer itself, and therefore no longer able to influence or change. It is either enveloped-into or itself invelops the other.
God is often described in some of these ways. On one hand, God's holiness and un-changing nature certainly seems in-corruptable and 'objective.' But is God so 'objective' that He remains detatched, dis-interested and removed from reality? Most certainly not! The Scriptures testify to God dwelling among and being active in His creation - supremely so in Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, God's gentle care and sacrificial love seems to point to a more 'subjective' quality of God. But is that to say that God is a push-over or that He compromises His own nature? No way! The Scriptures are clear that God is not mocked, He does not change and there is none like Him!
Not only do we mis-understand the nature of God in these ways, we also can mis-represent Him in these same ways. We can seek to be so pure and undefiled above all else (not 'of' the world, but unfortunately also not 'in' it!) that we have little or no effect on it. Purity and holiness is vital and important, but that purity and holiness needs to be seen by the impure and un-holy world we live in. This means we cannot retreat into our 'Christian' corner of the world.
Also, we can seek to be so 'relevant' in the world ('in' the world, but also unfortunately 'of' it), that we end up being just like it, and therefore have little or no effect on it once again. We must speak in the world's language and meet them where they are at, but all the while taking care that we are imitating Christ, not the world. How can we expect the world to care about our hope when we dream, plan, spend and consume just like the rest of the world?
I think of two verses that could be seen as contradictory, but aren't - especially in this light. The first is the 'objective' 1 John 2:15; "Do not love the world, nor the things of this world." The second is the 'subjective' John 3:16; "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." It's not either/or. It's both.
May we love God as God loves the world. In objectivity, may we see the 'other-ness' of the 'world' not as a threat to escape from, but as a field to work in. In subjectivity, may we seek interaction with the world not in order to imitate it, but in order to influence it.
8 December 2006
the heavenly reality (12-9-06)
"Heaven." What a mis-understood word this is!
For some, 'heaven' is simply a warm, fuzzy, good, old-fashioned or positive feeling they get when things happen to be going their way. Many others define 'heaven' in ways that are not unlike the Greek/Roman idea of the 'after-life' - in which your ghostly 'soul' floats away on a cloud.
Not only am I nervous about several overly definitive Christian definitions of 'heaven', (as if we could know exactly what it is like!) I'm also nervous that we may often mix one or both of the above ideas with the ideas we get from the Bible.
The promise of eternal life for God's people is clear, but the Bible was not written to give us a encyclopedic definition of it. Rather than that, we are given pictures, glimpses and/or images of what it is. The biblical 'heaven' is more lasting than a fleeting 'shot in the arm' of cheerful glee, and infinitely more real than your soul flying around in a dis-embodied realm of clouds.
Heaven is the place where God is. It is not sitting at the far corner of the universe, but rather, a completely different dimension altogether. What seems to separate heaven and earth is not light-years of distance in space (or whatever), but rather the current condition of earth and it's inhabitants. Even still, God's dimension 'breaks out' onto ours in various ways. Heaven breaking out onto earth, is like God's space 'overlapping' with ours. Dwelling with His people in the tabernacle, behind the veil in the Temple and now in our 'hearts' by His Spirit are all examples of this.
Now, God's space wasn't intended to merely overlap with ours. God's intention was to 'share' His 'space' with His image-bearing creatures - us (think Garden of Eden). Human rebellion and degradation has distorted the image of God, and has left us (along with the entire universe) in dire need of restoration of that image.
This is where it get's exciting...
Christ came (Himself a perfect expression of heaven and earth - God and man) and fulfilled what it meant to be the Image of God. His death defeated the power of evil, and His resurrected body is the 'first-fruits' of God's restored order of being! God's New Creation has begun! The reality of heaven has burst onto the scene, and it looks, feels and sounds like Jesus!
Indeed, the Christian hope of Heaven is not having spots of ecstatic bliss, and not soul-soaring in the sky. It is sharing God's life in a New Heaven and New Earth that has been resurrected, re-made, re-built and restored to God's intention.
That day is sure to come, but we don't have to sit on our bums and wait for it to come. Jesus begs us to pray that Day (even just a grain of it!) into Today. "Your Kingdom come. Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." Every good deed we do in Jesus name and in the power of the Spirit (and only by His Spirit, thank you very much) is a fresh work of New Creation that is not in vain (1 Cor. 15 - end of chapter).
27 November 2006
fighting over the god of abraham? (11-28-06)
In addition to providing exhilarating entertainment and much more, Bono - to the surprise of none - beat his drum of anti-poverty and world peace. Noble indeed. At one point, Bono donned a white bandana with the word 'Coexist' in black letters. The Crescent moon of Islam, the Jewish Star of David, and the Christian Cross in place of the 'C', 'X' and 'T'.
The idea is obvious and wonderful: These three world religions ought to be able to exist together without murdering each other. From the horrific Crusades involving all three, to the Nazi extermination of Jews (and others) in the name of Christ, to the more recent acts of terrorism by Muslim fundamentalists, the world has seen more than enough violence in the name of religion. To advocate peace is undeniably a good and desperately needed cause.During this part of the concert, Bono pointed out that Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim Abraham as a father-figure and are happy to call themselves 'Sons of Abraham'. One phrase he used to drive this home was "Jesus. Jew. Mohammed. It's true."
The reaction from some of the Christian community has been quite interesting. Some see Bono as equating the three faiths, and others defend him as merely trying to advocate peace and using their common ground with Abraham to do so. At any rate, the following question has resurfaced in many conversations: Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
I'd like to answer the question with another: Do Christians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses worship the same Jesus? Whether we like it or not, the answer to these questions is both Yes and No.
On one hand, we can point to the basic, general things the faiths have in common. Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same principles of monotheism (all 3 believe in One God), election (all 3 believe that God chooses a people to be His own) and eschatology (all 3 believe in a future hope of eternal life with God).
On the other hand, we can point to the many more ways in which they are different. The number of different beliefs is too many to list here, so I'll just focus on the one that is not only the biggest, but the most important - Jesus.
Jews believe Jesus was a good prophet and teacher, but far from Messiah, and anything but Lord of the Universe. Muslims believe that Jesus was 'a messiah' that will return to earth again, but don't see him as 'the Messiah' and certainly not as God incarnate.
The Christian faith centers on Jesus. He is the One Lord; of the One people of God; who have the One glorious hope of resurrection.
One of the great things about serving Jesus is that he doesn't ever ask us to kill in the name of religion. Though there are differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity which will always separate us spiritually, we should have no problem coexisting with them physically.
I'll close by quoting the end of a discussion Jesus had with the Pharisees of his time.
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:56-58
20 November 2006
jesus means this much (11-21-06)
What does Jesus 'mean' to you?
Most responses would not be too likely to stray too far from the very familiar bible verse, John 3:16. We don't often recognise Jesus as being much more than someone who died for 'me.' To be absolutely certain, Jesus most assuredly did die for 'me', but I think it it vital that we push through this individualism and realise that He is also so much more than that! Not only is He Lord of my heart, He is also Lord of the entire universe.
The Gospel-writers wanted to direct their audience to the true Jesus. The Jesus that the Holy Spirit had been (and still was) opening and renewing their minds to see more clearly. Not just a one-sided, prop-up Jesus, to give the intellectual nod to, and/or give a nice, warm and fuzzy hug. Instead they wanted them to see a full-fledged, exasperating Jesus, to worship, adore and serve - indeed, to die for.
This, I think, is why the Gospel-writers didn't simply provide us with a handful of happy texts telling us only that God loves us (or a list of texts about how to discover the secret Jesus, as in the later-written Gnostic text, the Gospel of Thomas). Instead, they wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Instead of giving a list of things to believe about Jesus, or whatever, they wrote stories - indeed, true stories. These stories - in very different, yet complimentary ways - have much more to say about Jesus than simply that he died for 'me.'
Instead, the Gospel-writers drew upon the rich story of their people (Israel), and presented Jesus as the centre, the theme, the end, the solution, the climax - even the very point! - of this story. In other words, for the Gospel-writers, all who Jesus was/is and all that He accomplished had eclipsed and surpassed the meaning of the entire story of Israel!
For example, everything that the Temple had ever meant or stood for, was trumped by Jesus. The author of Matthew records Jesus declaring that He was 'greater than the temple.' (12:6) John's Gospel tells it more explicitly, "Jesus... said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up...' ...but He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this..." (2:19-22)
The New Testament way of speaking about this 'trumping of meaning' is called 'fulfilling.' This is one area in which I think we may need to re-evaluate our thinking. I think the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus as 'ful-filling' the meaning of not just a few 'proof' verses here and there, but the Old Testament as a whole! I think He means that much!
Take Isaiah's Suffering Servant imagery in chapter 53, for example. We often reduce the entire passage down to a few verses, but the image of the Suffering Servant is not just in a few verses in this chapter. It is a broader, much larger image (beginning in ch. 42), thought by many to represent the entire nation of Israel itself, or a specific leader at the time. With our limited perspective, we may not know what each and every verse meant at the time, but I suspect the writer knew. I've heard people say that Jesus must have been un-attractive based on the verse that says, 'there is no beauty that we should desire Him'. I don't think that's the point. I think the point is this: The Gospel writers saw Jesus as 'trumping' the meaning of the Suffering Servant. Every single scrap of meaning that the Servant imagery had, is even more fully realised in Jesus. He is the personification of Suffering, and the personification of Service. Indeed, the word became flesh!
What I'm suggesting is that Jesus doesn't merely 'fulfill' a verse here and there, but rather He embodies the entire story of Israel. Every holy place (temple, Jerusalem, etc.), every role (prophet, priest, king), every event (passover, sabbath, etc.) and every other symbol (covenant, manna, law) finds its substance in Him! He is the Tabernacle, the Sacrfice, the High Priest, the Passover, the Sabbath, the Law, the Covenant, the King, the Prophet, the Warrior, the Slave, the Lamb, the Messiah, the True Israelite, the Son of Man, and so on... (The writer of Hebrews moves from symbol to symbol in similar fashion, yet in meticulous detail.)
May we see Jesus for all that He is. May we see Him as so much more (and no less!) than our personal, individual Jesus. May we see Him as some-One to live and die for.
17 November 2006
eating from the wrong tree (11-17-06)
Though many Christians would like to try - and sometimes do try, I don't think we will ever be able to solve all the world's morality problems. I'm thinking we might as well get used to it.
But in spite of this, we just love to try and 'battle' against the world's morality. Now, I'm not advocating moral relativism - where right and wrong are determined by what you had for breakfast. I most certainly believe in true good and true evil. What I am suggesting, however, is that rather than it being our job to sort this out, we are to trust God to do so. When we try to sort out the good/evil thing, we are trying to so something that only God can do.
This mistake is actually at the heart of the Garden of Eden story. Adam and Eve were given absolute freedom in the garden to eat from any tree they liked, and were forbidden to eat from just one tree. Genesis 2:16-17, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Good and evil were held secure by God - no assistance or meddling needed.
Well, tending the garden and eating from any of the other trees just wasn't enough. They apparently wanted to help God with good and evil as well. The key verse is Genesis 3:6, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and was a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of it's fruit and ate." The results of this are in Gen. 3:22, "...the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...' "
All talk of apples and snakes aside, let's see what the story is getting at - she ate from the tree that she thought would make her wise! All of the other trees in the garden were 'good for food' and 'pleasing to the eye' (Gen. 2:9), but this tree had more. This isn't simply about eating an apple when you were meant to stick to oranges and figs! Neither is it talking about Eve simply wanting more wisdom to make better life choices. This is much more serious. This is the inversion of the creator/creation relationship! This is about Adam and Eve trying to take God's place!
I wonder if we eat from the same 'tree' today. Do we try to tackle morality (good/evil) in our own hands? Who are we to do that!? Please don't hear me saying that morality doesn't matter. It matters so much that it takes God to sort it out! Yes, the 'garden' needs tending (Gen. 2:15), but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that God needs our help sorting out good/evil. The more we focus on sorting out the world's morality problems, the more we show we don't trust God to do it.
May we eat freely from all of the life God has given us.
28 October 2006
the gospel announcement 10-28-06
As Wright says, these heralds didn't ride into town and say, "In case you are interested in offering your devotion to someone, you may wish to try Caesar, who has recently become the Emperor of Rome. He would be delighted if you should wish to follow him." Instead, it would have been more like this, "We bring you the good news ('gospel') of Rome that Caesar Augustus is now our beloved Emperor, and demands your allegiance and taxes! On your knees!" In short, these heralds were declaring that Caesar was Lord!
The idea of 'good news' was certainly not just a Roman thing, however. The Jewish prophet Isaiah had spoken centuries ago about 'good tidings' for the poor, etc. (ch. 52 & 61 and other places). In fact, when Isaiah was translated into Greek (in the Septuagint), they used the same word ('euangelion') in these places! Indeed, the word 'gospel' had a very different usage when the New Testament was written!
Believing the 'Gospel' in the first century came complete with side-effects, and it wasn't simply that you belonged to a club that you didn't before. If it was the Gospel of Caesar, the side-effect was that you would swear allegiance to him as Lord - lived out by paying taxes and obedience to the Roman system. Whether you were an orator, civic benefactor, patron, client, land-owner, peasant or slave, obedience meant knowing your place and not rocking the boat.
With the coming of Jesus, the word Gospel took on new meaning - as did the side-efffects that went with believing it. For Jews, believing the Gospel of Jesus meant that the 'good news' of Isaiah had never been announced like it had been with Jesus. In the Roman world, however, believing the Gospel of Jesus was hazardous for your health! Believing that Jesus was Lord meant believing that Caesar was not! It meant believing that the 'good news' of Jesus made the 'good news' of Rome look like a cheap scam. It meant no longer living according to a system which really only served an elite few at the top, but rather living according to the character of a Lord, who is nothing at all like Caesar.
What in the world does this mean for us today? Possibly more than we care to know. I think it means that the Gospel of Jesus has little to do with an invitation that I accept (as if it were about me), and everything to do with an announcement that is true. Jesus really IS Lord. My life needs to give voice to that, and simply saying so won't do. Simply associating with others that say so (or not associating with those that don't) won't do either. Our spending habits, dreams ('american' or otherwise), time, money, standard of living, and much more - they all must bow the knee to the fact that Jesus is Lord. Announcing this is our calling. It will definitely require our words, but equally (or more) so, it will require our lives.
16 October 2006
building for God's Kingdom
From age 11-18, I spent my summers working for my Dad in construction. I learned a lot about building in those summers, but I also learned about working with a team. When you're building a house, you have to understand and appreciate the overall process in everything you do. You may have an idea that seems helpful by itself, but in the whole scheme of things can end up being unhelpful. It could make more work for someone else, cause confusion, or a host of other things. For example, I may see that some boards on the roof need cutting. By itself, this is fine for me to do. However, if someone else is already making preparations to do it, then one of us is going to be wasting time. Also, cutting boards on the roof creates saw-dust, which can cause people to lose their footing on the roof. What's more, there could be a reason that the boards haven't been cut yet - maybe on this specific house there is another design feature in mind.
Another example; I may notice that a stack of boards are on the other side of the job-site from where they are going to be used. I could save someone a lot of time walking back and forth by moving them closer. There could be several things I'm not considering, though. Maybe the area I would move them to is about to be used for something else. Perhaps moving the boards at all would just confuse the person who was going to be using them, etc.
As you can see, there's a lot that can go wrong on a job site. Intentions may be good and effort may be expended, but sometimes with distorted results. You could think it was wonderful that you cut a lot of boards, but maybe they were supposed to be cut later or differently. You may feel proud that you solved an apparent board location problem, but maybe that was the best place for them in the long run. Perhaps you can think of similar examples for other environments.
On a job site, these problems can be easy to deal with. In fact, the longer a team works together, the easier they are to deal with. You learn to ask questions and think before you just 'do' something. You learn how to see the big picture. You learn to work together.
In church life, however, the things we do are often close to or at the heart of our very identities. The tasks that we perform are marks of our spirituality and if the tasks that I'm doing are thought by others to be contradictory to the big picture, then we feel that our very spirituality has been attacked.
In the same way that simply 'doing stuff' on a job-site is not always the right thing, in the church also, simply doing things just because we can doesn't mean that we always should in view of the big picture. Could it be that sometimes we may be just 'moving spiritual boards' around the job-site when we need to be cutting them according to the plan and installing them where they go, etc.?
In the world of construction, corrections have to be made. The workers have to accept it, grow, learn, move on - and most importantly - get to building the right way! At least in some ways, it is no different in the church. We've got a job to do. Let's keep the big picture in mind. Let's communicate with one another. Let's not take advice too personally. Let's grow. Let's sharpen each other, making us sharper tools in God's hands. Let's get on with building for God's Kingdom.
13 October 2006
ByDefault in your Inbox!
Hey guys!
Put your email address in the 'subscribe' box on the right!
Then, complete the 'word verification' in the new window that opens...
Then, FeedBlitz will send you an email with a link to click in order to confirm your subscription!
Thanks!
-d-
4 October 2006
poor christianity
- Paul in Galatians 2:9-10 NKJV
While we can't reduce Christianity to these two characteristics, they remain at the very heart of the types of attitude and action that should characterise Christians.
Welcoming Gentiles Today
It's hard to imagine just how wrong it would have felt to many faithful Jews at that time even to entertain the idea that Gentiles could be justified by God simply by faith - no Jewish-ness ('works of the law' - Gal. 2:16) required. The accomplishment of Jesus had not only surpassed every hope of the Jews, but had also come with a sharp word of prophet-like judgement to them as well. All nations were supposed to be blessed in Abraham and by Abrahams decendants. Instead, they had taken on some of the characteristics of the various empires that had continually been oppressing them. As N.T. Wright brilliantly puts it, God's rescuers needed rescuing themselves. The invitation to Gentiles had always been open throughout Israel's history, but for the most part, it was an invitation that wasn't getting delivered.
The language of the New Testament is vibrantly coloured by the tension of Gentile-Jew relations, but the language of our world isn't. Perhaps this can keep us from noticing how often we can take up the same attitude towards people who do not share our faith in Jesus. Our self-rightousness is often disgusting. In the same way that Paul talks about Gentiles 'doing the things contained in the law' (Romans 2:14), many people today are doing great things for the world with no faith in Jesus at all. True, God's people are identified only as the ones that have faith, but this doesn't give us the right to make it harder for people that don't look like us to come to this faith. Not only will we have to be more willing to allow them join us in our work, but we may have to humble ourselves and join them in their work.
Remembering The Poor Today
The leading apostles gave the 'Gentile side' of the ministry to Paul and the one thing that was of utmost importance to both of them was care for the poor. One does not have to read the Bible for very long to see how God is angered when His people don't care for the poor. Multiple prophecy-warnings by prophets in the Old Testament, Jesus in the Gospel narratives, and the New Testament all confirm this concern of God that is to be our concern as well.
What keeps us from 'remembering' the poor? Allow me to suggest that our minds are on other things. If you live in a Western nation in the 21st century, that means that you are bombarded with advertising images and slogans that are determined to keep your mind on whatever it is they are trying to sell you. We need to re-capture the eager-ness of Paul and his fellow Apostles (or more importantly, the eager-ness of Jesus our Lord) to care for the poor. Comfort, convenience, home-improvement, investment (let alone drowning in debt), fashion and the like should all take a back seat to our eager-ness to remember the poor. There are countless ways to serve the needs of less-priveleged people around the world. We must make it our priority.
2 October 2006
come, part mental eyes!
I'd like to (big surprise) focus on the Jesus 'part' of our lives. Why? Because I believe that the person of Jesus, with all of the depths of meaning that He embodies, ought to have no small effect on our lives. We should not be able to encounter Him as He truly is and not be shaped, challenged and moulded! How is it that He so often doesn't have this effect on us?
Among the many things that keep Jesus from having His full effect on us, I wonder if a significant barrier to us being re-worked by Him may be our tendency to (perhaps unintentionally) divide our lives into bits. Here are a few ways that I think we do this...
Spiritual v. un-spiritual
While most of us would agree with the statement that our whole lives are meant to be 'spiritual', we still attach a greater spirituality to some parts of our lives than we do to other parts. Activities such as church services, conferences, bible-study and the like are seen to constitute our 'spiritual life' while ones like eating, working or driving are 'just life.'
I think this is deeply problematic. Our entire lives are meant to be 'spiritual.' We don't hop and skip from one spiritual moment to another, instead we are to be continually being filled with God's Spirit and continually overflowing in service, life and love to God, others and the world. And this continual spirituality isn't necessarily always dramatic or emotional. I think that some of the most spiritual people in the world live gloriously unspectacular and wondrously normal lives. Our whole lives are spiritual.
Postively positive
Most of us have heard Matt Redman's song 'Blessed Be Your Name' by now, so we're familiar with the reminder from the story of Job. Praise God in the good and the bad. We agree with this mentally. Fine. That's great. But why do we still tend to attach greater spirituality to the 'happy' moments? Something great happens and someone says, "God is great!" After an exciting worship-singing time someone reports, "God showed up!" I'm thinking that God is always good, and that He hasn't gone anywhere.
Knowing God with heart, soul, mind and strength means more than just agreeing with theological statements. It has less to do with being the most exited person in a church service and more to do with how you live outside the church service.
God is in this place?
Every Sunday morning, we often hear someone thank God for 'being with us' or hear a prayer that God would 'meet us here.' I understand the concept of God 'drawing near', but when we attach a greater spirituality to our church building on Sunday morning, we've taken this too far. I've heard people pray before church services for 'hearts to be changed as people enter the building.' This a good example of seeing the church building as too important. It's not that the church building doesn't matter at all, it's just that it ought not to matter any more than the rest of God's creation.
Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the time was coming and had already come that worshipping God wasn't about being in the right place (Samaria or Jerusalem - see John 4), but about knowing who we worship - God. Spirit and Truth know no boundaries. And in case you're wondering, the church building is NOT the modern day equivalent of the Temple in Jerusalem. Our bodies are. That, my friends, ought to make us stop and think.
Our lives aren't the sum of a bunch of parts, but is meant to be entirely spiritual. Paul says that our lives are 'hidden with Christ in God.' May we live every moment in Him. May Jesus our Lord be truly Lord of 'all' in our entire lives. May He reign in us totally and wholly.
25 September 2006
jesus, the rebel prophet
The prophet of all prophets, Jesus, had a message that was... well... to say the least... un-comfortable for many of his day. Exactly as James would describe God later, Jesus 'opposed the proud' and gave 'grace to the humble.'
Jesus was well aware that prophets weren't usually 'popular' people. His own home crowd rejected him and when he called them on it (Luke 4:24), they tried to kill Him (4:28-29)! Also, He wept over Jerusalem, recalling how they had killed prophets and stoned others sent to them (Luke 13:33-34).
Religious people had Jesus killed.
He blatantly discounted their ideas, rejected their assumptions and rebuked their practises. Even their evangelism! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." Now you don't hear that verse at many evangelism meetings, do you?!?
What made Jesus such a rebel?
I think He made such great rebel because He was the ultimate expression of what a prophet was - and prophets stirred up messes. Prophets (Jeremiah, Elijah, Joel, Hosea, Malachi, Ezekiel, Micah, and John the Baptist - who Jesus said was the greatest) told the people of God to get their act together and be the people they are supposed to be.
Let's take the 'evangelism' passage for a great example. Almost all of the 8 'woes' in Luke 23 are followed by 'hypocrite' or actor, or fake (what would we do to someone who called us fake?). Read the whole passage. Jesus nails them for: not doing what they have others do; showing off; treating gold and sacrifices as more important than the temple or altar; and much more.
Verse 23 provides a nice summary of what His problem was with them. "...you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin (herbs), and have neglected the weightier matters of the law (the law of Moses, or Mosaic Law): justice and mercy and faith." They had focused on the commandment of tithing so much that they didn't even want to forget their spices! - but they missed the themes of justice, mercy and faith that run right through the law! Then, using the 'cup-washing' analogy, Jesus goes on to say that if you concentrate on these important things first (cleaning the inside of the cup), then the other things will fall into place naturally (the outside will be clean).
What connections can we make for us today from this passage?
Perhaps the prophet Jesus would have a few harsh words for some of us. How would we take them?
Perhaps there are things we do that equate to washing the outside of the cup...
Perhaps we sometimes need to hear harsh words...
Perhaps listening to rebels can be a good idea...
17 September 2006
what we don't want to know
You really must go and see the movie that my wife and I (and others) saw recently.
It's called 'An Inconvenient Truth.' It chronicles Al Gore's message about global warming that he's been sharing for more than a decade. To say it is a must see would be a grave under-statement. The theatrical trailer can be viewed at http://www.climatecrisis.net
Now, many of you may be thinking, "Oh yeah. Global warming. Yeah, some scientists say that this is a problem, others don't. I'll wait till it's really an obvious problem before I get too worried..."
I used to think this way.
I don't now.
Gore has done his homework. And more importantly, he has talked to a lot of people that have done their homework. This is his life passion. But even this isn't the reason that you should go see the movie.
You should go see the movie because you need to see what Western culture and life-style does to the planet. God's planet. The Creator's planet. The planet God has left in our hands. This is not a side-issue in God's economy. There are no side-issues.
I am from a region in the United States (which - as many of us know - contributes the most towards the demise of the Earth) called the 'buckle of the Bible belt.' Christianity has been so established in this area, that these Christians enjoy many privileges that other Christians have never known and probably never will (and probably won't be any worse off...). I know what it's like to live a comfortable 'Christian life'. You don't have to go into a normal bookstore to get your favourite Christian books, because you can go to a Christian bookstore and avoid having to be exposed to books that don't allign with your world-view. Heck, in some places, you can go to a Christian bookstore that alligns more comfortably with your denomination. What's more, many Christians see this as a demonstration of God's favour on them.
In addition to enjoying the benefits of the established nature of Christianity in the U.S., American Christians (mostly) live identical lifestyles of comfort, convenience, busy-ness and everything else stero-typical of what it means to be an American. Most Christians would assume that the American Dream is fully harmonious with God's Dream. While I cannot - and willl not - include all American Christians in this description, it fits the strong majority quite well.
Why the rant about American Christians?' Well, I used to be one, and as a participant of such a culture (or sub-culture, actually...), I cared less about the world around me and mostly about my safe, comfortable Christian-hood. A warning about global-warming wouldn't have phased me much, and I probably would have just shrugged and said, 'Well, Jesus is about to come back, so what does it matter?' After all, Al Gore is a Democrat (which 98% of American Christians consider to be obviously not God's political party), and so therefore he obviously can't be a Christian and why would we care what a non-Christian has to say? I know, it's a little cynical, but it's not far from the truth...
My point? Care of the earth is an issue at which Christians should be at the fore-front. No, I'm not saying abandon issues such as abortion, family values or other ones. I'm just suggesting that we need not treat this as if it were something that is un-important.
Nuff said...
Go see the movie.
4 September 2006
the spiritual world
-What is spirituality?
-How do I practise it?
-What does it 'look' like?
-Whose version of it works the best?
-Is there a 'best version' at all?
-Am I spiritual enough?
etc.
Well. Of course, I cannot possibly address every idea about spirituality. I haven't even heard every idea out there - and I seriously doubt anyone has. I can't even address every idea about spirituality that supposedly comes from the Christian community! The topic is so vast and it contains so many contradictory ideas, it can be quite exhausting even thinking about it for long!
What a tough deal. Huh? I firmly believe that ALL humans are spiritual beings, and I think most people would agree (but again, it depends on your definition of 'spiritual'). We all seem to have this deep sense of this thing we call 'sprirituality', but there are so many views out there (even within Christendom), that trying to find the best (true, correct, right?) one can wear us out quickly.
I want to encourage health in this area. For those seeking a better 'spiritual health' that are growing (or have grown) tired of the search, I want to encourage them to not give up. Our lives matter just that much.
Instead of delving into this bottom-less pit of ideas, I thought I would share a 'set of glasses' with you. I discovered them from reading a book by N.T. Wright called "Simply Christian" (which, by the way, many are seeing as the new "Mere Christianity"). These 'glasses' provide a framework with which to evaluate various ideas about spirituality and the world. My hope is that they will fuel your search with enthusiasm.
Right about now, some readers might be thinking, "But we have the Bible. No search is necessary. Just read what it says," to which I would respond, "OK. Then how can there be so many different - even contradictory - ideas about spirituality which all claim to be 'biblical'? While I believe that the Bible does have the answers, I'm nervous about such a simplistic pat-answer to this very important question.
The spheres of 'spirituality' and 'religion' are overlapping to say the least. Ask just about anyone what spirituality is, and they will eventually say something about tapping into a 'greater' reality, God, god, being, existence, mindset, Mindset or whatever. Using 3 'options', these 'glasses' provide a way of viewing the universe we live in and how 'god' fits into the picture.
Option 1
The first option is to see the entire universe as being - in it's very nature or essence - god. This is known as the pantheist view (pan = everything, theos = god). As N.T. Wright points out, the unavoidable difficulty with this view is that it is hard to account for the obvious evil that we see so clearly around us. If everything in itself is divine, and evil is so apparent, then the divine must contain evil, right? This tension is seen in such symbols as the yin-yang, used in Confucianism and Taoism. Unfortunately, we are left with a corrupt deity in this view.
Option 2
This option views god's realm as being detached and/or dis-interested with our realm. The idea is that because the divine must be pure, and our world is so obviously corrupted, stained and flawed, the divine simply cannot have anything to do with this existence. This god may have created the world, but now must have more important things to do, because our world certainly is being ignored. Perhaps this god may come down and do something scary every once and a while, but for the most part, is distracted by 'heavenly' business. Many versions of this view have been articulated, but perhaps the most well known person to do so was Plato. His view has become known as dualism, in which this world is merely a flawed copy of the ideal world. (Though we may not realise it, many so-called Christian ideas and Bible verse interpretations are tainted with this understanding of the universe.) The problem with this view is that while we admit that our world is most certainly flawed, we still behold it's beauty and majesty. We find mountains, hills, fields, flowers, lakes, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets, full-moons, and ocean waves to be deeply moving. Indeed, the Bible gives repeated testimony to the greatness of God's good creation.
Option 3
Option 1 cannot solve the question of evil, and leaves us with a deity that is in some way - at least in part - corrupt. Option 2 cannot explain the richness and glory of the universe, and leaves us confused about how to get the attention and favour of it's distant god. Continuing with N.T. Wrights 'glasses', our third option is to see two dimensions - Heaven and Earth - which 'overlap' and 'interlock' in various ways. The divine interacts with and relates to this world. This highlights the personal nature of this God. This God is somehow able to act in our very own space and time while at the same time remaining sovereign over it. This God is able to promise His people that He will 'dwell among them'.
Perhaps this is already sparking some thinking and re-thinking about some things. Perhaps you're wondering about some versions of spirituality. Which option do they fit most comfortably in?
Option 1 spirituality can seem to not have any real substance or meaning. If everything is god, then I don't need to 'tap into' anything, but instead I must try to make the idea work in my brain that the ground, the air, the water, my computer, my car and myself are all god. How does that help me live? I have no idea.
Option 2 spirituality can leave us confused about how to relate to the god. If this god is so distant, I probably have to use the right techniques, prayers, rituals or words to get its attention. If this existence is just a flawed copy of the idea existence, then it certainly can't matter very much, and what real difference do my actions make? If they matter at all, it must be so I can secure for myself a better after-life, right? Again, many 'Christian' ideas are polluted with such thinking.
Option 3 provides us with an existence that is dripping with spirituality. Not a spirituality of self-realisation that seeks to understand our god-ness (option 1), and not a confused grasp in the dark at a face-less 'something out there' which I can try to manipulate into working for me (option 2), but rather, an existence that: calls me into relationship with a Creator God who wants me to be His image, reveals the character of the Creator to guide me to a lifestyle of this image, and gives me a role to play in the Creator's unfolding story of redemption.
We don't have to live in a mediocre, bland fake-ness that suggests everything is fine and divine (option 1). We don't have to 'hold our breath' between 'spiritual moments' as if they only come every once in a while - perhaps miraculously (option 2). We instead are given the task of passing on the gift of Grace which we have received freely from the Creator, using not just the right collection of 'spiritual experiences' to do this, but rather, we realise that our whole life is a spiritual experience and journey in which we grow in relationship to the Spirit of the Creator, who 'dwells with us' and orients us to new life. A life rich with meaning, direction and purpose. A life that is part of the Creator's story. A life of strength in weakness. A life of weeping with those who weep. A life modeled after the life of Jesus.
21 August 2006
missing church
What does the phrase 'missing church' mean to you?
Poor attendance? Vacation? Sickness? Sleeping in?
Perhaps we're all aware of the pressure to 'make it on Sunday.' Various methods are employed to encourage people to show up. In some situations, if you don't show up for a few weeks, you'll get a phone call from someone who - usually after a bit of small talk - will mention that they 'haven't seen you' for a while.
Before I say any more, let me be very clear about how I feel about Sunday morning. I believe that the followers of Jesus after Pentecost gradually adopted Sunday as a time to meet together. It seems that they called Sunday 'the Lord's day.' I agree with the writer of Hebrews that we shouldn't forsake the' assembling of ourselves together.' (Heb. 10:25) I am enthusiastically in support of Sunday meetings so that we can - as the writer of Hebrews instructs precisely before the above passage - 'stir up love and good works' and also remember and celebrate our Lord's resurrection. I aim to always meet on this day and in this way.
While I don't mind people being encouraged to make meeting on Sunday a priority, I am nervous about the way this is often done. I fear that in our genuine (but possibly unhelpful?) attempts at 'getting people along,' we may be in danger of missing the point. For example, I wonder if we can mistakenly assume that a person's regularity of attendance is an indicator of their walk with God. If they show up regularly, then things must be fine, and if they've missed a few weeks, they might be struggling with their faith. I've heard such comments many times. All the time, I'm wondering, "Yeah, but what about the people that are regular attendees that might be struggling?"
Sunday Best?
For many, Sunday morning is a great time of catching up with friends, celebrating God in song and receiving useful Bible teaching. But let's not forget how others can see it. A routine trip to a building, making their way to their seat (if they are greeted, it is impersonal and brief), singing songs that make them feel guilty for not being 'happy all the day', sitting through a monologue that doesn't relate to where they are at but still manages to leave them feeling discouraged about their relationship with God, briefly hanging around afterward in case someone may talk to them or invite them to lunch or something else, and heading to their car wondering how they will motivate themselves to go through the same routine next week. And that is an example of how a Christian may feel. What about someone who doesn't have a relationship with God?
I'm not suggesting we do away with Sunday mornings. I am suggesting that we work hard to make them as relevant to reality as possible, and that we realise that what we 'do' on Sunday morning will never be able to meet all of our needs as the 'church.'
It seems to me that failing to understand why we meet, combined with a misunderstanding of what 'church' is, creates a dangerous situation. Not a small, harmless one, but one that can either contribute to someone being hurt, or someones hurts not being known or cared for. Let me offer some thoughts about these two ingredients.
'What' Is The Church?
This is the wrong question to start with. It's not a question of 'what' the church is, but 'who' the church is! 'Church' is not the building you go to to meet with other Christians, a street address, or a block of time on Sunday. The Church consists of people who recognise Jesus as Lord. This understanding is not new, but we still ask each other the same confused types of questions that reflect the mistaken view of Church, such as "how was 'church' this morning" or "where do you go to 'church' at?" or "what is your 'church' like?" Instead, we should ask, "Who do you church with?" I think it would be a great excercise for us to not call Sunday 'church.' I'm not saying make Sunday less important! I'm just suggesting that it might be helpful in reminding us that 'church' is not some 'thing' that we do on Sunday mornings, but rather it is people who follow Jesus every day of their lives - and people who happen to meet together on Sunday.
Why Do We Meet?
This is a great question, and deserves a great answer. More and more I'm seeing that there is not really any biblical doctrine or instructions for what we are supposed to 'do' when we meet. The commands that are given in the New Testament are the kind that we can follow any time, any where. So what do we 'do' when we meet? Well, I think Hebrews 10:24-25 provide a nice summary statement.
"And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."
This, of course, is just one passage in the New Testament. As you can see, the time, place and style of the meeting is not the point here. It is exhorting each other to love and good works that is called for. We need each other. We really do. If we are to live lives that are counter-cultural, we are going to need help. We're going to need more than a few songs, a sermon and a cup of coffee.
That is why we must never stop meeting together! That is why our songs must be real, and reflect that life (yes, even the Christian version) is not a smiles-only club. That is why teaching must be more than a Sunday sermon, and must be interpersonal, challenging and sharpening. That is why our relationships must go beyond 'catching up at church' and develop to the point where we not only allow others to sharpen us, but we actually look for it. That is why 'church' is not a place or a time, but a people. That is why so many Christians are 'missing church', but still attend a building and service each week.
May we truly be committed to Christ and to each other.
May we stop expecting all our needs to be met on Sunday.
May we see the difference between the Sunday meeting and church.
May we exhort one another to love and good works.
May we develop our relationships to where we can give and recieve such instruction from each other.
May we stop 'doing' and 'going to' church, and start 'being' the Church.
7 August 2006
biblical patience - quickly!
The obvious, glaring question is HOW do we do this? How might we read, understand, meditate on, grasp, learn and grow in the right way?
The Bible - as we have it (which in our time is not at all in universal form or content - but that's a whole diffferent topic altogether) - was completed (roughly speaking) by the turn of the 2nd century. Since then - and increasingly in the last 50 years or so - people have employed many, many techniques and methods for engaging the text. Much of this is wonderful, I think. Unfortunately, we we humans seem to be quite prone to misusing, distorting and destroying anything good (sex, food/drink, authority, relationships, money, etc.). I wish this didn't apply to Bible study as well, but I'm afraid that it can happen and does. Whether it's chanting or reading portions of Scripture while 'listening' for special messages from God, breathing slowly, finding the right posture, or whatever, these concerns don't have much (or anything at all) to do with rightly engaging the Scripture.
Now, I don't have time - nor would I think it my responsibility or within my ability - to systematically identify and de-bunk every technique that you or I might think needs identifying and de-bunking. I will, however, pass on a few helpful (and I believe essential) principles I've picked up from others that we must keep in mind if we wish to read our Scriptures for all they're worth - which I believe to be infinitely more than we may realise.
First Things First?
The first thing is of first importance. More and more, I hear the same question being asked over and over again. The problem isn't this questions itself, but the importance and immediate priority it is given. It is the question of 'what does it mean to ME?' Given our increasingly individualised culture in western nations, I'm not surprised by this. Now, let me be clear. I believe that 'it' has quite a lot to say to 'me' and you. The problem comes when this is our first and primary question we ask of the text.
Our initial task in reading the Scriptures is to attempt to perceive what the author is saying to the audience, and how they might have received it. By this, I mean (taking the New Testament epistle of Paul to Philemon as an example) what is the Apostle Paul saying to Philemon. Sure, 'I' can learn a great deal from what Paul is saying to Philemon, but Paul is not writing to Dale in New Zealand in the 21st century. Our question is what did (in this case) Paul mean? Tom Wright has called this seeking to 'think Paul's thoughts after him.' Paul was not thinking about me.
Our Place in The Story
With this in mind, we dig deeper. But not too deep too quickly. The Bible is full of potentially confusing commands, exhortations and instructions. This is why, secondly, we need to familiarise - and re-familiarise - ourselves with the entire unfolding narrative of Scripture. Tom Wright again has been very helpful for me in this regard. He has popularised a 4-act analogy regarding the story of God's interaction with the world. Within this analogy, we live between the Apostles and chapters 21 & 22 of Revelation, and find ourselves with roles to play in God's fourth act. Our task is not to repeat the first three acts, but to discover how are roles are to be 'acted out' so as to 'fit' with what has come before and to point toward what is coming - namely God's ultimate renewal of Heaven and Earth.
If we don't know how the story begins, develops, expands and ultimately ends, we are all the more likely to 'act' in a way that is inconsistent with it. Mark Strom has described this as the need to be 'patient' with the Scriptures, lest we distort them in our application (i.e. by taking something in the Scriptures and doing it when we ought not to, not doing it when we ought to or doing it in the wrong way than was intended). The old-new covenant distinction is perhaps one of the most common points of confusion that I know of regarding application for us today - again, another topic altogether.
Mark has articulated his 'big-small-big' method for reading which I find very helpful. First, we read the passage with the 'big story' in mind. Second, we observe details in the passage, looking for the flow and looking outward to the expanded context. Finally, we summarise the small picture and locate it's place in the big picture, clarifying the impact of the gospel and living what we find. I think the key difference is that in this model, the personal application for 'me' is found only in the 'big story' and only after we consider the implications of the Gospel.
...'For We Know In Part'...
This 'patience' means that we may have to go through periods of time where we don't have every text nailed down - as if any of us do anyway! We shouldn't be surprised when we read a passage looking for answers and instead get more questions! This happens to me all the time. I find myself flicking all over the Scriptures and looking up various things that pertain (at least that I think pertain!) to where I've begun. Naturally, I've both learned and un-learned a few things this way!
However, if this is the only way we learn or un-learn from the Scriptures, then we are in great danger. Thirdly, and lastly, I want to share the principle of community. The Bible is a community book. Originally written in community. Originally read in community. Originally worked out in community. Studying the Bible privately is a privilege that we enjoy like few other of the many generations that have come before us (hand copies only until the printing press!). We should enjoy this privilege, but not gorge ourselves on it. We need others around us (and around the world, both living and deceased) to sharpen whatever clever ideas we think we might get from our private study. Of course, with the internet, you can always find someone to agree with you (on that note, you can also quite easily find someone who disagrees, but it's much more comforting to only read people who agree with us!) but don't let that stop you from benefiting from the study of others.
Original writer, original audience - knowing the Story and our place in it - and engaging the Scriptures while being guided by communitiy. I think these principles will serve us well as we attempt to read Scripture for all it's worth - at its worth is great! It will take patience, but like a good meal is much more satisfying than fast food - in more ways than one - so is reading the Scriptures as they were intended.
1 August 2006
the bible, the whole bible and nothing but the bible
The Bible reveals the great story of God's creation and how He interacts with it. The Bible showcases an incredibly diverse number or groups and individuals, and shows how they responded to the interaction of God. Most importantly, however, the Bible tells us about the Word - that is, the Word made flesh - Jesus. We get to see Him in full flavour, in surround sound, in real history and in unmatched splendor.
Unfortunately, the Bible is also incredibly misunderstood. All one has to do is briefly explore the massive number of Bible-related internet websites (which all claim to be 'biblical' in their own unique, special ways) to see just how radically different people take various passages and themes from the same book. They can't all be right can they? I mean, at least not when they say contradicting things about the exact same topic, right?
Before I say any more, let me say that I am becoming increasingly more aware of the fact that I'm on a journey in my understanding of the Bible. Realise it or not, we all are. This makes some people uncomfortable. Some grow nervous with such talk, because they feel it is leaning towards uncertainty and instability concerning the the Bible. I understand why they might feel this way, but it seems to me that while the Bible will no doubt remain intact itself, our understanding of it's content and message is quite another thing and will always (I might even say must always) be flexible. Do we really believe that the message is living? I do, and while I don't think for a minute that God changes, I still insist that the idea that we simply don't understand Him or His ways is a thoroughly 'biblical' one (1 Corinthians 1 & 13 and Isaiah 40 & 64 are good chapters to read if you ever think you've got God cornered.)
Now that I've said that, I want to pass along some advice that I've taken on board regarding reading the Bible.
First, let me introduce you to a term. It's a term called pre-texting (of course, some of you will be quite familiar with both the term and examples of it's use). In a basic sense, pre-texting happens when someone quotes a verse (or part of a verse) to support a point or belief they are trying to explain. The problem isn't quoting the verses themselves, it's when the verses are used in a way other than they were intended to be. Here's a common example of a mis-use of a verse (text). I once talked to a street 'preacher' who was telling anyone who would listen that true Christians don't sin. He was quoting from 1 John 3:6, which says, "Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him." Seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it? Well, a verse that comes before that one (1 John 1:8) seems to cloud the issue - "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." So if I admit that I sin, I don't know Him, and if I say I have no sin, then I'm a liar? Well, it's a good thing there are more verses in 1 John than these two.
1 John is widely believed to be written in response to an early (late 1st or early 2nd century) group of false teachers (in this case, Gnostics) that believed that Jesus didn't have a real flesh and blood body, and that He wasn't eternal or 'from the beginning.' They basically ignored physical sin, because to them all that really 'mattered' was not the realm of matter, but the realm of ideas, or the spiritual realm (look up 'dualism' and then thank Plato for many such misunderstandings of our universe - many of which still cloud our thinking, and yes can distort our interpretations of Scripture). It seems that 1 John seems to be strongly warning against taking seriously the idea that sin wasn't serious. See how the text comes alive when you read chapter 1 (especially the first 3 verses) with this understanding!
As you can see, the problem is not quoting the Bible, but quoting it out of it's proper context. First, we must know the immediate context (surrounding verses), then the context of the section of the book (If you didn't notice, I intentionally referred to entire chapters above - not just to verses. In a sense, that is still pre-texting, but in a safer way.), then the book itself, etc. Even this is not enough. We need to be mindful of both the textual context and the historical context. That means sometimes we have to study history to better understand the Bible. That also means that we don't always have the right interpretation of the Bible even when it may feel like we do. This is not bad news, or an attempt to scare or discourage you from studying the Bible, but rather quite the opposite. Join with us on the journey! It's exciting! Grow! Think! Learn! Ask questions! Dig for the answers! Own your beliefs! Don't just recite what you learn from others!
At last, here's the simple advice I'll pass on. Read the Bible in large chunks. As respected biblical scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright has said, “Get a sense of the sweep of the narrative. God gave us this book not as bite-sized little chunks, but as a large thing to open and broaden and develop our minds.” I couldn't agree more. Perhaps embracing this ethic of reading larger portions can help us to quote the Bible more faithfully, and not with cheap pre-texting games, where 'my verse is better than your verse'. I also think we possibly underestimate the value of reading the Bible in community, where our interpretations don't go recklessly unchecked, but are able to be sharpened and strengthened by those around us. This, in essense, was what happened (and still happens) when Jews gathered in Synogogues to study. May we in the Church develop and embrace a similar ethic?
We have the opportunity of a lifetime, and it will take a lifetime. We have the thrilling task and calling to join God in His story. We need to know our place in it. As we familiarise ourselves with history and His-story within it, we link arms with each other as we grow in understanding and we also link arms with the long line of Saints before us who thought, prayed, studied, served, taught, sacrificed and struggled to live their part in the Story. It's our turn.
26 June 2006
trust God - trust me...
"Yo God! What's up mate? You are so cool! You totally rule, Dude, and that is just sweet like candy Bro!"
I used to think of these examples as the extremes of how a person might approach God in prayer. Sure, they are perhaps extremes with regard to word choice and levels of formality, but more and more, I'm seeing that these two styles of prayer have more in common than I thought.
Before I go there, let me just affirm where both of these types of prayer come from. The formal type often comes from individuals with a strong (and quite proper) conviction to address God with reverence. They may perhaps (again - rightly and biblically) have images of God as King on His throne, and therefore take on the posture of 'kneeling' not only in physical posture, but in their word choice as well. Rather than making the mistake (sin?) of praying something that is 'un'-humble or 'un'-biblical, they aim for ultra-humility and ultra-biblical-ness.
The casual type perhaps comes from individuals who desire to break free from what they feel to be impersonal and overly eloquent methods of prayer. Their convictions take different form in that they, perhaps, feel quite strongly (and not without biblical support) that we are invited to a personal, fatherly way. (the word 'Abba' in Scripture would quite literally mean something like 'Daddy') Rather than make the mistake of not meaning what they say, they opt for a more personal expression of their heart to God.
I think both types have strengths and potential dangers. While I think reverence for God in prayer is deeply important and more and more overlooked, I find it hard to imagine how some of the lofty sermon-esque prayers can be totally free of at least a hint of spiritual pride - having prayed all too often this way myself. There seems to be a subtle arrogance in the 'Amen' to these prayers, as though we might feel quite pleased with ourselves with the eloquent prayer we have just offered. Conversely, while I appreciate the personal and relational informality some bring to their prayers, I am deeply concerned that we may risk losing the vital essence of God's majesty and sheer holiness.
But none of this is my point, really...
There is another dimension that I wonder if we often forget altogether...
- Abraham in Genesis 18:25 (check out the whole story)
"O God, why have You cast us off forever? Why does Your anger smoke against the sheep of Your pasture? ...O God, how long will the adversary reproach? Will the enemy blaspheme Your name forever? ...Do not forget the life of Your poor forever. Have respect to the covenant;"
- Psalm 74:1,2,10,19,20
"Do not keep silent, O God! Do not hold Your peace, and do not be still, O God!"
- Psalm 83:1
Are we afraid to question God? Do we (for some reason) think that God doesn't want to be questioned? Make no mistake; we are not to ever take God's place, but does this mean that doubts and questions are unhealthy?
Perhaps our desire to maintain a healthy respect and reverence for God may be part of the reason we are slow to embrace our doubts and/or questions, but I wonder if there is another underlying reason. Though it may sound weird to say it, might it be that we don't trust God enough? When was the last time you 'respectfully vented' to God like the Psalmists did? If you can't remember, then I recommend reconsidering your understanding of God. Is your God unable to handle your 'big' problems, doubts or concerns?
I don't think God is in the slightest way afraid of these. Why should we hide them from Him? (as if we really can anyway!) In the same way that God knows our needs before we ask for them in prayer, He also knows how we feel - whether we tell Him or not. But He still wants us to ask for things and to be real with Him about how we feel! We don't need to 'protect' God from who we are. He wants you. He doesn't want 'not' you. We must be honest with Him. Don't trust me, trust Him - He can handle it.
To take things a little further, I wonder if this shows up in our relationships with those around us? If we can't be honest to God, then might we also struggle to be completely honest and real with others? Maybe the reasons we struggle to be honest with each other are the same reasons we avoid honesty with God. We may be trying so hard to respect each other, we may forget to trust each other.
My best friends in life have been the ones who have trusted me enough to do at least these two things: 1.) admit who they really are (how they're really doing, etc.) to me; and 2.) challenge me when they think I need it. To me, it shows that our relationship is not so fragile that they feel the need to walk on egg-shells around me. If someone has a problem with me, I'd rather know it than wonder if they do or what it is, etc. I think that God feels the same way with us - except He doesn't have to wonder - he already knows!
I've heard someone say that by not telling someone when you have a problem with them, you are actually disrespecting them. If effect, you are saying that they can't handle it. True, some people deal with conflict better than others, but dishonesty is not an option if we are to develop better relationships with each other. I'm convinced that the same goes for our relationship with God.
Perhaps no verse summarizes this better than Hebrews 4:16 - "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in our time of need." (I think the idea of the words 'boldly' and 'throne' being in the same sentence should be more striking than we often appreciate.)
I believe I can approach God with such 'boldness' and honesty precisely because I believe He is who He says He is! Let us be people characterised by trust. So much that our trust is evidenced in our honesty toward God and each other.
