Come Lord Jesus

Why I Don't Sing The National Anthem

2011-08-29T10:40:00.000-05:00

Here's a good, brief piece on the matter about the controversy at Goshen college.

Presence of Mind

2011-06-15T10:00:00.000-05:00

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matt 6:33-34)

i spend an awful lot of time anywhere but here and anywhere but now. i rehash past events in my life a lot. Old arguments and stresses and things that i wish had gone differently. It seems no matter what i'm doing, my mind is focused on what i'm not doing. My mind drifts into the future a lot as well, experiencing the angst of troubles that i've managed to imagine as possibilities. Even at this moment, my mind is cycling from a phone call i need to make, to a paper i'm not finished writing, to an appointment i forgot about early this morning, etc. i bring a lot of mental weight and burden on myself because of these heart-habits.

Worry sucks. It's like being in a cage. There's so many things i could do right now. There's so much now i could soak in. There's so much i don't enjoy on account of not really being there. There's so much powerlessness i experience because i spend so much time focusing on things outside my control. There's so much freedom i fail to experience because i don't focus the entirety of my mental faculties on what i can do. i feel like i can't initiate things. My creativity is stifled. Anytime i let the present moment in, it feels like added pressure, so i quickly run away. i'm in a cage. Each bar has a name. Whatever mental item i'm not letting go of.

i built the cage. It's my own doing. And it all amounts to doubt and fear. It all amounts to my lack of trust. Maybe it's about lying or hypocrisy in a way, because i'm not behaving as though i really believe the things i claim to believe. What do i believe?

God is sovereign. My past and my future are in the hands of God. God is God over my past. i am not. God is God over my tomorrow. i am not. i will either decide to trust Him to do His job or i won't. Isn't it interesting that of all the topics Jesus could've covered in the Sermon on the Mount, so much space was devoted to worry? How did Jesus address worry? How did He address those with no peace about the present? Most of His commentary has to do with the power and providence of God. God does a perfectly fine job making sure the 'smaller' things of the world work as they should. "Are you not much more valuable than they?"

It's a rhetorical question, i think. It's supposed to be obvious that i'm much more valuable than birds and flowers. But it's a harder question than it looks. The problem is i don't think i'm terribly valuable. My power and my significance seem quite limited. So all the things that i have to deal with in life seem much bigger than me. At least far bigger than i feel i can peaceably manage.

But it doesn't matter. Tomorrow is not mine to control. My past is not mine to dwell in or dream about changing. God is the God of my past and my tomorrow. What does God give to me? Only today. Only this moment. Only right here, right now. When i spend all my time in doubt and fear about my past and future, i squander and waste what God has given me. God aims to take care of me. God means to bless me. God means to manage me and my life in a way that demonstrates that i am far more valuable to Him than lesser creatures who know no worry. And yet i sabotage my relationship with Him by my mistrust.

i wrong Him when i worry. i harm myself. i rob those around me whom i love and who need me.

Holy Father, convict me of this doubt and mistrust. i want right now to kneel before You and to cast my past and my future at the foot of Your throne. They are Yours to command, not mine. Teach me gratitude. Help me see the beauty and richness of the present moment. Help me to accept and embrace where i am and when i am. Teach me to trust in Your goodness, Your mercy toward my past, and Your unfathomable power to control and direct my future. i have cheated You out of the trust and gratitude You deserve from me by my incessant worry. i'm sorry, Father. It's not right. You deserve better than that from me. Please have mercy on my foolishness. You are sovereign over all things. To You be all praise and adoration forever. Amen.

The Unfortune School-Is-Taking-Over-My-Life Hiatus

2010-09-30T06:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's post marks the end of my pre-written blog posts, and i haven't had time to write more in weeks. Frustrating because i sure am studying a lot of stuff in school i care very little about, while there's plenty of topics for blog posts about which i am very interested (the list of posts in my "draft" box is very long). Not sure when i'll be back. Peace out!

Shape Notes Going Out Of Vogue?

2010-09-29T06:00:00.000-05:00

Click here to read the article

i still to this day am very dependent on shape notes to know whether or not i'm hitting the pitches i mean to be hitting. Anyone else grow up learning to sing based on shape notes?

Love is...

2010-09-28T06:00:00.002-05:00

Love is a daily commitment to admit your sin, weakness, and failure and to resist the temptation to offer an excuse or shift the blame.

Love is being unwilling to do what is wrong when you have been wronged but to look for concrete and specific ways to overcome evil with good.

Love is always being willing to ask for forgiveness and always being committed to grant forgiveness when it is requested.

--Paul David Tripp

Are Some Sinners Just Too Bad To Be Allowed In Church?

2010-09-27T06:00:00.001-05:00

Apparently, 8 out of 10 churchgoers believe that sex offenders belong in church, but 5 out of 10 say that sex offenders should not be allowed to serve in church.

i read that article and was actually encouraged. i thought the number would be significantly lower. i cannot tell you how many times i've heard people--Christians i mean--say things like, "once a cheater, always a cheater." Or, "you can't trust him, he used to be an alcoholic."

i remember hearing a religious radio program some months ago where a Christian-convert wrote a letter to the host complaining that all the Christians (Christians, mind you) in his neighborhood banded together to get him legally kicked out of the neighborhood since he was a registered sex offender.

Listen, it's not like i don't see the "common sense" it makes to keep a sex offender under guard. i'm not saying i think a sex-offender-turned-Christian ought to be allowed to babysit my son. i'm not saying that i think this uneasiness is baseless or anything like that. i share those sentiments. But i do want to question what we typically do with those sentiments.

Let me just put it this way. Suppose someone came to your congregation next Sunday. This man was a notorious murderer. You knew it. Everyone in the community knew it. And he had never been brought to justice for his crimes. In fact, the local police constantly just looked the other way every time this man killed someone. And now, he came to your congregation and asked to be a part of your church.

What do you think you should do? Should the man be accepted? Should he be turned away? Would you invite him over for dinner? What if he needed a place to stay? Would you let him stay in your guest room? Would you say hi to him? Would you sit next to him during worship?

Now suppose your congregation was looking for a full-time minister. And suppose that man applied for the job. What do you think the congregation should do? Should the congregation refuse to hire him on account of his past? Should the congregation give him the job?

If you think the man shouldn't be allowed to come to the church, or you think the man shouldn't be allowed to serve as a minister, then it seems to me you've just judged that Paul, the same Paul that wrote most of the books in your New Testament, should not have been a part of the church nor should he have been made an apostle. But clearly Christ thought differently.

And what about the Corinthians?

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters

nor adulterers nor male prostitutes

nor homosexual offenders nor thieves

nor the greedy nor drunkards

nor slanderers nor swindlers

will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were.

But you were washed, you were sanctified,

you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

and by the Spirit of our God.

(1Corinthians 6:9-11)

Corinth had a church full of criminals and and sexual deviants. Did Paul say they weren't allowed to be in the church because of their past? Paul says they had turned away from their past and become saints. Now, does that mean none of them were allowed to serve in the church at Corinth because of their past? If that was the rule, it seems they wouldn't have no leadership at all.

So if the early church had embraced the idea that some sinners are just too bad to be allowed in church or to serve as leaders in it, where would i be right now? Where would you be?

Christians are Bad Tippers

2010-09-24T06:00:00.002-05:00

i have heard a lot of wait staff people tell me that Christians are particularly bad tippers. Is that true? It was obviously true in the experience of those who told me. The "church crowd" people they served left low percentages.

Maybe i'm making something out of nothing, but it seems to me that this is just such a case where Christians ought to display generosity. Now i'm not trying to draw attention to what people think of us. i'm trying to spotlight what we ought to do regardless.

Are there cases where it just doesn't matter whether or not a Christian is generous with his/her money? And is tipping at a restaurant one of them? Or is this a particular case where imitating the generosity of Christ ought particularly to shine through in us? "How much would Jesus tip" doesn't seem like an easy question to answer. But it does seem obvious to me He wouldn't be stingy. What do you think?

Love and Marriage (3)

2010-09-23T06:00:00.001-05:00

Love is staying faithful to your commitment to treat your spouse with appreciation, respect, and grace, even in moments when he or she doesn’t seem to deserve it or is unwilling to reciprocate.

Love is the willingness to make regular and costly sacrifices for the sake of your marriage without asking anything in return or using your sacrifices to place your spouse in your debt.

Love is being unwilling to make any personal decision or choice that would harm your marriage, hurt your husband or wife, or weaken the bond of trust between you.

--Paul David Tripp (What Did You Expect?)

The Sermon on the Mount (5)

2010-09-22T06:00:00.000-05:00

In this post i present my final reason why the Sermon on the Mount should be understood as Jesus confrontation and correction of Pharisaical teaching about the Old Testament.

5. Matthew presents Jesus as the Messiah of OT prophecy, and as having frequent antagonistic encounters with the Pharisees.

The author of Matthew aims to show that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of in OT prophecy. He wants Jewish readers to see Jesus as the Messiah they've been waiting for. The clearest sign of this purpose is Matthew's repeated mention that events in Jesus' life were the fulfillment of specific OT prophecies.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord

had said through the prophet (Matt 1:22)

And so was fulfilled what the Lord

had said through the prophet (Matt 2:15)

Then what was said through the prophet

Jeremiah was fulfilled (Matt 2:17)

So was fulfilled what was said

through the prophets (Matt 2:23)
to fulfill what was said through

the prophet Isaiah (Matt 4:14)
This was to fulfill what was spoken

through the prophet Isaiah (Matt 8:17)
This was to fulfill what was spoken through

the prophet Isaiah (Matt 12:17)
So was fulfilled what was spoken

through the prophet (Matt 13:35)
This took place to fulfill what was spoken

through the prophet (Matt 21:4)
Then what was spoken by Jeremiah

the prophet was fulfilled (Matt 27:9)

Since Matthew's purpose was to make a case that Jesus was the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for, it would be counterproductive to present Jesus opening sermon as a critique of the Old Testament. Matthew is using the OT as the basis for Jesus' identity. Matthew needs to present the OT as a trustworthy source. If Matthew presents Jesus as delivering a sermon that casts any shadow of doubt on the teachings of the OT, then the very basis on which Matthew is basing the identity of Jesus, the very basis which Matthew is using to persuade his readers of who Jesus is, is called into question. Thus, Jesus' identity would also be called into question.

Not only this, but Matthew nowhere else presents Jesus as antagonistic to the OT. Matthew does, however, repeatedly portray Jesus as having an antagonistic relationship with the Pharisees.

The Pharisees are already portrayed as villainous even before the start of Jesus public ministry when John the Baptist chides them (Matt 3:7). The Pharisees are portrayed as in constant scrutiny of Jesus, questioning His associations (Matt 9:11), why His disciples don't fast (Matt 9:14), and why His disciples don't observe tradition (Matt 15:1f). The Pharisees are portrayed as trying to trap Jesus in His words, using controversial subjects like divorce (Matt 19:3), paying taxes (Matt 22:15f), and priority of OT commandments (Matt 22:34f). The Pharisees demanded that Jesus perform signs in their presence (Matt 12:38; 16:1), yet when He performed signs, they dismissively claimed Jesus' power was from Satan rather than God (Matt 12:24). The Pharisees were so antagonistic to Jesus that they plotted how they could kill Him (Matt 12:14).

This relationship is not one-sided. Jesus is also presented as viewing the Pharisees antagonistically. Jesus told parables aimed against the Pharisees (Matt 21:45). Jesus specifically warned His disciples about the teaching of the Pharisees (Matt 16:6, 11-12). And then, of course, one of Jesus' lengthy speeches recorded by Matthew is a diatribe aimed directly against the Pharisees (Matt 23).

The point is that the OT vs. NT view of the Sermon on the Mount is incompatible with Matthew's purpose for writing, and it does not fit into Matthew's sub-themes. But there is a well-established sub-theme in Matthew of the antagonism between Jesus' and the Pharisees. It is reasonable then that Matthew means for the Sermon on the Mount to harmonize with the rest of his account. All the surrounding data in Matthew's account suggests that the Sermon on the Mount is intended to fit into this particular sub-theme, that Jesus aims to confront and correct the lifestyle and teaching of the Pharisees.

Love and Marriage (2)

2010-09-21T06:00:00.001-05:00

Love means being willing, when confronted by your spouse, to examine your heart rather than rising to your defense or shifting the focus.

Love is speaking kindly and gently, even in moments of disagreement, refusing to attack your spouse’s character or assault his or her intelligence.

Love is being unwilling to flatter, lie, manipulate, or deceive in any way in order to co-opt your spouse into giving you what you want or doing something your way.

Love is the willingness to have less free time, less sleep, and a busier schedule in order to be faithful to what God has called you to be and to do as a husband or a wife.

--Paul David Trip (What Did You Expect?)

The Sermon on the Mount (4)

2010-09-20T06:00:00.000-05:00

In this post, i offer 2 more reasons why the Sermon on the Mount should be understood as Jesus confrontation and correction of the Pharisaical teaching about the Old Testament.

3. The first half of Matt 6 critiques hypocritical piety, which is the same charge Jesus makes against the Pharisees elsewhere in Matthew.

In Matthew 6:1-18, Jesus mentions three practices of piety that people perform hypocritically. Some group of people ("hypocrites"--6:2, 5, 16) practiced charitable giving, praying, and fasting as a pretense to gain favor and applause from others. Though they appeared to perform acts of selflessness or pure devotion, their motives were self-serving, and their very public practice exposed them as frauds. Basically, their insides didn't match their outsides.

Hypocritical righteousness is the very charge that Jesus made against the Pharisees elsewhere in Matthew. In Matthew 15, when Jesus engaged the Pharisees regarding their traditions, He said of them,

You hypocrites!

Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

(Matt 15:7-9)

Here Jesus refers to them as "hypocrites," the same word He used in the Sermon on the Mount, and claims that Isaiah's words applied to the Pharisees--what they said with their lips did not match what was in their heart.

In Matthew 23, Jesus says of the Pharisees,

Everything they do is done for men to see:

They make their phylacteries wide

and the tassels on their garments long;

they love the place of honor at banquets

and the most important seats in the synagogues;

they love to be greeted in the marketplaces

and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

(Matt 23:5-7)

Doing good deeds for the sake of being seen by men is precisely what Jesus mentions repeatedly in Matthew 6.

Be careful not to do your

'acts of righteousness' before men,

to be seen by them.

So when you give to the needy,

do not announce it with trumpets,

as the hypocrites do

in the synagogues and on the streets,

to be honored by men.

And when you pray,

do not be like the hypocrites,

for they love to pray standing

in the synagogues and on the street corners

to be seen by men.

When you fast, do not look somber

as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces

to show men they are fasting.

(Matt 6:1, 2, 5, 16)

Because Jesus claims in Matthew 23 that trying to be seen and lauded by other people was the basic approach to the Pharisaical ethic, it's likely that the Pharisees are also the main target of Matthew 6--which again shows that the main theme of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is the false and insufficient "righteousness" of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20).

4. The Beattitudes are contrastive to Pharisaical piety.

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God.

(Matt 5:3-8)

This portion of the Beattitudes i've quoted above focuses on internal ethical values--dispositions, attitudes, beliefs, motives, character traits. It is this very area of ethical value which Jesus portrays the Pharisees as lacking.

Jesus declares, "blessed are the merciful." Yet Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have neglected important matters of the Law like mercy (Matt 23:23). Jesus declares, "blessed are the pure in heart." Yet Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are full of wickedness and hypocrisy (Matt 23:28). Jesus declares, "bless are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness." Yet Jesus makes clear He believes that what the Pharisees desire is to be honored by others (Matt 23:5-7).

These values in the Beattitudes are not different from what God desired of the Jews in the OT. God commanded the Jews to love Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut 6:5). God criticized the Jews for offering Him ritual worship all the while not adhering to the basic internal and interpersonal ethical values He commanded (Isa 1:11-17; Jer 7:1-11). God made very clear He did not accept their hypocritical behavior and had always expected integrity and internal virtue.

Thus Jesus, in the Beattitudes, is not offering something contrastive to the OT, but He uplifting values contrastive to Pharisaical teaching and practice. This shows that Jesus does not mean in the Sermon on the Mount to countermand the Law of Moses, but to correct the corrupt lifestyle and teaching of the Pharisees.

The Sermon on the Mount (3)

2010-09-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

So what is Jesus doing in the Sermon on the Mount? If Jesus is not replacing or overturning OT teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, then what is He doing?

The Sermon on the Mount is not about OT vs. NT,

but about Phariseeism vs. OT.

In other words, Jesus is trying to correct the false teaching of the Pharisees. Jesus presents what the religious leaders of the day had taught about the OT, and then presents His listeners with what the OT actually teaches. Jesus is presenting His listeners with a personal ethic God intended for them to live by contrary to what the scribes and Pharisees had taught and exemplified them. i believe i can give at least 5 reasons which show that this is the correct understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. In this post, i'll give the first 2 reasons.

1. Jesus mentions the Pharisees critically in His stated purpose.

"Do not think that I have come

to abolish the Law or the Prophets;

I have not come to abolish them

but to fulfill them.

I tell you the truth,

until heaven and earth disappear,

not the smallest letter,

not the least stroke of a pen,

will by any means disappear from the Law

until everything is accomplished.

Anyone who breaks

one of the least of these commandments

and teaches others to do the same

will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,

but whoever practices and teaches these commands

will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I tell you that

unless your righteousness surpasses

that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,

you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matt 5:17-20)

Jesus makes clear that He does not oppose the commandments of the Old Law, but intends for people to keep them. But He does make clear that He opposes the "righteousness" of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Keeping the law amounts to greatness in the 'kingdom of heaven.' But the Pharisees' "righteousness" is insufficient for the kingdom of heaven. This places the Pharisees at best in the category of those who break 'the least of these commandments and teach others to do the same.'

Arguably then, Jesus' sermon is about how to avoid and surpass the "righteousness" of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. In what immediately follows, Jesus lists the ways the Pharisees and teachers of the law have broken the commandments of the Law and Prophets and have taught others to do the same, and then teaches people how to properly keep the commandments of the Law and Prophets.

This certainly fits the same comparison Jesus' makes elsewhere in Matthew's gospel. In Matthew 15:1-6, the Pharisees criticize Jesus' disciples for breaking traditions. Jesus shows how at one of their traditions which they practice and teach is little more than a way to disobey the Law of Moses. This shows a sub-theme in Matthew--Jesus sees the Pharisees' portrayal of an Old Testament ethic as corrupt and in need of correction.

2. Some of the issues raised in the Sermon on the Mount are repeated as discussions with the Pharisees elsewhere in the Matthew.

Jesus brief comments on divorce in Matthew 5:31-32 are an abbreviated version of the very discussion He has with the Pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:1-9. In Matthew 19:7, the Pharisees use nearly the same words as Jesus did in Matthew 5:31 when He gives the "you have heard that it was said" quote. This phrase in Matthew 5:31 then represents the position of the Pharisees on divorce and not the true teaching of the OT.

The issue of taking oaths that Jesus raises in Matthew 5:33-37 is also an issue He raises against the Pharisees. In Matthew 23 during Jesus' lengthy criticism of the Pharisees, He says,

Woe to you, blind guides!

You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing;

but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple,

he is bound by his oath.'

You blind fools! Which is greater:

the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?

You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing;

but if anyone swears by the gift on it,

he is bound by his oath.'

You blind men! Which is greater:

the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

Therefore, he who swears by the altar

swears by it and by everything on it.

And he who swears by the temple

swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.

And he who swears by heaven

swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

(Matt 23:16-22)

It's clear from the this criticism that the Pharisees believed the particular wording of an oath made a difference in whether that oath had any binding force. In other words, the Pharisees viewed oaths as having levels of equivocation. Swearing a certain way might not necessarily mean a person had to deliver on precisely what he said. Now notice Jesus' words about oaths in the Sermon on the Mount:

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago,

'Do not break your oath,

but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.'

But I tell you, Do not swear at all:

either by heaven, for it is God's throne;

or by the earth, for it is his footstool;

or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

And do not swear by your head,

for you cannot make even one hair white or black.

Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No';

anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

(Matt 5:33-37)

Equivocation is also Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount. Any oath taking or swearing by any combination of words or formulas should not mean anything different than one simply agrees to do something without such formulas. Oath formulas should not make a person anymore bound to act on what he agreed than simply saying "Yes, I'll do that." The Pharisees had codified some system of oath-taking where people did not necessarily have to mean what they said. It is likely then that Jesus is taking issue with the Pharisaical stance on oath taking in the Sermon on the Mount and not with the Old Law.

Thus, the author of Matthew represents at least two of these issues as particular points of direct debate between Jesus and the Pharisees. It's clear from Matthew 19 and 23 that Jesus does not take the Pharisees to be interpreting the Moses correctly. This clearly suggests that on these two matters, Jesus is taking issue with the Pharisees, not Moses. Being that these two items show up on a list of others, i think it's likely the rest of the listed items (adultery, murder, hating enemies, etc.) are also points at which Jesus is taking issue not with Moses but with the Pharisees.

Love and Marriage (1)

2010-09-16T06:00:00.000-05:00

Love is being willing to have your life complicated by the needs and struggles of your husband or wife without impatience or anger.

Love is actively fighting the temptation to be critical and judgmental toward your spouse, while looking for ways to encourage and praise.

Love is the daily commitment to resist the needless moments of conflict that come from pointing out and responding to minor offenses.

Love is being lovingly honest and humbly approachable in times of misunderstanding, and being more committed to unity and love than you are to winning, accusing, or being right.

--Paul David Tripp (What Did You Expect?)

The Sermon on the Mount (2)

2010-09-15T06:00:00.002-05:00

In this post, i'll give the next 3 reasons why the OT vs. NT view cannot be correct interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.

3. Jesus' quotes do not portray the text of the OT accurately.

If Jesus' quotes are meant to be of the OT scriptures, then we're forced to conclude that Jesus both misquotes the OT and also quotes material not found in the OT.

For instance, he says,

You have heard that

it was said to the people long ago,

'Do not murder,

and anyone who murders

will be subject to judgment.'

(Matt 5:21)

'Do not murder' can be taken right out of the ten commandments given in Exodus 20. 'Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment' however is not a quote taken from the OT.

Again, Jesus says,

You have heard

that it was said,

'Love your neighbor

and hate your enemy.'

(Matt 5:43)

'Love your neighbor' can be a quote taken from Leviticus 19:18. But 'hate your enemy' is not a quote from the OT scriptures.

It seems clear that the author of Matthew intends to present Jesus as the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy---that Jesus fulfills all those prophecies. Matthew also presents Jesus as having an impressive teaching-prowess. People were amazed by His teaching (Matt 7:28). People in the synagogue were amazed by Jesus' wisdom (Matt 13:54). Matthew presents Jesus as having an uncanny ability to wrestle with the scriptures such that people couldn't answer him and were even afraid to (Matt 22:41-46). Matthew presents Jesus as able to give startlingly clever answers to difficult questions (Matt 22:15-22).

Why then would Matthew present Jesus as unable to quote the OT accurately? This would seem to hurt Matthew's case. If Jesus is who He claims to be, is it not reasonable to assume that Jesus is perfectly capable of reciting the text of the OT? Further, Jesus' audience likely knew their OT. If Jesus went around misquoting the OT, any number of people He encountered could've called Him on it.

If we interpret Jesus to be referring to the OT here in the Sermon on the Mount, this is quite an anomaly in Matthew's otherwise very clear pattern and theme. Arguably first, Jesus knew the OT and could quote it accurately. And second, as i've said, Matthew wouldn't have wanted to portray it any other way. If we interpret Jesus as referencing the OT, we belittle His abilities and harm Matthew's case.

4. Some of Jesus' instructions are only applicable to Jews.

Jesus cannot have meant to revoke the commands in the Law of Moses because He gives applications of His teaching that could only be carried out by those who were habitually keeping the commands in the Law of Moses.

Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar,
and there remember that your brother has something against you,
leave your offering there before the altar and go;
first be reconciled to your brother,
and then come and present your offering.
(Matt 5:23-24)

Jesus here refers to temple sacrifice and worship. Interpersonal reconciliation, Jesus teaches, should take priority over the timeliness of keeping Moses' commands about sacrificial offerings. The people who could put this teaching into practicing had to be practicing Jews. This certainly isn't a teaching aimed at Christians since Christians are never commanded to practice ritual temple sacrifices. If the teaching is aimed at practicing Jews and not at Christians, then it's hardly the case that Jesus means to revoke or replace the teachings of Moses. At best this would construe Jesus as teaching people to obey some but not all of the Law (--which, once again, is incompatible with His express intent in 5:17-19).

5. Some of what Jesus affirms is clearly already taught in the OT.

It cannot be the case that Jesus intends to revoke or abrogate the Law of Moses in the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus enjoins on His listeners instructions that are already taught in the OT.

For instance, Jesus says,

You have heard that it was said

to the people long ago,

'Do not murder,

and anyone who murders

will be subject to judgment.'

But I tell you that anyone

who is angry with his brother

will be subject to judgment.

Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,'

is answerable to the Sanhedrin.

But anyone who says, 'You fool!'

will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(Matt 5:21-22)

Jesus cannot mean to offer something which differs from what the OT taught in this passage because the OT already taught Jews not to mistreat each other in the way Jesus describes. Jews were forbidden from hating each other in their hearts (Lev 19:17). Jews were forbidden from bearing grudges and resentments against one another (Lev 19:18). The writer of Proverbs says that fools vent their anger but wise men keep themselves under control (Prov 29:11).

Jesus also said,

You have heard that it was said,

'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

But I tell you: Love your enemies

and pray for those who persecute you

(Matt 5:43-44)

Jesus cannot mean to offer something contrastive to the OT because the OT already taught Jews to do good to their enemies.

If you come across your enemy's ox

or donkey wandering off,

be sure to take it back to him.

If you see the donkey

of one who hates you

lying helpless under its load,

you shall refrain from leaving it to him,

you shall surely release it with him.

(Exo 23:4-5)

If your enemy is hungry,

give him food to eat;
And if he is thirsty,

give him water to drink;

(Prov 25:21)

The OT already taught Jews to be loving enemies as a personal ethic. Thus Jesus cannot be offering something different than the OT when the OT doesn't teach something different. Jesus cannot be countermanding, revoking, or abrogating Moses if He ends up telling people to do what Moses already told them to do.

Based on these 5 reasons, i believe the OT vs. NT view of the Sermon on the Mount is false.

What Do We Expect Clergymen To Do?

2010-09-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

The pastoral vocation is to help people grow spiritually, resist their lowest impulses and adopt higher, more compassionate ways. But churchgoers increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them. It's apparent in the theater-style seating and giant projection screens in churches and in mission trips that involve more sightseeing than listening to the local people.

As a result, pastors are constantly forced to choose, as they work through congregants' daily wish lists in their e-mail and voice mail, between paths of personal integrity and those that portend greater job security. As religion becomes a consumer experience, the clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy.

--G. Jeffrey MacDonald

The Sermon on the Mount (1)

2010-09-13T06:00:00.003-05:00

i've encountered handfuls of people who claim that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is contrasting the Old Testament with the New Testament. Jesus is citing or discussing what is recorded in the Old Covenant, and He's claiming to change or abolish or bring a stop to that and establish His own new way--the way of Christianity.

i'm currently reading Christian Non-resistance by Adin Ballou. He is quite insistent on making this same claim. He believes, at least in Matthew 5 in the "you have heard that it was said" statements, that Jesus must be referring to the teachings of Moses, and thus, Jesus must be countermanding those teachings. Ballou goes as far as to say that anyone trying to escape this interpretation is simply trying to evade Christ's teachings about non-violence.

Well, i'm not. i happen to agree with Ballou's basic presentation of Christ's teachings on non-violence. However, i disagree that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is countermanding Moses. (For brevity's sake, i'll refer to this as the "OT vs. NT" view.) Jesus cannot be pitting His teachings against that of Moses, and i can give 5 reasons why that is the case. In this post, i'll present the first 2 reasons.

1. Jesus plainly states that His purpose was not to countermand Moses.

Do not think that I have come

to abolish the Law or the Prophets;

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,

will by any means disappear from the Law

until everything is accomplished.

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments

and teaches others to do the same

will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,

but whoever practices and teaches these commands

will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(Matt 5:17-19)

This, i think, is the most condemning evidence against the OT vs. NT view. If we view the Sermon on the Mount that way, we make Jesus out to contradict Himself. He clearly states that He doesn't want anyone to think He means to abolish (abrogate, countermand, revoke, nullify) any of the commands of Moses. Yet if we take the view that Jesus is recounting Old Testament Law, then replacing it with His own teachings, we make Him out to be doing exactly that. If the OT vs. NT view is true, Jesus starts by telling people they'd better keep all the commands in the Law, then in the very next section, tells them one by one all the commands in the Law they shouldn't keep and do what He teaches instead. i don't think any interpretation that implies such blatant contradiction in Jesus' words can be considered an accurate one.

2. Jesus does not use His trademark phrase for quoting the Old Testament.

Matthew well-establishes a trademark phrase for Jesus when quoting the Old Testament. When quoting the Old Testament, Jesus uses the phrase, "it is written."

He does so immediately prior to the Sermon on the Mount
during His temptation by the devil (Matt 4:4, 6, 7, 10).

Jesus uses the phrase when speaking of OT
prophecy regarding John the Baptist (Matt 11:10).

Jesus uses this phrase when
cleansing the temple (Matt 21:13).

He uses the phrase when quoting prophecy
and predicting that His disciples will abandon Him
just before His arrest (Matt 26:31).

In other words, the author of Matthew establishes a clear pattern or tell-tale-sign for Jesus' use of the OT scriptures. Yet in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does not say "it is written" when speaking of the ideas He criticizes. Rather He says, "you have heard that it was said." This is clear evidence that Matthew intends us not to interpret Jesus as quoting the OT scriptures. If Jesus is not quoting the OT scriptures, then the OT vs. NT view is simply false.

Burning the Quran in Florida

2010-09-10T06:00:00.002-05:00

Richard Land has come out strongly in opposition to the scheduled book-burning in Florida. You can read about it here.

i have to say i find it reprehensible as well. i remember a "book-burning" in Acts when people who had converted to Christianity from some sort of pagan-sorcery brought sacred-texts from their former religion to be burned. But that is hardly the same in character of what's going to happen on Saturday.

i just don't see any biblical warrant for this event. In fact, it seems to me if Islam truly is a frightening threat to the church, the Christian thing to do is pray and send missionaries into the most Islam-permeated parts of the world and infect it with the beliefs and practices taught by Christ.

A Heathen Philosopher's Critique of Early Christians

2010-09-09T06:00:00.010-05:00

"Celsus, a heathen philosopher, wrote an elaborate work against the Christians, about the middle of the second century. One of his grave allegations was in the following words: 'You will not bear arms in the service of the empire when your services are needed, and if all the nations should act upon this principle, the empire would be overrun by the barbarians.'"

--Taken From Adin Ballou's Christian Non-Resistance

(This argument made by an anti-Christian writer against the early church sounds very similar to arguments some modern Christians make against pacifism.)

Believing That Good Can Overcome Evil

2010-09-08T06:00:00.002-05:00

i've never completely bought the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus just for the money. Perhaps he did--John's gospel indicates that he stole from the money pool shared by Jesus and the disciples. But i've wondered if maybe Judas wasn't trying to force Jesus' hand. Perhaps Judas, like many of his fellow Jews, believed that God would raise up a leader who would oppose the Roman oppressors by force and re-establish a sovereign Israel in all its Old Testament glory. Perhaps Judas thought he could back Jesus into a corner and make him finally fight the authorities. Maybe not.

Whether or not that's true of Judas, i think it's arguable that many of Jesus' disciples were stumped. Why wasn't he more aggressive? Why didn't He just rain down fire on the enemies of Israel? And it seems fairly clear that they viewed His arrest and crucifixion as a defeat. It doesn't appear they could even consider the possibility that what they were witnessing was a victory. It doesn't appear to occur to them that violence and oppression and evil could be overcome without resorting to violence and oppression and evil.

i don't think we're generally any different from them. i think we still reason the same way. How can i possibly win a fight without ever throwing a punch or pulling out a weapon? How can i possibly escape being injured now and in the future unless i injure in return or even injure pre-emptively?

i remember sitting in a class about the Sermon on the Mount at my home congregation a couple years ago. The sections about turning the other cheek and loving your enemy were read aloud. Immediately people raised their hands:

"He can't possibly mean that."

"You can't just let people walk all over you."

"How can it be okay to let people
commit evil against you?"

"Common sense tells you there's a point
at which you have to fight back."

"What if your kid was watching you?
You can't let your child see you get hit."

And so some people said you can't take Jesus' words literally here. Others said you should try to do what He said up to a point, but then it's perfectly okay to retaliate as a last resort.

What Jesus describes as an ethic, as a way of doing the right thing, as a way to be like God--we clearly see that as a strategy for defeat. We can't seem to even entertain the possibility that what's being described is a strategy for victory.

Why? Why does this seem so backwards to us? i'd like to suggest an answer:

Because we don't really believe that good and overcome evil.

No, we'd never say it like that. We reserve the right to call some level of retaliation or inflicting of injury good. Why do we still want to call it good? Because, like i said, i don't think we really, really believe that evil can be defeated any other way.

We believe that either right off the bat, or as a last resort, or at least in the final analysis of extreme-circumstance, evil has to be met on its own terms. Guns have to be met with bigger guns. Someone sucker-punching you repeatedly eventually has to be met with you eventually sucker-punching him in return. Someone scheming against you at work eventually must be met with scheming against her in return. Violent invading nations must be met with bigger or more capable armies or well-placed assassins' bullets or some other force at least as destructive as that of the invaders.

At base, we think the only way to beat the bad guys is to be like them. They hit us? We hit them. They harm? We harm. They injure? We injure. Maybe we're obligated not to be as harmful, or as injurious, or as brutal as them. But still, at the end of the day, that's the only way to win.

So we read Jesus' words in Matt 5 and just don't believe that His way of doing things could possibly work. 'There's no way i could do what Jesus wants me to do, because if i did, it would never work, and evil people would just hurt me all the time.' And it seems so obvious to us that we think, 'Surely Jesus had the same common sense that i have.' And based on that we conclude that He couldn't possibly have meant what He said, and we need to read between the lines to 'round off' the sharp-edged-ness of His words.

But is our 'common sense' gut reaction any different than the trouble the disciples had making sense of Jesus? i think the gospels make very clear that Jesus repeatedly telling them of His impending death made absolutely no sense to them. Peter finally spoke up and said, "no way, we won't let that happen." After all--how could Jesus do all Peter expected Him to do if He were killed? It made no sense. To them, what He was saying quite obviously wouldn't work. So they couldn't take Him at His word. He must've meant something else.

Even though Jesus repeated it over and over to them, they still wouldn't believe Him. Even when Jesus was arrested in the garden, Peter whipped out his sword and started swinging. Why not? Aren't these the extreme circumstances? Isn't this "last resort" violence if ever there were a case of it? Wasn't this clearly the time and place to just not take it anymore? Didn't Peter have a noble purpose? Wasn't this one of those rare but perfectly appropriate uses of violence and injury?

But was Peter right? Were the disciples right in how they tried to make sense of Jesus? Despite how obvious it was to them, despite how much their reason accorded with common sense, were they right? No. They were dead wrong. Jesus refusing to become an earthly king and engaging His enemies in an earthly battle, Jesus submitting to death on a cross--this was victory. This overcame the sin and evil in the world. Jesus was raised from the dead, and God proved that evil will be overcome with good.

And at the time, they just wouldn't believe it. And i don't think we believe it either. What weapons did Jesus use to fight?

Not swords.

Not fists.

Not political conquest.

Not an army.

Not intimidation.

Not bombs.

Not preemptive strikes.

Not an arms race.

Not deceit.

Not slander.

Not gossip.

Not rumor-mongering.

Not the cold shoulder.

Not rudeness.

Not mockery.

Not stealing.

Not trickery.

Not injury.

Not one single weapon that we think is absolutely necessary to beat the bad guys was a part of Jesus' arsenal. What did Jesus fight with?

Truth

Purity

Love

Forgiveness

Kindness

Generosity

Meekness

Compassion

Service

Hospitality

Integrity

Prayer

Patience

Suffering

That's it, my friends. You might be able to squeeze a few more on to that list, but none of them will be fundamentally different in character from what is already there. These are the weapons of Christ. This is the way Jesus taught us how to fight, how to win, how to overcome.

But we just don't believe we can win this way. We just can't accept that these weapons by themselves can defeat evil in the world and in our lives. We just can't entertain the idea that using these, and only these, we can overcome people's hatred, violence, lying, deceit, anger, rudeness, etc. We're convinced that if we were to use these and only these, we'd get hurt. We'd get cheated. We'd get abused. We'd get disrespected. We'd get taken advantage of. We'd get injured, harmed, and defeated.

...kinda like Jesus was hurt? Kinda like Jesus was disrespected? Kinda like how Jesus was harmed? In other words, if we did things the way Jesus did and taught, we might just have to live like Him? (Perish the thought!)

Well, so what? How did that story end? Both in the beginning (people whom Jesus repented, people who were healed, converted, grew in character and righteousness) and in the end of Jesus time on earth (Christ's resurrection from the dead), that story, that strategy overcoming-evil-with-good, ended in victory.

Good can, does, and will overcome evil.

Jesus exemplified it. Jesus proved that it works. Jesus taught us to live the same way. So do we believe it or not?

The Need For Tanks And Generals

2010-09-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

If everyone were capable of discovering the image of God in their neighbors, do you think that we would still need tanks and generals?

--Mother Teresa

Loving People Regardless of What They Do or How They Respond

2010-09-06T06:00:00.001-05:00

"Love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute you" (Matt 5:44)

"This love...intuitively and spontaneously dictates the doing of good to others, whether they do good or evil. It operates independently of external influences and being in its nature absolutely unselfish, is not affected by the merit or demerit of its objects. It does not inquire, "Am I loved? Have I been benefited? Have my merits been appreciated? Shall I be blessed in return? Or am I hated, injured, cursed and condemned?" Whether others love or hate, bless or curse, benefit or injure, it says, "I will do right; I will love still; I will bless; I will never injure even the most injurious; I will overcome evil with good." Therefore its goodness is not measured by or adjusted to the goodness of others, but ever finds in itself a sufficient reason for doing good and nothing but good to all moral agents."

--Adin Ballou, Christ Non-Resistance

Why Do People Die of Hunger?

2010-09-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

If our poor die of hunger, it is not because God does not care for them. Rather, it is because neither you nor I are generous enough. It is because we are not instruments of love in the hands of God. We do not recognize Christ when once again He appears to us in the hungry man, in the lonely woman, in the child who is looking for a place to get warm.

--Mother Teresa

When Helping The Needy Is Difficult

2010-09-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

When we handle the sick and the needy we touch the suffering body of Christ and this touch will make us heroic; it will make us forget the repugnance and the natural tendencies in us. We need they eyes of deep faith to see Christ in the broken body and dirty clothes under which the most beautiful one among the sons of men hides. We shall need the hands of Christ to touch these bodies wounded by pain and suffering. Intense love does not measure--it just gives.

--Mother Teresa

Cussing 3

2010-09-01T06:00:00.001-05:00

Emphasizing moral taboos like "cussing" can lead to bad moral priorities.

Jesus described some things as gnats and some things as camels (Matt 23:23). He chided the Pharisees for the amount of effort they put into avoiding swallowing "gnats," but how they exerted very little effort at avoiding swallowing "camels." Doesn't some people's attitudes and behaviors about cussing fall under this same scrutiny?

People walk out of movie theaters when there's cussing, but how do those same people feel about millions of children dying of preventable diseases? People would likely be shocked, offended, and even walk out of a church if their preacher were to cuss from the pulpit. Would they react at least as offended if he were to say in a subtle way that they had little or no obligation to help the poor?

People can become so offended by hearing cussing that they will confront complete strangers and tell them to stop cussing. Do they become at least as offended when people are unforgiving or unmerciful or indifferent toward each other? People get alarmed when they can hear their neighbors cuss outside their houses. Are they equally as alarmed that their neighbors are not followers of Christ and may be eternally lost?

Is some arbitrary word-list that we deem offensive really as important as the rest of these things? If it's at least equally important, then why don't our reactions to all these things reflect being equally offended? i think it's arguably the case that these other things are more important than cussing, yet it's certainly not the case that people on the whole act more offended by those things than by cussing.

We would get up and stomp out of a church in a huff if a preacher cuss, but we're perfectly content to sit in a cuss-free church service all the while bearing a grudge against someone in the room. What does that say about our moral priorities? What does that say about what matters most to us?

Conquering The World

2010-08-31T06:00:00.000-05:00

If we really want to conquer the world, we will not be able to do it with bombs or with other weapons of destruction. Let us conquer the world with our love. Let us interweave our lives with bonds of sacrifice and love, and it will be possible for us to conquer the world.

--Mother Teresa

Cussing 2

2010-08-30T06:00:00.000-05:00

Our moral superstitions about cussing can keep us from reaching people.

Some people are so offended by hearing cussing they refuse to even "be around it." People refuse to buy movies that have cussing in them. People even walk out of theaters when someone cusses in a movie. People even walk away from other people who start cussing. People even confront others, "Please don't cuss around me!"

My parents love to watch movies. And i remember my mother often saying, "That movie would've been just as good without all the cussing in it." i used to heartily agree and say it myself when reviewing films. But now i think i missed the point.

Yeah, i'm sure i would've thought the movie was just as good. But the fact is a lot of people cuss. And a lot of people hear a lot of other people cuss--people around them, close to them, even related to them, even their best friends.

While cussing may sound offensive to you or me, the fact is there are a great many people for whom this language is normal. There are even people who are so familiar with these words, that they find it easier to express themselves using them than not (even though they're perfectly intelligent enough to think of other words to say).

What does my enforcement of cussing taboos say to them? If i say, "Don't cuss around me," what have i communicated to someone? Perhaps, "you're too offensive for me to listen to." If i get up and leave, what does that say? Perhaps, "you're too offensive for me to spend time with, love, or pay attention to." Do you really think Jesus would get up and walk away from that person? Do you really think Jesus would say "stop speaking to me in your own way"? Maybe i'm wrong, but i definitely see the Pharisees acting this way but not Jesus. The Pharisees wouldn't be around or spend time with people they thought of as "sinners." Yet these are the very people Jesus spent a great deal of His time with.

If we're so offended by cussing that we have to walk away from or hush people, how are we even going to talk to people we're supposed to be trying to reach? Don't you hope people would choose to overlook something in you in order to love you and try to reach you if you needed it? That's certainly what Jesus did for us all. If Jesus felt He had to leave or stop people from communicating every time He detected something offensive, where would we be now? In what state would that leave us?

Any set of rules that leads to us failing to reach people, failing to love people, and failing to be Christ-like to people cannot possibly be a good ethical strategy.

War and Peace

2010-08-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

If we don’t end war, war will end us.

— H.G. Wells

Patience

2010-08-26T06:00:00.000-05:00

How can a society that exists on instant mashed potatoes, packaged cake mixes, frozen dinners, and instant cameras teach patience to its young?

— Paul Sweeney

Cussing 1

2010-08-25T06:00:00.002-05:00

Vicar Tells Churchgoers To Swear More

If this Vicar thinks Jesus cussed on no other basis than that Jesus was poor, uneducated, and didn't keep company with Pharisees and scholars, then i am not at all convinced.

i don't think Christians should start using "cuss words" in order to fit in or get in touch with the "common man." But the article does brings to my mind a couple things about "cussing" that i think are important.

Embracing taboos about "cussing" can sustain and morally codify social prejudices.

Quite a few of our culture's "cuss words" are actually the result of oppression and imperialism. Consider the following:

It's no coincidence that most acceptable words for intimate body parts and their functions, words like copulate, defecate, urinate, derriere, penis, pudendum, have Latin or French roots. England was conquered by the Norman French in 1066 and by the Romans a thousand years before. The stamps of those conquests are still impressed upon our language just as American Blacks still bear the names of masters rather than of ancestors. The conquerors got to say what was good and bad, what was permissible and impermissible, what was high class and what was low class. No doubt they thought themselves the measure of all things right and proper and their Anglo-Saxon subjects, serfs, and slaves, the measure of all things undesirable. Their power and assurance were so strong that they convinced their victims to conform to their standards. So the old Anglo-Saxon words or words with Anglo-Saxon roots became taboo while the languages of the conquerors remained acceptable, even after conqueror and conquered had merged into a single race. Violence and power reached beyond death and grasped the descendants of its victims. There is no logical reason that any English speaker should be allowed to say defecate but not shit, copulate but not fuck, derriere but not ass.
(Taken From This Article)

While many of the words we consider "cuss words" don't bear the same ethnic or political prejudice with which they originated, they can still bear and sustain prejudice nonetheless. From the perspective of many who consider cussing a moral taboo, cussing is seen as low-class, dirty, unsophisticated, and even unintelligent. (i can't tell you how many times i heard growing up, "They only talk that way because they're not smart enough to think of other words to say.")

If we don't cuss, and if we think of cussing in these ways, it's very easy then to view people who cuss with disdain and disregard--to look down on other human beings because they use a list of words that we don't use. --to think people who don't cuss are better or more worthy of love and attention than people who do. And we feel morally justified in acting on these prejudices. Why? Because those people use "dirty" words. Thus, it actually becomes "right" to look down at other people.

Since Jesus died on the cross for both cussers and non-cussers, i don't see how that could possibly be construed as a Christ-like attitude.

What We Say And What We Do Aren't Always The Same

2010-08-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

Sure, we all sang “red and yellow, black and white” in Vacation Bible School, but not many of us invited the red, yellow, black and white kids to our birthday parties.

-Ronnie Fauss

Forgotten Christian Values: The Resurrection

2010-08-23T06:00:00.000-05:00

Let nothing so disturb us, so fill us with sorrow or discouragement, as to make us forfeit the joy of the resurrection.

--Mother Teresa

Why doesn't resurrection from the dead matter more to us? It appears that hope in bodily resurrection was a desire a pillar for the faith and life, and a distinguishing mark of the early church. Paul said of his personal goal in life:

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." (Phil 3:10-11)

Paul spent an entire chapter of 1Corinthians explaining the topic of resurrection, which likely means that the Corinthians had inquired about the subject among other things they asked him. He also spends part of 1Thessalonians trying to explain how the resurrection will work. Paul even remarks that false teaching about the resurrection cause some people's faith to be destroyed (2Tim 2:18). The writer of Hebrews considered the resurrection of the dead to be an "elementary teaching of Christ" (Heb 6:1-2).

Galen, a Roman Doctor in the 2nd century mentions that Christians were known for two things, remarkable sexual restraint, and a belief in the resurrection of the dead.

Resurrection from the dead was clearly a pivotal part of Christian belief in the early church. Is it just as important today? Does the average person in the pew consider belief in a general resurrection of the dead at some point in the future to be a benchmark of his/her personal faith and discipleship? In my experience, the answer is no. In fact, in my experience, a striking number of church members i've encountered don't even believe in a bodily resurrection. A greater number don't really think much of it, but instead focus on the state of existence immediately after death and think of that as the be-all end-all.

So why? Why doesn't resurrection matter more? Why isn't this a critical part of the hope we have in Christ as it was for the early church? Should it? Shouldn't this be a point at which we seek to be like the first century in their belief? How have we come to lose this emphasis on the resurrection?

Vanity and Futility

2010-08-20T06:00:00.003-05:00

"We spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about."

--Tim Jackson

Love and Acceptance

2010-08-19T06:00:00.000-05:00

There are many who leave the church because they find they are confronted by an inexplicable hostility toward solitude and individuality. In the community that says 'God loves you,' many feel that the next line is 'and he dislikes everything about you.'

--Michael Spender, Mere Churchianity

A Difference Between a Christian and a non-Christian

2010-08-18T06:00:00.000-05:00

The difference between an unconverted and a converted man is not that one has sins and the other has none; but that the one takes part with his cherished sins against a dreaded God, and the other takes part with a reconciled God against his hated sins.

--William Arnot

"The Least of These"

2010-08-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Jews would not willingly tread upon the smallest piece of paper in their way, but took it up; for possibly, they say, the name of God may be on it. Though there was a little superstition in this, yet truly there is nothing but good religion in it, if we apply it to men. Trample not on any; there may be some work of grace there, that thou knowest not of. The name of God may be written upon that soul thou treadest on; it may be a soul that Christ thought so much of, as to give His precious blood for it; therefore despise it not.

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Jack Cottrell on Slavery To Paradigms

2010-08-16T06:00:00.001-05:00

Read The Article Here from the Christian Standard.

Cottrell argues well from examples in history that people have a very difficult time letting go of paradigms even after much evidence has been amassed against those paradigms. Cottrell mentions evolution, covenant theology, Calvinism, and Wesleyanism.

I think he makes a good case. Are there other paradigms we can think of that have this sort of sacrosanct status?

But the article also brought to my mind, what about paradigms that are right? If a paradigm is actually correct, will there never be apparent counter evidence?

Martin Luther King on Nonviolence

2010-08-13T06:00:00.009-05:00

1) Nonviolence is resistance to evil and oppression. It is a human (and humane) way to fight.

2) Nonviolence does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his/her friendship and understanding.

3) The nonviolent method is an attack on the forces of evil rather than against persons doing the evil. It seeks to defeat the evil and not the persons doing the evil and injustice.

4) Nonviolence means willingness to accept suffering without retaliation.

5) The nonviolent resister avoids both external physical and internal spiritual violence - not only refusing to shoot or strike, but also to hate, an opponent. The ethic of real love is at the center of nonviolence.

6) The nonviolent resister has a deep faith in the future, and believes that the forces in the universe are ultimately on the side of justice.

--Stride Towards Freedom: The Montgomery Circle

How Do I Know God's Will For My Life?

2010-08-12T09:45:00.000-05:00

Students would come up to me and they would ask, ‘How can I know the will of God for my life?’ And I knew what they meant. They meant, what major to take, what jobs to pursue, who to marry… But I said, ‘I know exactly what the will of God is for your life.’ They said ‘Really? Tell me!’ I said, ‘Holiness. Sexual purity. Pursue it with all of your might. He’ll take care of the details.’

--John Piper

Sharing The Wealth

2010-08-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

40 Billionaires Pledge To Donate Half Their Wealth

Pacifism and Priorities

2010-08-11T06:00:00.000-05:00

Consider a few questions:

Do you, a Christian, believe it would be wrong for you to kill another Christian?

Do you, a Christian, believe there are other Christians all over the world?

Do you, a Christian, believe it would be wrong for you to go try to find Christians in another country and try to kill them?

If you answered "yes" to them all, then what difference would it make if you had on a military uniform while you were doing it? It may be that your country hasn't ordered the military to sniff out Christians specifically, but you are shooting bullets into groups of people which could include your brother in Christ. Do you think it's okay to kill other Christians if you did so as part of your country's military campaign in the country where those other Christians reside?

If you think a government-ordered military campaign makes it okay to kill other Christians (even unawares), how have you not implied that your loyalty to your country is greater than your loyalty to your brothers and sisters in Christ?

How Would You Respond To A Robber?

2010-08-10T06:00:00.001-05:00

Faith Overcomes Robbery

Above is a brief article and security video of a store clerk in Florida being robbed. The clerk didn't panic, she didn't threaten in return, she didn't pull out a gun from behind the counter, she didn't assault the man trying to rob her. She spoke to him peacefully. She spoke to him about her faith in Christ. She spoke to him not like an attacker, but like a human being who needs love and compassion. Because she spoke to him like a person and not a threat, he was clearly caught off guard and couldn't maintain his role as an attacker. What happened? The robber left. Imagine that--violence can be overcome without resorting to violence. Do you imagine Jesus would've handled this situation much differently than did this woman?

Forgiveness 4

2010-08-09T10:00:00.000-05:00

Maybe i want to forgive, but it's hard. i know this is right, but i struggle with hard-heartedness about the situation. i need to decide that i will forgive. i need to pray and ask God to help me really forgive and harbor no bitterness and resentment. i need to accept that if it's truly needed, God will do the "punishing" or "straightening" out of the other person for what they did, and He's perfectly capable of doing His own job.

i need to consider that God feels about that person the very same way He feels about me. He doesn't look down on them or think of them differently or cold shoulder them. He is as warm and inviting and desirous of them as He is toward me.

And maybe i need to spend time praying for that person. Careful here! i'm automatically tempted to word that prayer in such a way to find another justification for my bitterness. "God, straighten so-n-so out. Make him realize he's a jerk. Make her realize she ought to come back to me groveling." WRONG! That's not the prayer i need at all. i'm really just praying for me when i appear to be praying for that person. That's just a good way to add hypocrisy to unforgiveness.

No, i need to pray for that person. Even say his/her name. "God, bless so-n-so. Comfort her. Please keep his family safe. Help her to succeed in her career. Help him to have peace from all his worry and care. Help him/her to feel encouraged and comforted by Your love and strength." Now that's a prayer.

Maybe i'm still not convinced. Maybe i'm so hardened against a person that i just don't care. If that's where i am, God has something to say to me. Plainly, if i don't forgive that person, God won't forgive me. It's as simple as that. He said so (Mark 11:25; Matt 6:15).

So is it worth it? Is it worth it to lose God's forgiveness just so i can stay bitter at someone? Is it worth to face God's judgment just so i can keep bearing a grudge against someone for a little while here on earth? Surely no matter how hard-hearted i am, i can see that even considering such a trade just shows how bad a person I am--not the other person. Will i really let what that person did to me keep me out of heaven?

Forgiveness 3

2010-08-06T06:00:00.001-05:00

i remember asking myself before, How do i forgive? How do i just let this go? i've honestly felt before like i wasn't in control of it, like i genuinely didn't know how to push the right buttons to get forgiveness to "work."

What i realized is that i have to decide to forgive. i have to make a very conscious decision about forgiveness. It's not something that i just sit back and let happen or come about "naturally." It doesn't work that way. It's also easy to say i've forgiven even though i continue to do all sorts of things that manifest residual bitterness and hard-heartedness. i need to be very clear in my own mind and heart about what i'm doing and saying when i commit to forgiveness.

(1) I will not dwell on the incident.
(2) I will not bring up the incident again or use it against that person in the future.
(3) I will not talk about this incident to other people.
(4) I will not let this incident effect the level of genuine respect and kindness i show that person.

i know it's easy to read that list and instantly feel the need to object, "wait..i'm not sure about some of those on that list--surely that's too far, surely that just makes it too easy on the other person, surely that asks too much of me in getting over it."

No, I need to stop and wait and ask myself: Is anything on that list any different than how God has forgiven me? He has not let my sins stand between He and i. He has not gone around advertising my sins to others. He doesn't dwell on my sins or bring them up later to use them against me. With Him, He forgives me totally. That is the example He has set for me. Am i somehow better or more important than God that i think i should be more restrictive or sparing in my forgiveness than He has been with me?

Paul says "forgive each other just as God in Christ forgave you." (Eph 4:31) If God has gone that far and given that much of Himself to forgive me, then i need to forgive others just as utterly and totally. i must commit to those items on the list. And every day from here on out, i will have to put those things into practice. It's not a one time event that cures all. It's something i'll have to do every day. And the process over time grows easier as my heart heals.

The Way a Christian Should Argue

2010-08-05T06:00:00.002-05:00

With regard to the opponent, don’t fight [argue] with anybody you don’t pray for, and this will affect the way you write, and what you are willing to say. Your opponent is either a brother or he isn’t. If he is, then remember that the Lord loves him, and bears with him. If he is not, remember that apart from the grace of God, we would be right there with him.

--Douglas Wilson

Forgiveness 2

2010-08-04T06:00:00.001-05:00

Unforgiveness can manifest itself in all kinds of ways. Maybe i give that person the cold shoulder. Maybe i talk bad about them to others. Maybe now i scrutinize and criticize everything they say and do and advertize those faults to others. Maybe i'm rude and short and terse with them. Maybe i'm just outright, bold-faced mean or hateful toward them.

Whatever the outlet may be, all this unresolved anger toward someone does nothing but show how sinful I am.

(1) It's not my place to deal out justice or retaliation. In fact, God explicity condemns me ever taking revenge into my own hands (Rom 12:17-21).

(2) Me bearing a grudge and being bitter is really like me drinking poison in hopes that someone else will die. i've really only harmed myself. i've turned red in the face, had payback fantasies, had my blood boil while they were around or being spoken of. All this energy hoping they get their just deserts. Yet how much sleep is he/she losing over it? My grudge-bearing hurts me, not him/her.

(3) I should be mature enough to let things go. Is it really that big a deal what that person said or did? On my deathbed, will I really still care what that person said or did? Does what that person said or did really matter in the grand scheme of things? Is whatever that person did to me really worth all this time and energy i'm spending bearing a grudge rather than enjoying continuing a relationship with that person?

(4) Even if I do think it's a big deal, i need to be honest about my own need for forgiveness. Am i really arrogant enough to think i'm any better in God's eyes than that person? Am i really conceited enough to think that i'm any less guilty and sinful in the eyes of God than that person is? Am i really proud enough to think that i need God's mercy and forgiveness any less than that person? Am i really so selfish to think that how that person hurt me matters more than how i've hurt God?

(5) Do i really want so much of my life and my time defined by what the person did to me? Do i really want to be owned and controlled by the hurt they caused me? Is that really how i want to spend my time and energy?

Bitterness, resent, unforgiveness, grudge-bearing--none of these are in anyone's best interests nor do they benefit the people who harbor them.

Salvation from Hell or Salvation from Sin?

2010-08-03T06:00:00.004-05:00

The nature of Christ’s salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day “evangelist.” He announces a Saviour from hell rather than a Saviour from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness

--A. W. Pink

Forgiveness

2010-08-02T06:00:00.001-05:00

Christians are commanded to be forgiving people.

i think we often pay lip service to the idea of being forgiving, but spend plenty of time justifying our own personal bitterness and grudge-bearing. "Well, yeah, that's true, but in this case God will understand my bitterness because this person just plain doesn't deserve my forgiveness." The trouble is God never said He would just understand it if i don't do what He asks me, and He never said that anyone had to deserve my forgiveness to get it.

God flatly commands me to be forgiving (Eph 4:31-32; Col 3:13; Heb 12:14). And He plainly says that bitterness and resentment and grudge-bearing is wrong (2Tim 2:24; 1Cor 13:5; Col 3:19). i'm either going to obey God or i'm not. Trying to find various ways to justify or explain away my bitterness and unforgiveness is really just choosing to disobey God.

That means i need to just 'fess up to my unforgiveness and get rid of it. i need to just get real about the fact that i am bitter or resentful or holding a grudge, and i have to admit that this says more about my heart and character than it does about the person i'm still angry with. My unforgiveness displays my un-Christ-like heart, not the person i'm holding a grudge against.

Criticism

2010-07-30T06:00:00.006-05:00

i heard on the radio some great points that made me think:

1. Criticism often comes when it's least needed.

2. Criticism often comes from someone least qualified to give it.

3. Criticism often comes in the least helpful way possible.

By this point i was thinking, "boy is that right, some people should just really learn to shut up." And that's right when the speaker said, "so think about that the next time you open your mouth to criticize someone!"

An Agent of God's Love

2010-07-29T06:00:00.000-05:00

I am a little pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world.

--Mother Teresa

Wealth, Poverty, and American Christianity

2010-07-28T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Kind of Leaders The Church Needs

2010-07-27T06:00:00.001-05:00

A provocative quote from A. W. Tozer:

If Christianity is to receive a rejuvenation it must be by other means than any now being used. If the church in the second half of [the twentieth] century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting. Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will not be one but many) he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom.

An Argumentative Appeal to a Conservative CoCer (Part 3)

2010-07-26T06:00:00.001-05:00

i've been trying to make the case that if a conservative CoCer were consistent with the principles on which he rejects the use of instrumental music in worship, those same principles ought also to force him to embrace pacifism. Why make the case? Well, i find that conservative CoCers are largely non- and even anti- pacifistic. Conservative CoC's fitting generally into the vein of conservative evangelical churches harbor a lot of patriotism, America-is-a-Christian-nation-ism, and political conservatism. Further, a lot of conservative CoC's are havens for generally conservative culture. CoC's are plentiful in the South, conservative ones especially, where a certain conservative culture thrives (a "God, guns, and guts" sort of tradition). [This trend is quite surprising when considering that 100+ years ago, a great many CoCers were members of the Socialist Party. See here.]

i do consider myself a pacifist, but definitely not on the grounds conservative CoCers use to reject the use of instrumental music in worship. My only point in this triad of posts is to engage a conservative CoCer, identify that these two positions (rejection of IM and non-pacifism) are inconsistent, and point out, that if anyone's ideology leads to pacifism, it's the conservative CoCer's.

Now, so far i've defended the claim that if a conservative CoCer doesn't think the New Testament authorizes instrumental music in worship, then by the same criteria, neither is there any authority given in the New Testament for the use of violence.

But i'm not pretending as though this is claim is unanswerable. i think some conservative CoCers might respond by going to Romans 13. So suppose a conservative CoCer objected to my claim this way: "Romans 13 gives me authority for violence because Paul says i have to submit to my governing authorities, and sometimes they command people to act violently--in war or as a police officer, etc."

But suppose the government commanded churches to use instrumental music in worship? Would that, thus, make it okay? Would that constitute proper, divine authorization for the use of instrumental music in worship?

You might think that's a crazy idea. "The government would never command such a thing." Maybe not here and now. But plenty of countries have or have had state-churches where how church was conducted was a matter of state-decree.   Suppose you knew someone in another country where all but the state-church was illegal, and the state ordered the state-church to use instrumental music in their worship. Suppose that person wrote to a conservative CoCer for help about what to do. How is the CoCer likely to respond? "Since Romans 13 says submit to governing authorities, that means it's now okay for you to use instrumental music in worship"? i highly doubt it.

If a conservative CoCer wouldn't accept that Romans 13 could potentially authorize the use of instrumental music in worship, then why think it authorizes the use of violence?

Thus, i maintain my claim, that if someone thinks he ought to reject the use of instrumental music in worship because there's no New Testament authority for it, then he ought also to reject all use of violence on the same basis.

Love For Enemies & Marilyn Manson

2010-07-23T06:00:00.004-05:00

When you’re taught to love everyone,

to love your enemies,

then what value does that place on love?

i stumbled on this, a quote credited to Marilyn Manson. i think the question is intended to make an argument equivalent to something like this:

1. If a teaching places a low value on love, then it shouldn't be followed.
2. The teaching that you ought to love everyone, even your enemies, places a low value on love.
3. Therefore, the teaching that you ought to love everyone, even your enemies, shouldn't be followed.

The argument is clearly valid, that is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion does follow. But are the premises true?

i think you either find premise 1 intuitively convincing or not. The critical, sensational claim being made by this argument is premise 2. It implicates the teachings of Christ (or any other source for the ethic) to love your neighbor and your enemies as failing to value love appropriately. i believe there are several reasons to doubt premise 2 if not dismiss it as simply false.

First, the argument suggests that value is determined by scope of distribution or perhaps rarity. The narrower the scope of distribution, or the rarer something is, the greater the value. And value is lessened as something becomes more common or more widely distributed. This is true of, say, the value of diamonds and currency. But it is not the case that all value operates this way. Some value is not determined by rarity. For instance, some things are valuable because of utility or necessity. Oxygen is common and widely distributed throughout the earth. Does that imply we should judge oxygen to be poor in value? No. It is valuable because it is necessary to our survival.

Second, i think it's rather intuitive if not reasonable that the value of love is not determined in the way the argument assumes.

Suppose there were two women. The first woman has one daughter and loves her. The second woman has ten children and loves all ten of them. The love of the first woman is narrower in distribution and more rarely possessed by any child in the world compared to the love of the second woman. The love of the second woman is more common and more widely distributed compared to the love of the first woman. Should we conclude then that the second woman places a lower value on love than the first? Surely not.

Or suppose there were two men. The first man has 100 friends/family and loves them all, and he has 100 enemies and deliberately withholds love from his enemies. The second man has 100 friends/family whom he loves, but he has never made any enemies, so there is no one from whom he has consciously decided to withhold love. Should we conclude that the second man places a lower value on love than the first? Surely not.

Third, Christianity acknowledges differing kinds of love. While we use only the word "love," Greek, in which the teachings of Christ were originally written, had different words referring to different kinds of love. Christ does not teach that all kinds of love are to distributed equally among everyone, including enemies. There is a particular kind of love, agape, which Christ commanded to give to neighbor and enemy alike. Thus, i can still love certain people differently than others all the while being consistent with the Christian ethic to love both my neighbor and enemy.

Fourth, Christianity teaches that God created humanity and desires for humans to love one another. Suppose a person has children, loves them, and desires for them to love each other. If you don't believe that loving your own children and wanting them to love each other devalues love, then analogously, neither does the Christian teaching that i ought to love everyone, even my enemies.

Thus, it is not the case that loving everyone, including your enemies, devalues love.

God's love and My Weakness

2010-07-22T06:00:00.000-05:00

Give yourself fully to God. He will use you to accomplish great things on the condition that you believe much more in His love than in your own weakness.

--Mother Teresa

Spoiled-Brat-ism

2010-07-21T06:00:00.000-05:00

Joseph had to suffer through family rejection, false accusation, and imprisonment.

David, was a man after God's own heart, yet had to suffer the the murderous threats, jealously and hatred of Saul.

John the Baptist was better than anyone else born of a woman Jesus said, yet he had to suffer unjust imprisonment and was beheaded.

Jesus was perfect, blameless, and sinless. Yet He had to suffer abandonment, ridicule, hatred, abuse, insult, disrespect, heartbreak, sadness, distress, and even torture.

Tell me, where did i get the idea that i shouldn't have to wait in line? What makes me think i shouldn't have to lose sleep? Where did i get the idea that my car should always work perfectly? Who ever said i ought to have as much free time as i please? Where did i get the idea that i shouldn't ever have to eat anything i don't like or do anything i don't like? Where do i get off thinking i shouldn't ever have to be uncomfortable--i shouldn't ever have to be hot or cold or annoyed or interrupted or ill or over-worked or wait to get what i want? Where did i get the idea that i should always get to go anywhere and do anything i please and get things my way?

When others mistreat me and do evil, it does prove they're wrong and shouldn't do the things they do--that's true. But when i think and act like i'm entitled to something better than this sinful, fallen world, that proves nothing more than that i'm a selfish, spoiled brat.

Sin vs. Suffering

2010-07-20T06:00:00.000-05:00

One ounce of sin can harm us more than ten tons of suffering

--Tim Keller

Forgotten Christian Values: Suffering (Part 4)

2010-07-19T06:00:00.001-05:00

i think another area that reveals our differing attitude about suffering from the early church is the way we pray. The things we pray for and the amount of time we spend praying for certain things can reveal what is important to us.

i find that public prayers contain a lot of supplication for safety and circumstance. 'Help keep us safe.' 'Please remove such and such a hardship from us.' 'Please make things comfortable.' i'm not suggesting that it's always wrong to ask God to alter circumstances to our benefit. But what kind of benefits do we spend our time praying for? And how does that amount of time compare with how much we pray for spiritual benefits? For all the time we ask God to end our suffering, how often do we ask for resilience, courage, and character growth from our suffering?

We also spend a lot of time thanking God for the religious freedom we experience in America. i don't think i should stop being thankful for that. But i've started to wonder, would we be Christians if that political freedom were taken away? Are there people praying those prayers and sitting in the pews listening who are only "Christians" because it's easy? And what are we using that religious freedom for? To be even more radical and daring at spreading Christ's kingdom than we would be if our country didn't give us that freedom? How does this compare to the amount of time we spend asking God to help us be unwavering in our faith regardless of our political circumstance?

Another part of prayer that reveals our views about suffering is a lack of what i call "dangerous prayer." i remember having a conversation with my brother one day about how both of us were afraid to pray certain prayers because we were scared of how God may choose to answer them. i'm talking about prayers like this: "God, please do whatever You have to do to make me who You want me to be." "Please make me a better disciple of Christ no matter what the cost." These prayers are scary to pray because there are costs and things God could do that i honestly don't want to experience--things i don't want to suffer, not even if it gets me the spiritual benefits i'm asking for. What does that reveal about my values? Surely it reveals that i value my own comfort more than nearness to God and likeness to Christ. Does that sound like the same priorities as Jesus, the apostles, or the early church?

When we're suffering, we typically get on our knees and beg God to make it stop. In Acts 4, when the apostles were publicly flogged for preaching the gospel, they went to church, got on their knees together, and prayed that God would make them even bolder and more courageous in their preaching. Why would they do that? Wouldn't more boldness get them arrested again? Wouldn't being more courageous in their preaching likely increase their suffering at the hands of the authorities? Obviously, they didn't value their personal comfort over and above the spread of Christ's kingdom and their opportunity to be agents in that process.

So what if we tried something different? What if instead of only praying for our sick to be healed, we prayed that God would help them be radiant exemplars of Christian hope and victory over death and dying? --that not amount of sickness or disease would stop them from being awe-inspiring servants in Christ's kingdom? What if instead praying for the safety and success of the American military, we prayed God would raise up missionaries to go into the most dangerous parts of the earth? What if instead of praying for God to end a particular struggle or suffering or persecution, we asked Him to help us to relate more to Christ and His sufferings (and maybe even asked Him not to turn down the heat until we do)? What if instead of asking God to make things easier for us to move around in the world, we asked Him to give us such courage that no obstacle, no matter how daunting, would stop us from going where He sends?
Our attitudes about suffering differ from Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians in a way that is not trivial. Our thinking and behavior on this matter, however subconscious it may be sometimes, reveals sinful attitudes and sinful fears that we ought to repent of if we aim to follow Christ and restore first century Christianity.

Forgotten Christian Values: Suffering (Part 3)

2010-07-16T06:00:00.009-05:00

In the last two posts, from the New Testament and from other early Christian writings, it's clear that they valued suffering for the cause of Christ. The early Christians saw suffering as a blessing, as something to be desired, as something even to be pursued. Sharing in Christ's sufferings was part of Paul's explicit life goal. The early martyrs even saw their gruesome martyrdoms as demonstrations of Christ's victory over evil in the world--they would not give in or give up by acknowledging Caesar as Lord nor would they renounce their identity as Christians even on pain of torture and death.

Do we have that same view of suffering? Does the twenty first century church view suffering as valuable?

i'm going to go out on a limb and answer with a resounding, NO!

i'm sure there are examples of modern missionaries even in the CoC who are doing dangerous work in dangerous places for the cause of Christ. But here i mean to ask this question while looking at the average major city in America having at least a handful of CoCs. Thus i consider such missionaries to represent a minority. What about the belief and behavior of the majority?

i believe there are a variety of ways in which we clearly value the avoidance of suffering over and above doing work for the Kingdom of Christ.

First, many Christians won't go on missionary trips where the destination could be dangerous. Or if an otherwise safe destination becomes dangerous due to circumstance, people cancel mission trips instead of going. How many stops along his missionary journeys did Paul cancel on account of "it might not be safe there"? i can think of two occasions where God providentially intervened to prevent Paul from missioning in a particular place (Acts 16:6, 7). But this was God's intervening, not Paul's assessing his personal comfort levels about the safety of a given place. That's a significant difference.

Second, many Christians still stay out of what they consider to be "bad neighborhoods" or "bad" parts of town. What makes those parts of town bad? Let's be honest. Quite typically when someone says "That's a bad part of town," to what characteristics are they typically referring? High poverty levels. Low property values. Large minority populous. And perhaps, high crime rates. (But i put that at the end on purpose, because that's the order in which i typically find it to be true when i hear that statement made about a neighborhood.) So in some cases, "That's a bad part of town," is just a socially acceptable way of expressing prejudice and prejudicial fear. But suppose that everyone honestly referred to crime rate statistics. Are you more likely to witness a crime or be the victim of a crime in that part of town? Maybe you are.

Third, many Christians still stay away from "shady looking characters." If a person looks unkept or uncleanly or poor or, sadly, belongs to an ethnic minority, many Christians go to great lengths to avoid them. Drive the other way. Look the other way. Pretend you don't hear them. Pretend you don't see them. Choose a different driving route altogether. Avoid certain stores and parking lots. Etc. i once heard someone say in no uncertain terms that she felt she was in no way obligated to help a man who needed it because of the possibility he might harm her. Is it true that someone you try to help might harm you? Sure.

But so what? Does that mean God doesn't care if you ever help those people, minister to them, or bring the gospel to them? Would Jesus avoid that neighborhood? What neighborhood would Jesus call a "bad part of town"? How many people did Jesus refuse to help because of the possibility they might harm Him? How many "shady looking characters" did Jesus go out of His way to avoid?

In the gospels, Jesus appears to spend a great deal of His time with those deemed "tax collectors and sinners" by the religious people of His days. Could these "tax collectors and sinners" be the social equivalent of all those "shady looking characters" who we think live in "the bad part of town"? Think about it, how many times did Jesus hole-up in an upper middle class gated community hoping to keep out and avoid society's lower rungs? Perhaps, then, following Jesus, imitating His life, requires us to get way, way out of our comfort zone. Perhaps, then, the possibility and even the actuality of being harmed by a shady character in a bad part of town while you're trying to do the work of Christ is simply a part of discipleship--a part of suffering for the cause of Christ.

There's yet still another area i think reveals the difference between our attitudes toward suffering and that of the first century Christians. i'll save that for the next post.

Love and Sacrifice

2010-07-15T06:00:00.001-05:00

God has created a world big enough for all the lives He wishes to be born. It is only our hearts that are not big enough to want them and accept them. If all the money that is being spent on finding ways to kill people was used instead to feed them and house them and educate them - how beautiful that would be. We are too often afraid of the sacrifices we might have to make. But where there is love, there is always sacrifice. And when we love until it hurts, there is joy and peace.

--Mother Teresa

Pacifism 9: Another Argumentative Appeal to a Conservative CoCer

2010-07-14T06:00:00.001-05:00

There is another argument used among conservative Churches of Christ (CoCs) for their rejection of the use of instrumental music (IM) in worship. Note these verses:

"Speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord." (Eph 5:19)

"Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly 

as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, 

and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs 

with gratitude in your hearts to God." (Col 3:16)

i've heard the argument made more than once that when Paul mentions "sing" in these verses, he necessarily rules out the use of any other kind of music. i happen to think the argument is just plain bad. But whether it's a good argument or not is not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to make a similar argument which, i take it, most conservative CoCer's would not accept, and then ask why the two are significantly different. In other words, it appears to me that if you accept one, you ought to accept the other also.

So, then, note these verses:

Finally, be strong in  the Lord and in his mighty power. 

Put on the full armor of God

so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood,

but against the rulers, against the authorities,

against the powers of this dark world

and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Therefore put on the full armor of God,

so that when the day of evil comes,

you may be able to stand your ground,

and after you have done everything, to stand.

Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist,

with the breastplate of righteousness in place,

and with your feet fitted with

the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.

In addition to all this,

take up the shield of faith,

with which you can extinguish

all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Take the helmet of salvation

and the sword of the Spirit,

which is the word of God.

(Eph 6:13-17)

So then, if the earlier argument about IM holds true, then since Paul mentions only arming ourselves with spiritual weapons, he necessarily rules out arming ourselves with any other kind of weapons. If you believe that the first one about IM works, then why not this one?

It seems to me by some of their rules that if anyone should be religious pacifists, conservative CoCs should be. But they are largely not pacifistic. Yet, as i say, it seems to me a consistent use of their own argumentation would lead to that particular stance.

With God All Things Are Possible

2010-07-13T06:00:00.000-05:00

According to all known laws of aviation there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Bees, of course, fly anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.

--The Bee Movie

This quote from The Bee Movie makes me think about how God has worked in human history. People always questioned and marveled and puzzled over how God was going to work things out. God's suggestions always seemed impossible and crazy to them. Yet God didn't care what humans thought was impossible or crazy. He did it anyway, and it always worked.

i think we often have this very same reaction to God and His ways even in the modern church.

Forgotten Christian Values: Suffering (Part 2)

2010-07-12T07:00:00.001-05:00

Before i spend time thinking about our modern attitude toward suffering, i just thought i'd really emphasize again what early Christians thought about suffering and even martyrdom. There are several written accounts of martyrdom from the late first century to the third century. This was a period of history when Christianity was a minority religion and heavily persecuted by the Roman Empire. The Romans made sport of persecuting Christians. Christians were frequently used as spectacles in public arenas for violent contests. Gladiators and wild beasts were often used to serve Christians' death penalties.

Christians of the second and third centuries resoundingly thought of suffering and even martyrdom for the cause of Christ to be a blessing--something to be desired, some that brought them closer to Christ, and something that even demonstrated the victory given them by Christ. Note a few examples.

"[Germanicus] also fought with the wild beasts in an outstanding way, for when the proconsul wished to persuade him and asked him to consider his youthfulness, he forcibly dragged the wild beast toward himself, desiring to be released as quickly as possible from their unrighteous and lawless life." (Martyrdom of Polycarp 3:1)

"Blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the care of the Lyon diocese, was over ninety years of age and physically very weak. He could scarcely breathe because of his chronic physical weakness, but was strengthened by spiritual enthusiasm because of his pressing desire for martyrdom." (The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons)

"What a thrill I shall have from the wild beasts that are ready for me! I hope they will make short work of me. I shall coax them on to eat me up at once and not to hold off, as sometimes happens, through fear. And if they are reluctant, I shall force them to it. Forgive me--I know what is good for me. Now is the moment I am beginning to be a disciples. May nothing seen or unseen begrudge me making my way to Jesus Christ. Come fire, cross, battling with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, mangling of limbs, crushing of my whole body, cruel tortures of the devil--only let me get to Jesus Christ." (The Letter of Ignatius to the Romans 5:2-3)

History of Pacifism in the Church of Christ: An Article

2010-07-09T07:00:00.001-05:00

Pacifism in the Churches of Christ: A History

Author Michael Casey records that while the CoC was once happy to be thought of as "outsiders" for their devotion to the simple and plain teachings of Christ, by the latter half of the 20th century, that radical commitment to peace had been replaced with "the establishment rhetoric of Caesar."

It's a worth-while article. Have a look.

Earliest Illustrated Bible Found In Ethiopia

2010-07-08T06:00:00.001-05:00

Read About It Here

Date of composition is estimated to be at the end of the 400's A.D. The article says it may even be the oldest "book" ever discovered, meaning pages bound to a spine and still currently attached that way when discovered.

Forgotten Christian Values: Suffering

2010-07-07T07:00:00.000-05:00

i did think of one value that i didn't put on the original list. The first century church clearly seems to have had a different attitude toward suffering than we do. Christians in the early church seemed to value and pursue suffering for Christ's sake. In fact, they deemed it as an honor to undergo such an experience--an experience for which a person must be worthy.

The apostles were interrogated, commanded to stop preaching Christ, and then flogged by the Sanhedrin. And Luke records:

"Then they left the presence of the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name" (Acts 5:41).

Paul says, "We rejoice in our sufferings.." (Rom 5:3).

After recounting a long list of his own hardships, Paul talks about his "weaknesses." We typically refer to this verse as though it's talking about sinful-struggles. But that's not how Paul caches out "weakness." Instead, Paul sees "weakness" as the various abuses he's suffered while following Christ. And what does he says about those weaknesses?

"for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2Cor 12:10).

Paul tells the Philippians:

"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29).

Paul speaks of getting to suffer for Christ as a privilege that hand been granted to the Philippians. 

Paul says of his own personal goals:

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain the resurrection from the dead" (Phil 3:10-11 ).

Peter tells his readers who were undergoing persecution: 

"Rejoice that your participate in the sufferings of Christ" (1Pet 4:13).

And then there's Jesus who always seems to say the exact opposite of common sense.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt 5:11-12).

Blessed!  Not pitied, not stupid, not "Gee, man, that sucks," not "That's so wrong! I'll come down and zap the people who are hurting you," but blessed.  That's how Jesus describes suffering and persecution.

In what ways is the 21st century church different from the 1st century church on this point?  In what ways do our values about suffering obviously differ from the values of Jesus and the apostles?  Should we have such different values about suffering than they did? 

Forgotten Christian Values: Greeting

2010-07-05T07:00:00.000-05:00

The New Testament seems to have a lot to say about Christians taking the time to greet one another. Jesus even talks about greeting everybody--people you don't even consider your neighbor or loved one.

"And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than  others? Do not even pagans do that?" (Matt 5:47)

"Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Rom 16:16; 1Cor 16:20; 2Cor 13:12; 1Thess 5:26)

"Greet one another with a kiss of love" (1Pet 5:14)

Not only does the New Testament give instructions to greet people, but such a tremendous amount of text is devoted simply to people giving each other greetings.

Paul spends most of the chapter in Romans 16 just greeting individuals and relaying greetings from other individuals (Rom 16:3-16). A portion of the end of 1Corinthians is the same way (1Cor 16:19-21). The same is true of Philippians (Phil 4:21-22), and Colossians is particularly full of greetings (Col 4:7-18). Luke reports that Paul stopped during a voyage just to greet a church on his way to another (Acts 18:22). The same is also true of the writings of Peter (1Pet 5:13-14) and John (2John 13; 3John 14).

So what about us? What place does greeting have in the 21st century church? Is every Christian taking the time to greet one another a clear feature of your congregation? Do you or your congregation find it important to send greetings to other churches? Do you send personal greetings to mission-field-congregations which your congregation supports?

i attend a congregation of about 200 regular attendees. If i'm honest, i only know the names of about 40 or 50 of those 200. Of those 40 or 50, on any average Sunday, i probably only personally greet about 20 of those. This has been my experience in just about every congregation i've been a part of. i notice other people in the congregation know and greet a larger number than i do. But i haven't ever met anyone who took the time to greet every single member of their congregation every assembly--not even to greet a majority.

Why the difference? Are we just plain failing to obey New Testament commands? Or is it not that big of a deal?

The only reason i can think of that might explain why it was so important in the first century but not now is that the accessibility and diversity of correspondence at a distance is exponentially greater in our day than in theirs. i don't need to tack my greeting to someone onto a missionary's letter. i can simply write that individual an email. It's at least possible that some of the people explicitly greeted in the New Testament didn't have the means to write letters to the individuals they were greeting.

But even if that's true, it only explains why it happened so much. It doesn't explain why greeting one another is commanded and is commanded so many times.

We also balk about the "holy kiss" passages because we believe describe a custom unique to the culture at the time and which no longer exists. Well, maybe that's right. But that wouldn't explain away the "Greet one another" parts of the passages.

And even at that, this certainly doesn't explain Jesus' teaching on the subject. Jesus' words imply that our willingness to greet everyone differentiates us from those without a relationship with God.

Are we missing out on something? What would our congregations and Christian experience be like if each disciple took the time to personally greet every other disciple in his/her congregation? Are we disobeying the teachings of Christ and the apostles by not doing so?

Forgotten Christian Values

2010-07-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that there are values held by the early church that are not valued in the same way in the modern church. There are cases where it seems to me we simply ignore, explain away, or de-emphasize certain themes in Scripture which speak of trends and values held by the early Christians.

Why would we do this? Maybe we find these values different from the values of the culture we live in and are comfortable with. Maybe we find these values just plain uncomfortable or to challenging. Maybe we believe that the scriptures/values in question were only meant to have particular relevance in the first century and not in our time. Maybe there's nothing sinister at all involved, and those portions of scripture just honestly seem less significant to use than others

i'm not claiming that we're wrong in every case. But i think we're wrong in some cases. And restoring these values ought to be part of the project of restoring New Testament Christianity. The values i'm able to think of so far that fit into this category are:

Greeting one another

Hospitality

Celibacy

Compassion

Community

Impartiality

Have i left any out? Are there other ethical values or practices you believe are present in the pages of New Testament Christianity that are not valued or practiced in 21st century Christianity?

Pacifism 8: An Argumental Appeal to a Conservative CoCer

2010-06-29T13:55:00.001-05:00

Most "conservative" Churches of Christ (CoC) reject the use of instrumental music (IM) on the basis that there is no biblical authority for such a practice, and we may only engage in practices for which we're given biblical authority. Yet even many conservatives CoCer's would reject pacifism.

i'm not claiming that i am a proponent of the no-authority-for-IM argument. Whether or not that is a valid argument is not the point of this post. Whether IM in worship is acceptable to God is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that there are quite a great many in the CoC who reject the use of IM in worship as unacceptable to God, and who do so on the basis of this particular argument, yet who also reject pacifism. In this post i want to offer the argument that if a CoCer rejects IM on the basis of the no-authority argument, then they ought to be pacifists for the same reason.

The no-authority argument for rejecting the use of IM in worship usually points out that there are no commands, nor examples, nor necessary inferences in the New Testament for the use of IM in worship. In other words, if there were a command given to Christians to use IM, or an example of Christians acceptably using IM, or some statement made in the NT which could only imply that it is permissible for Christians to IM in worship, then we would have authority for IM in worship and could use IM in worship acceptably. But since there are no explicit commands, no recorded examples, and no statements which force such an inference, then it is not the case that Christians can use IM acceptably in worship to God.

To my knowledge, there are no commands or instructions given to Christians which say that it is permissible for a Christian ever to behave violently. To my knowledge, there are no examples in the New Testament of Christians ever acceptably behaving violently. To my knowledge, there is no scripture from which we must necessarily infer that it is permissible for a Christian ever to behave violently. If, for a conservative, meeting this criteria is all it takes to conclude that IM in worship is unacceptable, then why is it not the same with violence?

Where does the New Testament authorize the use of violence on the part of Christians for any purpose? And if some passage of scripture is proposed, is the proposed authorization sufficient in such a way that would still leave IM in worship unauthorized?

Baby Boy Survives For Nearly Two Days After Abortion

2010-05-01T23:39:00.000-05:00

Read It Here. My son was born close to 24 weeks. i wonder what the mother is thinking now.

The Basic Problem of Truth and Unity

2010-04-30T15:39:00.002-05:00

It seems like you can't have both. You can have truth and unity on paper. You define what are the bare minimum things people need to believe in order to be faithful members of the community of faith and then on paper, just assume that only those people will commune. But it doesn't always work out that neatly in a practical sense.

It's certainly popular currently to strive for unity among a broad range of disagreement about matters of truth. But i don't believe it's possible to escape the fact that spiritual unity and community and fellowship requires some minimum level of agreement in order to exist in any meaningful way. i don't follow Christ alongside atheists or Hindus. i don't "go to church" with people who don't even believe Jesus of Nazareth was God-incarnate, at least not in the same sense that i "go to church" with people who believe He was.

But take something that most garden variety modern Christians would consider a "no-brainer"--like this issue of Christology. Imagine the various rogue Christologies that have existed throughout church history. There are docetics, arians, gnostics, and even more. These are all people who consider themselves Christians but who do not share the same understandings of the terms “Jesus,” “Messiah,” and “Lord” as the majority of others in the world who consider themselves Christians.

Most Christians believe there is fact of the matter about those terms and their meanings. Not only this, but most Christians have treated those doctrines as non-negotiable--a person must believe particular things about the nature of Christ in order to be considered "one of us." So the other groups of people who are committed to different meanings of those terms–do you simply deny they are Christians as they claim to be? Many people would say, that's right, they’re not Christians. Well, okay. That’s fine. i think John seems to be on board with that assessment when it came to the Gnostics according to 1John.

The trouble is, some of those people may very well be sitting in the pew next to you. While there are religious groups who have officially defined themselves by these certain differing views, there are also individuals peppered through multiple “orthodox” groups who don’t personally hold the “orthodox” view of terms like “Jesus,” “Messiah,” or “Lord.” (There are people, though sparce, with rogue Christologies even in the CoC.) So do you treat those people as brethren because they’re in the same building as you? If so, then why not those people with similar views who are not in the same building? And if you do treat the guy in the pew next to you as a brother despite his mistaken view about the nature of Christ, then it’s no longer the case that the “truth” defines who’s “unified” in a practical sense.

But suppose you think, no, that guy isn’t your brother because he doesn’t believe the truth. Then what’s he doing next to you? What’s he doing taking communion with you? What are you doing passing him the tray? What’s he doing leading prayers or songs or scripture readings or teaching classes? If he’s not your brother since he’s not among the “unified-defined-by-the-truth,” then why is he enjoying so much practical unity? If he’s not a brother and he’s allowed to lead the closing prayer, then why don’t we let any unbeliever at all do the same?

How do you make "unity-defined-by-the-truth" a practical reality?

A Semester Long Hiatus

2010-04-30T15:20:00.000-05:00

This blog was my dirty-little-distraction from all the grad school work i needed to be doing. So six months ago i had to commit to not posting on this thing at all in order to give school the attention it deserves. Anyhow, i'm about two-ish weeks away from being totally done with the semester and jumping into wonderful, beautiful summer break. i definitely intend to get back to posting a bit on this thing during the break. i'll even throw a post out there today just to get warmed up. Hope people still peruse this place occasionally!

Quote from MLK's "Letter..."

2009-12-26T19:50:00.000-06:00

"Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century."

What do you think? Are King's words any less relevant or accurate nearly 50 years later?

The Ugly Truth

2009-12-24T01:51:00.000-06:00

i am a sinner. a filthy sinner. i am lustful. i am lazy. i am wasteful. i indulgently look at things that are evil--images which objectify women and belittle the wickedness of violence. i say things that are evil--gossip, judgment, dirty jokes, emphasis on base desires. i ignore my fellow human beings who are in need--at work i actually try to avoid being solicited by the homeless and routinely deny them anything and deliberately try not to make eye contact with people standing at intersection corners begging. i sin and sometimes just don't care--evil. Sometimes i sin and don't even ask forgiveness because i know i'll just do it again. soon even. Sometimes before i'm about to sin my conscience is screaming inside my head--all my alarms are working perfectly inside my head, and i just tell them to shut up. i willfully ignore all the conscientious red flags in my head because i decide i want to sin more than i want to be faithful to Christ. Sometimes i wish i would stop, but know that i'll decide to do it anyway, so i don't do anything to try to stop because i know i'll just fail.

So shouldn't i say these things to people in church? Shouldn't i be real and honest and truthful about who and what i am and what i'm really going through? Shouldn't i just admit all this?

Yet i feel tremendous pressure both cultural and emotional to hide it. To pretend. To wear something nice on Sunday morning and just act like things are the same as always and that of course i don't do anything terrible. People who are terrible sinners aren't welcome on Sunday mornings. Certainly no such person should ever be fellowshipped with by the prominent members of the congregation or asked to teach Bible classes or lead prayers. Such people wouldn't be warmly greeted by regular members. At best, such people would be scolded or tacitly judged and avoided.

So it's best to hide, right? It's best to pretend. It's best to shake everyone's hand and smile and talk about school or the weather and never share what's really going on for me in my personal discipleship and struggle with sin. That way they'll keep talking to me and they'll keep inviting me to lunch. i'll stay the same--i won't improve spiritually, but at least then i'll maintain the same relationship with them. Besides, if i broke and told someone at church they'd feel super awkward that i was so open. They'd likely just tell me to go talk to one of the ministers. Which i could do, yes. But of course, the minister and i both know he's only talking to me because he's the hired guy--the one paid to do just that sort of thing. He's paid to care so that person in the pew who i just made feel awkward doesn't have to.

Funny thing is though, i can't help but think that lots of people in the pews next to me are just like me. Sinners. Filthy sinners. The kind who do somethings and don't even care. They know they should care. But they don't. They care enough to wish they were better. But they don't care enough to really get better. They're ashamed to tell anyone just like me and for similar reasons. Hmmm. Lots of us might just be going through the same thing. More people than me might just be big, fat failures at following Christ. Yet there's not enough trust or authenticity in the room for any of us to talk to each other about it. Interesting.

Listen, i know that no amount of mistrust on Sunday morning alleviates my responsibility before God. i am blameworthy. i deserve the wrath of God. i am willfully ignoring my commitment to my Savior and i have no excuse.

But is my general experience and rationale all that uncommon? Have i not accurately represented an average church-goer's experience or the social dynamic of the average congregation? (And meanwhile, what do i do about me? Sometimes i have very little hope of coming back and doing the right thing.)

Prayer as Resistance

2009-12-10T07:00:00.002-06:00

There's an awesome blog post over at Richard Beck's blog about the historical use of prayer as resistance.

Does the CoC, perhaps, have a weak theology and practice when it comes to communal prayer? My impression growing up has been that prayer is little more than a pause between songs or the mark of the closing ceremonies.

Have we typically thought of prayer as a weapon? As a force for change? If not, why not? Is that a misguided view? i don't think so, but maybe i'm wrong. It seems some religious groups view prayer almost like a weapon. Liturgically speaking, why don't we view it or practice it in this way? Again, is that a misguided notion? Is it a misguided notion to think of prayer as a means of resisting and attacking evil in the world?

Drowning in Schoolwork, Something Weird, and Movies

2009-12-07T07:00:00.002-06:00

i'm a tad stressed at the moment. i've got piles of schoolwork to complete now that there's not even two weeks left in the the semester. So i'll just say that i probably need to take another break from blogging. But like i said, i have a dozen or more draft blogs just waiting to be written. Can't wait for xmas break though--i'm going to play video games with my son until our eyeballs fall out.

Here's something weird--certain things trigger all sorts of associations for me that don't make sense. i got on an elevator today at school and a man walked out. He was dressed rather nicely, a brown leather jacket, a yellow sweater -vest, he had a button up shirt underneath that, slacks, and some sort of nice brown dress shoe. i got in the elevator as he was getting out. i immediately breathed in the strong fragrance from his aftershave. It smelled very, i don't know. Sort of musky. Very standard middle-aged "dad" sort of smell. And all the sudden i had a flash of being in an airport. For some reason i immediately associated this guy with the kind of person i would see in an airport. i have no rhyme or reason for it. Do you have any weird associations like that?

i really like movies! i find myself, though, hunting for obscure movies that might not have been blockbusters but were deep or intellectually stimulating or present a dilemma that even the viewer feels faced with. i like movies that really challenge me to think about a situation. Blood Diamond was very good i thought. i recently watched In The Name Of The Father and was really blown away by Northern Ireland in the 70's--i really didn't know it was that bad over there. i watched The Brothers Karamazov (a pre-Star Trek appearance of William Shatner in which he was actually a good actor!). Anyway, what i'm really looking for are recommendations. What films have challenged you or made a lasting impression on you and why? What do you recommend checking out?

What TV Show Would Jesus Watch? - An Interesting Take

2009-12-04T07:00:00.000-06:00

Check Out This Article

This article presents at least a seed of an alternate view. i've never watched the tv show "Glee" that the article is talking about, so i can't speak to that program in particular. But i think the article makes some general applications worth thinking about.

"We shouldn't watch anything in a movie or tv or anything in a book we read or anything in music we listen to that's bad or sinful." i've often found this traditional view both unsatisfying and difficult to argue with. It seems like a good heuristic to keep me out of trouble. But it also seems grossly oversimplified.

First, however pure our intentions, it seems like some lines will be drawn that do more to insulate and isolate us from real people in real situations. It seems to me there is such a thing as being so darn "Christian" that i really can't relate to or reach anyone who isn't.

i remember reading someone use an illustration: A number of missionaries in Ireland failed to reach the locals. In particular, a missionary who had been there for years couldn't even get the locals to associate with him. They wanted to go to the pub and drink and smoke, and since he taught that such things were sinful and such places were sinful, he would never go in to speak with them and they wouldn't ever ditch their drinking and smoking and pub-going to come out and speak with him. Eventually, a new missionary came to town. The first night he was there, he walked right into the pub, ordered a beer, got to know all the locals' names and occupations. The second night at the pub, he asked them all about their families. The third night at the pub, he asked them all about their struggles and worries. The fourth night at the pub he told them all about his struggles and worries and how Jesus was the answer to it all. The following Sunday, several of those pub-goers visited the new missionary's worship serivce. The old missionary caught wind that some of the pub-goers had started going to church. The old missionary went and spoke with the new missionary and asked him how he did it. The new missionary explained exactly what he had done as soon as he got into town. The old missionary was horrified, "you went into the pub and drank and smoked with them?!" The new missionary replied, "Well, someone had to do the Christ-like thing in that situation."

i don't mean to speak to the issue of drinking and smoking. Maybe you do think those things are sinful. Maybe they are. But i think there is a principle in that illustration which makes an important point. i think it's possible to be so "Christian-cultured" (for lack of a better term) that we end up being no earthly good. Jesus met people where they were. He ate with them in their houses and attended their dinner parties and all the religious people of His day accused him of being a "party-er." i wonder if we were there back then if we would find ourselves in Jesus' shoes rubbing elbows with the lower rungs of society or in the shoes of the Pharisees looking down their noses at Jesus and the people He aimed to reach.

i realize this really isn't a point directly related to what a Christian should watch on tv or listen to in their CD player, but i think it is indirectly related. We can treat modern art and media with such contempt that it does create a gulf between us "religious people" and the people in society for whom such art is an important identifying marker and community builder. Just work with teenagers for very long and you'll learn the very powerful effect a rock band has at bringing kids together and building a sub-culture. Rather than standing outside their circle berating them for their "wicked, dirty" music, why not go to their concert with them and learn what's important to them and what is it about that art which they identify with and then share your own story as well. Doesn't that seem more akin to Jesus' method of ministry?

Second, this view seems to lead to a lot of inconsistent judgments which the author of the article points out. Harry Potter is the work of the devil, yet The Chronicles of Narnia should be required Christian reading. 'Any movie with sex in it is wicked and we should never watch it,' yet the Bible has more scandalous sex in it than most modern movies.

So what? We can and should watch/read/listen to whatever we want regardless of content? Of course, not. But it seems like we need a far more nuanced view.

i'm not about to tell you i have it all figured out and can produce such a nuanced view. But i will offer something i think is a place to start. Motive. i think a lot of ethical questions for a disciple should really come down to motive. What am i after? What's moving me? What's my goal? What's driving me? i think once you take them time to give brutally honest answers to those sorts of questions, you'll already have a pretty good idea of what you should do or not do. So in this case, why am i watching the shows i'm watching? Why am i reading the books i'm reading? More to the point--why do i enjoy those shows/books/songs? What is it about them that attracts me?

i think if people were honest in answering those questions, they might find that they should give up watching/reading some things that by all appearances seem harmless. And i think they also might find that in some cases what they previously thought was "wicked and dirty" might be worth checking out.

Willingness

2009-12-02T07:00:00.000-06:00

i think many disagreements and conflicts we experience in our personal faith or congregations really boil down to the issue of willingness. Willingness is the real test of the sincerity of our words or where we really stand or what we're really made of. We freely engage in debates with others over how to understand the Bible (or anything in life for that matter). But if the other person showed us we were wrong about something, would we really change?

Suppose someone who approves of instrumental music in worship (Mr. IM) was debating with someone who rejects instrumental music in worship (Mr. AC).

Mr. IM: "Mr. AC, in the hypothetical situation that God came down to us right now and told you to your face that instrumental music was okay, would you change your mind?"

Mr. AC: (thinking to himself)

Mr. IM: "Or suppose that i really could show you from the Bible that instrumental music was okay, would you change your mind?"

Mr. AC: "I guess, if I'm honest, I still wouldn't change my mind."

Mr. IM: "Then it's not really about what the Bible says or not or what God wants, it's really that you're just committed to your view no matter what and you're unwilling to give it up. So why are we even debating about what the Bible teaches?"

i think this sort of "willingness" test shows us where we really are spiritually--whether we're more committed to God or ourselves. Notice: The above conversation couldn't happened with the characters reversed; Mr. AC could've used the willingness-test on Mr. IM. A willingness-test would be revealing of where anyone stands regardless of what position they take in a given debate.

So i'd like to propose another form of the willingness test: "Would you still be a disciple of Christ if...?"

Jesus asked some of His apostles to literally get up and walk away from their jobs and homes and day-to-day lives. If Christ asked you today to walk away from your job, to leave your home, to walk away from your routine and to literally leave familiar places and faces--if that's what being a "Christian" required of you, would you still choose to be one?

The early church had to support each other materially. The Jerusalem church had a number of people who had travelled from their homes just to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Those people had left their jobs and livelihoods and needed the material support of the Christians who were local. The early church also monetarily supported the members who were widows. There likely wasn't life insurance plans or pensions or social security. Widows were in a desperate situation. Churches collected money amongst themselves to make sure the widows in their midst were taken care of. James speaks of the worthlessness of well-wishing versus real material care of brothers in need. And John seems to make material care of fellow Christians in need a litmus test for whether a person even is a Christian.

In our day and time when people in our congregation fall on hard times, we do have things like social security and insurances and even charitable agencies. And i think it's very easy and comfortable for us to think to ourselves, "well, i don't need to give them anything because they've got lots of options they can explore before they'll come to me." [Boy, i'd love to write a post or two just on that attitude alone.] But what if it was your job to take care of that person? What if being a "Christian" required that you took care of that person monetarily and materially? What if being a "Christian" required that you had to host that widow in your home and take care of her? If that's what Christ expect of you, then would you still choose to be His disciple?

The early church also suffered tremendous bouts of persecution. Christians experienced a great deal of mistreatment first from Jews and later on from the Romans. Christians were killed--publically stoned, crucified, made a gory spectacle of in colosseum-style games, etc. They were refused jobs and services. i can't prove this, but i can't help but think that they're children were likely mistreated as well just because of being the child of a Christian. The sad truth is that the vile persecution of Christians is still a very common fact in some parts of the world. But here in the West, we really don't face anything comparable to the first century church. But suppose that's what it meant to be a Christian. Knowing that choosing to be a Christian would tremendously increase your chances of being assaulted or ostracized or even executed, would you still choose to be one?

So did you say "no" to any of the test questions? Did you say "yes," but reluctantly? Did you feel like you just couldn't answer at all? Did you quickly say "yes," but then try not to dwell deeply on what those scenarios would really be like? What does that say about the extent of your willingness to follow Christ?

Club Membership vs. Discipleship

2009-11-30T07:00:00.001-06:00

What is "club membership"? Membership in a club is about meeting attendance, paying club dues, membership benefits, initiation rituals and ceremonies, and supporting club events. You can get this sort of experience from a gym, from AAA, from the local Country Club, from a sorority or fraternity, from Freemasonry, and even from Sam's Warehouse.

Here's some tough questions:
Do we "do church" in such a way that gives people the impression that Christianity is merely club membership?
Do we "do church" in such a way that facilitates people who are merely looking for a club membership experience?
And most importantly, should we "do church" in this way?

Of course, "doing church" even flawlessly will still bear at least some resemblance to club membership. We still give of our means for support of the church's work (membership dues) and we gather together on a regular basis (meeting attendance) and people get baptized (initiation rituals) and take the Lord's Supper (ceremony). But how similar should discipleship and club membership be? Is discipleship qualitatively distinct from club membership?

Church and the Lord's Supper and so on--these do include a sense of community and belonging and purpose. This is certainly similar to club membership. But discipleship is about denying self, taking up your cross, and following Christ (Mark 8:34), about losing one's life for the sake of Christ and the gospel (Mark 8:35), about being unashamed of Christ and His teaching (Mark 8:38). Joining a club membership is largely about what benefits i will get from membership. Christianity is about giving and serving to the point of sacrificing personal benefit. Further, the church and its practices is not a club that just happens to be suited to Christians who want a club membership. The church ought to be the manifestation of Christians living out their discipleship.

Discipleship requires a kind of commitment that clubs don't. Christ demands my all. i am to surrender the entirety of my life to him--the way i think, act, speak, and plan. i join a club as an addition to my life, to fill it out a little more than it already was or to find what was lacking in my life. When i become a Christian, discipleship is my life. Further, i owe my fellow Christians a depth and scope of service and love that is not required by club membership. When the church is being what it should, members really do stand or fall together. We uphold each other, no one is expendable, everyone is needed. When you leave a club, what they miss is your dues. But they can recruit more members.

i think there are more pertinent differences between the two but i'm having trouble formulating the differences. What other differences are there? In what other ways is discipleship clearly different from club membership?

Here's what i really wanted to get to. How should we "do church"? Or rather, how should we not "do church"? i think it's a sad fact that there are churches out there who are aiming to be nothing more than a club-membership-alternative. If push came to shove, the leadership would practically admit as much. Sadly, i've even known preachers who were told by their elders to stop baptizing people and making the congregation grow numerically because the long-standing elders and families preferred a small church (the desire for an "exclusive" club).

But there are also churches who are aiming to be more. There are churches that sincerely want to be a manifestation of Christian discipleship. Yet they end up creating an environment which either gives people the impression that Christianity is mere club membership, or they create an environment which facilitates and even coddles people who are looking for mere club membership. These churches often emphasize features of their practice or facility which mimick club membership and use those features to draw visitors.

But is that the kind of growth we really want? Even if people join and later wise up, do the ends justify the means? Can i use any old bait at all to get someone into a baptistry even if that bait is deceitful and misrepresentative of Christianity? Should i even view it as a bait-and-hook situation? Yes, Jesus taught the apostles to be "fishers of men," but did He intend that phrase to imply that we can play on people's base or even sinful inclinations as a means of attracting them to Christ?

i'd like to suggest that we ought to aim to disassociate ourselves with the "club membership" idea. As long as we mimick the club membership experience, i don't think we'll ever ultimately grow past the club membership experience. In mimicking a club membership experience, the church environment will not be conducive to testing or growing people's faith beyond what is required by mere club membership. We shouldn't consider it growth when we recruit mere club-members versus actually converting people to Christ. We shouldn't consider it growth or progress if we never increase in our mutual edification, interdependency, and one-another-ness. More club members and larger club-due-revenue is not biblical growth. And the more we cater to "club membership" mentality, the more we cheapen what discipleship and the church really are.

Thanksgiving Hiatus

2009-11-23T07:00:00.012-06:00

No blogging the rest of the week!

Other than eating til i throw up and playing with my son, i have three ginormous term papers i need to work on! i have about a dozen or more blog-drafts i'm working on, so i'll post some more next week.

What do you like to stuff your face with at Thanksgiving?

Pacifism 7

2009-11-20T07:00:00.005-06:00

Is pacifism just about people who don't want to get their hands dirty? Are pacifists just more concerned with their own personal holiness than with the well-being of other people that might require protection?

i would love to direct your attention to this blog post regarding pacifism. The author has definitely said some things better than i have been doing.

Baptism: Framing The Debate

2009-11-18T07:00:00.002-06:00

In a somewhat recent blog post, Jay Guin has argued that when it comes to baptism, we CoCer's have historically been debating the wrong question with other denominations. We typically argue with Baptists, Methodists, et al over the question: Is baptism essential? Jay says this question is misguided has left the debates largely unfruitful. The people in those other denominations believe they've been baptized and do teach others to be baptized. So whether baptism is essential is really a misleading approach. Jay suggests that what we ought to be investigating is this question: Will God accept a less-than-perfect baptism?

i think Jay's right that the essentiality question is unhelpful and misleading, but i'd like to suggest that even Jay's question is unhelpful and misleading as well.

(1) The question bears heavy connotation: How dare we expect someone to do something perfectly in order to be acceptable to God! No, it's not stated in so many words anywhere in the original post. But the basic line of argument is: If you expect perfection, then everyone's doomed. Thus, if you expect a "perfect" baptism, then even tons of people you think are okay probably aren't. And would you appreciate it if someone expected perfection of you? Or a perfect baptism? So don't lay that burden on someone else!

i think there's quite a bit of truth to this candor. The CoC is definitely not in agreement on what's precisely necessary for a baptism to be "valid." Sometimes we disagree or even change what we think "repentance" requires, or we disagree or even change what we think a person must know or understand about baptism when undergoing it. People hear this confusion, get doubts about an event they don't remember very well, and then decide to get dunked a few more times just to make sure. That is crazy; the church clearly should have a dialectic situation where congregants undergo and are confident in only one event (barring obvious exceptions like when someone knows with certainty they got dunked to impress their loved ones or something like that). And the fact that our current dialectic situation is riddled with themes of ever-more-exacting-standards is partially to blame, no doubt.

Where i think the connotative content of Jay's proposed question is misleading is that, well, frankly, God can expect whatever He fancies. The connotative force of this question is that you can't possibly say no to it. "Of course, God will accept a less-than-perfect baptism because He's such a good guy and only someone stern or intolerant would expect it to be perfect--they just need to lighten up." However imperfect we are, and however nice it may be to let people slide sometimes, that doesn't mean God's a bad guy if He does reject our baptism or whatever else. The same loving merciful God who gave Hannah a child and the Israelites more 2nd chances than i can count is also the same God who struck dead Uzzah for touching a box and Annanias and Saphira for a wee little lie. It may be true that God will accept a "less-than-perfect baptism." All i mean to point out is that God is not somehow obligated to do so, and thus we're not automatically bad guys if we choose not to adopt a "just let everyone slide" mentality.

(2) Asking whether God will accept a less-than-perfect baptism takes for granted one of the central questions that is in debate: What precisely is baptism? It's not merely that some CoCer's think that Baptists were baptized but not good enough, it's also a matter of whether some people have been baptized at all. Now, don't get me wrong, maybe they have. i'm not attempting to answer these questions, just to assess the playing field and see what helps and what doesn't.

Now traditionally, the CoC has held the following position.

An event is baptism if and only if:
1. The element used was water.
2. The mode used was immersion.
3. The candidate was a penitent believer
4. The purpose was the forgiveness of sins.

As many have pointed out, there's lots of haze and fog even in that definition. What counts as "penitent"? Does every last molecule of your body have to be submerged in water in order for it to count as "immersion"? What counts as "for the forgiveness of sins"? Does that have to be the conscious purpose in the mind of the candidate? Or the administrator? Or God alone? Or all three?

These questions and the wide array of answers have left lots of people in doubt and lots of people multiply-dunked. And that is sad. But my point here is this, what we need is a bare minimum definition of baptism, not some spectrum of perfect to imperfect baptism. Such a spectrum doesn't tell us where the bottom is. And thus we can always argue for accepting one step lower on the spectrum, and eventually anything at all counts as baptism.

i'd like to suggest then two questions that i do think are helpful in this historical debate (one i've already stated):

First, what are the bare minimum component necessary for an act to constitute baptism?

Second, how can i know that someone else has been baptized?

Regarding the second question, my point is this: i can know a great deal more about my own baptism because i have first person access to my own motives and intentions. Poor memory may be my only obstacle. But in the case of other people, i do not have first person access. Thus, i think our standards for determining whether another person has been baptized must be more relaxed and we have to extend a great deal of trust. Whether or not another person has been baptized is largely that person's responsibility to discern. All we can have is a possible four part definition. It's either true or false. But suppose it's true. If a person says they've met those conditions, then who are we to argue with them? And if they say they met those conditions, what does it matter to us what building they did it in or what the sign out front said?

Pacifism 6

2009-11-16T07:00:00.004-06:00

A lot of objections to pacifism boil down to very similar themes. Pacifism is just a way to justify doing nothing. Pacifism is just a moral cover for cowardice. It may be true that some pacifists have been guilty of both. But pacifism as a Christian ideal is none of the above.

Pacifism is not a way to justify doing nothing.

Pacifism is not about doing nothing, it's about doing something different. Christ didn't merely condemn one course of action, He introduced an entirely different program for engaging evil in the world.

"Love your enemies." (Matt 5:44)

"Bless those who persecute you." (Rom 12:14)

"Overcome evil with good." (Rom 12:21)

Rather than simply contribute to the evil already in the world, i have a new mission, a new strategy--to take evil out of circulation. Tit-for-tat just won't cut it in Christ's kingdom. But Christ, by no means, allows me to do nothing. i'm called to do something much more difficult than tit-for-tat. When people seem unloveable, i'm called to love them. When people do things that seem unforgiveable, i'm called to forgive. When people clearly seem to deserve bad treatment, i'm called to be kind to them. i have to love, forgive, bless, and be kind to people that do not deserve one drop of it.

Why? Isn't it obvious that some people just need shot? Isn't it obvious that some people just need the crap beat out of them? Isn't it obvious that some people just deserve to be slandered and ostracized? Isn't it obvious that some people need a taste of their own medicine? So why shouldn't i be the one who gives it to them? Why should i have to treat people completely differently from the way they treat me and others?

that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:45-48)

i may feel like beating someone's brains out because they're such a jerk, but do i deserve any different? i may think that people should get what they deserve, but am i ready for God to give me what i deserve? God loves me, forgives me, blesses me, and is kind to me even when i don't deserve any of it--even when i clearly deserve the very opposite. And, in fact, God showers such goodness even on people who will never change their ways or love Him. So am i better than God? God has every right to give people what they deserve, yet He chooses to shower them all with love, kindness, blessing, and forgiveness. How can i do any differently?

Loving someone, being kind to someone, blessing someone, and forgiving someone--these hardly constitute "doing nothing." When i'm being attacked, pacifism doesn't obligate me to do nothing. It obligates me to turn the other cheek, to love, to feed and clothe my enemy, to pray for him, etc. When my son is being attacked, pacifism doesn't obligate me to do nothing. Christ sacrificed Himself for my sake. i can certainly take a bullet or a beating for my son's sake.

Pacifism isn't about doing nothing. It's first and foremost about being willing to do something much harder than simply falling back on tit-for-tat. And it's also about the much more difficult work of finding imaginitive ways of overcoming evil with good.

Pacifism is not a cover for cowardice.

Violence and hatred is a cover for fear if anything ever was. When people have big muscles and big guns and big mobs and big armies and big amounts of anger and adrenaline coursing through their system, should we seriously conclude that their violence and retaliation is about courage and bravery? It's easy to be a "brave" man when you're on the "good" side of a gun barrell.

Take away the gun and how "brave" will that same person be? Strip it all away. Put yourself in a country with either a weak or non-existent military and police force. Suppose you neither own nor have access to any defensive weapons. Suppose you have no hand-to-hand combat skills and poor physical strength. Now, ask yourself, why would you choose violence and retaliation?

The root of this thing is fear. Fear of being powerless. Fear of being helpless. Fear of losing control. Fear of getting hurt. Fear of disrespect. We fear not having control over a situation. We fear things not turning out the way we want them to. We fear what other people will think of us. We fear suffering pain whether physical or emotional. Fear, fear, fear! But what did Jesus say?

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

Peter taught his readers to have no fear of people who mistreat them (1Peter 3:14). Paul taught Timothy that God has not given us a spirit of fear (2Tim 1:7). And Proverbs says: "the righteous are as bold as a lion" (Prov 28:1). [i love that last one.]

So, again, put yourself in that police-less, military-less country with no personal weapons or combat skills or physical prowess. It would be easy to think that what you need are weapons and fighting skills. And you could even pray, "Lord, please give me the means necessary to defend myself."

But what if this was God's answer?: "Sure. Here are your weapons: prayer, love, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, and My word." What if that's all God gave you to face the dangers of the world? Now ask yourself, does it take more guts to rely on a machine gun to win your battles? Or to rely on prayer to win them?

Christian pacifism calls on me to stop being such a coward. --to stop being so afraid of everything as though evil people truly have any power over me. Christ is in control. God is on the throne. God will put the whole world to rights in the end. And God will raise me from the dead. Do i have the testicular fortitude to believe that or not? Derek Webb sings, "There's got to be a love stronger than our fear of everything being out of control." (It's a fantastic song!) There most certainly is. Christian pacifism calls me to be bold and courageous enough to believe that love is stronger than hate, that raising my hands in prayer is more powerful than clinching them into fists, that goodness and kindness really can overcome injustice and evil, and that Christ's way of doing things is superior to the world's way. Thus, my job is to wage peace, to bring hate to its knees, and to never be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good. That's hardly a cover for cowardice.

Pacifism 5

2009-11-13T07:00:00.015-06:00

Some might argue that scriptures which condemn violent retaliation only apply when Christians are being mistreated because they are Christians.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. (Matt 5:11)

It's true, Stephen was martyred because he was a Christian. Paul was abused because he was a Christian. James was slaughtered because he was a Christian. But what if you're being mistreated, but not because you're a Christian?

First, "because you're a Christian" is a vague phrase. What counts as being mistreated "because you're a Christian"? Perhaps you're being mistreated "because you're a Christian" when:

(a) The person(s) mistreating you believes that you're a Christian
(b) The person(s) mistreating you harbors ill-will against Christianity
(c) The person(s) mistreating you is motivated by that ill-will when
mistreating you

This seems a clear cut case of being mistreated "because you're a Christian," but these criteria are entirely too strict. Herod's execution of James (Acts 12) doesn't fit this criteria at all. Herod arguably didn't harbor ill-will toward Christianity nor was his act motivated by it nor was it even necessarily the case that he believed James was a Christian. Herod wanted the approval of the Jews and they believed James was a Christian and harbored ill-will toward Christianity. James was mistreated "because he was a Christian," but it's quite possible that the person mistreating him didn't meet any of the above criteria.

This opens the question: whose perspective counts? Is "because-you're-a-Christian" mistreatment about what the perpetrator thinks about the situation? Is it about what onlookers think about the situation? Is it about what you think about the situation? Is it about what God thinks about the situation?

i'm not sure i have an answer to what exactly is required for mistreatment to be "because you're a Christian," but i will offer two things i think point us in the right direction.

(1) i do certain things because i'm a Christian, and it may be the case that no one around me knows why i'm doing those things. A co-worker may despise me because he thinks i'm a "goody-two-shoes" and may even give me a hard time because of it. But he's not aware that the particular reason i perform "goody-two-shoes"-types of behavior is because i'm a Christian, and he would just as soon give me a hard time either way. i may have to stand up for what's right because i'm a Christian, and people may oppose me for standing up for what's right even though they aren't consciously opposing me for being a Christian. Yet i believe this still clearly counts as a case of being mistreated "because i'm a Christian."

(2) God expects that everything i do is to be done in the name of the Lord (Col 3:17) and to His glory (1Cor 10:31). That doesn't mean that people who don't like the way i blow my nose are persecuting me. But it means there is never a time when i'm not Christ's representative. There's no "off-duty hours" for a Christian. If i am a Christian, i am obligated to be Christian in all situations, times, and circumstances i face. Thus, just because people mistreating me may not know or care whether i'm a Christian, i'm nonetheless obligated to behave as a Christian in response to their mistreatment.

Second, is it really the case that the NT condemnation of violent retaliation only applies when i'm being mistreated because i'm a Christian?

Jesus' instructions in the Sermon on the Mount regarding turning the other cheek and loving your enemies include no such qualification about the reason for mistreatment. It's arguable that the Roman soldiers imposing their load upon people for a mile at a time didn't care about the particular beliefs that person held (Matt 5:41). Rather, Jesus' rationale is that you should do good to those who do evil to you because God blesses even the wicked (Matt 5:45).

Peter's instructions about not returning evil for evil do not have a mistreatment-because-of-being-a-Christian qualification. Peter, rather, is giving instructions first about how Christians are to treat each other (1Pet 3:8), and then as he continues, he develops into the topic of Christian persecution (1Pet 3:13f).

Paul's instructions (Rom 12:14-21) do not contain any qualification about the motive for mistreatment. And Paul, too, includes how Christians treat one another in his instructions about retaliation (Rom 12:16).

Therefore, the instructions given to Christians which condemn vengeance/retaliation/turning the other cheek are not restricted to circumstances in which the mistreatment is somehow motivated against Christianity. Rather, these instructions are given to disciples as general and universal ethical norms.

Self-Appointed Editors of the Bible

2009-11-11T07:00:00.002-06:00

Apparently, Ian McKellan has a habit of editing the Bibles in the drawers of hotel rooms where he stays. He rips out the pages which contain condemnations of homosexuality. He says it's the difference between throwing away just those parts versus throwing away the whole Bible.   i think the fact that Mr. McKellan (one of my very favorite actors, by the way) feels compelled to physically remove certain passages from the Bible is psychologically interesting and suggestive, but i won't dwell on it.

But it is a prompt for a broader question. Do we feel compelled to ignore certain scriptures? Do we try to avoid ever reading or hearing or talking about certain passages of scripture? Are there certain verses we wish God would've never included in the Bible? Are there certain passages that we would feel it inappropriate to read aloud in a worship service? Do we aim to avoid reading aloud certain scriptures in worship services because we fear the reaction of visitors?

Why would we be picky and choosy about which bits of the Bible we will or won't expose ourselves to? Perhaps it's because we don't accept the content of those passages--we disagree with what scripture says about that topic. Perhaps it's because even though when push comes to shove we accept the content of those passages, we still find it unpleasant and don't want to be reminded of the obligations that passage puts on our shoulders or the shoulders of others. Perhaps it's because even though we believe the content of those passages, the views expressed are wildly unpopular in our culture.

(1) Who are we to decide that certain scriptures are not worthy of our assent, acceptance, and obedience?   If we get to pick and choose where God gets to tell us what to think or do, then who's really the 'god' in that arrangement? If we refuse to accept parts of the Bible, then what really serves as the final court of appeals for us--God's word, or our own preferences/opinions?

(2) Why would we avoid reminding ourselves about what God expects of us or teaches us to think? Our parents told us we needed to eat our vegetables (for me, it was sweet potatoes and asparagus that they practically had to threaten me before i'd finish them) and it was unpleasant because those vegetables didn't always taste very good. But aren't we the better for having eaten them? We both acquired the immediate health benefits from eating them, we trained ourselves to eat things even unpleasurable things when they benefit us, and we may even have learned to like them (i totally love asparagus now by the way). Our parents weren't trying to ruin our lives or hurt us, nor did they enjoy reveling in torturing us with disgust.   They were trying to love us and take care of us and see to it that we got what we really needed. God is doing no different in scripture by telling us the hard things we need to hear. God isn't trying to make things unpleasant or uncomfortable just for the sake of it. God always has our best interests at heart. Thus, it can only be to our benefit to learn to "eat our veggies" and make ourselves read even the 'unpleasant' parts of scripture.

(3) Why would we ever be ashamed of God's words? Why would we ever be so concerned about impressing non-believers that we would try to hide or cover up who our God really is and what He's really said? Think about it, should an unbeliever be impressed by a God Whose words His children are (at least partially) ashamed of? If we will sacrifice reading/talking about parts of the Bible for the sake of the comfort of visitors, then who or what is really the object of honor/worship at that point?

Pacifism 4

2009-11-09T07:00:00.006-06:00

Even though i, as a Christian, am not to return evil for evil and should turn the other cheek, shouldn't i violently defend myself when in life-threatening circumstances?

In the last post, i argued that Christ serves as an example that we mustn't engage in violent retaliation even in life-threatening circumstances. Someone may respond: "Yeah, but Christ had a special mission--Christ was incarnated for the particular purpose of dying on the cross, so of course He didn't aim to preserve His own physical life." That's true. But however uniquely motivated it was, Peter tells us that Christ's refusal to retaliate violently is meant as an example which His disciples are bound to follow (1Peter 2:19ff).

There are additional bases for a Christian commitment to refuse to retaliate violently. (Notice, these aren't additional places where the Bible commands us not to violently defend our mortal lives; these are foundational values upon which that practice is built.)

First, Christ forbids mortal fear:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Matt 10:28-31)

Believing i have some deeply important need for someone else or myself to protect my mortal life is rooted in fear--a fear of loss. i can quite naturally feel that people who could kill me really have a power over me--a power to take away something i can't get back, a power to take away something very valuable. Thus i may be motivated to make decisions out of fear of losing my mortal life rather than motivated by decisions out of awe for God who is in total control of life and eternity. Christ condemns this very thing.

God sees to the needs of sparrows. i'm worth more than sparrows. If God wants my life spared, He can make it happen. If He doesn't, that's up to Him. If someone wrongfully takes my life, God will sort that out. My responsibility is not fear those who can or intend to do so. Those people do not possess ultimately control over life and eternity. My fearing them and in desperation trying to preserve my own life against them lends creedance to the idea that they have some level of power or moral force over me that they do not, in fact, have.

Paul exemplified this very principle. Paul was faced with perils and uncertainty in his ministry.

And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. (Acts 20:22-24)

Further, when his own companions begged him not to go to Jerusalem for fear of his physical well-being, Paul exclaimed he was ready not only to be bound but also to die for Christ's sake (Acts 21:10-14). Rather than some rationale for being ready to fight to protect and preserve his own life, Paul identifies with the notion of a readiness to die if need be. i'm suggesting then that our desperation to preserve our own physical lives to the point of violent retaliation reflects either an inappropriate attachment to our mortal lives, a failure to trust in God's justice and providential control, a fear of those who might take our mortal lives from us, or all of the above. Christian discipleship calls us to learn to grow past such fears.

Secondly, a Christian has a very special hope--the hope of resurrection.

we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

"For your sake we face death all day long;

we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:23-25, 35-39)

We eagerly away the redemption of our bodies and not even death can stop God from giving that to us. Paul counted everything as loss compared to attaining resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:8-11), and thus did not shrink back from entering rather perilous circumstances on numerous occasions.

The hope of resurrection means that death no longer has tyranny over us. Thus, those who's strongest weapon is death ("do what i say, or i'll kill you") no longer have power over us. Will they kill us? Maybe so. But so what? God will raise us back up again anyway. Even my bodily existence is not something anyone can take away from me.

How much do i trust that God is in control of life and eternity? How far does my trust in His promise to raise from the dead go? If someone threatens to use lethal force against me, what will i do? If i truly believe i have nothing to fear from those who can merely kill my body then do nothing, and if i truly believe that God will raise me from the dead, then how should those beliefs effect my behavior in that situation?

Pacifism 3

2009-11-06T07:00:00.003-06:00

How far should we take not returning evil for evil? How far should we take turning the other cheek? What if people threaten to kill you? Shouldn't you be able to engage in violence when someone seeks to use lethal force against you?

i admit it seems that way to me. It sounds perfectly sensible that evil people should be allowed to go only so far, and then i have every right to "take matters into my own hands." In fact, it seems like if i don't physically retaliate at some point, something's wrong with me. Like i'm cowardly or wimpy or have no guts or no self-respect. Choosing to just let someone "walk all over me" violently seems un-manly and definitely un-American.

But is it un-Christian? That's what i want to know. i could be the most "manly American" around (a regular Toby Keith) and still be a dirt-poor disciple of Christ. What would Christ have me do? Do any of His words or actions tell me how far i should take not-returning-evil-for-evil? Perhaps 1Peter 2 provides some answers.

For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.(1Peter 2:19-24)

Christ left us an example and wants us to follow in His steps by enduring unjust suffering. When people insulted Christ, He didn't insult them in return. When people beat Him, He didn't beat back. Rather, Christ kept entrusting Himself to God as the judge who will make things right. As soon as people threatened Jesus' life, did things change? Did He stop entrusting Himself to God? Did He then trust in His own ability as a human to violently resist those people using lethal force against Him? Did He take matters into His own hands in order to preserve His own life? To what extent did Christ keep entrusting Himself to God? Peter says, "He Himself bore our sins in His body." Christ did not retaliate or change His moral strategy even when His life was threatened.

The author of Hebrews offers something similar to Peter's words.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. (Hebrews 12:2-4)

Jewish Christians suffered a great deal of persecution from the Jews and were rather tempted to revert back to Judaism to end their suffering. Christ's endurance even to the point of death, the Hebrews writer tells them, is the Christian's moral exemplar. The author says they hadn't "yet" had to shed their blood (i take this as a reference to dying), which suggests that if they continued to do the right thing, it may very well have come to that.

Peter and the writer of Hebrews point out that this is how Christ did things, and it's our job to follow in His steps. Further, this seems to be the practice among Christians in the New Testament. Paul was stoned by a mob in Lystra that intended to kill him yet Paul and his companions did not engage the mob violently (Acts 14:19f). Stephen was stoned to death and did not resist his murderers violently (Acts 7:54-60).

Thus, it may be manly or American or even common-sensical to fight back when people threaten to harm you, especially when they use lethal force against you. But it's not the Christ-like thing to do.

Pacifism 2

2009-10-28T08:00:00.002-05:00

Another introductory post without a lot of substance (thank you, Insane Schoolwork-Load!)--

i just wanted to acknowledge that the term "pacifism" covers a variety of differing positions and a web of related-issues. A Christian may coin herself a "pacifist," yet refer to any of the following positions.

(1) All violent action is morally forbidden for Christians.

(2) Christians may use violent action only in personal self-defense or defense of
loved ones.

(3) Christians may participate in war, but only non-violently.

(4) Christians may not participate in the military at all.

(5) Christians may participate in various governmnent roles, but only non-
violently.

(6) Christians may not occupy any government post.

(7) Christians may use force, but never lethal force.

(8) Christians may not use force for any personal reason, but may do so only if
acting as an agent of the state.

Notice, some combinations of these positions can be held simultaneously, and other combinations are incompatible. (Did i leave out anybody?) i do consider myself a pacifist, but i honestly don't know just how many of the above i accept. i definitely don't accept them all. But i would like to write some posts that explore what the Bible has to say about these.