Snow's place

Greg Boyd on Mennonite theology

2012-01-22T16:31:00.004-06:00

Hi,Greg Boy's reflection on the place of Anabaptist-Mennonite theology within the current (in 2008) context of religion in our world is an intriguing read. Greg was an atheist before coming to faith as a student at Yale. Please keep in mind that the theology Boyd appreciates is not reflected in all streams of Mennonite thought, nor is it restricted to those who identify themselves as Mennonite. Boyd lists several movements (eg., the emergent conversation, which was stirring up substantial controversy at the time, I think precisely because it was the sort of prophetic voice of challenge to the evangelical community that Boyd portrays as characteristic of Mennonite theology) that share some of the values of Mennonite thought that he appreciates.Enjoy.

Scripture reading collage for my mom's funeral

2012-01-11T22:49:00.002-06:00

My dear mother passed away on her 87th birthday, January 4, 2012. The scripture collage below was read at her funeral.
Go with God, mother. Love you so much! Miss you so much. Rest in peace. Till we meet again.

Scripture reading collage
Job 19:1, 25-27
Job answered “I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!
Lamentations 3:17-26
I have been deprived of peace;
I have forgotten what prosperity is.
So I say, “My splendor is gone
and all that I had hoped from the LORD.
I remember my affliction and my wandering,
the bitterness and the gall.
I well remember them,
and my soul is downcast within me.
Yet this I call to mind
and therefore I have hope:
Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed,
for his compassions never fail.
They are new every morning;
great is your faithfulness.
I say to myself, “The LORD is my portion;
Therefore I will wait for him.”
The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him,
to the one who seeks him;
it is good to wait quietly
for the salvation of the LORD.
Isaiah 25:6-8b
... the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
... he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces;
Isaiah 26:19
your dead will live, LORD;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.
1 Corinthians 15:53-55, 57
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
... thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 21:1-5a
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”
Song of Songs 2:10b-13
“Arise, my beloved,
my beautiful one, come with me.
See! The winter is past;
the rains are over and gone.
Flowers appear on the earth;
the season of singing has come,
the cooing of doves
is heard in our land.
The fig tree forms its early fruit;
the blossoming vines spread their fragrance.
Arise, come, my beloved;
my beautiful one, come with me.”

Scary Demoniac

2011-05-16T13:41:00.000-05:00

ReadMark 5:1-20

Whatis scarier than a mad man, strong enough to break the chains used tobind him, running around in a cemetery naked, and terrorizing allpasserby?

Accordingto the story as recorded in Mark 5 (and Luke 8), it is a formermadman, dressed and in his right mind, sitting at the feet of Jesus.

Why? When a mad man is healed, we should all be happy, right? Some saythat the main concern of the townspeople was the financial lossrepresented by the loss of the pigs. That may have been a factor,but the way the story is told has me thinking there is something elsegoing on here. If the main concern was loss of livelihood I wouldexpect they would have come in anger upon hearing of the loss. However, both Mark and Luke say that the people who were told of theevents that transpired on the hillside came to see what was happeningand, when they saw the man dressed and in his right mind, sitting atthe feet of Jesus, then they were afraid. Why? Why are they morescared when they see this man dressed and in his right mind, sittingat Jesus’ feet, than when he is running around on a lunatic fringe,naked and unstoppable?

Andwhy, when Jesus’ words after his miracles are almost exclusively astrongly worded charge to tell no one, does he now insist that thisformer madman is not to accompany him as he desires, but rather, heis to stay in his home town when Jesus leaves, and tell everyone?

Mysuspicion is that the reason for the people’s fear is a recognitionwhat has happened here is something which they do not understand, andcannot control. They had become accustomed to the lunatic raisingcane, and they had an agreeable arrangement that they stayed out ofhis way, and he stayed among the tombs and disturb only the dead. It was an agreeablearrangement that made life work for all of them. Now along comesJesus, he renders their careful arrangements moot, and they cannotunderstand how he did it, but they realize that this kind of remedialaction could wreak havoc with their own lives, as it already has withthe lives of their pigs. They do not know or understand Jesus andhis actions, but they recognize a power that lies way beyond theirken and control. That is terrifying.

Sothey ask Jesus to leave; they beg Jesus to leave. “Please, justleave us to the lives we know. We are not interested in change, mostcertainly not interested in change we do not understand and cannotcontrol. Please go away. Just leave us alone.”

SoJesus leaves. Why does he just leave? The man who was just healedwants to go along. Who would not? He has just been saved from abondage he had never imagined he could overcome, a bondage which henever could have overcome on his own. With just a few words Jesushas freed him from his demons. Of course he wants to maintainconnection with this source of healing.

ButJesus tells him to go home. “Go home and tell everyone what theLord has done for you.” Why does this man get to talk about whatGod has done for him? On almost every other occasion when Jesushealed someone they are told to keep quiet about it. Why does thisman get to tell everyone?

Jesusknew our appetite for easy answers. If there is a simple solutionfor our problems we will take it and avoid the hard work of achievingan honest understanding our problems in light of truth. We wouldrather pray about our problems and Voila! It is gone!! The problemis that easy answers are usually escape routes from our ownculpability and responsibility. Easy answers are usually structuresthat allow or even enable us to live with our sinfulness, rather thanaddressing the root problem of our sinfulness. If people catch windthat Jesus can supply their wishes they will lose interest in havingtheir needs answered, and Jesus wants to provide far more robustsolutions for our challenges than merely granting genie-in-a-bottleresponses to our fantasy wish lists.

Hence,in those areas where Jesus spends most of his time the siren call ofeasy answers suggested by the stories of healing will distract peoplefrom the whole hearted search for full-bodied answers. However, heis leaving the Decapolis, and the demoniac’s stories will notsuggest the same easy answers because he will not be just a wishaway. The former demoniac’s story (or testimony) of a life turnedaround through the mercy of Jesus will be able to function as acatalyst for soul-searching and possibility thinking regarding whatcould happen in the lives of the townspeople. The former demoniac’sencounter with Jesus can be the introduction of an encounter withJesus that turns the town upside down, or rather, right side up eventhough they are currently unaware they are living life in reverse.

Thedemoniac’s encounter with Jesus becomes the door for thetownspeople’s encounter with Jesus that introduces them tothemselves. Just at the demoniac was living in a state of radicaldisconnection with the self he was made to be, and was restored tohimself in his encounter with Jesus, so may his neighbours findthemselves in their own encounter with their Maker.

Forthe moment, however, that prospect is too frightening. Finding theformer demoniac, dressed and in his right mind, sitting at the feetof Jesus, is just too scary. “Please, Jesus, just leave us. Weare fine with the way we are.”

AllanHirsch tells us that the only place for the church to find itsmission is in Jesus Christ. Institutions and structures are not asubstitute for a radical meeting with Jesus the Christ. The only wayfor the church to be the church she was intended to be is when hersole purpose is to be Jesus to the neighbour. Authenticity is foundin Jesus. Institutions and structures must serve the church, not theother way around. When institutions and structures become thedefinition of the church, then the church is not herself. Wheninstitutions and structures become the definition of the church, thenthe church is in bondage.

However,after living with these chains long enough we become comfortable withthem. We learn to define ourselves by our maladies and the prospectof change becomes disconcerting and threatening. Our maladies becomeour normalcy, and the prospect of finding ourselves dressed and inour right minds, sitting at the feet of Jesus is just too scary.

Presumablywe are not so scared of an authentic encounter with Jesus that wewill ask him to leave. Hopefully, too, we will not pretend to beonly single-mindedly welcoming of an encounter with the living God. A measure of trepidation only indicates that we recognize thepotentially devastating consequences of such an encounter for some ofour prized religious constructions that have heretofore providedcherished shelter from some deeply disturbing introspection andanalysis of how well we reflect the image of our Creator in ourselves and our church.

Nonetheless,assuming we do wish to invite Jesus to send healing into our ownlives and our community, how do we do this? How do we distinguishinstitutions and structures that serve Christlikeness from those thatinterfere? Can we hope to have structures and institutions thatreflect God’s wishes for our community any better than we ourselvesreflect the same? If not (and I believe not), how do we allow anauthentic encounter with Jesus to bring the healing to us that webelieve God wants to bring to our community? Will we just be scary? Or will we be so scary that our neighbours will recognize a potentialencounter with God? And how scary would that be?

Between Hope and Despair

2011-04-17T14:19:00.000-05:00

BetweenScylla and Charybdis

BetweenHope and Despair

Address delivered at Heartland Community Church, Landmark, Manitoba, Palm Sunday, 2011

Read Walter Wangerin Book of God p. 764-767

Iwant to turn our attention to the themes of hope and despair in thisstory. What can we learn about hope from the people who soenthusiastically welcomed Jesus as he rode into Jerusalem on adonkey’s colt? How does the despair we encounter in this storyalert us to the pitfalls that sometimes obscure for us the vanity ofour hope? And how can a recognition of these hazards lead us not todespair, but to dig down deeper to a chastened hope that can sustainus through times of excruciating pain and disappointment?

Wedo not know exactly what was in the hearts and minds of those whothrew down clothing and branches to pave the way for Jesus’ entryinto Jerusalem, but they are moved to ecstatic hopefulness by theappearance of One whom they acclaim as King, and to whom they lookfor some sort of salvation. Their cries included expressions of hopefor peace and salvation, but to what extent Jesus’ riding on adonkey inclined their expectations towards a Prince of Peace ratherthan a conquering warrior king is uncertain. There is amplespeculation that Judas was a Zealot whose expectations leaned towarda military champion who would overthrow the Roman oppressors and leadIsrael back to her former glory as the sovereign power of thehomeland originally promised to Abraham. Bible scholars tell usthat the a king would ride on a donkey in a time of peace. Thatmakes Jesus’ choice of a donkey in this case, a powerful statementof his intention to come in peace, and a purposeful repudiation anynotion of a violent overthrow of Roman tyranny. Whatever the precisenature of the expectations held dear in the hearts of the throng, itis clear that this was a time pregnant with hope – hope that thefulfillment of a long awaited and dearly held expectation wasimminent.

However,a week later the One on whom the crowd had hung their hope, washimself hung on a Roman cross. What happened? How was delirioushope so quickly and cruelly dashed? How was euphoric hope sosuddenly turned to abysmal despair? And where was this throng whenthe personification of their hope was on trial for his life? Wedon’t know how many of these people were present at Jesus’ trialand crucifixion, but if present, they certainly seem to have losttheir voice, as there is no record of any significant dissent at thetravesty of justice that was perpetrated less than a week after thisjubilant procession. For those who hoped in Jesus for release fromRoman oppression the tables have been cruelly turned. The One whowas to facilitate their freedom is Himself executed by the very Romanpower that He was to vanquish. Now where is hope?

Wecould go quickly to the Christian interpretation of these events andsettle the matter by recasting the crucifixion as not merely apolitical setback, and not even cosmic defeat, but the mostmonumentally pivotal victory ever to occur in the history of theuniverse. We would not be entirely remiss in doing so, but I fear wewould be covering too much ground too quickly. That Christianunderstanding of the event of the cross we whole heartedly take to betrue, thank God, but what does it mean for us to place our hope inthat interpretation of this event? How would that understanding haveimpacted the jubilant throng of Palm Sunday when the terrors of theday we have come to call Good Friday transpired? Is there a threadof hope that runs between these events or must one give way to theother? How do we anchor our hopes so that they are meaningful forthe life we live day by day, without anchoring so that our hope issusceptible to a cruel uprooting in the same mundane events? How dowe anchor our hope deeply enough to withstand the ravages of a lifethat sometimes gets very messy, without anchoring at such a removefrom ordinary life that the security of the anchor point becomesmeaningless? How can we hope in the Jesus who rides the unbrokenfoal of a donkey into Jerusalem on Sunday, without losing all hopewhen that same Jesus hangs on a cross on Friday? How can hope not beshattered, and how dare we respond with anything other than despair,when it is not only our hopes, but our God himself who hangs on across?

Theanswer, I think, is as new as today, and as old as Genesis, and it isnot an answer, but an invitation. The answer lies not in a formulaor theological creed or religious activity. The answer is not theend of a search, but the beginning of a journey that starts at thecross and must never get past the cross, and can never get past theJesus who both rode the donkey and hung on the cross, but then roseon the third day, burst the confines of the grave, and conquereddeath and sin, our worst enemies, and now lives forever.

Aclue to the answer is found in the substance of Jesus’ expressionof despair in his lament over Jerusalem “If you, even you, had onlyknown on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hiddenfrom your eyes.... because you did not recognize the time of God’scoming to you.” (Luke 19:42, 44b). The people were still consumedwith what they hoped God would do for them, so much so that when Godbecame flesh and moved into the neighborhood, they did not recognizethat their God who they hoped would do things for them had donebetter than save them from a distance. He did not merely offer thema homeland and freedom and hope and peace, but he offered them hisvery self, and they did not recognize him. They didn’t notice thattheir hopes had been wildly exceeded, they only noticed that they didnot realize their dearly held dreams. In their obsession with theirdreams they missed their God when he walked among them.

Sooften we put our hope in what we want God to do for us, rather thanin the God who wants to be for us. Now, it is not entirely wrong tohave hopes for what God can doforus, but our confidence needs to be in the God who wants to beforus. This is not to say that God does not want to do things for us,but that the things we hope for may or may not line up with what Godwants to do for us, and what God wants to do for us is always afunction of who God wants to beforus.

Thisis why the answer is as old as Genesis. When God created all theheavens and the earth God said

“Letusmakemankind in ourimage....

SoGod created mankind in his own image,

inthe image of God he created them;

maleand female he created them.”

Iwon’t pretend to unpack all of the theological significance ofthese statements, but it is clear that at the heart of who God isthere is a relationality - for God says “Let usmakemankind in ourimage”,and that relationality is at the core of what it means for mankind tobe created in the image of God “in the image of God he createdthem;maleand female hecreated them.” We are created for relationship – with God and with each other,and it is in relationship that we find our anchor point for hope. Itis in the knowledge that God is for us, and in responding ingratefulness with our being for God, that we find a deep hope thatexceeds anything we could hope for in terms of what we wish God to dofor us. It is in our relationship with one another that we encounterimages of God in each other, and find hope in our being for eachother and in our being for God together. This does not preclude ourdoing things for each other and for God, but our being for each otheris both expressed in, and exceeds, the things we do for each other.

Nowhow could the throngs that lined the road to Jerusalem on Palm Sundayhave recognized Jesus as God, and as their hope, not only as theirliberator from bondage to Rome, but their hope for freedom fromthemselves and their willing servitude to the real enemy Jesusintended to vanquish? By what sort of dynamic or discipline orexperience could the people of Jerusalem have been expected to hopefor more than what they wanted Jesus to do for them? And how do welearn to respond to Jesus in a way that exceeds what we wish him todo for us?

Justas the people who watched and shouted and worshiped as Jesus rodeinto Jerusalem on that donkey’s foal, so do we often find ourselvesshivering in a religious ecstasy when it seems that our expectationsare coming to fruition, only to find our hopes dashed when eventsseem to just as suddenly turn against us. Sometimes our euphoriarides the wave of a new religious experience, or an overwhelmingsense of God’s presence and direction in our lives, or asatisfaction when our efforts begin to reap anticipated results, andsometimes we could be hard-pressed to distinguish this sort ofelation from that which we experience as our favorite hockeyfranchise embarks on a post-season quest for the Canadian Holy Grail- aka the Stanley Cup. None of these things are intrinsically bad,and in fact all of them can quite legitimately be a source ofsatisfaction, adding meaning and enjoyment to our lives, but all ofthem - all of them - can also serve as place holders in which ourkingdoms dangerously mimic God’s kingdom, surreptitiously obscuringcritical distinctions between our efforts to build our own kingdoms,and our participation with God in building his kingdom. Programs andbuildings and dogma can be very useful, even indispensable, tools weuse as we work with God to build his kingdom, but God’s kingdom isabout people first, and that means relationships.

Thisis not to say that despair and disappointments will all disappearwhen we place our hope in a relationship with our God, and all of ourGod’s children. Even if the people of Jerusalem had recognizedtheir Saviour on Palm Sunday, they would still have been crushed onGood Friday, for how can we not be crushed when God hangs on a cross? We cannot truly understand the emotions and despair of Good Friday,because on our side of the resurrection we know that Sunday’sa’comin’! However, there is something profoundly significant inrecognizing our God not merely as a God who can do great things forus, though surely he “is able to do immeasurably more than all weask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.”(Eph 3.20). There is something profoundly invigorating in seeing Godnot simply as a genie who we hope will bend to our every wish, but asthe God who is for us, and “if God is for us, who can be againstus?... No,” Paul says, “in all these things we are more thanconquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neitherdeath nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present northe future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anythingelse in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love ofGod that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:31, 37-39)

Thisrelationship with God is part of the treasure that we carry “injars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God andnot from us. (So that, while w)e are hard pressed on every side, weare not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but notabandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.” (2 Cor 4:7-9)

However,we do not live this relationship in an individual vacuum. We liveout this relationship in the community of faith, and in recognizingthe image of God in each and every act of God’s creation,particularly in our brothers and sisters with whom we journey, weretain remnants and glimpses of God to help carry us through ourdisappointments. It is in the hope that is nurtured in relationshipsof mutual caring that we see Jesus and experience that relationshipwhich sustains us when things do not work as we wish, or even as Godwishes.

Thatis why the answer is as new as today. Today, if you hear his voice,do not harden your hearts. Instead, reach out in response to hisinvitation to walk with Him. Reach out and join hands with yourbrothers and sisters as we learn and grow into Him together. Anchoryour hope in the Promise that is as old as Genesis, and as new astoday. “And surely,” Jesus promises “I AM with you always, toinfinity and beyond!” (Mt 28:20)

The Dangerous Idea of God

2011-01-17T13:39:00.000-06:00

Oneof the most profoundly meaningful, and yet insidiously dangerousideas to percolate through human thought is the idea of an omnipotentsovereign Deity that common humanity is privileged to engage inmutual dialogue. Historically this connection to deity has givencourage to persecuted saints and anguished parents, and it has beenthe impetus for sea changes in civil rights and social policy. Bravesouls who championed causes such as the termination of slavery, andthe overthrow of despotic regimes through non-violent means, as inGhandi’s India, have cited the will of the Almighty as support fortheir cause. On the other hand, the dark side of this privilegedcommunication has been worked out in atrocities such as the Crusadesand the Inquisition, and from the deadly persecutions of theReformation, to the ongoing pograms based on religious convictions. The tragedy of the World Trade Centers, to the extent that it wasperpetrated in the name of Allah, is neither the most costly, nor themost fiendish, it is only the most recent example of the extremes ofhorror that can arise from an insufficiently self-critical enactmentof the will of God.

EugenePeterson says it well in his introduction to Amos: “Religion is themost dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person(or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God iseither ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing andoppression is staggering.” (TheMessage)

Whydo I see a pernicious danger in the idea of the Christian God? Allowme to establish at the outset that I am not advocating any form ofatheism or agnosticism, but rather a chastened theism. I amemphatically not suggesting that the idea of God is so dangerous asto necessitate our relinquishing any such notion. What drives myconcern is neither new, nor is it radical. It is merely the firstglimmerings of the recognition that we must maintain a distinctionbetween our concept of what, or better Who God is, and the God WhoIs. We must let God be God, work with all that is in us tounderstand this God, without ever confusing or identifying theSovereign Lord with our understanding of Him. We must allow God tobe bigger; to be more just, more loving, more merciful; to be simplymore than we know Him to be.

Thiscaution may fall on some ears as unduly radical. To others, who havefirsthand experience with the negative impact of the way in whichcertain ideas of God are worked out, this caution will come as arelief, even a salvific call to return to the God for whom the bestname we have is simply I AM. The One whom Moses encountered in theburning bush was not inclined to share with Moses a name which wouldserve as a neat handle fostering an excessively familiar grasp on theAlmighty. The I AM would not bestow on Moses a secret knowledgewhich would allow him to claim privileged access to the God ofAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This access would only be facilitated ina continuing relationship of understanding through obedience.

Thiscaution is an imperative hedge against the danger inherent in an ideaof a sovereign and omnipotent God with whom we have a privilegedcommunication. Failure to maintain this distinction between God aswe know God, and God as God is, has culminated in the deaths ofuntold millions through the ages. More to the point for NorthAmerican Christianity, the blurring of this boundary has caused theunnecessary ostracization of sincere seekers who could not, or wouldnot, respect the categories established by others within which thehand of God was to be recognized.

Oneof the most seductive dangers in this understanding of God is thenotion of a privileged authority which allows one to speak withauthority in the Name of the Lord. This desire is often nothingother than a manifestation of laziness, such that one prefers toinvoke an unassailable authority for confirmation, rather thanengaging in the discipline of working out the details of right andwrong in the arena of mundane life, which is often both confusing andmessy. In this case the desire to declare with authority that “Thussaith the Lord” or “The Lord told me . . .” is a symptom of adisease which we must extirpate.

Eventhe prophets who spoke these words always did so with an element ofrisk. God clearly instructed the Israelites to test the words ofevery prophet to see that they were indeed the words of the Lord. God’s word would never advocate turning aside to other gods, itwould always prove true and, most importantly, it would always beconsistent with God’s character. If signs and wonders werepurported to vouch for a message, and if these signs and wonders wereactualized, they did not guarantee that the message so endorsed wasindeed from God. The final test of any message was always theconformity of the message itself to the character of God. To speakpresumptuously and falsely in the name of the Lord was punishable bydeath. (Deuteronomy 13)

Thehistorical test of actualization meant that one would not always knowimmediately whether what was said in the name of the Lord indeed cameas a word from the Lord. It might take some time for suchaffirmation. We forget this element of waiting because we read therecorded words which were proven in the course of time, but we readit all as past history. We have no way of knowing how many otherclaims of divine authority were expunged from our historical recordsbecause they proved false, and therefore related claims of divineauthority were shown to be obviously specious. Hence, there is afalse sheen of immediacy in our understanding of the authoritycontained in the words “Thus says the Lord” which these wordsnever really enjoyed in their historical context. However, even theactualization of supporting signs was not sufficient to establish amessage as coming from God. The final test of a message inescapablydemanded sober evaluation, reflection, and judgement as to theconformity of the message to what was already known about God, andthe purposes of God.

Israel’shistory is rife with examples of conflicting claims made in the nameof the Lord. There is the well known story of Ahab askingJehoshaphat to join him in battle against Aram. Jehoshaphat waswilling to go with Ahab, but he insisted they first inquire of theLord. Ahab called in his prophets, about four hundred, and theyunanimously endorsed Ahab’s desire to go to war, saying “The Lordwill give it (Aram) into the king’s hand” (1 Kings 22:6). Jehoshaphat was not satisfied with the word of these prophets andasked if there was not another prophet of whom they could inquire. Micaiah was brought in, though Ahab despised him because he never hadanything good to say, and true to form, Micaiah predicted disaster,including the death of Ahab. In mockery, Zedekiah, one of the 400prophets who endorsed the conquest, slapped Micaiah in the face andnoted the irreconcilable discrepancy between the spirit’s initialmessage through Zedekiah, and his subsequent word to Micaiah. Nevertheless, Jehoshaphat agreed not only to go into battle, but heeven agreed to go dressed in royal robes while Ahab, obviouslyspooked by Micaiah’s prediction, went in disguise. The king ofAram instructed his soldiers to engage only Ahab in combat, so thesoldiers looked for signs of royalty and chased Jehoshaphat down. Apprized of their error, they left Jehoshaphat unharmed, and an arrowshot at random found it way between the pieces of armor worn by Ahab,and he died.

Thewords of the prophets and the actions of Zedekiah indicate that theyall wish their words to be heard as the word of the Lord, however itis only Micaiah’s words which prove true, and it is Micaiah’swords which are recorded as the word from God. With the benefit ofthis historical perspective we find it easy to judge which words arefrom God, but it is highly unlikely that Jehoshaphat would haveagreed to go into battle, much less so deliberately placed himself ina position of mortal danger, had he been equally certain which of theprophets in fact spoke the word from the Lord. Nevertheless, it isindubitable that the word of the Lord became clearer in the course ofhis experience. (For additional stories showcasing prematureproclamations of the ‘word of the Lord’ see, for example: KingSaul’s confident assumption that God had at last delivered theelusive David into his hands [1 Samuel 23:7]; The account of the manof God who listened to another prophet whose version of the Lord’sinstructions conflicted with his own understanding, for which errorthe man of God forfeited his life[1 Kings 13]).

However,the false sheen of immediate authority implied in the declarationthat “Thus says the Lord” is precisely the site of the dangerinherent in the idea of a God whom we know intimately, and in whosename we dare to speak. An appeal to authority which allows us tocircumvent the hard work of deciphering the right thing to do in aparticular situation makes it all but certain that we will notexercise discernment, and if we do not practice discernment, we willnever develop discernment. This is a recipe for trouble in any case,it is a recipe for disaster when we operate in the arena of divineproclamations. It seems positively counter-intuitive to rely onauthority as a means of circumventing careful discernment in mattersof utmost importance when the authority invoked clearly disavowedthis approach long ago.

InJeremiah 23 God spoke through Jeremiah, decrying the glib way inwhich words were declared to be the oracle of the Lord. It seems tohave been a rather standard practice that anyone who had anything tosay would routinely claim to be speaking in the name of the Lord,though more often than not there was no connection to the Lord’sdesires or intentions. God declared Himself to be so sick of thispractice that He ordered the people to put an end to all such claims. Instead, they were to enter into conversations with one another inorder to discern the will of God by mutual sharing of what they heardthe Lord saying to them.

Thismethod was implemented in Jeremiah 26, when Jeremiah was on trialunder penalty of death for speaking against the temple. Jeremiahinsisted that his proclamation of judgement was the word of the Lord,and this judgement was carefully investigated in order to ascertainits provenance, and its conformity to messages previously recognizedas coming from God. Some wanted Jeremiah executed for hisblasphemous talk, but the consensus was that his message wasconsistent with the principles of God’s judgements, thereforeJeremiah’s life was spared. It is noteworthy that even a prophetlike Jeremiah had his claims of speaking the word of the Lord vettedby peers, and it was only on the basis of such validation that heescaped the death penalty for some of his harsh proclamations.

Allof this is not to suggest that the word of God is not sufficient toestablish a matter. Quite the contrary, it is precisely because itis the word of the Lord alone which can establish a matter that anyhuman declaration of a message from God must be carefully weighed inorder to ascertain its authenticity as being the word of God. Therefore, what I would advocate is that, rather than purging thisdangerous idea of God from our theology and conversation, weeradicate all pretensions of a God’s-eye view, and vow never to besatisfied with buttressing our most controversial proclamations withthe self-righteous indignation of the declaration that “This isGod’s word!” as though that should be enough to stifle anyfurther discussion. We need not, we must not, we dare not,relinquish our concern to hear the voice of God in our lives, butthat voice must always be tested in the fires of life, in communitywith believers of all persuasions.

Inthis context we need not forswear all attempts to speak in God’sname, but when we do so we must always recognize that we speak whatwe hear, and we may (and often do) hear incorrectly. It is vitalthat we learn to hear God’s words in an expanding community ofbelievers. The last Word always belongs to God and we will at timesneed to wait patiently for that Word to be heard more clearly. Inthe mean time we continue to work at an understanding of God’s Wordin our daily lives, an understanding which must ultimately be lived,not merely intellectually comprehended or evangelically propagated.

Saying "Yes"

2010-11-30T14:25:00.000-06:00

This reflection was part of a liturgical service at Morweena EMC, November 2007

Whatdoes it mean to say yes? We know what it means to say yes, but whatdoes it really mean to say yes? To what, or to Whom do we say yeswhen we say yes to God? How do we say yes to God, when we are notsure what that yes means? Can we really say yes if we are not clearon what that yes means?

Samuelsaid Yes to God, but he first disturbed Eli several times saying yesto Eli, before he realized that the call he heard was the call ofGod. And then, when he said yes to God and heard what God had tosay, I suspect he was not entirely sure he had done the right thing,because the news for his mentor, Eli, was all bad.

Noahsaid yes to God, and spent the next 120 years saying a lunatic’syes to God, building the modern day equivalent of a space ship in hisbackyard, becoming the laughingstock of neighbors, family, andfriends. Then, having never experienced a storm of any kind before,he spent an entire year cooped up in the ark while the his world wasinundated by a storm the likes of which would not be repeated in10,000 years, never mind our little storms of the century.

Mosessaid yes to God, albeit reluctantly, and spent his twilight years ona journey which few people in the vigor of youth would attempt today,leading to freedom a people whose most common complaint was a whiningdesire to return to slavery in Egypt, because there at least theywere fed. Throughout this journey the Israelites were commonly onthe verge of mutiny and Moses in danger of losing his life. In theend he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land, because of anoverzealous moment of weakness in a life of saying yes.

Wouldany of these men have said yes to God had they known in advance whatthat yes would require of them? Can they really have said yes ifthey did not know where that yes would take them? Maybe these werejust poor souls who said yes and found themselves in a mess theycould not have imagined previously; found themselves swept away in acurrent that was larger than they were.

Thatactually sounds a lot like our own experience of life, does it not? Sometimes we too find ourselves caught up in a swell that threatensto overwhelm us. Sometimes we walk in verdant, sunny plains andwonder how life could be so good. How often do we consider God? Howoften do we hear God’s call on our life in the mundane moments of ahumdrum life? How often do we consider how our apparentlyinconsequential decisions are in fact a yes or a no to God?

Buthow can we say yes to a God who constantly eludes our confidentgrasp? How can we say yes to a God whose ways are too lofty for usto understand? Why would we say yes to God when it seems God hasleft the building? Why would we say yes to God when we have but thevaguest notion of what we are saying yes to? That would seemimprudent. We need to have a contract with an iron-clad escapeclause that covers any eventualities, should we realize we have beenduped, and what seemed to be the call of God turns out to be afantasy or a nightmare. That would be the wise course, right?

Wrong. Why? Because saying yes to God is not saying yes to an idea, or aplan, or a religion, or a creed. Saying yes to God cannot be asaying yes to any cozy or even lofty expectations of what that yeswill mean. If we know what we are saying yes to, we are not sayingyes to God. If we know what we are saying yes to we may be sayingyes to a fantasy, or a profound idea, or an eminent religion, all ofwhich easily morph into an idol, but none of which are God.

Sayingyes to God is saying yes to the unknown and the unknowable. Sayingyes to God is saying yes to what will forever elude ourcomprehension. Saying yes to God is saying yes to a mystery. Sayingyes to God is sort of like . . . Getting married. Saying yes to alifetime commitment to your best friend is not saying yes to a house,though the yes may be consummated in a lifetime of commitment that isworked out in a house. Saying yes to a spouse is not saying yes tofantasies of vacations together in the sun, though the yes may beenhanced by such fringe benefits. Saying yes to a spouse is notsaying yes to dreams of career and family, though these mayimmeasurably enrich the yes in years to come.

Sayingyes, to a spouse, or to God, is saying yes to Someone. It is sayingyes to an adventure which cannot be known in advance, and it cannotbe exhaustively planned in advance. In marriage to a spouse, and inlife with God, there will be unanticipated events and experiences,from new understandings that force dramatic, complex, and sometimeseven traumatic re-orientations of what one has always known to betrue, to absolutely unforeseen crises that stretch our yes to thelimits, even past our limits.

Theseare the moments when we must choose - a yes to ourselves or a yes toGod. A yes to the familiar and the well-known, or a yes to somethingthat exceeds our vision, a yes to One who is not limited by ourvision. We have no guarantees when we say yes that we know howthings will be, or that our lives will be as we think they ought tobe, but if we say yes to God we know, because of Calvary, that we sayyes to ultimate Love, and because of the Resurrection, we know thatwe say yes to One who is larger than life, to the One who is Life. Saying yes to God does not place God within our confident grasp, itplaces us within His confident grasp.

Andso this challenge to say yes to God. In the midst of paradox anduncertainty say yes to Love and Life. Let us turn from the originaltemptation to be gods unto ourselves, and say yes to the only trueGod. Just say “Yes”!

Wewill now move into a time of silent reflection, a time for you toreflect on the prayers that have been said, the scriptures that havebeen read, the hymns that have been sung, but most of all, a time toreflect on the God who calls you, and to formulate your response tothat call. We invite you to say yes now, and to live that yes in a“conscious and rededicated relationship to God” in the days tocome. We have a mic available at the front, and if there are somewho want to share their yes with the congregation we invite you tomake your way to the front pew during this time of reflection, andafter a period of silent reflection Matthew will cue your opportunityto share.

MayGod bless your yes.

God's Covenants

2010-10-18T14:03:00.000-05:00

“Inthe beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So beginsthe Christian story of reality. And after God had created, theproduction of each day was pronounced “good.” God liked what Godhad made. Scripture employs no rapturous superlative descriptors forwhat God created on the first five days. It is not described asawesome or spectacular or stupendously magnificent, just good. Except for the humans. They were declared “very good.” From thevery beginning humans have had a special place in the heart of God. Not too surprising, really, considering that God made them (male andfemale) in God’s own image. Now humans, as the apple of God’seye, were immediately given a position of responsibility in the careof all that God had made. They were told to nurture and enjoycreation. And all was well in all God’s green earth.

Orwas it? Somehow humanity was distracted from discharging theirprescribed duties in the prescribed way. They had an idea whichseemed to promise to improve their lot, but that idea proved to betheir downfall. Instead of having a better idea, their attempts toimprove on God’s ideas caused the frustration of their efforts. First they were removed from their idyllic home in the Garden of Edenso that they could not make their already difficult situation worsewith more mistakes, but eventually things got so bad that the wholeworld had to be washed and sanitized, and then the human project wasrestarted.

God’sinterest remained the welfare of all that God had made, and the newinstructions reflected that. God promised, God bound Godself neverto allow the destruction of the whole world again. It did not matterhow wicked the people became God would never again allow creation tobe so utterly ravished. Hence, after this catastrophe there cameanother opportunity for humans to nurture and enjoy what God hadmade.

Butagain those humans thought they could do better than merely servingas God’s peons (which is not an accurate description of what theywere, but in their vanity they thought that their potential was notbeing properly appreciated). They would assert themselves, theywould show that they were at the top of the food chain. But then,why stop there? They would build a city, a huge hulking skyscraperof a city, one that reached right up to where the gods lived. Theywould become like the gods themselves. Why not?

Soonce again, God had to intervene, before humans dealt themselves thesame fate that met the last creature with aspirations of deity(Lucifer, the erstwhile Morning Star). In grace the peoples of theearth were scattered by the confusion of their languages, and theirdreams of becoming divine were stymied. God was still intent onblessing what God had created, but that blessing would not come inthe form of a condescending wink at their delusionalself-aggrandisement. God’s intent was to bless Creation with ablessing that recognized it as Creature, as what it truly was, butthat blessing would bid the Creature to grow, fulfilling theirpregnant promise as those who bear the image of the Creator.

SoGod chose, once again, to bless what God had made. God chose Abram,called him Abraham, and told him that the plan was to bless the wholeworld through him, through the son which he and Sara would have. NowSara kept getting older, which was a good thing, but there was stillno heir, which was a bad thing. Never mind, in those days there wasa well-known solution for such a dilemma: Let Abraham father an heirwith Sara’s servant girl. In fact, four of the twelve tribes ofJacob come into being in precisely this way. That must have beenwhat God meant. (Sound familiar?)

Exceptthat was not what God meant, and the aftershocks of Abraham’smisunderstanding continue to rock the world. But God was determinedto bless what God had made so another covenant was fashioned, thisone also a decidedly unilateral commitment. When God and Abrahamratify this new covenant, they each have their recognized roles toplay, but when it comes to the really important part where they areto walk together to finalize their individual commitment to thiscovenant, Abraham falls asleep and God is left to ratify thiscovenant all alone. God’s commitment was to bless what God hadmade and that commitment would not be easily thwarted, not even bythe Creature’s pugnacity. Sort of like salvation by grace, priorto any faith. Abraham and Sara would have a son and through that sonAbraham’s family would grow to become innumerable, and thosedescendants would inherit the land which God promised to give toAbraham.

Whichbrings us to the story of God’s request for the sacrifice of Isaac. Why would God make such a request? Abraham’s whole life, itseemed, had been spent trusting God to do what God promised to do,even though a lesser man would have given up hope a long time ago. Now Abraham finally had the first part of the promise before hiseyes, the long awaited son, the idea which had struck his 99-year-oldwife as an outrageous joke a scant year before that son was born, andnow God wanted this son sacrificed? Child sacrifice was a commondemand of all the other gods but never had Abraham’s God suggested,let alone demanded, anything like this. Without this son there wasno hope of ever possessing the land God had promised. Then again,with no son to inherit the land what good was the land? Isaac wasAbraham’s hope for a future. Never mind, he and Sara had been asgood as dead before Isaac came along, and if God could raise lifefrom death, if God wanted to push the envelope a little further, whowas Abraham to argue? What God wants, God gets, and Abraham might aswell go along with the charade sooner rather than later.

SoAbraham set out toward the mountain of sacrifice and when his son,whom Abraham was on a course to slaughter as a sacrifice to God,asked where the sacrifice offering was, Abraham’s response was “Godwill provide.” What was Abraham thinking? Did he think all alongthat God had a last moment reprieve in mind, in which case Abrahamwas not showing faith at all but merely calling God’s bluff? Washe giving voice to a confidence he did not really have, just puttingon a brave face? Did he simply mean that God will provide whateverGod will provide, thinking that God had already provided thesacrifice, Isaac, and what God had in mind now God only knew? Whoknows?

Clearly,aside from the most pessimistic and cynical readings of this story,what Abraham was doing was giving up everything he had held dear forall his life in an attempt to be faithful to his God. Whether thiswas done as the last desperate, and perhaps exasperated, act of a manwho saw the last hopes of his life rapidly fading into the darkshades of permanent night, or whether it was a remarkable act offaith by a man who was so confident in God’s intervention that heremained relatively untroubled by what he was about to do (which Iseriously doubt), this is certainly one of the most problematicstories in the Bible. So what can we learn from it?

Letme explain why I started this meditation with a review of thecovenants God made with God’s Creation, beginning with the people,but always including the whole of Creation. The theme that strikesme in every renewal of God’s covenant is God’s desire to blessCreation, to see Creation prosper, to see the Creature who had beencreated in God’s own image enjoy what God had made. It seems asthough God’s joy was indissolubly linked with the joy of God’sCreation. And when that Creation fell, God came looking for them,calling them, picked them up, and sent them out to try again; andwhen the Creature messed up again, God cleaned them up again, andinstructed them again on how to enjoy what God had made for theirenjoyment, then told them again to go and prosper; and when thosecreatures were still defiant, God frustrated the ways which thosecreatures set for themselves, ways which could only lead to their owndestruction, all because God was determined to bless what God hadmade. We followed this trail of covenant renewal and blessing toAbraham, but it continues in the same vein throughout Israel’shistory, through the prophets, reaching a pinnacle in the historicalstory of Jesus the Christ, and it is repeated through modern history,and continues to be experienced in each of our lives whether werecognize it or not.

Abraham’sstory is a concrete example of God’s desire and intention to bless. God’s intention was always to bless Creation, all peoples, andGod’s covenant with Abraham was the way in which God intended to doso. Unfortunately, people keep misunderstanding, or worse,deliberately subverting, God’s plan. God told Abraham to go to theland God wanted to give him, and Abraham went to the land, but it wasunfruitful, so Abraham kept going till he got to Egypt. ThereAbraham chose to lie about his relationship with his wife and let herbe taken into Pharaoh’s bed because he feared for his life. Hetried to “help” God with the promised son. And when God wasmaking a big ceremony out of the new covenant, Abraham fell asleepwhen he was supposed to be keeping scavengers from the sacrificialofferings.

Abrahamhad no idea how grand were God’s plans for his children. Abrahamhad no idea that God intended to be born to one of his owndescendants. He had no idea that two thousand years later, God’sown Son, the One born of Abraham’s descendants, would be hanging ona cross on the same hill where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac. Onlythis time God would not intervene to stop the sacrifice, because whenGod’s Creation messes up, when there is a terrible price to pay,God would rather pay the price Godself, than to exact that price fromthe Creature God wishes to bless. Abraham had no idea that God wasnot only giving him family and land, but in all of this God wasinviting him home, calling Abraham to live with Godself.

Abrahamwas willing to throw it all away for God, if only because withoutGod’s help he was as good as dead anyway. But Abraham had no ideaof the enormity of what he was about to throw away. Even less didAbraham have any idea how God wanted to bless him, and to bless allpeople through him. In what must have been one of the darkest daysof his life, he found himself trudging up Mount Moriah, to give backto God what he had waited all his life to get from God; to give backto God what God had promised would be his future. Because Abrahamunderstood that if you trust God only because you think God has yourbest interests at heart, only because you think it will go better foryou if you trust God, then you are still serving yourself, and youare only using God as an instrument for your own benefit. So Abrahamwent up the mountain, and there, inspite of Abraham’s self, God methim, and there God blessed him with such a powerful blessing thatAbraham came away from this encounter and never fully understood howrich a blessing had been lavished upon him. A blessing of love andgoodwill that refuses to be extinguished no matter how selfish,disobedient, and un-cooperative Abraham became. A blessing ofrelationship and partnership that was not - it could never be -Abraham’s own doing, because it was a vision far too grand forAbraham to imagine or understand, much less devise and work out onhis own.

God’sbest blessings come on God’s own terms. They have to be God’sterms because our terms are too easy, too short-sighted, too anaemic. God’s desire to bless us far exceeds what we in our wildestdreams could ever imagine, which is why we can never anticipate them. We want a home and a land that we must ultimately leave, God wantsus to learn to know Godself, to experience an eternal life that wrapseach finite moment with a depth that cannot be adequately capturedoutside the infinity of an eternity. God wants to call us homeforever, and all of this happens in the mundane moments of life, suchthat the most mundane moments are the most momentous moments becauseof their nexus with eternity. It is in the valleys that God walkswith us though we know it not, and too often it is on the mountainstops that we forget our need of God because we think we haveeverything we need, though we have but the faintest understanding ofwhat it is that we need most. But God knows, and that is why thebest blessings come on God’s own terms, and are often accompaniedby feelings of having been abandoned by God. That, too, is somethingthat the Incarnate God understands. In this world things are oftencruelly taken from us and we should not be too hasty in saying thatGod took it away. These disappointments -tragedies even- may simplybe the way of this fallen world, but God is not powerless to bringblessing out of sin-cursed soil. In fact, that is God’s specialty. The fact that God brings blessings out of curses should never beunderstood to mean that God needs the sinfulness of this world inorder to advance God’s plans. Bad things never happen because theyfit into God’s plan. God’s penchant for raising blessing fromsin cursed soil only indicates that even as vulgar a monstrosity assinfulness will not easily be allowed to thwart God’s plans forblessing what God has made.

Sowhen you find yourself in the blackest night of your life, turn youreyes to the east, because that is where the sun rises. Wait forGod’s visit because for those whose hope is in God alone morningfollows night with more certainty than night follows day. And if youwait in faith, God will meet you, ready to shake your world withblessings that will blow your mind. You may wait a day, or a month,or years, but never an eternity. And when you meet God you will knowyou are home. Sometimes going home calls for patient endurance andvigilant watchfulness, but never forget while you are going andwaiting that God wants you to enjoy the journey, and that God walkswith you, so listen for the sound of God’s voice, and watch for theguidance of God’s footprints. But while anywhere with Jesus ishome, don’t forget that every journey has a destination. You, likeAbraham, are going home, so listen for the Father’s call. Learn todistinguish the Father’s voice from all the siren calls ofdestruction. Learn the importance of obedience and faithfulness inworking out your own salvation, but never forget that your salvationrests first with God, who desires your salvation and blessing morethan you do, more than you know, more than you could ever imagine,and then follow the Father’s trail of blessing all the way home.

Boundaried Communities

2010-09-06T14:08:00.000-05:00

(Note: This is the text of a meditation delivered in the early days of the ConneXion community.)

Wegather here this morning as a community, as a community observingcommunion. What does it mean to be a community? What does it meanto build a community? What is the significance of a communityobserving communion together? We – meaning this group, we who havechosen to identify ourselves as the yada yada supper club – havealways stressed the communal nature of our activities, both in whatwe do and in what we intend to do. We have become an identifiablecommunity known as the yada yada people, though the name is ofteninvoked with perplexed expressions. I think all of us have come toappreciate this community as a unique opportunity to indulge, bothgastronomically and socially. We derive significant benefit fromthis group, but we also have realized significant responsibilities. We don’t just get together to eat, but in getting together to eat,we also get together to feed each other. This is the strength ofcommunity. Suppers are enhanced because, while all of us expectwholesome, nutritious, and delicious sustenance at home, we do notanticipate the same variety that we enjoy when we get together andpool the fruits of our labors. Diversity enhances our community.

Herein,however, lies part of our challenge. Diversity enhances ourcommunity, but yesterday’s diversity is today’s normal, and it istomorrow’s threat of death by suffocation of tedium. Hence it isimperative that our community, which today thrives on diversity,continues to reach out to expand the boundaries so that our communityand our diversity can grow and remain a vigorous experience of life. But herein also lies an ominous threat, because if our communitychanges it ceases to be the community we know; if our communitychanges, it dies, in a sense. The reality, however, is that if ourcommunity does not change it dies in every sense. Brennan Manningreminds us that to live without risk is to risk not living. So howdo we build community? How do we ensure that the passing of today’scommunity becomes the seed germ for tomorrow’s healthy and vibrantcommunity? Can we build community without risk?

Wehave often made the point that we intend to touch our community forGod. This does not translate into the notion that we have failed ifwe do not convert our friends to Christianity. We will be successfulif we build relationships and realize opportunities to share thelives of our friends and neighbors. We will have been successful ifwe learn to see our God in a new light through these contacts. Wewill have been successful if we learn to live with greater integritythan we did before, because integrity is a core doctrine of thetheology which begins with “The LORD, The LORD our God is One.” Hence, it may well be that our reaching out will be most successfulif our new friends (and all of us here are new friends by virtue ofthe dynamics of our interaction in yada yada) convert us away fromour obsession with religion to a new authenticity of godliness.

Todaywe got together for brunch, and we thought it prudent to partake inan observation we call communion. Why? How is communion related toour community? I am sure there are many avenues that could beexplored, but I am struck by a phrase in Paul’s introduction of thetopic in 1 Corinthians 11:

23ForI received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The LordJesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he hadgiven thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is foryou; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supperhe took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood;do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26Forwhenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim theLord's death until he comes.

Whyis it significant to Paul to note that the institution of the Lord’sSupper took place “on the night he was betrayed”? How clearlydid Jesus foresee his betrayal? Why, if he knew he was about to bebetrayed, and he seems to have had a strong sense even of who woulddo the betraying, did he not only stay, but even continue to feedthose who would viciously feed on him, given the chance? Withoutwishing to undermine the rich theology that has been developed aroundthis event, allow me to suggest that he did it because community wasworth it. Paul’s reading of the crucifixion repeatedly emphasizesthe unifying aspect of Christ’s death. National, social, cultural,religious, and gender distinctions, among others, all are swept awayin the flood of Christ’s blood on Calvary.

Farmore important, however, is the gulf between humanity and Deity thatwas bridged by the selfless giving of God’s self. In a largemeasure, it is this estrangement from God that drives us tobarricading ourselves from others. The profound psychic uncertaintythat comes from this estrangement allows us no security in unredeemedrelationships because we recognize that the same insatiable desirefor satisfaction that plagues us also drives others to seek solacewhere ever it can be found, and the prime targets to fill the voidcreated by our distance from our Maker are those who bear the Maker’simage. We feel our need for relationship keenly, though we pretendotherwise, but we betray our deep seated need in our inability togive unless we receive. This concern to preserve limited resourcesfor those who will cooperate in mutual trading causes us to establishboundaries and erect barriers designed to protect ourselves againstunsanctioned demands of others who have not first agreed to give asgood as they get. However, all the boundaries which we employ tosecure ourselves against intrusion turn out to be fatal to ourselvesbecause, in the words of John Donne “No man is an island”, andthe more we insulate ourselves against community, the less we live.

Jesusdoes otherwise. He does not force himself into relationships inwhich he is not welcomed, but he establishes his boundaries asboundaries of invitation. What are boundaries of invitation? Wenormally use boundaries as boundaries of exclusion or, at a minimum,as a means to control access. What does it mean to say that Jesusestablished his boundaries as boundaries of invitation? When wedefine ourselves as a community we define ourselves as something thatis at least somewhat exclusionary, but a negative definition is not agood definition; defining a thing by what it is not is not asatisfactory definition. A good definition tells you what a thingis, not only what it is not. However, saying what a thing is can befar more exclusionary than saying what a thing is not, if the thingis to be known as only what is positively included in the definition.

Wedefine ourselves as a community, which immediately sets us apart, assomething which the rest of the universe is not. We define ourselvesas a community because we wish to promote certain values. However,we do not wish to define ourselves by excluding, but by including. We define ourselves as a community of God’s children, who are knownby God, and wish to know ourselves and others in the light of God’slove. As such, we do not exclude people, but we do exclude thatwhich runs counter to the love of God. However, to the extent thatwe see God’s love as an invitation extended to all, we establishour boundaries as boundaries of invitation. We do not includeeverything, but we include everyone who is willing to explore what itmeans to live as a community of God’s love.

Jesusestablishes his boundaries as boundaries of invitation. When thosewhom he has chosen turn against him he allows them that latitude, buthe does not rescind his invitation. He gives himself, not as a tradeoff for community, but as an invitation to community. The invitationcan be refused, and Jesus can lose his life for nothing, but hismotivation for giving is not mercenary. He does not give simply forwhat he can get, though he most certainly hopes to get. Jesus giveswhen return is uncertain because the hope – just the hope – ofcommunity is worth it. Jesus gives because he is a giving God. Because he is God he can give without return. He can invite withoutthe assurance of an accepting response.

Herein,I think, lies the secret for our community, and the reason we sharethe Lord’s Supper. Paul quotes Christ’s invitation to do this inremembrance. We will not plumb the depths of what was done for us atCalvary, but we are invited to observe and to remember, but not onlyto remember. For it is in observing and remembering that we declare. We remind ourselves and the world of the God Who gave against allodds, and in a small but not insignificant way we participate in thisgiving, first as recipients, but than as sharers, not only with eachother, but as an invitational community.

Big Tent Christianity

2010-08-12T17:28:00.004-05:00

This post is part of a synchro blog event sponsored by Big Tent Christianity Please check out lots of additional posts on their website, and consider attending the Big Tent Christianity conference in Raleigh, NC September 8-9. Go to the website for all the information and conversation.

Big Tent Christianity?? What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks is that? For many the very notion of Big Tent Christianity sounds like a shortcut to hell, under the pretense of being on the high road to heaven. For others anything less than Big Tent Christianity smacks of a parochial religiosity that emphasizes very limited human formulations of God and salvation at the expense of a recognition that salvation is God's work, never our own doing, even though Paul tells us to "work out our own salvation", and he tells us to do it "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

How do we make real progress towards Big Tent Christianity without sacrificing the very diversity that makes this world a rich place? Is Big Tent Christianity even a worthy goal or is it a distraction best ignored? The last thing I am interested in Big Tent Christianity that turns a vibrant mosaic of Christian expression into an amorphous mass of like-minded believers who can never have a meaningful and challenging discussion about theology because we are all in such sublime agreement. That is not unity, but uniformity. Judging from the diversity that is displayed in God's handiwork of creation such uniformity would be decidedly ungodly, and likewise unchristian. It is our diversity that makes us strong, and without diversity our facility for modeling the imago dei is fatally compromised.

I believe passionately that the only way to broaden our vision is to narrow our focus. The more detail we wish to include in our definition of Big Tent Christianity, the more we will require our fellow believers to surrender if they wish to be part of this "larger" Christianity. Our only hope for a Big Tent Christianity is to get back to the original formulation of Christianity, the formulation that predates Christianity itself.

How radical are we willing to be? Are we willing to get so radical that we lose our Christian identity in Christ? Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6). If it is really all about Jesus Christ, and if Jesus is The Way, then Christianity is not The Way. If we define Christianity by salvation in Jesus Christ, then Christianity loses its status as a favored religion because salvation is in Jesus Christ, not in any religion. That no religion saves is an old saw that Christians are only too happy to enunciate, if ultimately reticent to follow to its logical conclusion. However, that most narrow definition of Christianity is in fact the most comprehensive definition.

It is this most narrowly focused, yet comprehensive definition of Christianity that lays a solid foundation for a Big Tent Christianity, a Big Tent Christianity that is big enough to include even those who subscribe to an other religion, because if religion cannot save, neither can it single-handedly preclude salvation. Jesus told enough stories about people who espoused a particular truth, but lived another truth, to make it clear that what we say with our words can neither save us nor condemn us, without regard to what our lives say. It is not those who say "Lord, Lord", but those who do his will who enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21ff; 25:31ff).

Hence, the notion of a Big Tent Christianity carries within itself the seeds of it own demise as a unique way to God, because the Tent must become large enough to problematize the nomenclature of Christianity as a term that is sufficient to encapsulate God's salvific work. But that, too, is a biblical notion. Jesus said "unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." (John 12:24) That was said of individual believers, but if the metaphor works for wheat and humans, it likely has legitimate application for broader body politics as well.

I dream of Big Tent Christianity that is large enough to realize that we can never take God’s Word to where it has not yet been, because God’s Word is already everywhere (Psalm 19). I dream of a Big Tent Christianity that is small enough to recognize that a cup of cold water is God’s work. I dream of a Big Tent Christianity that learns to notice what God is already doing in the world, and delights in participating with God in loving an awesome Creation. I dream of a Big Tent Christianity that is satisfied with God’s kingdom advancing, rather than advancing a particular version of Christianity/Christendom.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Book review:War Peace and Social Conscience

2010-06-26T17:39:00.000-05:00

Schlabach, Theron F., War Peace and Social Conscience: Guy F. Hershberger and Mennonite Ethics Herald Press, 2009

War Peace and Social Conscience is a tribute to Hershberger, a leading thinker and writer in the Mennonite Community Church through much of the 20th century. Schlabach begins with a brief biography and does well to situate Hershberger’s thought in the context of his life. Schlabach poses probing questions about the impact of Hershberger’s experiences on his thought, does not shy away from pointing out perceived gaps and inconsistencies in his stated positions. While the biographical considerations are an excellent consideration, throughout the rest of the book one encounters confusing time shifts as the author follows the train of Hershberger’s thought at the expense of a consistent chronology. The effect is unavoidable but draws attention to the challenge involved in writing a theological autobiography.

Hershberger has clearly been a seminal thinker in the Mennonite Community and a radical pacifist who was very concerned to ground that pacifism in scripture rather than any particular cultural or ideological sensitivities. That he is quite radical in his pacifism is reflected in his suspicion regarding Ghandi’s commitment to non-violent resistance. For the young Hershberger any form of coercion was a form of violence, and that rendered any action in favor of justice all but impotent. Hershberger deserves full credit for integrity as he does modify some of his positions in the course of his life as experiences and intellectual interactions drew attention to areas that required development.

Our own conference and Dr Archie Penner are mentioned in a brief account of Hershberger’s work with our churches regarding an appropriate response to labor unions (231ff).

Hershberger’s thought and life is driven by his community values, and in the spirit of this interest in community he was a key figure in several experiments in community living in both urban and rural settings. He was also a supporter of the MMA as an attempt to band together as community for mutual aid in preference to institutionalized commercial insurance.

War Peace and Social Conscience is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in peace theology and one man’s project to bring this theology to bear on all of life, encompassing personal, social, and industrial, as well as national/international concerns.

Falling for a Shadow

2010-04-21T18:08:00.001-05:00

John Mason Brown was a drama critic and speaker well known for his witty and informative lectures on theatrical topics. One of his first important appearances as a lecturer was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Brown was pleased, but also rather nervous, and his nerves were not helped when he noticed by the light of the slide projector that someone was copying his every gesture. After a time he broke off his lecture and announced with great dignity that if anyone was not enjoying the talk, he was free to leave. Nobody did, and the mimicking continued. It was another 10 minutes before Brown realized that the mimic was his own shadow!

Most of us have been victims of frightening monsters which turned out to be nothing but innocuous shadows. Many of us have worked hard at achieving goals only to realize that the promise we sought was but an insubstantial shadow. In Philippians 3 Paul warns us against falling for a shadow - the shadow of a religion that promises more than it can deliver, the shadow of a religion that pretends to show us Christ, but which is in fact a chimera that blocks our view of Christ and ultimately distracts us, with its siren call, to our own demise.

Paul writes this letter from prison, likely in Rome. He begins with robust statements of thanksgiving for the Philippians and their “partnership in the gospel” (1:5). The letter exudes appreciation for their spirit, and exhortation to emulate the humility of Christ, who being in very nature God, did not consider it necessary to grasp at all the trappings and accoutrements of divinity to which He had indisputable claim (2:6). Paul’s concern for the welfare of the Philippians is palpable and his burning desire is for their continued growth to maturity. He has invested himself into this church and he is eager to see that investment return dividends, not for himself, but for the Philippian believers.

In chapter 3 we are given a profound insight into the nature of this development which Paul longs for them to experience. “Finally”, he says “rejoice in the Lord.” This is evidently a recurring theme with Paul, because he freely allows that he is repeating himself, but he expresses his hope that this redundancy will prove beneficial to his listeners.

So he wants his Philippi an believers to rejoice in the Lord, but his elaboration as to how this should occur takes a surprising turn. Immediately on the heels of this injunction to “rejoice in the Lord” Paul issues a warning: “Watch out for the dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” Evidently one of Paul’s primary concerns regarding the Philippians joy is the threat posed by certain “men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh”. The concern clearly runs very deep with Paul, yet calling these people dogs seems strong language. What is it that has Paul so incensed? On the face of it this seems to be an issue regarding circumcision, but Paul himself has been all over the place on this circumcision thing. In his earlier days he would have been mortified had he not been circumcised, so how is it that he now considers proponents of circumcision to be dogs? What’s more, the very next line has Paul making the claim that “it is we who are the circumcision.” Paul seems to be saying there is a real circumcision, but what these people are chasing is only a shadow.

Circumcision, you will recall, had been a distinguishing mark for as long as the Israelites had been a people. If you are circumcised you’re in, if you’re not you’re out. It was how the chosen people had marked their uniqueness as the people of God. It was a reminder, a very physical and indelible permanent reminder to them that they were chosen, called out to be a special people for God. They were in, everybody else was out.

But circumcision was more than an arbitrary mark to set themselves apart. It was done in explicit obedience to the God who had called them out in the first place. Circumcision was the sign given to them by Yahweh himself, and Yahweh instructed them to be careful to observe this practice as an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:9-14

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

So there you have it. God himself told them to do this, so why is Paul getting all bent out of shape over what is clearly a simple matter of obedience? How can Paul call people dogs for doing what God had instructed them to do? Is it really possible that the very people who are most devout in their insistence on obedience are in fact chasing shadows?

Philippians 3:4b-6

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

Nobody, but nobody, would out-circumcise Paul. If there were markers to distinguish true believers, Paul had them all. He was a Believer among believers.

But if this is about markers, how do we translate this into our own time? By what marks do we know which side we are on? How do we separate the sheep from the goats? There could be many interpretations, but how’s this: Baptized at 14, an adherent of the Christian religion, a Protestant, an evangelical, denominationally affiliated as a Mennonite (or insert your favorite non/denomination), saved by faith not by works, a holy passion to know God, I faithfully memorize scripture and pray before all meals.

But Paul goes on:

3:7

“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.” What? All this good stuff is loss?? What’s with you today Paul? First you derisively call those who obey God “dogs”, now everything we have been taught to value and cherish in our heritage is to be considered loss? What is going on?

Keep in mind that Paul is not simply saying that all these things are bad. Read Romans for a glimpse of how Paul feels about his heritage, about circumcision, and about the law. In Romans 2 Paul talks about the Jews and the law and he says “Circumcision has value if you observe the law.” Clearly circumcision is not a bad thing in Paul’s view. When Paul talks about the futility of seeking righteousness by keeping the law, he says (7:12) “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good”. These words are not to be taken lightly. Paul has an astonishningly high view of the law and places great value in keeping the law. In chapter 9 Paul expresses the great sorrow and unceasing anguish of his heart for his people and their heedless squandering of the incredible blessings that are theirs as God’s chosen people. In fact, he could wish himself accursed for the sake of his people. Not for moment can we allow ourselves to think that Paul has anything but the utmost respect and enduring appreciation for these things which he now counts as loss for the sake of Christ. Paul enjoins obedience to God and to scripture frequently, and many of these things which he now considers loss, circumcision is one example, are done in obedience to divine instructions. So how does obedience become an occasion of loss?

If all these things are good things, why does Paul consider them loss for the sake of Christ? It would be relatively unproblematic if he called them useless or neutral, but he does not. Paul calls them negative baggage, they are a loss, they put him at a disadvantage when he wants to know Christ. These things get in the way. But how do good things get in the way of what is best in our lives? How do these good things, these things that are intended to help us toward God, in fact become obstacles between us and God? More to the point, is this a problem unique to Paul and the Jewish people or could we suffer the same problem? Could it be that the better our religion works for us, the greater the danger that it will in fact become an obstacle between us and the God we claim to serve?

3:7,8

What did Jesus say in John 14:6? “I AM the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” But if Jesus is the only way to God, then our religion is not the way. If Jesus is the only way to the Father then my beliefs and my confessions are not the way. If Jesus is the only way to God then there is no other way and any other way which is purported to be a way can only be a distraction from the one true way. That is why all these good things, which are intended to help us find God, so easily get in the way of our finding Jesus as the only way. That is why all these good things, all these markers by which we distinguish who’s in from who’s out, are a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus, our only way.

Are these things bad because they distract us from Jesus? No, because they are given to us a tools, as guidelines to help us find God. In Galatians Paul calls the law a tutor who was given to lead us to Christ. The law is a good thing, and our religious heritage is a good thing, but the more we revere the law, and the more confidence we place in our religious/cultural/social heritage, the greater the danger that we will become satisfied with the tutor and abandon our quest for the God who is always here, always with us, always within us, but also always beyond our confident grasp, because God owns us, we can never own God.

3:7-9

7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

No amount of law-keeping, no amount of right living, not even any right believing will be for us the righteousness that God gives. The righteousness of God comes only from God as a gift, and we appropriate it by faith, but it is not given only if we have the right kind of faith or the right kind of belief. Indubitably we experience it in proportion to our faith and our obedience, but our experience never accurately reflects what we have been given. Now we can only see through a glass darkly, then we will know fully as we are fully known by God even now. Paul seems to emphasize the radical gifted nature of this righteousness when he restates his original statement “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ” and he repeats it as “the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.” Faith is subsequent to the gift of righteousness which is bestowed as a free gift, but living faith is how we experience God’s gift of salvation and it creates space for salvation to take root in our lives and grow to bear the fruit of the Spirit. Just a little earlier Paul told the Philippians (2:12-13)

12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

We have a role to play in the growth of salvation in our lives, but it is never an original role; it never starts with us. Our role can only ever be a parasitic response to the original grace of God in our lives “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” That is why Paul is eager to consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus his Lord, for whose sake he has lost all things, because his freedom, his righteousness, his salvation is found in Christ Jesus, not in his religious heritage, not in his obedience, and not in his orthodox beliefs. (We could go into some detail here about how some of what passes for evangelical orthodoxy owes more to Greek philosophy and it’s development into the Cartesian rationalism of the “cogito, ergo sum” than it does to a robust Judeo-Christian understanding of Scripture, but the restless shifting and the glazed eyes tell me this is not the time or the place.)

Paul’s driving desire is to know Christ because it is knowing Christ that imbues his life with a character of integrity that a religious expression can only imitate weakly, and usually attempts to circumscribe. Religious expressions are often implicated in twisted attempts to make life look better than it really is. Paul wants to know Christ without regard for where it takes him, and this is a powerful indicator of how knowing Christ eclipses everything else in his life. Paul says

3:10,11

“10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

Paul begins with sentiments that we can all echo whole heartedly. We all want to know Christ, we all want to know the power of his resurrection. Of course, that’s a no-brainer. But Paul knows that resurrection presupposes death. There can be no resurrection without a prior death. If we want to know the power of his resurrection, we will have to share in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. Precisely what that means Paul seems not to be entirely certain saying “and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” We could talk about that for a while, but ultimately I believe this is something which we work out in life as we follow Christ’s example day by day. To know Christ is, ultimately, to live the life of Christ in our own time. We cannot understand the meaning of sharing in his death or resurrection unless we live that meaning. It is in some sense as we die to ourselves and all the markers of our religious expressions, and it is as we learn what it means to live to God alone, which can never be done as something distinguished from our mundane life, that we find ourselves truly alive for the first time. That in itself becomes a kind of resurrection.

And so our choice is clear, but that does not make the choice easy. We can choose life, the life we have come to appreciate, the life in which we are comfortable and satisfied, a religion that works for us, or we can choose resurrection life, which will inevitably mean death. This is why it is so important for Paul to know Christ. As long as you choose the life you know, death will hold a terror for you because you cannot escape the knowledge that at some point your choice for life will be rendered moot. Only when you choose Christ over life can death’s terror be mitigated, because only Christ is larger than life and death. Hence the passion to know Christ beyond any religious understanding and commitment and excessively simplistic obedience becomes the only real choice for life, for life lived in the ordinary, employing and appreciating all that is good in life, including one’s heritage, one’s religion, and one’s theology, but always remembering that these good things are stepping stones only as long as they remain utterly dispensable in the overarching quest to know Christ.

Disappointment with the Kingdom

2010-02-22T17:52:00.000-06:00

How do we respond when our dreams for God’s kingdom don’t work out? What does the kingdom look like? What does kingdom building look like? Should we be concerned with building the kingdom or should we concentrate on keeping ourselves out of the way so God can build his kingdom? “Participate in what God is already doing” What should we think when our plans and efforts towards kingdom building fall apart, when our dreams for God’s kingdom are dashed? What do you do when Canada has 2 of 5 skaters in the gold medal race and they take 4th and 5th? Mt 11 deals with precisely the sort of questions that arise when one is disappointed with the kingdom of God.

In this text the kingdom builder himself says “blessed is he who does not fall away on account of me.” Don’t let disappointment with the kingdom turn you off of the kingdom. Your disappointment is almost certainly rooted in a misunderstanding of what the kingdom is about, rather than any deficiency with the kingdom itself. Let your disappointment be a beacon that alerts you to a new vision for the kingdom, a vision for the kingdom God is already building, rather than the kingdom you think should be built.

The kingdom of heaven is not primarily about the right theology or religion, the right evangelistic tool or the correct biblical structure for church governance. The kingdom of heaven is healing for the sick, sight for the blind, hearing for the deaf, and life for the dead. It is good news preached to the poor. The kingdom is not only about making our world a better place, though it should seem a better place with all of the foregoing. Primarily the kingdom of God is about recognizing and proclaiming and endorsing God’s saving, healing, life-giving activity that is already at work in our world, because without that work our world could not be. The kingdom of heaven is God’s kingdom, and it is God’s work, a work in which we are privileged to participate, but it is never ours to circumscribe. In fact, it may well be that disappointment with the kingdom is far less injurious to our experience of the kingdom than is a facile satisfaction that has us fooled into thinking that the kingdoms we build are adequate representations of the kingdom of heaven. Let’s celebrate God’s kingdom. Let us not be weary by reason of our disappointments with the kingdom, and by all means, let’s continue to be surprised by unexpected encounters with the kingdom of heaven that is so near.

Book review: Engaging Anabaptism

2010-01-09T17:36:00.000-06:00

Engaging Anabaptism John D. Roth, editor Scottdale, PA/Waterloo, ON: 2001

Engaging Anabaptism provides a perspective on Anabaptist theology in the words of thinkers from a variety of traditions. Almost universally the conversation with the Anabaptist tradition was couched in terms of interaction with John Howard Yoder, who is credited with re-introducing the Anabaptist voice to the current theological conversation. McClendon describes his experience of reading Yoder’s Politics of Jesus as a second conversion (21). Variations on this sentiment was echoed by other conversation partners. While the emphasis on Yoder’s work is understandable, it does mitigate the value of this book as a conversation with this radical tradition. Whatever one’s evaluation of Yoder’s representation of Anabaptist values, this radical tradition consists of more voices than only Yoder.

The well known emphasis on community and an integrated care for the poor and powerless are prominent themes. The peace stance linked to a concern for justice was a frequent point of entry into Anabaptist thought for the contributors (76f). Most noteworthy, however, is the recognition that ultimately Anabaptist thought is persuasive not primarily of the basis of convincing argumentation, but on the strength of a deep resonance with the biblical text (33, 77).

What I take to be the most decisive factor in Anabaptist thought, the hermeneutic which takes the life and teachings of Jesus to be the primary lens for understanding all of scripture, is contrasted with the comparatively weak centrality of Christ operative in much of Christian theology. Marshall notes that “all Christian traditions are Christocentric, which is what makes them Christian in the first place,” but “it is Anabaptism’s central commitment to the paradigmatic significance of Jesus’ life and teachings that offers the soundest basis for genuine integration to occur” (46f). Murray cites the difference in the hermeneutic as Christocentric rather than Christological (98). Whereas Christological methods interpret scripture with references to doctrines about Jesus, the Christocentric approach recognizes Jesus as God Incarnate, and reads all of scripture in consideration of the life and teachings of the God we see in Jesus.

This book is a worthwhile read for those who are interested in how theologians from other streams view the Anabaptist tradition. The caliber of contributions in this volume range from fairly short testimonials to more extended interactions and critiques. They also range from fuzzy feel good affirmations to strong endorsements to maintain our eminently biblical commitments because we supply a voice that the broader Christian community needs to hear.

2nd Sunday of Advent 2009

2009-12-07T12:48:00.001-06:00

THE PROMISE OF THE MESSIAH

HISTORY IRRUPTS INTO OUR STORY

NIV

Malachi 3

1 "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.

2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years.

Luke 1

68"Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,

because he has come and has redeemed his people.

69He has raised up a horn[a] of salvation for us

in the house of his servant David

70(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),

71salvation from our enemies

and from the hand of all who hate us—

72to show mercy to our fathers

and to remember his holy covenant,

73the oath he swore to our father Abraham:

74to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,

and to enable us to serve him without fear

75in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

76And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;

for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,

77to give his people the knowledge of salvation

through the forgiveness of their sins,

78because of the tender mercy of our God,

by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven

79to shine on those living in darkness

and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the path of peace."

Philippians 1

3I thank my God every time I remember you. 4In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

7It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. 8God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.

9And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

Luke 3

1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

"A voice of one calling in the desert,

'Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for him.

5Every valley shall be filled in,

every mountain and hill made low.

The crooked roads shall become straight,

the rough ways smooth.

6And all mankind will see God's salvation.' "

Before the days of cameras and camcorders, camera phones and the internet, before the days of books and even before the days of written communication, God created the heavens and the earth, the sun, moon, and stars and all the planets, the plants and animals, all things that are, and God created humankind in the image of God, male and female God created us. In that beginning, we are told, God used to come walk with us in the cool of the evening, talking with us, presumably about the things we had seen and done that day, communicating and being in relation with us, and all was well in all God’s green earth.

But then –and those are never good words to hear after the creation of an idyllic scene– but then we decided we wished to be more than we understood ourselves to be. We wanted to be like God ourselves. However, it is always and inevitably the case that when the mirror wishes to be the image it reflects, disappointment is the only possible outcome, and the broken shards that result from those shattered expectations, fantasies, and desires quickly become life threatening.

For a time we wandered, we thought alone, and as we became increasingly infatuated with ourselves, our predicament grew ever more intolerable and our existence and our relationships became ever more fractured. We experienced the Flood that washed our world but could not cleanse our hearts. Because we still wished to be gods unto ourselves we built a city that became a Babel that only exacerbated our alienation from God and each other.

All the while, unbeknownst to us, God was working for us, and the frustrations we experienced were an integral part of God working out a salvation for us, because when the mirror wishes to be the image it reflects, that fantasy must be shattered in order for the dream of a mirror that truly, though never flawlessly, reflects the beauty of the creator, to have a prayer.

God called Abraham and promised him a family, descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore and the stars in the sky. This was in the time when large families were equated with more wealth, and wealth was a matter of survival rather than a vain and tawdry status symbol in the rat race to keep up with the Joneses. God had to intervene to prevent Abraham’s slaughter of the only child through whom Abraham hoped to realize this Promise. In spite of Abraham, the family grew to become a nation, and always this family/nation halted between seasons of worshiping God, peace and prosperity, and times of selfish idolatry that justice could only answer with judgement on them and their families.

And so for thousands of years people have been looking for God in all the wrong places. For generations people have looked for peace and justice, for prosperity and love, and almost invariably found themselves at odds with each other and God regarding what constituted peace and justice. Their legitimate desire for God morphed into a perverted quest to install themselves as God, and the result was intractable struggle and fractious contention that revealed the depravity of their souls as they, lacking the understanding that they were mirrors who were to reflect God in their lives and in themselves, tried to make themselves gods, a project which could only result in broken mirrors, broken dreams, and broken lives.

Prophets have come and prophets have gone. Along with the prophets who spoke God’s word were myriads of prophets who spoke words that the people wanted to hear, rather than the words they needed to hear. By Malachi’s time most of those voices had been silenced. The most active period of prophecy according to the written record had occurred some 200 years earlier, and by Malachi’s time the silence had been deafening for generations. In Malachi’s time there is a short period of renewed hope as Ezra and Nehemiah prod the people to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Even that hope, however is bittersweet, as those old enough to recall the magnificance of Solomon’s gold plated temple see the meager results of the current effort to rebuild the monument of Israel’s hope that is taken to be the House of Yahweh, their God.

It is into this context that Malachi’s words come, both as a Promise and a warning. The Messenger whom you seek will come, but who will be able to stand when He comes? He will come with refining fire, and even the Levites, the only one of the twelve tribes who could enter the inner sanctum of the temple to intercede before Yahweh for the people, even the Levites would require excruciating refinement. There are in Malachi’s words both the promise of hope, and the dire warning of judgement that no one could hope to survive and yet, the end result will be people who once again will bring offerings of righteousness. In the end we will not only survive, but we will once again see the best of the good old days. We will be restored to the relationship we enjoyed in the Garden, the relationship for which we were created and without which we cannot survive and, even if we could survive without the relationship, such survival would be worse than extinction.

Then we read the words in which Luke records Zechariah’s prophecy of the Promise fulfilled. Malachi’s hope is realized! The Messiah is here! The Lord has come and has redeemed His people! The One we desire has come and He will bring salvation! And it is because of the tender mercy of God that the rising sun comes from heaven and shines on us who live in darkness, on us who live with the shadow of death looming over us, and He guides our feet along the path of peace! The fire that consumes is the fire that gives life. And all of this has happened. Our salvation has appeared and the Messiah is here! Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel!

As we move to Paul’s words in Philippians we encounter another subtle shift in tone. Paul is excited about partnership of the Philippians in the gospel. Paul is confident that the One who began the good work of salvation in the lives of the Philippians will continue to work out that salvation “until the day of Christ Jesus.” Wait a minute! Hasn’t He been and gone? Didn’t Zechariah say that our salvation had come and that the Jesus who was here and is now gone would bring salvation for us all? Then what’s this about the good work being completed in the day of Christ Jesus as a future thing? Paul’s understanding is quite clearly that we are all in this together and that we are still looking forward to a future realization of hope and consummation of a good work begun and, what’s more, that the Philippians, and presumably we, have a role to play in this good work. What is our role in this “partnership in the gospel?” In the context of Philippians 1 Paul is consumed with spreading the gospel. Even though Paul is in chains, he is excited that the gospel is being preached, whether from good motives or bad does not matter to him, as long as the good news of the grace of God, which is the gift of God, is spread to all peoples.

Luke fills us in on the context of John the Baptist’s partnership in the gospel. First he pays attention to the people and the times of John’s ministry. He tells us where John preached (in the country around the Jordan) and what he preached (a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins). What has not changed is that the good news includes warning. The good news does not, and cannot, gloss over what needs to change.

However, if we keep Paul’s words in mind we must recognize that this partnership in the gospel begins with us as “our love abounds more and more in knowledge and depth of insight” and we are “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ.” Our partnership in the gospel is a radical life change (repentance) that is the salvation that has come. Our very lives are the proclamation of the gospel. It is our lives lived in the mundane context of our existence implicated in political, geographical, meterological, social, religious concerns that bears witness to the salvation that has come, is coming, and, we hope against all odds, will come.

The Message

Malachi 3:1-4

1 "Look! I'm sending my messenger on ahead to clear the way for me. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Leader you've been looking for will enter his Temple—yes, the Messenger of the Covenant, the one you've been waiting for. Look! He's on his way!" A Message from the mouth of God-of-the-Angel-Armies.

2-4But who will be able to stand up to that coming? Who can survive his appearance?

He'll be like white-hot fire from the smelter's furnace. He'll be like the strongest lye soap at the laundry. He'll take his place as a refiner of silver, as a cleanser of dirty clothes. He'll scrub the Levite priests clean, refine them like gold and silver, until they're fit for God, fit to present offerings of righteousness. Then, and only then, will Judah and Jerusalem be fit and pleasing to God, as they used to be in the years long ago.

Luke 1:67-79

Then Zachariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied,

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel;

he came and set his people free.

He set the power of salvation in the center of our lives,

and in the very house of David his servant,

Just as he promised long ago

through the preaching of his holy prophets:

Deliverance from our enemies

and every hateful hand;

Mercy to our fathers,

as he remembers to do what he said he'd do,

What he swore to our father Abraham—

a clean rescue from the enemy camp,

So we can worship him without a care in the world,

made holy before him as long as we live.

And you, my child, "Prophet of the Highest,"

will go ahead of the Master to prepare his ways,

Present the offer of salvation to his people,

the forgiveness of their sins.

Through the heartfelt mercies of our God,

God's Sunrise will break in upon us,

Shining on those in the darkness,

those sitting in the shadow of death,

Then showing us the way, one foot at a time,

down the path of peace.

Philippians 1:3-11

3-6Every time you cross my mind, I break out in exclamations of thanks to God. Each exclamation is a trigger to prayer. I find myself praying for you with a glad heart. I am so pleased that you have continued on in this with us, believing and proclaiming God's Message, from the day you heard it right up to the present. There has never been the slightest doubt in my mind that the God who started this great work in you would keep at it and bring it to a flourishing finish on the very day Christ Jesus appears.

7-8It's not at all fanciful for me to think this way about you. My prayers and hopes have deep roots in reality. You have, after all, stuck with me all the way from the time I was thrown in jail, put on trial, and came out of it in one piece. All along you have experienced with me the most generous help from God. He knows how much I love and miss you these days. Sometimes I think I feel as strongly about you as Christ does!

9-11So this is my prayer: that your love will flourish and that you will not only love much but well. Learn to love appropriately. You need to use your head and test your feelings so that your love is sincere and intelligent, not sentimental gush. Live a lover's life, circumspect and exemplary, a life Jesus will be proud of: bountiful in fruits from the soul, making Jesus Christ attractive to all, getting everyone involved in the glory and praise of God.

Luke 1

1-6 In the fifteenth year of the rule of Caesar Tiberius—it was while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea; Herod, ruler of Galilee; his brother Philip, ruler of Iturea and Trachonitis; Lysanias, ruler of Abilene; during the Chief-Priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas—John, Zachariah's son, out in the desert at the time, received a message from God. He went all through the country around the Jordan River preaching a baptism of life-change leading to forgiveness of sins, as described in the words of Isaiah the prophet:

The Message Revised Contextualized Version

1-6 In the fourth year of the rule of Stephen Harper—it was while Greg Selinger was premier of Manitoba; Harold Foster, reeve of Bifrost; Randy Sigurdson, Mayor of Arborg; during the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and Richard Klassen was Moderator of the EMC—a small and unremarkable group of people, out in the desert at the time, far to the north of where any habitation should be found, were listening intently for a message from God, as others were doing, and as has been done since the dawn of time, even before the world began. They went all through the country around the Icelandic River preaching a baptism of life-change leading to forgiveness of sins, as described in the words of Isaiah the prophet:

Thunder in the wilderness!

"Prepare God's arrival!

Make the road smooth and straight!

Every ditch will be filled in,

Every bump smoothed out,

The detours straightened out,

All the ruts paved over.

Everyone will be there to see

The parade of God's salvation."

You're gonna have to serve somebody

2009-10-06T20:22:00.002-05:00

In Romans 6 Paul makes clear that we must choose whom we will serve. We can serve good or evil, sin or grace, life or death, God or the devil, but we’re “gonna have to serve somebody.”

Last time we were listening to Paul in Romans 5 he was waxing superlative and doxological about the incredible grace of God that brings a salvation that exceeds the devastation wrought by sin. If the many are condemned by their sin, by their propensity to choose for themselves rather than for God, how much more will these many be blessed by God’s stubborn choice for them at God’s own expense. Even the law comes as a blessing as it is intended to highlight our sinfulness and bring it into stark relief against the holiness of God. Because of the law our sinfulness becomes painfully evident, our desperate need for grace is shown to be even more than exponentially greater than we could have understood, and yet, even as the enormity of our sin blots out every glimmer of hope that we can do something to improve our hopeless lot, God’s grace reaches in and does for us far more than we could ever do for ourselves, far more even than our sin can undo for us. 5:20 “Where sin increased, grace increased all the more!”

This is fantastic news but, knowing the human condition and our inclination to take advantage of every opportunity to relax our discipline if an easier way is available, Paul anticipates our lazy opportunistic question: If our sinfulness is always exceeded by grace, then why don’t we sin extravagantly, so that God’s grace increases even more extravagantly? “Because” says Paul (6:2) “We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” This grace that brings salvation brings us salvation from our sin, not merely in our sin. “We died to sin” This great salvation includes our own death to sin as partners with Christ in his death for sin. A dead man has no appetite. Regardless of the chocoholic cravings you experience in life, at your funeral you will have no reaction whatsoever to whatever decadent chocolaty treats your family elects to serve up. If some pervert decides to heap chocolates around your face in your coffin you won’t so much as twitch a muscle, you won’t even have an involuntary reaction of salivary gland production.

A dead man has no inclination to sin, and our new life in Christ is predicated on our having died with Christ first. 6:4 “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” This salvation does not just cover our sin; it does away with our sin. Being baptized into Christ Jesus is not an easy escape from our sin. Being baptized into Christ is being baptized into his death so that, just as Christ was ultimately raised from the dead, so we too are raised to live a new life, the indestructible life of the resurrected Christ in us.

But here is a strange thing. Our experience of reality is that death follows life. In this text Paul turns it around and tells us that in fact life follows death! 6:5 “If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.” The way to life passes through death. Jesus said “Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39) If we wish to live the new life of Christ we must die to sin. If we desire to know who we are in Christ, we must die to ourselves in sin. This death is a release from bondage into the freedom of resurrection life beyond everything that binds us here. 6:6 “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.” We are no longer slaves to sin because death has freed us from sin. Christ’s death on the cross broke the power of sin in the world, our death with Christ ends the rule of sin in our own lives. Death to sin is our freedom from sin.

Paul expresses supreme confidence in this, saying 6:8 “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.” Death is decisive but it is not final. Death is an insurmountable and uncircumventable limit only as long as we think we live. The mastery of death is over the instant we are raised to resurrection life with Christ. “since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.”

This is a key factor in our own experience of salvation. Christ’s death and resurrection has decisively terminated the rule of sin and death, but our celebration of the victory is related to our participation in the death that is the price of our sin. We are not translated into the new life without also participating in death. Hence, Paul’s earlier doxological euphoria at the superlative impact of Christ’s obedience in comparison to Adam’s sin (which is our sin) notwithstanding, we must recognize our complicity with Adam, choose to participate with Christ, and consider ourselves dead. 6:11 “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Only as we consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ can we hope to live God’s life rather than dying Adam’s death, which is our death. This is a deliberate choice we make, and it is a choice we must live. 12 “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.” ‘Reign’ connotes more than simply a choice. Reign indicates a sustained regimen. To “consider ourselves dead to sin but alive to God” is more than a choice of direction, it is a commitment to an allegiance that carries monumental implications for our ongoing life. Paul goes on 13 “Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.” We have a choice, and we must exercise that choice if we are to experience salvation. It’s like Bob Dylan sings:

“You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.”

Paul adjures us to count ourselves dead to sin and offer ourselves to God as instruments of righteousness because 6:14 “sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.” Freedom is not characterized by the absence of any master, but by allegiance to the proper master. Sin is a master of abject slavery and death, whereas grace is a master of freedom and life!

Grace, however, continues to be misunderstood. 6:15 “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” Why not? For several reasons. For one, sin is a cruel master whose end is death 6:16 “Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or....” On the other hand, offering ourselves as obedient slaves to the Creator of all that is, which leads to righteousness and life. In fact, offering ourselves as slaves to righteousness is the purest form of freedom 6:18 “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”

Even though Paul is convinced that Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf is eminently sufficient for our life, he issues this plea for God’s children to consider themselves dead to sin because he knows what we are, he is all too aware of our weakness in our natural selves. For that reason it is imperative that we practice the disciplines of the holy life; the life set apart for God. It is not an automatic result of Christ’s work even though Christ’s work is the only sufficient remedy for our sin, and the only hope for our holiness. We can never hope to save ourselves, but if we wish to be saved we must consider ourselves dead to sin, and walk in the obedience that leads to holiness, which results in eternal life. In Paul’s words 19 “I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Thanks be to God!

Anabaptist Hermeneutic III Salvation Against All Odds

2009-08-21T21:45:00.002-05:00

Over the last several weeks we have spent some time looking at revelation in the spoken word, the written word, the primordial word of creation, and the Word made Flesh. We have talked about how the Word of God is always more than information, be it regarding how to live or how to think of God. We have seen how the words of scripture indicate that its own authority is relative to the authority of the Author who became Flesh and made His dwelling among us. The written words of the prophets and messengers are always subject to the Living Word made Flesh who is the Son of God, who is the One and Only God.

Tonight I want to trace the implications of this truth for how we read and understand scripture. Why did God begin his interactions with creation in what appears to have been daily visits in the Garden, walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day? Why was this pattern interrupted by the Fall and become occasional visits, mostly through the words of messengers, sometimes in theophanies, and finally the Incarnation?

If you will accept for the moment that Garden represents an ideal that is interrupted by the Fall, then we can begin tonight by looking at how the post-fall interaction of God with people is geared towards rekindling the relationship that was broken by the Fall. The written Word was never intended to be only a set of instructions for how to live before God. It includes such information but that is not primarily the purpose of the text we call scripture. My thesis is that scripture should be seen as a record of God’s mission throughout history to re-establish the relationship with his children that was broken when those children chose their own way of independence rather than God’s way of relationship.

The story of Creation posits humanity as the pinnacle of God’s Creation. It is humanity, male and female, that bears the image of the Creator (Genesis 1:27). Humans are capable of a special relationship with the Creator. This relationship is broken when humans choose to be like God rather than to be with God. Humanity does not sufficiently learn the folly of this aspiration when they are banished from the Garden, and must be scattered again when they build the Tower of Babel that is supposed to reach into the heavens where the gods reside. To the extent that humanity realizes the dream to exist apart from God, their aspirations of divinity turn quickly into the nightmares of hell, for the definition of hell is separation from God. To the extent that we realize our dream of independence from God we experience the nightmare of hell. Thus it is an act of salvation when those dreams are frustrated. God will not allow those dreams to materialize because those dreams will be the death of us. God desires relationship with us, and is not willing to leave us entirely to our own aspirations which inevitably will be our destruction.

And so, many years after the Fall and after Babel, God calls Abraham and offers him a magnificent opportunity in a partnership in which Abraham’s family will be blessed, and the means of blessing for all the earth. Genesis 12:

2 “I will make you into a great nation

and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,

and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth

will be blessed through you.”

This Promise is ultimately realized in Jesus Christ but, as we will see later, it is realized in spite of everything Abraham and his family can do to frustrate that Promise. In Genesis 15 the covenant with Abraham is ratified, but instead of participating in the ratification ceremonies as would have been expected in the Near East customs of the time, Abraham sleeps. Abraham, and Israel, are invited to participate in God’s redemption of the world but ultimately that redemption proceeds on the strength of God’s commitment, in the face of strenuous opposition born in the Garden but continued throughout time.

We will return for a closer look at Abraham’s story in a minute but for now let’s continue the whirlwind tour of the history of Israel’s relationship with the God who called them. When God delivers Israel out of Egypt he is rewarded with bitter complaints and ingratitude while the deliverance is still in progress, during the exodus, and upon the entry into the Promised Land. You might say that Israel does not have a clue regarding their responsibility in making this relationship work. They want what God can give and complain liked spoiled children when they do not get what they want. These times of complaint are interspersed with times of repentance and return to live in relationship with God, but the good times never last. After several futile cycles of relationship and rebellion in the Promised Land the chosen children are eventually banished into exile and only a remnant returns to rebuild the ruins of their former glory.

In the end there is a magnificent blessing to the world that comes through Abraham’s family, but it is hardly with the cooperation of the family. By all human appearances the blessing comes through by the barest of threads, only on the strength of God’s commitment to be in relation with his Creation. When all of the promises are despised, and many of the prophets are disparaged and killed, and it seems that God’s words are seen as burdensome rules that the keepers of the law cannot be bothered to uphold even while they lay that heavy burden on those who must listen, then God, who still has not given up on his dream of a relationship with his children, God himself takes on human flesh, moves into the neighborhood and pitches his tent with us, because He desires to be in relation with us.

But we must return to see how well Abraham and Israel heard God’s call, God’s invitation to participate in blessing all nations, God’s invitation to relation. We have already noted that God’s plan was to bless Abraham, and to bless the world through Abraham. How well did Abraham understand this invitation? How faithfully did Abraham live out his part of the invitation to be a blessing to the world? How well did Abraham live in a relationship of blessing to God’s world? How well did Israel live in a relationship of blessing to God’s world? And as we look as the example of Abraham and Israel we must be mindful of the ways in which their stories are mirrored in our own lives.

Abraham’s first challenge follows very closely on the heels of the exhilarating call of Genesis 12:2-3. In the verses immediately following the call Abraham does leave his father’s country and goes to the land God shows him. When God tells him “This is the land I will give to you and your descendants” Abraham builds an altar (12:7), and promptly moves on (12:8). He winds up in Egypt where he is concerned his life may be in danger on account of the beauty of his wife, so he tells her to stretch the truth and advise the lechers that she is his sister, so that he will be treated with greater respect on the merits of his beautiful sister. Is that living in an honorable relationship? So far Abraham has not learned to cherish his relations and is not very concerned about living in ways that bring blessing to those relations.

In the next chapter Lot and Abraham’s herdsmen are quarreling over limited resources and again Abraham’s reaction is avoidance and separation rather than working out an amicable solution that would allow Abraham and Lot to live in a proximity that fosters relationship. Abraham chooses peace, but at the expense of relationship rather than peace in relationship.

In Genesis 16 Abraham and Sara grow tired of waiting for God’s promise of a son so Abraham has relations with Sara’s handmaid that soon result in a pregnancy. Hagar, knowing how long Abraham and Sara have desired offspring develops an attitude that Sara finds reprehensible. Sara complains to Abraham and, being a typical man, Abraham turns pale, turns tail, and runs from relational conflict. “Do with her what you want” he says, knowing full well that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and Hagar is in for a rough time in Sara’s hands. Abraham has not yet tuned in to the value of relationship, and has no real care for God’s blessing on his family, much less God’s blessing on the world. He is not even fulfilling the minimal requirements of decency in his relations, much less bringing blessing to those relations.

But in Genesis 18 we see a glimmer of hope. Abraham is sitting at the entrance to his tent when he spies three strangers passing by. He invites them in for a meal, he washes their feet, and engages them in conversation. In the course of the visit the promise of a son is repeated, which causes Sara to laugh hysterically, and then Abraham finds out that Sodom and Gomorrah are about to be destroyed because of their great wickedness. And Abraham, this man’s man who to this point has run from every relational conflict with admirable dedication to self-preservation, intercedes for the unknown inhabitants of this pair of cities slated for destruction. Not only does he intercede, but gaining a reprieve for cities based on the presence of 50 righteous people, he further bargains for a reprieve based on the presence of an ever diminishing number of righteous souls until he thinks “Surely, two cities of this size must have at least 10 righteous individuals” and leaves the strangers to go about their business, relatively certain he has saved these cities from destruction. I can’t help but wonder what Abraham knew about Sodom and Gomorrah that compelled him to persist until only 10 righteous souls would safeguard the cities. In any case, it appears there is finally a spark of humanity in Abraham that glows for the welfare of someone other than himself. Is he finally getting that the covenant is one of relationship? A covenant of relationship between God and Abraham that is a blessing to Abraham, his family, and the nations? It looks hopeful!

Unfortunately, this hope is quickly dashed. Soon after this Abraham again portrays Sara as his sister rather than his wife and allows Abimelech to take her. Again Abraham avoids risk and betrays relationships rather than embracing relation.

Soon after this Isaac is born, conflict develops between Ishmael and Isaac and, rather than work to bring relational peace in his family Abraham again abdicates his responsibilities and unjustly allows Hagar and his son to be banished into the desert to almost certain death. He is all for the absence of conflict, but the hard work of bringing peace in relations is too much for him.

Now, it seems, God has had it. Now God decides it is time to test Abraham. Does Abraham “get” the covenant? Does Abraham get that he is to be a blessing to his family, and his family to the nations? It is time to find out. Genesis 22 “Abraham” God says. “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”

Why does God have to remind Abraham of his love for his son? “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love” It seems that God is giving Abraham every excuse, every encouragement, to resist the request. What will Abraham do? Will Abraham remember how much he loves his son? Will Abraham give even a thought to how much God loves his son? Will Abraham recall that the terms of the covenant included a family, a great family, that would bring blessing to the nations? Will Abraham care enough about the covenant to challenge God as he did when the Lord announced plans for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities totally unrelated to the covenant? Or would Abraham once again capitulate and run from the hard work of nurturing relationships and being a blessing to his family?

“Early next morning” 22:3 says, Abraham ran. Abraham saddled up his donkey and rode his ass out of the land of the Philistines. He didn’t talk to Sara, he lied to his son, and he came within a whisker of slaughtering God’s promise on the altar of his own myopia. God never spoke to Abraham again. When Abraham’s arm is outstretched with his knife in hand, God himself does not intervene. It is an angel who calls a halt to Abraham’s foolishness, and Abraham, who was supposedly so devoted to God that he would do anything he commanded, now is all too willing to listen to an angel who contravenes God’s command. Having just flagrantly indicated his utterly careless disregard for God’s covenant Abraham is not repentant but merely sacrifices a ram in what has been characterized as a grotesque pretense of worship. He and his servants return to Beersheba, far from Sara. We don’t know where Isaac is, and we can only surmise where a son who has just by the barest of margins escaped a sacrificial slaughter by his own father would be. That is not the sort of wound from which a relationship would quickly or easily recover. Abraham’s opportunity to be a blessing to his family, to say nothing of the nations, has been all but irrevocably compromised. As far as we know Sara and Abraham never talk to each other again either. When Sara dies Abraham comes from a distance to grieve her passing and facilitate her burial. Next time Isaac lays eyes on Abraham is when he comes to participate, with Ishmael, in the burial of his father. It seems that in death Abraham managed to bring about a peace between the brothers that he could never achieve in his lifetime, a peace that has rarely been realized since.

What could have been if Abraham had taken his own responsibilities in the covenant seriously? What could have been if Abraham had challenged God regarding the sacrifice of his son, the son whom God saw necessary to remind him he loved, as Abraham had challenged God for the lives of those he did not know in Sodom and Gomorrah?

Why was Abraham’s family eventually known by the name of the one who did wrestle with God rather than Abraham’s own name? Genesis 32:22ff When Jacob spends a whole night wrestling with God, he has his name changed in the morning from Jacob “he deceives”, to Israel “he struggles with God”, and Israel is the name by which the family is known to this day.

When God declared his intention to wipe out the Israelites Moses challenged the decision by appealing to God’s reputation and character Exodus 32. Again God honors the challenge and relents from destroying Israel.

What would have happened if Israel had been led into the Promised Land by a Moses who dared to challenge God when instructed to kill the Canaanites, every man, woman, and child? How would Israel’s story, and the history of the Middle East be different if a Moses had reminded God that according to the covenant with Abraham Israel was to bring a blessing to the nations rather than a wholesale slaughter?

But all of this is still pointing fingers when we must recognize our own reflections in these stories. What might be if we really believed that God’s primary desire for us was to be in relationship? What if we really believed that all of the information in scripture is given not primarily so that we can know and believe the right things, and do the right things, but so that we could learn to value our relationship with God, and live in a relationship of blessing to each other, in our communities, to the nations, and to God? What could be if we once caught a vision, and learned to live by the vision of what it means for a creature to bless the Creator and partner in blessing creation?

Anabaptist Hermeneutic II Scripture and the Author

2009-08-14T21:42:00.000-05:00

In order to set the stage for today’s look at how we read scripture I want to do a short review of our discussion several weeks ago, looking at the function of words and the Word in the OT. We read Genesis 1 and noted how Creation happened when God said “Let there be... And it was...” God’s word is the creative force by which everything was made that was made.

Then we read Psalm 19 in which

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language

where their voice is not heard.

4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.

God’s spoken word that created everything, is a communication through creation that is the proto-type for language: “There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.” We think of words as the means of communication, but communication experts tell us that the actual words we use are only 7% of what we communicate.

God speaks and things happen. Things that never enunciate any words speak with a voice far more forceful than anything we understand as spoken words. Therefore we need to be aware that “word” and “words” are used to indicate communication in a much broader sense than only the words we use when we speak or write.

In Jeremiah we listened as Jeremiah repeatedly invoked divine authority for his words “the word of the Lord came to me... The Lord said to me... This is what the Lord says... Hear the word of the Lord”. Then in chapter 23, after a lengthy lament regarding the spurious injunctions of false prophets, decrying the facile way in which everybody is always claiming to speak God’s word for him, Jeremiah has God telling the people to quit all such talk. No more claiming visions, dreams, and words from God. In a play on words, the people’s response to those who claim to have a burden from God to lay on His people is to be “You are the burden.” There is to be no more simple acceptance of claims to speak in God’s name. All such claims are to be vetted in a communal conversation in which the words of purported prophets are diligently compared with previously known words from God. It is not just words that matter, but the substance of those words. As if to highlight the point, in the very next chapter Jeremiah claims more visions from God, and again introduces his words as words that came from the Lord. What’s going on here? This prophet has always claimed to speak the words of God, but has just issued an unequivocal edict against claims to speak of words and dreams that come from God. How can he now continue in the same vein? Does he not listen to himself?

Rather than answer all the questions raised in these readings I want to recapitulate the questions as a means of providing a context for the readings we do today in the NT. These questions will highlight some of the issues that we encounter as we read scripture, and they will provide the groundwork for the hermeneutic by which we learn to live the truth of scripture in our homes, at our jobs, and in our community. Here are the questions:

What is a word?

What is communication?

How do we hear God speak?

How do we learn to recognize God’s word in the plethora of words purported to be from God?

Hold these questions in mind as we read several additional passages.

John 1:1-18

The Word Became Flesh

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The word by which God created in Genesis 1 is now the Word that becomes flesh. The Word that becomes flesh is none other than the God who created in Genesis 1. The Word become flesh is God the One and Only God. This is the God that all of history has been about. This is the God who created all that is, who called Abraham to a Promised Land, the God who called his children out of bondage in Egypt back to the Promised Land, the God who called his people, delivered His people, bought them back out of prostitution time and again, this God whom Israel had alternately desired and spurned, worshiped and despised, this God is now here in the flesh, the Author of scripture is here to show us what it is that He has been trying to tell us all along. The Author is here to fulfill the meaning of the text. The Author is here to show us how to read his message.

For that we go to Matthew 5:

The Fulfillment of the Law

17"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. 18I 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. 19Anyone 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. 20For 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.

The Pharisees and teachers of the law had 613 addendums to the law to help ensure that the law was kept. Unfortunately, that keeping the letter of the law was often in violation of the spirit of the law. Their focus on keeping the letter of the law set the bar too low. Jesus’ example of keeping the spirit of the law would look like a violation of the law to many people who knew only the letter, but as the Giver of the law his example was a recovery of what the law really meant. It was not just about the words, but about the communication.

Let’s listen as the Author speaks, and I will highlight only those citations that are drawn from the Hebrew scriptures, our OT:

Murder

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

It’s like Jesus is saying “Don’t get stuck in the text! Listen to the Spirit of my Word! What I was trying to tell you was much more than just the words!” In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is talking about the church’s role as the minister of a new covenant, and he says the letter kills but the Spirit gives life! We are competent, Paul says, not on our own merit but because God has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant, with letters written not in ink on tablets of stone, but by the Spirit on tablets of human hearts. And, says Paul, if the ministry that brought death, the ministry that was engraved in letters on stone, was of such glory that the Israelites could not look at the face of Moses, how much more magnificent is the ministry that brings righteousness, the letter written in human hearts, the word of God in the flesh!

Jesus and Paul are in full agreement that the message inscripted, be it on stone, paper, or memory, is never sufficient. The pivotal message is the one written on our hearts. The relative authority of text and Person is perhaps most clearly indicated in Hebrews 1:

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Angel - Messenger - used for John the Baptist “I will send my m ahead of you...” Should ‘angels’ in Hebrews 1 be ‘messengers’?

The earlier word spoken through the prophets at many times and in various ways is hugely significant and always to be dearly cherished, but never at the expense of the Word made flesh. If the word spoken in Creation, and through the prophets, is holy, how much more the Word made Flesh that is very God! Where ever and when ever you see a picture of God that does not look like Jesus, look again. All the stories and pictures and words in scripture are there to show us who God is and what God is like, but only in Jesus do we see God. All the stories of God’s word to his people are instructive for us, but those words, even though dispatched through chosen messengers and angels, should never be allowed to obscure, much less trump, the Word of God in Person.

Colossians 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Anabaptist Lectionary

2009-08-08T11:40:00.002-05:00

Is there such a thing as an Anabaptist lectionary? Or is that kind of structure too much of a departure from Anabaptist values to be a valid term? Is "Anabaptist Lectionary" an oxymoron? Historic Anabaptist values have always emphasized following Christ in life over clearly formulated Christian thelogy. Is an Anabaptist Lectionary too much of a concession to an emphasis on following a structure rather than following Christ?

The Shack book club

2009-07-29T17:32:00.003-05:00

Our first evening in The Shack fulfilled the promise of a stimulating discussion. Much of the first chapters set the stage for Mack's encounter with God at the shack. There can be little doubt that Young has a critical appreciation for the corrective of post-modernism with regard to the privileging of the rational and text in enlightenment thought (65ff) but this is not a major concern in the book.
The bulk of our discussion focused on the interaction between Mack and God. There was appreciation for Young's portrayal of God as an robust black woman. It was noted that Young quite specifically indicates that this portrayal is not intended to be any more accurate than the traditional depictions of God as male (93). Young makes this move simply to highlight that such traditional depictions are not accurate, any more than is God as a black woman. As such the choice was seen as provocative but entirely uncontroversial.
Particularly poignant was God's statement that we are created to be loved, therefore for us to live as though we were not loved is a limitation (97). Later God tells Mack that humans are defined not by their limitations, but by how God sees us (100). We are not what we seem to be, but what we are created to be. God sees us not as we are, but as we are created to be, which his what we truly are. This is an incredible statement of our value, not in our own eyes, because we almost inevitably fail to realize our value, and even more so when we consider our own estimation of our worth to be significant. No evaluation of our own worth can ever compare to God's emphatic statement on the cross in which he indicates our value to be His own life. Thanks be to God for the salvation only God can bring!
We also talked about the statement that Jesus never drew upon his divinity to do anything while on earth (99). This statement was more controversial and there are several ways to understand it. Young seems to be saying that Jesus acted as an authentic human being in every way, and that we have trouble understanding that because we consistently live as humans in our own right rather than as created beings in an authentic consummation of our relation with God. This is undoubtedly the case, but this comment is implicated in Trinitarian theology, which is beyond our confident comprehensive understanding. Young's conception of Trinitarian theology is one of the areas in which he has drawn a lot of heat. This should not be a surprise, as the Trinity is a complex theology which no one has ever comprehended and elucidated satisfactorily. This issue will undoubtedly arise again in future discussions.

Tremors of Doubt

2009-07-21T17:24:00.006-05:00

Zac Klassen is spearheading a book club that gathers Monday evenings to discuss books of substance. The first evening was an introduction to the sorts of issues raised in The Shack. How should one speak of God, particularly in relation to the bad things that happen? As a means of entry into these issues Zac brought a column by David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, written for the Wall Street Journal in response to the tsunami of 2004. Hart is a delightful writer who makes no bones about his Christian commitments and he does not mince words on issues that he sees as pivotal. This column is definitely worth reading.

A Jesus Manifesto

2009-06-30T11:12:00.000-05:00

A Jesus Manifesto is written by Frank Viola and Len Sweet. I have read several of Sweet's books and find him a refreshing wind for our current time. This manifesto reflects his wholesale commitment to going beyond simply making Jesus the center of all Christian thought and action. Sweet and Viola recognize that nothing we do to give Jesus the place of priority ever goes far enough. Even when we get to the place where we recognize this deep inadequacy on our own part and are willing to take our hands off the controls of our own life and intend to simply follow Jesus where ever He is going, we still fail to understand how radically it is that our life flows only from God. Jesus IS our life. Good Anabaptist theology recognizes that the Bible points us to this life in Christ, but we continue to struggle at working this out in our life rather than being too easily satisfied with inscripturating our understanding of this life in in our theology.

Read the manifesto. Be challenged. Maybe even have your life changed, if you are that brave. Honestly, I am not sure about myself yet. A satisfied comfort in my understanding of scripture is such an alluring security blanket.

Theo-bloggers transforming theology

2009-05-01T15:56:00.002-05:00

Review: Reclaiming the Church John B. Cobb, Jr (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky) 1997 110 pages

John Cobb situates this critique and proposed remedy for mainline churches within his own United Methodist tradition, but the critique and the remedy have application beyond those limits. Cobb’s central concern is with the lack of passion among members of the church for the mission of the church. According to his analysis this lackadaisical inertia is due in large measure to the way lay people have been absolved of the responsibility to think about theology, relegating this task to “upper” echelons of church leadership and academia. Cobb cites two typical responses that intend to remedy the malady - renewal and transformation. While he recognizes the inevitable overlap of these movements he does see transformation as the more radical response, and this book focuses on the dynamics of these options in various particular challenges the church currently faces.
In Cobb's view a recovery of a shared conviction that holds theology as of utmost significance to the church and the world is an indispensable component in a renewal of passion. In his review of the history of the church Cobb acknowledges that lukewarmness is not the only danger related to conviction. There are eras of church history in which conviction led to fanaticism, which is also deterimental to the mission of the church. The challenge is to develop appropriate convictions that are based on proper respect for legitimate authority. The history of the church contains examples of insufficiently critical allegiances that proved unhealthy for the church's commitments and passions. The rise of rationalism, for example, could have been a tool for attenuating commitments to legitimate authority, but rationalism too quickly was over-extended to a position of independent authority, usurping the place that should have been the purview of other legitimate authorities for the church.
One of the most pervasive challenges to our understanding of authority (both understanding what is authoritative, and discerning the message of that authority) that Cobb notes is the challenge of feminism. Particularly with regard to the role of women, as well as proper language for God, the church has experienced cataclysmic foment regarding authority. Unsurprisingly this is also an area in which conviction and passion have often not been lacking, but have not always been helpful either. This challenge provides an example of the differing emphases represented by Cobb's notions of renewal versus transformation. Renewalists tend to desire a recovery of the pure stream of biblical teaching from the stew that has developed in syncretism with other sources (53). On Cobb's reading renewalists primarily emphasize renewal within the church based on an understanding of our biblical heritage. Surrounding culture has nothing of value that should be allowed to significantly inform our understanding of scripture. It is legitimate for influence to flow from the church to society in appropriate areas, but it is seldom, if ever, legitimate for society to have any influence on the church and her reading of scripture.
Transformationalists also wish to recover the truth of our heritage but they see heretofore unanticipated and unimagined expressions of that truth as legitimate, if not necessary, to the genuine pursuit of that truth where ever it may lead. Transformationalists see the biblical record as an account of how the early church creatively responded to the issues of their time out of a deeply textured understanding of scripture. This may facilely appear to be a unidirectional influence, but transformationalists recognize that the very act of responding to the issues of the time already gives surrounding culture a significant influence in our understanding of scripture. It is not a question of compromising the meaning of scripture by overlaying it with a cultural interpretation. Rather it simply recognizes that meanings are always apprehended within a certain context, and therefore wishes to be be more aware of how cultural sensitivities always inform, but should not naively dictate, the meaning one gleans from a text. The variant impact of these approaches on any attempt to renew passion by a broad-based recovery of the theological enterprise among all believers is immediately evident. When these approaches become part of widely held convictions among various people conflict will be inevitable. Even when agreement concerning proper authority can be achieved, consensus regarding the message of that authority will not be so easily realized. Cobb outlines the responses of each approach to several significant issues including feminism, nationalism, post-modernism, and the sexual revolution (48ff).This book is a stimulating challenge to recover our theological heritage in a faithfulness to scripture that appreciates our historically rooted readings of scripture while also understanding that God's Word is living today. The project to recover theology as a meaningful exercise of the laity goes a long ways towards this goal as it represents incremental progress towards recognizing the role of culture in our understanding of scripture. The emphasis on transformation recalls Jesus' discourse with the religious elite of his own time. Simply maintaining the truth of scripture as it has been handed down to us will effectively suffocate the living Word and make it just another empty tradition. It is not a simple matter to be honest with how our cultural (academic, religious, etc.,) assumptions have enabled us to read and understand scripture, but always from the particular perspective embodied in those assumptions. We must hold unswervingly to the Truth of scripture, but doing so must lead us into new ways of being faithful that are at least as radical as the ways Jesus proposed to the religious leaders of his own time.

Romans 5:12-21 ConneXion March 29, 2009

2009-03-29T21:37:00.004-05:00

Death through Adam, Life through Christ
Romans 5 is a pivotal piece of Paul’s theology. Like almost every other pivotal passage its meaning is hotly contested. As much as possible we want to try to hear Paul before we decide what he can and cannot be saying.
Paul’s frequent use of ‘Therefore’ belies the flow of thought in his writings. Paul’s writing is a journey and you need to know where he came from in order to understand why he is here and where he is going. This is not to say that all his work is a tidy flow of logic. Paul is the kind of traveler who likes the byways. He is constantly distracted by what he sees beside the road, and frequently veers off on a rabbit trail for an excursion, before returning to the main course of his thought. In this part of Romans we will encounter a prime example of this meandering.
“Therefore” says Paul, and we are following up on the interview with Paul that Zach let us listen in on last week. In that interview/overview of the first part of Romans 5 Paul told us that we can boast and rejoice, not in what we do, but in what God does for us, long before we experience even the first premonitions of our own desperate need.
“12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—”
and here is the first rabbit trail. Paul started out making a comparison ‘just as’ but now he sees an auspicious trail that he cannot resist exploring:
“13for before the law was given, sin was in the world.”
Paul wants us to understand the nature of sin. First, we are not merely guilty in Adam, though the biblical view of the solidarity of humanity mitigates the perceived injustice of such a conclusion. In our own time we have an impoverished view of what it is to be human because we give far too much credit to individuals as being the basic unit of humanity. In biblical thought the basic unit of humanity is the community. The writer of Hebrews talks about Levi, who is the type of the priesthood since that is the tribe that was given the priestly role of collecting tithes. The writer notes that Levi, who collected Israel’s tithe in fact paid the tithe to Melchizedek because he was in Abraham’s body when Abraham met Melchizek and paid him the tenth (Hebrews 7:9-10). The OT is replete with similar stories and in this chapter of Romans Paul shows that this principle works both ways. The same solidarity that has us all sinning in Adam also has us all justified in Jesus Christ. However, none of us can blame Adam for our sinfulness because, as Paul notes here and elsewhere, “all sinned.”
Paul understands that we may resist the notion that sin is pervasive, by reason of a deficient understanding of sin as breaking the law. Sin is more than doing what you know you should not do because you have learned better. If sin was only a matter of operating against better knowledge than those who did not have the law could not be considered guilty, and yet death, which in Paul’s mind is integrally linked with sin,
“reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”
Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of the giving of the law to Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a law. Adam did sin in breaking an explicit command, and death came as a result of that sin, but even those who never had a law to break still operated under the curse of death because they all sinned, with or without the law.
This is another clear indication that we are not guilty in Adam because of his sin, we are guilty with Adam because we all sin. However, being classed with Adam is not only bad news, because Adam was a pattern of the one to come, the One who would more than reverse the curse of Adam’s disobedience with another superlative act of righteous obedience.
“15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”
‘The many’ is a term (hoi polloi) that does not intend to select a group of many out of a larger group that includes all. Hoi polloi is a term that refers to the masses of people without distinguishing them as a subset of a larger category. The parallelism also makes it difficult to suggest that the many in one case is in any way distinguishable from the many in the second use. The emphasis in this verse is not a comparison of two different categories of the many, but on the impact of the gift as over against the trespass. If the masses died because of the trespass of the one man, how much more will God’s grace and gift that came by the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the masses!! The implication is that those who died because of sin will be more than restored in the work of Jesus Christ. But just in case we missed the point, Paul says it again:
“16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.”
The superlative comparison continues as Paul points out that the judgement of death followed one sin, but the gift followed on the heels of many sins and still prevailed to bring justification. One sin was enough to bring death, but many sins were not enough to stand in the way of justification! The comparison of extravagance continues:
“17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.”
The precise denotation of “those who receive” is one of those hotly debated phrases in this text. Does this phrase intend to limit the “provision of grace and the gift of righteousness” that comes though Jesus Christ to a subset of those over whom death rules? If so, then this phrase stands in stark contrast to every other comment in this text regarding the relative extent of the curse as compared to the gift, not to mention the general tenor of this passage which uniformly exults in the excess of the gift over sin and death.
If this phrase is understood to introduce a hint of conditionality it should not be taken to refer to the gift, but to the fruition of the gift. The gift remains an ‘abundant provision’, but those who ‘receive’ the gift will ‘reign in life’. The gift is the antidote to everything impacted by sin, and those who receive the gift will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. The reigning in life is not something we can do on our own, it only happens as we participate in Jesus Christ. It seems that the work of Jesus Christ flows for all at least as freely and as powerfully as the original sin introduced death into the world, a death which impacts all. We do not have an original choice in whether or not to participate in sin, though we do have a choice in how enthusiastically we participate. It seems there is a parallel in that we do not have an original choice in justification, but we do have a choice in how far we allow God’s salvation to take root in our lives, and how far we go in letting the life of Jesus Christ reign in us. Paul’s next words are a powerful reiteration of this very point:
“18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
This is an incredible salvation! As awful as was the curse, God has more than simply reversed the effects of sin for us!! Any perception of injustice in being included with Adam in original sin is more than mitigated by the good news that we are also all included in the justification that brings life for all. We start life twice born! Solidarity in the actions of others stands in our favor as it brings us the righteousness that can only be realized in the work of Jesus Christ.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It is not likely that Paul intends to say that the advent of the law actually increased sin because he has just said that sin is pervasive even where there is no law. It is much more likely, given the context, that he intends to remind us that we know sin because of the law. This fits with earlier statements like “through the law we become conscious of sin” (3:20). It would be positively contrary to God’s nature to take action that increased sin when the consistent message of scripture is that sin is anathema to God to the extent that He chooses to give his own life rather than allow sin to rule his creation. In fact it would be quite appropriate to recognize that it is grace that works through the law to bring about a recognition of our own sinfulness and our need for a Saviour, and it is the same grace that reigns through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ.
The key verse of Romans is 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. Romans 5:12-21 is a pre-eminent exposition of this salvation. Even before we realize we have fallen God has already provided a remedy that is more than sufficient to restore the relationship that was broken by our sin. The question now is how shall we live in light of this salvation provided for us and for all who sin? Romans 6 will lay that our for us, but it quite emphatically does not condone any notion of living frivolously in a presumption of this grace freely bestowed. Rather, in a heartfelt gratitude for this salvation we should count ourselves dead to sin, and alive to God.

Romans 3:1-20 ConneXion March 1, 2009

2009-03-02T11:48:00.001-06:00

Introduction
(Note: This is a revised version of an oral delivery and discussion at the ConneXion in Arborg on March 1, 2009. It is one session in a series of presentations on Romans. Presenters in the series included others from the ConneXion, as well as visiting presenters.)
We have looked at various parts of Romans already so we will just do a very quick and cursory review to set the stage for our look at chapter 3. Romans 1:16-17 are the key to the book:
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]
Then Paul talks about the wrath of God directed against wickedness, which Peter handled so well 2 weeks ago. After stirring up his readers about wickedness and the filthy way of life of "others" he turns the tables in chapter 2:
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
It seems clear that Paul's intent in this part of Romans is to annihilate any confidence we have in any distinctions we perceive or posit between ourselves and the "others". Nothing gives us a head start with God in relation to "others", whether we call those "others" the lost, or the world , or any other designation that emphasizes a gap between us.
I want to take a bit of a closer look at 2:17-29 because this piece is the context for chapter 3. Paul's focus in this section is on the Jews and their confidence in their special status with God based on their being a chosen people with a special revelation from the God who chose them. The section targets the Jews, but we need to reflect on how this applies to us. Paul begins:

ROMANS 2:17-3:20
The Jews and the Law
17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew;
Paul is speaking very specifically to the Jews, but we believe that the Bible is God's word to us today. What terms would we use to highlight for ourselves that this text speaks to us? Terms like raised in church, Mennonite, and Christian are some examples that help us understand how this warning applies to us.
As we go on reading I will read very slowly to give us time to reflect on what the text is saying to us. I will try to read with pregnant pauses that leave room for fecund thought and I invite you to listen as the Spirit speaks between the lines, and then we will discuss your reponses.

if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—
Why does Paul talk about the embodiment of knowledge and truth? What does it mean for knowledge and truth to be embodied?
Knowledge and truth are not without corporeal substance. Knowledge and truth are not only intellectual categories, they include embodied, lived substance. You cannot know truth if you do not do truth. Knowledge and truth are embodied in the way you live, not merely testified to in what you say.
21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
Recall Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. What does Paul mean with these questions? How do these questions relate to the "embodiment of knowledge and truth"? Knowing the law is good, but living the law must always exceed the law. Living the law means more than adhering to the technicalities of the law.
24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[b]
God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because God's children are in a bondage of disobedience. Abraham kept going to Egypt thinking the living was better there, when God had given him the Promised Land. Israel was given land but went to Egypt to live, and ended up enslaved. When Isaiah is saying the words Paul quotes here Israel is in Assyrian captivity. God's promise to Israel was always blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience. The dire warnings issued to Israel concerning their fate if they did not continue to walk in Yahweh's ways are not appropriate for children's bedtime stories. The worst of Hollywood's degenerate filth hardly compares. And for the masses around Israel God's children are a reflection of Yahweh.
(Isaiah 52:5; Ezekiel 36:22-23)
Paul continues:
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
Knowledge and truth, and the law, must be faithfully embodied in order to be of any value. Adherence to technicalities is worthless, and what one is, is indicated in what one does. What sort of value is there in this embodied keeping of the law? Paul asks:
God's Faithfulness
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?
Based on the context, what do you think Paul has in mind when he talks about "faith" and "faithfulness"? Is there any faith that is not embodied? Clearly no. Faith not lived is not faith. It is a religion and a pretense and it is a keeping of the letter of the law, but it is not faith. Recall Romans 1:17 and compare with Habakkuk 2:4-5 Habakkuk is complaining because God uses faithless heathens to punish his own children, and this is God's response, speaking about those who come to trouble his children. The righteous, living his faith, will live very differently from the one who lives by his desires. So can our lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Will the fact that we do not live faith mean that God willl not be faithful either?
4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."[a]
This is a quote from Psalm 51, a psalm of David written as a response to the prophet Nathan who came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.
1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.
Our faith and our faithlessness prove God right in that good and evil are their own reward. God has made a world that is designed to run on the fuel of the good, and it sputters on the impurities of evil. Whether our faithful living contributes to the beauty and harmony of God's creation, or whether our sinfulness fouls the systems and wreaks havoc with the good creation, God is proved right either way.
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
No One is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
"Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" Is this text still speaking to us? Recall the terms we suggested earlier (raised in a church, Mennonite, Christian, etc.,) that highlight our inclusion in the message of this text. Could those same terms obtain here as well? If it is difficult for us to imagine our own complicity in sinfulness as equal to that of the "others" whom we often recognize as the targets of our evangelistic efforts, then it is clear that we do not begin to understand our own sinfulness.
10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."[c] 13"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit."[d] "The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e] 14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f] 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know."[g] 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

The law can speak only to those under the law. Should we recognize the same for our Christian heritage? Does Christianity speak to those who share a heritage of religious Christianity, leaving room for the God who exceeds Christianity to deal without those outside this umbrella in whatever ways He deems just and faithful? The problematic posed by the question will not be uniformly perceived, but the answer may well shake foundations for us as severely as Paul's message riled the Jewish establishment. If it does not, we may simply be sharing the comfortable seat of the scribes and Pharisees.
The only thing the law can do for us is to show us what sin is and how sinful we are. Does the same hold true for our Christian heritage? The implication of Paul's words is that our religious heritage can only show us our sinfulness. Christianity cannot save us, it can only show us that we need salvation.
Footnotes:

Romans 2:6 Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12
Romans 2:24 Isaiah 52:5; Ezek. 36:22
Romans 2:27 Or who, by means of a

Romans 3:4 Psalm 51:4
Romans 3:9 Or worse
Romans 3:12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
Romans 3:13 Psalm 5:9
Romans 3:13 Psalm 140:3
Romans 3:14 Psalm 10:7
Romans 3:17 Isaiah 59:7,8
Romans 3:18 Psalm 36:1
Romans 3:25 Or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin

4th Sunday of Advent - Rejoice

2008-12-21T19:46:00.000-06:00

Surprised by Joy is C S Lewis’ account of his childhood. In this book he outlines the experiences and circumstances of his childhood that he sees as formative for his intellectual development, and his preparation to turn from an early atheism to Christianity.
“It is this theme, the longing for a restoration of the joy he experienced as a boy, that permeates the entire volume. By “joy,” Lewis meant not mere pleasure but the sublime experience of the transcendent, the glimpse of the eternal that is only fleetingly available in earthly loves and aesthetics. It is, for Lewis, only finally received in heavenly glory at the consummation of the age, a joy to be found in the Creator who himself invented both world and word, person and personality. It is He alone who redeems his fallen creation and provides them joy. From his earliest intimations of this joy, Lewis depicts himself in Surprised by Joy as precociously oriented toward the metaphysical and ultimate questions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprised_by_Joy)
For Lewis joy is not merely light-hearted mirth or pleasure. It is a deep connection to the transcendent, and to what are often referred to as the ultimate questions of life:
What is real?
What is truth?
What is the meaning/purpose of life?
Is there a God? And if there is a God what is He (or She) like?
In a fascinating way then, joy is related to eternity and transcendence, to the ultimate questions of life. These are things which we can never fully experience. The ultimate realization of eternity and transcendence always remains a step beyond us. If, as C S Lewis says, joy is related to these themes that always remain beyond our grasp, then joy can never be experienced as a final and complete realization. Every experience of joy then necessarily includes an infinite deferment of ultimate or final satisfaction.
Transcendence is by definition that which exceeds us. The joy that is connected to an experience of transcendence therefore cannot be the joy of that which we hold without remainder. Our deepest experiences of joy are always quite rightly accompanied, at times even troubled, by the sense that we now experience in part, and even our most sublime moments of joy are not an experience of joy without remainder. Our most exotic experiences of joy are experiences that include a remainder that also leaves us hungry for more. Hence, joy is not only an experience of satisfied appetite. Rather, it is in its highest expression an experience of an appropriate appetite that is experienced as joy precisely as an appetite, not as the satiation of appetite.
Our hunger for God, for example, is an appropriate appetite but it can easily be perverted into a hunger for a god we choose or make that satisfies our immediate felt needs. When our hunger for God is reduced to a hunger for immediate needs it becomes a chasing after idols, rather than God. Ironically, in the very process of reducing our appetites to that for which we can find satisfaction, we render such a god unsatisfactory. This god does not call us to exceed ourselves, leading to increasing appetites and the joy of hope for a future that is larger than our present. This god is reduced to our size, and becomes unsatisfactory for the very reason that he completely fills our anemic vision, but never challenges us to dream bigger dreams. This god never challenges us to follow him outside of our comfort zones, outside of ourselves.
The kind of joy that C S Lewis proposes, however, is a larger joy that offers a satisfaction that is more than can be held in the immediate moment. It is experienced in the immediate moment, but not as an end, rather that joy is experienced as a step in a larger journey. It is a satisfaction with remainder. It is, I think, the kind of joy that is promised us in Christmas, in the birth of God in human flesh.

Genesis tells a story that explains our insatiable hunger for a God that is bigger than we are. It is a story of human beings created in the image of the Creator. At first we enjoyed a relationship and communication with our Creator, repeated every evening in the cool of the day because once is never enough. But even then we wished to be more than friends of God, we wished to be like God ourselves. In reducing our appropriate appetite for God into an appetite for ourselves we broke trust with God and realized too late that satisfied appetites are ultimately unsatisfactory. We cut ourselves off from the only One who could satisfy our appetites with a transcendent and eternal satisfaction, the kind of satisfaction with remainder that is vital to continued satisfaction. Thanks be to the God we spurned, He does not give up so easily. Immediately, in the Garden, even before we were banished from that which might make our estrangement eternal (a banishment that was also an act of grace), God promised redemption (Gen 3:15 serpent will bruise, but the offspring will crush the head of the serpent).
Throughout the rest of the OT this theme is worked out and the plan is embellished. It continues with a promise to Abram (Gen 12:1-3), later ratified by a covenant (Gen 15). This covenant, it is significant to note was ratified by only God passing between the halves of the animals, while Abram was fast asleep.
Throughout the rest of Israel’s history the promises of God to redeem his creation were repeated time and again. These promises were experienced as redemption from slavery in Egypt, as salvation from other oppressors after they arrived in the Promised Land, and as return from captivity after the Exile. In Isaiah 9 the promise is repeated: In Isaiah 49:6ff the promise is expanded from all of Israel to all the world:
All of these experiences of redemption and salvation were significant and concrete instances of salvation by the hand of God, and merited the genuine gratitude of his children, though it could be argued that this gratitude was never equal to the experience. It was not the case that God’s salvation was somehow deficient. It is, rather, that finite humans are not able to experience fully the infinite salvation that God provides.
All these promises finally culminated in the birth of the Messiah, who was asked when He was here “When will you come? What will be the signs of your coming?” (Matthew 24:3). They looked for a Messiah, and they anticipated the coming of their Messiah, but even when they spoke to their Messiah face to face they asked “When will you come?” Their joy at the Messiah’s presence among them was muted by their failure to recognize a promise and an experience that was larger than their imagination.
This Christmas, and every Christmas, we rejoice as we celebrate the coming of the Messiah, the birth of God in human flesh. We rejoice as we celebrate a salvation that is rooted in history, and yet ineluctably exceeds history. We commemorate looking back, but we must also anticipate looking forward. We rejoice in the moment but we should recognize that the rejoicing that also longs for more is a reflection of a healthy appetite for a God who is bigger than we are. To the extent that disappointment reminds us to dream bigger dreams, to leave room for a transcendent God, it is an indispensable ingredient in our rejoicing.

Reflections for the third Sunday of Advent: Repentance

2008-12-14T20:14:00.000-06:00

Henry van Dyke tells a story of a Christmas angel. It begins with a gathering of angels who have just returned from various errands on earth. In the course of their travels they have witnessed the tangles and troubles, and wars and miseries of humanity on earth. Three of the leading angels are extolling their own particular vision of how to bring a triumphant end to those sorrows.
Michael is the first to speak, and he laments the oppression and injustice that prevails when the arm of the cruel is heavier than the arm of the kind. “Poverty is mocked by arrogant wealth, and purity is deflowered by brute violence.... There is no cure for this evil but by the giving of greater force to the good hand.” Michael is ready to lead the armies of God into battle against the forces of evil, and the angels, stirred by Michael’s rousing oratory, stand ready to follow, but the battle cry does not sound.
Instead, in the stillness of their waiting, Uriel, the second angel, responds. He fully endorses Michael’s purpose, but he proposes another way, for he has too often seen the power given to the good turned aside and used for evil. “Pride has followed triumph and oppression has been the first-born child of victory. Deliverers of people have become tyrants, and fighters for liberty have been changed into solders of fortune, because power corrupts itself and might cannot save.... The Earth is full of ignorant strife, and for this evil there is no cure but the giving of greater knowledge.” People give themselves to evil because they do not understand the end of evil. Injustice is the error of the blind. People destroy each other because they do not know each other. If there were more light of knowledge in the world there would be no sorrow. If only the great King would enlighten the world with wisdom the shadows of ignorance would be dispelled. The folly would fade away as a morning vapor, the sun of wisdom would shine on all men, and the peace of God would come with the counsel of angels.
Raphael is not convinced. He recalls Balaam, whose donkey was wiser than Balaam himself. He reminds us of Solomon, widely acclaimed as the wisest man who ever lived, concluding in despair “Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!” Raphael knows too well that power corrupts itself and knowledge cannot save. “There is no cure for the evil that is in the world but by the giving of more love to people.”
As the gathered listeners ponder this question a frail voice is heard from a distance. It is a little angel, as substantial as thistle-down, flitting along in the breeze, who says “I know! I know! I know! Man shall be made like God because the Son of God shall become a Man!”
The little angel’s next task, the mission that brought him by the gathered throng, is to go and tell the chosen people the good news of the greatest story ever told. As the throng follows the little angel they are led past Rome, the home of the Emperor of the World, past Athens, the birthplace of philosophical inquiry, and past Jerusalem, the religious center of the Messiah’s people. They go to a quiet hillside outside of a little town called Bethlehem, despised for its provincial crudeness, to men engaged in the lowest of occupations, watching flocks by night, and these are the recipients of the greatest news flash ever to blaze upon this planet. The kingdom is upside down.
Two weeks ago, on the first Sunday of the Advent season, we reflected on how our desire and search for God is impacted by our understanding of the God who becomes flesh to live with us. Last Sunday Zach showed us how looking into our histories can be a spiritual exercise of finding the God who walks with us, and taking new notice of the God acts in our world. This Sunday we reflect on how the shape of our lives can be impacted by our understanding of the God who is born as a baby. At root, then, this Sunday we reflect on repentance.
Van Dyke’s story illustrates the fundamental notion of repentance. Far too often, I think, we think of repentance as an exercise in ferreting out another sin in our lives for which we conjure up feelings of remorse and guilt, engage in what we hope is an adequate form of self-remonstration and penance, and then we go on with fingers and toes crossed, hoping against hope that we do not too soon fall back into our old ways. I think that is a rather anemic misunderstanding of repentance. To repent is to implement a new understanding of things: of our world, of ourselves, and particularly of God. To repent is to see new opportunities for our lives because God cares enough, not just to judge us, but to show us love, and how to live. Christmas reminds us that God cares enough to make His dwelling with us, and not only with us, but in us.
Every one of the angels in van Dyke’s story proposed a solution that at a glance seems a reasonable and worthwhile correction to the troubles of humanity. Michael proposed a strong solution of overwhelming power, Uriel saw the answer in convincing wisdom, and Raphael saw a solution in teaching people to be generous with love for each other. Unfortunately, none of these solutions offer us anything radically different from the root of the problem, just more of it. If the evil use force to gain the upper hand over the good, then the solution is to use more force for good. If wickedness is rooted in a lack of knowledge, the solution is to infuse more knowledge. Raphael gets closest to the answer with his proposal of more love, but the intractable question that stymies him as well is how do you get selfish people to love more? You can’t just give them love and expect them to share it, because that is the root of their problem. Our problem lies not only in our environment of too much violence, or too much ignorance, or too much selfishness. The problem is that the environment is at least in part the result of what and who we are, and is largely the outworking of fundamental values that we never think to question. The solution requires change from the inside out, and only a God can do that for us.
And that, as van Dyke’s story reminds us, is the Christmas story. We have domesticated the story of Christmas and we celebrate it as a religious, and often a crassly commercialized event, and in our celebrating it we have tamed it. We too easily see Christmas as a highlight of the year, a celebration to break the monotony of our long winter, the time of year when days finally start getting longer and we hope again for Spring. Frequently we intersperse our celebrations with moments of reflection and lip service to the Christ Child whose birth we commemorate on Christmas Day, but too easily and too often we forget that everything was turned upside down when the Creator was born in human flesh. True repentance, I think, sees the world through the lens of Christmas and the Christ Child.
Matthew tells us that John the Baptiser came preaching in the desert to prepare the way for the Son of God, saying “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This call is commonly understood as a call to turn around, and that is indeed an integral component of seeing the world differently. To recognize a radically different structure as operative in our world should quite naturally be followed by a commensurately different way of living. If we think repentance is just about identifying a few more sins in our own lives we sadly miss the point. The kingdom of heaven is not about how well we purge sin from our lives. God knows we are not up to the task, which is precisely the reason Jesus came to save us. He knew we could never save ourselves.
To repent is to see our world and our God through different eyes. Christmas reminds us that God is not just a Creator who makes a world and sits back, waiting to pass judgement on our frailty. The sort of repentance that acts in fearful anticipation of such wrath is a very cheap imitation of the repentance that sees the world and its people as something that God cherishes sufficiently that He chooses to participate in our frailty so as to not only tell us to love, but to show us what love looks like, and what His love means for us.
A little later Matthew tells us that Jesus took up preaching where John left off “Repent, for the kingdom of God is near.” In both cases Eugene Peterson translates this phrase as “Change your life. God’s kingdom is here!” A few paragraphs later Matthew summarizes Jesus’ message again, using different words: He moved through the country preaching the good news of the kingdom. The revelation of God’s kingdom is good news. To be called to look for God’s kingdom elsewhere is good news when our search has been disappointing. The call to repentance is calling out to a people who are looking for the kingdom in all the wrong places. It is a calling out to people who are looking for love, and peace, and satisfaction where it cannot be found. The call to repentance is good news because it tells us our disappointments are not terminal. It is calling out “Turn around! What you are looking for is over this way.”
God became flesh, not primarily to change our world, though He did that. God became flesh not primarily to change us, though that too will happen when we catch a glimpse of Immanuel – the God who is with us. God became flesh because He loves us, because He desires to be in relationship with us, and He wants us to know that. God became flesh because He wants us to participate in His kingdom. God became flesh because He loves us too much to leave us in our own little world, whether we think ourselves comfortable or miserable.
Elie Wiesel survived the concentration camps of the holocaust as a young boy. In his memoirs entitled “Night” he recounts graphic stories of misery, cruelty, and the most diabolical horror. Along with the deprivation and forced labor, prisoners were frequently compelled to watch public executions. He recounts a time when a young lad was hung for a minor offense. The executioner did not correctly calculate the length of rope that would provide a clean execution (as though there could be any such thing) and the boy struggled frantically for several minutes, minutes that seemed an interminable eternity, while he was slowly asphyxiated. The prisoners were horrified and incensed by the spectacle, while the soldiers were amused. One of the prisoners cried out “Where is God when this lad is left to suffer so abominably at the hands of those who are far more guilty than he is?” The reply came softly from a man standing close to Elie “He is struggling at the end of that rope.”
Our world is not just an economy in turmoil, though the economy is currently an ominous threat for many. The world is not primarily a struggle between terrorism and democracy or capitalism or merely an alternate form of overwhelming power. The world is not only a place threatened by global warming or depleted energy reserves. Our world is the intersection of people and creation with opportunities to see God at work, loving His creation. God loving creation is the main play, the other distractions are the side acts. They are not to be facilely dismissed as insignificant, but they too are spaces for the love of God that turns the world upside down to be seen, to be experienced, and to change us all from the inside out. To recognize that, to see the world as such, that is the sort of repentance that brings life. That is the repentance that changes us from the inside out as we recognize Immanuel, the Christ Child of Christmas who is God with us.

Knocking on the Brothel Door or Looking for God in all the Wrong Places

2008-11-30T14:38:00.004-06:00

Reflections on anticipation for the first Sunday of Advent
In the centuries leading up to the birth of the Christ Child in Bethlehem Israel was looking for a Messiah, a Son of David, who would usher in an age of peace and liberty from oppression. Their father Abraham had been promised land and posterity two millenia earlier, and the family that became a nation occupied the land for most of that time but, except for a few brief periods, never entirely free of at least the threat of imminent oppression. If it wasn’t slavery in Egypt, where they had gone to find relief from famine, it was the Canaanites and Philistines taking their crops. When they survived the Philistines the Assyrians threatened and finally took the northern tribes into captivity. Babylon eventually crushed the Assyrian domination but carried the remnant of Judah that the Assyrians had left, into Exile far beyond the River that had marked Abraham’s early home. Seventy years later the Babylonians allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild their cities, their homes, farms, and reinstitute worship in the restored temple that had originally been built by Solomon. This was a positive development but still, they were never really free. They enjoyed periods of relative freedom but only to the point their overlords deemed appropriate. They were looking for a Messiah to come and restore the peace and liberty for which they had yearned for so many generations.
Yearning is not unfamiliar to us. We too, find ourselves frequently, if not constantly, longing for things that seem just beyond our reach. More time for work, more time for leisure, more money, more relationships, and we yearn for more fulfilment out of the relationships we have. We soon learn to discount even those rare occasions when we do experience moments of sweet satisfaction as fleeting apparitions that are as substantial as a passing breeze. Is this how we were meant to be? Always striving but never arriving? Always wanting more though commonly finding ourselves unable to ascertain precisely what it is that drives our insatiable hunger?
G K Chesterton said “Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God.” We experience powerful desires that threaten to overwhelm us because we do not recognize the true nature of these desires. We think we want more money, faster cars, exotic cuisine, finer wine, more love, warmer winters, when what we really want is more of God. In their proper place all of these can be enjoyed as experiences of conversation with God, but pursued as an end in themselves they all become vanities, provocative sirens that lure us to shipwreck.
Advent is a season of anticipation. In our younger years, before we learn to obscure our raw desires to get stuff, we oh so eagerly anticipate Christmas morning - what presents lie under the tree for us this year? What will Santa (or our parents, for those of us who have already been cruelly disillusioned regarding the real source of Christmas presents) bring us this year that can catapult us into paroxysms of euphoria that exceed those experienced last year? Now those of us who have learned to suppress those lusts, in favor of desires more becoming to people of advanced maturity, anticipate good times with family and friends. We look for good food, good parties, a few days in which to put aside for a while the tedium of the mundane routines that rule our lives. We hope to capture, if only for a while, something that eludes us the rest of the year. Some of us learn to fear that the hope of Christmas is in fact only another smoke and mirrors charade and so we begin to dread the hustle. If the exuberance of Christmas is only a busyness that passes and leaves us more drained than we were before, then the whole charade becomes a tedium worse than the humdrum from which it pretended to promise relief.
And yet the yearning remains. In fact, the yearning is only aggravated by the realization that what we were told was to be the ultimate cure is only another fairy tale, and there is really nothing more. There is only the inexorable routines of life from which there is no escape. As long as the pretense of respite is empty we would rather not bother with the effort required to maintain the frenetic pace of the holiday season. If our ultimate hope is vanity, then there is, in fact, no hope at all. And so you have suicides peaking at the very time of the year that society at large portrays as, and takes to be, the merriest time of all, a time of good will and cheer for all the world.
Anticipation. It is an opportunity for hope, but hope that turns out to have been misguided only exacerbates the agony of despair. So what is the anticipation of Christmas? Do we anticipate more than the giving and receiving of things and, if we are lucky, relationships? Is Christmas just a grand orgy of an economic enterprise in which even relationships are reduced to economy of exchange? Is Christmas just about giving as good as you think you’ll get and hoping to break even?
We certainly claim more. We say that we commemorate the coming of the Christ Child. We commemorate nothing less than God becoming flesh. We tend to emphasize the commemoration of a past event, but it is no less the anticipation of a future event. It is a celebration of God moving into the neighborhood and making his dwelling with us, but it is also an anticipation of a new visitation every year. At least I think it should be.
When I was growing up I remember hearing time after time that Jesus is all you need. Once you find God you have everything you need. If you are not satisfied then the fault somehow lies with you because you can never need anything more than God. Proof was found in proof texts, like John 4:13,14 Jesus said, “Everyone who drinks this water will get thirsty again and again. Anyone who drinks the water I give will never thirst—not ever. The water I give will be an artesian spring within, gushing fountains of endless life.” You can’t argue with scripture, right? But what happens to anticipation if this is a one time event that satisfies forever? Does this not bring us back full circle to the agony of despair engendered by the promise of an ultimate hope that fails to deliver? Are those who promise everlasting satisfaction wrong? Possibly. Was Jesus wrong? Probably not. I do not think Jesus was wrong, though I do think he can be misunderstood, sometimes far too easily.
One of the most urgent human necessities is the need for hope. Your current situation matters less than your hope for tomorrow. Laying in the sun on a tropical beach in January is fine, but if you do not have some sense of anticipation even such a realized fantasy becomes a tedium far too quickly. On the other hand, even the most traumatic events of life are lightened by the promise contained in the hope of a better day to come. It is hopelessness of an ever diminishing future that is the cruelest torture of all. We cannot find satisfaction only in our past, we must have something in our future that draws us onward. We cannot be satisfied and fulfilled solely on the strength of an historical event. We need room to anticipate a hope for our future. I do not believe that we can find God –or even have God find us– once and be set for life forever. We need new and non-identical repetitions of God discovery on our journey. We cannot be satisfied with a one time God pill because we need a new fix every year, every day, every hour.
My suspicion is that the talk about God being all you need is a thinly disguised religious veneer for a crass individualism that tells us we need to be self-sufficient. The fact is that while God may be all you ever need, you will never have enough of God because you will never be big enough to carry enough of God. So this Advent season we anticipate a commemoration, but we also anticipate a new visitation. Dare we anticipate not only a visitation, but a new experience of an incarnation? I am not suggesting that God will take on flesh again in exactly the same way he did 2000 years ago, but do we not anticipate that Christmas will happen again in our time? Are we just looking back at Christmas past or are we also looking forward to Christmas again? And what does it mean to look forward to Christmas again?
Let’s take another look at what Jesus said. “Everyone who drinks this water will get thirsty again and again. Anyone who drinks the water I give will never thirst—not ever. The water I give will be an artesian spring within, gushing fountains of endless life.” The water He gives, he said, would be an artesian spring within, gushing fountains of endless life. This is not drink once and be forever satisfied. This is start drinking and you can never stop because the water keeps gushing. This is not a pill to make you feel alive, this is life that makes you be alive. God did not merely become flesh for a short visit so we could remember that He once was here. Jesus took on flesh and blood, not for a short time on earth, but he bears the scars of the crucifixion because He is still God in the flesh.
It is noteworthy that the woman at the well, speaking to the Messiah, yearned for the Messiah. John 4:26-26“The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
There she is, conversing with the Messiah face to face, and wishing Messiah was there to explain everything. How often do we find ourselves knocking on the door of the brothel, looking for God, when He has been walking with us all the way? This Christmas may we celebrate with anticipation, but may we never allow our anticipation to blind us to the Christ who is already here.

Thanksgiving

2008-10-13T11:57:00.000-05:00

What is thanksgiving? What does it mean to be thankful? Are you thankful when you feel thankful? Are you thankful when you think you are thankful? What are you thankful for? What is the most authentic form of thankfulness? Is a conscious thankfulness more thankful than an unconscious or unaware thankfulness? Is the most sincere thankfulness an oblivious appropriate action concerning that for which one would be most grateful if one realized an awareness of an unacknowledged blessing?
I have often been part of a group exercise that has us “counting our blessings”, listing all the things we are thankful for. A lot of common items can be expected to make this list - freedom, family, friends, food, love, churches, good weather, good health, and the list goes on. What strikes me is that some of the things we would be most acutely aware of their absence if they were taken from us are missing from this list. I do not believe I have ever heard anyone in such a setting express gratitude for oxygen, and very seldom does plentiful clean water make the list. It seems clear that oxygen would rate high on our wish list if we suddenly found ourselves deprived of it. Does the fact that we seldom express gratitude for it mean that we are ungrateful wretches? Or is appropriate, if unconscious, utilization of oxygen the most genuine form of gratitude? And if it really came down to a choice, would you choose family or oxygen?
There are many ways to be thankful, but I suspect the most authentic form of thankfulness is not necessarily that which verbally expresses gratitude, though such verbal expression is indubitably an appropriate aspect of thankfulness at some point. The most authentic expression of thankfulness is that which makes appropriate use of that for which one is thankful. Aerobic exercise, for example, is likely a more authentic expression of gratitude for oxygen than is sitting on the front porch, smoking and saying “Thank you, God, for the beautiful fresh air”, though that is a more authentic gratitude than is the self-righteous church-goer who passes by the smoker and can only wish the smoker would gain victory.

Philippians 4:4-9
Colossians 3:12-17
Psalm 107
Romans 1:21
Luke 17:11-19

John 3 in the context of John 1-3

2008-10-06T15:11:00.000-05:00

We all know John’s third chapter. Most every child raised in a religious context memorizes John 3:16 and we know that this is the chapter in which we are told we need to be born again, and we pretty much all know how that happens as well. We have been enlightened beyond poor Nicodemus, who asked disbelievingly Surely a man cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born! But do we really know what John 3 means to tell us? Do we understand how John 3 fits into the narrative that John is painting for us? In this posting I propose a journey of sorts which aims to arrive at John 3 by way of John 1 and 2. I want to pay attention to the way John develops his story and how he gets to Nicodemus’ encounter with Jesus in the third chapter. In doing so I hope we can be reminded of nuances in the born again discourse of John 3 that we could easily miss by reading it as an isolated incident.

John 1:1 In the beginning

echoes Genesis 1:1 and alerts us that John intends to tell a story of (re)creation. There is a story of reality that we have misunderstood and John wishes to shed new light on our current existence with the help of an old story. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... Through Him all things were made In Genesis we find a phrase that is repeated time and again “God said ‘Let there be...’ and there was...” This Word that John is talking about is God’s Word by which all things were created at the origin of all things. It is God’s Word creating all things, and creating life. John goes on to say In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. We had the original light pouring illumination into our lives, but we didn’t get it. We confused all kinds of other things and people (prophets, John the Baptist, religious structures and creeds? etc.,) with the light, but we did not understand the light when it shone on us.

Then The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. God, Yahweh, the one whose name could not be mentioned because the Name was far too holy - this God, this Yahweh, became flesh, became one of us, and lived and walked among us. This is earth-shattering news. The impossible has happened. The Holy, which heretofore had resulted in instantaneous death when not properly respected, has touched the mundane, has lived with us, and walked with us, and shared food and drink with us, and we live to tell the story. What can this mean? This introduction gives us the foundation of John’s gospel.

John’s first stories make it clear that everything has changed. John the Baptist is asked if he is the Christ, and he says no. He is just a nameless voice in the wasteland crying out for the way of the Lord to be prepared. Expectations are not met. The one who looks like he might be the Messiah is not the One. In fact, He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me. Things are turned around. The one who comes later is first. The one who we think looks like the Christ is a nameless voice in a wasteland, while the true Christ is ignored, until He can be ignored no longer, then He will be crucified.

Impetuous Simon who bends with every breeze, the one who makes sure that when he gets anything into his head he gets it out into the open quickly, before he has a chance to think better of it, is renamed Peter, which means Rock. What is more dangerous than a Rock careening wildly about, ricocheting back and forth with complete unpredictability? And yet Jesus later says “On this Rock I will build my church”. Nathanael says Nazareth! Can anything good come from there? John intends to show us that the only hope of the entire world comes from Nazareth.

When Jesus is calling his disciples he tells them I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels if God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. This quotation recalls Jacob’s experience when he is running for his life from his brother’s justice. To this point in Jacob’s story we have not seen him do anything but lie and cheat, with the complicity of his mother, and now his brother has vowed to kill him. Now Jacob may be a liar and a cheat, but he is no fool, so he hightails it out of there, finds a place to sleep with only a pillow for a stone. I think I’d have nightmares, too, if I had a stone for a pillow, but Jacob’s dream really puts the fear of God in him. He sees a stairway that rests on earth and reaches into heaven. Yahweh stands above it, and angels are going up and down the ladder. Now remember, Jacob does not know Jesus. For all of the human desires to know God and be like God, the gods are also dangerous, and best kept at a safe distance. It is good to have God on your side, but it is also good to keep a safe distance from God lest God turn and consume you (Dt 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God). And Jacob has reason to worry about a holy God since he is, after all, running for his life because of his cheating ways. In his dream God promises to follow him where ever he goes. Is that a promise or a threat? When Jacob wakes up he is thoroughly afraid, saying “God is here and I had no idea! This is none other than the house of God. This is the gate of heaven!” He makes an altar of his pillow stone, and then he magnanimously promises God that if God does go with him on his journey, and brings him back to his father’s house safely, he will give God 1/10 of all that God gives him. That is a wonderful thing to hear from a cheat. I am sure God was thrilled.

So why does Jesus make reference to this story? What is so significant about Jacob’s ladder? It is about who Yahweh is, and where Yahweh is to be found. For Jacob the ladder represented a place where Earth and Yahweh connected, and it was an awesome place, a frightening place. It was a place one did best to make tracks away from. It might be a good place for making deals with a Deity, but it was not a good place to live.

Jesus, the Word become flesh, tells us that he is the ladder. The Word become flesh and making his dwelling among us means that all of life has become sacred. The Holy touching the mundane does not profane the Holy. It sanctifies the mundane. So now everywhere is God’s place, and since God makes his dwelling among us, there is no special place on earth where we must go to connect with God, and there is no place we can go to get away from God. Does that make a difference in our theology?

Two more stories before we get to John 3. First, Jesus goes to a wedding party and turns water into wine. Fine wine. Not just any wine, Jesus makes the best wine, and then wastes it on those who have already had too much to drink and are unable to appreciate the vintage.

The other story is the only story in which Jesus becomes rambunctiously troublesome. He walks about in the temple, sees merchants taking unfair advantage of his beloved sheep, and (much to my pacifist non-violent consternation) he braids a whip to drive them out of his Father’s house. The bawling and the bleating and the hollering that ensued as animals and vendors were driven out of the temple area must have been a thing to behold. How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market! How dare you use my Father’s house as a place where you turn things to your own advantage? It’s a good thing we never do that, right?

Now we come to John 3.

Nicodemus is a man of the Pharisees and he comes to Jesus by night. He enunciates a recognition of Jesus a teacher who comes from God, a recognition that Nicodemus premises on the miracles that Jesus has been doing. Jesus responds I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Why? What does this response mean? Why does Jesus mention the kingdom of God? Nicodemus question is “What do you mean ‘born again’?”

Jesus responds I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

Water and the Spirit may recall John’s baptism of water for repentance, and John’s statement that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit (1:33). Repentance is an important part of a changed life, but repentance alone will not change a life. For a life to be radically changed requires something more. It could be argued that the form of genuine repentance that is part of a radical life change is also possible only on the basis of an act of God such as Jesus indicates by everyone born of the Spirit. Water and Spirit are then not two different events, but a singular event with several integral component aspects. To be born of flesh and Spirit means one has life that is more than just physical life. “Born from above” may be a better translation than is “born again”. This is insinuated by Jesus’ analogy of the wind. We don’t know where the wind comes from, or where it is going, but we know it is. We recognize its effects, and we know how to read the signs, and we know when the wind is blowing, even if we know neither its origin nor its end.

In a similar way, the one who is born again, or born from above, is one who knows how to read the signs of our mundane world with a frame of reference that is rooted in the Holy. Life is not just a body with functional lungs and a beating heart, it is a gift of God. Life is not just an ongoing physical process, it is a miracle that gives evidence that God is here. We neither determine the genesis and the processes of life, nor can we adequately define it. We may not know when life begins, and are not always certain when it ends, but as long as life is, we know God is here. We cannot always be certain what constitutes a reading of mundane life that is rooted in the Holy, but we know there is such a thing, and we yearn to explore it more fully, to experience it more vitally, and we begin to recognize that the experience of the Holy is itself a taste of the eternal life, the gift which is God sending His One and Only Son.

We do not define the new birth, and we do not determine how it functions. The new birth is an act of God, and it passes understanding. We see its effects, and we should learn to recognize its signs, but we should not become unduly distracted by how well it accommodates itself to our accustomed definitions. We should celebrate the new life where ever we see it, and when we do so we will begin to appreciate it enough to look for it in unexpected places. Who knows, if we really get carried away with this we might even find ourselves hob-nobbing with prostitutes and tax collectors. It’s happened before.

Romans Gospel - Part V

2008-09-13T14:56:00.000-05:00

Paul’s intentions in Romans 11 are hotly debated. A pivotal question is the relationship between Israel and the church. Are God’s intentions for Israel relayed to the church? Or do God’s promises to Israel remain Israel’s alone?

In the larger context of Paul’s writing it seems clear that the promises made to Israel are not founded merely on natural inheritance. Paul has already said “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’ In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring” (9:6-8). Romans 11 is about a remnant within Israel who do go beyond the parameters of their religion to find God, and he cites himself as an example (11:1). This is because of God’s sovereign grace by which our opportunities are not simply limited by our choices, but by God’s grace. God’s grace does not dictate our choices, but it does not easily allow our selfish choices to obstruct the flow of God’s blessing into our lives. When Elijah complained that he was the only one in Israel who remained faithful to Yahweh he was told there were 7000 others who had not bowed to Baal, and God would not facilely categorize those along with the children who continued to rebel. We have all rebelled and all deserve the same judgement of wrath, but because of the grace of God we find ourselves basking in God’s favor.

The original context of Paul’s quotes again makes it clear that the blindness and deafness that Paul attributes to Israel (11:8f) was not the result of God’s choosing. The tone of Deuteronomy (29:4) and Isaiah (29:10) is that in spite of all God has done to show Israel a better way God has not yet gotten through to their stubborn hearts and minds to turn them from their selfish ways.

Even in the face of the continued rebellion of the people of Israel Paul says they are even now not beyond hope. Yahweh still stands ready to redeem those who will come to Him for salvation. The failure of Israel to be the instrument that channels God’s blessing to the nations results in God’s direct action to do so. This should generate a certain jealousy among the Israelites that prompts them to return to the God who had first called them to be the intermediaries of that blessing. How much richer would the entire world be if the objects of God’s mercy and the channels of that mercy could be united in their appreciation of the bounty of that salvation! Given the way that trouble in the Middle East reverberates around the globe it takes no great imagination to understand how such unity could multiply the dividends of such peace and harmony.

This promising and encouraging discourse is followed by stern warnings regarding presumptuousness in one’s evaluation of one’s position in relation to God. If those who were God’s original choice to be the instruments of His blessing can find themselves under a judgement of wrath by the God whom they claim as their special benefactor, then we must never presume to be beyond that risk ourselves. It is always only by grace that we stand in God’s favor. The moment we begin to find satisfaction in our own structures for salvation our security is fatally compromised. Our only hope is God’s grace.

In fact, it is because of God’s grace that all people are bound over to disobedience (along with Adam), so that now God can have mercy on all people (because of the work of Christ 11:32). The enormity of this grace on God’s part calls forth the only available response from Paul - a doxology of thanks and praise to God whose salvation is beyond understanding. If our soteriology does not evoke the same response from us then we miss the point.

In view of this magnificent salvation Paul tells us that offering our bodies as a living sacrifice to the God who offered Himself as our sacrifice is eminently reasonable, and it is our spiritual act of worship. Offering our bodies is a spiritual act of worship. How this is done is fleshed out in the rest of Romans. It is done by living a life consumed by an authentic love that permeates our actions in our communities with our neighbours, with political authorities, and in our communities of faith when we run into fundamental disagreements regarding right and wrong. In the latter Paul enjoins a profound integrity that neither runs roughshod over the convictions and dearly held opinions of others, nor allows one’s own values to be facilely disregarded.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable his judgments,

and his paths beyond tracing out!

“Who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counselor?”

“Who has ever given to God,

that God should repay him?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Romans Gospel - Part IV

2008-08-31T19:11:00.001-05:00

This salvation that only God can provide is precisely what Paul wishes for Israel, God’s chosen people. Paul had no doubts regarding the zeal of his people, but their zeal was getting in the way of their salvation, rather than facilitating a salvation. Had they been willing to submit to God’s righteousness rather than being set on achieving their own they could have realized everything they hoped to achieve in their religious observation of the law, and more, in Christ.
Paul recalls Moses’ words that those who keep the law will live. The context in Leviticus gives this the sense that those who keep the law will realize an enhanced quality of life, as well as a likelihood of a longer and better life. It is noteworthy that this notion is repeated no less than three times in Ezekiel 20, when God recounts how He has dealt with Israel over the generations of their rebelliousness. God’s sentiments in Ezekiel 20 (and throughout the prophets’ warnings and admonitions) resonate in Paul’s words here regarding Israel’s choices as over against God’s choices. God chose Israel to be an instrument of God’s grace to the world. God’s desire was to bless Israel, and to bless the whole world through Israel. Israel repeatedly refused to obey. Israel repeatedly rebelled, and brought well-deserved curses on themselves and their children, but just as repeatedly God wooed them again, not because of Israel, but for the sake of God’s own name He restored them again, and instructed them again, only to have them rebel again. Were it not for God’s choices in favor of the human race whom He loves self-sacrificially we, like Israel, could only be cursed. Because of God’s grace we, like Israel, are not irretrievably cursed, in spite of our sinfulness, but we are given new life and a call to serve our Maker and Saviour. When we respond in obedience we enjoy the blessings of the salvation God freely provides for all. When we stubbornly insist on our own way we break the Father’s heart and eschew opportunities that cannot be realized by any other means then out of the incredible grace of God.
The righteousness that is by faith has already been introduced in the Old Covenant, as Paul reminds us. The context of his quote is the culmination of an extensive recapitulation of the covenant (Deuteronomy literally means second law). It is a long and detailed set of instructions for how to live, how to worship, and how to live as God’s children in God’s world. It is indeed an intimidating instruction manual and the children of Israel could be excused for saying “This is all far too much!! How can we ever hope to observe all of these laws? Who will go to the distance required to ensure we keep all of this in mind and walk in perfect obedience to this formidable book of the law?” To this concern God’s reply is that this law is neither too much nor too strange. All that is really required is the law of the heart that loves God with an integrity that is displayed in the life one lives in God’s world and with God’s children. That is the message that Paul was proclaiming. If you hold God in your heart, if you know Jesus as Yahweh and live the life of God in your daily walk, you will not be disappointed, even though not everything will be as you wish.
A narrow evangelicalism that sees Paul as referring only to a salvation consciously recognized as being in Jesus Christ, through a deliberate naming of Jesus Christ, is not warranted, as is clearly indicated in Paul’s quotes from the Old Testament. These passages could not refer to an explicit message of Jesus Christ, though they do anticipate that gospel in a prophetic sense. Paul recounts passages that revel in those who bring good news, but not all who hear the good news believe what they hear. In disbelief that anyone could hear the good news and reject it Paul asks “Surely, they have never heard, have they?” and his response is “Indeed they have”, again supported with scripture, this time from the well-known words of David: “Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Paul’s intent is clearly not to limit the hearing to those who hear the name of Jesus, but it includes all who hear and see the truth of God expressed in God’s creation. It is impossible not to recall that this is how Paul begins his letter to the Romans (1:19, 20) “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” It is a monumental error to understand Paul’s reference to the name of Jesus to be a technical reference that ultimately underwrites a name and claim it prosperity gospel. What Paul has in mind is not only a technical naming of Jesus Christ, but a recognition of Jesus Christ, and the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ, through the work of God in His Person and in His creation. Indeed, in the time of Israel, as in the time of Jesus Christ, and in our own time, it is not those who speak loudest and most explicitly about God who are necessarily those who honor Him most. It is frequently those who quietly go about their lives looking only to do the right thing who are the ones who walk closest to God though they are unaware of it. “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” (10:20f quoting Isaiah 65:1f). Evidently God’s invitations are not always cherished, and His call is not always obeyed. Israel did not walk in the ways God laid out for them, in spite of His pointed instructions, and in utter disregard for His pleading invitations. God did not sovereignly determine their actions, though He did reserve the right to be gracious to those who did not merit such favor. That is the God we see in the Old Testament, and that is the God who deigns to take on creatureliness in order to show us His indomitable love.

Romans Gospel - Part III

2008-07-19T22:16:00.000-05:00

Romans 9 is Paul’s review of Jewish history, and is too often misunderstood because it is not read as being of a piece with Paul’s experience of his own Jewishness. His people are a chosen people, and his heart is broken at their cavalier recklessness and presumption regarding their favored status. He could wish himself accursed for the sake of his people (9:3). All the benefits of being God’s chosen people - God’s adopted children, no less - the covenants, the temple, and the promises were their’s for the taking, but they despised their birthright, and forfeited many of the blessings of being chosen. It was not God who broke His promise, but the children who blocked the fulfillment of the promises in their experience. As it turned out it was those who sought the God who made the promises who were reckoned as His chosen children (9:8). This is evident in the inclusion in the Messianic line of several people who were not descendants of Abraham. These people were welcomed into the family of the chosen on the strength of their choice to cast their lot in with the Israelites. Their inclusion is not based on the merits of their choice though their choices are pivotal, but on the merits of God’s promise.
Abraham had two sons, but not all of the sons are included as the children of Israel (9:6). Abraham messed that up with his machinations intended to help God fulfill His promise. When that caused familial squabbles Abraham had to send Ishmael and his mother away. Hence God is reduced to giving Abraham children as numerous as the stars in the heavens, or the sand on the seashore, through one solitary son, but God does not give up on His own promise. He told Abraham he would be blessed and He will bless Abraham, and the world through his family.
Both of Isaac’s children turn out to be shysters and hooligans. The younger brother cheats the elder out of his birthright and the blessing, and the elder bother vows to kill the younger for his shenanigans. The younger brother flees for his life and trades cheats with his uncle for 14 years. There is still no meritorious material for making a family who will be a channel of blessing for the world, but still, God does not give up. He will bless the world through Abraham, and since there is no obvious candidate based on honorable conduct, God chooses the younger to emphasize that his blessing falls undeserving on all who will submit to His blessing. God’s purpose in choosing the Israelites as a vessel of blessing for the world will stand, even though He must repeatedly covenant to do so through reluctant vessels (9:11f in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls).
Throughout the rest of the chapter Paul emphasizes that God’s choices are always in our favor.
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (9:15) “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one” and “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” (9:25, 26)
God’s choices are not to bless some and damn others. God’s choices are always to have mercy and compassion, even when there is no justification for such. God’s choices are always to include as many as will heed His call among those whom He calls His chosen people. God’s choices are always good news for all people. Left to our own ways we would quickly bring on ourselves the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (9:29), but because God chooses otherwise we have the opportunity to make choices we do not deserve to have, and we are inundated with blessings we do not merit. When we would justly be the objects of His wrath He is patient and continues to call (9:22-24). Thanks be to God!!
God gave Pharaoh an opportunity to be part of his redemption plan for His children (9:17). Pharaoh chose to work against God’s purposes and suffered for it, but God continued to work out his plan for the redemption of His children. Pharaoh would not be unchanged in this experience. He would come out the other side of this experience a changed man, battle hardened, but whether that hardening would be for good or evil would depend in large measure on how he chose to respond to the opportunity God sent his way.
Paul continues with quotes from the prophets in which God warns His chosen children that their ways constantly lead them to ruin, but he also tells them that He will, because of His grace and mercy, institute remedies far beyond what their imagination could conjure in order to work salvation for them. Those who seek a salvation which they control will not find it. Those who go about their life not worrying about their salvation will realize a salvation that only God could provide.

Paul's Romans Gospel - Part II

2008-06-13T22:14:00.000-05:00

Romans 4 is an important key to the rest of the book. Paul expounds at length on Abraham’s experience of justification by faith apart from works. He also calls Abraham “the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (4:12). Abraham is the father of those who live their faith. Faith is not only a confession, it is a way of life.
What is crystal clear in Paul ’s exposition is that the favored status of Abraham and his descendants rested not on their keeping of the law, but on the promise. “It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, ... Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (4:13-16).
In Galatians Paul premises the covenant on the promise even more explicitly. “What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise” (Gal 3:17-18). The covenant which Paul is here extending to all those who follow in the footsteps of Abraham is based not on the Law or law-keeping, but on the Promise made by God with no consideration whatsoever for any worthy action on the part of Abraham and his descendants. This is not to say there were no expectations of Abraham and the Israelites. The iterations of the covenants are laced with entreaties to obey God and walk in His ways (Deut 6), and some of the benefits of the covenant were linked to obedience (Lev 26, Deut 28), but the promise was extended solely by the grace of God.
Then Paul links the righteousness attributed to Abraham with the righteousness attributed to us who believe in Jesus (4:24). We are reconciled without regard to our merit by the death of Christ who died for the ungodly, for us who are sinners, and how much more shall we be saved through the resurrection life of Christ! (5:9,10). Paul frequently gets side-tracked in his enthusiasm. He begins exultantly “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (5:12) and then he digresses for a while “for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come” (5:13-14). Evidently he was going to draw a comparison (indicated by the use of “just as”) that got lost. Nevertheless, he gets back on track, and the comparison turns out to be not only a simple comparison, but a comparison of superlative. “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” (5:15-17). While there is a comparison in how we all sinned in Adam, and are all made righteous in Jesus, the comparison is not strictly equal. The gift is far greater than the trespass. “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” The parallelism in terminology makes it clear that the many who died in Adam are superlatively the recipients of the grace and gift of God through Jesus Christ! Lest there be any misunderstanding Paul reiterates “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (5:18). If one trespass brought death for all, Christ’s one act of righteousness superlatively brings life for all. Again, to emphasize “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (5:19). The parallelism is unmistakable - those who sinned in Adam are restored in Jesus. There is no hint here of any difference in the extent of the curse in Adam and the extent of the blessing in Christ. The only difference Paul allows is that whatever happened in Adam is more than reversed in Christ.
However, lest anyone mistake this as a free ticket to sin more so that grace would also increase, Paul emphatically declares “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (6:1-4). We should consider ourselves dead to sin, because that is what the gift means. We have been given an incredible gift but we must beware squandering this gift by returning to our old ways for “the wages of sin is death” (6:23). That Paul is under no illusion about the reality of the struggles we continue to face is reflected in his confession “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (7:15-25). Paul experienced excruciating disappointments in his inability to live according to his deepest desires to do good, and found himself time and again doing the very things he did not want to do. Paul was a saint, but he was a real saint who lived a real life engaged in the daily struggle to live the life of Christ in his flesh.
Paul continues with the life we live through the Spirit. It is an incredible opportunity, but it is also an obligation (8:12). It is something that is given to us, but it is also something we must choose, not just by an intellectual assent, but also by a way of life (8:13). Our choice is not simply a decision, it is a life. We, and all of creation, waits in eager expectation for liberation from our bondage to decay (8:19-20). And we know that God is always working for our good (8:28). In fact, God does everything required for us, and with God on our side, it matters not who is against us (8:29-32). We are God’s, and nothing can ever separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (8:37-39).

Paul's Romans Gospel - Part I

2008-06-03T21:24:00.000-05:00

The Gospel of Romans

I have been issued a challenge by some of my Reformed friends to explain certain passages that they take to be a clear endorsement of their theology. I want to make clear at the outset that I have great respect for many Reformed thinkers, and certain aspects of Reformed theology. Some of what I value most of my own journey of faith and education has occurred as a beneficiary of Reformed mentors, and for what I have learned from them I am eternally grateful. Hence, I am well aware that Reformed theology is a broad stream, and my quarrel is not with Reformed theology per se. I do, however, see certain formulations of Reformed theology as ignoring the clear statements and the simple message of scripture in several very important ways. Some of those issues will become clear to those who are acquainted with Reformed theology. For those who are not familiar with Reformed theology, and especially for those who find such disagreements unsettling and intimidating, I invite you to read on. This will not be a dense theological treatise (though some will certainly consider much of what I say to be "dense" in a pejorative sense). I read Romans as a beautiful and exciting reflection on the salvation we are gifted in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. I invite you to journey with me, and to be drawn to worship again, as we reflect on our so great salvation.
The challenge was specifically with reference to Romans 9 and 10, but it is my considered opinion that these chapters must be understood in the context of Romans as a whole, as well as Paul's thought as a devout and learned member of God's chosen people. For this reason this will be a unworthy skimming of the whole of Romans.
Paul’s letter to the Romans is commonly recognized as a theologically dense piece of work. The readings of his theology are almost as abundant as are the commentators. One critical factor that is easily overlooked in current popular readings is the integral connection to Israel’s history that is formative for Paul’s writing. Paul lived and breathed Judaism, which is not only a theology but also a history. However his earlier understanding of Judaism was radically transformed by an unexpected encounter with Yahweh.
Large volumes have been written in an attempt to explicate Paul’s theology as laid out in Romans. I will not attempt do justice to his theology here, but I want to show how an awareness of the context of Paul’s thought has significant ramifications for an understanding of some very specific aspects of his theology. The first rule of scripture reading is to let scripture speak, so we will note some phrases that seem to be a significant departure from orthodox Christian theology. In those instances we will do our best to take Paul at his word, and save the theologizing for later.

Paul identifies himself as an apostle sent to “call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (1:5). Those whom Paul addresses are “among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6). Paul is “not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes . . . . For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by his faith” (1:16-17).
Then Paul outlines why the wrath of God against godlessness is being revealed. The root of this godlessness turns out to be a refusal to recognize some of the basic knowledge about God that is clearly shown in creation (1:19,20). After nearly whipping the reader into a frenzy over the degradation and debauchery of these godless infidels, Paul turns the tables on the reader, saying “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (2:1). Paul makes it abundantly clear that everyone shares the same judgement for failing to adequate recognize God’s holiness and our sinfulness. Those who do not repent will all have to face the wrath of God’s judgement (2:5).
Then he makes some startling statements: “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’ To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (2:6-7). And “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (2:13). Paul says both that righteousness is by faith from first to last and that the declaration of righteousness and the reward of eternal life are based on what is done, not only what is heard. However, the ensuing passage indicates that keeping the law is good, but not enough. In fact, “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (3:20). We are tempted to complain “Come on, Paul. Make up your mind!!” He says both that “it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” and that ““no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.” He also says that eternal life is a reward for those who seek glory, honor, and immortality by persistence in doing good. Those are troublesome statements for people who have always been taught that salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). The problem is only exacerbated by the knowledge that it is the same Paul who makes all of these statements. I propose to leave these statements in tension while we go on to hear more of Paul's thought. It may be that we will learn how to resolve these statements, but in any case, pre-understanding is both necessary and detrimental to understanding. In order to really hear Paul we need to avoid knowing what he is saying before he says it. Let’s listen some more.
Paul then makes his well-known statement that most children who go to Sunday School learn early. “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (3:23-24). Paul says all have sinned, and there is no limiting qualification on who is justified. The basis of justification is God’s grace. Immediately following Paul again says that justification happens by faith in Jesus, apart from works (3:26,28,30).

What have we forgotten?

2008-05-23T22:49:00.000-05:00

I heard Alan Hirsch speak at a church planting congress in Ottawa last year. It was an incredible experience. His talks indicated a passion for God and the church that was refreshing. He has written The Forgotten Ways as an exploration of the essence of the church as the missio Dei.
I came across an interview with Alan Hirsch done by Christianity Today. He has some helpfully provocative things to say regarding small groups and their relation to the church.
He endorses the Evangelical Manifesto, which is an attempt to reclaim the good Evangelical name from the excesses with which it has become associated.
I love what Alan Hirsch brings to the evangelical world. He is a breath of fresh air with his willingness to take a critical look at where we are and how we got here, and then where we should be and how to get there. I am often nervous when I hear nostalgic comments about the apostolic church, but he uses the term in its original sense of being people sent into the world with the good news (evangel) of Jesus the Christ. Theology is an important part of this good news, but we have too often made our particular version of theology the core of the gospel, when the core must always be Jesus Christ.

The Shack

2008-04-01T22:27:00.001-05:00

I am intrigued by the commotion over a novel approach to who God is and how She relates to the world and its people. In this blog I will not focus on The Shack and legitimacy of the provocative suggestions Young makes regarding the nature of God. I am here more interested in the background reasons for the furor that this book has caused.
Human beings are self-centered creatures whose view of the world tends to presume themselves to be autonomous deities in their own little universe, rather than as creatures accountable to a higher God. This view is not explicit, but implicit, which means that people will seldom enunciate this view, but this paradigm is operative in their function. They operate as though they were autonomous deities.
Another way of talking about this is to say that we all operate with certain frameworks in place. These frameworks are what allows us to make sense of our world, but we seldom pay any attention to the frameworks that structure our understanding of our world. When you wear rose-colored glasses your outlook is always rosy, but in a very short time you become oblivious to, and unaware of, the rose-colored glasses you wear. This problem is only exacerbated when all your friends wear the same shades.
However, when you meet someone who is wearing blue shades you encounter a worldview that presents a jarring contrast to the world you thought you knew. It is this stark contrast which alerts you to the rosy tint which your own framework imposed onto your view of your world, and genuine dialogue with your blue-hued friend shows you a whole new way of looking at your world. If you are willing to really listen to your new friend you are forced to recognize that the world is not only as you had understood it to be. Your world changes right before your eyes, because the way you look at your world has changed. Your experience is of a world that has radically changed, and as you allow new insights to change and correct the way you operate in your world, your world is radically altered.
This is both the promise and the threat of a novel approach portrayed in The Shack. We have read the Bible for many years, and we know what the Bible says. We know what it tells us about God. We know who God is because we know what the Bible tells us. It never occurs to us that we have been reading the Bible through a particular lens. We are completely oblivious to the ways in which these lenses have colored the way we see God described in the Bible. Our first reaction when someone talks about God in ways other than what we are used to is to cry “Heresy!!” We have come to believe devoutly that any characterization of God other than what we read in the Bible is idolatry, and any such other image presents the most sinister threat to our eternal well-being.
Young presents an alternative, not to biblical truth, but to our reading of biblical truth. The fact that his reading of biblical truth is different from ours does not mean that his reading, however provocative, runs contrary to biblical truth. That evaluation requires that we listen carefully to what he is saying, and become willing to get radical with our evaluation of how our own lenses have always colored our own reading of biblical truth.
In the final end, I believe that the allure of Young’s reading rests not merely on the merits of its own provocative suggestions of who God is, but it derives its strength primarily from the promise contained in its potential to broaden our understanding of biblical truth. It is powerfully appealing not because it presents an alternative to biblical truth, but because it presents a larger vision of biblical truth than our frameworks have allowed us to see. To the extent that we are comfortable with the truth we know and are resistant to larger truth, this is diabolically threatening. On the other hand, if we are willing to have an encounter with the God Who Is, beyond our feeble understanding of God as limited by our knowledge, such an alternative carries profound promise. It is the difference between having a god we can hold, or having a God who holds us. When we finally do realize that we can never hold God, it is in fact more comforting to know that it is God who holds us. This realization both relativizes previous frameworks, and it becomes a framework that facilitates a broader and deeper recognition of the God Who Is that must itself be relativized if it is not to become a similarly restricting framework as well as an enabling framework. That God will forever elude our confident grasp and exceed our anemic frameworks is our only hope, not a most threatening heresy. Thanks be to God!!

Good Friday

2008-03-22T14:02:00.000-05:00

Why do we call it Good Friday? I know it is good news for us in retrospect, but it certainly was not a good day for Jesus. And how did the cross, Rome’s symbol of the most ignominious defeat, get turned into the symbol of a victorious Christendom that ruled the western world for two millenia? There seems to be some odd reversal going on here, a paradigm shift of stupendous proportions.
Paul said as much when he told us that Jesus cancelled the written code by nailing it to the cross, and he made a spectacle of powers and authorities, triumphing over them by the cross (Col 2:14,15). What looked to be happening was the polar opposite of what actually transpired.
However, it is precisely this radical reversal of the obvious that is one of the primary reasons for keeping the cross front and center in all Christian theology and practice. (Please understand I am here addressing the place of the cross in our thought, not the place of the cross (and all it represents) in itself. I hope to make clear that the significance of the cross as an expression of the God who relentlessly pursues his children exceeds our grasp.) It is the cross that proscribes our becoming complacent in our theology and practice. It is the profound depth of meaning in the cross that remains a constant challenge to thought and life.
When Mary and I were returning from the obligatory Good Friday morning service we were talking about Jesus’ statement on the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” There has been extensive discussion about the precise meaning of this phrase, and I do not propose to answer the question here, I simply wish to attempt a response that takes note of some of the issues which must be considered in any proposed answer, if any such thing as an answer is even possible.
Interpreting this phrase to indicate that the Father turns his back on his Son, as is often done, is illegitimate on two counts. In the first place, the word Jesus uses means God, not Father. Secondly, Christian theology devoutly holds that Jesus was fully divine and fully human, and that he is so eternally from the Incarnation. Hence this heart-rending lament means neither that the Father turned his back on his Son, and it cannot mean that Jesus’ divinity was diminished in this experience.
I read this statement as an expression of the profound cataclysmic and catastrophic experience of the Author of Life tasting death; of the Holy One becoming sin; and –thanks be to God– of final defeat becoming an eternal victory. We can grasp neither the holiness of God, nor the onerous repugnance of sin, how can we hope understand their intersection? We know not the meaning of life and cannot understand the significance of death, how can we hope to make sense of the earth-shattering magnitude of the clash that transpires when Life meets death face to face?
I cannot hope to adequately understand the significance of the cross for my thought and life, but I am beginning to understand the exigence of keeping the cross front and center in all my reflections about life and relationships. The cross reminds me of who I am, and it reminds me that I need a God who loves me immeasurably more than my paltry awareness of my need for love. The cross reminds me that the way to life is through death, and that things are seldom as they appear. The cross reminds me that I and every one of my fellow human beings stands radically equal before God, and that failure to extend prodigal grace to others is the greatest obstacle to my own experience of the grace I so desperately need for my own salvation. The cross tells me that even as I do not begin to understand the enormity of my sin and the terrifying specter of death as separation from God, so I catch but the faintest glimmerings of the promise contained in the hope of salvation and life with God here and now, as well as forever, because of the cross.
Thanks be to God!!

Check out my ego!

2008-03-19T19:40:00.000-05:00

I don't really mean that, but it just seems so egotistical to blog, putting something out there for the world to read, as if anyone on the world would care enough to read it.
I think my only justification for blogging at all is that it is a form of discipline in which I am the main (and likely the only) benefactor. I tend to think more carefully when I translate my thoughts into written word.
The other benefit of blogging is the opportunity afforded for conversation and stimulation, but that requires a community, preferably a diverse yet respectful community. Those are a rarity in cyber-space, it seems to me. It it tough to find a blog that portrays either of those qualities, it is almost impossible to have a blog that conveys both. As to community, I return to my earlier query: Why would any one read my blog? I am not even sure I will.
My reticence in blogging is not due to any lack of material. My fascination with the why's and wherefore's of all things philosophical or theological (Ok, not all things, let's go with many things) means there are almost innumerable topics I could reflect upon, but again, why blog about these in a public sphere? Who cares what I think? Certainly not my kids, not always my spouse, some of my friends sometimes, maybe, but I have not told any friends about this blog, so how would they know to check it, even if they did care?
Ok, that's enough of indulging in angst and retro-hubris. Either I blog or I don't. Right now it's not.

Welcome

2008-01-16T17:35:00.000-06:00

Hi,
Thanks for dropping by.