Search

Bo Sanders: Public Theology

updating & innovating for today

Open Search
Category

Jesus

>Friday Follow up: Mashing Christmas into Easter

>Just a couple of reflections on this week’s conversations, posts, and emails:

1) The biggest response was to the idea that “Christmas reminds of this every year: live in the place, speak the language, love the people, and show the way.  It’s called incarnation and it is how God works in the world.” I am always intrigued by what draws the most responses and this one really got me thinking. I wrote my Master Thesis on this topic and so it is an everyday aspect of my thought life… but it dawned on me that I have not said or done much here with the idea.  I will have to build this into more of the posts down the road – since it is the thing that I care the most about in real life!

2) Mashing things together is a real problem.  several examples surfaced this week after the Pod was recorded.
– Like saying “worship” and meaning what happens on Sunday morning when we are together and singing.  That is such a shallow definition of worship.
 Worship is a whole life response to God’s gracious love and lordship.  Trees worship on Tuesday nights as much as I do when I sing on Sunday morning. A nursing baby worships in the early hours of morning with her mother – who is also worshipping in the same act of offering. The mechanic worships when he does an honest estimate for a transmission repair.

Thank God for honest mechanics and nursing mothers and trees as the grow toward heaven.

– When we say things like  “God showed up”… I know what we are after but,  it is such a bad understanding!  God was already there and at work long before you showed up , in fact – it might be WHY you showed up.  God was calling.  SO to say that we did this, sang this, prayed this and then God showed up is bad language and worse theology.

3) Incarnation is HOW god works.  I agree with John Cobb when he says : I think that is it a BAD understanding of power to say that God does whatever he wants in the world and however it is is how God wanted it. 

  Saying that the world is the way that God wants it is not true.  God is not that kind of powerful.. God is a different kind of powerful. I say that God is weak. Some people do not like that I say that.
Some say that God self-limits (I get what they are doing with that).
Some say that God is persuasive rather than coercive (I agree).
Others say that God is sovereign like a King is sovereign – unable to control every move and decision of every member of their Kingdom… but in charge of it (I like this).
Still others say that God is storing up his judgment for the End (I worry that they might be disapointed with how gracious God is in the end).

However you come at this, I think you have to admit three things:
a) God does not do whatever God wants
b) The world is not the way that God wants it
c) as Christians, we should look to Jesus as our model when we look at God’s methods

4) This is why I keep saying that it is almost as if Jesus did not come!  When Christian ministers, theologians and lay people talk about power or love – it is almost as if this was done without reading the Gospels of Jesus Christ.  Most of the definitions are about some ancient conception of God or some philosophical assertion about God – but what they clearly are NOT, is reflective of the revelation of God in Jesus.

I know that it is probably too cynical to say that Jesus came into a world where the Powerful reigned, he presented a vision of humility, and then the Powerful co-opted Jesus and went back to being Powerful only now it is in Jesus name.

I look at organized religion and think to myself “it is almost as if Jesus never came”… when you look at Priest centered – Temple worship and then Roman power structures, it is tough to see sometimes what difference Jesus makes.

Sure – the TOPICS are changed and the SUBJECT is different, but the motives, the methods and the models are almost unchanged… but like I said , that is too cynical.

OK  until next Tuesday – I hope that you have a wonderful weekend and I pray that you are safe in your travels this Holiday season!

0

>Friday Follow-up: Mary & Jesus

>Harold posted an amazing thought (from Wendell Berry) on the Facebook discussion and I wanted to follow up on it.

I had asked: If someone came out with the Magnificat today, do you think that it would be disregarded as a John Lennon style “Imagine” daydream, or dismissed as socialist utopian propaganda, or even disparaged as a Liberal agenda?

Harold responded:  I was reading “The Burden of the Gospels,” by Wendell Berry the other day ( http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3248 ), and he put forth a similar, thought-provoking question:

“If you bad been living in Jesus’ time and had heard him teaching, would you have been one of his followers?

To be an honest taker of this test, I think you have to try to forget that you have read the Gospels and that Jesus has been a “big name” for 2,000 years. You have to imagine instead that you are walking past the local courthouse and you come upon a crowd listening to a man named Joe Green or Green Joe, depending on judgments whispered among the listeners on the fringe. You too stop to listen, and you soon realize that Joe Green is saying something utterly scandalous, utterly unexpectable from the premises of modern society. He is saying:

“Don’t resist evil. If somebody slaps your right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too. Love your enemies. When people curse you, you must bless them. When people hate you, you must treat them kindly. When people mistrust you, you must pray for them. This is the way you must act if you want to be children of God.” Well, you know how happily that would be received, not only in the White House and the Capitol, but among most of your neighbors. And then suppose this Joe Green looks at you over the heads of the crowd, calls you by name and says, I want to come to dinner at your house.

“I suppose that you, like me, hope very much that you would say, “Come ahead.” But I suppose also that you, like me, had better not be too sure. You will remember that in Jesus’ lifetime even his most intimate friends could hardly be described as overconfident.”

Definitely makes one think.

Joe said: It seems we most often assume we’re one of the people trying to really understand his teachings…but I think we would do well to place ourselves in the shoes of the Pharisees (trying to discredit and disagree at every point) or the Roman guards, looking over the crowd of peasants and trying to determine what to do if they get out-of-hand. I think in subtle ways we often take on one or both of those roles.

I wanted to add two points:  I have heard it said (and I wish that I could remember who said it – I am suspicious that it was Peter Rollins) that we need to be careful when we read a parable to find ourself in the story. If , for instance we are reading the parable of the Good Samaritan and we cast ourself in the role of the Good Samaritan… we are reading it wrong.
    If on the other hand we see ourself in the religious leaders walking by or in the wounded traveler (or god forbid in the robbers who did the harm) then we are hearing what Jesus was saying.
    We have to be mindful of our privileged perspective and remember that the Gospel that Jesus came to preach was good news in a specific direction. (see Luke 4:16-21)

Secondly, I run into this odd line of reasoning with people who Major in Church History. There seem to be a weird attraction to defending people of the past by dismissing any bad behavior as simply “a product of their time” and stating confidently “if you had lived during that era – you would have done exactly the same.”

This line of reasoning seems to fly in the face of a two evidences to the contrary:

A) There were people at that time who did differently and spoke out against the way things were! So apparently it IS possible to have historically deviated from the ‘spirit of the Age’ and actually thought for oneself and followed ones conviction!  (I have a Podcast on this coming out in January called “the Minority Report”)

B) IF you do not hold opinions in opposition to your government, protest agains the economic oppression of your era, or buck the dogmatic stance of your denomination today… then “no” I don’t suppose that you could have been expected to do any different than was done by the majority in any period of history. IF however you exhibit resistance now and demonstrate a prophetic stance in our current era – then I think it is fair to at least entertain the possibility that you MIGHT have done differently had you lived in the past.

The simple fact is that we will never know. It is all speculation – we are not in charge of which era we were born into. However, what we are in charge of is what we stand for and how we counter-culture in our actual era.

6

>Amazed by Mary

>As I go through advent, every year I am amazed again by the faith of Mary. Her confession “may it be unto me as you have said” (Luke 1:38) is breath-taking in its simplicity and profound in it’s content. The place of faith that she must have been coming from astounds me  – and challenges me.

I am especially taken back when I put her within the narrative context of scripture. I don’t know if you have ever thought about, but women don’t fair so well in the Bible on the whole. I’m not even talking about the parts where they are told to  ‘remain silent’ or the ‘submit to your husband’ stuff. I mean the actual characters in the narrative (both in the Hebrew and Christian testaments).

There are a lot of nameless women in the Hebrew Scripture (that’s what we used to call the Old Testament) and it generally does not go too well for them.

There are lots of examples of nameless women: Lots’s wife, Lot’s daughters, Potiphar’s wife, Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34), or the concubine of Judges 19, not to mention the “witch” of Endor (in 1 Samuel 28) . If you took just these examples you would get the picture that women are (in no particular order): powerless, short-sighted, faithless, seductive, deceptive, duplicitous, mischievous, and spiritually dangerous.

Even the women that are named are usually not in positions of power  – though they do fare a little better. Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Bathsheba, and Rahab are named and each plays an important part in God’s plan.

  • Tamar is prostituted by her Father-in-law then almost burned for it (this is Genesis 38 – not to be confused with the later Tamar that is raped by her brother and then despised for it in 2 Samuel 13).
  • Ruth is poor and gleaning crops with her mother-in-law from the edges of fields – a type of welfare system set up by God in scripture.
  • Esther wins a primitive (some would say perverse) form of a beauty contest with the grand prize of entering a harem.
  • Bathsheba gets spied on while she is bathing (all the men were suppose to be out of the city), she is brought into adultery, she becomes pregnant, and her husband (Uriah) is assassinated by the man who committed adultery with her (King David).
  • Rahab is an actual prostitute.

Tamar, Ruth, and Rahab all make it into Jesus’ genealogy that appears in the prologue to the Gospel of Matthew!  Unfortunately Bathsheba, for all her troubles, is referenced only as Uriah’s wife (not David’s mistress or by her real name). But that is how it goes for women in the Bible sometimes…

This is what is so amazing to me about Mary. By all accounts she would not have been rich (to say the least), she was young and her situation was scandalous. Poor, young, and disgraced is quite a predicament for a girl. Then she comes out with these amazing declarations of faith!

You have to keep in mind that this happened during a time in history when women’s testimony were not even valid in court!  Which just puts a whole wild spin on the fact that God chose for the women at the tomb to be the witnesses – and to testify to the male disciples (who did not believe right away) about the resurrected Christ!

With that in mind, Mary was asked to be more than a witness! She was to be the container of the uncontainable; the womb of the uncreated. YIKES.

That is why it hits me so hard when I hear her ‘Magnificat’ declaration in Luke 1:46 – 55:

“My soul glorifies the Lord 
 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 
for he has been mindful 
   of the humble state of his servant. 
From now on all generations will call me blessed, 
  for the Mighty One has done great things for me— 
   holy is his name. 
His mercy extends to those who fear him, 
   from generation to generation. 
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; 
   he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. 

 He has brought down rulers from their thrones 
   but has lifted up the humble. 
 He has filled the hungry with good things 
   but has sent the rich away empty. 
He has helped his servant Israel, 
   remembering to be merciful 
to Abraham and his descendants forever, 
   just as he promised our ancestors.”

I hear this and I am stopped in my tracks. What kind of world did Mary think that God wanted to make? What did Mary expect God to do with this kid she was to carry?

Is this what the Hebrew prophet was looking forward to in Isaiah 40 ?

Comfort, comfort my people,

   says your God.

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,

   and proclaim to her

that her hard service has been completed,

   that her sin has been paid for,

that she has received from the LORD’s hand

   double for all her sins.

 A voice of one calling:

“In the wilderness prepare

   the way for the LORD[a];

make straight in the desert

   a highway for our God.[b]

Every valley shall be raised up, 

   every mountain and hill made low; 

the rough ground shall become level, 

   the rugged places a plain. 

And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,

   and all people will see it together.

            For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

Is this what Jesus meant when he said “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” in John 10:10 ?

Is this what the Letter writer was saying with passages like 1 John 3:8 ” The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”?

I am also struck by two things that weigh me down:

  1. If some poet or prophet or preacher was to put this out now, it would most likely be disregarded as a John Lennon style “Imagine” daydream, or dismissed as socialist utopian propaganda or even disparaged as a Liberal agenda.  When you think about the relationship that Jesus had with the priests of his day and the relationship that those priests had with the poor, the immigrant and the outsider – and compare that to the relationship that Jesus had with that same crowd… you can clearly see the he was Mary’s boy!!
  2. I listen to the Religious Media that is so powerfully broadcast on Christian radio and preached on TV by preachers at big churches with big followings and I am haunted by the suspicion that what calls itself Christianity in capitalistic and consumeristic North America is not quite what Mary’s song pointed toward. I am dismayed so often by the conservative Christianity I encounter. It is almost as if Jesus never came.   Even in a ‘Christian Nation’,  Priest, politics, and power …  well , let’s just say it this way:  I would love to hear the kind of things that Mary said coming through the radio and from the pulpit.

This is why Mary mesmerizes me. She ‘got’ something – she knew something – she saw something that allowed her to say something that radically changes the way we look at Jesus and continues to impact the vision of  people who are suppose to speak for Jesus.

Mary challenges us. She inspires us. Her vision projects a world that has yet to materialize fully. Her words frame our expectation.

I think about her words.  I pray that I may see what she called for. I thank God for her and the standard that she sets.  I call her ‘blessed’.

Merry Christmas everyone – today is truly the day of the Lord’s visitation.
The Lord is among us!

to listen to Podcast click [HERE]

3

>Jesus is not Violent

> When we talk about God as Christians we are not talking about a generic conception of God. As Christians we believe in a very specific concept of God, one that was most fully revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

 For people that believe in Jesus and call themselves Christians, I think that it is important that we get something strait: Jesus was not violent. That is the first proposition. The second theory flows out of that: since Jesus was not violent, maybe his people should not be violent either. 


I know that there are those who will object. Some of them will even point to verses in Scripture. I will try to look at each of the objections that I hear as best I can as quickly as I can.
Old Testament
I think that it is important to recognize that we are not GOD-ians, or Spirit-ians. We are Christians.We would take our cue from Christ.

Here is my concern: Every time some Christian wants to be violent and can not find a way in Christ to justify it – they reach back into the Old Testament in order to do so. This is a bad way to read the Bible.  Sometimes, when christian ministers speak, it almost comes across as if Jesus never came.  When I say “Jesus was not violent” you can’t just jump backward and say “In the Old Testament God…” That is not the right way to do it.

Turning over table in the Temple
Whenever I say that Jesus was not violent, almost without exception the first thing someone says is “what about when he cleared the Temple?”  In passages like John 2:15, Jesus makes quite a ruckus in the Temple – driving out the animals that were for sale and turning over the tables of the money changers. 
I would just point out three things: A) it was the only time that he did something like this. It was an exception. B) he did not harm any human or living thing. He cracked a whip and turned over tables. C) this act was in protest of those who had made religion big business, profiting from the vulnerability of others. 
So often I hear this verse used to justify supporting violence and ironically it is by those who have made the christian religion big business and make a handsome profit off of it. That should tell you something.
The Book of Revelation

in chapter 19 of John’s Revelation you hear this: 

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:  KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

Somehow this becomes permission to be violent to other countries and to people of different backgrounds or persuasions. 
The error is threefold:


1. To derive doctrine from apocalyptic literature in difficult at best. The very nature of the genre is poetic, fantastic, and explosive. It really should not be read like the rest of scripture. I am firmly convinced that each genre should be read in ways that are appropriate to the nature of that genre. The Histories of the Hebrew Testament, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles (or letters) and the Apocalyptic all need to be read in distinct ways.     


2. To miss that his sword is a non-sword – it is his Word !  I call this “the problem of jesuSword”  and though it can be confusing, it’s important to see that it is not Jesu’s Sword  but Jesus’ Word !!   What brings the nations to submission is not a sword but Jesus’ Word – or the word of the Word (if you prefer). To miss this is to miss the point all together. It is to think that the Romans did the right thing is nailing Jesus to the cross. It is to miss that Jesus was killed unjustly and the injustice pains the heart of God.  There is poetry in that Jesus told Peter to “put away” his sword (jJohn 18:11) and said that if his kingdom was of this world that his followers “would fight” (John 18:36). The implication is that his kingdom’s power does not originate with this world* and therefor his followers will not fight. 


3. Some people justify violence by saying “Jesus even said that he came to bring a sword”   but think about the whole sentence… what did he say? 

Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—   37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

 Here is the important thing: swords were meant to guard families. To protect me, my things, and those close to me! Jesus says that his sword it to divide up families – and I think he was being ironic !!  Because  in his day swords were actually for defending one’s family – for guarding me and mine. In this sense, Jesus’ “sword” is an un-sword… or an anti-sword. It does the opposite of what human swords are used for.  Jesus’ sword is not for defending family but for dividing family. Jesus did not come with a human sword but the opposite!! 

The Kingdom suffers violence
In Matthew 11:12 Jesus says that the Kingdom “suffers violence” and that the violent “try to take it by force”.  I know that this is a tricky passage. Some people see it as saying “you have to be aggressive to enter the kingdom” but I think it is more appropriate to read it as “violent men try to seize to use for their own purposes”.  Regardless, either reading does not give us permission to be be violent and advance the kingdom of Christ “by the sword”. 
Clarification
I am not a pacifist.  I am not passive.  I am actively and passionately non-violent.  I believe that violence begets more violence. Sometime – a person who wants permission to be violent in Jesus’ name will pull out the big two examples and ask me either “what about the Nazis” or “what if some guy broke into you house and was going to rape your wife”?   These are always the big two and I will deal with them next week in “Breaking the Bell Curve”.  Suffice to say – barring those two examples, most of what we are talking about with burning heretics, Godly nationalism, and militarized violence does not primarily fall into those two famous categories. They are just all too normal human violence baptized in Jesus’ name. 
Example
Let me get down to the heart of the matter. Here is an example of exactly what I am talking about. There is nationally known pastor in Seattle, Washington who is famously quoted as saying “Jesus is a cage fighter with a tattoo on his thigh and a sword in his hand, determined to make someone bleed”. He said this in reference to the fact that he “could not worship somebody that he could beat up.” 
Some people dismiss statements like this and chalk it up to testosterone fueled, overly inflated, pumped up hyper-masculinity.  I think that there is something much deeper and much more sinister involved. I think that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God and the interpretation of Christian scripture. 
What is noteworthy is that in Revelation 19, the sword is not in Jesus’ hand but it comes out of Jesus’ mouth. That seems important in the poetic nature of Revelation. This sword is not your average sword. It is not in Jesus’ hand and that makes you wonder if the way in which this sword “strike down” the nations is not in bloody violence but in a kind of destruction that would happen as a result of a sword that proceeds from the mouth of God?  Let’s ask ourselves “is there something that comes from the mouth of God that radically impacts or consumes peoples and nations?”  Is there something sharp that comes from the mouth of God … something sharper than any two edged sword? 
_____
I am suggesting that we need to be open to consider at least three ideas:
1. that since that time in church history when the church rose to Roman power and began to kill people (burn, hang, and behead) what we often call Christianity has been very different than the initial vision of Jesus and the precedent set by the early church when Jesus was killed by Romans and the church suffered violence. 
2. that when groups of nationals are invaded by violent foreigners who mix commerce and religion with genocide and ethnic cleansing, that maybe the rejection by the indigenous population of the alien religion can not be called a rejection of christianity. Maybe when groups like the Native American tribes who were assaulted by European invasion were not actually rejecting what you and I would know as the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
3. that when preachers get stuff like this wrong, that it essentially changes the message and thus the addition of violence to the gospel makes it a different enough message that they are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ anymore but a different gospel. Maybe he doesn’t just quote this passage wrong, maybe he has Jesus all wrong.
Now usually people say “no no it is not a different gospel – it is just an adding of something to the gospel.” It is the gospel plus violence. 
But I would ask, if the example and model of Jesus and the apostles is essentially and fundamentally  non-violent, and one adds violence to it… does it then essentially and fundamentally transform the gospel into something that is then not the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
But is it possible that this preacher did not just get a detail wrong but is actually portraying Jesus wrong. That he is not just adding something to the gospel but is preaching a different gospel and thus is not preaching the gospel? 
I guess a fun example would be : if I write a book about how English is the best language and how everyone should speak English. Then someone translates that my book into French… that would be complicated. But what if they then appropriated the message and said that French was the best language and everyone should speak French… would that then be a different message?   Even if it were based on my original book, had the same title and used all the same stuff – it would be a different message.
I think that they would not just have translated my message but would have changed my message. Essentially and fundamentally they would be saying something different than I was.  They would not be promoting my same message. 
This is the exact situation that I think we often have. People use Jesus’ name, read from the Holy Book and even put crosses on the outside of their building and on their stage. It has all the markers of a Christian message. Here is the problem – it has a fundamentally different message and motives than Jesus did. It uses Roman models and methods and thus it is not in keeping with the Spirit of Christ. 
Jesus was not violent. jesuSword is not Jesu’s sword but Jesus’ word. It’s not a sword – it is an un-sword or an anti-sword.  When we miss this detail, we miss the message.
* the phrase “not of this world” does not mean that Jesus power has nothing to do with this world, but that it does not originate with this world (unlike Herod’s or Pilate’s). It definitely impacts the world and is for the world. “Not of this world” does not mean that it has nothing to do with this world and is for a “world that is to come”. It means that it is fully IN the world but that the source of its power is not OF the world.  

22

>Relationship

>

There is a reason that relationship is so central to our religion, to reading the Bible, and to prayer.  We will focus on prayer next week, but this week I wanted to look at the relational aspect of reading the Bible as a tie-in to what we have been talking about for the past 5 weeks.
    In the past, much of church history has been focused on A) Status and B) Substance. Now, it is my conviction that these are not the concerns of the Hebrew mind (in the Old Testament) nor are they the concerns of Jesus (in the Gospels) and they will not continue to be the concerns of the world that is becoming (our post-Modern world).

    That means that the only place where it has been a primary concern is with 1) those Greek  thinkers (substance) and Roman authorities (status) that come after the first century – and thus after the writing of those books that would come to be in the New Testament 2) those European systems ( in Italy then Germany then England, etc.) that led up to, and really came to fruition in, the Enlightenment (think Denominations). 
Communion
    So let’s take Communion as an example. Jesus had this meal. Whether you say that he observed it, celebrated it or initiated it – he used the moment to demonstrate and model ultimate servant-power (John 13). Jesus’ concern about communion was relationship. He even had the meal with a disciple that he knew would betray him (and one that he knew would deny him).  Jesus modeled relational truth. 
    In the 300-500 years after Jesus, the focus changed significantly. That is why – for even so many to this day – the main concern is  A) what it is and B) who is allowed to eat it.   That is why Substance and Status have supplanted Jesus’ concern – which was relationship. 
    That is why I think that whenever you eat a meal with someone and Christ’s love is in your heart – that is communion.You are having communion with them  – at least Level 1 communion. Now, if you agree with that and what to add to it an official meal of special bread and wine – that is fine. But if you want to move to that specific meal and special ingredients without the element of relationship – then I would have a problem. Especially if you then want to add a third level which is concerned with who is allowed to eat it (and who is not) and then who is allowed to serve it. 
    In fact, relationship is the main focus of so much of the Bible and we miss it when we use these lenses of Status and Substance. 
Trinity
    Look at the concept of the Trinity. The main point is that God is relationship. God is perfect relationship. But somehow in those years that followed Jesus’ time on earth – the main concern became Substance (is Jesus fully God and fully Man? )  and Status (Is the Holy Spirit equal with the other two members or not? ). Now, the whole point of a Three-in-One god is to form and inform us about the inter-relating of one to another. We miss the point of the Trinity (and the Bible)  when we look at Status and Substance.
Creation
    Look at Creation. The stuff that attracts so much attention and draws so many of the headlines (Creation vs. Evolution) misses the point of that section of scripture. It is important to know that the idea of Creation Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) never showed up in connection to the Genesis account until 200 years after Jesus.  That means that no Jewish Rabbi would have believed that before (or during) Jesus’ life. It also means that Jesus would not have believed in Creation Ex Nihilo.  God did not create the world out of nothing. 
    Go back and read that portion of scripture again. You will notice two things: first, that there were already substances present; second that God works with what is in order to bring forward something new. Then God gives that something new a responsibility (partnering in relationship) and then uses the something new to bring about yet a newer thing still. 
    So God makes the earth. Then God says to the earth ‘you bring forth plants’. Then God takes some earth and makes humans. Then God gives to the humans  responsibilities on earth.  
    The point is not the science behind creation – but ultimately God’s relationship to creation. God calls the earth good and it is noteworthy that God never says that creation is not good!   It is later that Substance and Status change the way we think about that. Substance says that the earth is “fallen” because of original sin (this is borrowed from Greek philosophy and does not come from the Bible). Status says that creation is lower than humans and therefor is of less value. Now, admittedly,  there are some words that are used in Genesis that can be read that way… but if you want to read them that way ,they do have to be interpreted that way. All I am saying is that they do not need to be interpreted that way!!
    I think that it is worth pausing and noticing that even our communion elements come up from the earth. The wheat for the bread and the grapes for the wine come from the soil – the earth. 
Resurrection
    I believe in the resurrection. The reason that I have been less dogmatic about it being a literal/physical resurrection than others is two-fold. 
First, I am driven by a desire for a BigTent Christianity where people who dialogue about the exact nature of this or that element of the Bible can still be included.
Secondly, I don’t think that that substance of Jesus resurrected body is the point of those stories. I think that the main point is how Jesus relates to us in resurrection. The experience of the disciples after the resurrection was of Christ’s presence with them – the veil had been torn in two and soon the Comforter would come in power (Acts 2). God’s spirit – the spirit of Christ – was out and about and at work in the world. 
    Just look at what the Apostle Paul would experience on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9).  Whatever Paul experienced was the real and post-resurrection Christ. It was enough to radically change his life and cause him to live for this cause and it would lead to his own imprisonment and death. The substance of the post-resurrection body is not the focus. Relationship is. God was in a new relationship with humanity. 
Faith
    I have tons and tons of examples, but I want to point out how not focusing on relationship effects even the way that we read specific verses in the New Testament.  There is a popular verse that is often quoted this way “God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purposes.”  That is based on a bad translation (King James Version). But that is not exactly how that verse reads and it certainly (even if it did read that way in English) does not mean that!
    But listen to the Revised Standard Version “ We know that in everything God works for the good with those who love him…” 
    God does not cause the things to work for us. Think about how mechanistic of view of the world produces a reading like that. 
    A more accurate way to think of it is “God works for the good with those who love God so that all things come to accomplish God’s purpose.” 
    First: It is God who works – not the things.     
    Second: God works with us to bring about God’s purposes.  
Reading the Bible with Relationship in mind affects so many things. The nature of the Trinity, the Creation narrative, the Incarnation, Communion and prayer … just to name a few!! 
    The bottom line is ‘how God relates to us’. Everything else is fun and function. Realizing this is one of the most important things that has happened to me and my walk with the Lord. I wish I had know this 15 years ago. I don’t regret what I learned and everything that I was taught – but I do wish that less attention had been paid to SUbstance and Structure and more had been paid to relationship. 
    Next week we I hope to address Salvation and Prayer. Please feel free to posts any comments or questions. I love the dialogue.
2

>Real Christians

>

 In this edition: Women’s Voices,  Real Christians and the conversation continues around those 4 (now 5) verses. 
Women’s’ Voices:  My friend Brittany Ouchida-Walsh was in the newest Emergent Village newsletter  [link] with a GREAT reflection about voices that have silenced for far too long.  She has an immense insight about things. She also offers quotes that help you see things from a different angle. On her website, I found this one that  I thought I would pass along: 
     “So every pregnant mother enacts the communion words, ‘Take, eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood.'” – Jean Shinoda Bolen
Real Christians: I got a note a couple of weeks ago that said ‘I have always divided churches into two categories : Bible believing and Not.’  This person went on to say really insightful things about their experiences and how their perspective has been challenged. 

    This got me thinking. Why DO we divide churches into those two camps?  Jesus doesn’t. 

Jesus says that at some point he is going to divide people up into two categories – but they are not based on believing the Bible – it will be based on how you treated other people (Matthew 25:31-46).  

    Why don’t we spit churches into Christ-behaving and Not – if we are going to split them up at all ?  My thought is that if we are going to introduce new categories – like “Bible-believing” and “Not” we should at least be required to integrate them into the categories of Christ. 

    Since I hate either/or  in/out  us/them two-categories (whether you call them binary or dualism or whatever)  here is my solution:  We make a chart that has 1 big square divided into  4 smaller squares. Across the top we put “Bible-literally” and “Not”. Then down the side we put “Christ-behaving” and “Not”.

    This will allow us to acknowledge that there are at least 4 types of Christians: those who take the Bible literally and behave like Christ,  Those that take the Bible literally and don’t behave like Christ, Those who don’t take the Bible literally and behave like Christ and Those who don’t take the Bible literally and don’t behave like Christ. 

    That would be more helpful (and more accurate) than this either/or thing that we do now.  I just think that at minimum we should use the categories and criteria that the Lord did  (a.k.a. the Sheep / Goats), even if want to integrate them into some criteria that we are after. 


The Conversation: My buddy Tim (a missionary) read my treatment of those 4 verses that we do the swap for [link] and said (basically) ‘that was great – but now that we know what they don’t mean, maybe you could throw out some suggestions of what they do mean…’ 

So I took up the challenge [link] last week and added a 5th verse for fun (Romans 10:9).  Here is Tim’s follow up note and my responses:  
Thanks for taking up the challenge my friend. Basically I like and agree with everything you’ve said.  
Let me respond to some of the thoughts: 
  1. 1)the governmental system stuff that you talk about is RIGHT ON.  When I read “Jesus for President” for the first time a lot of my impressions or ideas about this stuff was re-inforced, especially the Caesar is Lord issue. 
Shane Clairborne’s book “Jesus for President” [link] is one worth reading.  I would also put Warren Carter’s  “The Roman Empire and the New Testament” [link]  WAY at the front of my reading list if I were you. 
  1. 2)I still believe acknowledging the resurrection is a huge challenge for us but is essential in understanding God and being a Christian.  Even if our implications of the resurrection are a bit nuanced, for me, I still am with Paul in his ideas in 1 Cor. that without the resurrection of Christ we are left with a nice ethic but lacking the meta-physical power which sets this apart. 
    No doubt.  I am with you there.  I think that if you are going to be a Christian you have to have SOME belief in the resurrection – otherwise you are left with , as you say, a nice Ethic. 
    NOW – having said that… I have to clarify something. I have heard two good possibilities for the Resurrection that keep one squarely within the “ I believe” camp.  The first is called the ‘Empty Tomb’ camp and  is not really in need of any explanation. The second is called the ‘Presence’ camp and it holds that the Resurrected Jesus was the Presence of God whether or not there was a literal empty tomb.
    I know that this may sound weird to readers who are coming from a more conservative background – but you have to understand that for the last couple of hundred years in many Western churches (from Europe) there is a foundational belief in Enlightenment principles (like science) that you have to prove things. Since you can not prove the Resurrection and we don’t see many (or any) these days, then some have abandoned the literal Resurrection all together and other have had to kind of put it on the back shelf as simply a part of the tradition (the faith handed down).   
    This “Presence” approach allows believers who are coming from a more European perspective to reclaim the Easter story without abandoning or attacking the denomination or tradition that they came from – and I want to make room for them  in the conversation. 
    Now some people may jump and say “no that doesn’t count” but the more I have looked into it , the more I think that it qualifies as belief in the Resurrection.  Just keep two things in mind:
A) whatever kind of a body that Jesus had after the resurrection could walk through walls and stuff (John 20:19 for example). That body was not limited by physical space and time though it had physical properties.  
B) whatever the Apostle Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9)  was not a physical  body and yet it was certainly the Resurrected Christ. 
    I think that this is an important point to make because we are not having this conversation in a vacuum. It has been dominated for 400 years by Enlightenment Europeans who were working off of there own frameworks and agendas. So I do not think that we should allow them to control the conversation.  We need to address 1) scripture and 2) reality as we now understand it … in order to address our desire for a Big Tent Christianity and also to try to qualify as many believers in Christ as want to be qualified.  
 
  1. 3)I completely agree with the fact that being saved doesn’t mean simply getting a ticket to heaven.  This is horrible theology, a terrible reading of John 3, and frankly a very limited understanding of Jesus.  That being said, I don’t think that these texts necessarily oppose someone going to heaven after they die, I just don’t think that heaven is the central idea or even the goal in these selected texts.  
    Good clarification.  I certainly do not want to get rid of heaven after you die. My only point was that this is not the central concern of these texts.  I think that reading them in such a way dishonors them and misses the point. 

  1. 4)With you on the wide gate, on the thirst for power, on the love of violence, etc. 
    It has actually gotten to the point that over the last three years I have become suspicious that Jesus is nothing more than a hood-ornament on the Cadillac of Empire for many christians. Jesus said  Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? …”   
    I am planning a post leading up to Christmas to ask “Why do you think Jesus came ?”.  Modern Christianity  seems to have reverted to a form of nationalism, superstition, and greed … I honestly think that it is almost as if Jesus never came.  It would be no different if we just took all of the Greek & Roman mystery cults (denominations) and slapped Jesus’ name on them – as a title – but kept the basic framework, priorities, and behaviors without much alternation.  
    This is what Dallas Willard calls “Vampire Christians” – who want Jesus for his blood and little else. So little of what we do is based on Jesus – he is not even an Ethic for much of the western world. He is just a hood ornament on the giant machine of consumerism, military violence, and colonialism.  It’s almost as if Jesus never came and never said the stuff that he said and did the things that he did.  We often put “Christian” in the title and then do exactly what we would have done otherwise and when somebody says ‘I’m not sure that is Jesus’ way’ we say “in the Old Testament” or we say “in the Constitution”.  

  1. 5)In the John 14 passage I think you’ve said some important things.  These verses are definitely part of a conversation and shouldn’t be proof-texted (just like any other verses that we do this with).  I definitely don’t think that the primary purpose here is restrictive, that is, against other people.  However, I don’t think it doesn’t inherently create some restrictions by nature of the uniqueness of Christ.  What I mean is, even if you interpret the “way of Christ” differently (not as a ticket to heaven but as a lifestyle), you are still asserting that someone is following this way in order to access an intimate relationship with the father.  So, for me, to use your example, if a Hindu hates Jesus or the idea of Jesus, it is still problematic for me.  I definitely have friends, and maybe you’re in this category, who I love and respect, who believe that Jesus is the way in spite of the fact that the people who are seeking religion don’t acknowledge him.  In other words, his power supersedes ignorance.  Of course this is possible and God can do and does do more than we understand.  But personally for me it’s too risky to leave someone in a situation, knowing and experiencing nothing of Jesus and hoping that as a spiritual person they have this intimate relationship with the Father (we can just leave heaven out of it, no problem). Does that make sense?  
    Yeah. That is good. I think that the Way of Christ is the best thing in the world. I believe that the Jesus Way is better than every other.   Which is exactly why we need to stop quoting “I am the way” as a proof-text for why other religions are not going to Heaven.  All I am saying is : that is not what that verse is about.  We love to say “Jesus is the way” and this may or may not be connected to actually doing it Jesus’ way. 
Sorry to go on and on and on but basically this is the fundamental reason why I am in France in spite of the fact that people are cared for better than the States, there are fewer poor, most people are pacifists, green, etc.  In other words, in many ways they are advancing the kingdom.  But when I speak with them there is emptiness in the act, a void in spite of the heart for others, and a need for Christ to be central.  Sure we might talk about heaven at some point, but I’m certainly not leading with that.  I’d rather talk about the way of Jesus, but I need to talk about it, even if they’re Muslim, Hindu, atheist whatever.
    I love that you are there.  I love that you follow the way of Jesus.  I love that you want people who already do so many good things to do them with Jesus’ heart. That is awesome. I am with you 100%. 
    I think that you have real insight in the North American situation where so many who claim to follow Jesus don’t do those things.  
Great post, thanks for taking the time to do it and for offering solutions.   Appreciate you!
   Oh no , the pleasure is all mine! Thanks for the thoughtful response (and the challenge) . I am SO glad that you are doing what you are doing.
0

>Wide is the Road

>

Sometimes you read a passage of scripture and assume that you know what it is talking about.  Here is one of my favorites:

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    I use to think I knew what that verse meant.

    But then I found out that “Caesar is Lord” was something that people confessed in the time and around the area in which this part of the Bible was written. It turns out that hundreds of years before Jesus was even born that Caesars were given titles like Son of God, Savior of the world, King of Kings, and many other that would be familiar to anyone who has read the Christmas story. 
    That is the funny thing – I am always saying that all content happens in a context and this is a great example!  Jesus is Lord was not created in a vacuum.  It was ‘borrowed’ from an actually saying and converted (as it were) to a political statement of subversion and disobedience .  Following Jesus is political rebellion. 
    The writers of Scripture took the famous titles used for Caesar and then ascribed them to a peasant from the backwoods !  They were saying something.
    I also found out some other stuff – like believing in God raising anyone from the dead was a real issue both for the Jewish mind ( Sadducees / Pharisee spit.  see: Acts 23:8 ) and also for the Greek / Roman mind (see the Gnostic / Docetist split).  So to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead was really to view reality and physical / meta-physical things in a definite way. 
    To believe that God raised Jesus from the dead is to say “there is more to reality that simply what I can see”. This is rooted in history (and a historical event).
    Thirdly, as I have talked about before – being saved doesn’t just mean that your soul is going to heaven after you die.  Salvation in the original exodus motif is liberation from an oppressive Empire (Egypt at that point). Later when Israel had settled from it’s wanderings, it took on a ‘chicken in every pot’ sort of ‘everyone should have enough’ societal component.  Then, in Christ salvation became a transformational understanding of covenant. It was covenantal and it included all humanity. Later through church history salvation took on a Church/State component.   Recently salvation started to change into an Enlightenment understanding where salvation was of an individual. 
    I’m not making a statement about those transformations.  I just wanted to point it out, for the purpose of our passage.  
    So what those three elements come together to mean is: the government systems of this world are not my master (Jesus is Lord) , and there is more to reality that just what you can see (Jesus was raised from the dead) – that understanding then enables you to walk the way of Jesus (to be saved). 
    That is quite bit different than “I prayed a prayer one time, and I mentally acknowledge that a long time ago God did something powerful and so now,  the part of me that is not my body will go to heaven after I die.”  
Lets get to those four verses 
Matthew 7
13  Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
    We talked before about the danger of swapping out ‘wide gate’ for hell and ‘narrow path’ for heaven.  No – Jesus was saying that the roads of the empire (the system ) are made wide and made smooth. They are the roads of the masses. They are the road of commerce. These wide roads lead to walled cities that have wide gates because that is the way that most people live.
    They are contrast to the roads made by indigenous people. When Rome makes roads, they bring a legion of soldiers and make a road capable of hauling their carriages. They did this so that the Roman Legion could get to even the furthest region of the Empire and put down any rebellion or uprising with swift and massive violence. The saying was “Rome makes a desert and calls it peace.”  
The Roman roads were made for and by the military (this is how empire works) and then commerce was able to utilize the road to export their business to the far corners of the empire. 
    Jesus was contrasting roads made for and by the military with those made by walking. Indigenous roads were smaller – like glorified walking paths that had been improved on. They led to much smaller towns with smaller walls and thus smaller gates. 
    Jesus wasn’t saying “Many people are going to hell and that is easy to do (the wide road) but only a few are going to heaven (the narrow gate)”.   
    Jesus is saying  Many people live by the law of empire with military violence and colonial commerce. Don’t walk that obvious road – it leads to destruction. As Jews we have a path that is made by our people – it may look small and humble but it leads to life. Rome’s way is popular and most participate – God’s way is a backroad and not many choose to take it.
John 3:3
Jesus says to this religious professional “no one can see kingdom of God,unless you are born again.”  (or born from above)
    Jesus was not saying “you must have an internal individual experience so that after you die the part of you that is not your body can go to heaven”.  Jesus is telling a man who had the public position of being religious “You have start again – you have to approach it like a child – you have to be vulnerable … like a baby” 
    Jesus wasn’t being literal. You don’t actually have to be born a second time. The Bible is not meant to be read literally in places like this.  Jesus was not saying that every human being must have an experience where they realize that they are dirty sinner and repent of their sins by saying them out loud and repeating a prayer that asks Jesus into their heart. 
    Jesus is saying if you want to see what God is doing (the kingdom) then you will have to start again – don’t assume that you are already in and that you already get it. Begin again for the first time. 
John 14:6
6  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7  If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
    As in the John 3 passage, John 14 happens in a conversation where Jesus’ dialogue partners are having trouble understanding what he is saying.  
    Jesus is talking about how his father’s house has many rooms and how is going away to prepare a place for them.  Thomas says ‘we don’t know where you are going and thus we don’t know the way’.
    Let’s be clear on this 1) This is part of a conversation  2) this conversation happened in a context where Jesus (the master) had just washed his disciples feet in act of true humility where the status quo of leadership, titles and privilege were turned upside down 3) Jesus is not talking about why there will be no Hindus in heaven. 
    Jesus is not talking about Hindus.  That is not what he is addressing when he says that the is the way to having a relationship with the Father.  And let’s be honest – while as the Eternal Son and Second member of the Trinity in heaven he would have known about Hindus – and Muslims did not even exist yet – as the incarnate Christ he may not have even known about Hindus and certainly could not have known about Muslims.  So he is not telling us why no one is going to heaven except Christians. 
    Jesus is saying “There is lots of room for many different types of people in my Father’s house – and if you want to have a relationship with the Father like I have  (intimacy and power) then you have to walk in my way with me”. 
    The irony here is twofold: 1) many preachers have used this verse to say why Hindus are not going to heaven (as well as many others)  2) while they loudly proclaim that Jesus is the way – they do not walk in Jesus’ way of servant leadership, humility and turning over the status quo when it comes to status and power. 
    Jesus isn’t talking about heaven and hell.  Jesus is talking about the Way of Christ and how that is the way that one comes to have the kind of intimacy that he has with the Father. 
We might as just address the nature of the text as long as we are looking at the text.
2 Timothy 3
15  and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    It probably goes without saying at this point – but this passage is not saying that the Bible is Infallible or Inerrant or any of those words that we insist on and call people heretics for not believing in the modern era. 
    It is simply saying that we believe that our Scriptures come from God – they are infused with God’s breath and life – that they are extremely useful for the work of the church and that  they are empowering and corrective – that they are authoritative for what God intended them. 
    In our scriptures, Adam was God breathed but not infallible (as Dan so eloquently pointed out).
______
    So if we take the five passages of scripture from today and put them all together what we come out with is :
The government systems of this world are not our master, and there is more to reality that just what you can see – understanding that enables you to walk the way of Jesus (salvation from the way of this world).
Many people live by the law of empire with military violence and colonial commerce. Don’t walk that obvious road – it leads to destruction. People who live on the fringes and margins of Empire have a path that is made by people in a covenant with God (not ruling by violence and power but instead by love) – it may look small and humble but it leads to life. Rome’s way is popular and most participate in it – God’s way is a backroad and not many choose to take it.
If you want to see what God is doing (the kingdom) then you will have to start again – don’t assume that you are already in and that you already get it. Begin again for the first time.
There is lots of room for many different types of people in the Father’s house – and if you want to have a relationship with the Father like Jesus had with the Father (intimacy and power) then you have to walk in Jesus’ way.
We believe that our Scriptures come from God – they are infused with God’s life and animated by God’s wind – that makes them extremely useful for the work of the church and that  they are empowering and corrective – That they are authoritative for what God intended them for they are inspired by God’s very revelation. 
    I know that it is tough to read a scripture again for the first time. This reading is more Jewish, it is more organic, and it is more relational. All I ask is that you consider starting over (again) and seeing if there might be anything to it.
1

>words of God in the Bible

>

    I stumbled into an interesting conversation a couple of weeks ago and I have been mulling it over in my head. I have mentioned it to a few colleagues of mine and it turns out that I am not the only one who is perplexed by it. 
    The issue in question is the reading of the Bible where one word is automatically substituted for another. 
[Examining the issue invariably brings up other issues so I will try to stay focused and maybe for this first round of conversation will only examine some sample Bible verses.] 

Matthew 7
    I am continually shocked by the number of people who quote Matthew 7:13-14 to me BUT change the words!! (this is to cram it into a paradigm where it does not naturally belong)
13″Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
    I find myself asking people all the time “why do you swap ‘destruction’ for Hell and ‘life’ for Heaven ? What is that thing you do where you always jump to the end and then read it backward? Is this some kind of destination fascination and is that why we try to fast forward the journey?
    Why when the text says “destruction” do we automatically switch it to ‘hell’  and when the text says “life” we automatically switch it to ‘heaven’ ? 
    My point is that I do not think that Jesus was talking about something after you die.  If you read it in context, I think that he is talking about how you live before you die. **
John 3:3
    This is probably one of the most famous passages in the Christian New Testament. There are two things that are intriguing to me about how we read it.  The first is that we take it out of the story that we find it in. We remove it from the narrative of a conversation where Jesus is using ‘riddles’ to lure his conversation partner in so that they will ‘bite’. The second thing is that once we have the ONE sentence out of it’s context we convert it to be a universal principle. 
    That is quite the process of mental gymnastics and we seem to do it almost on auto-pilot. 
    Jesus says to this religious professional “no one can see kingdom of God,unless he is born again.”  (or born from above)
    Somehow that has become ‘No one can go to heaven after they die unless they prayer the sinner’s prayer once in their life – to confess and repent of all their sins and ask Jesus to be their personal Lord and Savior.’ 
    Really?  Do you think that is what Jesus is talking about?  A) when the text says “Kingdom of God”  why do we swap it for ‘Heaven after you die’ ? B) when the text says “born again”  why do we trade it for ‘pray a prayer to be saved’ ?
John 14:6
    as in the John 3 passage, John 14 happens in a conversation where Jesus’ dialogue partners are having trouble understanding what he is saying.  
    Jesus is talking about how his father’s house has many rooms and how is going away to prepare a place for them.  Thomas says ‘we don’t know where you are going and thus we don’t know the way’. 
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
    Now, I hear this verse quoted probable 5 times a week. It is usually in the context of ‘why no one is going to heaven unless they believe in Jesus’. 
So my question is this: are we sure that is what Jesus is talking about?  
    Why when the text says “Father” do we read ‘heaven’?  What if Jesus isn’t talking about where you go after you die but is instead talking about the kind of relationship that you have with God before you die?   What if he is saying (and if you read John 14-15-16 where he talks about the coming of Holy Spirit as an indwelling of the Spirit of Christ you will see this) that this relationship that he has with the Father through the Spirit is one that is accessible only by coming through him? 
    What if Jesus is not thinking at all about why Hindus won’t be in heaven, and is only addressing how the disciples might come to know that Father like Jesus does (which , if you read the book of Acts you will see the work of Holy Spirit to do). 
2 Timothy 3
We might as well just address the nature of the text as long as we are looking at the text.
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    This verse is thrown around quite liberally by conservatives who use it to define words like ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ when it comes to their view of the Bible. 
    I just want to point out two things: 1) the two “I” words are not in 2 Timothy 3 – we read them in   2) The scripture that they would have know from infancy was the Hebrew or Jewish Scripture (what we call the Old Testament). 
    In fact, 2 Timothy 3 is quite clear that scripture is useful and here are the things that it is useful for… is that not good enough for us? 
    “But it is God breathed!!”  some might object.  But as my good friend Dan points out to me – so was Adam… but as we all know Adam was not infallible.  (we read that story at the beginning of the Hebrew Scripture).
Conclusions
    I am afraid that we are not reading the text and letting it speak. We are reading into the text what is not there and putting words in it’s mouth.  
    I have said before that no one reads the Bible literally  [link] and I think that is more true than ever.  No actually thinks that we need to be born again.  We all know that needs interpreting. 
    People who think that they read the Bible literally are fooling themselves and have been sold a brand of Christianity that is somewhere between a system and a construct. What I am afraid of is that once you have been groomed for long enough to automatically substitute one word for another, you lose the ability to see that it is a problem. 
**  a new friend sent me this note “regarding your Matthew 7:13-14, if one travels the land (of Israel), one discovers that the “roads” and “gates” of the Hebrew culture are small and narrow, and the “roads” and “gates” of a Hellenized culture are wide, easy to travel, broad, and traversed by thousands, if not millions of people.”    Jesus wan’t talking about life after you die.  He was talking about how you live before you die. 

0

>The Most Important City in the World

>What will be the most important city in the world this year (and decade) ?
Jerusalem? Beijing? Moscow? Bombay? Washington DC? Baghdad because of the war? Tokyo because of the economy? Johannesburg, South Africa because of the World Cup? Maybe that old favorite Rome & it’s Vatican City.

I say “none of the above”. But for I tell you why let me tell you why cities are important in general, why they are important to God and then I’ll tell you what I think will be the most important city in the world this coming year.

To listen to the Podcast of this CLICK HERE

Why Cities Matter:

Whatever ever reason we would have given that cities are important in the past – for instance that they are place where people and ideas collect and collaborate so that (I have heard it said) “The future is created there”.

For us there is a much more practical reason. 100 years ago only 13% of the worlds population lived in cities. Statistics are saying that by 2050 over 70% of the worlds population will live in cities. IBM Has compared this (in a recent advertisement) to adding the equivalent of seven New York Cities to the planet every year.

The challenges for education, commerce, safety and health concerns are massive. I think that the ramifications and implications for spirituality and the way that we are the church. Christianity historically is based in community constructs that come from a far less urbanized and far less transient world. Christian Spirituality, by necessity, needs to look different in cities than it did for farm communities or monasteries out in the country. Christian community will need the same.

Just think about how much things have changed in these areas in the past 150 years. literally in the late 1800s (150 years ago) you could set up a big tent and – I’m not kidding about this- if it had light it would be a huge attraction. The revival meeting was born. people didn’t have electricity. So a big gathering of people in the evenings with live music and good preaching was an attraction. Just think about how to different church Community now that people have cars. think about how different the services now that people have television and get their entertainment elsewhere. think about how to different communication has become with cell phones. The Internet, e-mail, FaceBook and texting have really affected how people spend their time, their expectations for where God fits in.

Technology has radically impacted most peoples devotional life. the Industrial Revolution did – when people don’t work at home either in their trade or on their land – it will impact how they spend their day. Electricity is another example. When people can read at night, watch TV and set their alarm in the morning – they behave differently. In fact impacts their spirituality. This move towards cities will do the same.

How God relates to cities:

Laodicea – in Revelation Chapter 3 there is a message from the Lord to the church at Laodicea. One of the things in the message is that they should be “neither hot nor cold — but if they are lukewarm they will be spit out”. this has become a pretty famous passage though it is not the only thing in the message ( there are many other parts including where they have grown rich and arrogant and think they need nothing).

When I look at this passage with people after I read it I usually stop and ask “what is the most important word in this passage”. There is always a huge array of answers ( mostly ‘lukewarm’ though). then I say “its Laodicea”. To whom the letter was written is the most important thing. Not universal principles that we can draw out of it. Not modern applications. All content happens in that context. This letter was written to the church at Laodicea. If there is some principle or lesson that we can draw out of it as modern readers and communities that’s great. But we need to understand that it wasn’t primarily written to us or for us. It was written to a specific place and a specific time.

Leodicea is the most important word in the letter. It is here that we understand that the city to whom the letter is written had built an elaborate aqueduct system. They brought the famously cold clear water from their neighbor city to the east ( Collosea). They also brought water from a hot springs 6 miles awat into the city. The aqueduct system was magnificently designed and impressively constructed – hot healing water from one place, cool drinking water from another – but by the time the water got to Laodicea – guess what ?

Now however you want to interpret the message to that city ( I think it’s about usefulness) that thing I most want you to see in this is that the message was in a language they can understand. God was speaking to the Laodiceans using Laodicean imagery and metaphor. God was not using something general but something specific. Not something universal but something local. And my theory here is that this is how God relates to the people in any location.

This is my theory: that God does not speak in general principles as much as specific examples. That God is less concerned with communicating something universal than something local. And this makes sense because love happens locally. Truth is known contextually. Faith is experienced relationally.


Athens – mean Acts chpt. 17 Paul visits Athens. There’s this famous story where he gives a presentation based on one of their many monuments and statues that served as idols to gods. He found one that had an inscription below it entitled “to an unknown God”. This has generally been preached that they were so fascinated with idol worship if they wanted to make sure that they didn’t leave any gods out so they had this one token cover all. The problem is that this story happened in Athens. Paul’s message was to a specific people in a specific place in a specific time. All content happens in the context.

And if we were in that place we would know that Athens had as a part of its past a legendary battle. Hundreds of years before Paul walked into Athens there had been a miraculous event. In that event of their salvation from a plague and the war had come after they had made sacrifices to every god they could think of. Having no relief from the sickness they said ( as people in that day did) is there any other god he may need to appease – any god we have left out – any god we don’t know about? it turns out that they had to Hebrew young man among their ranks who told them of the Hebrew God. they made sacrifices and the curse was broken. In remembrance of that day they erected a monument. So ask yourself why didn’t they know that God’s name? Because Hebrews don’t say the name of God. This is the unknown God.

Paul walks into that place and says “ I can see that you are very religious people.” And then proceeds to tell them what the great God of heaven had done on the earth through the son. Most people don’t know about that story behind that encounter in Acts 17. I think it’s because we try to read everything as a universal story. But that story happened in a specific place in a specific time and if we miss that we miss the point of the story. God had a message for Athens that day, but it was not the first time God it done something for Athens or in Athens. The message that day was not universal, it was local. it was not generic it was specific.


Bethlehem – In John chapter 1 we have the Hymn of the Logos. this is John’s ‘ Christmas story’ and it says “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. That word dwelt would be the equivalent word to the Old Testament idea of Tabernacle. A tent that moves with the people. The idea is that for a time God camped with us – where we were. not generically but specifically. Not just universally but locally. God became one of us. This is a very powerful idea (obviously – as if that needed said) and still draws a negative reaction from some people. now the debate is probably more about how his followers behave more like the Romans who killed him then they behave like him – but that is for a different podcast. The point I want to focus on today is that the incarnation – what Christians believe to be the central event in human history and the one we attempt to orient all counting of years around – the incarnation did not happen generically it happened locally. It did not happen universally as much as contextually.

It has been pointed out that Jesus could have come to earth as a baby and appeared in Antarctica. He could have never talked to a single person — in fact he could have never even learned a language — and still accomplish the atonement. God comes and indwell flesh, then dies: the righteous for the unrighteous. And that would have been enough. But that is not how it happened! Jesus came to a specific people who lived in a specific place in a specific time. He learned their language. He learned their scriptures. He used examples from their lives. He touched their bodies. He talked through their stories with them. He called them by name.

He did not call everyone “earthling” and wave his hand over crowds and everyone was magically healed. He taught each each person in a way that was significant to their illness and understanding. to the blind man he touched his eyes. To the woman ostracized from the community for 12 years he called attention to her as a restored one. To a fisherman he pointed out where the school of fish was and made breakfast on the shore.
Jesus’ content happened in a context.

The Most Important City:

So this is my theory: that God does not speak in general principles as much as specific examples. That God is less concerned with communicating something universal than something local. And this makes sense because love happens locally. Truth is known contextually. Faith is experienced relationally.

Which brings us to the question: what is the most important city in the world to God?

And the answer is: the one you live in. Where you are… There — Now.

Some people who think the old way will stick with the answer that Jerusalem is always the most important city. I would say that Jerusalem is the most important city — for those that live there. God has something very important and unique for them. But God also has something important and unique for Rio de Janeiro and Soa Paulo, Brazil… and it might not be the same thing as Jerusalem or even as each other.
Some people will always think that Rome is the most important city because the most important person in their faith lives there. The good news is that God doesn’t only live your ( because he does live there) but he also lives in Sarajevo, Paris, and even Riga Latvia. God has something important and unique for each of those cities. The specific people in fact specific place in this specific time are of interest to God.

Maybe the gift is to ask God, not what God wants to say universally but locally. not what God wants to do generically but specifically.

When we think in generals we are in danger of missing how important our city is and either trying to important something that God did in a different city (say like a model of church that works in suburban Chicago called ‘Seeker Sensitive’) or something God did in a different time (like the stuff we see in the Book of Acts).

I think that what we see in the Book of Acts is that God works in context in each place. THIS is why I think that the books of the New Testament Bible are entitled after the cities that they were written to! Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc. and why they are not entitled topically “Haven & Hell” “How to run a church” & “Salvation”.

They come out of a narrative that comes out of a context.

To God, the most important city in Earth is where you live. This is true even if it’s not a city. Your town, county and neighborhood matter to God.
Not generically but specifically.
Not just universally but locally.

2

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑