God Talk with T-roy

He's the PASCHAL, PASSOVER Lamb, Not the Scapegoat or Blood Sacrifice Goat

2010-05-01T07:27:00.000-07:00

Ugh!

Over a year ago, I read Robin Meyer's book, Why the Christian Right is Wrong. I was immediately a fan. Then, I was pleased to hear he had written a new book, Saving Jesus From the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus. Based on the earlier book and the recommendation of a friend, I recommended it to a Sunday School class without having read it.

I just recently started reading it. Through the Prologue and Chapters 1-2, I was still a fan. Of course, there were some piddly things that I took issue with in this and the earlier book, but by-and-large, I thought it was great.

There are some important parts of Chapter 3, however, that I take real issue with that I have to discuss before moving on.

Meyers writes on page 62, "Mark's permanent appropriation of the symbolism of Passover and its connection with the death of Jesus changed the course of human history - and our understanding of what the death of Jesus ended up meaning to all Christendom." He then goes on to espouse that Jesus, as the Paschal lamb is the scapegoat and the blood sacrifice offered in the Temple on the Day of Atonement.

First, we have to remember that Passover and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) are two different holidays in the Jewish tradition. Passover takes place in the spring in remembrance of the Exodus, and Yom Kippur takes place in the fall to symbolize repentance and forgiveness.

Notice, Passover is in remembrance of the Exodus. Let's think about this. Moses did NOT come into Egypt and tell the Israelites, "The reason you are in slavery is because you are so sinful." No, simply, God heard their cry and sent Moses to be the spokesperson to guide them out of Egypt.

Likewise, the lamb was not slain because the Israelites were sinful. It was slain for them to EAT! Why? They are leaving on a long journey the next day, leaving Egypt. Note Exodus 12:11, "This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly." They are dressed for traveling! They need protein!

What about the blood sprinkled on the doorposts? The text says nothing about sin (see Exodus 12). It is simply a sign that those who inhabit the house trust God. They are saying, "By doing this, we signify that we are one of Yours, God! We trust that you will take care of us!"

It is important to realize that Mark NEVER equates Jesus with a lamb, Passover (Paschal) or otherwise. We only see that explicit connection of Jesus being the Paschal lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7 and the Gospel of John (see John 1:29, 36; 19:31-36). John has Jesus crucified after noon (when Passover lambs are slaughtered), and after his death, his legs are not broken - one of the mandates about the Passover lamb (see Exodus 12:46). It is interesting in considering John's use of Jesus as the Passover lamb to read John 6:53-58 where we are commanded to eat the flesh and drink the blood. Why? We need nourishment for the journey of an abundant life!

Okay, so Mark does not say Jesus is the Passover lamb, and the Passover lamb has nothing to do with sin. Does Mark equate Jesus with the scapegoat or the blood sacrificial goat?

No. Two books, as we saw above, equate Jesus with Passover lambs. Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:19, and Revelation in many places equates Jesus with a lamb. NEVER is Jesus equated with a goat, and there is a distinction between the two. Consider the parable of the sheep and goats of Matthew 25:31-46.

We also have to realize that Mark just is not all that concerned with "sin," "sins," the "sinful," or "sinners." In this sixteen chapter book, these terms are only found in the following passages:

Mark 1:4-5 (talking about John's baptism for the forgiveness of sins);
Mark 2:5, 7, 9-10 (the healing story of the paralytic where Jesus forgives simply by saying it);
Mark 2:15-17 (Jesus is eating with sinners, not the "righteous")
Mark 3:28-29 (talking of the only unforgivable sin);
Mark 8:38 (Jesus will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of him in this "adulterous and sinful generation"); and
Mark 14:41 (Jesus is betrayed into the hands of sinners).

Notice that Mark is essentially done talking about sin as a topic after Chapter 3, and Jesus can forgive just by saying, "You are forgiven." He does not have to die! Never does Mark say that Jesus' death has anything to do with sin. The cup of the covenant at the last supper is not for the forgiveness of sins (we see this ONLY in Matthew's gospel).

Okay, but what about Mark 10:45? When it says that Jesus is “to give his life a ransom for many,” is this not supporting the traditional idea of atonement – that Jesus had to die for the forgiveness of sins? I do not think so. Let us look at what this word, ransom, means.

Typically we try to define ransom as “an offering for sin.” However, I do not think this is a correct interpretation. Note what Markan expert, Morna Hooker says on pages 248-249 of her 1991 book, The Gospel According to Saint Mark:

The noun ransom (λύτφον) and the cognate verb ‘to redeem’ (λυτφόω) are both used in the LXX [Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] to describe a variety of transactions – e.g. the payment of money given to free a slave (Lev. 25.47-55, where the Hebrew root is g-‘-l), or the sacrifice offered in place of the first-born (Exod. 13.13-16, where the root is p-d-h). . . . The preposition for (άντί) can have a variety of meanings, according to the context. If ransom were here understood to be a substitutionary sacrifice, then it would mean ‘instead of’, but it is important not to read back into this saying ideas which belong to later centuries, and if the noun has the more general sense of ‘redemption’ suggested above, then the preposition will mean ‘for the sake of’ or ‘on behalf of’.

I argue that Jesus gives his life, according to Mark, "for the sake of others" or "on behalf of others" to set an example for discipleship.

Consider Mark 8:27-38: Jesus says that being the Messiah means getting oneself killed. BUT, he goes on to say that if you want to be a true disciple, you must be willing to deny yourself and take up your cross and follow him! In the first century, the cross had one meaning - execution. Jesus says we should be so committed to the gospel that we are willing to die for it!

Remember the cup of the covenant at the last supper? In Mark, this was not for the forgiveness of sin. What is it for? We have to consider how Mark uses "cup" elsewhere in the Gospel:

Right after the last supper, Jesus goes to the Garden to pray "that the cup might pass from him," but he willingly drinks it - going to his death.
In Mark 10:35-45, James and John ask to sit at Jesus' left and right when he comes into his glory. Jesus asks if they can drink the same cup as him. They say they can, and Jesus affirms that they will.

In a covenant, there are responsibilities put upon both parties. The cup of the covenant is a covenant of discipleship that Jesus, in Mark, shows us how to fulfill! In this covenant, we are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus even to the point of death! Jesus does not do it for us so we won't have to. Jesus does it to show us how to!

There is no doubt that people have misinterpreted the gospel of Mark (and other passages of the New Testament) over the centuries, as I would argue Meyers is doing. We have to remember, though, as Marcus Borg reminds us in his book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (pages 128-129) (as do John Dominic Crossan and Walter Wink elsewhere) that the theory of substitutionary atonement does not become dominant until 1079CE when Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, publishes his book, Cur Deus Homo? We cannot and should not read this theology back into the gospel of Mark, because Mark never had it.

AMAZING GRACE?

2009-03-09T18:51:00.000-07:00

What's the point of "grace" in popular Christianity, anyway? What does it mean? What is it for?

I think it is interesting that we stand up in church and sing, "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me." It often seems that the next, un-sung line in many people's minds is, "but not that poor sucker around the corner. He's too far gone. Not even God's grace can save him."

Then, we talk about how the death penalty is a good thing saying, "So and so deserves death. They don't deserve another chance. Any type of repentance they might show is just a show to try to get off." Apparently, the un-said part of that is that, "Not even God's grace can make a difference in that person's life."

Some are asked to teach Sunday School, but the response we hear is, "Well, I really don't know anything about the Bible. I just don't think I have the ability to do something like that. I've never tried, but I really just want to focus on me. I need my own Sunday School class." What's not being said here: "I don't think God, in God's grace, will help me be able to do this. Grace is something I need. If those in the Sunday School class that need a teacher don't find or experience God's grace, it's not my fault. That's what God is supposed to do."

Others are asked to serve food to the less fortunate or the homeless, but what we hear is, "If they want food, they just need to go get a job. It's their own fault that they are hungry. It's none of my business." Maybe what we are really hearing is, "I just don't think it is fair that everybody has access to God's grace. I don't think it should be unconditional. Everybody needs to do something to deserve it."

Sadly, we forget that, by definition, grace means a FREE gift that one receives even though they don't deserve it. Sadly, we have the idea that grace is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace." The idea here is, "Jesus did it so I won't have to." Sadly, we live life as if God's grace really isn't all that amazing after all. We claim to be people who "believe the Bible," and yet we don't pay attention to (or we ignore) passages such as:

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. (1 John 4:18, NRSV)
I am confident of this, that the one [God]who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6, NRSV)
Yes, everything is for your sake, so that grace, as it extends to more and more people, may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. (2 Corinthians 4:15, NRSV)
But [God] said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. (2 Corinthians 12:9, NRSV)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. (Ephesians 2:8-10, NRSV)
I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13, NRSV)
For mortals [salvation] is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.(Mark 10:27, NRSV)

What I think all of this means is that we are not all that amazing, and we tend to view the world in that same way. Yet, we forget that God's grace makes us amazing, makes the world amazing, and allows us to do amazing things in the world for God. Let us not forget that God's grace is amazing - for ALL people!

Heavenly Pets?

2008-06-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

Many in this world would have us believe that God is really only concerned with people– nothing else in this world (some would go so far as to say that God it only concerned with people’s souls, not even physical needs). I must admit: I don’t buy it.

Take, for instance, Colossians 1:20:

"Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son's blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven." (GNT emphasis mine)

According to this, Jesus’ actions were not just for people but ALL THINGS in the WHOLE UNIVERSE!

Similarly, I’m reminded of various Psalms such as Psalm 148. Note verses 7-10:

"Praise the Lord from the earth, sea monsters and all ocean depths; lightning and hail, snow and clouds, strong winds that obey his command. Praise him, hills and mountains, fruit trees and forests; all animals, tame and wild, reptiles and birds." (GNT, emphasis mine)

June 23, 2008, my cat, Mr. Kitty died. I have no doubt that he praised the Lord. Many a time, I watched him watch sunrises & sunsets with awe. Even more times, when Sandra or I were having bad days, he’d make special efforts to cheer us up, showing us love. Isn’t that what we’re all called to do?

I believe ALL life is sacred, because God brought it ALL into being. All of God’s creation seeks to “obey God’s command.” Thus, God, who is “above all, through all, and in all” (see Ephesians 4:6) seeks to be at one with all creation– even cats like Mr. Kitty.

For some pics of our beloved Mr. Kitty, CLICK HERE!

IN CASE OF RAPTURE, THIS CAR WILL BE UNMANNED?

2007-12-05T11:13:00.001-08:00

I used to think that bumper sticker was pretty funny. Several years ago, I even thought about getting one for my car. Luckily, I've done quite a bit of study since then.

First, do you realize that the term "rapture" is nowhere in Scripture, even though many would have you think it is? Some, of course, will counter and say that there are many useful theological terms that are not in the Bible. True, but is the concept of those terms there? In terms of "rapture," I do not believe so, based on my study of Scripture.

Let me start with a recent revelation from Luke 17:22-37:

20 Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; 21 nor will they say, "Look, here it is!' or "There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

22 Then he said to the disciples, "The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 They will say to you, "Look there!' or "Look here!' Do not go, do not set off in pursuit. 24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 25 But first he must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation. 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them 30 —it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, anyone on the housetop who has belongings in the house must not come down to take them away; and likewise anyone in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it. 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left." 37 Then they asked him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." (NRSV)

Based upon what we usually hear from, for instance, the "Left Behind" series, is that we better make sure we are not one of those that are "left behind." We must make sure we are taken. Look at the above text, though. Only Noah and his family were saved, and they weren't raptured. Only Lot and his family (minus his wife) were saved, and they weren't raptured. Notice, in vss. 34-36, Jesus says that people will be taken, and we have always assumed they were "raptured up to heaven." But look: the disciples ask, "Where, Lord, [were they taken]?" Look at Jesus' response: "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." Do we really think that we want to be "raptured" to a place where the vultures will gather - where the dead are?

Why then would we want to stay here? For Luke, the answer is in vs. 21 - the Kingdom of God is ALREADY among us. Why would we want to leave that? The problem is that we usually live and act as if we aren't already there!

Others, then, will point to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. 15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. (NRSV)

Doesn't that talk about the "rapture?" Maybe, but, as we see in Luke, there is another idea about what could happen at the end. Plus, there may also be a better interpretation of this passage. Here is what New Testament biblical scholars M. Eugene Boring and Fred Craddock have to say about the matter:

4:17 We who are alive:Paul expected the return of Christ to occur during his own lifetime. . . . Caught up in the clouds: Taken into God's presence. The clouds were originally related to the storm god, imagery adopted by Israel from the nature religion of Canaan to speak of the presence and power of God (e.g., Exod. 19:16-25; Pss. 29; 97:2) and then applied to the return of Jesus as the Son of Man (Mark 13:26; Matt. 26:64). Theology, not meteorology, is the content (as though Paul thought Jesus would not return on a cloudy day). To meet the Lord in the air: So also "the air" is not the atmosphere, but as in Eph. 2:2 the realm between the heavenly world of God and the earthly human world, the dwelling place of supernatural powers that separate this world and the transcendant world. Like the word "parousia," to meet the Lord is part of the semitechnical language used for the arrival of a monarch. A delegation of his or her subjects went out to meet the king or queen and ushered them back into the city. The picture is thus not of a "rapture" in the sense of modern dispensational interpretation, in which believers meet Jesus in the sky and are taken to heaven. Rather, Jesus is pictured as returning to earth as its rightful sovereign, and Christian believers - those already dead and those still alive - going together to lead him in a triumphal parade back to earth. These words and pictures utilize common apocalyptic imagery . . . that seems strange to modern eyes and ears - as they did to most of the Thessalonians, who had no previous exposure to such Jewish ways of thinking. Modern readers need not take them literally, but must take them seriously.

We will be with the Lord forever: Salvation is finally not a matter of place, but of relationship. . . . Being with the Lord is the fulfillment of the relationship to God already begun in this life.
[from The People's New Testament Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 645].

Let us "leave behind" the silly concept of the rapture!

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE?

2007-09-25T17:54:00.000-07:00

Recently in our church, a trio of teenaged youth beautifully sang a Contemporary Christian song called, "I Can Only Imagine." At first, I was simply taken by the fact that I didn't realize that one of the youth could play the piano that well, and I didn't realize that one of the other youth could sing at all! Their harmonies blended so well!

Then, I began to listen to the words of the song. I've heard the song many times, but I had never really listened to the words. As I listened, I realized that it epitomizes what has become the primary focus of too much of Christianity.

If you have never heard the song, the focus of the song is the singer trying to imagine what it will be like when he gets to heaven and finally gets to see Jesus. What will he do? What will his heart feel? Will he dance for Jesus? Will he be in awe of Jesus and be still? Will he sing, "Hallelujah?" Will he be able to speak at all? He can only imagine.

That was frustrating enough. Then, on this past Sunday, September 23, 2007, I stumbled across a show on MSNBC called, "To Hell and Back." The story had to do with former Pentecostal, evangelical Bishop Carlton Pearson who has come to the conclusion that there is no hell except the hell that people experience on earth. This of course has caused quite an uproar in evangelical circles.

The MSNBC correspondent spoke to one of Pearson's former friends and colleagues, who obviously thought Pearson was wrong (and going to a literal hell). In response to Carlton, who is still preaching, this fundamentalist preacher said something to the effect of, "Well, what's he still preaching for if there's no hell? What's the point?"

Although they use different terminology, the song, "I Can Only Imagine," and Pearson's opponent are saying basically the same thing: "The whole point of Christianity is to get to heaven and staying out of a literal hell."

Have none of these people read John 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (NRSV) This text says NOTHING about "eternal life" being about "going to heaven." It says NOTHING about it being something that happens ONLY when we die. Look what John Wesley says in his sermon "The Scripture Way of Salvation," based on Ephesians 2:8 (You are saved through faith):

And, first, let us inquire, What is salvation? The salvation which is here spoken of is not what is frequently understood by that word, the going to heaven, eternal happiness. It is not the soul's going to paradise, termed by our Lord, "Abraham's bosom." It is not a blessing which lies on the other side of death; or, as we usually speak, in the other world. The very words of the text itself put this beyond all question: "You are saved." It is not something at a distance: it is a present thing; a blessing which, through the free mercy of God, you are now in possession of.

What, then, is eternal life? What, then, is salvation? What is the point if the point isn't "getting to heaven" or "staying out of a literal hell?" It is about RELATIONSHIP. Look at John 17:3 again. It says eternal life is not going to heaven but knowing God & Jesus HERE AND NOW! As Wesley notes, salvation is something that happens here, in this lifetime.

But, let us be very careful to not equate "Jesus" with just some spiritual entity "up in heaven" that we can only really "meet" in heaven. Let us look at Matthew 25:

34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' 40 And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' (NRSV, emphasis added)

Why does someone have to imagine what it would be like to meet Jesus? According to this, Jesus is all around us, in all the people we come in contact - even the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned. Using the Apostle Paul's terminology, we see Christ in church members - the body of Christ! Wanna see what Jesus looks like? Look around. Wanna know what you'll do or feel? Look around and decide!

What's the point of preaching if it's not about going to heaven and not hell? Look around! People continue to not treat people well, causing hunger, thirst, people to remain strangers, nakedness, sickness, and imprisonment. The point of preaching is to help people to better care for others - even strangers. The point of preaching is ETERNAL LIFE HERE AND NOW - relationship with God and Jesus here and now through all the people we came in contact with.

My point is NOT to say there is or isn't a heaven or a hell (who knows - anybody actually been to either?). My point is that life here and now is more important than just concern about an "afterlife." People do experience hell here, and we CAN help get people out of it here and now so they can more fully share in relationship with God, Jesus, and each other - sharing in salvation and eternal life. Can you imagine Jesus?

WHEN YOU LEARN HOW TO DIE, YOU LEARN HOW TO LIVE

2007-04-14T20:27:00.000-07:00

What a great line from the movie (and I assume the book), Tuesdays with Morrie. As I thought about this quote, I thought about something: we often wonder what Jesus did in those 30 or so years before we know of his earthly ministry. Maybe, just maybe, he was learning how to die, which let him know how to live.

I think we (human beings) are afraid of what will happen if we truly live. We're afraid to lose – to lose loved ones, acceptance, possessions, even life itself. Yet, if we live in fear of losing these things, we also don't gain these things. We never actually step out in love to live.

The Jesus we know about knew how to die – by loving wastefully. He loved people that most people think are a waste of time to love – the sick, poor, women, children, even enemies. He loved “causes” or programs that showed everybody's worth in God's kingdom, in God's sight – causes that most people think are a waste of time. His living led to his death, but his death showed how we are to live, without fear but with love.

1 John 4:17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. 21 The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (NRSV)

Romans 14:7 We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 for to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. (NRSV)

UP IN HEAVEN?

2006-12-06T21:16:00.000-08:00

So often when talking about life, Christianity, and / or what happens after death, we talk about "going up to heaven" as if heaven is up there, out there, above the clouds.

Recently, in a New Testament Bible Study, we were talking about life after death. One of the members, Clark, who has been widowed for about 1 1/2 years, told of an event that happened last April. He said that all day had been a "normal day" until he was watching the news that evening. He realized, after seeing the date, that it was his wedding anniversary, to which he exclaimed, "It's our anniversary today." Plain as day, he said he heard his wife, Joan, say, "Why, yes, Sweetie. It's our anniversary." This, he noted, was just one of many times he really feels like his wife is still with him.

How can this be? Isn't heaven up there, out there, above the clouds?

I think we have a false sense of heaven. The ancient world view was that the earth was flat. On top of this flat earth was a dome (imagine a basketball cut in half and set on top of a flat surface." Above that dome was water (see Genesis 1: 6-8) that sometimes opened to let water down to the earth (rain). In the dome were two great lights, the sun and moon (see Genesis 1:14-19). Above it all was heaven. Some believed God resided there only. Others believed God lived only in the tabernacle, or later, the temple. Either way, heaven was "up there, out there, above the clouds." Today, though, we know that the world is not flat. We know there is not a "dome" above the earth. We know more about where the sun and moon is. Why do we still maintain that heaven is up there, out there, above the clouds?

I find it amazing, though, that in the same funeral services where we talk about our loved ones "going up to heaven," we also say, that our loved ones have been reunited with God. After hearing Clark's story, I remembered Bible passages such as:

Psalm 139: 7 Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, 10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast. (NRSV)

Acts 17: 28 For "In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "For we too are his offspring.' (NRSV)

Ephesians 4: 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. (NRSV)

If it is true that there is no place we can go where we can be beyond God's presence; if it is true that it is in God that we live and move and have our being; if it is true that there is one God who is above all and through all and in all, couldn't heaven be right here with us, all around us? If we really believe that we will be "united with God" in death, and God is here and everywhere, maybe our loved ones who have gone before are not up there, out there, above the clouds. Maybe they, like God, remain here with us in some way we cannot fully comprehend.

Maybe, as the 80s pop song goes: Ooh, heaven is a place on earth!

DEPENDENCE OR INDEPENDENCE?

2006-09-18T06:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I started co-teaching a 10-week Disciple Bible Study on the book of Genesis. As one might expect, we spent some time discussing one of the foundational texts of all of Scripture: the story of "the fall" in Genesis 3.

One member of the class, Jay Cantrell, noted that this passage made more sense to him now that he had kids and grandkids. He said it reminded him of what has happened with his kids as they left the "age of innocence" and went out on their own. They had to realize that being on their own meant having to have a job to pay the bills, similar to Adam being told ". . . in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground . . ." (Genesis 3:17-19, NRSV). Daddy isn't going to do everything for you now!

This made me realize something. As much as we equate this passage with "sin," it is really a passage about our desire for independence as human beings. Our "problem" is that we want to be independent of God and other people. We want to show or to prove that we can do it on our own without the help of others. Don't we all go through this to some extent as we "leave home?" We want to survive, even thrive, without the help of our parents. This is the story of Adam and Eve. They want to be independent like God, having wisdom.

The next interesting point is that Jesus taught just the opposite of this:

He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:17, NRSV)

Jesus, in essence, is teaching that independence is not the goal. The goal is to learn to (and accept to) be dependent on God and other people! We cannot do it alone! May we have the strength to be dependent on God and other people - and allow others to be dependent on us and EVEN allow God to be dependent on us! When God calls us into serving others, God is, in a sense depending on us. It is a mutual relationship!

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS?

2006-09-18T06:18:00.000-07:00

Others may have made this connection explicitly before, but I hadn't until last week. I wanted to share it!

We have been "taught" since childhood in the church that Jesus' statement:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17, NRSV)

means that Jesus was "foretold" in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Jesus has finally coming fulfilling all the "prophecies" found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Others have said that Jesus "fulfilled" the law and the prophets because Jesus was the "final sacrifice." I've come to the conclusion that these interpretations are NOT what this passage means. Why?

Later in the sermon on the mount, from which the above Scripture passage comes, we get this statement:

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12, NRSV, emphasis mine)

Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, not because he was foretold in the Law and the Prophets and finally "came." Jesus did not fulfill the law and the prophets because he was the "final sacrifice." Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets because he actually lived out the law and the prophets - doing to others as you would have them do to you!!

All too often, we have been taught because of Matthew 5:17 that we (human beings) no longer have to "fulfill the law" because Jesus already "fulfilled it." Yet, it certainly seems in Matthew 7:12 that we, too, should fulfill the law and the prophets! It isn't just something for Jesus to do!

This and other "revelations" I have been experiencing lately continually remind me that we must be careful not to interpret Scripture by the creeds, theology, and ideas we have heard all of our lives. We must be careful to let the Scriptures say what they say and not force our "preconceived notions, thoughts, ideas, and theology" on Scripture texts that do not say "what we've always heard."

ALL OF CREATION PRAISE GOD?

2006-03-07T14:42:00.000-08:00

This week, it has been my pleasure to meet, visit with, and hear the Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr. of the Riverside Church in New York City. Dr. Forbes is a guest lecturer at First United Methodist Church in Wichita Falls, Texas as a part of the Perkins Lecture Series that has taken place there since 1943. He has been truly inspiring.

In visiting with him on Sunday, he mentioned the need for the church to make a statement of faith concerning our need as the church to support the protection of the natural environment around us. Although I have believed it was necessary for the church to support these things, I had never put much thought toward a theological statement of faith in regards to this. Below are certain Scripture passages that have come to mind as I have thought about this as well as why they came to mind.

Psalm 148:
¹Praise the LORD!
Praise the LORD from the heavens;
praise him in the heights!
²Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his host!

³Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars!
⁴ Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!

⁵Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for he commanded and they were created.
⁶He established them forever and ever;
he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed.

⁷Praise the LORD from the earth,
you sea monsters and all deeps,
⁸fire and hail, snow and frost,
stormy wind fulfilling his command!

⁹Mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars!
¹⁰Wild animals and all cattle,
creeping things and flying birds!

¹¹Kings of the earth and all peoples,
princes and all rulers of the earth!
¹²Young men and women alike,
old and young together!

¹³ Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for his name alone is exalted;
his glory is above earth and heaven.

¹⁴He has raised up a horn for his people,
praise for all his faithful,
for the people of Israel who are close to him.
Praise the LORD! (NRSV)

Colossians 1:
¹⁵[The Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; ¹⁶for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. ¹⁹For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, ²⁰and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (NRSV, emphasis mine)

Psalm 139:
⁷Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? ⁸If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. ⁹If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, ¹⁰even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast. (NRSV)

Acts 17:
²⁸For "In [God] we live and move and have our being. . . .” (NRSV)

I am struck by the psalmist's words of calling not just people, but, in essence, all of creation to praise God. We as a church easily focus our efforts on providing ways for people to praise God. We chastise people, groups, governments, etc. that seem to prevent us from worshiping God in the ways we might think appropriate. Yet, we think nothing of cutting down a rain forest for our profit, taking away the plants' abilities to praise God by providing CO₂ and habitation for numerous animals (some of which are endangered). We think nothing of dumping chemicals in a river that kill plants and animals (not to mention ourselves), preventing these from fulfilling their God-given purposes in creation.

I am struck by the author of Colossians who claims that God's concern is not just for people to be reconciled to God but all things – all of creation – to be reconciled to God. We as a church easily focus our efforts on participating in God reconciling people to God's self. We struggle against things that stand in the way reconciling people to God. Yet, we balk at spending tax dollars to clean up parts of God's creation. We balk at emissions controls on automobiles and factories that raise the cost to us, the consumers, even though these will help save God's creation.

I am struck by Psalm 139, Acts 17, and ideas espoused by Marcus Borg that remind us that God is truly here with us – in creation and in us (also God's creation). Although the dirt is not God, God is in the dirt. We as a church easily focus our efforts on criticizing manufacturers of items (i.e. cigarettes, liquor, drugs, etc.) that destroy our bodies, which Paul claims are the “temple of God / the Holy Spirit.” Yet, if we truly believe (and I do) that God is not just transcendent (out there) but also immanent (right here), are we not destroying God's temple (not to mention the place we also live) when we destroy the lakes, rivers, forests, ozone layer, etc? Of course we are!

I see this as a very strong theological rationale for us as a Christian community to support reform that protects our environment. Let us save our and God's environment.

FAVORITE BOOKS

2006-01-19T18:05:00.000-08:00

For whatever it is worth, I want to share with you my top eleven books of theology as of today (though it is subject to change). It is these books that have formed and continue to form my faith and my thoughts. Although these ARE my top eleven, they are not in any particular order.

THE NEW INTERPRETER'S STUDY BIBLE Walter J. Harrelson, editor

HARPERCOLLINS STUDY BIBLE Wayne A. Meeks, editor

THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY by Fred B. Craddock & M. Eugene Boring

THE NEW CREATION: JOHN WESLEY'S THEOLOGY TODAY by Theodore Runyon

THE POWERS THAT BE: THEOLOGY FOR A NEW MILLENIUM by Walter Wink

MEETING JESUS AGAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME: THE HISTORICAL JESUS AND THE HEART OF CONTEMPORARY FAITH by Marcus J. Borg

THE GOD WE NEVER KNEW: BEYOND DOGMATIC RELIGION TO A MORE AUTHENTIC CONTEMPORARY FAITH by Marcus J. Borg

READING THE BIBLE AGAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME: TAKING THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY BUT NOT LITERALLY by Marcus J. Borg

THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY: REDISCOVERING A LIFE OF FAITH by Marcus J. Borg

WALKING THE BIBLE: A JOURNEY BY LAND THROUGH THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES by Bruce Feiler
THE WILL OF GOD by Leslie D. Weatherhead

If you like what I write, you will probably enjoy these. If you don't, you might or might not!

THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE?

2006-01-17T07:03:00.000-08:00

As uniting as religion can be in a family, I also realize it can be very divisive; therefore, I have not shared much of my religious views with my family. Sometimes, someone will say something that I TOTALLY disagree with, and I just try to let it slide.

While spending part of Christmas Day, 2005 with my in-laws, the subject turned to religion. As usual, I tried to stay out of the conversation. Somehow, the subject turned to, "Who's right, and who's wrong?" The familiar passage, John 14:6, was brought up: "Jesus said to [Thomas], 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.'" (NRSV) I finally went out on a limb and professed my belief that I do not think Jesus, the human-being who lived 2,000 years ago, was the "only way" to know God.

I mentioned some of my reasons for believing this. For one, God is larger than any one religion or any vocabulary can possibly describe, so how can we say our religion is the only way of finding God? I noted that at the same time a reformation was going on in Catholicism (coinciding with the beginning of Protestantism in the early 1500s) reformation was going on in the eastern religions also, even though neither east or west knew what the other was doing. God must be working in BOTH areas through different religions. I noted that there really are unique similarities in all religions despite the differences. Yet, I made it clear that even though I believed Jesus was not the only way that I still believed ALL Christians should share with others the story of Jesus as it would help others get to understand God better. In addition, though, I acknowledged that this meant I ALSO needed to learn from other religions as well.

My brother-in-law, who recently graduated with a degree in philosophy AND psychology, brought up a very important point. We, as human-beings, need boundaries. We need something that gives us direction; thus, the fact that many religions (human-made entities) declare that they are the "only way" to God is just that religion's way of giving boundaries to its followers. That religion may not be the ONLY way to find God, but for the adherents to that religion, this may be the only way for THEM to find God. That particular religion provides boundaries that the person can live with.

BUT WHY?

2005-07-02T16:31:00.000-07:00

Mark 10:13-16 People were bringing little children to Jesus in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. (NRSV)

Somebody made the following statement to me the other day: "We are not supposed to question our faith." To me, it is sad that we live in a time and place that seems to tell us that we cannot question our faith. Every time I hear a statement such as this, I think about the passage above from the book of Mark and how Jesus says that the kingdom of God belongs to people like little children.

I don't have any children of my own, but I know from my nieces and nephews, children of friends and family, and children and youth I have experienced in the church that they are almost always questioning! How many of you have heard a young person ask, "Why...? But why...?" I have heard it many times! Why, then, are we not supposed to question our faith? Doesn't the kingdom of God belong to such as these?

As I look back at the history of the church, I see many important people who questioned faith:

Martin Luther King, Jr. questioned those whose faith said that African-Americans did not deserve equality with Caucasian people.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer questioned the faith that allowed Hitler to kill Jews.
John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) questioned the faith of the Anglican Church of his day that would not reach out to people of lower social and economic status. He wanted to share God's love with ALL people, not just the middle and upper class!
Martin Luther questioned the faith of the Roman Catholic Church of his day. This questioning brought about reform through the Protestant movement as well as bringing reform to the Roman Catholic Church!
Jesus questioned the faith of the Jewish faith of his day - need I say more?

When we properly question our faith, seeking the desires of God for our life and this world, we are able to bring and experience a bit more of God's kingdom on this earth. Have we not experienced this through the questioning of the people listed above?

GOD BLESS AMERICA?

2005-07-02T16:24:00.000-07:00

I’ll probably never forget a few years ago when members of the U.S. Congress stood outside and sang together the song "God Bless America." At the time I was filled with a great sense of patriotism for our country. However, as I have thought about this over the past few years, I have come to believe that this was a bit narrow-minded.

I recall the passage from Acts 3:25 in which Peter, speaking to an assembly of Israelites, recalls the covenant that God made with Abraham:

You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, "And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' (NRSV)

“Families” in this context means “nations.” Therefore, Peter is reminding his hearers and us that God promises to bless not only Israel or America but ALL nations of the earth.

Some would say that some nations of this world do not “deserve” God’s blessings, and I couldn’t disagree more. These nations that we deem to not “deserve” God’s blessings need God’s blessings as much or more than we do in order to help them become the people God would have them (and us) to be. That is the wonderful story of grace – getting what we DON’T deserve. Plus, if we say that WE, as citizens of the United States, DO deserve God's blessings, aren't we being a bit prideful? Aren't we tooting our own horns? Aren't we being like the Pharisees who felt that WHAT we do determines whether or not we receive God's blessings?

How powerful it would be for our nation to stand together and sing a song to the world that has the line GOD BLESS THE WORLD! Let us all join together to sing and pray for God’s blessings on all the nations of the earth. If need be, maybe we can strive to be channels of God’s grace, taking God’s blessings to the world!

DON'T TELL ME HOW TO PRAY...

2005-07-02T15:35:00.000-07:00

For quite a few years, there has been much ink and hot air spread about the issue of prayer in schools. Many people are all in an uproar that, "The government won't let my child pray in school." This, however, is actually NOT the case.

There is NOTHING, according to the law, that prevents a child from praying in school - so long as it does not disturb the necessary goings on at a school. How do I know this? Have you ever attended a "Meet You at the Pole" rally at a public school? You see, prayer DOES happen at school!

You see, the issue is that a public school employee, which is ultimately a government employee that represents the government (even teachers fall into this category), cannot lead a prayer for the students of the school. Why? It is quite simple. By doing so, the employee is implying that the government promotes a certain "type" or "brand" of religion, which goes against the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution that reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ."

Now, I find it interesting that the majority of the people that I know who get all in an uproar about this issue (all of which are Christians) would "have a cow" if their child's teacher was a Muslim and led a Muslim prayer in class! Yet, without the current laws, this could happen!

Now, I do not have children, but if I did, there would many "Christians" that I would not want to model prayer for my child. In fact, I'd prefer many Jews or Muslims to some Christians! But here's the deal: I believe it would be MY job to teach my child to pray with the help of my local church - not the public school system!

I'm reminded that many of the "Christians" that I indicted above for being sticklers for this issue often want to take Scripture very literally. I say to these people to read this passage of Scripture:

1 "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 "So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

5 "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 "When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6, NRSV)

The above words are, according to Matthew, from the mouth of Jesus. Jesus says that we should pray in secret - not in front of everybody. Yet, some people have temper tantrums saying they want their child to do EXACTLY what Jesus as explicitly said not to do. It seems even literalists / fundamentalists pick and choose what they want out of Scripture, too!

Looking at Matthew 6, I am reminded that most of the time that I pray, I do so silently - often with others present, but they never know it. Nobody, then, can prevent me from praying - especially if I do it silently! Therefore, if there is not prayer in schools, it is ONLY because WE (parents and church leaders) have not taught our children how to pray. Are we expecting the public school and government to do it?

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

2005-06-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

I am of the belief (as are others) that God is so big and unimaginable that there is absolutely NO way in which we are able to fully define or describe God. We do not have the knowledge of God OR the vocabulary to do so. Of course, we are human beings, so we try. In fact, we need to in order to: speak to others about God; learn more about God; think about God; and even talk to God. Try as we may, however, we cannot fully describe God.

Many people want to confine God to only the image of "Father," forgetting the many images of God in Scripture that compare God to a mother or a woman. In addition, we disregard the fact that the Hebrew word(s) that we see translated as "compassion" or "compassionate" actually mean that God is "womb-like."

Often, we get hung up on limiting God to the words that we TRY to describe God with. We, therefore, limit our understanding of God and how God works. I find that very limiting on us as humans as well. We are, according to Scripture, created in God's image. To limit our understanding of God is also to limit our understanding of who WE can be as well.

Often, well meaning Christians will agree with the statement of the first paragraph of this post. Then, in the next breath, they will say that people who call God, "Allah" don't worship the "same" God that we do. More often than not, these people don't realize that even Christians who speak the Arabic language ALSO call God, "Allah." That's just the Arabic word for God.

Some people will concede that Muslims do worship the same God, but those "Buddhists" and other religions who don't explicitly worship a personified God do not worship God. I find this troubling. Often, these religions refuse to personify God. Yet, they talk about a "sacred more" - something that is beyond us that is sacred. For these religions, the goal is for us to live more purposefully and wholly in this sacred "more" or "other." I see a great sense of awe and "worshipfullness" in these people. They understand that God cannot fully be described and to try to describe God can be limiting. This can create a false sense of who and how God is.

The issue and difference is ultimately a difference in how we define God. If you think about it, one's name is really just a "metaphor" or a way to "define" the person. Similarly, the word, "God," is just a "metaphor" or a way we try to "define" God. Let us be careful not to limit God with our mere words.

FAITH IN OR FAITH OF?

2005-06-02T18:22:00.000-07:00

Much of modern Christianity is based around the idea that one must have "faith IN Jesus Christ" to have "salvation." More often than not, this leads to, "There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ" - which makes me shudder.

I ask the question, where does one get this idea that one must have faith in Christ to have salvation? Well, the easy answer is, "The Bible says so." Does it really?

Let's look at a typical example in Scripture that is often used to support the idea of faith IN Christ:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith IN Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith IN Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith IN the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2, NRSV, emphasis mine)

WOW! Look at all that "evidence" - or is it evidence? Let us take a look at the footnotes found in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible. In each of the three instances above, many scholars would translate that "the faith OF (not in) Christ." Let's look at the entire passage with this translation:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by THE FAITH OF CHRIST, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2, NRSV, emphasis mine to highlight the footnote additions)

What's the difference? Well, faith IN Christ easily becomes an intellectual thing. "I believe in Christ, or I have faith in Christ." We easily translate that into meaning faith IN Christ, and no other, is necessary for salvation.

How different is that when we accept the translation that many scholars believe is more "literal," that we should have the faith OF Christ? How different would our lives be if we had the faith OF Christ and realized that there is nothing that can happen to us in this world (even crucifixion) that God cannot help us through? Christ could see that even though he'd rather the "cup be removed from him," that God was going to continue to work and inspire others to carry on the work he started. Whether one believes in a literal resurrection of Christ or not, one can see the resurrection of "the Way" after all the disciples scattered at the first sign of trouble.

For me, having faith IN Christ is not very helpful. It is only an intellectual statement. I wonder, though, how can it be that I can have faith IN Christ when, according to verse 20, Christ lives IN me? If we do allow Christ to live in us, whether we have faith IN Christ or not, aren't we allowing ourselves to have the faith OF Christ? Doesn't the faith OF Christ lead us to be more like Christ so that we might "live to God" (Galatians 2:19). If non-Christians have the faith OF Christ, aren't they also justified or have salvation?

Why don't we try to have the faith OF Christ? All too often, I think we are simply afraid to have the faith OF Christ, which is to have no faith at all. We're afraid where it might lead us. Look at Jesus. Look at the early martyrs. Look at Gandhi (who, by the way, "religiously" studied the Sermon on the Mount). Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. They all died living the faith OF Christ.

Let's live to God. Let's follow the leading of the faith OF Christ. Remember, it might be Friday, but Sunday's coming. (Get it... Jesus is said to have died on Good Friday and was resurrected on Easter Sunday - what do we have to fear except fear itself).

GOD'S WORD?

2005-04-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

For most of my life, I believed that the Bible was literally "God's word." First, I thought that the people attributed to writing Scripture had been no more than pens or pencils that God used to write the Bible. Then I believed that God had "inspired" the authors, meaning that they had experienced God, and so they wrote how God worked in their life. Since God had caused the experience of inspiration, each writer told how God is.

I no longer believe either of those ideas. I definitely believe that God continues to work in our lives, and we definitely continue to experience God in our lives. Yet, I believe that all writings about God, whether Scripture, tradition, or otherwise, are actually the author's interpretation or reasoning of how they experienced God in a particular place and time within a particular tradition - all of which are a part of the final product that we read.

How did I arrive at this understanding? The more I studied Scripture, the more I found it to contradict! We have at least TWO creation stories. None of the four Gospels tell the story of Jesus in exactly the same way. Were there one or two angels in the empty tomb or was it one or two young men? Did only one woman go to the tomb or was it multiple? (Must I go on!)

Ultimately, I had to make a decision for myself of whether I believed Scripture contradicted itself or whether God contradicted God's self. I had to believe that God could not contradict God's self, and I could believe that different people contradicted each other in interpreting their own experiences of God.

As I thought about this further, I came to believe that for much of my life I had idolized Scripture, making it "equal" to God since I thought it was "God's word." I have since come to the conclusion that God is so much bigger than the Bible that, ultimately, my faith is in God, not Scripture.

Now, I must make a clarification. I do not see the Bible as God's word, but I do see it as sacred. Yet, it is sacred ONLY because the church has claimed it to be sacred, not because God made it sacred. Therefore, because the church has made it sacred, it is our MOST important document as Christians. Consequently, it DESERVES our continued reading AND study - study including other people: peers, scholars, and commentators.

For more information on this, read Marcus Borg's READING THE BIBLE AGAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME: TAKING THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY BUT NOT LITERALLY.

RELIGION AND POLITICS DON'T MIX?

2005-04-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

Really? Are you sure?

I have heard this phrase all my life, and until very recently, I even believed it - until I did a closer study of Scripture.

Let's think about the Exodus. This is about political salvation of the "nation" of Israel - not personal salvation. Slavery is a political issue when it is mandated by the government, which it was in this story. As the story goes, God provided salvation from a political government's oppression. When we look closely at the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, we can see that the law we are told God gives to Moses is a set of laws to guide the "nation" of Israel. "Thou shalt not murder," is no different than the political law provided by the government of the United States today.

When we look at Joshua, we see the Israelite nation claiming the promised land for their own political nation. Judges shows a nation trying to make it under the law of Moses without a human king, and repeatedly, we are told that God has to come rescue the Israelites from political oppression of other nations through a judge. 1 & 2 Samuel shows us the transition from the system of judges with God ruling the nation to having an earthly king - first Saul, then David, and so on. 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles really do not focus on individual people but on the history of the kings of both Israel (the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom). Occasionally, we'll see the entrance of a prophet, such as Elijah or Elisha, but their main purpose is to reform the king, the political nation and not the people of the nation.

Many of the psalms are about political need and political conquest, not just personal needs. The prophets are focused, again, on reforming wayward kings who have led the nation into dire straits. The hope is to bring the nation out of its slump and / or exile to be a strong political nation again.

Many will say, "Yeah, but that's the Old Testament. It's different in the New Testament." Well, first of all, are these people saying that the Old Testament is not inspired? Why not just throw it out then? Second of all, we must never forget that Jesus was called the "Messiah" or "Christ," the annointed one to redeem the NATION of Israel!

We must remember that "Messiah" literally means "annointed one." Therefore, every political king that ever sat on the throne of Israel or Judah was a "messiah" because each one was "annointed." If Jesus was the Messiah, we cannot overlook these political connotations that come with the title!

1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest New Testament writing we have, and it probably comes from the hand of the Apostle Paul. Let's look at the first verse of this book:

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. (NRSV, emphasis added)

We do not realize it today, but "Lord" is a political term on top of being a religious term. It comes from the Greek word kyrios. Caesar Augustus had brought peace to Rome following the civil wars that ensued after the assasination of Julius Caesar. From that time on, emperors of Rome were considered to be gods! One of the titles for these emperors (who were understood to be gods) was kyrios, lord. By Paul calling Jesus, "Lord," Paul is making a political, as well as a religious, statement!

As much as we try to deny it, Jesus was a political figure and some of his concerns were political. For example, let's look at a passage from the sermon on the mount:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42, NRSV)

Jesus' first statement, "turn the other cheek," has to do with one's social status in the world. In 1st century Judaism, the left hand was considered unclean and could only be used for activities such as wiping oneself. Therefore, in order for someone to hit me on the right cheek, that person MUST back-hand me with the right, because they cannot use the left hand! That is a sign of derision saying, "I'm better than you!" By allowing someone to, then, strike me on the left cheek, I am forcing that person to strike me as an equal. I am declaring that in God's eyes, I am an equal to this person who thinks they are better than me. Some will say, "That's not very political." True, but let's look at the next two statements.

"If someone wants to sue you. . . . " This is a part of the political process allowed by the government. Jesus' response to this statement is to "give them your cloak as well." Why? In Jewish society of the 1st century, it was deemed to be worse to cause someone's nakedness or to see someone's nakedness than be naked. Therefore, Jesus is inviting his hearers to "work the political system" to show one's value and worth!

Similarly, "If someone forces you to go one mile, go also the second!" This, also, has to do with a political situation of the 1st century. Per Roman rule, Roman soldiers could force anyone in the kingdom to carry their pack for one mile, but ONLY one mile. They could be punished for having someone carry it farther than that. Thus, Jesus is, again, asking his hearers to "work the political system." Imagine this picture: A soldier forces a Jewish peasant to carry is pack one mile. After one mile, the peasant keeps going. Knowing that he could be punished, this Roman soldier (who is deemed to be more important than this peasant) has to BEG the lowly peasant to give up the pack. This is known today as "passive resistance." This same type of political resistance has been employed by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.!

We must also not forget one of the most common phrases on the lips of Jesus: the kingdom of God / heaven. In these instances, Jesus is asking us to choose between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of God. Where does our allegiance really lie? Are we really seeking the furtherance of the kingdom of God or our own kingdoms?

When we really think about it, it is this question that led to the Jewish leaders bringing Jesus before Pilate for sentencing. These leaders used the issue of Jesus calling for proper allegiance to God above Caesar to encourage Pilate to sentence him to death, even if they do stretch the story a bit:

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Luke 23:1-2, NRSV)

Yes, religion and politics do not mix when one's goal is to further the earthly kingdom and not God's kingdom. Yet, if we are truly seeking to be active citizens of God's kingdom, we will properly use politics and other means to further that kingdom. When we are truly member of God's kingdom, politics become a good and useful thing - not a bad thing!

For more insight into this, read Walter Wink's THE POWERS THAT BE: THEOLOGY FOR A NEW MILLENIUM.

A QUESTION OF PARABLES

2005-04-10T21:12:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that people will jump through hoops trying to prove that all of the Bible is 100% accurate historically: creation happened just like in the Bible several thousand years ago (not millions or billions); the Exodus story happened just like "the Bible said;" and / or everything reported about Jesus in the Gospels is true because it's in the Bible.

Here is a problem I have with this line of thinking. First, using creation as an example, there is much evidence to indicate that there are TWO stories of creation in Genesis. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the second is 2:4b-2:25. In addition, there is a different version in Job and in the Psalms. Which is correct? The first story in Genesis says that humans were made last of all creation. The second story says that Adam was made first before any other plants or animals (which were created to find a "helper" for Adam). Eve was made last in this story. Which is correct?

Well, I want to pose a thought. Let's think about Jesus. One of the primary ways he taught people were through parables - stories he made up. They were not factual tellings of historical events, they were just FICTIONAL stories. Well, since they WERE fiction, does that mean we should throw them out? Does that mean there is no truth to be found there? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

Here's something that's important to think about. We claim that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We also claim that Jesus was inspired by God. If Jesus was indeed inspired by God and taught using fictional parables, who is to say that parts of Scripture that are inspired by God aren't also fictional parables? If they are fiction, does that mean we should throw them out? Does that mean there is no truth to be found there? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

The Bible is, by far, the most important document in the Christian faith, and I believe this wholeheartedly. However, the Bible is NOT God, and God is NOT the Bible. Many people spend so much time trying to "prove" the Bible, that they forget to "prove" God. Think of 1 John 4:12: "No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us, and God's love has been brought to full expression through us." (NLT)

As Christians, we must continue to study and interpret Scripture, but let's spend less time trying to prove the Bible and more time trying to prove God by loving God with everything we have and our neighbors as ourselves. For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14, NLT)

DON'T PUT A QUESTION MARK WHERE GOD PUT A PERIOD?

2005-04-10T20:13:00.000-07:00

This is a frustrating phrase for me! I know that people who say this are implying that one should not question "what God said" in the Bible. What is so frustrating, though, is that these are the people who want to take the Bible literally. What they don't realize is that interpretation of Scripture is NOT as easy as is implied by biblical literalists. Please, hear me out...

The Bible was originally written in primarily two languages, Hebrew and Greek (a portion of Daniel was also written in Aramaic). The interesting thing about the ancient versions of these two languages is that there was NO punctuation. Therefore, there are instances in which it is unclear whether the original author was intending to make certain sentences to be questions or statements! Similarly, there are passages in which it is unclear when one speaker in the text has quit speaking and another has started. This is especially a problem in Job and John. Since all of this is the case, we cannot literally say that God definitively put a question mark or a period on many statements (assuming God did "write" the Bible - which I do NOT believe)!