Jesus Sums Up Haggai

The new preacher did it again. He preached from the Tanakh ("Old Testament").

Yo soy muy impressed.

I've read Haggai several times in my life, but before yesterday, I could not have told you what the book was about. But because I was exposed to this short, two-chapter book yesterday, I realize that Jesus summed it up with the simple phrase, "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33, paraphrased).

Whereas Jesus puts it in positive terms, and relates it to the spiritual kingdom of God, Haggai puts it in negative terms and relates it to the physical Temple of God:

"You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?" declares YHWH Almighty. "Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with his own house. Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the oil and whatever the ground produces, on men and cattle, and on the labor of your hands."

This also reminds me of Malachi 3:9-11 (which is often misquoted to mean that an individual will benefit from being generous - the passage actually says that the nation will benefit when its individuals are generous (which, of course, would in turn benefit most of its individuals)):

You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says YHWH Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says YHWH Almighty.

In other words, as Jesus says, seek first the Kingdom of God, and the rest will take care of itself.

===

A couple of side notes about our new preacher:

A woman mentioned to me that she has been made to consider moving to this church because she sees a humility in this preacher that is attractive. I don't remember her exact wording, but she added something to the effect of "He's a man of God" as opposed to one just "going through the motions".

When I told him he had a good sermon that morning, his response was to deflect the glory to God. Reminds me of Jesus' injunction to "shine your light so that the people may see the glory of the Father in Heaven" (Matt. 5:16, paraphrased).

I bless YHWH for our new preacher.

New Church Website

Well I finally got around to registering a domain name for the church website. I went though DomainMongers.com ($17/year; a bit more expensive than some, but I've been advised that they provide good service).

A friend is actually providing the hosting space, and has arranged for me to have a point-and-click interface for the site, using Joomla.

Setting up Joomla is requiring a large learning curve on my part, but once it's set up the way I want, I believe maintaining it will be a snap, and I will be able to turn the day-to-day upkeep of the site to the elders and preacher and office staff (adding articles, recordings, announcements, etc).

It's in a very rough format now (did I mention a steep learning curve?), but I'm hoping to have it in reasonable form for demonstrating to the men at the Men's Breakfast this Saturday. (Yes, I'm "hoping", but I don't really have expectation that my learning will get me there by then. Bummer. Any Joomla experts out there that want to lend a hand?)

The site can be visited at: http://northfifthandgrapechurch.org .

Emulate King Jehoshaphat

I like the way the Holman Christian Standard Bible renders 1 Chronicles 17:6 (except for it deliberately changing God's word and hiding God's name for the sake of tradition, as do many versions; I have fixed that in the quote below). It spoke to my spirit when I read it the other night, and made me want to emulate King Jehoshaphat in this regard.

His mind rejoiced in YHWH's ways....

The Acts 15 Conference

In Acts 15 we read about the conference that addressed the conversion of Gentiles. Up until this time, the church was exclusively Jewish, and it is doubtful that any Christians had really absorbed into their psyche that any of the "nations", the Gentiles, could be part of God's people unless they converted to Judaism.

The Jews did not, however, consign all Gentiles to being lost. Whereas the Jews believed they were under a special covenant with God, which included obedience to the 613 laws of the Mosaic Covenant, they believed that "good" Gentiles who obeyed the seven laws of the Noahic Covenant would find a place in paradise. These seven laws, derived from the covenant God made with Noah after the Flood, applied to all Nations, whereas the 613 laws of the Mosaic Covenant only applied to the Jews.

The result of this conference in Acts 15 was that the Gentile believers did not need to submit to the Law of Moses the way the Jewish believers did, because the Gentiles were not converting to the Mosaic Covenant, which was ritualistic and for the Jews only, but rather to the Abrahamic Covenant, which was by faith and was for all nations, and which was fulfilled in Jesus.

Nevertheless, to keep social peace with the many Moses-observing Jews living in most cities, the Gentiles needed to adhere to the seven laws of the Noahic Covenant which are:

1) to establish courts of justice;
2) to not commit blasphemy;
3) to not commit idolatry;
4) to not commit incest and adultery;
5) to not commit bloodshed;
6) to not commit robbery; and
7) to not eat flesh cut from a living animal.

The instructions in Acts 15 were:

1) to abstain from food sacrificed to idols;
2) to abstain from blood;
3) to abstain from the meat of strangled animals; and
4) to abstain from sexual immorality.

I suspect that the Jerusalem Conference members felt that these four rules were sufficient to appease the Jews living amongst them as being "close enough" to the seven Noahic Laws. The reason these rules were given to the Gentiles is because "... Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (v21), and that the new Gentile Christians would "do well to avoid these things" (v 29).

You can read more about the Jewish conception of the Noahic Law for Gentiles here: http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

Baptism Was Not "Christian"

I think we Christians, so far separated from our Jewish roots, have the mistaken impression that immersion is a "new" Christian thing.

I can't speak about attitudes toward immersion among the Gentile believers, but it had long been a common practice amongst Jews. Mikveh, or Baptism, was practiced by certain sects on a daily basis, and was often used as a cleansing ritual before or after major events (like for a High Priest before conducting a Temple service, or for anyone after handling dead bodies, or after having sex). Herod's Temple had several baptistries (ever wonder where the Christians got baptized on the birthday of the church? in the Temple baptistries (mikvaot), most likely). (You can google for more info: a pretty good quick summary that I recommend you spend ten minutes reading can be found at http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm)

Of course, we don't have such practices in our culture, so immersion presents a much larger barrier to modern Westerners than it did to the Jews of the first century. Thus it has largely been forgotten in our modern world. I'm reminded of Naaman (2 Kings 5) who at first refused baptism, because it was "too simple". (Thankfully, his servant convinced him that he was being stupid, and Naaman did as he was told and was cleansed of his leprosy because of his obedience (not because his skin got wet).) Modern believers have gotten it in their heads that baptism is an "extra" that is not part of the core of the salvation process, and like Naaman at first, have rejected the examples and commands found over and over in the New Testament. The Apostles never told anyone to "pray the sinner's prayer" and to be baptized after they find a good church to join.

To convert to Judaism in the first century, a Gentile would have to undergo both immersion and circumcision. About fourteen or so years after the church was born, when Gentiles started becoming converts, the Jews expected the Gentiles to convert into Christian-flavored Judaism to be just like themselves (until that time, I don't think any Christian even began to think that the church was anything other than Judaism perfected, including the continued observance of, but not justification by, the Law of Moses), and they expected the Gentiles to be immersed and to be circumcised. This of course led to the conference we read about in Acts 15.

Six Things to Consider when Educating Your Child

A friend of mine has just about decided to send his child to private school. In looking over the school's associated web site, I found the following which I thought worthy of repeating here.

Big Ideas to Consider:

1. There are basically two kingdoms: a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness. It seems strange to have those who walk in darkness educate children of light. It doesn't fit.

2. If Jesus Christ is Lord, then He is Lord of all. We cannot divide things into secular and sacred.

3. All truth is God's truth, and God's Word sheds light on our path. Only in His light can we see light. Education is not focused on possibilities but on certainties found in God's Word.

4. Deuteronomy 6 tells parents that, in all they do, they should provide a godly education 24/7.

5. Three key institutions that shape a child are the home, the church and the school. Children are served best when all three institutions point them in the same direction.

6. Only an education that has the liberty to address the whole child -- social, intellectual, emotional, physical AND spiritual -- reaches the possibility of excellence.

7. The best preparation for effective service is to be well grounded in one's mind before direct engagement of the culture.

http://www.discoverchristianschools.com/page.aspx?id=293200

Expelled

A small group went to see the Ben Stein movie "Expelled" today after lunch, including my parents. I never would have expected them to want to see it, but Dad had actually tried on his own to go see it last Friday (but circumstances prevented it). He's not usually one to be interested in such things.

But the thing that spoke volumes to me about this film is what he said as we were leaving the theater:

"There are only a dozen of us here; there should have been a thousand."

Prophets for the Modern-Day

In my church culture, it is popularly believed that miracles and the like, such as healings and prophecy, ceased shortly after the last of Jesus' original Apostles died. The thinking is that such capabilities were specially given to the Apostles, who could then pass on those abilities through the laying on of hands to other people, but that those recipients could not pass on the abilities.

I know the arguments for this position, and frankly, I find that the arguments are somewhat weak. It seems to me that we don't believe in miracles in the modern day because we do not personally experience them. We then take this belief, developed through our experience, and "reinterpret" the text so that it aligns with this belief.

But as one small data point in contradiction to this belief, I present a passage read last night at church, Ephesians 4:11-13:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Taking this passage at face-value, it seems to me that it teaches that so long as there is need for evangelists and pastors and teachers, there is need for apostles and prophets. The alternative is to claim that the church has already reached "unity in the faith" and has already "become mature" and has already attained to the "whole measure of the fullness of Christ".

I'm not entirely sure what to do with this concept. But one thing I absolutely will not do is to simply dismiss the idea of modern-day apostles and prophets because it doesn't fit in with my preconceived theology.

Of course, the issue is much larger than this one passage and entire books have been written on it (I just finished Jack Deere's two-in-one book, "Surprised by the [Spirit | Voice of God]"). The point is, it's time to return to the attitude of reading what's in the text, rather than reading what you believe into the text.

We Made The Right Choice

I believe we've made the right choice in hiring the new preacher whom we did.

In yesterday's sermon, he had turned to a passage, and just when we thought he was going to read it, he stopped and said that he didn't want to disturb anyone, but that he liked to hear the Word read out loud, and would be calling on us members to do some reading. He then said, "What does the text say?"

I was just about to decide to read the text, when his son piped up and read the passage. It was sort of an antiphonal reading, with the son reading a phrase, and his father repeating it with some sort of emphasis, followed by the son reading a phrase, followed by the repeat.

This happened four or six times throughout the sermon. The son always was first to bat. (I suppose he was culturally acclimated to this sort of reading, whereas the rest of us were not, and therefore weren't quite prepared.)

I like this method. It involves the listeners rather than simply leaving them sitting passively. I asked several people after the sermon what they thought, and none could find a "scriptural reason" not to do it, none found "anything wrong with with it", none "objected" to it, but I don't recall now that anyone was particularly in favor of it. I'm in favor of it.

I was afraid that because it was "different", it would be looked on with suspicion. I was afraid that the elders might put a kibosh on it, speaking to the new preacher in private and letting him know "we don't do that sort of thing here". Of course, that's probably just my paranoia speaking.

But I found it interesting (if not a bit disturbing), that he did not do the same thing in the evening sermon. Anh, surely that was just a coincidence flaming my paranoia. It will be interesting to see if the practice continues in future sermons.

===

Another thing that encouraged me about this preacher, is that he pointed out that Hebrews 10:24-25 is about encouraging others. He did not use this as a "proof-text" that we had to go to church, but rather, he used it as a "proof-text" that we should be encouraging one another unto love and good works, which I believe is more consistent with the emphasis of the passage. What really encouraged me was when he pointed out the meaning of the word "provoke" ("And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works"); the word means to "stir up". He had always believed that stirring up was a bad thing, as in "stirring up trouble". But he said that the text uses it positively, to stir up each other. I'm not sure he said this exactly, but what I heard was that we should shake each other out of our comfort zones, but I may have been inserting into his speech ideas born out of my own experiences of being chastised for disturbing the church's comfort zone. (I nearly gave him a verbal "Amen", but that is too far out of my comfort zone to do that just yet. Maybe in the future.)

===

Still another thing that encouraged me about this preacher is that he seems to be well-versed in the Bible, including the Tanakh (Old Testament). He references the Tanakh a lot; I get the sense that he's more well-rounded in Bible knowledge than I was expecting.

===

Perhaps the most encouraging thing about this new preacher is that I sense that he is open; he doesn't have his mind made up. He's confident in what he believes, but he's humble enough to look at other sides of an issue when presented to him. That's a very hard process, as I'm sure we'll all admit, but I believe he's likely to be someone who makes a better effort at it than most.

His whole attitude seems refreshing to me; the sense I get is that he has a humility, and a willingness to learn, and a concern about the spiritual aspects of reverence and desire for God (rather than a letter-of-the-law approach that I'm more accustomed to witnessing in that environment). The more I see of this guy, the more my spirit raises from its doldrums, hesitant to become hopeful, and yet yearning to hope that finally, here is a man who may approach God in Spirit, and not just in Truth. Can it be? Can it be?

===

Finally, the last thing I want to mention about how the choice of this preacher encouraged me yesterday, is that he actually said something that was new to me, rather than repeating the same message I've heard in church since I was three years old.

He mentioned that we often say things like, "Son, I'm proud of you", which we tend to think of as a good thing. But he did a survey of the usage of the words "pride" and "proud" in the Bible (finding something like 47 and 48 uses, respectively), and found that every one of the uses was negative. Being "proud", Biblically, is a negative thing. Rather, the Biblical example is to be "pleased with you".

His wife pointed out (this was in class, not during the sermon) that perhaps the language has changed, and we don't use the phrase "I'm proud of you" with the same meaning of the term "proud". The general consensus of the class is that "pride", as used in the Bible, refers to self-importance, but as she indicated, and as I agree, to be proud of someone really does not refer to one's self, but to the other person.

So our modern-day usage of "I'm proud of you" really means "I'm pleased with you." In essence, the meaning of the preacher's point was weakened, but I was exceptionally pleased that his underlying motivation was to be careful with our language. To me, that was the more important issue, the main point he was trying to make; he just chose a weaker example than he at first thought.

But I had never considered the possibility that something as "good" as telling another person that you're proud of them might be an anti-Biblical way of interacting with that person. This preacher made me consider this possibility (and somewhat, but perhaps not entirely, reject it academically, although I suspect I'll stop using the phrase in practice), and encouraged me by this possibility to be aware of the language I use.

In other words, this class session affected me, which is really rare. Most sermons/classes don't affect me, don't change me. And I can't say that this one made a 180-degree turn in my thinking, but it may very well have made a 2-degree course correction in my life. (And as I believe I've probably mentioned before, few people can handle 180s, whereas almost everyone can handle a 2-degree course correction every once in a while, so this small-change method might be more effective in the long-run than a large-change method.) But the point is that this preacher's message affected me. I'm quite pleased by the possibilities here.

===

Only time will tell how things work out. I've prayed for several years now that God might make this church into a healthy church. Dare my spirit have hope that God is acting on those prayers now? (Ya ever notice how God seems to take his time in answering prayers, when we expect instant results? What's up with that?)

===

And as a final note, inspired by that last sentence: we have a woman at church with some serious diseases, and she's been given about 6 months maximum to live. I've also been praying for her, that God might heal her, and again, it seems that God has taken his time about answering those prayers favorably, or perhaps he's unable to hear me due to failures on my end, or perhaps he's unwilling to respond favorably for his own purposes. But for her sake, and for her husband's sake, and for the glory to God that it would surely point to in this church that doesn't believe God performs miracles in the present-day, I pray for her healing. I'm afraid that even a last-minute healing that can not be explained medically would not sway this church into believing that God was directly involved -- it would be explained away as God's "providence", which is to say, "unexplained natural causes, because God doesn't perform miracles Today". Still, I think this woman herself, and perhaps her husband, would be convinced that God acted, if he were to give her complete healing at this last minute. I would love to see God's action; I would also love to see this woman granted another 20 or 30 years of life, in a healthy fashion, free of the pain she's suffered for the past several years. Could my cultural training be overcome by such an action of God, so that I could exult in saying, "God did this!"? Or would my cultural training over-ride my own eyes, and leave me doubtful of God's action in the present, believing deep in my soul the way this church does, that it was merely "Providence"? I write this note here, publicly, so that if God does choose to act and save this woman from disease, I will have no excuse to deny his mighty power and his willingness to listen to us lowly sinners. God, please heal this woman of her disease, and heal this church, and myself, of our unbelief. Let us have this reason to praise you, and to believe in Jesus more than we've ever done before.

Serving God with the Wallet

I received some spam yesterday that pointed me to a talk-show. His points in his "sermon" seemed lacking to me. One of them was a rejection of the idea that Jesus was a "radical hippie", upsetting the political machinery with a counter-cultural emphasis on taking care of the poor; the speaker believed the major thrust of Jesus' message was "preaching the Gospel" and extending the borders of the Kingdom.

It seems that this speaker's concept of Jesus' message is similar to that which I had growing up. But in recent years I believe I've been more successful at reading the Bible with a more open mindset, being more willing to let the text challenge my paradigm and biases (not that I'm totally successful at this; just more than I used to be). In doing so, I find that a great deal of Jesus' emphasis, of his concept of the Kingdom, was indeed about taking care of the poor, and not on spreading "correct doctrine". Even John the Immerser, in Luke 3:10ff, when asked specifically what his message to repent meant for various groups of people, responded to each group with an economic instruction, not a doctrinal one. Much of Jesus' teaching followed suit.

We see much of the same emphasis from the prophet Amos. Thomas Cahill summarizes well:

And the truth---for eighth-century Samaria---was this: to serve God means to act with justice. One cannot pray and offer sacrifice while ignoring the poor, the beggars at the gates. But more radical still: if you have more than you need, you are a thief, for what you "own" is stolen from those who do not have enough. You are a murderer, who lives on the abundance that has been taken from the mouths of the starving. You are an idolator, for what you worship is not the true God. You are a whore, for you have bedded down with other gods, the gods of your own comfort and self-delusion, you who "cram [your] palaces with violence and extortion," who have "sold the upright for silver and the poor for a pair of sandals [from Gucci, no doubt]," who "have crushed the heads of the weak into the dust and thrust the rights of the oppressed to one side."

There is one area in which I believe Cahilll mis-speaks. He says this is the truth for eighth-century Samaria.

But I believe it's the truth for 21st century Kent.

And that's scary.

God, be merciful to me, a thief, murderer, and idolator, and give me your Spirit, to morph me into the man you'd have me be.

Oh, Save Us From the King!

Thomas Cahill, in his book "The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels", brings up the interesting point that long before being oppressed by the Romans, the ancient Israelites were looking for an "anointed One", God's "true deputy come at last to save his people".

But why would the people be looking for a Messiah/Christ before Roman oppression?

Remember when the people clamored for a king, so they could be like the nations around them? Remember what God foretold? He said,

This is the way the kind of king you're talking about operates. He'll take your sons and make soldiers of them—chariotry, cavalry, infantry, regimented in battalions and squadrons. He'll put some to forced labor on his farms, plowing and harvesting, and others to making either weapons of war or chariots in which he can ride in luxury. He'll put your daughters to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He'll conscript your best fields, vineyards, and orchards and hand them over to his special friends. He'll tax your harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. Your prize workers and best animals he'll take for his own use. He'll lay a tax on your flocks and you'll end up no better than slaves. The day will come when you will cry in desperation because of this king you so much want for yourselves. But don't expect YHWH to answer. - 1 Samuel 8:11ff

But the people insisted, and God gave them a king. It wasn't long until the third king, Solomon, taxed the people into the PoorHouse, and conscripted them into laborers for building the nation's infrastructure. The fourth king just made it worse, and from there it went downhill.

It wouldn't take long for such a people, oppressed by their own government, to long for a righteous king, like David.

I find it interesting that the people's first longing for a Messiah was not to save them from a foreign oppressor, but rather from their own government which was oppressing them just as YHWH had predicted, predicated on their own insistence.

And I'm no better than those ancient Israelites in my stupidity and insistence on doing it "my way", even in the midst of believing that I'm being submissive to my God.

YHWH, have mercy on us stupid, rebellious people.

The Hero and the Slut

You may recall that Joshua, the son of Nun, who inherited the mantle of leadership of the Israelites after the death of Moses, started out with the name Hoshea (Numbers 13:16).

There's not much of a name-change here, as both names are very similar in Hebrew. Hoshea means "Salvation", whereas Yahshua (Joshua, Jesus) means "Yah is Salvation" (Yah being short for YHWH, as in Hallelujah! (= "Praise Yah!")).

Although the Tanakh (Old Testament) does not record this tidbit, Jewish tradition makes the claim that Joshua married Rahab, a former prostitute.

Assuming this to be true, it's interesting that approximately 7 centuries later, another man named Hosea (variant of Hoshea) married a prostitute (Hosea 1:2-3).

And finally, about 7 centuries after that, a third man named Yahshua became engaged to a former prostitute. This Yahshua is better known by his Americanized name, Jesus, and the cleaned-up prostitute to which he is engaged is us, the church (Eph. 5:8, 25ff & the general sense of sinners, of which we once were, going "whoring after [our] own inventions"- Ps 106:39 KJV, &tc).

I just found the foreshadowing/parallelism of three Hosheas/Joshuas marrying prostitutes interesting.

The God of the Tanakh (Old Testament)

Not meaning to imply that the God of the Tanakh is a different God than what is found in the New Testament, but the un-Human-like nature of the Tanakh's God is sometimes missed, and as a result we tend to forget just how big and different and far-above-human-standards God is. I was struck by the way Thomas Cahill puts it in "The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels", after discussing the trauma involved in Moses' family when his son was circumcised by Moses' wife:

What a scene this must have been---little Gershom the Sojourner screaming in one corner; blood dripping from Gershom, running down Tzippora's forearms, smeared on Moshe's foreskin; Tzippora's unhinged, triumphant exclamation; the abrupt withdrawal of God's wrath. This is another story by which all, even those who had taken on the mores of alien societies, could come to understand: the covenant in blood is serious business. And in this ancient religious milieu, still harking back to old ideas of correspondence and the power of blood, to have one's foreskin washed in the blood of one's son's foreskin was to have been circumcised.

This God is obviously not a member of any known "twelve-step program." He is far from "supportive" and "inclusive", to use the jargon of our day---and he is certainly not cuddly. Perhaps he is not a God for an age such as ours but for a more vigorous one, such as the Jacobean, that did not blanch so easily.
(pg. 112, emphasis added)

When You Outgrow Your Church

Cecil Hooks has an interesting article over at http://www.freedomsring.org/outgrow.html

In it, he writes:

A chicken cannot mature in its shell of incubation. It utilizes all that the egg has to offer, but if it is to grow, it must break out of its shell. Its original confinement allows for no eating and exercise for full development. Unless it breaks out it will die.

To compare our association in a congregation to a limiting and confining egg shell may seem inappropriate. At least, no congregation should be like that. But the confining traditional boundaries drawn by the greater number of Churches of Christ definitely constrict spiritual learning, exercise, and acceptance of others in Christ.

An unwritten creed defining doctrine and practice is formed by the sincerest of men as an invisible shield around the disciple intended to guarantee rightness and to protect from misdirection. They presume that full growth is nurtured within their prescribed limits. But the disciple cannot learn, exercise, and grow to the fullest without breaking the inflexible shell of unwritten laws. While great emphasis is placed on study of the Bible, if a student learns some new idea or different practice these must be kept very privately. When taught or practiced publicly, varying degrees of rejection are met usually. The disciple may absorb all that the limiting shell offers and still not outgrow judgmental attitudes or reach full potential.

Many in our congregations of the various groups of the Churches of Christ have outgrown their churches. They would like to remain in them to promote non-judgmental acceptance, but they suffer rejection. So they pip their shells for air and push themselves out into a free world liberated from their sectarian incubation. They have learned to read the Word without being defensive and to accept other disciples without being judgmental. When rejected or expelled for their new concepts, some have been blessed to find a more open Church of Christ nearby with which to begin meeting. So they leave in peace without bitterness or arrogance toward those who sought to restrict them.

What is a person to do when he or she outgrows his or her church? No epistle is written outlining a procedure to follow. As in deciding any issue of life, all principles of holy conduct must be observed. Since each person's situation is different, each person must seek the direction of the Spirit in deciding which course to follow. None of us is qualified to judge the case of the other.

If you find yourself in such a situation, or are just interested in following this line of thinking, perhaps you might want to go read the rest of his article.

Jumping to Conclusions

Recently I heard a sermon that was based entirely on an unwarranted conclusion.

The preacher was contrasting Demas and Barnabas. Demas is only mentioned three times in the New Testament: here are those three instances in chronological (but not textual) order:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

Philemon 1:23-24

Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.

Colossians 4:14

Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica.

2 Timothy 4:9-10a

The preacher pointed out how Demas was at one time a fellow-worker, a "good guy", but that near the end of Paul's life had deserted Christ because he "loved this world". He then went on to preach that Demas had become a child of Satan (I don't recall if those were the preacher's words, but it's the meaning I got from his sermon).

It seemed very harsh and judgmental to me.

Perhaps my thinking capability is faulty, but it seems to me that the preacher's conclusion is not warranted, especially when you look a bit closer at the context.

As part of his comparison of Demas with Barnabas, he pointed out Acts 15 which talks about Paul and Barnabas wanting to revisit the churches they had earlier established. On their earlier trip they had taken John Mark, who deserted them part way through the trip. Now Barnabas is wanting to take John Mark again, but Paul won't have anything to do with John Mark, and the result is that Paul and Barnabas go their separate ways.

The preacher was focusing on Barnabas and how he was an encourager (Barnabas means "son of encouragement"), as opposed to Demas who had "become a son of Satan". But he missed the detail about Paul's bitterness at being abandoned. Obviously Paul doesn't cotton to folks who may have good intentions but bail on him for whatever reason.

We don't know why John Mark deserted them on their first missionary trip. Nor do we know why Demas deserted Paul, other than that he "loved this world". We do know that Paul has already demonstrated a bitterness about being deserted.

The preacher equated this loving of the world that Demas was guilty of with the love of the world condemned in 1 John 2:15 -- "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." I'm not entirely confident that the two similar phrases mean the same thing in both contexts. (Nor am I convinced they don't mean the same thing -- that's my point: the evidence is not clear one way or the other, so don't just choose one way and then turn that into "Gospel Truth".)

When we read further in 2 Timothy 4, we find that Demas is not the only one that deserted Paul:

Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
14Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.
16At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them.

Paul is in prison; all his friends have abandoned him for one reason or another. He has enemies. It's not surprising that he might feel some bitterness, and that's consistent with his behavior many years earlier in conjunction with John Mark.

It seems to me that Demas left, like everyone else, when the heat got too great against those who supported Paul (v. 16a). But Paul, realizing that he was letting his anger get the better of him in his letter to Timothy, then asserted his discipleship of Jesus by forgiving those deserters -- "May it not be held against them."

Maybe Demas really does belong to a different class of deserters than do these others that Paul is forgiving; after all, Demas is the only one specifically mentioned as having loved the world. But it seems to me that all the deserters loved the world, trying to save their own skins by "gettin' while the gettin's good". Perhaps Paul was more bitter toward him than toward the others, since they had been so close to each other. I don't want to excuse Demas' failure to be faithful, but neither do I want to condemn him without warrant. As far as I know, he's just like Peter, who denied the Lord three times at the Lord's trial, after swearing just a few hours earlier that he'd never do such a thing. Peter repented. Perhaps Demas did also. The point is, we just don't know.

And to claim that we do know that Demas lost his salvation based on this flimsy evidence is, to my mind, going beyond the text.

I think much of the problem is in the equating of Demas' love of the world with the love of the world condemned in 1 John 2:15. But just because the phraseology is similar, does not necessarily mean the meaning is similar. After all, there's another place with similar phrasing -- John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world ...". (I'm not implying that Demas loved the world the same way God did; that's obviously not the case. But my point is that similar phraseology can mean different things in different contexts.)

Demas may have indeed turned his back on Jesus, but without better evidence, I'm withholding judgment against him, choosing to believe the best of him (1 Cor. 13:7 AMP), and choosing to hope that like Peter, he returned into the fold of the Master, and like the other deserters, that he was included in Paul's prayer that desertion would not be held against them.

Branson, Missouri

I've spent the past three days in Branson, Missouri. Branson is billed as something like "the family-friendly capital of entertainment", bigger than Broadway, perhaps. They have something like 70 theatres with live performances.

I didn't come here to see the shows; I came here to drive my parents to meet three couples from church here, so they could all go see the shows. Still, I wound up going to see three shows:

Red, Hot, and Blue - a song-and-dance broadly covering the decades of the 1900's.

Comedy Jamboree - a song-and-dance interspersed with comedy a la "Hee Haw".

Legends in Concert - performances by "legends": Buddy Holly, Marilyn Monroe, George Strait, Ed Sullivan, the Blues Brothers, Elvis. It was particularly funny when seductive Marilyn came into the audience and fingered (literally, on the forehead) my friend David to come up on the stage with her. What a hoot!

I'm glad to have had the experience. It's not my type of usual entertainment, and I certainly balked at the pricing (I think the lowest we paid for a ticket was $14; many were $30, but with shopping around at the discount ticket outlets and coupon books, usually you could get those at a 2-for-1 deal - which is fine if you're not a third wheel, like I have been this trip).

The strip, the main road with most of the theatres and hotels and restaurants, was underplanned by the city fathers; it's just a two-lane with a center left-turn lane. That's been the biggest negative of town. Otherwise, it's a nice little town; size about 6000, most of the amenities you might want, clean. I'm sure there's crime here, but it doesn't feel crime-y.

The performers, and restaurant workers, and ticket sellers, etc, have all seemed like decent folks, many making references to God and country. It's a good place. If you're into live performances, I believe I can recommend this town. (And the pricing of the hotels are lower than anywhere else I've seen (although I'm not a great traveler), and the other prices are normal - not inflated like you might expect in a tourist town.) And the mountainous environment is refreshing for this West Texas dweller.

So pack up the family and come to Branson.

Filthy Rags?

I was asked by someone what I meant by this phrase:

I'm thrilled, and awed, and crushed, to think of bearing the name of YHWH/Yeshua. It's such an honor, and yet such a burden because I know my best right-ness (which I seldom attain to) is as filthy rags.

And so I answer with the following:

It's an honor to wear the name YHWH/Yeshua (Yeshua = Hebrew for Joshua --> Ancient Greek = Iesous --> Olde Englishe = Jesus), like it might be an honor for a bride, very much in love with her husband, to take on her husband's name. (Ten years later she might not feel the same, but for the first few weeks at least ....) It's exciting to adopt the name "Yeshua" as part of my own.

But on the other hand, I know I'm not worthy of wearing the name.

The Message" version of the Bible puts it this way, in Isaiah 64:6:

We're all sin-infected, sin-contaminated.
Our best efforts are grease-stained rags.

The King James Version puts it a little more literally:

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags....

The point is that even if I'm going to church every time the door is open, and even if I'm giving 50% of my income to the church and/or the poor/needy, and even if I'm preaching on every street corner and converting 50 people a day, and even if I know the Bible so well I can quote the entire thing from memory, and even if I pray better and more effectively than Elijah, and even if I perform great miracles in the name of God, and even if every word out of my mouth glorifies God --- no matter how good I am, it's nothing compared to the goodness of God.

And the fact of the matter is, my best goodness doesn't come up anywhere near to what I just described in the previous paragraph. If that kind of goodness is as filthy rags before God, how much less my feeble attempts at righteousness must be.

In my church culture, I grew up being taught that we are saved because we teach and live righteousness. And yes, that is and should be the goal. But what I was never taught, and what many Christians never learn, is that no matter how good and clean and righteous we might appear on the outside, down deep inside, in our darkest depths, in the places we've forgotten exist inside of us because we'd be horrified if we ever actually looked at them, we are "full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" (Matt. 23:27). My church culture has always dismissed this statement of Jesus as applying to those "horrible, hypocritical Pharisees", and to "denominationalists", but never to ourselves, because "we love The Truth".

I was in my forties before I realized that sin dwells in me. Oh sure, I knew I sometimes sinned, but that was an action or inaction. It was something I did or did not do; it was not something I was or was not. But sin is not just an action/inaction; it is a condition, a state of being. Paul writes about this in Romans 7:

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing.... For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!

My church culture has always preached against "inherited sin". It's only been recently that I've realized that there are basically two definitions of "sin" as used in the Bible.

1. Action/Inaction. This is "sin" as I grew up knowing it. It incurs guilt. This type of sin is, indeed, not inherited. Every person is guilty for his own sin.

2. The "condition" of sin. It's another word for "imperfection", or better, "corruption". This type of sin was introduced into the cosmos when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Our "very good" bodies, and indeed, the cosmos itself (Rom. 8:18ff), were corrupted at that time. This type of sin is indeed inherited, and is why death has spread to all people, as Romans 5:12 says:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned....

Babies are innocent of the first type of sin; they incur no guilt for action/inaction. But they do die sometimes (or are deformed, etc), because they have inherited the second definition of sin.

Both definitions fit in with the classical definition of "falling short, missing the mark", as an arrow on the archery field falling short and missing the target, as many of us were taught in Sunday School; the first definition of sin is a falling short because of our failure to do or not do; the second is a falling short of the perfection we were originally created with.

My church culture has totally ignored/denied the second definition, and has only defined "sin" as something we do or don't do, not as something we are or are not.

As mentioned, I was in my forties before I realized that the second definition applies: not only might I be guilty of sin because of things I do or don't do; I'm also full of sin because it's in my genetic make-up. I first started suspecting this when I'd have disturbing dreams, doing things in those dreams that I thought I was incapable of doing. It really made me question myself, and I wondered if doing something inconceivable in a dream meant that I'm capable of doing such a thing in real life. And over the next few years, the Lord allowed me to learn that yes, there's a core of sin deep within me that would take over my life if I would just let it. That's what Paul was writing about in that quote above.

No matter how good a life I live; that core of sin is still within me. There's nothing, not a single thing, that I can do to purge that out of me. I can no more scoop out that rotten spot from my inner being than a mis-firing car can replace its own spark-plugs. The best I can do is constantly fight it.

Who will rescue me from this body of death?

Thanks be to God -- through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has already purchased the surgery that will separate me from this rotten core. He's made the purchase; the deal is done; we're just now waiting for the actual surgery. In the meantime, it's an honor to wear the name of Yeshua, who has purchased my surgery, but it's also a burden, because I know that at base, I'm fundamentally flawed, and not worth the purchase price. The old car is not worth buying and giving a tune-up, but the car buyer loves it enough to buy it and fix it anyway. Thanks be to Jesus who loved me more than my worth!

Another Biblical Prayer

I just came across another Biblical prayer in Daniel 9 that seems to me would be a great prayer for public use. Except that it, like my earlier attempt at praying a prayer from the Bible, would not be acceptable to many in the church here.

* References to "Jerusalem" and "Israel" would need to be changed to "New Jerusalem" and "New Israel" (not so much out of necessity, but because many Christians in the pews would not realize that WE are now those entities unless it was pretty much spelled out for them, and they would thus be offended, particularly since they would be critically looking for "doctrinal error" since praying a prayer straight from the Bible is "different", and "different", even when straight from the Bible, is so often treated with suspicion).

* Many Christians would be offended at the idea of curses in the Law of Moses being applied to us who are not under that law.

* YHWH has not yet brought disaster on the US, so the past-tense reference of this judgment might need to be converted into a possible (and likely) future-tense.

* Many in the church would be offended at the idea that "we" have sinned; after all, we obey and defend The Truth, unlike everyone else... (John 9, John 9, John 9, repeat to myself, John 9 ...).

* And of course, references to YHWH would generate conniption fits in the aisles and walk-outs, since to use the name God declared as his "name forever, the name by which [he is] to be remembered from generation to generation" (Ex. 3:15) is "different", and as has been mentioned, "different", even when straight from the Bible, is treated with suspicion. (I mostly blame the Bible translators for this ignorance in the church, because they're the ones who changed the scriptures to fit with tradition -- "regarding as doctrine the traditions we grew up with" -- my paraphrase of Matt. 15:9).

* And finally, the phrase "in Jesus' name" would have to be added to the prayer so that everyone would know we were praying in Jesus' name. This despite the fact that we're meeting in his name, in a building marked with his "name" (title, actually), presumably worshiping, "in everything we do in word or deed," in his name, because tradition demands this phrase, even though prayers in the New Testament don't adhere to this tradition. ("...regarding as doctrine the traditions we grew up with...".)

I really didn't mean to be so critical in this post; I started out being moved by this Biblical, spiritual prayer. But on second thought, perhaps it's not a good prayer for public use after all. Sad.

Still, here's the prayer as God saw fit to record it which I would like to be able to pray at church, but probably never will:

[Daniel] prayed to YHWH [his] God and confessed:
"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

7 "Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 O YHWH, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. 9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10 we have not obeyed YHWH our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. "Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of YHWH our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 YHWH did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for YHWH our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him.

15 "Now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. 16 O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us.

17 "Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name."

I especially love the last couple of verses: "We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy," and "...your city and your people bear your Name." I'm thrilled, and awed, and crushed, to think of bearing the name of YHWH/Yeshua. It's such an honor, and yet such a burden because I know my best right-ness (which I seldom attain to) is as filthy rags.

Redistribute the Wealth!

T.C writes in a letter to the editor of WND.com:

As I often explained it on my radio show, "Marx and Jesus both believed in redistributing the wealth, but Marx wanted to do it with the barrel of a gun."

Run the Race!

Hebrews 12:1 was mentioned in this morning's sermon. It reads (KJV):

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us....

I did a little research on this passage, and found it to be more interesting than I had ever thought.

I had always thought the "great cloud of witnesses" referred to the great heroes of the faith discussed in the previous chapter, and indeed, this seems to be the popular conception, as it was the view taken by the preacher this morning.

But note the word "also".

In chapter 11, the writer of Hebrews starts out by saying, "By faith, Abel ... was approved as a righteous man..." and "...even though he is dead, he still speaks through this."

And then the writer moves on to Enoch, then Noah, then Abraham and Sarah and so on and so on.

Then in 12:1, the writer essentially says, "Like these heroes, we also are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses."

So who are the "witnesses"?

The idea of running a race is a clue. The writer likely has in his mind the Greek athletic contests that took place in the Greek stadiums built in many cities that had been influenced under Greek and Roman rule. He continues this racing theme by specifying the prize in verses 12-13 (HCSB):

Therefore strengthen your tired hands and weakened knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but healed instead.

Typical of Hebrew teaching of the time, he uses a small passage (v. 3 of Isaiah 35) to allude to the larger context found in Isaiah 35:

3 Strengthen the weak hands,
steady the shaking knees!

This larger context speaks of joy, and healing of blind and lame and deaf persons, and blossoming deserts, etc; in other words, Paradise is the goal of this race.

The witnesses mentioned above are those people who are sitting in the stadium stands, watching the race. The world has its eyes on us, just as it has witnessed the great heroes of the faith. Not only the world, but angels, demons, and God himself are watching us run the race. You're an athlete performing in front of a crowd; run like the professional you are!

And although I doubt the writer of Hebrews agreed with the practice, he makes another allusion, this time to the Greek practice of participating in athletic games in the nude. The verb for "lay off" refers to the casting off of one's clothes. It's the same word used in Acts, when Stephen is being stoned and those stoning him "laid their robes" at the feet of the young man named Saul. The picture being drawn is that we, as participants in the athletic race, are to strip off our clothes and anything else which gets in the way of our racing. I like the way the New American Standard Bible puts it: "[L]ay aside every encumbrance...".

The whole picture that seems to be in the mind of the writer is that we are athletes running in a race; we are to run professionally, doing whatever it takes to run the race, casting off whatever gets in the way of a good run, and by so doing, like the heroes of old, we will "still speak" to the witnesses watching us, even long after we're dead.

Preach the Truth

I've been overwhelmed lately with an awareness of the popular attitude of "We have the Truth; others don't have the love of the Truth the way we do; Others use virtual scissors to cut out portions of scripture that don't tickle their ears" and on and on and on.

Do we have no clue that we're just as blind and subjective and selective as "they" are? I think it's good to be reminded of the last couple of lines of John 9. In this chapter, Jesus heals a blind man. The religious elite, the Pharisees, question this man, and the story goes thusly:

They called the man back a second time—the man who had been blind— and told him, "Give credit to God. We know this man is an impostor."

He replied, "I know nothing about that one way or the other. But I know one thing for sure: I was blind . . . I now see."

They said, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"

"I've told you over and over and you haven't listened. Why do you want to hear it again? Are you so eager to become his disciples?"

With that they jumped all over him. "You might be a disciple of that man, but we're disciples of Moses. We know for sure that God spoke to Moses, but we have no idea where this man even comes from."

The man replied, "This is amazing! You claim to know nothing about him, but the fact is, he opened my eyes! It's well known that God isn't at the beck and call of sinners, but listens carefully to anyone who lives in reverence and does his will. That someone opened the eyes of a man born blind has never been heard of—ever. If this man didn't come from God, he wouldn't be able to do anything."

They said, "You're nothing but dirt! How dare you take that tone with us!" Then they threw him out in the street.

Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and went and found him. He asked him, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

The man said, "Point him out to me, sir, so that I can believe in him."

Jesus said, "You're looking right at him. Don't you recognize my voice?"

"Master, I believe," the man said, and worshiped him.

Jesus then said, "I came into the world to bring everything into the clear light of day, making all the distinctions clear, so that those who have never seen will see, and those who have made a great pretense of seeing will be exposed as blind."

Some Pharisees overheard him and said, "Does that mean you're calling us blind?"

Jesus said, "If you were really blind, you would be blameless, but since you claim to see everything so well, you're accountable for every fault and failure."

The Spirit-less Need Not Apply

Jesus taught in parables, not to give understanding to people, but to prevent people from understanding. This is a hard concept for us. We expect Jesus to want us to understand. Yet he tells his closest disciples in Luke 8:10 (quoting Isaiah 6:9):

The secrets of the kingdom of God have been given for you to know, but to the rest it is in parables, so that

Looking they may not see,
and hearing they may not understand.

Notice that this understanding is not something that the disciples acquired for themselves; it was a gift. Notice also verse 17 of Matt 13:

Many prophets and righteous people longed to see the things you see yet didn't see them; to hear the things you hear yet didn't hear them.

God may have called you to be a prophet, or you may be a very righteous person, but that does not automatically qualify you to have understanding. Understanding is not something you acquire for yourself; it's something that is given to you from God.

We see the same sort of God-given understanding later (Matt. 16:17), when Peter pronounced Jesus as the Messiah:

And Jesus responded, "Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven."

Paul sums up this idea in 1 Corinthians 2:10ff, emphasizing that without the Spirit of God dwelling in us, we will fail to understand the things of God:

Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God. ... Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything.... For:

who has known the Lord's mind,
that he may instruct Him?

But we have the mind of Christ.

The take-home message, for me at least, is that we should recognize that the Spirit does indeed "magically" work directly on our minds, even if we're not aware of it. To claim otherwise is a form of quenching the Spirit, and is quite unBiblical.

Blind to the Most Obvious Things

For someone who travels from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and vice-versa, I'm sure this little factoid is obvious:

Those people looking up at the moon from the Southern Hemisphere see a moon that is upside-down from that which the Northern Hemisphere observers see.

For someone who doesn't have this travel experience, it just highlights how greatly experience can color our understandings.

Men Vs Women

This past weekend I had a friend provide an analogy for men and women that made sense to me.

Men are like waffles; everything is compartmentalized.

Women are like spaghetti; everything in their lives is touching everything else, in a convoluted manner.

Challenge Traditions

I've always wondered about the two- or three- or four-part nature of Man. What's the difference between "soul" and "spirit"?

This morning, as I woke up, the influence of this past weekend gelled into an understanding for me.

During the weekend someone quoted an anonymous person, saying, "There comes a point when 'being right' is not enough." I woke up thinking about my home church, and how her focus has been on the Mind, on "being right", and I realized that the reason I'm stifled there is because she ignores the other facets of Man (whereas many other churches I've visited have ignored the Mind aspect).

Man is Mind, and Soul, and Spirit, and Body. The following are merely working definitions, not technical definitions.

- Mind - that which thinks and analyzes. My home church is good at this aspect (albeit her logic is sometimes flawed).

- Soul - that which feels. My home church is lousy at bringing Mans' emotions into the equation.

- Spirit - that which is mystical. All of Western Civilization is lousy at bringing Man's Spirit into the equation. My home church basically believes that the spirit part of Man is only activated by God's will, and that such activations by God have ceased long ago.

- Body - that which is physical. Many church groups do well at this aspect, raising hands, looking heavenward, kneeling, dancing*. My home church is lousy at this aspect.

My home church is eaten up with tradition. There's nothing wrong with Tradition, until it gets in the way. My home church needs to stand up on her school desk** and see the world from a different angle, but she has been steeped in Tradition so long that she believes (wrongly) that her Tradition equates to Truth. I believe the healthiest thing for her now would be a concerted effort to challenge various aspects of Tradition.

- Move a Sunday morning assembly into the basement. Many people will object, and ask, "Why are we doing this? Is this just 'change' for 'change's sake'?" And the answer is that it forces us to question (on an experiential level, not just a mental level) what's needed for corporate worship; do we need pews in straight rows, and a podium/lectern in order to worship? Change/challenge/difficulty serves the purpose of exercising unused muscles; this is change for 'spiritual exercise's sake'.

- Have the men raise hands during prayer. The first century church did it, and yet we find it offensive.

- Have the church kneel during prayer. The first century church did it, and yet we find it offensive.

- Have the women serve the Lord's Supper (while the men still lead the prayers). Martha served in the assemblies of Jesus, and yet we find it offensive because we've over-applied the principle of women not having authority over men into women not serving in the presence of men.

- Move all the singing during worship into an uninterrupted grouping at the front or the back of the assembly, and triple the time spent singing; no interruptions for announcements, or for announcing song numbers, or for prayers. Singing gets into the soul and spirit of Man, but only if it has a chance to. The way singing is done at my home church, it's so choppy that it never gets a chance to dig into a person's spirit or affect his soul.

There are many more ways of challenging our traditions, but these should suffice to "stir the pot" (a necessary action in preparation of meals; why do we think we should remain unstirred in order for us to be sufficiently prepared for the Lord?).

Some traditions we'll find are really based on doctrine (I believe the lack of mechanical instruments in worship music is one such justified doctrine/tradition); but some traditions we'll find are just getting in the way of acceptance of our brethren who do things differently, and are just crufty deposits on our joints that prevent us from moving as freely as Jesus would have us do.

I'm afraid that I have been marked by the leaders at church as being "un-safe" because they perceive my willingness to challenge their traditions. Accordingly, I can not have much influence on the church now, which again is a stifling thing for me. I have thoughts and ideas I'd like to share with my brethren, to challenge and to be challenged by them. But I have no venue to do so.

It's human nature to say we want to be challenged out of our comfort zones and then to defend against any and all such challenges. I do it too, so I can't judge my brethren without judging myself. Still, I went this weekend and faced some significant challenges "outside of the box"; all I'm asking from my home church is to do likewise.

===
* Stay with me, here. Don't let the word "dancing" turn you off the basic message; we can deal with the word later if need be.

** A reference to the movie, "Dead Poet's Society".

My Trip to Houston

Some Notes from a Conference I Recently Attended

I can not vouch for the accuracy of any statements below; these are just items I heard at the conference that I thought were worth jotting down.

===

"Satan only counterfeits that which is real."

"God's wired us differently."

God is --

• Invisible
• Spirit
  
• from another dimension ("heavenly places", "things unseen")
• /favors dwelling in people rather than in places
• very creative
• humanity is his favorite medium
• "Human beings are vandalized works of art."
  
• "If we go to the Telescope, the Microscope, or the Mirror, it ought to lead us to worship."
• "Eph. 2 - we're called 'God's Masterpiece'"
  
• Almighty
• Personal
  

In John 12, God spoke, and there were three types of responses depending on the "tuning" of the listeners:

• some heard God's voice
• some heard a divine voice (angel)
• some heard thunder
  

"How can we restore experience to our lives?"
"There comes a point when 'being right' is not enough."

Tame a Wild Horse <-----------> Raise a Dead Mule
. . (Pentecostal) <------------------> (Evangelical)

Jesus said, "The scriptures do not give you Life -- they bring you to me, and I give you Life." -- John 5:39

I've often been "enamored with the written word / oblivious to the Living Word".

"Jesus performed most miracles, not via his divinity, but via his spirit-filled humanity."

"Earnestly desire...", not "Be open to..." spiritual gifts - 1 Cor. 14:1

See It
Hear It
Feel It
Know It
Speak It

Spiritual gifts are not an evidence of being spiritual. The fruit of the spirit is the evidence of being spiritual.

And then the next morning at church, in a completely different venue, it was pointed out that we were commanded to "take and eat" the Lord's Supper, not to "take and understand" the Lord's Supper.

Church Giving

One of the underlying assumptions is that money from the offering or tithe belongs to the church. But the Scriptures consistently teach that the offering is God's instrument of redistribution and that it belongs to the poor. Giving to the poor should not make its way into the budget; it is the budget. One could argue that small portions of the Israelite offering (no more than 10 percent) was given to the Levitical priesthood (Neh. 12:47), and that in the early church an even smaller contribution could be given to the church's itinerant evangelists, who, incidentally, were themselves poor (1 Cor. 4:11). But it is not a coincidence that the first major organizational structure in the early church was created to assure order in the redistribution of resources to widows and orphans (Acts 6:1-6).

Shane Claiborne, "The Irresistible Revolution", pg. 330

What Kind of God is This?

Shane Claiborne, in his book, "The Irresistible Revolution", relates this story:

One beautiful Iraqi mother threw her hands in the air and said, "Your country is declaring war in the name of God and asking God's blessing, and that is the same thing my country is doing. What kind of God is this? What has happened to the God of love, to the Prince of Peace?" - pg. 218

Of course our response is that "our God is the True God, so we're in the right". But even assuming that to be true, is it really the Prince of Peace's will that we be so aggressive in "protecting" our country?

Just askin' ....

True Leadership

Peace among enemies - "the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together ..."

And ...

"a little child will lead them."

Isa. 11:6


Says something about leadership in God's Kingdom, eh?

Protecting the Innocent

If they come for the innocent and do not pass over our bodies, then cursed be our religion.

-- "one of the saints", reported by Shane Claiborne, "The Irresistible Revolution", Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2006. Page 208.

Testify!

This one's for the men....

From Marvin R. Wilson's book, "Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith", page 306:

Other covenants made use of a different kind of visual aid than the blood of an animal. Sometimes the hand was placed under the thigh so as to grasp the genitals (Gen. 24:2,9). Since this vital area was the seat of reproductive power, to touch it in this formal manner might convey the threat that the offending party would become sterile or that his offspring would be destroyed. In any case, the servant Eliezer makes this gesture to Abraham as he is about to leave on a mission that will assure the patriarch of descendants God had promised to him. This graphic act finds its counterpart in a Roman practice that provided the etymological root of our English word "testify". A witness would take the preliminary oath with his hands clutching his own testicles. Such gestures underscore the seriousness of the ancient concept of witnessing. More than reputation was at stake when one pledged his word about a matter. The very existence of one's children -- and even grandchildren -- was potentially in jeopardy.

Education in Jesus' Culture

According to Marvin R. Wilson (pg. 299), there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem just prior to 70 A.D., each with its own bet sepher and bet talmud.

The bet sepher (house of schooling) was essentially elementary school, starting at age 6 or 7, and focusing on "the book", or the written law.

The bet talmud (house of study) was for the older student, starting around age 10, and focused on the oral law.

The better students, around age 13, went on to bet midrash in their spare time. These "academies" were taught by such distinguished rabbis as Hillel and Shammai.

It's interesting that the Jewish culture considered it inappropriate to use the Torah as a "'spade' for the digging of wealth" (pg. 300), so teachers taught for free, making their living at an occupation, such as woodchopper (Hillel), surveyor (Shammai), blacksmith (Joshua), tanner (Ishmael), water-carrier (Huna), or leather-worker (Paul). I wonder if Jesus was still doing carpentry/masonry(?) during his three years of ministry.

Only males 20 years of age and older were required to pay the Temple tax. When Peter asked Jesus about paying this tax, Jesus told Peter to go fishing, and doing so he caught a fish with a coin in its mouth, just enough to pay the Temple tax for both men, but for none of the other disciples (Matt. 17:24ff). This is suggestive that most of Jesus' disciples were between the ages of 13 and 19 at the time - mere teens.

The Hallel

According to Marvin R. Wilson, when Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn after eating the Passover, the hymn they most likely sang was the traditional song sung at that time, the Hallel, Psalms 113-118, or more likely, just the last half of that song (115-118).

On another note, it's interesting that "hallel" means "praise", and that the familiar term "hallelujah" means "Praise Yah" (with "Yah" being the short form of God's name, YHWH).

Jesus Wasn't Always "Biblical"

It's always bothered me somewhat in the back of my mind that Jesus reclined when eating the Passover with his disciples. Just recently this bother has come to the forefront of my brain and I realized that it means that Jesus did not always do Bible things as prescribed by the Bible.

When the Passover was originally instituted, the Israelites were told to eat it dressed, with staff in hand, standing, and in a hurry (Ex. 12:11). To my knowledge, these instructions were never rescinded. And yet by the time Jesus eats the Passover, he has dropped the Biblical pattern for the "new" pattern of his culture, one of relaxed leisure (Luke 22:14).

Furthermore, originally the instructions stated that one was not to leave the house at all on the night of Passover (Ex. 12:22b), yet Jesus led his disciples out of the house after the meal (Luke 22:39). Again, Jesus fails to "be Biblical".

What do we do with this information? For those of us who have traditionally been sticklers for doing Biblical things in Biblical ways, this is a mite uncomfortable.

Discomfort is good for us; like exercise is for the muscles, spiritual/mental discomfort is for the soul.

A Blessing for Children

According to Marvin R. Wilson in his book, "Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (p. 218),

A beautiful practice is often followed in traditional Jewish homes on the eve of Sabbath. Shabbat shalom ("Sabbath peace") is the appropriate Sabbath greeting among members of the family. When the father arrives home from praying in synagogue he customarily blesses his sons and daughters. Putting his hands on the heads of his children, he recites this blessing for sons: "May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh." For his daughters he prays: "May God make you like Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah. May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and give you peace [shalom]." The children reply, "Amen." Thus the Sabbath begins with a prayer for peace.

The Giving of God's Word

1. Moses and the Giving of God's Word

• The Israelites left their life of slavery in Egypt on the first Passover.

• Forty days later Moses ascended Mt. Sinai.

• Ten days after that, Moses came down with the Ten Commandments, an event accompanied by a cloud and consuming fire - the first Shavuot ("Pentecost").

• After another bout on the mountain, Moses descended to find the Israelites worshiping a golden calf; and at the hands of the religious leaders, the Levites, about 3000 people died.

2. Jesus and the Giving of God's Word

• Fifteen hundred years later, Jesus was sacrificed on Passover, freeing us from our life of slavery to sin.

• Forty days later, Jesus ascended into heaven.

• Ten days after that, the Apostles came forth with the words of God, accompanied by wind and fire.

• At the hands of the religious leaders, the Apostles, about 3000 people were saved.

Shavuot, in addition to commemorating the giving of the Ten Commandments, also commemorates the harvest of "First Fruits". By giving the Ten Commandments on the day of harvest feasting, God reminds us that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God".

The Temple of God

The Temple of God

In Judaism --
* the Temple was the "big" sanctuary for God
* the home was the "little" sanctuary (how the rabbis referred to the home during the exile)

In Christianity --
* the church is the "big" sanctuary for God
* the individual is the "little" sanctuary

The Bride of Christ

The Biblical books of both Ephesians and Revelation picture the church as the bride of Christ. A female friend pointed out to me some time ago that it must be hard for a man to think of himself in terms of a "bride". I had never thought much about that, but yes, I've always tended to dismiss that imagery. The idea of being a "bride" just doesn't work for me.

Church Unity

We've got to unite ourselves as one body. Because Jesus is coming back, and he's coming back for a bride, not a harem.

-- Unknown

Blessing at a Meal

Unlike the practice of most Western Christians today, in Bible times the Hebrew people did not see the need to bless food, drink, or other material things. In prayer they focused only on blessing God, the Creator and Giver. The Gospels indicate that Jesus followed this same custom (e.g., note the NIV translation of Matt. 26:26 and Luke 24:30), one commanded in the Torah: "When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you" (Deut. 8:10). The Lord alone was worthy of receiving the blessing and praise as divine Provider. As we pointed out in the previous chapter, the Hebrew term berakhot (singular berakhah) means blessings. Yechiel Eckstein comments: "The berakhah does not transfer holiness to the object itself, but rather entitles us to partake of the world's pleasure. . . . We give thanks to the Lord and testify thereby that the earth is his and we are but its caretakers." The following ancient blessing used in Judaism as grace before meals reflects the above point: Barukh attah adonai elohenu melech ha-olam ha-motzi lehem min ha-aretz, "Blessed are you, LORD our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth." The ancient Hebrews would never have thought of blessing what they ate. The idea would have been totally foreign to them; it would also have been an insult, of sorts, to God. If everything God created was "very good" (Gen. 1:31), why should one imply that it is really unholy and profane? The postbiblical notion that one needed to sanctify, cleanse, or purify what God had already created and declared to be good would be strange theology to the biblical writers. It suggests that food and drink, in and of themselves, are unacceptable gifts until suddenly made holy through prayer.

How did this practice originate? Again, the Church went wrong because it severed its Hebrew roots. . . .

Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, p. 177. Wilson, Marvin R., William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1989.

The Cause of Homosexuality?

A blog I've been reading recently quoted Romans 1:18-32, and as I read this quote I saw something I've never seen before. I had always read this passage to say that because people commit some sin (such as homosexuality) they've become separated from God. This passage says that it's the other way around; instead of sin causing separation from God, it is the separation from God that causes sin.

Here are the relevant portions of the passage (NIV):

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him . . . .

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another . . . .

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity . . . .

So, the cure for homosexuality, or for greed, or for evil wickedness, or for any other sin, is not a twelve-step program, or a regime of self-discipline, or hypnosis; rather it is to:

1. Glorify God
2. Give thanks to God.
3. Retain the knowledge of God.

Wow. Can it really be that simple? ("Simple" in concept, I mean, not neccesarily in execution.)

Watch this Sea-life Video. Awesome. Must-see!

This is an incredible 5-minute video; highly recommended.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/206

David Gallo shows jaw-dropping footage of amazing sea creatures, including a shape-shifting cuttlefish, a pair of fighting squid, and a mesmerizing gallery of bioluminescent fish that light up the blackest depths of the ocean. He focuses on the work of two scientists: Edith Widder at the Ocean Research & Conservation Association, and Roger Hanlon at the Marine Biological Lab.

Verbal Meditation of the Bible

From pgs 154-155 of Marvin R. Wilson's "Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith":

The subject of meditation is crucial for understanding the precise organization of the Hebrew Bible's three-fold division into Law, Prophets, and Writings. Joshua is the first book in the Prophets, the second major division of the Hebrew Bible. It opens with God commanding the Israelites to meditate on the Law of Moses (the first major division of the Bible) "day and night" (Josh. 1:8). The book of Psalms is the first book in the Writings, the third major division, and it opens with the same motif -- that of meditating on God's Law "day and night" (Ps. 1:2). Elsewhere, the psalmist says, "I will meditate on all your works" (Ps. 77:12). Viewed contextually, these passages indicate that meditation is the key theme which binds the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible together.

In each of the three texts cited above, the Hebrew word for "meditate" is hagah. The word properly means "emit a sound," "murmur," "mutter," "speak in an undertone." For the Hebrews, meditation was not like a Quaker meeting; it was not silent. Several texts clearly support this contention that meditation was normally verbal, that is, expressed in spoken words. In Psalm 49:3 (RSV) we read, "My mouth shall speak wisdom; the meditation [hagut] of my heart shall be understanding." The Hebrew parallelism indicates that what is spoken with the mouth is the same as "meditation." Hence, the NIV renders hagut not "meditation" but "utterance." Again, in the well-known Psalm 19:14, the expression "words of my mouth" parallels "meditation [hegyon] of my heart." Furthermore, Joshua 1:8 states, "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate [ve-hagita] on it day and night." In this context, "meditate" is defined by the command not to let the Law ever be out of one's mouth. "This negative way of speaking implies a strong positive. . . . The mouth is here the organ of speech."[footnote in original] Furthermore, hagah is used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate such varied sounds as the "growl" of a lion (Isa. 31:4) and the "moaning" of a dove (Isa. 38:14).

Such passages give graphic insight into what meditation involves. Meditation is the outward verbalizing of one's thoughts before God, of the poring over his teachings and works. It means to articulate, in a low tone, thoughts of worship, wonder, and praise. But, in addition, the use of hagah in texts such as Joshua 1:8 and Psalm 1:2 implies that the Scriptures were not primarily written to be read silently. Indeed, in the words of Otto Kaiser, the Law itself was to be "read aloud" by day and by night. [footnote in original]

. . .

Each day it is customary for an observant Hasid to make time to be alone for awhile so he can meditate by talking aloud with God. This meditation is a private pouring out of personal prayers, doubts, or problems. To recover a childlike quality of faith (cf. Matt. 18:3-4) the rabbis recommended hitboddadut ["alone-ness" - Kent] at night in an open field.

...

Some contemporary forms of church worship may appear to be a bit boisterous or too extemporaneous for those of us with more subdued and orderly Western tastes. But we should not forget that Hebrew worship -- including prayer and the study of the holy books -- was no sedate or dreary event. It included dancing with tambourine (Ps. 149:3; 150:4), all kinds of instruments -- including trumpets and cymbals (Ps. 150) -- singing (33:3), hand clapping (47:1), and even shouting (95:1). for the Hebrews, praise was the basic token of being alive; it was the way to observe the command, "You shall meditate on it day and night."

The Bible as a Mirror

I was recently in an office's waiting room, and found a book on the shelf entitled something like "The Evidence for Jesus". I don't recall the author's name (but no, it was not Josh McDowell). I opened the book somewhere in the middle and read a page or two while waiting, and the message in those pages struck a chord.

The author basically said that the Bible very often functions as a mirror; whatever ideas you have in mind when you read it, you'll find reflected in the text. So if you have Southern Baptist ideologies, you'll find support for your Baptist ideas in the text. If you have Charismatic Presbyterian ideologies, you'll find support for your Charismatic Presbyterian ideas in the text.

It struck me that this claim is true, even in the case of my Church of Christ ideologies with which I grew up. Over the past few years as I've tried to read the Bible without my "Church of Christ" glasses on, I've been astounded to find that I'm not seeing nearly as much "Church of Christ" doctrine in the text as I used to see. If I temporarily put on some "Baptist" glasses, I'm amazed to see that I find Baptist doctrine in the text. If I take off those "Baptist" glasses and temporarily put on "Secular Atheist" glasses, I see in the text a capricious God doing things that are scientific nonsense. If I take off those "Secular Atheist" glasses and put on "Mormon" glasses, I see lots of polygamy in the text.

Stunning.

What does this mean? I'm not entirely sure. One conclusion I make, however, is that it is not appropriate to conclude that someone with a different understanding of the Bible than that which I have is "blind" or "stubborn" or "has an agenda". Another conclusion I make is ... "God, be merciful to me, a sinner, a sinner who has no understanding, or worse, a sinner who thinks he does have understanding."

Reciting the Shema

I've been getting a lot of exposure recently to the Jewish background of Christianity, and some friends of mine have also been so exposed. Some of the common material we've been exposed to pointed out that Jesus was Jewish -- not just the little bit Jewish that we Western-thinking, American Gentiles think of him being, but the full-blooded, tassel-wearing, phylactery-sporting, springy-sideburned Jewishness to which we tend to react by turning up our noses. As such, one of the things he'd likely have been doing every morning was reciting the Shema, as every good Jew male had been doing from little-boyhood. Independently, my friends and I thought it would be good to emulate this practice, so they've taught their young children the Shema, and I have been reciting it every morning myself. The version I use is kind of a mish-mash between the original (Deut 6:4), Jesus' version, and Jesus' addendum to it:

Hear Oh Israel! YHWH our God, YHWH is One. And you shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

(Note that we Gentile Christians have been grafted in as Israel, so this message is for us as well as the physical descendants of Ibrahim.)

Why Would God Allow This?!

A friend of mine recommended I read the book "The Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne. Starting on page 64 Claiborne relates a story found in an old comic strip:

Two guys are talking to each other, and one of them says he has a question for God. He wants to ask why God allows all of this poverty and war and suffering to exist in the world. And his friend says, "Well, why don't you ask?" The fellow shakes his head and says he is scared. When his friend asks why, he mutters, "I'm scared God will ask me the same question." Over and over, when I ask God why all of these injustices are allowed to exist in the world, I can feel the Spirit whisper to me, "You tell me why we allow this to happen. You are my body, my hands, my feet."

Interesting Phrase

In the Holman's Christian Standard Bible, Ruth 2:13 is rendered thusly:

"My lord," she said, "you have been so kind to me, for you have comforted and encouraged your slave, although I am not like one of your female servants."

What I found interesting was the literal rendering in the footnote:

"My lord," she said, "you have been so kind to me, for you have spoken to the heart of your slave, although I am not like one of your female servants."

Although I usually prefer understandability over floweriness, I really like the poetic beauty of the literal in this case. I think the literal should have been in the text with the footnote providing the sense. (I'm actually beginning to find that's the general method I'd prefer.)