Will the Real Muslims Please Stand Up?

A great question came up in our Socrates Cafe discussion last night. (Topic: Muslimerica) The question is, does a Christian have any right to decide who the True Muslims are?

Or the true Hindus? Or the true Buddhists? Do Muslims have a right to decide who the true Christians are? Wouldn't that bug you, if you're a Christian, to hear a Muslim pontificating on the "correct" way to follow Christ?

In other words, does anyone have the right to decide the right way to follow a religion that is not their own?

Some Christians will say that Muslims are a peaceful people, with a few bad apple extremists poisoning the well. This would certainly be true if, by "Muslims" they mean "all those who call themselves Muslims." But other Christians point out that the Koran has many violent mandates, to eliminate those who will not follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad. They will tell you that the only "True Muslims" are the ones who take the Koran literally, and do what it says.

But is it appropriate to superimpose an evangelical view of the Bible onto a Muslim view of the Koran? Must all sacred texts have the same role within their respective faith communities? It's impossible, because many religions have a hierarchy of texts, including semi-sacred writings. Muslims have the Hadith. Jews have the Talmud. And many religions have no monolithic divine work, but rather a collection of revered and renowned writings.

I believe my only chance at understanding how to be a "true" Christian, is in knowing Jesus. Not just knowing about him, but knowing him personally. If many sincere and growing Christians fail often at this, then how could someone know better who's not even trying to follow Christ?

If we're careful, we can still make a few blanket generalizations about those people who identify themselves with a certain faith. But I think we'd have to leave it at that.



+

Captain Hook: the Only True Biblical LIteralist

Do you read the Bible 100% literally?

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Jesus, Matthew 5:29, 30)

Don't call yourself a biblical literalist unless you look like this guy. ----->

Don't get me wrong. I believe the Bible is 100% true. But if it were 100% literal, then we would worship a Messiah who is a loaf of bread. And a vine. And a door. And a light bulb.

If you'd like to know my real take on the Matthew 5 passage, check out a post I wrote on February 6, 2009 called West Bank Choppers & Gougers.




+

Scripture Memorization is for Old-Timers

I would say I have internalized a fair amount of Scripture. Maybe more than average for an American my age. Maybe less than average for a pastor.

And some of that internalized scripture is indeed memorized. In other words, I can quote the verse(s) with some confidence in the accuracy of the words and their order. But the vast majority of my Scripture memory is less specific. I can recall the message, I know what's being said, and I have enough of the words in my head to go find it, but I don't have it memorized verbatim.

Worst of all, though, is my memory for references. Even my ability to find the book that contains the verse in question is sorely limited. Did Jesus say that in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? Did Paul say that in Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians or Colossians? Or Romans or 1 or 2 Corinthians? Or was that Peter?

Don't get me wrong: often my recollection will get me close, but it's bad enough to give me a type of biblical inferiority complex, and to damage my confidence when talking about scripture with a "memorizer".

But here's my question for you. Does it really matter anymore?

Certainly, in the past it has been vitally important for rabbis, or ministers of the gospel to have a thorough grasp of Scripture. Torah teachers typically had the Old Testament memorized from cover to cover, and most certainly Jesus did as well. And as difficult an undertaking as that would be, it was important. Hardly anybody had a copy of the Scriptures in their home... they had to take what opportunity they could get, when they had access to the scrolls, to internalize them thoroughly, so they could then access them from their minds anytime they chose.

Even in subsequent (Gentile Christian) cultures, where learning and interpretation were less pervasive, this practice would be crucial for those teaching Scripture and ministering to the people. And this remained true until Gutenberg's invention of the printing press, and well beyond it, until the possession of vernacular Bibles became commonplace.

At this point we see the importance of Scripture memorization begin to wane. If everyone who wants one can have a Bible on the shelf, complete with a concordance, then thorough memorization is not necessary for mere reference purposes. Having a firm grasp on the contents and message in the Bible, along with a fair collection of verbatim verses, is probably sufficient.

But now things have changed further still. Not only do I have a few Bibles on the shelf, I have access to virtually every translation, commentary and word study ever written with the click of a mouse. I can view countless maps, diagrams, and photos without even getting up. In additiona, there are so many writings and interpretations of Scripture on the internet that Google has replaced any Bible website as a concordance, since every verse I might want to find has been written about dozens, if not hundreds of times over, for public consumption.

So let me ask you, what place does Scripture memorization have in the age of the internet? Naturally, it helps us to meditate on the words of God in our hearts, and to have an answer ready for those who ask, and to find what we need when we do have the internet in front of us, but how much time should we be spending specifically on memorization?

How much time do you spend? Is it less than you would like? Or is your "spiritual growth" time better spent elsewhere?

P.S. Yes, the title is just a provocative attention grabber, nothing more.


+

The Mustard Tree

I don't like mustard. Even brown mustard is something I usually avoid, and I am most definitely not a fan of the yellow stuff.

But I got a fresh glimpse of the mustard tree this morning, and I want to share my thoughts about it.

Mark 4:30-32 has Jesus talking about the tiny mustard seed, which becomes the giant mustard tree. This is pretty familiar to most of us. But back up, if you will, to verses 26-29. This is where Jesus gives us a type of "bridge" parable, between the Parable of the Sower (v.3-20) and that of the mustard seed.

He says that the Kingdom of God is like a man who plants his seeds, and then goes to bed, wakes up, goes to bed, etc, and the seeds grow into a crop. Naturally it is assumed that he waters and tends the plants, but Jesus points out that the farmer is not "making" it grow. And doesn't really even know how it grows. He just plays his meager part, and then grabs the sickle when it's harvest time.

What would you think of a farmer who walked over to a little sprout and started yanking on it, shouting for it to grow faster? "I planted you, I watered you, and now I'm going to sculpt you into the biggest crop in the county! Now grow, damn you!" Not too bright, eh?

Now what about those church-planters or pastors or evangelists or even missionaries who have decided that they know how a church grows? They have the research and the figures and the strategies, and are prepared to train you to know exactly how to grow a tiny fellowship of believers into a vast and influential congregation, or network of congregations. They don't plant the seed, and water it, and wait patiently for it to grow... they pull it out of the ground, assuming that it's all up to them.

Jesus made it clear that we have our role to play in the Kingdom of God... we are certainly not spectators. But the growing itself is left entirely up to him. It happens by means that remain a mystery to us, so long as we're honest.

All we have to ask ourselves is, are we to be part of the Kingdom of God, or are we perhaps more interested in the Kingdom of Church?



+

A Body In Motion

A day in LA, and millions of faces are looking for movement
'Cause everything's stuck and everything's frozen
And everyone's broken and nobody moves

And everyone's scared that the motion will never come...

This is the incompletion, stuck in a line
Love is the Movement / Love is a Revolution
This is Redemption / We don't have to slow back down

Switchfoot, Love is the Movement

There is no lack of motion in our world. A surface glimpse into the people of LA, or New York, or even Springfield, will show lots of activity, lots of empty vibration, but is there motion? Is there a movement?

Sir Isaac Newton taught us that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, unless a force acts against it. In which case, its motion and energy is transferred into the object which has stopped it. Billiards is a perfect example. The cue stick transfers energy to the cue ball, the cue ball transfers energy to the other balls, and the other balls may continue the chain of motion.

For the global and eternal impact he made, Jesus' ministry was amazingly short: 3 years full of energy and full of motion, narrowly focused to transfer from the corporeal body of Christ (himself), to the universal Body of Christ (us).

The Gospel of Mark is a terse and lively account of this body in motion. And everything that we read from the life of Jesus will shed light on the motion that he has intended for us to carry on. "You will do greater things than me," he said. Because he healed the blind, we are Enlightened. Because he multiplied the bread and fish, we are Fulfilled. Because he died unjustly, we are Justified.

Because he moved, we have a Movement.

This is the idea behind my upcoming message series at The Core's Sunday morning Worship Gatherings. To follow the movements of Jesus, we'll be walking through the gospel of Mark, two chapters at a time. Here's the calendar:

August 23 - A Body In Motion (Introduction)
August 30 - Mark 1 & 2
September 6 - Mark 3 & 4

September 13 - Bye

September 20 - Mark 5 & 6
September 27 - Mark 7 & 8
October 4 - Mark 9 & 10

October 11 - Bye

October 18 - Mark 11 & 12
October 25 - Mark 13 & 14
November 1 - Mark 15 & 16

+

Love Forward, Trust Backward

So many Christians have
the love of a child
and
the faith of an adult.

This is a problem.

"Greater Love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." -Jesus, John 15:13

"Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." -Jesus, Matthew 18:3b

If I asked everybody to name the two most powerful attributes of Christianity, I'll bet the words I would get more than any others would be Faith and Love.

But both of these words are dangerous, because Love can mean a bzillion things, and Faith just sort of sits there, sounding defeated. So let's fix that real quick before we move on.

When I say Love, I mean active, determined selflessness. So we'll hold onto the word love, but utilize it as a fierce and powerful verb instead of a state of emotion or preference, as it is often (mis)used.

When I say Faith, I mean active, daily decisions to put your life in the hands of another. And since we already have a better word for that, I'm going to replace "Faith" with "Trust". In fact, I make this substitution as often as possible in conversation.

So now we have two strong, unwavering verbs: Trust and Love. How we live these actions out in real life makes up a huge part of our Christianity. How we grow in them is a major determiner in what kind of disciples we become. So that begs the question: How does our Rabbi say we should grow in Trust, and grow in Love?

In the John verse above, Jesus is showing us the epitome of love; to care so much more for another's benefit than for yours, that you are willing to die for them. This is how love grows: forward, in maturity. Learning to put yourself last. Let's think about that from the beginning...

• A healthy baby loves only those who provide warmth and sustenance.
• A healthy adolescent loves mostly those who provide for her, but is learning how to be more selfless.
• A healthy adult loves those around him by consistently putting their needs first.

As you can see, most healthy human beings learn naturally how to grow in love, how to put others' needs ahead of their own. Often this comes to people when they develop close friendships, and/or get married; most often it shows up when they have kids. Although it's far from perfect, it still tends to point in the right direction.

In the Matthew verse, Jesus says sort of the opposite thing about trust (or faith.) Although the natural growing up process tends to bring people closer to the ideals of love, it actually takes people further from the ideals of trust.

• A healthy baby trusts everyone.
• A healthy adolescent trusts family, friends, teachers, police officers, perhaps neighbors, but not strangers. Anything beyond that is dangerous.
• A healthy adult trusts only those who have earned her trust. Anything beyond that is naive.

But Jesus tells us we have to change and become like little children. Even as we mature in love, we must go backwards in faith and trust. Obviously he doesn't mean that we should start trusting every e-mail spammer, or conspiracy theorist, or (ahem) politician. After all, we are supposed to live in wisdom. But he does mean that we need to open our hearts to trust God more.

Yet, when it comes to our relationship with God, we routinely get both love and trust backward.

Although we know how to love some people by putting their needs ahead of our own, how often do we put God's desires ahead of our own? How often do we ask God what would benefit him the most, regardless of what it costs us? Do we really love him like adults, seeking to center our lives only on whatever is best for him? Or do we love him like children, with no thought except what's in it for us? The answer is unfortunate: we most often love God like children.

But in the matter of trust, where we're supposed to behave like children, we all tend to grow up too fast. We say we trust God, but are we actually giving him the benefit of the doubt? Do we base all our conclusions about him on the a priori knowledge that he is good? Do we really cast all our worries and doubts at the feet of our Savior? It's a shame, but the answer, once again and all too often, is no.

What else can I say except to reiterate the call that's on our lives?

Put God's desires ahead of your own.
Ask God what would benefit him most, regardless of the cost.
Seek to center your life only on whatever is best for him.
Love him like an adult!

Give God the benefit of the doubt.
Always remember that he is good when forming your conclusions.
Cast all your worries and doubts at his feet.
Trust him like a child!

Let your love move forward, and your faith move backward.



+

The Prism

Here's another thought about what we can learn from the Jewish Festivals, which just happens to be the topic of my current message series. If you were there last Sunday, or if you get my newsletter, this will not sound so new to you. But nevertheless, it is original.

Many Christians dismiss the Jewish festivals as quaint at best, and legalistic, antiquated and irrelevant at worst. But they do not appear in the Bible on your shelf for no reason. When God ordained them, it's as if he shined a bright white beam forward in time, to be understood at the moment only as something clear, simple and distinct. But was intended to eventually be seen as so much more than this, because he aimed it directly at the prismatic figure of Jesus, so that when the beam of light found him, it immediately refracted into every color. And when it hits your life, it refracts again, putting all your life circumstances in a new light. This is true not only of the Jewish festivals, but I believe of all Hebrew Scripture.

The fact is, the colors were all there from the start. But unless your eye is on Jesus, you only see the white light, if in fact you even see that much. And the more of the multiple colors refracting from His life you can perceive and process, the more illuminated your own life will become.

The Way, the Truth and the Life of the Party

This Sunday we begin our message series called "Eight Excuses to Party".

The title might sound a bit cheeky to you... as if I had finally taken the advice of one of my fellow leaders to market our Sunday morning Worship Gathering to Saturday night partiers as "Hangover Church". (I still don't think it's that bad an idea... maybe in addition to Fruit and Pastries we could offer some sort of Advil Platter.)

As an introduction to the series, we chose the topic of "Fun" for our QAF Session last night, and it was there that I believe Gary came up with the title for this post.

In our efforts to understand the stick-in-the-mud stereotype of most religion in this country, we took turns reading verses from Billy Joel's chart-topper, "Only the Good Die Young". The key phrase being, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, 'cause sinners are much more fun."

I actually know very few religious folk anymore who completely dismiss the value of fun. "Oh yes, you must enjoy yourself from time to time," some might say, "but you must do it in all propriety... with proper itinerary, boundaries, etiquette, modesty and safety precautions. This is how God intends Christians are to have 'fun'".

In other words, the thought of "cutting loose" is right out.

Dancing? Out.
Alcohol? Out.
Loud Music with a Strong Beat? Out.
Raucous Laughter? Out.
Stuffing Your Face? Out. Wait... no, that's in. If nothing else, Christians are great eaters.

But I've got to ask... are we getting these ideas from our inerrant scriptures? Are we turning to the Ultimate Guide for Life as an Ultimate Guide for a Party? I thought for sure that the mantra "Let the Good Times Roll" originated somewhere in Ecclesiastes...

The unavoidable fact is, God is hardcore about a great party. Passover is like Thanksgiving on steroids, with the feasts and the family reunions. And four cups of wine are mandatory. On Sukkot everybody builds little forts and goes camping in them. On Simchat Torah there's music and dancing in the streets. On Purim everybody dresses up in costumes and finds the most ridiculous and noisy way to retell the story of Esther. The message on Rosh Hoshana is "what happened last year, stays in last year." On Hanukkah you get to play a minature version of Roulette with all the chocolate coins riding on a single turn of the top. Not to mention the Sabbath day, where chilling out is an order, the Sabbath year, which is the same thing to a lesser degree but much longer, and the Jubilee year twice every century, where all the slaves go free, and everybody heads back to their family's land to start all over again and see what happens this time.

And then there's the weddings... Weddings that lasted for days and days, sometimes weeks. Feasting and drinking and dancing and chatting and toasting to the happy couple, who by the way, are commanded not to work until they've been married an entire year.

Jesus obviously approved of weddings like that, because his first miracle was to avert a screeching halt to a classic Jewish wedding by producing hundreds of gallons of wine. Jesus certainly did not approve of drunkenness, which is sinful, and was very socially unacceptable at that place and time, but he certainly did approve of a good party.

So many of us see Jesus either with eyes of fire, or eyes of water. He's either angry, or he's depressed. But when you look harder into the words and life of Jesus, you see a man with a sharp eye for a pun, a desire to amaze and mystify his followers, and a personal magnetism that is literally legendary.

Yes, life is serious. No, we should not be flippant about the problems of sin, suffering and heartache. Jesus certainly was not.

But God started the good times a-rollin' thousands of years ago, and Jesus picked it up and gave it a second wind. So far be it from me, a Christ-follower, to poop on this party.

Laissez les bon temps rouler!

Use Only As Directed

There are four ways to use any given medication:

The Deadly Way - This is simple... overdose. Or if you're a real expert, combine it with other medications or chemicals, and create a killer cocktail. A scaled-back subset of the Deadly Way is the Harmful Way, which might involve developing an addiction, or doing something deadly but stopping short. The Harmful Way sucks, but at least you get to keep living.

The Illegal Way - Try taking it without a prescription. Or selling it. Or making crystal meth out of it. Such practices may hurt others, but they won't hurt you (unless you're allergic to handcuffs.)

The Effective Way - This might involve actually reading the directions. Maybe you're supposed to take it with food, or at certain times of the day. If it's been prescribed to you, and you take it in appropriate amounts at appropriate times, often you'll notice some kind of benefit.

The Best Way - I've been prescribed very few medications in my lifetime. But usually they will say something like, "For best results, take all prescribed doses, even after symptoms have disappeared." I have never done that. When I'm not sick anymore, the pills vanish from my mind. But of course this is not a concept unique to the pharmaceutical industry. Practically every product with instructions has some "for best results" advice for you. It's like the final word in "wash, rinse, repeat". Who washes their hair twice every day? And yet who can deny that it would definitely make your hair cleaner?

Whether or not you give much thought to the four ways to use things, you would probably grant that the maker of a product has a right to decide how it should be used. And you'd probably agree even more strongly if you were not the purchaser of the product, but the borrower. The owner gets to set the terms, and it's your job to keep them straight.

But for some reason we have trouble seeing life this way. Because there are four ways to use life as well.

When the Law of Moses instructs the Israelites in cleanliness, it is warning against using life the Deadly Way. For example, don't touch a dead carcass if you don't want to catch something. God, by and large, prefers people to live, and not die prematurely, and who better to give advice on the subject?

Examples abound in the Bible of instructions as to avoiding the Illegal Way. This is stuff that will not kill you, but it may kill others, or harm others, or harm the community, or disgrace God. Because God has a purpose in mind for his children, he is not happy with those working at cross-purposes with him, and he tends to punish them in one way or another.

Proverbs is a good source to learn how to live the Effective Way. Maybe you're not killing yourself, and you're not offending anyone, but your life doesn't seem to work all that well, either. Proverbs will advise you how to get along with people, how to prosper, how to gain wisdom, how to avoid strife, etc, etc. Another book by the same author called Song of Solomon will tell you how to have the best sex of your life. Like I said... effective living.

So you've made it this far, and it occurs to you that there's more. You want to go beyond mere common sense, mere compliance, and plain old good advice, to live out everything God intended for you. In other words, the Best Way.

This comes with admonitions like "When you are forced to go one mile, go two" and "Pray for those who persecute you". Words of Jesus that I don't believe are intended as law. But they are mandatory for those who are striving for the best way... the way of the cross. Paul follows suit when he talks about those things he is free to do, but which might cause a brother to stumble. In the freedom of Christ, "all" things may be permissible, but not all things are beneficial.

We are living in the best way when we trust the Father to give us the instructions, and the Son to set the example.

Naturally, it is not easy for everyone to agree on what exactly God is saying to us. Personally, I believe the more important the injunction, the more clearly we find the Bible to speak on it. But that's not really what I'm getting at here. What I'm talking about is whether we're even listening.

Although a vast majority of Americans believe in a creator God, it seems that very few believe that Creator has a right to set the terms of use for his creation. We see the concept all around us in the products we use. But we think of life as somehow different... we act as owners and proprietors, rather than as tenants and stewards. We put life to our various tests, and then stick to what feels good. And it's easy to see where "life on our own terms" has gotten us.

But if we decide to take the true Owner seriously, we see clearly that there is a way that leads to death, and to disfavor. But there is also a way that leads to benefit, and to blessing. And it's not until we can stop making excuses and see ourselves for who we really are, that we will be able to see God for who he really is.



+

A Real Live Preacher Questions Hell

Hell has been a big topic lately. There's an informal group of guys that tend to talk about the scriptural idea of hell on Wednesday evenings at the FroPo. It was a message topic a few weeks ago.

And now one of my favorite bloggers, Real Live Preacher, is coming out and asking the public for help in his comprehensive New Testament study of hell.

He is looking for all those who believe in hell to give him solid New Testament evidence to back up their beliefs. He's not being patronizing, or antagonistic. He is honestly and respectfully seeking out those who can make a good case.

Go read his post, and perhaps be one of those who can help round out the discussion in a meaningful way. I don't have to explain why this topic is so important.

UPDATE 8-14-08 I think it would be best not to end this post without a few vague personal thoughts about hell. So here it is:

In order for God to be consistent with himself, and for Scripture to maintain its integrity, I think the deal with hell has got to be one of two things:

1) Perhaps it is not what the traditionalists have made it out to be. Maybe it's not eternal. Maybe the punishment is heavily graded, depending on how much truth and righteousness you rejected, and how much falsehood and evil you embraced, making possible a portion of "hell" that is actually not unspeakably terrible. Or maybe hell is allegorical in some other way I haven't thought of. Or...

2) Perhaps the nature of God's judgment of people is not what traditionalists have made it out to be. It doesn't work in my mind for hell to be populated simply with all "non-Christians". That makes Christianity sound like a cult, and it is far to superficial to be God's true measure of judgment. This is not just a sentiment, this is Scriptural... God judges the heart, not the outward appearance. If there is indeed an eternal, horrible place called hell, it will not be for the people who failed to join a certain group, but for those who have rejected God, by way of rejecting Jesus. And we can't necessarily assume that never hearing about Jesus is the same as rejecting him.

My current leaning is toward number 2, as vague as it is. If we're really going to be known as a people who trust God, we have to trust his knowledge of every person's heart, and remember that he doesn't desire that any should perish. If we don't trust that God will give each person a solid opportunity to find him, and receive his mercy, then I don't really think we trust God.

Yes, Jesus Married a Prostitute

Anybody remember, a little over a year ago, the media went nuts over a documentary called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"? Here there was claimed to be solid proof not only that Jesus died and stayed dead, but that he was married to a woman named Mary or "Mariamne".

Anybody remember, about five years ago, a guy wrote a book called The Da Vinci Code? Although the author insisted it was a work of fiction, he also claimed that all his supporting facts, documents and historical data were accurate. The secular world was giddy with the notion that Jesus was not who Christians have thought him to be, and once again, that he was married to a woman named Mary.

In retrospect, it's easy to see that neither of these "breakthroughs" ever really broke through. The lasting impact on Christology (even popular Christology) was negligible. It simply emboldened those who held alternative beliefs about Jesus, and frightened those who toed the traditional line. But that's it.

Why do people want Jesus to be married? Obviously those of us who believe the biblical account don't want this, but I have to admit that, at times, I have wished that Jesus could relate to my married experiences... my challenges and failures and successes. (Why does that make it sound like I've been married more than once? )

But those who have less of themselves invested in the biblical, historical Jesus may want him to be married for two reasons: 1) so they can thumb their nose at Catholics or Evangelicals, and 2) so they don't have to deal with the existence of such a lofty person. Their lives might be more comfortable if they could bring the zenith of humanity down a notch, and imagine him as a sexual being who satisfied his urges. He may have done it properly, through marriage, but if his bride was indeed a prostitute (as the cultural detractors are claiming,) then we can all feel a little better about ourselves.

And we traditionalists bristle at the thought. Jesus is God, after all. God can't get married! Well, he could, if he wanted to, I mean, he IS God, so I guess he can do whatever he wants. But can you imagine? God picking out a human woman for a wife? What would their children be? Some sort of demi-gods out of Greek mythology, like Hercules? And if God shows no favoritism, how could he possibly choose one woman to marry, and reject all the others?

I'm glad you asked.

Let me answer the last one first. Although Jesus did not chose an individual woman for a wife, God is actually not opposed to singling people out for his honor. Mary the mother of Jesus was the only woman out of billions to be chosen to give birth to the Son of God. John the Beloved was the only man out of billions to be Jesus' best friend. And we can see how their names reflected their chosenness. Jesus declined to choose an individual for a wife, but not because he was opposed to singling people out... it was for other reasons.

Because think about it... if the Son of God was going to have a wife, what would she be like? This is a little different from choosing a mother or a best friend. This is choosing a partner to become unified with. One flesh, in other words. And no human being is big enough to be THE unified partner of Christ. No matter whom he chose, it would be a record-scratching anti-climax.

And he most certainly can't chose multiple women. The Bible may not condemn polygamy as often, and as loudly, as we'd like, but it's pretty obvious that Jesus cannot be a polygamist.

The only bride for Jesus that would declare his divinity, that would manifest his purposes for coming to earth and fulfill the eternal symbolism that God intended for marriage, would be the Church. The Body of Christ.

And what a name to carry... the Body of Christ. We may still look forward to the wedding feast of the Lamb at the end of this age, but nevertheless Christ has already given himself to us. We are betrothed, and declared to be one flesh. "Those who stay united with me, and I with them, are the ones who bear much fruit." [John 15:5] That is why we are the Body of Christ. We are the bride... the body that Jesus chose, and now we share it with him, just as he gave his body for us.

As encouraging as all that is, we eventually come down off this epiphany, and remember the blood on our hands. We recall our fallenness, and despair at the lopsidedness of this arrangement. We are a filthy bride, wearing red and black and a muddy shade of brown.

And suddenly the reality occurs to us... Jesus really did marry a prostitute. Just like Hosea married Gomer, and loved her and bought her and called her out of herself.

So we can see that even larger than Jesus' sense of marriage, is Jesus' sense of grace. It is far wider than we can imagine, great enough to swallow up all our inadequacies and rebellion.

Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes--who are they, and where did they come from?" I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent [or marital chuppa] over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. [Revelation 7:13-17]

+

The Swiss Cheese Curse

"Brendon... the ground you walk on is cursed, and no matter what kind of job you have, it will suck in one way or another. And chances are, most months there will be more month than there is money.

"Kara... you'll probably give birth to children someday, but without drugs the pain will make you wish you were dead. Oh, and Brendon will never quite meet your expectations, but he'll dominate you anyway."

I hereby pronounce you husband and wife. You may now start having second thoughts.

A few weeks ago Christina and I were able to travel to Portland, Oregon to see my brother (Brendon) get married to the girl of his dreams (Kara). Thankfully, the wedding didn't sound anything like the words above. I'm pretty sure no wedding ever has.

That's because the passage in Genesis 3 that this exchange is drawn from is A CURSE. People don't want to think about curses at weddings. As the King of Swamp Castle said in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail, "This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!" But I digress...

What I'm saying is, when you see a curse, it's best not to encourage it. The best thing to do is fight it, defy it, pray against it, live into the blessing.

But I think as many of us try to live out our lives as men and women, and as husbands and wives, we end up slouching towards the curse anyway. As I explain, I'm going to leave out the part about child-bearing. Drugs, no drugs... you can make up your own mind on that.

Adam, as we know, was formed from the dirt. Which is why, incidentally, it is so hard for a man to get, or stay, clean. Eve was formed later on from Adam's rib so that pastors would have something clever to say at weddings about the woman being equal to man because she came from his side.

Even when God was most involved in the lives of humans, he tended not to deal with us in a very direct fashion. He did not pop Adam and Eve out of thin air (ex nihilo for your seminarians,) he used materials. And it's as if those materials are always there to tempt us to put our trust in matter (materialism) instead of its Source.

Adam's matter was dirt. So how did God curse Adam? He cursed the dirt, so that men throughout history would have to bust their butts all day long, and this is the thanks they get from you kids?

Eve's matter was Adam. So how did God curse Eve? He said that she would always desire a relationship with him, but he would rule over her. She would always long for equality and intimacy and emotional/spiritual compatibility, but Adam would be too stubborn and dirty for much of that. Plus he'd be at work all the time.

At first glance, Eve's curse looks demeaning (although it shouldn't be strange that a curse would be demeaning.) But many women have lamented their fate to be subordinate to a man, and have decided that they'd rather have Adam's curse... workaholism! Now that's living the dream...

The fact is, they're both curses, and God does not expect us to seek out either one. He created us to be equal... for the first woman to come out of man, and every subsequent man to come out of woman. Similarly, he created us to seek God. When men (or women) try to achieve significance through their work, or when women (or men) try to find ultimate fulfillment in their human relationships, we are all missing the point. We are chasing after the curse instead of the blessing.

I probably don't even need to say that the curse is largely unavoidable, this side of eternity. But thankfully God's grace, especially as displayed on the Cross, has punched huge holes in it, through which we can see and live out what God intended for his children.

That is true religion... not to set up systems that play into the curse, but to guide ourselves and others into the blessings that God has made possible by his own sacrifice.

Now.... you may kiss the bride.

Red Letter Ramblings

One very formidable trend that has developed with Generations X and Y (for lack of better terms) is the desire to be a "Red-Letter Christian".

For the uninitiated, many editions of the Bible print the words of Jesus in red, and the rest of the words in black.

If there are any accountants or finance-types reading this, I have a question for you: Does red ink make Jesus words look better, or worse? Seems like it might be a barrier for those who fear "the red".

Aside from purely cosmetic concerns, I believe this type of thinking can be dangerous. First, whose decision was it initially to put the words of God the Son in red, but not those of God the Father? Is it not disconcerting to anyone else to read about the baptism of Jesus and see the very voice of heaven descending in ink of black? It wouldn't bother me, except in a Red-Letter Edition.

It is a magnificent truth that Christianity is not based on a set of teachings, or on a philosophy, or on a group of people or a historical event. It is based on a person; the person of Jesus. So why shouldn't we let his words stand out?

And that's the way the thinking goes... fair enough. But there's more.

I don't see this simply as a Bible-reading trend, but as a move away from a holistic Christianity, and into one that has a too-narrow focus on the person of Jesus. This has caused many people to believe that Jesus was not so much the agent of the Father here on earth, but rather a rogue liberator attempting to rescue humanity from the wrath of a Crabby Dad. Read more about that here.

A case in point: The 4th of 10 Commandments, in Exodus, commands that we keep the Sabbath day holy, and do no work on that day. In Jesus' time, the Pharisees abused this law (like every other law) and took it to extremes. As we read Jesus' attempts to correct that abuse, we begin to think that he is rescinding the commandment itself. And whatever we read in red letters seems to trump everything else. (As an aside... my trouble with honoring the Sabbath is that I can't find where God said that the Sabbath should roll over to the first day of the week, instead of the last. Still percolating on that one...)

The problem is, this approach to the mission of Christ ignores the following red letters from John 8:28: "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." Does this bold assertion leave us any reason at all to lift the words of Jesus above the words of God the Father? Has anyone ever proposed putting all the words of God in red?

Because, in their red letter fervor, some people have even become suspicious of the non-gospel books. Here's my question for them: Do you believe John accurately recorded Jesus' words? Then why not read his three epistles and Revelation just as seriously? Do you believe Luke accurately recorded Jesus' words? Then why not read Acts just as seriously? And if you do, you'll see that Jesus (in red letters) appointed Paul to be an apostle. Then why not read the letters of Paul as divine scripture? And when we read the red letters themselves, we can see how Jesus honored the words of Moses and the Prophets. In our efforts to follow Jesus and be like him, should we not do the same?

We should. Otherwise we risk letting our faith run into the red.

The Question of Suffering

Yesterday my boss had to take the day off because he pinched his sciatic nerve. Normally he provides the office music from his iTunes, which can include anything from Johnny Cash to the Beastie Boys.

But yesterday was quiet most of the day, so eventually I decided to turn on our local NPR station, and listen to Fresh Air, one of its more popular interview programs.

Although I was only able to listen to snatches of the show, I did catch that Terry Gross was interviewing an author named Bart Ehrman, whose book is called "God's Problem". Ehrman is a former minister and fundamentalist, and his driving point was that Christianity, and religion in general, have not found a satisfactory explanation for human suffering. Here is a quote from the book:

Eventually, though, I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

Knowing that it would be fodder for his detractors, in the interview he specifically referenced the book of Job. He claimed that Job, rather than providing an explanation for suffering, depicts a man who questions his intense suffering, and is reprimanded for it by God himself. Job says "Why? I don't deserve this!" and God says "Be quiet. Did you create the universe?"

Ehrman tears down the traditionally positive view held of Job, and rips into his character, saying that Job, rather than accepting his suffering in faith, constantly complained and defended himself. In response, God then (in Ehrman's view) scolds Job for even asking such questions.

I disagree not only with his view of Job, but with his completely cerebral approach to suffering. Perhaps if I read the book I would feel differently. But I certainly don't want to be guilty of it myself, and fail to recognize the suffering you may be experiencing in your life, even as you read this. Life hurts, and sometimes it's torture. No amount of analysis or exegesis or debate can make a dent in that. If you're suffering right now, the second worst thing I could give you is a rational explanation. But the number one worst thing I could give you is the sense that God doesn't care, and you're not allowed to scream in his face for relief. I'll talk more about that in a minute.

So book knowledge alone just doesn't cut it... even when that book is the Bible. Sometimes it doesn't matter how many chapters or books one has memorized from the Bible, because Ehrman has far more than his share. Memorization does not guarantee absorption, and certainly not relationship.

Because when I read Job, I do not see a God who sends lightning on those who ask why. I see a God who overwhelms Job with the power and awe of God's own presence; to the point where Job might even forget about his own pain for a moment.

Solomon says that man cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. God was reminding Job that he is completely incapable of seeing the big picture, and steering him back to faith, not necessarily away from all doubt, but away from despair.

Humanity is absolutely not wrong to question its own suffering. Look at the Psalms, especially 22 and 69. Here is David, the "man after God's own heart", pounding on the chest of the Almighty, screaming out for answers. And God calls this sacred scripture--something each one of us should read and internalize. And for one reason more than any other... these passages point directly the sufferings of Jesus.

And that, more than anything I can think of, is the fulfillment of the question of suffering. Notice I don't say "the answer to the question" because modernity has convinced us to seek hard-and-fast answers where perhaps there can be none. It is my belief that, in those cases, we should instead seek fulfillment. Relationship. Then what is the fulfillment of the question of the suffering of humanity? I believe it's the suffering of Christ.

He did not promise us answers. He promised us himself. "I will be with you, even to the end of the age."

If we want anything beyond that, we do not want Jesus at all.

Fruits of the Flesh - Happiness

This is the third installment in the series "Fruits of the Flesh". Here is the original post.

The second Fruit of the Spirit is Joy. The second Fruit of the Flesh is Happiness.

I wrote at some length about Love vs. Romance, but for Joy vs. Happiness I'll be brief.

One response to the original post was about the denigration of the word "happiness", and the fact that the Greek and Hebrew words most often translated "blessed" in the Scriptures are just as accurately translated "happy". Such as in the Psalm 1:1 "Happy is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked," or Matthew 5:7, "Happy are the merciful."

The most common approach to Joy vs. Happiness is that Joy is deep and resilient, whereas Happiness is temporary and circumstantial. I have no qualms about that view. But is there a chance we're giving Happiness the short-shrift?

One of the primary post-modern criticisms of Christianity attacks the naive, happy-clappy, see-no-evil disposition. It bothers me, too. But is happiness the culprit, or the victim here? It would be a funny thing to translate Matthew 5:4, "Happy are those who mourn". Mourning people aren't happy, they're sad.

The second fruit of the flesh is a Happiness that is sought in and of itself. But much like Romance, and the other Fruits of the Flesh, Happiness needs to be a by-product of the Spirit, and becomes an evil thing when it is sought directly. Joy, on the contrary, can be sought directly, because we cannot have it without a whole-hearted trust in God. Happiness is an emotion, but Joy is a commitment.

And no matter what emotions joy may lead us through in this life, happy is the one who joyfully perseveres to the end, where happiness is not the exception, but the rule.

Fruits of the Flesh - Romance

Yesterday I lined up the world's counterfeit fruits in the post "Fruits of the Flesh." Now I'm going to hit each one briefly, for a little explanation.

The first Fruit of the Spirit is Love. The first Fruit of the Flesh is Romance.

The Fruits of the Flesh are not, inherently, bad. The only people I know who would call Romance bad are the unromantic. Romance, to them, is what gives the Romeos and Don Juans an unfair advantage. But apart from them, most of us can agree that Romance is a good thing, especially within marriage.

But here's the kicker. God says, "Love." The world says "Fall in love." That's what Romance is: Falling in love. It's not something you have any control over... you're a victim. It just happens. So you get swept off your feet, and carried along by a sweet summer breeze.

And it's only logical that if you don't have any control over the beginning of something, you won't have any control over the end, either. Falling out of love. Breaking up. Divorce. Romance, like money, is a great servant and a terrible master.

One of the great tragedies of the English language is the multi-tasking it often is required to do. I'm not going to ask you to stop saying how much you love Snow, or Motorcycles, or Burger King. But when you talk about loving people, you've got to switch into another gear. DC Talk wrote a hip-hop ditty called "Luv is a Verb" which was cheesy, but right on target.

If Love is a verb, it's not something you can "fall into". It's a bull you take by the horns. And if it's all mushy and emotional then guys will get really quiet when they say "I love you" to each other, and have to add the word "dude" or "man" or "bro".

So I'm gonna finish with a word to the men. If there's anything masculine out there, it's action. Decisive, Aggressive Action. No wonder we've shrunk back from loving each other... our society equates it with sex, sunsets and satin sheets. And those things have their place. But love is a thing of action! It is a thing of reckless sacrifice and relentless devotion. It means making a decision and never, ever swerving from it. Do you think you're stubborn and tough? Make a pact with God right now (or renew the one you already have) to never leave your wife... legally, physically, sexually, mentally... period. Make a pact to never abuse her, or your kids. Never in a million years. Make a pact to work like an ox to provide them everything they need. Make a pact to shut the hell up when they just need you to listen.

Because Love is a verb... bro.

Fruits of the Flesh

For the fruit of the flesh is:

Romance, Happiness, Compromise, Coolness, Friendliness, Social Awareness, Security, and Autonomy

Let's see them side by side:

SPIRIT--------FLESH
Love----------Romance
Joy-----------Happiness
Peace---------Compromise
Patience------Coolness
Kindness------Friendliness
Goodness------Social Awareness
Faithfulness--Security
Self-Control--Autonomy

Each fruit of the flesh is a counterfeit. It can be easy to see them as worthy of our effort, or even as equivalent to what the Spirit desires. I will explain the difference between the left column and the right in future posts.

A Fashionable Faith

One very good way to seem holier-than-thou is to be unattractive.

You may be one of the few individuals who have had the misfortune of being born beautiful, and have to take deliberate steps to be homely. I recommend wearing thick, heavy glasses, tangling up your hair, eating poorly, adopting a sedentary lifestyle, and replacing your wardrobe with frumpy, out-dated and mismatched apparel. Combined with a strict code of morals and a Bible college degree, these simple steps can make the most naturally attractive person seem quite holy.

OK, enough of that.

The truth is that I believe every person is beautiful. Not just on the inside, either. Granted, this belief is buried deep in my soul, and my eyes and mind will spend my entire life trying to live up to it. I have no doubt that God has a sense of physical, visual beauty, and that he literally "sees" every individual as beautiful, despite any asymmetry, malformation, handicap, skin disease or cultural disadvantage. It is not creation, but culture that causes some to rise above the rest, and to be crowned sexy.

Religion has responded to this cultural tendency in very severe ways at times. Both Peter (in I Peter) and Paul (in I Timothy) give warnings to the women of the Church not to decorate themselves, and to dress with modesty. And then there's the verse in Proverbs that says how "beauty is vain". This is all the fuel that the legalistic set needs to develop a counter-culture with attitudes like the one I expressed in the first paragraph. "The world has sinfully exalted attractiveness, so we will exalt homeliness! The less you do to develop your physical appearance, the better!"

So here we are... caught between two mistakes: pride in beauty, and pride in rejecting beauty.

It's obvious that physical beauty has a role to play in God's plan... At least 10 major Old Testament figures are identified for their beauty, and not just women. Sarah is so beautiful that her husband Abraham tries to pass her off as his sister so he won't be killed. Rebecca draws the immediate attention of Isaac's wife-searching servant. Rachel's beauty instantly inspires 7 years of hard labor from Jacob. Bathsheba pulls the "man after God's own heart" way off course. Esther wins an empire-wide beauty pageant to become Queen of Susa and save her entire race. As for the men... Saul's beauty is defined by his extraordinary height. David, although considerably shorter, is described as handsome. And his wicked son Absalom was the Fabio of his day... with long, luxurious locks and "not a blemish on him". It is a poetic justice that he dies by hanging... his hair caught in a tree. And who can forget Solomon and the Shulammite Woman, his first wife, who praise each other's beauty over and over in the Song of Solomon?

Beauty is a powerful thing in scripture. Sometimes it leads to disaster (as with Bathsheba) and other times to salvation (as with Esther.) Is it possible that physical, cultural beauty is a gift with a purpose, just like so many other things? Perhaps God knows the power of attraction and desires to use it to his advantage.

The Art of Fashion is not highly respected in Christian circles, for reasons I've already mentioned. It smacks as narcissistic on the one side, and voyeuristic on the other. And in many, many cases I believe this is probably true... not only do its excesses and misuses lead to selfishness, they lead to lust, rape, adultery and even idolatry. So it can be hard for devoted Christians to justify the mountains of money spent on textiles and cosmetics. But maybe, just maybe, there is a baby somewhere in this bathwater. I've had to think about this a lot lately, with our Benefit Fashion Show (called "Hit the Lights") coming up on December 8.

We have no doubt that God gives certain people a beautiful voice. Would you rebuke a talented young woman for spending lots of time and money on voice lessons, or even a voice degree, and dedicating her life to singing and teaching others to do the same? What about those who seem born to paint, or calculate, or invent, or build, or advise?

I'm going to use a word that I don't think I've ever heard applied to beauty or fashion... STEWARDSHIP. Is it possible that those born with pleasant features might actually be held accountable to God for their stewardship of this gift?

Yes, it's extremely easy for an attractive person to become arrogant, like The Fonz with his comb, or Marsha Brady with her hairbrush. But isn't that the case with every gift? God has given us all the freedom to ignore his call, and assume that we are gifted simply because we deserve it... we're better than others.

In our approach to every gift of God, we should seek him desperately to know his purpose in all of it. Why am I such a great quarterback? Why do I love drawing so much? Why do people always come to me with their problems? Why have you made me so attractive to others? How do you want to use me?

I'll finish with a story. When I was in high school, I belonged to a youth group with a few stereotypical "valley girls" who cared deeply about their clothes, their hair, their tans, etc. One of them always had extremely fancy nails, painted with different designs and patterns. Most of us assumed these girls were pretty shallow and didn't have much interest in the things of God. And in all reality, they probably did go overboard with their appearance, and were likely guilty of some degree of vanity.

To everyone's surprise, three of these girls decided to go on a mission trip to Lithuania, I think. I wasn't there, but I heard afterwards about how the little girls they met there reacted to the American girl with the extreme fingernails. They absolutely flocked around her, and flooded her with questions. And when they had learned all they could about her nails, they wanted to know everything else about her as well... including her faith. Because of her fingernails, she had instant respect, and dozens of little listening ears.

Not only did this have a spiritual impact on the Lithuanians, but the three American girls were never the same. Because others had labeled them as shallow, they had come to believe it themselves. But to see what kind of influence they can have on others, they started to understand that God really did intend to use them, just like those who had other, more "spiritual" gifts.

And that's a beautiful thing.

Merge - The Next Six Months

So I'm feeling pretty good about our new Sunday morning set-up... Merge Worship Gathering, 10:30 am, you know...

Last Sunday was really beautiful, I think. You should come see for yourself. It was comfortable, it was casual, but also challenging and impactful, too. Everybody got to have a say, get involved, get to know each other in an authentic way. I liked it.

Now I'd like you to know what I've got in mind for the next six months, as far as the discussions go. For now I'll just mention the framework to give you a rough idea. I'll work on the creative stuff later. Here's a few things you should know first:

-So far, Merge's definitions of a "discussion" is some people sitting in curved rows, some at tables, some at couches, at varying distances from the platform. The discussion leader sits on a stool placed on the floor somewhere toward the front of all this. This could change, and it could vary. I like it, but I hope it does change and vary. And I expect other speakers to rotate in from time to time.

-When I talk about "going through scripture" I'm not checking off chapters or verses like a to-do list. I want people to get a sense of the Grand Story of God, and simultaneously to realize that they have an important part to play in it. So scripture will be used as a springboard for real life issues, and as a measuring stick to hold us accountable. So scripture is one of those bendy rulers that are fun to wack on your desk when you're feeling ancy.

-The discussions will be a combination of asking questions, but also clear teaching. God has given us real truth to work with, just not as much as some people think. And unless we listen to those we are addressing, we're in danger of speaking to someone who's not even in the room.

NEXT SIX MONTHS: The Jesus Saga
(this is all subject to change at any time)

November - Prophecies and Pre-figurations of Jesus

November 4 - The Fall of Man, the Curse and the Promise
November 11 - The Exodus, the Angel of Death
November 18 - Melchizedek, the Pre-Incarnate Christ?
November 25 - Prophecies of Pain - Psalm 22, Isaiah 53

December - Advent

December 2 - Messianic Prophecy, Inter-testamental period
December 9 - Anticipating a Savior (Israel, Elizabeth, John in the womb)
December 16 - Mary & Joseph
December 23 - The nativity
December 30 -

January - The Early Years

January 6 - Jesus' circumcision, Simeon & Anna, Epiphany
January 13 - John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin & fore-runner
January 20 - Water into Wine, the first miracle
January 27 - Calling of the Disciples

February - The Ministry of Jesus

February 3 - Sermon on the Mount
February 10 - Two Greatest Commandments
February 17 - The Inspirational Miracles
February 24 - The Compassionate Miracles

March - The Road to the Cross

March 2 - Clearing the Temple
March 9 - Jesus and the Pharisees
March 16 - Palm Sunday - Last Supper & Good Friday
March 23 - Easter - Resurrection Day
March 30 - The Great Commission & Ascension

April - The Aftermath

April 6 - Pentecost & the Holy Spirit
April 13 - Explosive Growth
April 20 - Saul's Coversion & Contribution
April 27 - The First Century Church

Authority, Homosexuality, and a Piss-Poor Epistemology

Over the next few weeks (and months) I'm going to be thinking (and talking) a lot about Scripture, personal conviction, and the teaching work of the Holy Spirit. What I have to say today may seem dis-jointed, but only because it's intended to lead into other things.

Before reading on, you may want to download a PDF of a transcription of theologian N.T. Wright's lecture on Biblical Authority. Although it's 19 pages long, and scholarly in nature, it's quite down-to-earth.

As I was reading this document, I began to think about how each of us arrives at our convictions. And I realized that no one really believes something just because someone told them it was true. The exception to this is the groundwork for worship. Sound confusing? Keep reading.

Little kids tend to believe everything their parents say because they worship their parents. And when you're little, that's not a bad thing. But have you ever heard someone say, "That's what I believe because my pastor said so."? It's getting less and less common, for sure, but it reveals an attitude of worship toward one's pastor. The word for the way people know and understand things is called epistemology, and this is one example (pardon the phrase) of piss-poor epistemology.

Obviously, we are called to worship God. And therefore, whatever he speaks directly to us is something we should believe wholeheartedly. And you may infer from this that I'm going to say something about literal belief in the words of the Bible, but don't make any more assumptions... and keep reading.

If we're paying attention, we all get the sense from reading the Bible that God is talking to someone else besides us. In the Old Testament, it's the Israelites. In the New Testament it's a variety of Jews and Christians from the Mediterranean region. You don't have to disrespect the timeless, inspired nature of the Bible to wonder which of these million or so words God has really intended you, personally, to obey.

And even if you've figured that out, what responsibility do you have, if any, to tell other people what they're supposed to do? Has God really called us to make these kinds of determinations on others?

It looks like I'm in danger here of descending into a bog of abstraction, so I'm going to put a face on the question. What should a Christian do when he (or she) meets an actively gay Christian? Let's suppose the two of you have the opportunity to get to know one another, and you develop somewhat of a rapport.

You worry about your friend, and his lifestyle, so you've decided it's time to say something. But what? Here is what I would say, if it were me (and this will probably change, but for the here-and-now I like it.)

I would talk to my friend about his relationship with God. I would ask him about his desire to really obey God and live a life that's pleasing to Him. I would ask him if he is willing to obey God, even if obedience is painful or inconvenient. I would ask him if he believed that God is the creator of sex and sexuality, and if he has the right to guide us in our expressions of it.

You may think, once again, that you know where I'm going with this, but you'd probably be wrong. Most people would have difficulty answering "yes" to every one of these questions. If he says "no" to even one of them, then homosexuality is not the issue. The issue is his orientation towards God... that he has acquired a misunderstanding of God's dominion, or has never acquired a worshipful stance towards God to begin with.

If he does, in fact, answer "yes" to all of them, then I would ask him if he believes that what the Bible (particularly Romans chapter 1) says about homosexuality applies to him. If not, I would ask why not... and I would press him to make sure he's not just skewing the words to his own advantage (after all... he said he was willing to obey God even if it's painful.) But if he has honest doubts about the scripture, or consistent reasons why he doesn't believe he is bound to those words (even if his reasons aren't academically sound) I would simply tell him what I believe and why, and ask if I can pray for him. I would tell him that I worry, not only about his physical and psychological health, but about his spiritual health.

But here's my divergence: After that I would leave it alone. After all, my friend would never believe me just because I said so, unless he worships me. But if I continue to see evidence that my friend really longs to obey God, and makes sacrifices to do so, but does not see the Scriptures about homosexuality in the way that I do, I would respect his spirituality, and continue to pray for him. Because seriously... aren't we all rejecting some facet of Scripture every day, quite intentionally at times? Do you think a man whose children are unruly should be exempt from serving as a pastor? Do you think a woman who sports jewelry and short hair and a loud voice should be ineligible to teach Sunday School? If God, at some point, convicts these two people to make a change, then that's his business, but until then, we can respect their spirituality and their position in the Kingdom of God.

By the way, I'm not trying to equate homosexuals with incompetent parents or short-haired women. But we've got to come to terms with the way we excuse ourselves so often in regards to Scripture, while condemning others. Often we settle in to accomplish whatever scriptural requirements we find personally manageable, and then set about judging everyone else based on that standard.

But the point is... what's in the heart? You can't argue with that. (For man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the... what?) And, in fact, we can have some sense about what's in a person's heart. It just gets frustrating when we realize that God is the only one who really knows.

Short Skirt/Long Jacket and the Proverbs 31 Woman

Who better than a chronic sufferer of foot-in-mouth disease like myself to find two things that disgust women and put them together?

I refer to a song, and a scripture passage. The song is "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" by Cake, and I don't know any women who are really against it. (If it's not ringing a bell, think of the line, "I want a girl with a short skirt and a long..... long..... jacket.) Most people I know just think it's funny and clever. After all, it's surprisingly non-sexual, and non-shallow. The "short skirt" desire is probably the only shallow thing in there, and the only references to appearance at all are the mention of "fingernails that shine like justice" and "eyes that burn like cigarettes". The rest of it is all about attitude, intellect and, well... business acumen.

The writer of this song is expressing a desire for a woman who has it all together, and even exhibits a number of traditionally masculine traits. A case in point is the line "she's touring the facility, and picking up the slack." This is an intensely independent woman... the kind that doesn't really need a man, which is a point that makes me wonder if this song is perhaps much deeper than it sounds.

Is it a satire? Is the writer really saying that men don't want the killer woman? Is it trying to communicate the pressure that women are under to measure up to an impossible standard?

Either way, I'm almost positive that the writer was inspired by the second half of Proverbs 31... because that scripture passage seems to create a lot of the same feelings in women as the song. "This is what men expect??? Well, screw that... I'm not taking care of two toddlers and turning a profit on a vineyard in my spare time! And hell if he's gonna see me in a short skirt again."

Good point, ladies. If this song, and this scripture, are true representations of our standards, then we've got another thing coming.

I said in a recent blog post that there are some verses which are just plain none of your business. And I think the second half of Proverbs 31 is like that... not really written for men to read. It is something women should be inspired by, without thinking that men are standing around, supervising their growth. The only benefit it has for men was expressed pretty well, I think, by Mark Driscoll. He said that a lot of young men set out looking for the Proverbs 31 woman to marry. But they haven't done anything to deserve her. He believes that the P31 woman is a woman who has been invested in over a period of decades by her husband, and many others. In short, if you're looking for the perfect wife, go find the perfect husband, because he's already got her.

I like this perspective, because it challenges both men and women to strive to be their very best, and hopefully takes our attention off of each other's progress, or lack thereof.

But I just couldn't get over the similarities between the song and the scripture, so I wrote a parody of the song, using as many actual words from Proverbs 31 as possible. I'll paste it in here for you. If you want to read the original lyrics, and the scripture passage, they're pasted into the first two comments. So here it is. (By the way... I already have a wife like this, so if we get a chance to perform it, I'll have to get some young bachelor to be the singer.)

I want a wife of Noble Character
I want a wife like few can find
I want a wife with worth like rubies
Who can afford me, her husband, some peace of mind

I want a wife with the right motivations
Who is good, not bad, and has nothing she lacks
She’s pricing the market, she’s working with her hands
She’s choosing the wool, and picking out the flax.

I want a wife with a short past and a long…. resume

I want a wife who gets up early (gets up early!)
I want a wife who stays up late (stays up late!)
I want a wife who sets about her work vigorously
Who buys her own vineyards, and makes no mistakes

With fingernails that are grasping her distaff
And spindles, and ledgers, and alms for the poor
She is strong, generous, and dresses in red
She takes on the blizzards and has nothing dread

I want a wife with a long temper and a short…. short… memory.

I want a wife with a smooth set of bed sheets (smooth set of bedsheets!)
I want a wife with a sash outlet store (sash outlet store!)
At the city gate we will meet accidentally
We’ll start to talk when I offer her my chair

She wants a wardrobe with strength and dignity
She wants a repertoire of observant jokes
She’s speaking with wisdom and teaching her skills
And trading in idleness for a watchful eye

I want a wife with a short engagement and a long… long… honeymoon

The Agony and the Irony

Quiz time:

Evil and Righteousness have a common root, which is the all-consuming desire for... what?

Add a comment to this post, and make your best guess. Let me know if you need a hint.

The Inclusive Jesus

In the process of reading through the gospels once again, this morning I came across what I believe to be one of the most intriguing scenes in the entire Bible:

"On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, 'Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'' The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." -Mark 11:15-18

Now this is a man's memory verse, and I've mentioned it several times before in that capacity. Although John is less descriptive of this controversial act than Matthew, Mark and Luke, he does mention that Jesus drove them out with a whip that he made himself. That tells us two very important things:

1) Jesus was not guilty of rage, or of losing his temper. He had thought things through far enough in advance to make a whip just for this occasion. And,

2) Jesus had some mad skills.

Those two ideas were not new to me as I read the passage this morning. But in an effort to draw more out of Jesus' teachings, I have taken the advice of Ray VanderLaan, and started paying close attention to the source of Jesus' quotes. VanderLaan teaches that, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament, his true message is often not so much in the actual words he says, as in the passage he is referring to. This is not to say that Jesus is being misleading or disingenuous--every word he says is true--but that there is deeper meaning available for those who familiarize themselves with the Bible of Jesus' day. And I believe this is the case with the temple-clearing scene.

When he rebukes the temple officials, Jesus quotes two Old Testament prophets in one sentence. "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" comes from Isaiah chapter 56. The second part, about the den of robbers, comes from Jeremiah chapter 7.

OK, that was easy enough. All you have to do is check the footnotes to find that out. But now how about reading those two chapters? What are they really about?

One very intriguing thing about the temple-clearing passage is the emphasis on Jesus' teaching. You'd think, at a moment like this, everybody would either be cheering or jeering because of Jesus' behavior, not his words. But even in the midst of such outlandish deeds, the focus is on what Jesus is saying. Mark does not suggest that he is shouting his memory verses at the top of his lungs as he throws tables over the wall, and busts open the pigeon cages. Rather it says he is teaching the people. Likewise, when the chief priests heard this, they wanted to kill him, not for causing a ruckus, but because the people were amazed at his teaching.

Now I don't think we can conclude that the priests and teachers wanted to kill Jesus out of jealousy. As if one instructor at a school wins the educator of the year award and the others set right out to build a gallows in the teachers' lounge. It is indeed possible that Jesus' popularity and competency as a rabbi aroused the green-eyed monster among his colleagues, but it is far more likely that they wanted to kill him for what he taught than how he taught.

So what was Jesus really teaching? That the temple officials were getting a little carried away with the merchandising? That things were being run too much like a business and not enough like the house of God? Perhaps that people were getting ripped off and short-changed?

These things could all be fairly drawn from the text, and I don't think they would be wrong. But look again before you set fire to your church bookstore or tip over the soda machine. Because I believe that Jesus' heart on the matter lies in the message of Isaiah 56 and Jeremiah 7.

The Isaiah passage makes a beautiful promise to Israel's outsiders; to those who fear that their lineage will exclude them from the kingdom of God. A special comfort goes out to the eunuchs, who have been so mutilated as to never be considered among the circumcised. God essentially is telling the world, "No matter who you are, where you're from, or what your past is like, if you bind yourself to me, and keep my commands, I will hear your prayers and accept your sacrifices." What an incredible message (especially in the Old Testament!)

Now it's important to recognize that the Temple in Jerusalem had four courts: The Court of the Gentiles, and going inward from there, the Court of Women, the Court of Men, and the Holy of Holies. It is obvious that God intended people from all nations to be welcome at the Temple (even if only in the outer court,) to worship there and offer their sacrifices. But by Jesus' day, the rulers of the Temple had allowed (caused?) the Court of the Gentiles to overflow with merchants and money changers. This made it impossible for non-Jews to worship there, and sent a very strong message that they were not welcome.

So Jesus barges in and declares that the Temple was meant to be a house of prayer for all nations, not for one nation only! Israel had a sacred duty to welcome people of every stripe to God's house, and they had failed.

Not only had they failed to provide hospitality to the nations, they had traded hospitality for iniquity. A place designed to radiate the grace of God was serving instead to highlight the greed of men. Thus the Jeremiah quote about the 'den of robbers'.

And this is where we really come to understand that Jesus is not merely venting about the misuse of a worship facility, but pronouncing doom on a nation who ignores God's commands. Because in Jeremiah chapter 7 we can see very clearly God's displeasure with those who would "oppress the alien," among others (verse 7.) God commands Jeremiah to stand at the gate of the temple, and announce that God is giving his people one last chance to reject false gods and serve him only, to treat people with love and grace and hospitality, and he will continue to accept their offerings and allow them to live in the Promised Land.

But if they do not--and Jesus was making it very clear that they had not--then God would no longer accept their sacrifices. In fact, God told them they might as well keep their sacrifices to themselves, because he was about to destroy the temple and scatter them from their homeland.

When Jesus referenced Jeremiah 7 (and when he said other things about the Temple, like "not one stone will be left on another") , he was making it very plain that Israel had had her chance, and she blew it. No wonder the chief priests and teachers of the law were fuming.

But right there, in the midst of a proclamation of doom, Jesus was making a promise of redemption. All the people were amazed at his teaching, because they were sick of being excluded. What a thought, that God would welcome everyone into his presence! What a thought, for you and I, that God is calling us to stop holding the "undesirables" at arm's length, and start truly showing them the love of Christ! Over and over we see it: Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman or the Roman general, Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch, Peter seeing the vision of unclean foods, James inspiring us to honor the poor, or Paul dedicating his life's ministry to the Gentiles. What a grand theme of Jesus' life... to subvert the natural order, to exalt the humble and humiliate the self-exalted!

Despite the grand message, you might have concluded that Jesus didn't go far enough in his purging. Yes, he fought to give back the Court of the Gentiles, but what about all the separation? Why should the Gentiles be considered less than the Jews, and the women be denied privileges reserved for men?

During his life, you'd be right. Jesus did stop short. But when he was crucified, all that he'd been saying came to an explosive climax. Because at that moment, the curtain in the temple, designed by God to keep virtually all people separated from his presence, was ripped in two from top to bottom. Now, not only are Gentiles welcome among the Jews, but each and every person who trusts in Jesus is granted access to the heart of God!

Paul said it best in Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Amen.

None of Your Beeswax (or, Waning Eloquent)

Take heed, ye blog readers, to sacred Scripture, and let us hear the words of the Lord.

"Take a sharp sword and use it as a barber's razor to shave your head and your beard. Then take a set of scales and divide up the hair. When the days of your siege come to an end, burn a third of the hair with fire inside the city. Take a third and strike it with the sword all around the city. And scatter a third to the wind. For I will pursue them with drawn sword. But take a few strands of hair and tuck them away in the folds of your garment. Again, take a few of these and throw them into the fire and burn them up. A fire will spread from there to the house of Israel."

Thus saith the Lord.

Let it not be said that I, Coreman, preach only vain philosophies and intangible precepts. Let it neither be said that I brush away the commands of Almighty God for the sake of poetic figuration or "cultural relevance". As I once observed so crudely adhered (and crudely phrased) upon the fender of an automobile, "God said it; I believe it; that settles it." Indeed, I adhere to a literal reading of scripture, much like that store-bought automotive paraphernalia.

Therefore, in the interest of obedience to our Sovereign Lord, I will lead by example. I will find a sword at some local goth emporium, then shave my face and head with it. I will then burn some, scatter some, and tuck the rest away, God be praised. And I expect that you, my loyal blog readers, if you be loyal indeed, will do the same.

OK, that's enough of that. Hopefully you've gathered that I'm not making fun of those who read the Bible literally, but I am challenging you to realize that not every Bible command is directed at every Bible reader.

One pet topic of mine that serves as an example of this is Tithing. It seems to me that the only time you'll hear the word "Malachi" mentioned from the pulpit is in a sermon about giving to the church (typically delivered during budget shortfalls.) The passage is Malachi 3:6-12, and you don't have to read it very carefully to see that God is having a conversation with the "sons of Jacob", otherwise known as the Israelites. They had been in the practice of ignoring God's command to bring tithes and offerings into the storehouse, and God was angry (though even in his anger, he promises amazing blessings if they will turn and obey.)

Is there still something very important for us in 2007 to learn as we read this passage? By all means, yes. Can we glean spiritual truth from Ezekiel 5:1-4, quoted above? Definitely. God's Word is eternal, and no matter how much or how little is written to us, it is all written for us. On the matter of giving, it is easy to see from the entirety of Scripture that God wants us to be generous, both sacrificially and joyfully. Isn't that enough? Why should we have to perilously re-contextualize an otherwise obscure passage to make people understand why they should give?

I've got another favorite example of latching onto a scriptural command that doesn't apply to you. When I think of it, I am reminded of the old beer commercials where the guys in a bar are divided into two factions, bellowing back and forth "Great taste!" and "Less filling!" Except in this scenario the men and women are split down the middle of the sanctuary, orthodox synagogue style, shouting "Wives submit to your husbands!" and "Husbands love your wives!"

When I read the third chapter of Malachi, and see in verse 6 where it says, "So you, O descendants of Jacob..." I immediately think, "OK, the stuff coming up is addressed to the nation of Israel, and is probably not intended to be a universal precept. So when I read it, I should not automatically presume that God's precise intention for my life is contained here, but I should ask him what he wants to teach me through this."

This is what should happen when you read Ephesians 5:22-28. If you are a man, and you read verse 22, which begins with the word "Wives," you should realize that this command is essentially none of your business. And women should do the same with verse 25 and following.

Just imagine if those of us who are married took that energy we normally spend wishing and complaining about how our spouse isn't being obedient to God, and re-focused it on actually being obedient ourselves?

What if we husbands could manage to just plumb forget how our wives are supposed to treat us? In fact, let's do it right now. (I would make a similar admonition to you ladies, but I plumb forgot what I was supposed to tell you.)

Normally at this point, I would close out the post with some pithy one-liner, but all I can think about is how I'm supposed to love my wife as Christ loves the Church.

Um, so yeah... love your wife. If you have a wife. If you are a wife... you're on your own, I guess. Also if you're single. Sorry.

A Study in Contrasts

John the revelator
Jacob the liar

Isaiah the orator
Moses the stutterer

David the hero
Paul the terrorist

Ruth the widow
Solomon the polygamist

Nicodemus the statesman
Mary Magdelene the outcast

Job the philanthropist
Joseph (NT) the peasant

Mary the virgin
Rahab the prostitute

Joshua the warrior
Jonah the deserter

Samuel the young
Sarah the old

Daniel the influential
Jabez the obscure

Abraham the faithful
Bathsheba the adulteress

Samson the strong
Gideon the weak

Rachel the beautiful
Leah the homely

Esther the humble
Joseph (OT) the arrogant

Rebecca the generous
Matthew the tax-collector

Jeremiah the patient
Peter the impetuous

Saul the tall
Zacchaeus the short

Elizabeth the believer
Thomas the doubter

Nehemiah the obedient
Eve the defiant

Hezekiah the leader
Adam the follower

Noah the tireless
Lazarus the dead

Elijah the bald
John (the Baptist) the long-haired hippy

What makes you think God can't use you?