Back To Basics Part II: Love is the Whole Enchilada

Back To Basics got so long that I left something very important out. I do not think the church of Jesus Christ in the United States is known by its love for one another and its neighbors (at least not nearly well enough):

John 13: 34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Is it our eloquence that matters or the sweetness of our words? No:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Is it foreseeing future events; having all the knowledge the world wants or needs; or faith enough to move mountains? No:

If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Is it giving everything to the poor; or being willing to die rather than deny God? No:

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

The church of Jesus Christ in the United States needs a revival; and that revival can only start with, and flow from:

(Mark 12:28-31) Now⁵⁸ one of the experts in the law⁵⁹ came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus⁶⁰ answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love⁶¹ the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’⁶² The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’⁶³ There is no other commandment greater than these.

To: Back the Basics: The Series

Read more!

Back To Basics

I said in "Seize the Land" that:

My church's teaching pastor, Carl Palmer, last week started the first of a three week series . . . The third will be a strategic vision of our churches spiritual and practical direction as we "ask God to do a new work in our church" . . . the elders and pastors have been struggling with how to turn up "the spiritual fire" in our church a few notches for Christ.

Here is that third sermon:

An Invitation to a Journey
[all the ideas and most of the language is Carl Palmer's]

Carl and our elders attended a conference about creating a vision for your church. The speaker talked about “holy discontent”: how sometimes in the Bible, before God gave someone a vision of the future He wanted them to pursue, God would stir up in them a holy discontent in their heart - something that would wreck their heart. Some examples are:

• After 40 years living in Eqypt Moses became discontented with the treatment of Isreal and tried to do something about it in his own power - and failed. After 40 years of exile in the desert, God met Moses at a burning bush and re-filled Moses's heart with God's own holy discontent over Isreal's bondage.
• Paul was discontented about the places where Christ is not known.
• Jesus had a holy discontent about his people being sheep without shepherds; and wept about Jerusalem and its people.

Carl's "holy discontent": Church as usual. A discontentedness with the Christian life as so many of us experience it:

• that we are really nice people, but not that good;
• that we are good people, but not that powerful; and
• that in many ways our lives are very similiar to those who do not know our powerful God.

He is discontented because of the differences between the life promised by our Savior in scripture; and the lives lived by too many of us (not all, but too many). He longs to see God work in power among us; and for the church of Jesus Christ to get up and change the world God put us in.

He asks: What are you doing with your life? He admits this is meddling; but since God has been meddling in his life he thinks its our church's turn (and I see no reason why you should be left out). Why will our lives matter in 100 years? Why did God put us here; and why did God leave us here after we came to Christ? We need to answer these questions. We need to figure out our own "holy discontent" so we can figure out a vision for our lives.

Jesus came to invite those who love Him, and wish to love Him more, into a different life - a more powerful life. So that brings us to the "new thing"; the "thing" that will lead us into this different, more powerful life that Jesus wants for us. It is clear that so many of God's people are pulled in so many different directions by so many different things that we must come together and unite on some central theme or truth: figure out how to simplify. What is that central truth, the primary idea, the main thing - rooted in the Word of God - that God wants for us?

Now⁵⁸ one of the experts in the law⁵⁹ came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus⁶⁰ answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love⁶¹ the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’⁶² The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’⁶³ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Carl points out that Jesus was very bold in placing these two Old Testament commandments together: this was new and would have been shocking to Jewish teachers at the time. The first half was the Shema: essentially the most important creed of Judaism. The joining of the two commandments together is called by many "The Jesus Creed". Jesus was giving a very simple message: Come to Me. Follow Me. I will teach you to love God with all of your being; and to love people the way God wants you to love them.

This is it. This is the "new thing" that is really quite old. We are going to learn to love God with our all; and love people as we love ourself. Many will say: "hey, we do that" or "This is what we are called to do and no problem here Pastor". But do we really do this? Carl questions whether it is even possible to love God with his all. He feels he does it at times - and then life happens. And what about the loving your neighbor thing? (And who is my neighbor?). He doesn't even like some of his neighbors; and more to the point, some do not like him.

Our church is going to focus on this until we do it; or until the Lord comes. The pastors and elders took a stab at expressing the vision this way:

We want to see God transform our lives and our world as we grow in a daily, practical experience of loving God and loving people.

This isn't about hearing this more - we have all heard it enough. As Carl points out, many in our church could stand up and teach these passages themselves. We have to ask ourselves "Do I love God with my whole being; and love my neighbor as myself?" We should all answer that we have a ways to go.

This isn't primarily about us - it is about the glory of God; but when you run into someone who truly loves God with their whole being they are magnetic. When you run into someone who genuinely loves you - who genuinely loves people - they are some of the most attractive people you know. Jesus came so that we could be transformed by the practical day-to-day experience of loving God with our all; and loving people as ourselves. This is the life He wants for us. Wouldn't you like to experience loving God with your whole being at least once before you are with Him?

What must we do to experience what God intends for us? Our church is going to focus on this, circle around it, learn it, memorize it - and be transformed by God-love. We are going to examine our programs and our spending by the questions: Does it help us love God and/or love people? Most of all we are going back to the basics - the Great Commandment - and work on doing that until we get it right. We are going back to the milk if we need to.

We are going to do this because God first loved us. We are going to wallow for awhile in the immense love of God for us so that we can see once again that our only right response is to love God and love people. Not only is this what we desperately need - it is what the world desperately needs: to see people who passionately love God; and passionately love them. No where in the following passage does it talk about attending church or praying a prayer:

Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, `Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 `For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' . . . 40 "The King will answer and say to them, `Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

We do not know all how this will work or all we will do. We need to start this in our own church. There are hundreds of people in our church (how about yours?) who are unloved and untouched. We learn to love the world by loving each other; and how can we begin to talk to the world about love if we do not love each other. We are going to work on this in our church until it is changed.

Carl invited us on this journey. This is no instant pill; no simple process. One sure thing is that we will have to do the scariest thing there is: change. If this works, this will be a work of God's grace and mercy - not our strength. We are convinced God wants us to go on this journey - He has told us to get packed.

I invite you to join us. You have to decide if this is the will of God for you; and if it is right and Biblical. I am sending this primarily to people who do not attend my personal church (and if you were close enough to come I would not want you to leave your current church home). This is an invitation to you to love God with your all, and love people as yourself, where you are.

Part II: Love is the Whole Enchilada

Read more!

Back to Basics: The Series

In "Back to Basics", Carl Palmer talked his "holy discontent" for church as usual. He and the elders wanted to get back to the root of God's desire for his people. That root is the Great Commandment:

Now⁵⁸ one of the experts in the law⁵⁹ came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus⁶⁰ answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love⁶¹ the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’⁶² The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’⁶³ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Our pastors and elders developed this vision statement for our church:

We want to see God transform our lives and our world as we grow in a daily, practical experience of loving God and loving people.

We need transformation. This is not about knowing more; but about being changed from the inside out from an experience of becoming lovers.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "We Love Because", Carl explained that we must love like this because "God IS Love" and "God loved us first" - we are greatly loved.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "The Power to Love" we saw that the power to we love the unlovable; our neighbors as ourselves; and God with all of our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all of our strength came from the power of the Holy Spirit (Christ, God) in us. Rules, religion, church and the Bible all have no power to make us love – unless the Holy Spirit is involved.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "How to be Filled With the Holy Spirit", Carl taught that: 1) you must believe you can be filled; 2) you must desire to be filled; and 3) you must submit to the leading of the spirit.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In " 'Filled' - Overcome and Become", Carl talked about the struggle with our "sinful nature" that the entry of the Holy Spirit into ourselves sets off. God’s main purpose is for us is: To overcome the power of “the sinful nature”; and to become people who live in “the fruit of the Spirit.” It is two words: overcome and become.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "How to Hear God Speak", Carl examines three questions: 1) Does God speak today, and to us?; 2) how can I hear God’s voice in my life; and 3) how does God speak today?.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "Why Love Is the Great Command", Carl gives four reasons (among many) about why love is central to Jesus's central command to us: 1) Love accomplishes what God requires; 2) love lifts us above earning our way; 3) love is the most effective motivation; and 4) love is the most excellent way to live

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "How To Love God With All Your Heart", Carl says we must love God first; and to relate to all things through our "first love" for God.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "Loving God with All Your Soul", Carl says to “love God with all my soul” is to love God with a real and passionate love - a whole-life love.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

In "Loving God with All Your Mind", Carl says to “love God with all my mind” is to give ourselves to a determined pursuit of truth; bring our mind under the lordship of Christ; and to pursue having a mind that is "on fire" with the truth about God.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

"Loving God with All Our Strength", Carl says loving God with all our strength is to see every ability as a means to express love for God; and to live as a dependent “receiver” and a consistent “giver” of what God gives to me.

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

* * *

"Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves"

Go read at Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets

Read more!

My Katrina Links and Nagin Rant

I am trying very hard to stay out of the blame game. However, I must say that one person in the chain has earned my contempt - Mayor Nagin from New Orleans. The man is at best a fool not worthy of his job; at worst a criminal. Outside of that, this will be where I link articles I find good; discussions I have been in; arguments I have come to make; and philosophical/religious arguments worth reading.

Let's start out with this chronology. It is being updated (at least through 9/7) and he is actively seeking anyone who can give him confirmed, linkable information to adjust the chronology with. Part of this is coupled with my:

Nagin Rant
[I probably wouldn't go off on him if not for his appearance on Oprah]

Who is most responsible to the people of New Orleans. Is it local government with only that as a responsibility - or the federal government with the whole country to oversee? It has got to be the locals. Look at this section of the very good timeline [My comments in brackets]:

* * *
Saturday Afternoon:
[Just before this (see here )the hurricane was upgraded to a 3 (limit of levies) and expected to hit land as a 4]

A press conference with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco sounded the alarm. The Mayor urged residents to take the storm seriously saying to residents of low lying areas, “We want you to take this a little more seriously and start moving — right now, as a matter of fact,” Nagin said he would open the Superdome as a shelter of “last resort” for people with “special needs.”

He advised anyone planning to stay there to bring there own food, drinks and other comforts such as folding chairs, as if planning to go camping.

“No weapons, no large items, and bring small quanties of food for three or four days, to be safe,” he said.

Also: "This is not a test. This is the real deal,” Nagin said. “Things could change, but as of right now, New Orleans is definitely the target for this hurricane.” The mayor said he would stick with the state’s evacuation plan and not officially call for residents to leave until 30 hours before expected landfall, allowing residents in low-lying surrounding areas to leave first. But he recommended residents in low-lying areas of the city, such as Algiers and the 9th Ward, get a head start." [I think he is ahead, and behind, the game here. The New Orleans plan called for evacuation anywhere up to 72 hours. Later, the National Hurricane Center warns that the storm surge could come over the dikes up to 32 hours before landfall. The state plan was too short term; but he tries to get people moving early. Did he send buses into these areas to help those without transport get out? Nope]

Nagin spokeswoman Tami Frazier stressed that the mayor does not want citizens to plan on staying in the Dome—instead, they should make arrangements to leave the city if possible. [My emphasis: NO!!: The start of the Superdome Plan. This is when those school buses, and RTA, should have been moving. Anybody showing up at the superdome without a way out of town should have been loaded up as they showed up.]

Police Superintendent Edward Compass said that looters would be “dealt with severly and harshly and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

By mid-afternoon, officials in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, Lafourche, Terrebonne and Jefferson parishes had called for voluntary or mandatory evacuations.

THE MISTAKE!!!!
this is where people died and got hung out to dry at the Superdome

Mayor Nagin issued a voluntary evacuation order at 5:00 PM

Nagin said late Saturday that he’s having his legal staff look into whether he can order a mandatory evacuation of the city, a step he’s been hesitant to do because of potential liability on the part of the city for closing hotels and other businesses. [My emphasis: I think he should be indicted for not calling for a mandatory at this point - especially for this reason. School buses, and RTA buses should be moving. Contraflow established] “Come the first break of light in the morning, you may have the first mandatory evacuation of New Orleans,” Nagin told WWL-TV.

The National Hurricane Center warns officials that Katrina is strengthening and will probably make landfall as a Category 4 or 5. This is really scary. This is not a test, as your governor said earlier today. This is the real thing,” said Director Max Mayfield. “The bottom line is this is a worst-case scenario and everybody needs to recognize it,” he said.

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield calls Mayor Nagin at his home telling him that a mandatory evacuation was needed. Revised 9/7

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28
Morning

By 8:00 AM, Katrina, a category 5 hurricane, is headed straight for New Orleans. According to this piece in Editor and Publisher FEMA Director Brown, DHS Secretary Chertoff as well as local and state officials are informed by National Hurricane Director Max Mayfield via electronic briefing that the storm will cause massive damage and flooding – including levee breaches – in New Orleans 32 hours before the eye of the storm makes landfall. Revised 9/6

The Superdome opens at 8:00 AM and begins to take people in. [Buses, buses, where are the buses?]

In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin. [9:30am: At least 16 hours late]

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation. The President’s call came just prior to the news conference and occurred after the decision had already been made for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. Revised 9/6 (HT: Jay) Lexis-Nexis Subscription needed to access link.

“There doesn’t seem to be any relief in sight,” Blanco said.

The Mayor’s office announces at 9:30 AM that RTA (Regional Transit Authority) busses will pick people up at 12 locations throughout the city and take them to shelters – including the Superdome [My emphasis: The Superdome again? This is about 18 hours after he advised people to get out of low-lying areas; and 16 hours after voluntary evac notice]. This despite the city’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that calls for busses to be used to evacuate citizens out of the city. Revised 9/7

At 11:30 AM the President delivers a statement vowing to help those affected by the hurricane.

By noon, the city puts its contraflow traffic system in effect so that both sides of major highways will allow for traffic out of the city.

* * *

Read the rest of the timeline. He updates it as he gets more information.

Discussions/philosophy:

Deliver Us From Evils. Subsidizing Subsidiarity. On the Wrath of God. The Compact of Civil Societies

News/Information:

Eurota(MSM: Questions Answered, Loops Closed , In Their Own Words, A Continuing Series and Blamestorming Under the Radar ). Interactive Map. The nomination of Michael Brown to head FEMA, Read from here up, What Went Wrong at Superdome and Convention Center; Faulty levies, not Overtopping; Death Toll at Superdome

Opinions of Note:

The View From a Professional.

Royal Buck Passing (and other degenerate blaming):

Nagin Blames Others (and Asks for Buses!), Some local and state folk, Killed by Contempt (and The Fulminator)

Political swats:

Send me any links you think should go on the list.

Read more!

Seize the Land

Disclaimer:Nothing in this post can be assumed to support any physical invasion of anyplace by anyone at anytime for any reason. However, I do not want you to think that any invasion of anyone at anytime for any reason would be wrong in God's eyes. Further, this has nothing to do with any blessing, or lack thereof, visited (or not) on anybody by God -- but He does give and take away.

My church's teaching pastor, Carl Palmer, last week started the first of a three week series. The first two are the theological underpinnings of the third. The third will be a strategic vision of our churches spiritual and practical direction as we "ask God to do a new work in our church". I am excited to see what this direction will be - Carl has been "fired up" for about a year and a half; and the elders and pastors have been struggling with how to turn up "the spiritual fire" in our church a few notches for Christ.

That really wasn't last weeks impact on me though. Ten years ago I was a "baby Christian" at my first men's retreat. The speaker was H.B. London Jr.. I had come to Christ in April of 1995; and in October 1995 London gave a talk on Joshua and Caleb from Numbers 13-14. Israel had been freed from captivity in Egypt with "great signs and wonders"; and after crossing the Sinai had arrived at the edge of Canaan - the land promised to them by God. The crossing of the Sinai had been marked by amazing provision by God; and whining and rebellion of Biblical proportion by Israel. Now as any wise military commander does Israel sent twelve (12) spies into the Promised Land to assess its riches and its defenders.

Numbers 13: 27 Thus they told him, and said, "We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. 28 "Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified {and} very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there. 29 "Amalek is living in the land of the Negev and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites are living in the hill country, and the Canaanites are living by the sea and by the side of the Jordan."

That was what all twelve agreed on:

30 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, "We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it."

Which started an argument from 10 of the 12 in Numbers 13:31-33; and another world class whine and rebellion from the Israel masses in Numbers 14:1-4. Caleb and Joshua, in the face of this rebellion, make the point (the only point):

14: 6 Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, of those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes; 7 and they spoke to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, saying, " The land which we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land. 8 "If the LORD is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us-- a land which flows with milk and honey. 9 "Only do not rebel against the LORD; and do not fear the people of the land, for they will be our prey. Their protection has been removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them."

Read on about God's reaction to this rebellion, and Moses defense of the rebellious.

H.B. London's point is that we, as Christians, come up on the edge of the God's promises to us and that we fail to trust Him and His promises and "seize the land". We stand, right on the edge of the good life (this has nothing to do with material goods and wealth) God intends for us, and through fear and disbelief we simply allow the enemies of our faith, and relationship with God, to stand in our way. In Israel's case, God turned them away from His promises for 40 years until the whole generation of rebels was dead - and then brought them back to the edge of the Jordan, and the Promised Land, once more.

Which brings us to last Sunday and Carl's message from Deuteronomy 6. Israel is back at the edge of the Promised Land, and Moses is telling them how they need to Live in the Promised Land. The conclusions of the sermon:

1. We will know the good life -- only by fearing God and obeying His ways. (6:1-3)
2. We are called into a total love relationship with God.
3. We must never forget His ways -- and always impress them on our children. (6:4-9)
4. In our prosperity, we must always remember God has given us all we have. (6:10-12)
5. We must never let anything take His place in our lives. (6:13-19)
6. Doing what He says is "right and good" brings His blessing.
7. We must never forget what we were rescued from -- and continuously tell the story of what He has done for us. (6:20-25)
8. He has "brought us out" in order to "bring us in" to the good life He has designed for us.

I realize that for the last 10 years I too have wandered in the wilderness; and have not crossed into the Promised Land, defeated the enemies of my righteousness with God's help, and taken God's promises to myself. It is my prayer that I do not hear a similiar message in another 10 years with a similiar reaction.

Read more!

To Submit or not to Submit: That is the Question

When Christians talk about wives submitting to their husbands in marriage - we are almost guaranteed to be accused by many of being benevolent (at best) dictators trying to keep our poor suffering wives subjugated - as well as barefoot, pregnant and standing in the kitchen. Christian women who support this I am sure are viewed by many as female "Uncle Tom's" supporting the subjugation of all women. As a man, I should just keep my mouth shut; but I have never shown much wisdom. Then again, husbands are to submit too; something that gets left out of this discussion a lot.

I will link two posts elsewhere: The hiatus is broken [at Habbakuk's Watchpost]and Submission in a Nutshell [at Intellectuelle]. Some internet links: Christians for Biblical Equality, The Meaning of Christian Marriage, and The Submission of the Christian Wife, and The Submission of the Christian Husband. Finally, this post centers around:

Ephesians 5:21 and be subject [upotasso: In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden"] to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26. so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church

Lexie, at the Intellectuelle link above cited this definition of:

Submit: v. intr. - To allow oneself to be subjected to something.

And one truly magnificent example:

"Jesus allowed Himself to be subjected to the cross. He could have opted out, but He chose not to because of His love for us. Restraint of strength is one expression of power. Choosing to submit and serve is another expression of power."

The decision to submit is a voluntary one - it cannot be forced on the wife or husband. It has to be voluntary because it is an expression of obedience to God; and He looks at our heart.

My most important imperative in my life and my marriage is to obey God - and to submit my ego and self to Him. As I do that, I will love my wife as Christ loves me; because that is what I am told to do and if I love her that is what I would want to do. As is pointed out in "The Submission of the Christian Husband":

"If the wives are commanded to submit, then the husbands surely must be instructed to lead. But they are not. Instead of commanding husbands to lead their wives, Paul instructs them to love their wives."

How does Christ love me? Sacrificially, unconditionally, meeting all my needs with no expectation (or need) for me to meet any of His. Feeling that love for me; I channel that to all people but particularly my wife - my self actually in a one flesh (two become one) relationship that mirrors Christ and His church (Him the head, the rest of us the Body); and the duality of God and Son. I love her, above all, as I love myself - because she is myself and to harm her harms me.

My wife too has this relationship with God. This leads to another spiritual relationship our marriage should mirror - the Trinity. My wife and I are one flesh; and we each, and as a duality, have a relationship with God. Therefore, we comprise another triune relationship that mirrors the Trinity for the world.

God's central human-to-human relationship on the planet, marriage, is such a deep spiritual and theological pool because it mirrors not only Christ's sacrificial, loving relationship to His Church; but the duality of Christ (God and man, God and Son) and the nature of the Trinity. From "The Meaning of Christian Marriage" (linked above):

Our text is based upon a principle, which is vitally important and yet little understood in our times: God has established certain institutions in this world which are earthly symbols of heavenly realities. The nature of the heavenly reality determines the nature of the symbol. Stated briefly the substance dictates the symbol . . . To pervert or distort the symbol is to distort the picture of the heavenly reality, which it represents . . . Christians have become far too casual about the commands of our Lord pertaining to symbolic actions . . . There may be a few areas of our Christian life where we have a measure of freedom to change a symbol, so as to make it more pointed to our culture, but we have no right at all to disobey, change, or distort God's symbolic commands when they distort the picture they are to portray concerning the substance."

How do we accomplish Biblical submission in order to display this symbol properly:

True submission is not difficult, my friend, it is impossible. There is no way that we can, in and of our own strength, submit. But that only means that we must look to God to produce that of which we are incapable, but which His word commands. Our text on submission follows immediately upon the teaching of Paul concerning being filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). It is only as the Holy Spirit controls our life that the will and the ability to obey His commands are produced. To submit to one another necessitates that we die daily, that our flesh by crucified, put to death. This is God's work, and we must trust in Him to do it. This is God's work, and we must cooperate with Him as He does it." -- "The Submission of the Christian Wife" (linked above)

Now for the brain cramp. Kyle in the Habbukuk's comments (linked above) rightly says:

" . . . this understanding of man as the head of woman as God is the head of Christ has a notorious history of tyranny, oppression, and abuse . . . isn't it the oldest trick in the book for a dictator to defend himself by claiming that he loves his subjects and acts in their best interest? A dictator is a ruler with absolute power, whether it is exercised for good or ill. And when he starts comparing himself to God and his subjects accept the analogy, there is nothing to stop him from using his power for evil and no recourse for the subjects."

Of course, all sorts of nasty things can happen. I can open up myself in vulnerability (loving my wife as Christ loves me) and my wife can take horrible advantage of my servant heart. My wife can choose to submit and I can take horrible advantage of her servant heart. We both place ourselves by faith under God's grace by obeying Him - and open ourselves up to sacrifice on His account. We have taken up our crosses. Therefore, as is pointed out in "Submission of the Christian Wife" linked above:

". . . our text has much to say to the young woman who is considering marriage. A commitment to marriage to a young man is the commitment to a lifetime of submission to that man. If there is any one question which should be in a young woman's mind concerning marriage it is this one: 'Is this the kind of man I want as my 'head,' to whom I will submit in all things for the rest of my life?' Surely our text suggests the necessity of premarriage counseling, so that an independent, objective third party can help in arriving at the answer." [The future husband should also look at what he is submitting to]

Here are some questions I would not have thought to ask. From "The Meaning of Christian Marriage":

"For those who have chosen to set aside the teachings of Paul and Peter on the roles and responsibilities of husbands, and especially of wives, I have [these] question[s]. If you have set aside certain biblical commands, duties, and actions, with what have you replaced them? What are you doing which boldly and dramatically reflects the headship of Christ over His church, and the submission of the church to Christ? . . . What is it that you have replaced God's symbols with, which brings about persecution for your identification with Christ and the proclamation of His glorious gospel?"

Read more!

Justice, Mercy and Abortion

"Why Abortion is Immoral" [that is a PDF download] is a philosophical essay by Don Marquis outlining a secular, philosophical argument on "whether or not a fetus is the type of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end". He argues that indeed it is that kind of being and that abortion is prima facie (not always) immoral. In the course of doing this, he gave me a "unified theory" on life issues (birth control, abortion, killing in general, and active euthanasia) that does not require secular supporters of abortion to embrace God or the Bible. Indeed, it saves me discussing the Bible with some liberal theologians as well.

In the midst of having two different discussions on abortion at the same time (one with liberal Christians at NARAL: Propaganda Tool of the Radical Right and one with conservative Christians at Breaking the 11th: Speaking Ill of Republicans) Lisa asked me this (in the NARAL discussion):

"However, since you did talk theologically for a moment, let me ask you: is God's mercy or justice more important?"

That is an interesting juxtaposition since most want to examine "mercy" vs "judgment" (and not "justice"). The rest of the theological exchange with Lisa consisted of this:

AMB: Incidentally, groups outside of Abortion clinics can be terrifying. You wonder when they will attack you. Some do while they hand you phone numbers. Ambushing frightened, desperate women outside of a clinic is hardly helpful. There are better ways to help, if that is indeed what they are doing, rather than some judgmental (whore, slut, God will damn you to hell), self-righteous jackasses shoving paper at you and saying that your pain is not as important as the potential life of the child.

Me: people standing in front of abortion centers confronting women going in are going to have an UGLY chat with God at some point. Just my opinion. If someone is opposed to abortion they should be "coming alongside" someone planning to have one and give them the support they need not to.

Lisa: And what of compassion? Any god I would worship would be one of the deepest love and mercy... The embodiment of those things themselves, even . . . Who is your god, exactly?

Me: My God is one that says that even if I am to spend eternity with Him in His love - I still would have to account for beating someone so badly they had a miscarriage [AMB mentioned that a friend of hers had this experience coming out of an abortion clinic after going in to get information]. My God is a God who expects people, especially acting in His name, to treat people with His love - not shout "Murderer" at a women who may be suffering and confused . . . Would you have a God who would just ignore that? Just an "Aw, no big deal. Don't worry about it". My God is a God who demands justice; and sacrificed His own Son so that His justice could be provided in that sacrifice.

[Lisa's question quoted above]

My answer there: "I do not think God would weigh one or the other as higher than the other. I think mercy and justice [judgment is here] are met perfectly in God, and only in God. Since we are called not to judge (unless we want to be judged by our own standards rather than God's), and I do not think it is my job to carry out divine (or secular) justice - mercy is far more important for me. This is true in how I deal with others and my hope in how God will deal with me. Of course, those two things are connected.("Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy")."

Here we are back in the Sermon on the Mount. The question that occurred to me later in the NARAL thread was this: why when abortion supporters ask about compassion (or mercy, or justice, or lack of judgment) for the women contemplating having an abortion do they not extend the questions of mercy, justice, and lack of judgment to the child that may die. Curious.

I agree that we must approach pregnant women thinking about abortion with compassion and mercy and help them to overcome the fears and barriers that may push them to treat their unborn child in a noncompassionate and unmerciful way - inflicting final earthly judgment on it in ending its life by abortion.

So, starting from the definitions linked above lets talk about God's, and ours, mercy, justice, and judgment. I do not particularly see this as an abortion discussion although it, along with many other things, may provide some examples to discuss.

Read more!

How Deep the Father's Love for Us

Lyrics by Stuart Townsend
Meadowgreen Music Co.; ASCAP, 2000

How deep the Father's love for us
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure
How great the pain of searing loss
The Father turns His face away
As wounds that mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the man upon the cross
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

Read more!

Grace: Your body's or Someone Else's?

Tyler asked me to read The Body's Grace by Rowan Williams - a defense of homosexuality by the future Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church in England.

The Good

My mom (and everyone else's I think) said "if you cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all"; and there are some things here that are exquisite:

The whole story of creation, incarnation and our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the trinity. We are created so that we may be caught up in this; so that we may grow into the wholehearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves God.

This nearly erotic picture of God's love for us gives us deep understanding of the significance, acceptance, and security we have in Christ. He continues:

The life of the Christian community has as its rationale . . . the task of teaching us this: so ordering our relations that human beings may see themselves as desired, as the occasion of joy

Indeed, all Heaven celebrates when any one of us is saved. The core of all evangelism is to have non-believers see that God loves them; desires them to share in that loving relationship with Him; and that nothing they have done in their life alters that.

Williams shows the true heart of a loving sexual relationship: that each partner's sexual pleasure comes in pleasing the other and not themselves. He comes close to calling heterosexual sex in a legal marriage perversion if "in that they leave one agent in effective control of the situation - one agent, that is, who doesn't have to wait upon the desire of the other." and later mentions 1 Corinthians 7

4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Of course, I think in this case he is better served mentioning any of the "one flesh" quotes; but oh well. Also, he mentions Ephesians 5:

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

All in all, him and I agree that the sexual relationship God wants is one where the partners unite mind, body and soul; treat each other unselfishly sexually; and put their partner's needs on all of these levels over their own. This is the relationship that serves God and glorifies Him; it is what marriage in His name should be; and being heterosexual and married does not imply you have this. Finally, he "tantalizes" with this:

I suspect that a fuller exploration of the sexual metaphors of the Bible will have more to teach us about a theology and ethics of sexual desire than will the flat citation of isolated texts

The Bad

And delivers nothing:

"and I hope other theologians will find this worth following up more fully than I can do here."

This is what I expected him to do. He did have time to spend a third of his space on examples from the Raj Quartet by Paul Scott; and quotes from Thomas Nagel and Susan Griffin.

Now for homosexuality: Archbishop Williams argues that homosexual relationships are able to embody that complete unselfishness and abandonment of self to the other, and therefore they too will reflect and glorify God. Garry J. Williams, in The Theology of Rowan Williams:

"The method which Williams employs in his theological argument entails a significant non sequitur. He finds that God desires his people, and he identifies sexual desire with that desire in God. There may be some basis for this analogy, given that God is so often in Scripture depicted as the husband of his bride. It is, however, hermeneutically dubious to use the relation betweenGod and his people to justify specific sexual activity" [and] "There are thus two leaps here. One is from the desire or love of God for his people to human sexual desire, and the other is from heterosexual biblical examples to homosexual acts. Like the first, this second leap is consistently and conspicuously absent in the Bible . . . Scripture does not make the step which Williams makes, in that it customarily marks a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relations and compares aspects of God's relation to his people with the former and not the latter."

Archbishop Williams does approach scripture in defending homosexuality in one way: he attacks procreation as the major factor in God's view of authentic sexual relations. Here I think he is right: I do not believe reproduction is the central point in God's plan for our "one flesh" relationships; although it is certainly a point. However, he brushes by (and brushes off) what is to me the real points:

the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts [see my piece on this], or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures

The bold part is what he just blows by: complementarity is very much a part of every scripture on this subject. He fails to try to make a case for the opposite - so of course none is made. Garry Williams says this is a natural outflowing from his general theological mistake in dismissing revelation in favor of experience.

and The Ugly

This should have been the first thing I talked about since it explains the title of the work - The Body's Grace - but once the parallelism with Clint Eastwood hit me . . . He does not mean grace from the Body of Christ; but grace our own body shows us when we work out our "fear and trembling" over time in giving ourselves up to the mutuality of an equal relationship with another.

In scripture which is simply packed with references to "the flesh" (our bodily desires) this position that we seek the body's grace is simply wrong. We seek God's grace to work through these relationships; His strength to overcome the "fear and trembling" as we work out a true bond of mind, soul, and body. I would argue that in many cases giving in to the grace of our body separates us from the grace of God.

Archbishop Williams seems to imply that homosexuals actually have an easier time finding the body's grace once they have made those first decisions to "identify certain patterns as sterile, undeveloped or even corrupt" and "what we want our bodily life to say, how our bodies are to be brought in to the whole project of 'making human sense' for ourselves and each other." He says:

"a conventional (heterosexual) morality simply absolves us from the difficulties we might meet in doing so. The question of human meaning is not raised, we are not helped to see what part sexuality plays in our learning to be human with one another, to enter the body's grace, because all we need to know is that sexual activity is licensed in one context and in no other." [and] ". . . where [do] the massive cultural and religious anxiety about same-sex relationships that is so prevalent at the moment comes from . . . I wonder whether it is to do with the fact that same-sex relations oblige us to think directly about bodiliness and sexuality in a way that socially and religiously sanctioned heterosexual unions don't."

Not only am I wrong for following scripture on the issue of homosexuality, I am stunting my physical and emotional growth in my relationship with my wife by doing so. I suppose I need a version of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to get in touch with my bodily life and to recieve its grace.

Read more!

Kingdom Character and Secular Responsibility

Tgirsch is someone I have had a few blogathons with over at Evangelical Outpost. We usually start out some fair distance from the fence on opposite sides and end up both leaning on the fence (on opposite sides) and chatting. That is actually rare in my experience. tgirsch listens, and cares not as much about defending his position and talking points; but in looking for agreement and some unity on the issues.

tgirsch: "I wanted to respond to you concerning our debate at Evangelical Outpost, but Joe has closed the comments."

Me: "[We] were discussing Matthew 5-7 and whether the interpretation of that section of scripture (and related parts of Jesus' message) should be broadened beyond an analysis by Jesus of what our individual character should be to a call for certain qualities in society/government."

Here are some posts from the discussion to set the tone for the discussion here:

Stavrogin: how does one interpret "turn the other cheek" to define pacifism as a sinful and un-Christian attitude? Even Christ would not permit a sword to be raised in his defense, however noble the intention.

Joe: [On turn the other cheek] "that passage has nothing overtly to do with violence. To turn the other cheek is to literally allow someone who has slapped you to give you a backhanded slap on the other cheek. To receive such a blow was a great insult in Judaism; an offense against oneÂ’s dignity. While I agree that Christians should bear insults with meekness and humility, I do not believe that the passage intends for us to stand by and allow our neighbor to be raped,murdered, or mutilated . . . [On Christ and sword] Christ would not allow such a defense on his behalf because it was his intention to lay down his life willingly for us all."

Stavrogin: [On pacifism generally being sinful] ". . .Thee impression I get [is] that abandoning oneself to the mercy of God in the face of oppression, torment and even martyrdom at the hands of the unrighteous is a supremely Christian value.

Me: Would it be equally true if you were watching someone rape and kill your neighbor; and you abandoned them to the mercy of God? No, I think not. Could you interject yourself and become the victim while the other escaped? Of course. Could you harm, and even kill, the rapist to stop the killing? I think you could. There is ample justification in the Bible for government having the responsibility to use the sword to defend its people. I think calling people un-Christian for being personally pacifist is incorrect. Christians have been interpreting scripture, and God's will, to require their personal pacifism for a long time . . . it is almost impossible to use the bible to say the US government should be pacifist. We would be required, of course, to refuse participation in an unjust war: say a war of genocide.

Joe: I will agree that personal pacifism may not be inherently un-Christian (though there are times when non-violent resistance can be as unjust a use of power as violence). But I think that the right to pacifism, like the right to swing one's fist, ends at your neighbor's nose.

Mike: Commandments are by and large directed to individuals and not governments. Thou shalt not murder is directed to us as individuals. You only have to go down the page a little to find a list of circumstances under which society should exercise the death penalty.

Tgirsch: This illustrates a great problem with a literalist interpretation of scripture. It takes what Jesus likely intended as a larger message and pigeonholes it into something very specific and very narrowly applied. You take a very legalistic reading of Jesus' words here, and I think it's to your detriment.

Me: Damned if we do, damned if we do not. I think it is actually very necessary to take the Bible as literally as possible - in order to stop the use of scripture to support all those things you talk about. [Quoted Matt 5:38 - 42]. Everything here is about personal revenge or offensives to your person by another person. What reason is there to broaden it? In fact, the whole Sermon on the Mount was about personal righteousness and the personal traits of a Kingdom member. Let's let Christ say what Christ wants to say.

Tgirsch: The "eye for eye" verses don't concern personal revenge at all, but adherence to the law. [Quotes Lev 24:17-22: ] . Take the entire passage in context and you see that it's a conversation between God and Moses wherein God is proscribing His laws. Personal revenge has little to do with it; this is God's law. It is Biblical justice. A broad reading of the passage is advisable precisely because that's what makes sense in the context. I find it difficult to imagine that Jesus was speaking strictly of avoiding personal revenge against those who have wronged you personally, and nothing else . . .Notee that the Leviticus verse isn't saying what a wronged person would be within his rights to do, which is what you'd expect if revenge were the motivation. It talks about what must be done, and it doesn't say that the wronged party should be the one to do it. Someone who wrongs another must be wronged in similar fashion

Me: The whole context of Jesus's "ministry" (lame word really), and the Sermon on the Mount, is that the law needs not to be written in stone but on our hearts. Christianity is not a legalistic, law-driven belief structure - it is God's attempt to change our character and how we center our lives: To love God with our whole being; and our neighbor as ourselves. That is taken one individual at a time. He was HEAVILY amending (if not revoking) the Levitical law you quoted. He was, after all, here to revoke ( fulfill (as in complete) and replace the Mosaic covenant. Again, all of Matthew 5-7 is about the internal qualities and character of members of the Kingdom; and not about how society and government should behave. If you make the argument that a society of people having this character would approach its collective life, and relationship with other societies, differently - we would be on the same page entirely. [A quote from CS Lewis saying that the problem with political programs flowing from Christianity is that we go there to find support for our opinions rather than to see what our opinions should be]. The emphasis of Christianity is building our individual character to match that of Christ's, and have that character act as "salt and light" in the society around us - and that was the emphasis of the Sermon on the Mount.

Tgirsch: Jesus clearly is admonishing against violence here, even if in a limited context. I'd argue that it does Jesus' teaching a disservice to try to limit the scope of this admonition . . . I'm not aware of Jesus advocating violence anywhere, in any circumstance. So there's nothing else in Jesus' teaching that tells us we should limit our interpretation of that admonition. I believe he intended it to be broad (and many, many Christians concur, I might add). Given his habit of speaking in parables and using specific examples to illustrate broader principles (neither of which I suspect you'll dispute), the broad application makes the most sense here. Which brings us back to Stavrogin's original point: how is pacifism un-Christian? . . .Until you can show me where Jesus advocates war and capital punishment, I'll continue to argue that neither of these things helps "[build] our individual character to match Christ's," and in fact both are counterproductive to this end, and as such, Stavrogin's point stands.

Me: I think capital punishment is untenable from a Christian standpoint - but not everyone agrees (even the Catholics, who generally oppose it, aren't ironclad). As to war, you yourself I believe would fall into the just/unjust category on this - unless you would have bowed out of WWII even after Pearl Harbor; or finding out about the slaughter of the Jews. There is plenty of New Testament ground for government not having the same responsibilities as individuals. I think there are political responsibilities that flow from the character traits in the Sermon on the Mount - but I still argue for narrow interpretation of the Bible. I think we should be careful to fill in blanks with our own thoughts.

Nick: [on separation of Biblical view of individual vs state roles] I think that can be the basis of a Scripturally consistent defense of Christian pacifism. People like to point to Romans 13 for the role of government as an agent of God's wrath bearing the sword. But we might note that Paul is instructing the Roman Christians on how to respond to government. He doesn't indicate whether or not they should participate. However, in Chapter 12, he describes Christians as agents of God's mercy in a way that dovetails nicely with Christ's instructions in the Servant on the Mount and doesn't fit very well with the responsibilities of government in Chapter 13 . . .We might conclude that the code of conduct required of Christians is very different from the actions of government. We might also ask if it there is any support in Christ's instructions for the idea that it is possible to morally separate the things we do as private individuals from the things we do for the government. Even if we agree that government is established by God (perhaps in much the same way that he established the Babylonians and Assyrians as agents of his wrath in the Old Testament), weshouldd be very careful about concluding that we are permitted to do things as servants of government that we are not permitted to do as servants of Christ. To claim that Christians must always be ready to fight may be arrogating to much responsibility to ourselves. Christ calls us to be agents of love and mercy. He'll handle the wrath.

This is a magnificently important "brain cramp" for Christians and I have invited some people to help it continue. There are a couple of things I do not want this sidelined too: this is not a discussion on Iraq and whether we should be there; or whether any politicians who call themselves Christians are following Christ's example. I am inviting folks to the party - hopefully some will attend.

UPDATE: This topic does not need to be limited to the death penalty and pacifism. Discussion in general about how faith should, and should not, impact a Christian's secular political life would be great

Read more!

Biblical Interpretation: A Tale of Two Sermons

As Christians we often hear from non-Christians that the Bible is subject to whatever interpretation the believer wants to see there. There is some grain of truth in this - many Bible verses are subject to mulitple readings. Certainly the divisions within Christianity are a testimony to this. C.S. Lewis pointed out:

"that brings us right up against the real snag . . . Most of us are not really approaching. the subject in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party. We are looking for an ally where we are offered either a Master or--a Judge" -- Mere Christianity

That is one problem with interpretation - we want it to say what we want it to say - not what God wants to say. Another problem is . . .

Read more!

"Crab People" and Personal Evangelism

Personal (i.e. relationship) evangelism is far and away the most effective form - and the one overwealmingly advocated by Jesus and the other New Testament writers. There are a plethora of verses supporting this conclusion; so I will not defend it now.

Regardless of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:

14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. 18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.

quoted by the Amish as their reason to stay out of the world; I think Christians are required to stay engaged. To stay separate would make the Great Commission impossible; as well as the passages on "salt and light". We must stay engaged in the world; but resist becoming part of it or touching its unclean parts. We must eat with "tax collectors and sinners" in order to call them to repentance - at least by our example. Ahhhhh, our example. This brings us to crabs.

If you put a live crab in an open pot it will escape. Crab pots (traps) are elaborate because crabs are escape artists. If you want to keep a crab in an open pot you must put another crab in the pot. When the first crab tries to escape, the second crab will crawl up on its back - and drag it back down; and neither will get out.

People do that to other people constantly. Ask people on diets, people trying to change direction in their life, etc - and you will find that they all suffer from people who are not inspired by their attempts to lift themselves out of the pit but who keep dragging them back down into the pot with them. It is imperative if you are going to make a change to separate yourself from those who will try to hold you down - "The Crab People". Usually, that must be coupled with finding folks who have gotten out of the pot; and are willing to reach down to you for the purpose of helping you out. They of course would be of no use if your hand drug them in; or if we couldn't see them from where we are.

Christ gives us the strength to pull ourselves out of this pot even with the crab folk hanging on our backs. This is usually in the form of people who have escaped reaching down to help us out; and once we have escaped we too must not just enjoy our freedom but turn to others to help them out of where they are held. However, this process does no good if we are simply pulled back into the pot instead of helping someone else out of it.

That is why new Christians often "separate themselves" from non-believers after they come to Christ. First, their first wondrous attempts to enthusiastically "spread the truth" after their conversion are very often horribly rebuffed. After all, as Christ said:

Matthew 13:57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."

These are the people who know you when you were one of the biggest sinners in the group (the most desperate sinners are the most likely to seek God). The other reason is that we are not strong enough not to get sucked back into the sinful practices that we now find uncomfortable as God begins to change us. Whatever the reason, Christians tend to find that within 3-5 years all of their social relationships are with other Christians. They become separate.

Paul separated himself on some level for 3 years after his conversion on his way to Damascus to prepare for ministry. And then he didn't. We must as Christians find the strength through the "armor of God":

Ephesians 6:13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 15 and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

This is not so we can look very fine in the very best armor; but so we can stand on the edge of the pot and be ready to help those out that reach out to us. Our separation is necessary for a while in order to gain strength and maturity - after that we are just refusing to grow up.

Read more!

Was Jesus a socialist?

I have been involved in an interesting discussion over at Habbakkuk's Watchpost on "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex?". It has remained a civil discussion on preaching on sin/repentance vs driving people from the church; contradictions between wealth and Christ's teaching; and evangelism for missionaries. This thread launched this post - and it may be good to read the post and the comments before continuing here.

CS Lewis:

the New Testament . . . gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like . . . It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one's work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no 'swank' or 'side,' no putting on airs . . . On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience-obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands . . . If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it . . . I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing . . . We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself . . . every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity . . .

In the passage where the New Testament says that every one must work, it gives as a reason 'in order that he may have something to give to those in need'. Charity--giving to the poor--is an essential part of Christian morality: in the frightening parable of the sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce this kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality . . .

Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party. We are looking for an ally where we are offered either a Master or--a Judge . . . A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it . . . I cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself: and I cannot learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey Him . . . we are driven on to something more inward--driven on from social matters to religious matters. -- Mere Christianity [all of the . . .'s in this passage indicate that perhaps you should click this link and read the whole chapter]

One thing wrong in this passage is that I do not believe that a "christian society will arrive" until Christ does. However, Lewis is correct that any hope rests in learning to love God by obeying Him; and not expecting Him to be my ally but my Master.

Read more!

Homosexuality Part I: The State of my Brain (today)

I had pointed you to a discussion here - which then moved to here. I am now posting on the latest state of my brain cramp.

Tyler, and company, are at least mostly divinity students at the University of Chicago. Tyler himself is very sincere, possibly/probably intends ministry, is not gay, but is a very passionate believer that homosexual sex is only sin in context - as is heterosexual sex. He supports allowing legal marriage to homosexuals. I like Tyler a great deal - he has an obvious heart for people and God. You need to read through the two blogs and their comments linked above. I deeply sympathize with both these positions. I have a sister who is gay; my wife's brother was a gay Catholic who died of AIDS; my wife's niece was one of the gay marriages in Oregon that was annulled by the state; and I myself have had gay relationships in the past. As Walter Taylor says in New Testament on homosexuality:

"This is not merely a theoretical issue for me nor can it be for anyone who is engaged in the life of the church and who is honest . . . I do not carry out my scholarship, my ministry, nor this presentation in splendid isolation from gay and lesbian people . . . for the first time, churches are facing the issue of homosexuality with fellow Christians who are professed gays and lesbians. 'Now we know the gay person as one of us, a fellow member of the household of faith.' . . . At an intuitive level, part of me wants to say, 'What's the big deal! Let's just take people where they are . . . and get on with things.' My struggle, however, is that my commitment to the biblical witness and my reading of it do not allow me to make that move . . . Part of what we are about today . . . is discerning what God's will is. For some people that will is quite obvious, but for most of us it is a bit more muddified."

and later:

"Which is to say that my reading today stands against what I would like at many levels to conclude. But my dilemma is part of what I think it means to be under the authority of the Word and part of what it means to allow the Word to address us from outside our own wishes." [My emphasis]

Which is where I stand: I truly believe that the Christian position that that homosexuality is necessarily sin comes down to one sure passage:

Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (NASB)

and one iffy one: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10. This is iffy because it has been translated a lot of different ways; and Taylor pretty much dismisses it as talking about temple prostitution in particular - not homosexual acts in general. I will post the NASB and the NRSV:

I Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (NASB)

I Cor 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God (NRSV)

You have to keep in mind that "homosexual" as some kind of group; as opposed to discussing "homosexual acts" did not exist as a word until the late 1800's. Taylor again:

Strictly speaking, of course, we could quit right now, since the word homosexuality had not yet been coined when the Bible was written, and therefore the Bible does not speak about that specific term. The word itself, I believe, was first used only in 1869. But certainly the Bible does have a number of passages that talk about same-sex sexual relationships

Taylor's conclusion:

there is a shorter line between then and now because of my understanding of the original historical situation, namely, that not all the texts deal with pederasty or prostitution but in fact at least one and perhaps two deal with consenting adults. I think that Paul was dealing with a situation much closer to our reality that some others would allow. And . . . the theological basis of Paul's argument in Romans 1, rooted in the Old Testament and in his understanding of God as creator, indicates the fundamental nature of his comments.

I do not have a problem with the New Testament position against homosexuality being based on one or two passages. However, Taylor raises some very important questions:

Even if one assumes with Paul that same-sex sexual activity is a manifestation of sin (which obviously many people would not agree to), given the broken world in which we live how can Christians bring the most order and justice out of less than ideal situations? In other words, is it possible to glorify God in sexually active gay and lesbian relationships?

What does it mean that immediately following what Paul says in Romans 1:26-27 he lists twenty-one other examples of inappropriate behavior? Do we not need to talk about how what Paul says about same-sex relationships fits with or doesn't fit with the rest of his list? In other words, even granting that same-sex relations are his primary example, do we pay the same attention to his other examples as we do to same-sex relations? Why or why not?

Is it possible for Christians to affirm the understanding of Romans 1:26-27 that I have outlined without concluding that condemnation and persecution should result? I think so.

Is it possible for Christians to differ radically on this particular issue and yet carry on the dialogue in a way that respects people as individuals as well as respects their thoughts, feelings, and opinions? I think so, and I have seen Christians all over this nation do that. Romans 14:1-15:13 provide us good models on how to welcome each other in the Lord even - perhaps especially - when we differ.

The upshot of these four questions for me is: Why is homosexuality a big issue nationally for Christians?

Next: Methinks we protest too loudly! (Comments will be allowed at end of series)

Read more!