Dan's Marinations

What's Important

2012-01-07T23:23:00.000-05:00

I ran ten miles this morning, and it really seemed fairly easy except for being unusually warm for early January. This was the last longish run of training for the Charleston Marathon next weekend. Those who've run a marathon will appreciate how good this last semi-long run feels. Today, it didn't matter how I felt, or how fast or slow I ran. Today's run was simply cover the distance, get from point A to point B without hurting something in the process.

What lies behind the run today made it so seemingly easy to do and relatively unimportant. In the previous four months I've run nearly 500 miles, including a half marathon in Spartanburg, three fifteen mile runs, an eighteen mile run, and three twenty mile runs. I've run after dark in the evening, before the sun has come up, in the rain, when there's frost on the pumpkin, and when it's been so warm that I've shed my shirt before I've finished. No, I'm not in the best shape of my life, but I'm plenty ready to complete a marathon. All that is left between now and lacing up the shoes next Saturday morning is simply to get in a couple of very short easy runs, and most importantly eat and sleep well so I'm rested and healthy.

My last marathon experience was eleven months ago in Myrtle Beach. It was torturous, and quite frankly embarrassing to me. I wasn't fit enough, rested enough, and the weather was much too warm. On that day I willed myself not to stop beginning at the half way point. It's not unusual for the last couple of miles to be a "death march," on that day eleven months ago the last ten miles were a "death march." That day eleven months ago has remained in the back of my mind with nearly every step this fall and winter. That failure has fueled my fire so to speak.

One week from now I'll be lying in the bed in the motel room listening to the aching of my hips, knees, feet, plus muscles I seldom know I have. Even though I'm in pretty decent shape, there's always a chance that I'll fall apart next Saturday- come up lame with injury or just plain have a bad run. But even if I do fall on my face, at the end I'll still be in the bed in the motel room with some Aleve and ice packs.

Within the last few days one of my best friends was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. He's a fellow pastor and runner, and we've run together many times. But, this week he began the most important race of all. I've been looking at the run next Saturday as being really important, but it suddenly seems so very trivial. Win, lose, or draw, I'll still be okay after the run next weekend. For my friend, though this race is life and death. Run well my friend, be strong in the Lord, and know you're in my prayers.

I Hate Christmas!

2011-11-28T13:38:00.000-05:00

Now there's something you would not expect to hear a Christian minister to say. This very true statement obviously requires explanation. It began in early October when a hospital I visited had the Christmas portions of Messiah playing through their piped in background music. Even if it's really early, at least it's glorious music I thought. The displays of ornaments, artificial trees, lights, etc. in Lowe's in late October I could almost grasp because folks may want to begin buying that stuff early to avoid too much holiday rush.

A couple of things pushed me over the edge, however. Hearing "Walking in a Winter Wonderland" on the week before Thanksgiving as I scrolled through the radio stations in the car began it. A beautiful warm November day over a week before the turkeys hide to avoid becoming dinner, and I have to hear snowy Christmas songs? Churches too often buy into this by cranking up "Joy to the World," and "O Come All Ye Faithful" on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. The cumulative result of this is that Christmas Day is largely anticlimactic. When the last of the presents is pulled out from under the tree, and we've had our nice dinner, it's all over before it ever really began.

The other, and more serious, thing that did it was watching the news on Thanksgiving Day. There it is the morning of Thanksgiving Day and folks are camped in line in front of some big-box store to get in early when they open the doors for the "black Friday" sales. What is ostensibly a Christian holiday has become something like this where folks pass up family time and traditions to save a few dollars on a TV they don't need! Then when the malls and stores opened late Thursday night or in the wee hours of Friday morning we were greeted with stories of folks shooting each other or macing each other in a race to get to X-Boxes first. So this is what the cultural holiday has done to the birth of the one called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace?"

No one cherishes the birth of the Savior more than I do. I confess that on Christmas Eve, I'll be singing "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" louder than I probably should. Most of the time I don't really know what I want for Christmas, but I'll move heaven and earth to make sure that the kids have a good time. What I hate is the fact that this most cherished day has become an occasion for pure hedonism and self-indulgence. Call me scrooge right now if you want, but I'm not buying in. This year, hold off on the great hymns and carols for a couple more weeks so that you can really enjoy them that last week of December. Spend just a little less than you usually do this time around. I'm not saying to scrap gift-giving, but hold back only fifty or a hundred dollars. Then take the money you save and get a present for the kid next door who doesn't have much. Give it away to provide food or water to drought stricken areas of the world. Gee, which is the better way to honor the incarnation of the Son of the Almighty God: to camp in front of a store for the opportunity to save a few dollars on a TV and pepper spray the poor soul who reaches for it at the same time; or to spend that time with your family and do something for someone in need? I rest my case.

We Don't Need You

2011-11-03T14:03:00.000-04:00

I've heard people from time to time tell others something like this, "you ought to come to our church we really need you." Many of the people that I've heard say this are faithful Christians and church members. I also respect that they say this from the best of intentions. In one instance, I know that it refers to a church that does desperately need new members. However, "we need you," is one of the worst slogans for evangelism I can imagine.

From a practical standpoint, "please join our church, we need you," is more likely to drive someone off than it is to induce them to join. This sort of phrase invests all sorts of hope that this person or family will somehow fix a church that is broken, will somehow save a church that is dying. I doubt that anyone that a church would actually want to have will join if he or she is going to be looked at as some sort of savior/hero figure. The person who would like to join understanding that he or she will be a hero figure is very likely to be the very last person that a small struggling church actually does need in membership.

From a theological perspective, the "we need you" slogan for evangelism is equally lacking. That phrase is inherently self-serving. "We need you" to teach adult Sunday school, to chair this committee or that committee. "We need you" to put a nice offering into the collection plate on Sunday. "We need you" to be a warm body in our otherwise cold sanctuary. The last time I checked, the Gospel is about what Jesus does for us, and living the faith is about what we do for others. If that is really true, can a church long live with such a self-serving approach to evangelism?

It is very true that healthy churches grow and seek to bring in new members, particularly people with no prior faith background. This is part of the evangelical DNA of the faith. Christianity is an inherently evangelical faith, by prescription and description. The healthy approach to getting the visitor to join, to getting your neighbor to visit must be rooted in something more than the need for their check in the plate or the need for another person to be occupying space in worship. The healthy approach should be rooted in trying to draw the other person into something. If the person does not come from a background in the faith, he or she needs us the church to introduce the life-giving grace of Christ. In that instance they really need the church, and not the other way around. The church can seek to draw others in to the missions in which it participates. Believers who are new in town will be much more likely to join in where there are missions and ministries in which they can get involved, in which they can serve others. At rock bottom, in either case others are being drawn into something bigger than they are, into the work of God in the world.

Boogity, Boogity, Boogity!

2011-07-26T21:00:00.000-04:00

Rev. Joe Nelms delivered an interesting pre-race invocation before a NASCAR Nationwide series race Saturday. At an event like this, there will typically be an invocation at which the minister delivering will thank God for the beautiful weather and the freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. The prayer will include petitions for the safety of the drivers and the fans as well. Rev. Nelms wasn't content Saturday to offer up such a typical prayer. He thanked God "for the Fords, the Dodges, the Chevrolets, and the Toyotas..." for the"Sunoco racing fuel," and for his "smokin' hot wife." He ended the prayer with "in Jesus name, boogity, boogity, boogity, Amen!"

Of course this has created a lot of stir amongst radio and TV talking heads and on the internet. I'm loathe to be openly critical of another minister, but I guess I'll have to make an exception in this case. I can't speak for Rev. Nelms' intentions with the prayer, and I have no knowledge of his ministry in the local church, so I can't address those. I did hear the prayer and will surely sound off on it.

The prayer surely sounded like what Jesus mentioned in Matthew 6 when he talked about heaping up empty phrases as the gentiles do, for nearly the entire thing was empty phrases. Much worse though, what was offered up as a prayer could have been mistaken for a comic skit from a stand up comedian. The effect is that he made light of prayer itself which is serious business if we actually think of prayer as a communication with almighty God. In my opinion, this is an affront to God's honor, and just as seriously is a detriment to our evangelical witness. If he can't take his faith seriously when praying, how can the non-Christian or nominally Christian there be encouraged to take the faith seriously. Just speaking for myself here, I wouldn't want to have to explain this prayer to Jesus.

Common Ground

2011-06-27T11:09:00.000-04:00

If you've read the previous musings on atonement theory, you'll remember that the most common ways Christians have looked at this topic are known as: the classical or ranson theory, moral influence, and substitutionary atonement. Now I'd like to muddy the waters even more, before hopefully providing a clear path out of this where believers can live peacefully with each other without hurling theological handgrenades.

In addition to the three views of atonement that looked at earlier, there have been any number of others. In fact, one former member of the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry was well-known for reportedly asking ministerial candidates in interviews to list seven or eight different theories. The great theologian Anselm of Canterbury was famous for promoting a theory known as "satisfaction." In the early 20th century Gustav Aulen wrote of atonement in terms of victory of sin and death in Christus Victor. The notion of atonement as victory over the forces of evil and death is very powerful to me and provides great sermon fodder. To add another to the mix there's the governmental theory proposed by the early 17th century philosopher Hugo Grotius. Additionally, within the realm of substitutionary atonement one can easily separate atonement as sacrifice from penal substitution. In short, beginning to discuss atonement quickly becomes a muddled mess.

Probably the biggest difficulty people have with atonement is that their view of atonement isn't big enough. This works itself out in at least two ways. First, atonement in the Bible encompasses all creation, though we don't fully know how this works itself out. Paul describes all creation groaning and being in bondage awaiting being set free in Romans 8. John, the author of Revelation describes a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus said that he came to make all things new. This has enormous implications for how we view creation and resurrection.

Second, for many their view of atonement isn't large enough because they tend to pick just one theory and discount every other. Every theory is flawed because, though there is some truth in all of them, it is impossible to describe in human language what happened on the cross. Human attempts to describe it are like the proverbial blindfolded men who try to describe an elephant. I think another problem here is that different views of the atonement can resonate differerently with people depending on their background. We often tend to make our own experiences normative for everyone, and this goes for atonement as well. Those with a deeply stained past may appreciate susbtitutionary atonement because it reminds them that the guilt for sin is taken by someone else. Another, who comes from the bondage of addiction can celebrate knowing that Christ has redeemed and purchased freedom. The believer who can't think of a time he or she didn't know Christ may naturally tend to look at his work as an example to follow.

In summary, don't be afraid to expand your notion of atonement, and be willing to understand that if the greatest minds of Christendom have come to differing understandings of atonement then we should avoid being too dogmatic about it ourselves. There are things in the Christian faith where the historic teachings of the church are in unity, and much to our discomfort atonement isn't one of them.

He Took Our Place

2011-05-19T17:02:00.000-04:00

For many of you who read these ramblings the idea of atonement I critique today will be familiar. Love it or hate it, most Protestants have heard the language of substitutionary atonement more than any other.  If you are among the more conservative Protestants, this is probably the language that comes to mind first when you think of atonement.

In very condensed form substitutionary atonement works like this. Jesus is born of a virgin, and leads an absolutely sinless life.    Because he is sinless and perfect Jesus alone is able to atone for human sin by taking the guilt/penalty for the sins of the world. In essence Jesus becomes a substitute for us. Both the virgin birth and sinless life are essential for this model of atonement because the atoning sacrifice must be perfect in order to bear sin for everyone else.  Since he bore the penalty of sin, we don't bear it any more and we have peace with God. Typically, substitutionary atonement is thought of in penal terms were Jesus bears a punishment in our place. It can also be used in sacrificial terms where he is a sacrifice on our behalf, in this case he becomes the "Lamb of God," and is the culmination and perfect fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.

If you're not really up on all this fancy, theoretical atonement talk here are some of the terms and concepts that are hallmarks of substitutionary atonement. Sacrifice, wrath, blood, propitiation, dying instead of us not just for us are all integral parts of this theory. Thinking about the framework of this theory it's not surprising that proponents of substitutionary atonement tend to emphasize the pain and agony of the cross more than proponents of other theories. The language of substitutionary atonement is commonplace in hymnody as well. It is found in numerous hymns about the cross such as "O Sacred Head Now Wounded," "My Hope Is Built," "Ah, Holy Jesus," "Rock of Ages," and "The Old Rugged Cross." Though not a hymn about the cross as such, "It Is Well With My Soul," one of the most powerful hymns of our faith, has a very subsitutionary line- "my sin Oh the bliss of this glorious thought, my sin not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more, praise the Lord, praise the Lord Oh my soul!"

As with all of these theories of atonement there is scriptural warrant for substitutionary atonement. To name just a few places: the suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 2, 1 Peter 2 and 3 all use strong substitutionary language.  Including sacrificial themes of atonement with this, and we find that we can add the strong sacrificial language of Hebrews and nearly the whole book of Revelation where Jesus is referred to as "Lamb" twenty seven times.

Now, to critique this. I'll begin with a personal recollection. The first time I preached an Easter sermon I was in seminary, but hadn't been taught anything about atonement theory yet.  In my background I knew only to think of atonement in substitutionary terms. As I wrestled with the Easter sermon then, I discovered what I later learned in class. This particular view of the atonement doesn't account for the resurrection. If the penalty is paid on the cross and because of that we have life, where does the resurrection fit in? This isn't the only criticism of this model of atonement. At times this view of the atonement suffers from the language of its own proponents. To hear some proponents describe it, God sits in Heaven waiting to throw all us poor humans into the fiery pit with the great cosmic "Smite" button until Jesus takes the "smiting" for us. Distorted like this, this view of atonement can lead one to think that God is eager to condemn, and also to view the Father and the Son as being at enmity with each other. Additionally, many modern critics dislike this view of the atonement because it emphasizes the blood and pain of the cross. By itself, penal substitutionary atonement is unsatisfactory in my opinion.

Let's not totally dispense with this model of the atonement, however. There's too much language that points to it in the Bible. Additionally, it is unwise to try to clean up the cross too much. A sterilized, sanitized cross can't say much to a world that continually asks "where's God?" amid the ugliness and strife of this fallen world. Understanding the cross as what it was, a brutal instrument of torture, humiliation, and execution allows us to understand that God can be present in the midst of the horrors that we can sometimes see in the modern world.

Now that I've poked more than a few holes in these three, in a few days a more comprehensive look at the atonement will arise from the marinate.

Our Example

2011-05-11T17:00:00.001-04:00

One of the more unfortunate aspects of discussion of atonement in the current culture is that it has become polarized. It is difficult now to separate this academic discussion from the emotional hand grenades that have been lobbed back and forth between liberals and conservatives for years. I hope that you who read this can take a look at some of this different atonement language again. None of them is sufficient all by itself, just as none of them is totally without merit or warrant. In this week's entry and in next week's, I will critique the favorite atonement theories for liberals and then for conservatives. I guess that if today's post doesn't step on your toes, that next week's will.

As the ransom theory began to fade in popularity in the middle ages, Peter Abelarde made famous the idea that Jesus is primarily an example for us. Focusing primarily on the love of God, he believed that God's love was so great that he could forgive without anything being done to make up for the fact that his law had been broken. Jesus' death according to this theory does nothing to change our standing before God objectively. It is not a ransom, a sacrifice, or a substitute for us. Instead, it affects us subjectively because it moves us to greater compassion, because it moves us to repentance, because it shows us what true love really looks like. When we look at him we are moved to follow him.

Contrary to what some more conservative folks would say, there is plenty of scriptural warrant for looking at Jesus as our example. In John 13, Jesus gave the disciples a "new command" and washed their feet. In Ephesians 5, Paul said to imitate God, in 1 Peter 2 we are told that Christ left us an example so that we "follow in his steps." 2 Corinthians 5 tell us that Christ's love compels us to live for him not for ourselves.

This theory is reflected in several ways in our "church language." Those who adhere to this theory of the atonement frequently will refer to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in describing how atonement works. We can look at how he lived his life (ministry with the dispossessed, the marginalized, the "outs" of society) and not just how he died. The WWJD bracelets that were so popular a few years ago are a reflection of it. We also see it very clearly in the great hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," and to a lesser extent we see it in the equally classic old hymn "Be Thou My Vision."

Now to play the critic. There are several serious flaws with this theory of atonement. First, if there is nothing objectively being done on the cross, how can it be an example of anything? Its ability to affect us emotionally is linked to what it does for us objectively. In fact, the 1 Peter passage I referred to also uses other atonement language as well. One article I read offered this assessment. If a someone dies saving a drowning person we are moved. If, on the other hand, someone jumps into the raging river with the drowning person and just drowns simply to identify with the victim we look at it as a senseless act. Likewise, Jesus' death can move us only if it actually does something. Another quite serious flaw with it, is that it doesn't take the issue of sin seriously enough. As a theology professor of mine said, if our problem is simply one of the mind where can imitate him and be straightened out, we could do just as well by going to a good counselor. Additionally, making Jesus purely an example to follow could actually lead to making him a Law, inserting an unintended legalism. Lastly, this theory of atonement, left alone cannot account for the resurrection. It's actually an unnecessary add on.

I caution you against tossing this theory into the ash heap though. Even though this theory is insufficient by itself, we cannot dispense with it. Is there any better guide to how to live than to simply try to live as Jesus did? Did he not instruct his disciples to follow his example in the upper room scene in John's Gsopel? Was not John Newton (author of the hymn "Amazing Grace") who was a slave trader turned Anglican minister converted by reading the devotional classic "On the Imitation of Christ" that urges the reader to follow Jesus as an example? Is it possible to look at the cross of Christ without being moved to repentance?

Ransomed

2011-05-04T15:58:00.000-04:00

As will become clear, the difficulty in looking at the atonement is not that any one theory is really bad, but that all of them are insufficient. No one theory can do justice what occurred because human language is insufficient to adequately describe it. The first of the various ways believers have looked at the atonement is as a ransom. This is sometimes called the classical theory of atonement. The term "classical" theory stems from the fact that the early church fathers used ransom language far more than any other in describing Christ's death. This remained the predominant view of atonement until the middle ages when it was subjected to withering criticism.

In the pages of scripture there is no lack of warrant for looking at the atonement as a ransom that was paid on our behalf. The term "ransom" is used seven times to refer to what God/Jesus does for us. The related term "redeem" or "redeemer" is found over ninety times. Both terms offer a glimpse of what is going on according to this theory. They both convey the notion of something (or someone) being bought back from a third party. In very, very, very simplified terms we as humans are by nature in bondage to sin/death. We are captives if you will. Christ is offered as a ransom on our behalf and the Devil eagerly jumps on the deal. When Jesus rose from the dead however, he took a host of captives that he had freed when he ascended, using language from Ephesians 4.

The C.S. Lewis classic, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, has a good illustration of this. If you're familiar with the story you'll remember that the younger Pevensey son, Edmund is duped by the evil white witch into betraying his siblings. Edmund is freed, but because of his treachery he remains a possession of the witch until an innocent (the great lion Aslan) is offered as a ransom. In thumbing through a hymnal you won't find a shortage of hymns that use ransom/redeem language. When one expands it to include the related concept of resurrection as victory over sin/death/hell, the list becomes staggering: "The Strife Is O'er, The Battle Done," "Thine is the Glory," "Praise My Soul the King of Heaven," "Up From the Grave He Arose," and the list goes on and on.

This theory has much to commend it. First, it acknowledges that human sin is a condition and not simply a collection of misdeeds on our part. Second, it does allow for the importance of resurrection, particularly when paired with the Christus Victor concept to be mentioned in another post. Third, some of the more beautiful scripture passages use this language: "you were ransomed...with the precious blood of Christ," from 1 Peter 1; or from Isaiah 43, "fear not for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine," in speaking to Israel. Lastly, it allows us to connect our deliverance from sin/death with the great deliverance themes of the Old Testament.

As mentioned above, this theory has had its share of critics. In particular, during the middle ages theologians Peter Abelard and Anself of Canterbury both took it apart so to speak. It is open to criticism on a couple of major fronts. At a theoretical level, one must ask, to whom was the ransom paid? The early church fathers were split on this. If the ransom was paid to the Devil we are putting God in the position of bargaining with the Devil, as if God were in some way indebted to him. Furthermore, if Jesus is offered as the ransom knowing that resurrection will be the outcome, one could argue that God had deceivd the Devil.

Despite the numerous theoretical difficulties with this theory, it is one we cannot dismiss because it does take a big view of sin and does account for the resurrection. Furthermore, for those who've felt in bondage this can be very reassuring, because it speaks of deliverance and freedom in a way that other theories cannot.

At-one-ment

2011-04-27T14:14:00.000-04:00

With the memory's of last weekend's Holy Week services fresh in our minds, I'd like to take the next several marinations to reflect on atonement. That Jesus' death atones for human sins is a fundamental part of our faith. All of us fall short of the glory that was intended for us. All of us stumble far too frequently. None of us is worthy of the blessings God offers. None of us, on our own merit can have any sort of meaningful relationship with God. If that is the human problem, Jesus death is the solution. It atones for our sins. By it we are freed from the penalty of our sins, and to a certain extent are freed from the presence of sin. The New Testament uses language such as "redemption," "propitiation," "ransom," and "sacrifice" in referring to Jesus' death. All these loaded theological terms carry a lot of freight, and serve to convey the point that Jesus does make us right with God.

If it is clear that Jesus does make us right with God, what is not clear is how it happens. We know that a transaction has taken place. Scripture makes that much clear. It does not, however, ever give a detailed theology of atonement. Ever since the New Testament era Christians have wrestled with how to describe in human words this transaction. The greatest minds of the faith have agonized over how precisely this atonement takes place, and have at times offered wildly different descriptions.

There are lots of different theories for how the atonement took place. In fact, depending upon how you categorize them, it is possible to identify upwards of six or seven different ones. What I plan to do is to offer my own critique of three of the most prominent theories. Along the way I hope to show the strengths of each, the dark underside of each one, how each relates to Easter, and how they show up in the language and hymns of the church. Up next, Jesus our ransom.

Confessions of a Humble Preacher

2011-04-22T16:41:00.000-04:00

It is Good Friday as I write this. This is perhaps the darkest, yet most triumphant day in our calendar as Christians. It is dark, for on this day our Lord suffered public humiliation, torture, and execution for a whole lot of poor sinners like me. It is triumphant because in a way only God can arrange, this death led to life. The suffering was the way to victory. As a minister of the Gospel Holy Week is the highlight of the year for me. The procession of services from Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and finally the worship on Easter morning are the services I look forward to most. I relish this time of the year because it is absolutely the core of our faith. Apart from the events of this weekend the church is little more than a social organization clothed in fancy, churchy language.

Now for the confession, I have a love/hate relationship with actually preaching during this season. Yes, I would rather preach Maundy Thursday and Easter than any other day of the year. What Christian minister could not love and relish the opportunity to preach on these holy days? I also hate preaching these days, because these sermons are most difficult for me. Sermons in Holy Week come only with difficulty. Preaching this week is more than exegete text, apply text, and craft sermon. Many people in our churches have heard these resurrection accounts for years. They know the story. The difficulty is magnified by the simple fact that it is Easter, and we preachers want to really deliver our very best this day- and congregants want to hear something meaningful.

If you are one of the good folks who gather with me in worship this weekend, I make no promise about what comes from my mouth. I can only say that the words that do come out were probably laboriously produced, and uttered with an equal combination of fear and joy.

Overflowing

2011-03-23T12:17:00.000-04:00

I recently was listening to a lecture by John Bell from the Iona Abbey in Scotland. A member of the Church of Scotland, he's a popular writer and speaker on the subject of music and worship. In this lecture, Bell described one of the problems he sees in contemporary Christianity, the tendency to seek too much from worship.

He said that in years past there were three spheres of worship. First, there was private prayer and study. This was the foundation of the individual's spiritual life. Secondly, many also had specific family devotions led by the head of the household. Thirdly, everyone went to public worship. The contemporary problem he pointed out was that for far too many Christians there is little private spiritual life. Private prayer and study, private spiritual disciplines, personal devotion to the means of grace, are far too uncommon. This is a dangerous phonomenon. Our spiritual lives are our own responsibility, not the church's, not the minister's. The life of faith is both personal and corporate. As I like to put it, the faith that saves is always personal, but is never private.

As a minister of the Gospel, I'm vitally concerned about the spiritual well-being of the people in the church. This being said, I cannot know and oversee the spiritual lives of everyone here. The faith that puts us right with God is our own, not anyone else's. Yes, the church must do all it can to encourage spiritual formation and discipleship. It can provide small group opportunities, it can encourage and educate people about the means of grace, but ultimately individuals must avail themselves of them.

The danger, as Bell explains, is that people who do little personal prayer and study will come to public worship expecting a personal experience. Public worship can lead to a private experience as the Holy Spirit moves, but that ultimately isn't the goal. The goal of public worship is to praise God. Seeking a personal experience from that public forum is the root behind all sorts of problems in worship. This can easily create a "consumerist" mentality regarding worship where the most important criteria are what will please the greatest number of people? what will I get out of it? From the church perspective, too much thought toward what experience people will have can easily morph into gimmickry and emotional manipulation.

A seminary professor of mine once said that a good sermon will be the overflow of our exegesis and study of the text. As I've reflected on what Bell said, the thought has struck me that our public worship must be also an overflow. In prayer, study, service, fasting, etc. our spiritual lives are filled. It is in these things that we can have profound experiences of God. The most genuine and powerful public worship then can be just an overflow of what we have experienced in our personal lives. Allow me to suggest that if your public worship isn't what you would like it to be, if it isn't moving you as think it ought, perhaps the main issue isn't what you are doing publically, but what you aren't doing privately.

Ash Wednesday

2011-03-09T14:10:00.000-05:00

What is it with all these Christians with funny smudges of ashes on their foreheads tonight? Why do folks who ordinarily show some degree of common sense do something as silly as get oily ashes smeared on themselves?

I'd like to muse a little bit on this whole Ash Wednesday business, and hopefully shed some light on why we do it. In some Christian circles there is great skepticism of Ash Wednesday and Lent, or anything liturgical for that matter. This can come from learning too well the lessons of the Reformation. If we believe in Sola Scriptura, why bother with ashes and Lent if neither are mentioned in the Bible? If we truly are saved by grace through faith, what's the point of it? Sometimes we "modern" folks can get too suspicious of traditions.

The short answer to these objections is quite simply that ritual acts and symbols do actually mean things. A person can be married with or without wearing the ring, but the ring means something, hence the tradition of giving rings. We light candles in worship because they symbolize the presence of the Holy Spirit. The practice of Ash Wednesday and season of Lent have been a part of Christian worship for far longer than churches have been doing altar calls and was already an ancient practice when Luther began the Reformation.

Perhaps a little history lesson would be in order here to shed some light on this rather strange ritual. In the very early church it was common practice to baptize new believers on Easter Sunday. Baptism and initiation into the church only came after the new believers (catechumens) spent considerable time in prayer and study. At first this could be over a year in length, but over time became shorter until it was forty days. The forty days of Lent were closely associated with Jesus' forty days of fasting in the wilderness before his temptaion by Satan. The practice of observing Lent came to be encouraged for all believers, not just new converts, as a way of preparing for Easter. Lent is at heart a time of penitence and self-examination before the holy, mysterious, even numinous remembrance and celebration of the events surrounding Christ's passion, crucifixion, and resurrection.

If then, Lent is a time of penitence, the most Biblical and ancient symbol fitting for beginning it is ashes. Throughout scripture ashes are associated with repentance, and the imposition of ashes is about a bibical way of expressing penitence as there can be. As Christ fasted in the Wilderness for forty days, Lent is forty days long. Christians are encouraged to practice some form of abstinence and spiritual discipline during Lent. (By the way, Sundays aren't counted as part of Lent because that is resurrection day!) We don't fast for forty days, but Christians do commonly "give up" something for Lent, and should also take on some form of spiritual discipline or exercise during Lent- be it more time in dedicated prayer, more time in study of the Scriptures, or in service. etc. I know that you may look funny with ashes on your head, but do it anyway. Humble yourself, examine yourself, and chances are you'll find that we all need the penitence for which ashes are the most appropriate symbol.

Healing and Faith

2011-02-24T16:39:00.000-05:00

Just as my last posting was prompted by this current series of sermons, so this one will be as well.  Last Sunday I preached on the raising of Jairus' daughter. When word came that the synagogue ruler's twelve year old daughter had died, Jesus' response was simply, "do not fear, only believe." This Sunday I will address the hemorrhaging woman who was healed in a story sandwiched inside the overall account of Jairus' daughter. To her Jesus said "your faith has made you well." Numerous times in the Gospels when Jesus healed, he cited the individual's faith.

Last month I attended a large conference at which one of the presenters, a popular speaker on the topic of prayer, very passionately dealt with healing and faith. He repeatedly encouraged us to name the specific need for which we prayed, and to claim that healing in faith. To his credit he took an expansive view of Jesus' work on the cross. He reminded us, correctly, that the cross wasn't just about taking away an individual's sin, but that it was about dealing with all that is wrong with creation. He stated that "cancer was defeated at the cross," and that we should remember this when we pray. However, he overstated his case. In exhorting us that faith always healed, he never really addressed the obvious: what about faithful people who aren't healed? Many people in the large room that morning were moved to tears by his presentation, but I found myself growing more and more uncomfortable with it. I've ministered to too many devout faithful people who were dying of cancer or some other ailment, whose prayers for healing were not answered.

How then do we address this matter? What is the role of faith in healing? Does God still heal? Why are some granted miracles and others not? As I tackle this, I make no claim to have all the answers, but rather want to share my own "marinations" on the topic. Regarding faith, it is intricately linked with healing in the gospels, and James 5 speaks of the power of a righteous person's prayer. Faith, in itself, is nothing. It is only as strong as its object. For the Christian, the object of our faith is Almighty God, revealed in Christ Jesus. Faith is what connects us to God, it is what provides the channel by which we know God and receive his grace. To the question, "does God still heal?" I would answer emphatically, yes. Miracles do still happen. There are the instances where the stage 4 cancer patient miraculously recovers.

The last question I posed above, is much more difficult and must be answered carefully and with a pastoral heart. We must not go so far in emphasizing the power of the prayer of faith that we imply that if someone is not healed, that the reason is his or her lack of faith. To do this is to make the sick and dying feel responsible for their own condition. Some comfort that brings! The crux of the matter is this:  the mortality rate for being human is 100% on this side of God's new creation at the end of Revelation. Beyond this several more things must be pointed out.  Contrary to what so many today in the "health and wealth gospel" camp would say, scripture simply never promises us good health.  Some people do ruin their health by their own lifestyle choices, but even beyond that our bodies are finite and cannot last forever. They are subject to disease and corruption. In this broken world Jesus miraculously healed some people during his earthly ministry. At times he healed the blind, the deaf, the demon possessed, the paralyzed, the lepers, and raised the dead.  What we are not told is the number of people in the first century whose blindness was never healed, who leprosy was never cleansed.  Though we aren't told in scripture, I would even hazard a guess that Jesus probably attended funeral processions. Simply put, miracles by definition, are rare events. We do not know why miracles occur in some instances but not others. That must remain in the counsel of God, whose love and wisdom are unsearchable.

Finally, we do well to remember that in a sense God does always heal the faithful. At times it occurs before the grave, but if not then it occurs after the grave. When the dear saint whom we love dies after being wracked with pain, we should not ever think for a moment that God did not take the pain away. He did, and in a way far more complete than would have been done if that loved one had miraculously recovered. Paul speaks of this in Philippians.  There he, contemplating his possible execution, says that for him it's a "win-win" situation. If he lives he has more time with the church he loves. If he dies, he's in the presence of the Lord. That's some promise!

What about this exorcism stuff?

2011-01-28T22:27:00.000-05:00

Currently in our church I am doing a series of sermons on the miracles of Jesus. This upcoming Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011 the sermon is about an exorcism in Matthew 12:22-29. Rather than load the sermon with background material, caveats, and hedges, I've decided to let this blog do that work.

For starters the world in which Jesus lived was very conscious of angels and demons. Nearly everyone- Gentile or Jew- believed in supernatural powers that were at work in the world. When Paul refers to "powers and principalities" he is referring to such powers. It was a world in which it was widely assumed that a person could be actively controlled by an evil spirit. In this environment there were any number of exorcists practicing their art. Even pagan religions had specified rites and incantations to free someone from demonic possession. There were also Jewish exorcists at work calling on the power of the true God, Yahweh. In this environment Jesus practiced his ministry, and the synoptic Gospels all show exorcisms to be a significant part of that ministry. There was one significant difference in the method by which Jesus cast out evil spirits. He never used set rituals and incantations for this. The striking thing wasn't that he could cast out a demon, it was the method (or lack thereof). Jesus simply commanded, and the spirits obeyed.

So far so good. Now for the difficult stuff. Are there evil spirits and demons? What about a personified force of evil- Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, whatever term you want to use? I'll acknowledge that there are many who discount this.  If you the reader are among those, that's fine, but allow me to respectfully disagree. My own feeling on this is colored by my own reading of scripture, by my own logic, and to a small extent experience. The New Testament mentions the demonic and evil spirits quite frequently. It refers to one it calls the Devil or Satan who seems to be the chief opponent to God's rule and reign. The history and state of the world seems to call for some sort of personal force of evil that is external to humanity. Consider how few years the world has had without a major war. Consider the murders, arsons, rapes, torture, and other crimes of the most horrific sort. Consider needless violence, greed, lust, and racism that have been present since time immemorial.

Humanity is said to be created in God's image, and orthodox (meaning traditional) Christian thought has affirmed that in the fall this image was badly distorted but not totally destroyed. If there is no force of evil external to humanity, how can we who bear God's image, however damaged it is, create a world like this. Perhaps I may be overgeneralizing in this statement, but I would assume that some of the same folks who would deny a presence of such a personal force of evil would also affirm that people are basically good. These two positions are inconsistent. If there is no external force of evil, and if humans are basically good, how then do we account for the evil around us unless God is the author of it, a position no believer could hold.

What then about demonic activity today?  We tend to allow our own thinking to be shaped too much by popular culture. We think of Jon Lovitz' skits from Saturday Night Live from twenty some years ago. We think of horror movies like The Exorcist, The Omen, or the just released The Rite. In reality, I would assert that when evil appears it is far more likely to be seductive, alluring, and appealing. It's easy to flee something grotesque and horrible, but very difficult to flee something that appears enticing. While I assume that people today can be possessed we need to be very careful with this. Most people who show symptoms of mental illness need good counseling or the proper medications. I've personally known people who've had severe depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, and also known people with epilepsy. On the other hand, I've only seen one person who I actually thought may have been "possessed." Perhaps you could summarize my position this way: to say that mental illness and/or epilepsy are all possession is medical malpractice of the grossest sort; on the other hand to simply assume that demonic activity isn't real is spiritual malpractice. One last point about demonic activity. I think that we tend to look at it too much on the micro-level, thinking of individuals who are "possessed." In my opinion at least, we need to think of demonic activity on the macro-level. For example we could think of the world between 1935 and 1950.  In this era the Nazi regime in Germany exterminated between 6 and 9 million Jews and others it deemed undesirable. In the USSR in the same time period, Joseph Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 20-60 million of his own people depending upon estimates. Tell me that demons were not active then as the firing squads, hangmen, and ovens did their deady work near round the clock.

In an entry in The Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday's Texts, John Rottman of Emmanuel College in Toronto wrote, "And so we conspire with his family to have Jesus the exorcist put away...But getting rid of Jesus the exorcist doesn't make the evil go away...Getting rid of Jesus the exorcist still leaves us with a world full of evil."

In conclusion though, let me mention some far higher authorities though.   "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12 The good news though is this, "Greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4) ) "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels or rulers, nor things present or things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)

Fear Not!

2011-01-24T16:00:00.001-05:00

Fear is one of those human emotions that we all feel at times, and which can be healthy. Fear of deadly snakes is good, fear of big trucks going 75 mph can be healthy. At times scripture itself says we should fear God. All too often though, fear exerts a paralyzing grip on us, even preventing us from accomplishing the very things we say we want. A couple of generations ago, in his first of four inaugural addresses Franklin Roosevelt said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." At that point the country had been mired in the Great Depression for a couple of years and we were three and a half years removed from the disastrous crashes of October 1929. In this context Roosevelt spoke what amounted to brilliant words. I've heard that FDR had a second rate intellect, but a first rate temperament. The first rate temperament was on display in those words. He correctly realized that as long as the nation was gripped in fear, banks would not loan money, businesses wouldn't invest, people would not spend, etc. perpetuating the very thing they feared.

Just a few days ago, yours truly, who can be one of the stubbornest humans on the planet, succumbed to plain old ordinary fear. I'm registered to do a marathon in a month, and because this winter has been more like South Dakota than South Carolina, my training has been spotty. Last Friday, I was going to do a 20 mile run. Doing two or three of these is the real meat and potatoes of marathon training, yet I hadn't been able to do one yet, and my own psyche wasn't the best. I planned out my route last Thursday and knew where I'd be able to get water at roughly every 5 miles. I was all set. Thursday night however, I let myself get started watching a movie that came on way too late. I knew I shouldn't have and went to bed at well past midnight knowing that there was no way I'd get in 20. Sure enough Friday morning I felt like something the cat would drag up to the doorstep and 20 miles didn't happen. I beat myself up about this a good bit on Friday, and came to the realization that I had acted out of pure fear. I had unconsciously sabotaged the run. Perhaps I had feared the necessary pain that comes with such an effort. Maybe I had been afraid that I might be really ready to run and still have a lousy effort that would hurt my confidence. I felt so crummy that there was no way I could have attempted it. My legs didn't hurt a bit last Friday. But on the other hand, at the end of the day I was no closer to being marathon ready, which was the ultimate goal.

I will confess also to being a totally unreformed and unrepentant historian. In 1916 during World War I, the German and British fleets met in what was nearly a naval Armageddon. For centuries the British navy had held a reputation, earned in blood, of being the finest in the world. In the decades leading up to the war Germany had invested a fortune in trying to outpace the British, and when war broke out their battlefleet rivaled the vaunted Royal Navy. At the Battle of Jutland the two fleets slugged it out like a pair of heavy weight boxers. Both navies retired back to their ports with the Germans having given as well as they had taken. In the aftermath of this battle, though, the Germans never sent their fleet out. Having been bloodied once they never risked their magnificent fleet again even though they had successfully stood toe to toe with the Royal Navy. At the end of the war these fine ships were all surrendered to the allies, having never been risked again.

On a far more important level fear can be devastating in the Christian life. How often does the Bible say, "fear not," "be strong and of good courage, "perfect love casts out fear," and other similar phrases? It is possible for churches to be gripped by a spirit of fear just as surely as I was last week. When this happens all thought of ministry and outreach immediately become secondary to survival. Sure we may pay lip service to making disciples, to missions, to acting in faith, but inwardly we are gripped and possessed by fear. When that happens it doesn't matter how much money the stewardship campaign raised, it will never be enough. It doesn't matter how many volunteers are available, it won't be enough. Gripped by this spirit a church will surely husband its resources, will never dip into its reserves, will never overtax its volunteers. However, in this spirit's grip it will never, ever act in faith that God will provide what it lacks. It will never, ever make the making of disciples as its highest goal. In the end it will most assuredly die despite the people's goal of survival. I recently heard about a small local church that had been in decline. Its treasurer treated the bank balance like a state secret, and nobody dared ask this intimidating figure how much money they had. The attendance dwindled from 30 to 25 to 15, until the conference had to close its doors. When the affairs of the church were being settled, it was discovered that there were nearly $300,000 in the bank.

Never, my friends, make mere survival your goal. In the end you will never accomplish any goal you may say you want, and in the end you will fail even to survive.

A Suggested New Year's Resolution

2011-01-09T23:07:00.001-05:00

My suggested resolution for New Year's is to not make one! I confess that I'm pretty skeptical of the whole enterprise of making the resolutions. Admittedly, many of the resolutions are for worthy goals: losing those pesky 15 pounds, exercising more, reading more, praying more, drinking or smoking less. I tend to be leary of resolutions simply because they set us up for failure. I'm far too much of a realist to be too optimistic about human ability. Far too often what happens is that we make a grand resolution, but then only 3 months into the new year our grand plans fall apart. The running peters out, the cake sneaks back into the diet, the commitment to pray a certain amount each day falls short; that is the way it is with us frail humans. Our tendancy toward sin, toward failure of all sorts is far too great. The resolution lasts a couple of months and sometime later we realize that we didn't and couldn't live up to it and the result is being plagued by guilt.

For similar reasons I'm pretty dubious of the practice of getting teenagers to sign pledges about not drinking or having sex on prom night. I'm about as conservative as the next guy about what our teenagers should and shouldn't do on prom night. My problem is what becomes of boy who yields to the temptation and gets drunk, the girl who yields to the temptation and does the wrong things with the wrong guy in the back seat. We set them up for more guilt and shame, and potentially make it less likely that they will actually look to God to find mercy and grace.

Okay, I'll admit it, I have a definite curmudgeonly streak. Let me make a modest suggestion. For our youth teach them your values, what is and isn't acceptable. Know that occasionally even a good kid will fail, and that when that happens we can't do anything that would create so much shame that they wouldn't come to the source of mercy, forgiveness, and healing. With your goals, instead of making resolutions to exercise more, drink less, pray more, simply do those things. As the Nike slogan used to say, Just Do It. Make it a part of your lifestyle without grand resolutions or pledges. If you're trying to shed the pesky 15 and yield to the desert tray, forget about and do better the next day. This sets aside guilt, and a sense of failure, and may enable you to simply live your life better. That's my opinion at least, which is guaranteed, along with 75 cents, to get you a cup of coffee at the convenience store.

The Gospel According to God

2010-12-23T20:51:00.000-05:00

As the counterpoint to my last entry allow me to just remind you of what may be so obvious that we need to be reminded occasionally. Beyond decorations, beyond trees, beyond cards, beyond presents (which better be bought by now!), beyond frosty and rudolf, there's something real about what happens. Beyond the exasperation that many believers feel about TV hosts that can only say "happy holidays," and cities that have "holiday trees" instead of "Christmas trees," there is something very real, mysterious and powerful.

The Gospel of God is afoot this time of the year. It lies beneath church pageants we all have- little boys as shepherds, freckle-faced 6 year old girls with tinsel wings as angels, and bearded men as the magi. It is the most amazing event in all history. It is the reality that here in this miraculous birth the eternal Word of God, became incarnate as flesh and blood. Just as remarkable is that this incarnation was for the purpose of saving a whole lot of people who don't deserve it. This little one was born to live as we all are, but he was also born to die for us, on our behalf, so that we may not bear our guilt.

This birth was not for people of power and prestige and responsibility. It was not for those who "have it all together." It was for the broken, those who know deep down that they aren't really worthy and ready to see the Son of God. The halls of power in the world into which Jesus was born (according to the best guesses somewhere about 4-6 B.C.) were totally oblivious to it. Augustus, Cyrenius, Herod, were not notified by the Almighty. The privileged of society, the temple authorities of Jerusalem and the Pharisees with heads crammed full of Torah verses and not the slightest idea of the weightier matters of the Law, never knew it. Instead, Yahweh himself dispatched the heavenly host to shepherds. These were people who were poor, who by the nature of their trade were unclean and therefore ineligible to enter the temple. These least likely of recipients were witnesses to a heavenly fireworks display and the good news of "Peace on earth and good will toward men."

Yes my friends, being ready for Christmas is sort of irrelevant at this point. If you're not ready for it by now, it's too late. It's also irrelevant for another reason. Being ready for Christmas isn't nearly as important as being ready for Christ. Being ready for Christ is simply a matter of yearning, of recognizing that you really do need what he offers. The only ones who miss him are those who are too proud to realize they need him. This is the Gospel of God: that by faith and repentace we can come to God through this Christ born so long ago.

Okay folks, go get those last minute presents wrapped. In the words of someone else associated with this most holy of days, "Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!"

The Gospel According to Oprah

2010-12-16T15:42:00.000-05:00

I've never really watched the Oprah Winfrey Show. I'm seldom home when it's on, and for the most part talk shows like that tend to bore me. In fact up until a couple of weeks ago, my closest association with Oprah was the 1994 Marine Corps Marathon where I passed her at about mile 12.

I happened, though, to be watching her show a few days before Thanksgiving and found the entire hour most disquieting. In this hour she was giving each of her audience members some of her "favorite things." Each person there received everything from iPads, to cookware, to the piece de resistance a 2012 Volkswagen Beetle. In fact the entire hour could have been called a giant commercial for each of these "favorite things."

Was the entire show a tribute to materialism and consumerism, yes. Was everything decorated with trees, lights, fake snow, etc. even though it wasn't even Thanksgiving yet, yes. Did the adulation of the crowd seem almost cult-like, yes. These aren't the reasons I found the show disturbing. Oprah has amassed an incredible empire and fortune, and is one of the wealthiest people in the country, and I do not begrudge her one cent of the fortune she's made. Nor do I begrudge any of the folks in the audience the largesse they received courtesy of Oprah. To the extent that a person has made a fortune through effort, skill, ability, and even luck, I applaud them.

What then disturbed me so? It was one line she uttered that explained the entire event. She said that she wanted to give away a little joy. This one phrase carried the idea that joy is something that can be bought or sold. It is something that is related to the amount of stuff we have. This is an attitude that is antithetical to the Gospel, or to even good common sense for it would assert that our great grandparents who certainly did not have any of the goodies of modern life could not have as much joy as we do.

For the Christian, true joy comes in knowing Jesus Christ. For us, joy is an attitude that is utterly independent of any external circumstances. Because of who we are in Christ Jesus, we can have joy in sickness or in health, in want or in wealth. This is the powerful message of the little book of Philippians. The the Apostle lies in prison and frankly acknowledges the possibility of execution, but at the same time describes his joy.

Christmas is now bearing down upon us like a locomotive. There are only nine more days left to get the presents bought and wrapped. If you're shipping something you better get to the post office yesterday. In the midst of this, let's remember that Christmas at heart has nothing to do with wrapping, trees, parties, fresh baked sugar cookies, or plump turkey in the oven. It has nothing to do with the Gospel According to Oprah where joy seems to be equated with toys that are the rage now, but will be just so much old clutter next Christmas. Christmas is remembering the coming of Christ, God incarnate to live among us and ultimately die for us. Rightly understood, the joy of Christmas can occur without any of the trappings of the "cultural holiday" as I call it.

I do hope that each of you reading this will have a truly joyful Christmas.

Learning How to Read #6- Alphabet Soup

2010-12-09T17:58:00.002-05:00

Buying a Bible used to be pretty simple. Got to store and decide between leather bound or hard back and put down a few dollars. Reading it used to be pretty simple as well. Pick up a Bible and read it and anyone hearing you with their own Bibles would be able to follow along easily. Of course it's never been quite that simple, but there has been a regular explosion of new translations hitting the bookstores in recent years making the whole idea of buying a Bible an intimidating task. Look at the shelf or the Christian Book Distributor catalog and you can be lost in the veritable alphabet soup of translations available now. There's the NASB, NIV and TNIV, the ESV, the RSV and NRSV, the NLT, the JB and NJB, KJV and NKJV, CEV, CEB, HCSB, NEB and REB, the Living Bible, the Message, Good News for Modern Man, and the list goes on. (In case you're wondering, my own bookshelf only has seven of these.)

What I'd like to do now is to at least try to clarify and simplify this if I can. First, some of these are specifically authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. These include the Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible. This isn't to say that a Protestant shouldn't read them, but it simply means that these are translations specifically for the Catholic Church.

In considering this overwhelming variety of Bibles out there I should mention first that they differ in part in their translation philosophy. Some try to remain as literal as possible with the understanding that it is impossible to do a word for word translation because of differences in the languages. Others use English phrases that are the equivalent of the original Hebrew or Greek. In general these "dynamic equivalent" translations are easier to read, but aren't as useful for careful study. Additionally, some Bibles aren't even translations at all, but are simply paraphrases of existing English Bibles- the Living Bible is one of these.

The American translation that is probably the closest to being a word for word translation is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). If that's the far end of the spectrum for a word for word translation the old reliable King James is close to it. Among the Bibles of the last half century the Revised Standard Version and the similar English Standard Version, are somewhat more readable than the NASB, but still follow that basic translation philosophy. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was a significant revision and update of the RSV. Primarily it used inclusive language in reference to people throughout. In some instances this made no differences in meaning, in others it did alter the meaning somewhat. Many readers may not even recognize a lot of these changes until they get to the Psalms. In my opinion the poetry of the Psalms suffers greatly in this translation.

The Bible that has made the biggest splash in our churches in the last thirty years is the New International Version. This was a significant departure in that it did not follow the literal correspondence philosophy and opted for a dynamic equivalent model in which the editors/translators use the phrasing that they think captures what the original meant. This is probably the best selling Bible currently, and is popular because it is more easily readable than the versions mentioned above. In my opinion, this translation is fine for personal devotional use, but is a very poor choice for careful study.

Another very popular translation today is The Message. This is a very "loose" translation by Eugene Peterson. It's interesting to read in places to get a totally different perspective, but is so different from any other Bible out there that it's of limited usefulness for preaching and teaching.

Allow me a couple of more editorial comments in addition to the few I've inserted above. My own personal favorite right now is the ESV, but I do venture away from time to time. I also have a healthy respect for the old KJV even though I don't read from it or preach from it often. The poetic portions are much better I think. A subtle but very important difference is in the pronouns. Modern English simply has "you," without distinguishing between singular or plural. The original languages had that distinction, and "thou and ye" from the old English make the same distinction. Thou is singular, but "ye" as in ye are the salt of the earth is plural. In reading a modern translation it's impossible to tell whether the "you" is singular or plural- (you or y'all to put it in southernese.) I'd like to make one more comment that I almost hesitate to make, but here goes. I can't help but wonder if some of the tremendous explosion in translations of the last thirty years is driven as much by marketing and economics as it is by a real need for yet another English version.

Happy reading my friends in cyberland!

Learning How to Read #5

2010-12-02T14:06:00.001-05:00

We draw near the end of this little discourse on how to read scripture. This post and the next will wrap it up and will deal with the whole matter of languages and translations. For starters, contrary to what some may think, the Bible was not originally written in King James English. A funny story illustrates this. Once some enterprising seminary students took it upon themselves to criticize the translation my New Testament professor used in chapel one day. To their dismay he showed them what he used- the Greek text itself. The writers of King James English would put their reaction this way- "Behold they shutteth their mouth." Every Bible the average reader picks up is a translation from the original languages in which it was written thousands of years ago.

Nearly the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. This very ancient language is earthy, its words and phrases are picturesque. For example, the common way of saying "behind," quite literally is "away from the face of." Think about that the next time you see a child do something when his mother isn't looking or behind her back The first time you pick up the bizarre looking Hebrew script you could be forgiven if your initial reaction is to think that you're looking at something written on another planet. There is power, though, in the notion that when one looks at Hebrew, one is seeing the language God used for his first communication with humanity.

The entirety of the New Testament was written in Greek. Everyone who has ever walked across a college campus has seen some of the Greek alphabet- alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, psi, chi, omega, etc. emblazened on sweaters and on the tops of fraternity/sorority houses. The vocabulary of Greek can occasionally be somewhat familiar- pneuma (breath, wind, spirit) is the root from which we get pneumonia and pneumatic. Dunamis (power) is the root from which we get dynamite, dynamic, dynamo, etc. Beyond the familiarity of some of the letters and words, Greek is an incredibly precise and complex language making it very difficult to master. It should be noted, that both Hebrew and Greek have evolved considerably since the books of the Bible were written, so ancient Hebrew and Greek are substantially different from the Hebrew and Greek used in Israel and Greece today.

Any Bible translation today- whether King James, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, etc. is an attempt to convey into English was was written in another language. The translation is made difficult because there is seldom an exact correlation between the Greek/Hebrew word and a similar English word. Furthermore, the basic structure of the languages is different. There are verb tenses and forms that exist in those languages that don't exist in English and vice versa. Sentence structure and word order can be different.

Because of these difficulties in translation, someone doing detailed study should refer to two or three translations. You don't do this to find the phrasing of a verse that sounds the best or is the most poetic. Rather, when you do this look for the differences between the translations. In Isaiah 11:1 we are told that a shoot willl come from the "stump" of Jesse. Differerent translations use either "stock," "stump," "or "stem" for there. Basic word study with a lexicon shows that the Hebrew word "geza" there comes from an old root meaning to cut down. In this case, therefore, what is pictured isn't just the stem of a tree, but the stump of an old one that has been cut down or is dead.

Enjoy and relish your reading of the written word of God. Occasionally, though, pick up a different translation to get a different flavor. Next time, I'll wade into the veritable alphabet soup (KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, NLT, etc.) of Bible translations

Learning How to Read #4

2010-11-23T11:47:00.000-05:00

I'd like to mention now one of the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation: scripture interprets scripture. Related passages in the Bible essentially interpret each other. In particular, we can sometimes use clear passages shed light on the more difficult ones. Allow me to toss out some examples of using scripture to interpret scripture. Genesis 2:2-3 provides the foundation for hallowing the sabbath, the seventh day. More meaning comes from looking elsewhere in the Old Testament. There are numerous examples of "sabbatical years" in the Old Testament. Leviticus describes a sabbatical year for the land in which nothing was planted. The writer then declares that after "seven weeks" of seven years- 7 X 7 years there would be a Year of Jubilee in which existing debts were cancelled. Turning to Hebrews 4 we find even more about the Sabbath. Entry into the promised land is portrayed as a kind of sabbath rest. Beyond that, the writer implies that Christ himself is our Sabbath.

In Genesis 15 we find a particularly unusual vision. Abraham had been commanded to cut several animals in half and lay them down. As the night grew very dark he saw a vision of a fire pot pass back and forth between the halves of the animals that had been sacrificed. In Jeremiah 34 we read where the people are commanded to walk between the halves of a calf that had been sacrificed as form of enacted curse for breaking the covenant. God told them that they would become like the halves of the calf because they had broken the covenant. Applying this principle to Genesis 15, God who passed between the parts of the animals in the form of a fire pot, is calling down a curse on himself if he does not abide by the covenant he is making with Abraham. This particular example is an excellent case of using something clear to explain something murky. The implications of Jeremiah 34:18-19 are crystal clear, yet they give meaning to a passage that at first blush is pretty strange

What Christian reader of Isaiah 53, the famous "suffering servant" passage can ever read the passion narratives in the Gospels the same way after having seen the Isaiah passage. Another example is also in Isaiah. Isaiah 7:14 tells us that "the virgin/young woman will be with child." Virtual holy wars have been fought over how to correctly interpret the Hebrew word almah. It can mean either virgin or simply any young woman, and various translations of the Bible do render it either way. However, Matthew uses this as a Messianic prophecy in Matthew 1:23 referring specifically to a virgin being with child, lending weight to translating it as "virgin."

Let me make one final statement about how we read scripture. Totally apart from the mechanics of interpreting a passage, there is always an element of faith involved. In fact, the very reading of scripture is an act of faith. It implies that the words do have meaning and power. The very reading implies that we in some sense need them. We come to scripture knowing that apart from faith, it is impossible to fully understand any part of the Bible, or the whole thereof. Orthodox, meaning traditional, Christian thought has always held that the Bible is inspired by God himelf. Apart from knowing the God who inspired the writers, it is not possible to really understand what those writers recorded so long ago. God did not just inspire the prophets, psalmists, and apostles of old, he also illumines our hearts and minds as we read. The Holy Spirit is active in both the writing and reading of the Bible. Therefore, my friends, read the scriptures prayerfully and humbly. Be content not to understand everything you read, but be assured that God will give you everything you need from reading.

Learning How to Read #3

2010-11-18T10:41:00.001-05:00

I was recently watching a show on the training required to be a U.S. Marine Corps scout/sniper. As one would expect, there was lots of grueling physical training and training in marksmanship. I was struck by one particular drill, however. The trainees were lined up with spotting scopes and told to look downrange where they were told there was an instructor. Their job was to focus intently on everything they saw, the slightest movement, the slightest unnatural color, the slightest unnatural silhouette. The well-concealed instructor couldn't be spotted until he had fired his own weapon twice because the trainees weren't careful enough. The difference in combat would have been the difference between life and death.

The same diligence in carefully looking at what really is and isn't there is vital in reading and interpreting the Bible. Assumed knowledge leads us to skim over passages that we think we know, and also to read things into passages. We can be reading through Luke get to the famous parables like the Good Samaritan or Prodigal Son and then almost skip over them because we already think we know them. This assumed knowledge prevents us from allowing oursleves to pore over the text and really reflect on it. When we do this we, just like the sniper trainees, miss things that are really important. Sometimes we really do need to read something again for the first time.

A related danger is not actually reading what the text says. We all assume that the Bible describes a climactic "Battle of Armageddon" in which the cosmic forces of good and evil duke it out in a future cataclysm. Even a History Channel show I saw last night described it. The reality, when you actually read the last chapters of Revelation, is quite different. Likewise, there is lots of discussion of who the "antichrist" is when the word does not appear in Revelation.

The gospels are likewise full of pitfalls for us as we read. Because events are frequently described in all three synoptic Gospels we assume that the accounts are the same in each one. One of the best examples of this is the "Beatitudes" from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Many of you who read this will recognize them: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven; Blessed are those who mourn...Blessed are the meek...Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness... etc. The casual reader who is somewhat familiar with these Beatitudes who then comes across Luke's version of them in his Sermon the Plain might assume that they are identical. Luke, however, doesn't say "blessed are the poor in spirit," he says "blessed are you who are poor." Likewise, he doesn't say "blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness." Instead, he says "blessed are you who are hungry now." The difference is striking, and the difference is critical in understanding what Luke is saying.

For those of you who venture in the historical writings in the Old Testament you will find numerous traps in Kings and Chronicles. These books cover approximately the same historical material, so many of the same people and events are described. The reader must be careful not to assume that the two say the same things. The reality is that they don't. The books render different judgments/assessments on people on many occasions. Some events are described differently, some names are spelled differently. The really important part of interpreting is spotting the differences and then pondering over what those may mean.

What it boils down to my friends, is simply that we need to stick to what is there in the text and also to be aware of what is not there. Happy reading!

Learning How to Read #2

2010-11-11T11:42:00.005-05:00

This second post on how to interpret scripture could be called "it can't mean what it never meant." All the Biblical books were originally written to ancient cultures and in two very different languages. Interpreting the Bible correctly requires bridging the enormous gaps between the world to which the books were written and our own. Failure to build this bridge causes all sorts of problems for us as we read the Bible. The Bible was not originally written to us, but to someone else. When we read it only through our modern lens then we are, in fact, saying that the scriptural books have had little to no meaning to anyone else in history but us. That doesn't mean that one has to be a scholar to interpret the Bible, but that one at least should be sensitive to the differences between the world that received these books originally and our own.

Let me give some examples. In looking at the first chapters of Genesis some today read ch. 1 to find a scientific description of how God created everything. Then in succeeding chapters they add up all the years of the pre-flood patriarchs to calculate the age of the earth. When we do this make this part of scripture something it is not. The ancient Hebrews were not concerned with the age of the earth, nor with modern debates over creation vs. evolution. They were intensely interested in how to get along in a world with lots of competing deities, and reading Genesis 1 with this in mind can show us something far more powerful than forcing it to fit a modern scientific mold can .

Prophetic books are particularly susceptible to being misused and misinterpreted. Often prophetic books will use symbols that must be interpreted in light of what they meant then. If a prophet refers to a nation as an eagle he is not thinking about the United States. If a prophet refers to a nation as a bear, as in Daniel 7, he is not referring to Russia. Prophetic warnings of invaders from the north over-running Israel are warnings of destruction from Assyria, but not warnings that the modern nation state of Israel will be attacked by Russia. To say that it is a reference to the modern nations, like I said before, means that they say nothing to the people who originally read them.

The book of Revelation, along with the second half of Daniel, some portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, and some small portions of the synoptic Gospels are called apocalyptic literature. This literature is full of symbols and imagery. It is very important that we let these books stand for themselves, not what we read into them. Revelation was written primarily for a church that was under great pressure from Rome. Interpreting the book begins by asking this question, "what would this vision have meant to that church?" Once that is addressed can we begin to think about what it may mean for us. Therefore, we can't interpret the "locusts" of Rev. 9 to be helicopter gunships as some have sought to do. We consider what locusts represented in the ancient world and can then seek ways to interpret its meaning for us today.

Don't take what I say to mean that the Bible doesn't speak to us. It most assuredly does. We find that it does speak volumes to us, but we must interpret it with a certain element of humility. We must not force it into our molds. We must allow it to speak for itself. It was written to a culture that was non-Western, pre-scientific, and we must guard against the tendancy to make fit a Western, scientific mold. Scripture is the inspired written word of God and it isn't our place to make it conform to our standards.

Learning How to Read #1

2010-11-04T10:11:00.000-04:00

I learned to read in the first years of the 1970s using Ginn reading textbooks.  That was the era of phonics in reading before it fell badly out of favor in the 1980s, and then came back into favor in the last few years. The very fact that you the reader can interpret these symbols we know as letters and translate them into thought is an indication that you too learned to read. Unfortunately, many of us today don't know how to read the most important book of all. Some do know how and don't realize it. Even worse, some think they do but really don't. My goal over the next several posts is to give some rules of thumb for how to read and interpret scripture.

Right off the bat, this is something that doesn't come instantaneously. I once had a book called "Thirty Days to Understanding the Bible." Reading and understanding scripture can't be rushed. We can't "microwave" it. The more you read the better you get at reading it, and the more you begin to understand. Our trouble is that we flip to a verse, read that one verse, and try to figure out immediately what it means. Another little tip is don't reach for the study Bible first. Wrestle with a text for yourself first before you look at the footnote in the study Bible. When we look first to the footnotes in the study Bible we typically don't dig any deeper and thus we stunt any growth we might make. Additionally, people make the mistake of thinking that the editor's footnotes are just as inspired as the scripture itself. I'm not saying to toss out your study Bibles, but simply saying to reach for them last instead of first.

With this said, the first important rule in interpreting scripture is context. Where does a particular verse fall in the chapter?  Where in the book is the chapter?  What type of Biblical literature are reading? Nobody would think of picking up a John Grisham novel turning to page 234 and then trying to get an idea of what is going on in the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, yet we do this all the time with the Bible. Take time to read the entire chapter, then place this chapter in the context of the book.

Context also means recongizing what type of Biblical literature you're reading. We read science fiction differently than we read poetry, and biography differently than we read history. In terms of scripture we find several different types of literature- law, history, poetry, wisdom sayings, and prophecy in the Old Testament. Turning to the New we find Gospels, history, and letters. In each we find that strangest of Biblical literature- apocalyptic. Without taking the space to discuss each of these I'd like to give some examples of the way genre affects how we read scripture. The Psalms can't be read as Law.  They record what are often bare human emotions- joy, grief, anger, praise, resentment, hate, love, etc. We can't read Psalm 137 and think that God endorses murder of children. We can't read Psalm 22 and think that God had actually abandoned David.

Proverbs tells us that if we train up a child in the way he should go that he won't soon depart from it. As a principle of wisdom it is true that children who are raised well generally turn out well. However, this proverb is not a promise from God that every child raised well will end up well. Apocalyptic literature isn't exactly the same as prophecy. We can't read the symbolism and imagery of Revelation, Daniel 7-12, and parts of Ezekiel in the same way we read Jeremiah or Amos.

We shouldn't read the Gospels as straightforward history. They do contain history, the people and events are real and actually happened I believe.  The key is that each of the Gospel writers crafted his work differently. Stories found in one may not be found in others.  There are frequently differences between how they are recorded. The sequence of events is sometimes different, the best example being the cleansing of the temple. John places this early in Jesus' ministry and the others place it near the end. This doesn't mean that one is right and another wrong.  It does mean that they weren't writing history as we know it and weren't bound by the conventions of modern history. You could even say that they were writing something more valuable and important than history. Each was trying to make a particular point about Christ Jesus and shaped his work accordingly.

My encouragement now is to pick up a Bible and just read. It's the written word of God. Enjoy it. Soak it up!

Go Where You Go and Do What You Do- #4

2010-10-28T12:11:00.002-04:00

In my last post I levelled some pretty serious charges against what I perceive to be the way many churches function. If that entry was akin to a diagnosis of some of the ills that plague the church, then today will be a modest suggestion of how to make the church stronger and healthier.

Evangelism- Too often evangelism is simply a recruitment method. One of the measures of a healthy church is that it regularly takes in new members by profession of faith instead of merely transfer of membership from another church. We need to focus on evangelism as inviting people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. This does not mean that we go door to door passing out tracts or asking people on the street if they've "been saved." It does mean that we always have an attentive heart to discern when people we encounter may indeed be searching. It means also being wise to discern when God's prevenient grace may already be drawing someone. Good evangelism requires developing relationships with unbelievers. From genuine trust and relationship come opportunities to share the faith.

Discipleship- Churches must be very intentional about discipleship and think seriously about how they can make disciples. Discipleship does not automatically result from attending church functions. In fact, churches should have the courage to scrap programs and activities that don't fit into its mission. My own denomination's spiritual forefather, John Wesley is a great historical example of discipleship. His good friend George Whitefield was the greatest preacher of his age. An 18th century Billy Graham, he toured up and down the colonies as well as in England drawing large crowds to his gatherings. Like Graham, his inspiring and gifted proclamation drew great numbers of conversions. Wesley was also a gifted preacher, though by most accounts not the equal of Whitefield. Wesley's preaching also produced large numbers of conversions. Whitefield left no spiritual legacy. However, Wesley's ministry created a movement that would become the Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church, and the Church of the Nazarene and other smaller denominations. What was the difference? It was discipleship. Wherever Wesley went he created small groups called societies that may be the equivalent to house churches. Additionally, these societies were divided into smaller groups called classes or bands that met regularly for prayer, study, and accountability. Churches today that are creating small groups are drawing from the Wesleyan model . Churches should be very intentional about creating small groups that meet for study, prayer, and accountability at times other than Sunday morning. Groups like this cannot be primarily for fellowship and socializing. Fellowship isn't bad, and can be very positive, but it is not the same as discipleship. A necessary part of discipleship is education. This education is partially instruction in the Bible and in the historic doctrines of the church. It can include very practical everyday life application. An important component too often forgotten in church is instruction in how to appropriate the Bible for yourself. Christians should know how to read and begin to understand. Without this they will fall easy prey to all sorts of junk that passes for Bible teaching on the internet, radio, and TV.

Service- Churches should be mission-minded. Just as individuals should be discerning to recognize others to whom God may be speaking, who might be searching; churches should be about the business of seeing where the Lord is at work so they can join in. In my opinion we need to jettison the frequently quoted adage that God has no hands but ours. He doesn't need us, we need him, and it is our privilege to be able to get in the action where the mighty hand of God is working. God's ultimate plan is to recreate the world and it is the church's role be a part of that grand work. Mission is never, ever so that we will receive a blessing by doing it or feel good for having done it. Mission is never, ever for recognition. Both of these are at heart self-serving. Instead, it is always out of obedience to God's command, out of thankfulness for what he's done for us, and of sincere desire to share the love of God without any regard to what we get or don't get out of it. Service must also be aimed at people's spiritual and physical needs. How sincere is it to try to get someone "saved" if we haven't shown any concern for physical needs. The other extreme is potentially worse. We can build houses, feed the hungry, etc. but if there's not a concern for people's spiritual health we are no better than and potentially worse than any of a myriad of philanthropic and governmental agencies.

Okay Church of Jesus Christ- Go where you go and do what you do!

Go Where You Go and Do What You Do- #3 (Or Shouldn't Do!)

2010-10-20T13:58:00.000-04:00

We go where we go, and do (oftentimes) what we shouldn't. I have a pretty strong conviction, even vision for the way the church of Christ should function, but that vision must be set in context of what I sense to be some serious weaknesses in the way people look at the church and in the way the church itself operates.

Recently, I read a book on the missional church that made some very pointed jabs at "program driven" churches. Though I had some serious misgivings about the book as a whole it made some very good points. Among these was that too often churches focus on programs as an end in themselves. This can lead to the notion that the more programs and ministries a church can offer, the better it is. If the church calendar for a week takes a whole bulletin page, the church would be better if it took two pages. The church operates like a smorgasbord. The more menu options you can toss at the parishioner (consumer) the better off you are.

The corollary to this smorgasbord view of the church is the way many folks look at the church. The church isn't something to which they belong, it is a provider of religious goods and services and they are the consumers. You select a church by visiting several, and "kicking the tires" so to speak. Along the way you learn what the options are at each one. What can this do for Dad as opposed to what the other can do for Mom, versus the one down the street that can do more for little Johnny and Susie. The selection of a church becomes nearly exactly like the selection of a new car. Because of this mindset, far more people are in love with their church than they are with the Lord.

When a car gets some miles on it things start to break down. We all know that oil changes, spark plugs, tire alignments and replacement come with the territory. Eventually though, repairs are needed. First it's an alternator, then a water pump, a few months later the A/C dies. As we start having to put significant dollars into repairs we ditch it and start shopping for a new car. So it is with churches in this model. We stay there until it no longer meets our needs or starts demanding too much from us. Then we start the shopping all over again.

Unfortunately, the institutional church reflects this mindset in how it measures itself. In measuring ourselves we measure the number of programs/ministries offered for various groups of people. Then we measure the number of participants in those groups. I'm not throwing stones here because my own denomination, which I dearly love, also falls prey to this. The end becomes the number of goods and services the church offers and the number of consumers. What doesn't get measured in this is far more important than what does get measured. This can't measure the spiritual growth of the membership: are non-believers becoming professing Christians, are nominal Christians becoming devoted followers of Christ, and the pillars of the church becoming even stronger pillars?

What can be done for this situation? I make no claims to have all the answers, but tune in next time to see what my own reflections are on how to improve it... (Stay Tuned!)

Go Where You Go and Do What You Do- #2

2010-10-14T15:38:00.000-04:00

Soon, it will be basketball season and I can hear ole' Woody Durham say in tight games "time to go where you go, and do what you do. Applied to the church, what does it mean to go where you go and do what you do? As we saw in the previous post- this means worship of the Living triune God.

Worship may be the most important thing a church does, but it is not all. A vital component of what a church does takes place outside the church doors. Ours is an inherently missional/evangelistic faith. The call to the great patriarch Abraham included this statement- "I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing" from Genesis 12. The selection of Abraham to be the "Father of many nations" was not simply a whim of the Almighty. God chose Abraham so that through him the rest of the world would be blessed. These chosen people were to be different, set apart, holy so that they could be a light to all the other peoples. This explains the harsh words of the prophets later on when the Hebew people started worshipping the false gods of their neighbors and following all the unjust, immoral practices of their neighbors.

Fast forward to the time of Christ. In the last words that Matthew records Jesus as saying we find the so-called great commission from Matthew 28. Folks who have a passing knowledge of the New Testament will know the words- "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." What all of our English translations miss is that word "go" isn't an imperitive command. It's a participle, so literally Jesus is saying "as you are going."

It is assumed that we will be going and doing. It's who we are. It's in our DNA. The people of God simply must be in mission to the world or they are not being faithful to the very reason they were called. We go and do, not because we must do it in order to please God. We don't do it so that we can feel good and get a blessing, (that still amounts to being self-serving.) We go and do simply as a result of who we are. The people of God think first of how they can come to know their Lord better. As they know him better they gain eyes to see where God might be at work around them so they can join in.

For these reasons any mentality that views the church as an institution is antithetical to the Gospel. It does not exist for itself, its worth and wealth cannot be measured in dollars and cents. The best finance committee therefore is one where the essential quality is an understanding of mission and stewardship. Missing this crucial point makes the church no different from any other institution- whether it's a bank, restaurant, or non-profit. The church is an organism with Christ as its head and exists so that the world may come to know God through Jesus Christ.

Go Where You Go and Do What You Do- #1

2010-10-07T11:11:00.000-04:00

I proudly claim being a UNC graduate and fan. For us Tar Heels "football is fun, but basketball is religion." I've watched countless basketball games in person and on TV. Sometimes I can actually watch the TV with the volume muted while listening to the Tar Heel sports network on the radio. The play by play voice for Carolina football and basketball is Woody Durham, a man who has become an institution in nearly 40 years broadcasting UNC games on the radio. When a basketball game is coming down the wire he will frequently say that it's time to "go where you go and do what you do." In this case he's encouraging his listeners to pull out whatever good luck charms they may have. It's time to put on the old T-shirt from college or sit in the right chair.  Whatever superstittion you may have, it's time to do it. Silly it is because none of us listening to the radio can affect the outcome of a basketball game, but it is a brilliant way to make nameless, faceless listeners become a part of the drama.

Over the next several blogs I want to muse some on what it is that we as a church do. We gather regularly and enjoy each other's company but so does the Rotary Club.  We have our own particular rituals and ceremonies that may seem somewhat strange to the uninitiated, but so do the Free Masons. We try to look after the sick and the poor, but so does the United Way, Meals on Wheels, and countless food banks around the country. What then makes the Church any different?

The first, and I would argue, most important thing the church does is worship. Revelation in chapters 4,5,7,11,15, and 19 offers spectacular and moving visions of worship around the throne of the Almighty. In these worship scenes we find mighty cherubim, the unnamed elders, the innumerable hosts of heaven, and then the entire company of those who've been redeemed by the Lamb all joined in worship. This is instructive for us. First, it tells us what our eternal occupation will be in the Kingdom; we will be worshipping. We find that worship is corporate. The entire heavenly host and all the redeemed are involved in the worship. Far too often in our churches worship seems to be something that a handful of musicians, worship leaders, clergy do and the congregation is simply an audience. Third, the object of our worship is always God Almighty and his Son Jesus Christ. God is the audience and we the congregation are the participants, the worshippers. The key questions for worship are not: What do I prefer? What will bring in the young people? What did my grandparents do? The key questions are these: What will honor God? What draws people into a closer relationship with God? What is glorifying to God? What gives the worshipper an experience of the divine.

Next week in our church I will begin a six week series where we will explore some of the hallmarks of Christian worship. In this we will learn why we worship when we do. We we learn what the historic elements of worship are. We will consider the role of music in worship. We will discover that such things as architecture and furniture arrangement can speak louder than any preacher. We will learn about the Christian year, the meaning behind the seasons like Advent, Lent, Pentecost, etc. as well as some of the other lesser known holidays many churches observe such as Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Reformation Day, All Saints Day, Christ the King Sunday, etc. To my good Church of the Covenant friends I'll resume this conversation next Wednesday.   Now, church of Christ, "go where you go and do what you do."

Sacred Cows #5- "Judge Not!"

2010-09-30T11:50:00.000-04:00

The most quoted Bible verse is probably still John 3:16 (at least according to BibleGateway) but some say that another one is gaining ground on that perennial favorite. The one that may be gaining ground is from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount- "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I'd like to offer a few remarks about how some misuse this verse today and also about how it should be interpreted.

The problem with how this verse is commonly used today is that it is used as a blanket statement that one should never make value judgments. It becomes then another way of supporting one of the characteristics of post-modernism- that truth is relative, that there is no absolute truth. This injunction- "Judge Not" has been used as an excuse not to oppose everything from adultery to theft to pornography. In this way- one can see someone doing what is clearly unjust by traditional standards, but be absolved from any responsibility to act. Had Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others not made a judgment about Nazi influence in the German church they would never have taken the bold stand they did. If the black ministers of Birmingham, including Martin Luther King, Jr., not judged the injutice of society the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't have happened.

The Bible does in fact tell us to judge. Read 1st Corinthians 5 and tell me Paul's saying we shouldn't judge. For that matter Jesus himself describes casting out of the church those who are unrepentant in Matthew 18. We are told to "test the spirits" in 1st John 4. We are in fact called upon to make judgments and be discerning repeatedly in scripture. This is but part and parcel of being the light of the world.

What did Jesus mean then with "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" One obvious meaning is that ultimate judgment is left for God. It's not my call to say what the eternal fate of any one particular individual or group is. Often we hear this question- "Will the person in the unknown tribe in the rain forest be condemned even though he's never heard the gospel?" The safest answer based upon Matthew 7 is to leave that hypothetical person's fate in the hands of a just and merciful God. Beyond that, this verse is clearly warning against judgmentalism. If we are narrow and harsh, showing no mercy in our dealings with others, should we dare to presume that God is going to show extravagant grace toward us? This verse is also a healthy reminder that we shouldn't presume to judge without knowing the facts of a case. If the facts and evidence show a person to be guilty of this or that offense- we cannot say "judge not." However, we cannot presume another's guilt or innocence without knowing the facts.

So dear Christian friend. My counsel is to be sparing in your judgments. Don't rush to judgment. On the other hand, when evil, injustice, and oppression rear their ugly heads it is our duty to rise to the challenge and judge them for what they are and oppose them with every fiber of our being.

Sacred Cows #4- "God needed another angel."

2010-09-23T16:49:00.002-04:00

We humans have a need to be able to understand events. We are programmed, I suppose, to want to interpret the events that happen around us. This explains what passes for condolences and explanations at times of great grief or turmoil. Phrases like, "I believe everything happens for a reason," "God needed another angel," "God needed Sally Sue more than we did," or this one to parents who've lost a child born with tragic birth defects, "God doesn't make junk." I will grant that each of these statements are well-intentioned. On the other hand they represent the most horrid theology.

Let me begin with the phrase in the title of this post.  It is pure mythology that humans turn into angels when we die. The Bible simply never says that, ever.  Look it up.  Jesus describes the resurrected as being like the angels in neither marrying or being given in marriage. The great worship scenes of Revelation always describe the myriad of angels separately from the redeemed.  This is bad enough, as it is, but the greatest error of this statement is the same great error of the others.

All of these well-intentioned phrases place the blame on God for all of the tragedies of life.  When we tell the grieving mother that "God needed another angel" after her child was killed by a reckless driver what are we really saying? We are saying, without so many words, that God caused the driver to kill her child. And that is supposed to bring comfort??  When we tell a family rocked by sudden calamity, everything happens for a reason what are we saying. We are saying 1) that we are controlled by fate that is beyond the help or control of God, or 2) that God made the calamity. What these statements do is ascribe to the Almighty God who loves us so much that he gave his only son for us, all sorts of evil. God caused the abdominal aneurysm. God caused the massive heart attack. God caused the person to drink too much and get behind the wheel of the car that kills the toddler.  If we truly believe such things it's no wonder that militant atheism is all the rage in the popular culture. I wouldn't want to believe in such a god myself.

I think that one possible reason why we say things like this comes from misunderstanding Romans 8:28 which says that all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to his purpose. This does not say that God causes the evil circumstances we encounter every day. What it does affirm is that the omnipotent hand of God can cause some good to come from the evil we see around us. I once heard a woman say that her breast cancer was the best thing that ever happened to her. This does not mean that God caused it, but miraculously, God had worked all manner of transformations in her life as a result of it.  Tragedy and evil are the result of our living in a fallen world, a world dominated by "the prince of the power of the air."  It is the power of God to thwart the work of the evil one by making something good come about.

Repeatedly we ask or hear people ask, "where was God when __________ happened?" The answer is that he was right there in the midst of it. God is with us in the midst of our worst suffering and that is the good news of scripture.  Scripture doesn't promise that we are always rescued from peril, but that God is present to lead us through the peril, as David put in Psalm 23, even when we're in "the valley of the shadow of death, thou art with me." That is the truth behind other words of Romans 8, "that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Sacred Cows #3- Going to Heaven When We Die

2010-09-16T16:05:00.002-04:00

Of the things I've posted so far, this may be the most confusing because what many folks think they know from the Bible isn't really there, yet what is really there they don't know. In fact, what most folks think the the Bible says, and what is commonly heard at funerals is just a warmed up version of 2nd century gnosticism.

A common view of the afterlife runs something like this. When we die our souls go to heaven and that's the end of the story. At times this is embellished to talk about our souls escaping the prison of the body. Eternal life in this view is purely about souls in heaven for all eternity. Unfortunately, we hear this preached all too frequently in funeral sermons.

Allow me to explain the problems with this view before I delve into what the Bible makes clear. In the first century after the New Testament era the most damaging heresy the church faced was gnosticism. Among the views of the gnostics was the notion that everything that was physical or fleshly was evil. In gnostic thought, salvation was obtained through special "gnosis" or knowledge. Salvation amounted to souls, spirits escaping the evil flesh of this world. In this view the god who created the world in the Old Testament was a bad god, because the physical created order was bad. Likewise, Jesus could not have actually come in the flesh because the flesh of a physical body is evil.

What then happens to us when we die? The Bible isn't very clear about this. We know that we (our souls at least) are with Christ in some way. In Luke we read of Lazarus in "paradise." Paul writes that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Beyond this the scriptures aren't very clear. More commonly this state is thought to be conscious, though some Christians have argued that this is an unconscious state- "soul sleep." The existence the believer has upon death is not the final act, it is in fact an intermediate state. The final joy of heaven, an eternity worshipping around the throne of the Lamb lies at the end as a final act.

The final act is what should be proclaimed as loudly as possible at every funeral. Black Gospel preachers of the 20th century have been described by some writers as "God's trombones." At funerals every minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should declare as loudly and clearly as a trombone that our ultimate hope is resurrection. Resurrection is not simply souls going to heaven, it is nothing short of the raising of the dead back to life incorruptible and imperishable. The great creeds of the church include a phrase about the "resurrection of the body." This is not merely a statement about Jesus' resurrection, it is a declaration that we too who are in Christ will one day rise as well, as Paul makes so clear in 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3 and elsewhere. The resurrection is a part of the great recreation of the created order John describes near the end of Revelation when he sees the "new heavens and the new earth." Anything less than a resurrection of the body means that God doesn't defeat death, only arranges a negotiated truce with it. In short, the grave is not the final resting place of our dearly departed loved ones in the faith.

Sacred Cows #2

2010-09-08T22:00:00.000-04:00

The next sacred cow to hit the slaughtering block is this: God loves us just the way we are. Right from the start I need to state absolutely that God loves all people no matter how good or bad (by human standards) they may be. In one of the most well-known verses of scripture Jesus himself said "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him should not die." The problem with this statement is that by itself it does not say enough about the relationship between God and humanity, between God and the world.

To state without clarification simply that God loves all of us just as we are has enormous dangerous implications. God does love each of us as we are, but is not content that we remain that way. God loves the world as it is, but does that mean that he loves the way the world is right now, though it is with sin, evil, wars, hatred, injustice and the like. The answer is "of course not." God's plan for us is remake us in Jesus image, and by extension to remake the world. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the world are antithetical. In one, the meek inherit the earth, in the other they are crushed. In one the merciful receive mercy, in the other they are exploited. To deny this is to say that God loved Hitler, Stalin, Attila, or any of dozens of madmen just as they were, and that he was happy with the way they were.

Think of what is gets cut out with the simple unqualified statement that God loves us just as we are. With it go any notion of original sin, confession, repentance. The Biblical faith is that we are indeed sinful and left lost left to ourselves. The Biblical faith is that there is much that is wrong with the world, much that should be resisted with every fiber of our beings. The Biblical faith is that God loves us as we are, but isn't content that we remain that way.

My friends, God loves us because he is love in himself. God's love for us is not rooted in any worthiness we have, but simply in his goodness. God loves us inspite of who and what we are and do. In this simple fact is enormous comfort. When we feel ourselves broken, we know that the almight loves us inspite of that. When we fall astray he loves us despite that. Inspite of all that is wrong with us God hated the sin and evil of the world so much that he sent his Son to deal with it.

Sacred Cows #1- "The Sinner's Prayer"

2010-08-31T09:03:00.001-04:00

This is the first in a series of blog entries aimed at poking fun at some of the sacred cows we Christians cling to. These are primarily practices and beliefs that we cling to, yet which have precious little to do with what the Bible actually says. I suppose that most folks reading this will find their toes being crunched a time or two. That's okay, I'm aiming to promote reflection on how what we think we believe is related to scripture.

The sacred cow on the slaughtering block today is the ubiquitous "sinner's prayer." You've heard it a million times. The preacher (often on TV) will encourage his listeners to do a repeat-after-me prayer that admits sin and professes faith in Christ. Those who followed along are then ensured that their place in heaven is now secure forever.

The first great problem with this is that it truly amounts to "cheap grace." When this is added to the doctrine of perserverance of the saints (once saved always saved) the result is disastrous for the Christian life. The result is the belief that the Christian life is simply being able to mutter some words that really aren't your own. You did the repeat after me prayer and now your place in Heaven is secure and you don't ever have to do anything else. Gone is any notion of sanctification, of growth in faith, of true discipleship. Jesus amounts to nothing but a "get out of Hell free card."

These prayers really are the product of the preacher who starts them. Anyone can mutter the words in response, whether they believe anything or not. The old saying that "talk is cheap" is true. What you say isn't your own words, and may or may not have any relation to any faith you have. This form of prayer is the height of gimmickry as it leads to false notions of discipleship, while at the same time enabling the one leading them to think that they have actually led others to the Lord. Let me put it another way. If a person believes, yet can't find the right words to utter in prayer, does anyone actually believe that God won't pardon him. In fact, we're told specifically that having the right words doesn't matter. Paul tells us in Romans that the Spirit intercedes for us "with groanings too deep for words when we don't know how to pray.

What does the Bible prescribe for salvation? Repeatedly we are told that faith/belief is needed. At times we are told that repentance is required. Romans 10:9 adds "confess with your mouth." The exact wording to a "sinners prayer" simply isn't there. Salvation comes from faith, end of story, and faith involves all these things- repentance, profession, and mental belief. Faith, biblically speaking, implies active trust. Saving faith involves acknowledgement of sin, will result in change of heart and actions. Rest assured guilty sinner, God knows your heart. When you truly have faith God knows and pardons, and that faith will lead to works of piety, will lead to true repentance, and an earnest desire to model your life after Christ.

On the road again...

2010-08-21T23:25:00.000-04:00

The pants were getting a little tight. A little more flab around the middle than I like. I realized that I needed to either set a goal for myself or just toss the running shoes in the trash. So the notion struck me earlier this week that it's not too late to find a good race to sign up for this fall. Thought about Paris Mountain 20K, got really excited about maybe the Kiaway half marathon in early December. Registration was closed. So Elizabeth found the Thunder Road Marathon and Half-Marathon in Charlotte on Dec. 11. She read a course description someone had written about the course. It described the course as being moderately difficult with lots of rolling hills. To that my beloved son said, "Daddy, I don't think you want to do that one, it would be too hard for you."

Yes, I'm 43 going on 986, am thinner on top than I'd like to be, and have let myself go a little since I had a good run at the Paris Mountain race last winter. I also know that in a dead sprint I can't be as fast as I could when I first started running some 15 years ago. Fortunately for me stubbornness and hardheadedness don't go away with age. So my sweet son inadvertently laid down the gauntlet and I'll be there in Charlotte ready to run. Ready once again to be like the ancient Spartan warriors- aiming to "come back carrying my shield or being carried on it." Then beyond that in Charlotte, the full enchilada at the Myrtle Beach Marathon in February assuming I stay healthy.

It won't be easy, but seldom in life is anything truly worthwhile achieved easily. Furthermore, it is doable but only with consistent effort. The competition is ever present every time I run. It is the nagging voice in my mind that says, "come on now just stop, you really don't have to run today. It's too hot, too cold, too rainy, I'm to tired, etc." It is the recurring urge to compare what I did in each run with what I thought was possible on that given day. During the race there are a couple of other opponents- the guy behind me and the guy in front of me. All the time though, the greatest opponent is within.

Knowing God's Will

2010-08-10T22:22:00.000-04:00

How often do we here someone ask or say that they want to know God's will for his/her life? How many books, sermons, lectures, studies are aimed at enabling people to know what God has in store for them? For everything from what church to attend, what career to pursue, who to marry, where to live, down to mundane matters- red car or blue, we want to know God's will. Call it the curmudgeon in me, but I confess that I've become more and more skeptical of the enterprise we know of as discovering the Lord's will. Okay preacher, but what about Jeremiah 29:11, about plans for wholeness and not to harm? That was spoken to the weeping prophet as Jerusalem was being laid waste by the Babylonians and was a promise to restore the city and land, a promise that was indeed fulfilled beginning in 539 BC.
My own ruminations on this lead me to think that there is much less in scripture about this topic than what we think or wish. More and more I find myself thinking that God's plan or purpose for our lives is known in retrospect, in hindsight than in foresight. Scripture is replete with examples of people who obeyed the Lord even though they did not know where He was leading them. In fact, faith itself is stepping out when we don't know everything, how things will work. As one minister put it recently, we can know the heart of God even if we seldom know the mind of God.
So, preacher, does God have a plan for each person's life? I would say absolutely yes. At rock bottom God wills that all people come to faith and repentance through Jesus Christ. Beyond that, I still would say that God has a plan, but that it is seldom our place to know beforehand what it is. The plan is not determinitive. We can't look at "God's Plan" for our lives just as others seek out wisdom from psychics, "spiritual advisors" and the like that we see alongside the road. For those who find themselves in the happy place of truly living in His will the result is an incredible joy and peace, but God seldom places billboards in our path telling us what to do. My own opinion is that relatively few people truly find themselves truly in God's will, living his plan for their lives. If such were true the numbers of people who seek fulfillment in everything but the Almight wouldn't so high. If such were true the world wouldn't be so full of needless violence, hatred, murder, and the like.
Again preacher, what should I do??? Instead of seeking to know the mind of God, of trying to read the spiritual "tea leaves," just try to know God. In prayer, in reading of scripture, in worship, etc. all those things that we have known as means of grace, we come to know our maker better. As we simply know him better, God guides us where he wants us to be without our even knowing it.

In Defense of "Creeds"

2010-08-01T22:35:00.000-04:00

In reviewing some proposed Sunday School material last week I came across an interesting phrase. The publisher of one of the curricula I looked over had a statement of faith which proudly proclaimed that they followed "no creed but Christ." As I reflected on that, I couldn't help but think that the writers probably meant one thing, but in effect were saying something quite different. To the extent that they were saying that they followed one Lord, or one faith, I certainly agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, they did not say that followed no lord but Christ. A creed, at its simplest is a statement of faith, a doctrine that differentiates one group from another. The very statement faith that they posted on their website was a contradiction of their proclamation that they had no creed. To say that they follow no creed is to quite literally say that they have no beliefs about Christ. All of the things that the Church has taught and believed about him for nearly 2,000 years- virgin birth, atonement, crucifixion, resurrection of the body, that he will return in glory at some point in the future- are in fact a creed. To affirm no creed is tantamount to saying that there are no set doctrines that set us as Christians apart from any other faith. The phrase, "no creed but Christ," sounds good but beyond that rings very hollow. Going back to the first centuries of the Christian faith, creeds like the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, or the much longer didache were used to teach new converts the faith. In the case of the Nicene Creed the very words of the creed defined in the best human words possible the incomprehensible relationship between Father and Son in the Trinity. In doing so it was a defense against the Arian Heresy, one of the most destructive in church history.
To the extent that the writers of this curriculum don't like reciting creeds in worship, that's another matter entirely. That's a matter of worship preferences. To prefer a very non-liturgical worship, and as such prefer not to do a creed, that's a perfectly respectable viewpoint. In that sense it is in the same vein as preferring ancient hymns such as "Be Thou My Vision." over the the popular Darlene Zscheche praise songs or vice versa. It's preferring guitar over organ or opting for a cappella instead of either. As for me, I still like to hear lots of voice combine to say in unison, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth..." or "I belieave in Jesus Christ the Lord, the giver of life... who is of one being with the Father..." In the midst of so much that can separate us from one another, of so many divisions within the Body of Christ, the united voices still speak powerfully to me.

Opening Shots

2010-07-29T22:57:00.000-04:00

For starters, to answer some questions. Why this title? As Sunday approaches each week sometimes eagerly anticipated, other times viewed with trepidation, depending on how responsive I am to the Spirit's leading on a sermon I find myself musing over the week's text. I typically call this allowing the text and my own thoughts on it to "marinate" much as I will marinate a good piece of meat before putting it on the grill. Sermons don't fall from the sky gift-wrapped for me, though I wish they did. Instead they must marinate. To use another cooking analogy, like good chili they must simmer a few hours.
What about that website name? What gives with "One Good Port?" The short answer is that this was the heart of the title of my M.A. Thesis in history from my former life. A Union Navy officer opined that if they could seize Beaufort Harbor, NC they would "have one good port." He was prophetic in that the harbor did prove to be decisive in stopping the blockade running in and out of Wilmington, NC. For the Christian though, these words have a much more important meaning. Various times each week we the church gather in worship, study, fellowship, etc. These meetings are our port. We can return there from time to time to escape the storms that life throws at us, to restore our souls, but ultimately our mission can no more be accomplished there than a warship can accomplish its mission without leaving port. The Christian life is following "the Way" out there in the real world between gatherings. Even more importantly, though, we all have another port; another safe harbor. Ultimately Christ Jesus is our port. He is our shelter from all the ills of the world. In Him we are forgiven, healed, and restored. So as you read this, put into port regularly, He's a really good one.