Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 6B)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along


Which Jesus is The Revised Jesus?

“Perhaps ‘the revised Jesus’ you refer to is the Jesus of the four gospels.” That was the opening comment to a series of questions emailed to me which I posted in the last article (Part 6A).

If I read that comment (and the other questions) correctly, and if I’m reading The Jesus Seminar scholars correctly, it is a very good summary of how I think Marcus Borg and the other Jesus Seminar scholars would state the question at hand. All we have to do is change the questions to positive comments using the writings of The Jesus Seminar scholars themselves.

My summary of The Jesus Seminar’s concept of Jesus

1. The Jesus of the four gospels is not “the real Jesus”. The gospels, as written, revised history so as to present a concept of Jesus that included the mythology that developed over the years between the crucifixion and the writing of the gospels. The result was that the biblical Jesus became more than just a man.
   
   
2. In particular, the fourth gospel (John) put words into Jesus’ mouth that made it appear that Jesus himself knew that he was the Messiah and more—“the way, the truth, and the life”—the only way to God. Then Paul theologized about Jesus in his letters; and his writings added to the growing revisionary history making it seem like Jesus was co-equal with God and that Jesus’ death was the means to our salvation.
   


3. In addition, over the next 250-300 years, as the church grew and became accepted and institutionalized, church leaders revised history even more: through their theologies, church councils (and the creeds which came out of those councils), and especially in selecting certain books to be included in the canon of Scripture and rejecting others, they formalized the mythology which had developed about Jesus (e.g. Jesus dying for our sins, the physical resurrection, etc.). None of that mythology was historically “true”, the scholars would say (i.e. you could not have captured it with a video camera). But it could be considered spiritually true because in believing it, people did seem to develop a deep spiritual relationship with God; and their lives were consequently changed.
   


4. The scholars would say that, as historians, they have been able to get behind the layers of stories, interpretations, and metaphors and come up with a concept of Jesus that is historically more true to the original Jesus than the picture presented in the four Gospels, the rest of the New Testament, and the later creeds of the church.Therefore, they would say that theirs is not a “revised Jesus”, but the “true Jesus”; and the Jesus the church has preached for the past 1900 plus years is the “revised Jesus”.

Conclusion:

Question 7 in the last post was, “Why do we need faith if doctrine provides all the answers?” Surely that does not mean to imply that we don’t need doctrine because faith provides all the answers. No, both the question and the last sentence are hyperbole. We will have both faith and doctrine whichever way we go.

As I quoted Edwards in the last post, “The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar about Jesus—indeed, anyone’s conclusions about any figure of history—are ultimately questions of faith based on the best evidence possible. That being the case, the proper question to ask is which reconstructions best fit the evidence we possess.”

Traditionalists have faith and doctrine, and faith that their doctrine is true.

Non-traditionalists have faith and doctrine, and faith that their doctrine is true.

The question for each Christian is who to believe. I admit that I am an amateur when it comes to the specialized study of the type done by those in The Jesus Seminar and other New Testament scholars. I don’t know enough to write the books myself, so I have to read both sides (see “The Meaning of Jesus—Two Visions” by Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright) and then choose which one to believe.

For me the choice is whether to believe almost 2,000 years of Christian faith and doctrine from those who tend to believe the Bible is reliable, rather than almost 200 years of the faith and doctrine of those who tend to believe the Bible is not reliable. After all, if we discard the Bible (or 88% of it), why should we believe anything about Jesus? What could possibly be left that is of value for the ultimate questions of life?

In the next chapter of Edwards’ book, we will look at the question: “How Reliable Is The New Testament as a Historical Document?”

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 6A)

Questions About a “Revised Jesus” and “Revised Gospel”

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

In my last email introducing the latest post (A Seminar on The Jesus Seminar), I talked about a “revised Jesus” and a “revised Gospel” as the product of The Jesus Seminar. The “revised Jesus” is what I also described as the “acceptable Jesus” that I see presented in the “secular media”.

In response to the email and the article, I received an email with the following comments and questions. (I copied the email verbatim and just re-formatted it for better readability online.)

Rudy:

1. Perhaps "the revised Jesus" you refer to is the Jesus of the four gospels.


2. Do you suppose that "the acceptable Jesus" you mention is the Jesus of councils and creeds and systematic theologies (i.e. orthodoxy)?


3. Can we know "the real Jesus" through countless layers of interpretation and reinterpretation, beginning with the many and various interpretations of Jesus in the very first century?


4. Is there a distinct difference (and unbridgeable chasm) between "the real Jesus" (i.e. the actual person and what he actually did) and "the Christ of faith" (i.e. who we believe Jesus was and what he means to us)?


5. Should we dismiss the work of reputable scholars, many of them sincere believers (e.g. Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan), without giving their methodologies and conclusions careful (and prayerful) consideration?


6. If they are partly, even mostly, correct, how does that threaten our faith and practice as Christians?


7. Why do we need faith if doctrine provides all the answers?


8. Are all media outlets not in the service of "doctrinally-correct" authorities "secular" and not to be trusted?


9. Are such blanket statements helpful to our search for deeper truth? Just wondering.

Grace and Peace, Bruce Greer.

I really appreciate such comments and questions. This study is designed to be a dialogue, and with such comments we will all learn more. I won’t be able to answer the entire email this time, so look for follow-up posts in the next few days.

It may help if you copy and print the last post (A Seminar on The Jesus Seminar) and this one, so you can see how these questions go with the original article.

For now, just three comments on the email I received. First, thanks Bruce, for sending the comments and allowing me to share them with the other participants in the study.

Second, it is clear that there are two quite different perspectives here. Edwards’ book takes one viewpoint (which I share); and Bruce’s questions take a different viewpoint. It’s not just a cliché to say that even though we disagree, we can agree to disagree agreeably.

And third, I’ll intentionally leave specific comments on the questions for the next post, giving everyone time to understand the issues and formulate responses for themselves. To leave a comment that everyone can see, click on the lightly-colored word “comments” below to bring up the comments page (or you can also email your comments to me as Bruce did, and I will share them with the group).

Jesus And Salvation Series (Part 6)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

A SEMINAR ON "THE JESUS SEMINAR"

Unless you’ve been in a theological seminary or graduate program in religion, you’ve probably not heard of “The Jesus Seminar” before. Yet, you have very probably been influenced by its work. That work is what I mentioned in the last post about an “acceptable Jesus”.

A Christmas or Easter special on “Jesus of Nazareth” almost certainly has a script that tries to show Jesus as a man who influenced people, uttered wise sayings, performed some “miraculous healings”, and who was thought of by his disciples as possibly being the expected Jewish messiah. It will not speak of Jesus as the Son of God or Savior.

If the crucifixion of Jesus is included at all, its theological significance for traditional Christianity will be avoided. The resurrection will either be avoided entirely or, if mentioned, it will be introduced with something like, “His disciples were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead.” It almost certainly will not be treated as an historical fact. That is the influence of The Jesus Seminar.

A Brief Seminar on “The Jesus Seminar”:

• Started in 1985 with 30 scholars resuming the “quest for the historical Jesus” (i.e. they wanted to “…inquire simply, rigorously after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said.” ) Over the years a number of other scholars have participated in the Seminar.


• Published “The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus”, and other books. “The Five Gospels” (the ones from the New Testament plus the “Gospel of Thomas”) was the result of an examination of all the known writings with sayings attributed to Jesus with no privilege or extra weight given to those in the New Testament. They were studied “historically”, not theologically.


• Used a unique method of determining which words they thought were “authentic words of Jesus”. They concluded that only 18% of the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him. “Only one statement in the Gospel of Mark…is judged to have come with certainty from Jesus: ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’(Mark 12:17).” (Edwards, page 27). And nothing from the Gospel of John could with certainty be traced back to Jesus, according to the Seminar scholars.

To reach this conclusion every scholar voted on each saying by contributing a colored bead:

red: Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.

pink: Jesus probably said something like this.

gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.

black: Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.

Then a weighted formula was used to determine how to print each saying in the final publication. Read Edwards' explanation on page 28 under “Criteria of Authority” to see the three principles they used to consider whether a saying was authentically from Jesus or not.

Summary and Analysis:

No one is completely objective, historians included (or maybe I should say, especially historians). The very act of writing an article or a book necessitates selecting certain items for inclusion and discarding others. Otherwise a book would never be completed.

Following in the footprints of Rationalism and Naturalism, the Seminar scholars started with the assumption that the historical Jesus was just a man, not the Son of God that the church later proclaimed him to be. He was a remarkable man, and therefore worthy of study, but nothing like the New Testament portrays him.

With that assumption in mind, the sayings attributed to Jesus that did not fit the pattern were discarded. What emerged was someone most Christians would not recognize. As one of the scholars wrote:

“First let us say what Jesus was not.

1. He never claimed to be the Son of God.
   
2. He never claimed to be the Messiah.


3. He was not an apocalyptic prophet, announcing the imminent end of the world.


4. He was not the founder of Christianity.


5. He was not a Christian.”

Another scholar, rejecting any divinity of Jesus, sketches a picture of Jesus using “four broad strokes”: (1) a spirit person; (2) a teacher of wisdom; (3) a social prophet; and (4) a movement founder.

Edwards, in the book we are studying, says “The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar about Jesus—indeed, anyone’s conclusions about any figure of history—are ultimately questions of faith based on the best evidence possible. That being the case, the proper question to ask is which reconstructions best fit the evidence we possess.”

My conclusion is that when it comes to choosing which reconstruction best fits the evidence, I have to ask, “Why should I accept the Jesus of The Jesus Seminar as being more authentic than the Jesus of the New Testament and of 2000 years of church teaching?"

The Jesus of the New Testament changed history and has changed my life. I’m still trying to figure out why anyone would want to have faith in the Jesus of The Jesus Seminar.

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 5)

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

The Search for an “Acceptable Jesus”

When you see a magazine article or a television program about Jesus (usually at Christmas or Easter) it will almost certainly be a “Jesus” who is acceptable in secular circles—not the Jesus you read about in the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible and of Christian tradition is an affront to the secular multiculturalism and moral relativism which is dominant among opinion leaders in 21st Century America and Europe.

The “acceptable Jesus” will be a wise man, a teacher, a miracle-worker maybe, a social prophet definitely—in short, a man. He may even be married and have children (as in “The DaVinci Code”). He will not be the Savior of the world or the Son of God.

As Edwards says in Chapter One (page 9), “The Jesus who interests the modern world is Jesus as a spiritual personality who is recoverable by scholars, historians, and social scientists, not the Jesus proclaimed from pulpits. The ‘Sunday Jesus’ is suspected of having been tarnished by legend and dogma.”

Over the past 200 years or so there have been three rounds of a “quest for the historical Jesus”-- what was supposed as the “real” Jesus instead of the figure the church came to proclaim as the Christ, the Savior of the world.

The first quest is seen in Albert Schweitzer’s book written about 1910, “Quest of the Historical Jesus”, which summed up the liberal approach in over 100 years of debate. It separates the “Christ of the church” from the “Enlightenment Jesus”—who by the scholars’ methodology was stripped of anything supernatural.

The second quest (taking place in the early to mid 20th Century) tried to get beyond the “myths” that they saw as a projection of the beliefs of the church, and through a study of the forms of oral tradition discover what the church believed. That was because they felt we can’t know anything about who Jesus actually was.

Edwards summarized what the 2nd Quest scholars believed like this: “The early church transposed its views onto Jesus in the four Gospels, and thus the Gospels tell us not who Jesus was, but what the church believed him to be. In so doing, the hypothesis concludes, the early church obscured for the most part the real Jesus from historical recovery.”

The third quest (since the late 1980’s) is seen primarily in the proponents and the critics of “The Jesus Seminar” (which is the subject of Chapter 2, so we’ll get to more of that later). For now, I’ll just quote Edwards (page 20): “The chief invention of the Third Quest is the attempt to understand the historical Jesus through the lenses of the social sciences, cross-cultural anthropology, and the ideology of liberation.” The Jesus Seminar scholars are not as interested in what Jesus taught, as in what the cultural conditions were that influenced Jesus.

The common assumption that led to radical results in all three quests is that of the philosophy of Naturalism. That is, "the rules of the game” require that “all events must be accounted for by natural causes rather than by supernatural ones…”. Reason and Rationalism could supposedly lead us to the truth that faith and religious authority had obscured.

However, there was one problem—the scholars’ reasoning started with an assumption that pre-determined the end result. If the Deistic god of the Enlightenment would not intrude into history, then obviously Jesus could not have come from God. Jesus’ life and his effect on others must be explained away as due to some cause other than what the Bible claimed.

As we shall see in the next chapter on The Jesus Seminar, though, the only way an “acceptable Jesus” can be obtained is to radically excise those parts of the New Testament that don’t fit the desired outcome.

The New Testament (as taught in 2000 years of orthodox Christianity) may not present an “acceptable Jesus”; but Truth often confronts us with what we don’t wish to accept. In the end, though, Truth is more satisfying than political correctness. Truth afflicts the comfortable even as it comforts the afflicted.

Jesus and Salvation series - part 4

The Foundation Being Laid

How would you approach a subject like “Is Jesus The Only Savior?” if you were writing such a book?

Would you start by appealing to scripture? Come up with a list of reasons why you think Jesus is the only savior? Then compare Jesus with the founders of other religions, and of course they would compare negatively, right? That might make you feel good, but it would repel those you want to try to convince. Edwards takes a different approach.

The study this summer is about to go in a direction that will seem foreign to many. Edwards saw the need to lay down a foundation that will support the structure of evidence that will eventually answer his question. The foundation may seem strange and may raise some questions like: Where is he going with this? Why did he go off on this tangent? and How will this help answer my questions about talking with others about Jesus as the Savior?

As you saw in the outline of the book listed in Part 2, the foundation includes such subjects as the Quest for the Historical Jesus, The Jesus Seminar, the reliability of the New Testament, and Postmodernism. If these subjects are new to you, it may be quite a ride, but in the end it will be worth it. You will have a stronger foundation yourself.

The culture in which we live is not likely to become friendlier to Christianity soon. Moral relativism, multiculturalism, and instant worldwide communications that put us in contact with people of all backgrounds will tempt us all to either retreat to the safety of the church building or let go and float with the current. Whether you think of Edwards’ material as a foundation or as an anchor to hold you against a strong current, it will be important background material for the later chapters. Enjoy!

Jesus and Salvation Series (Part 3)

Metaphors Of Our Cultural Shift

Welcome to the Summer 2006 study for the Koinonia Class of Calvary Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado. We’re looking at the issue of Jesus and Salvation, using the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior” [James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)]. We encourage each person to buy a copy and follow along.

In his Introduction, titled “The Shore and the Current”, Edwards explains why this apologetic is needed. There has been a massive shift away from a respect for religion (and Christianity in particular) by those who shape our culture and influence public opinion.

Movies, television, magazines, books, universities, and the amplified voices of those who enforce Political Correctness have all made it harder for a Christian to speak up and say “I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”.

Rather, it is more common to hear someone talk about their “mix-and-match religion”. In “The DaVinci Code” movie the Opus Dei leader Bishop Aringarosa rejects “cafeteria Catholicism” in which people feel free to pick and choose which parts of the Catholic faith they want to incorporate in their own personally-devised faith. To see what he means, check out “Cafeteria Catholicism” for the perspective that describes the cafeteria approach and sees it as a good thing—the dominant view of the culture in which we live.

The point is that people want to design their own religion to suit. As a Realtor, I often see a similar phenomenon. A client will say, “I like this kitchen, the open floor plan of the first house we saw, and the location of the last house. Too bad we can’t pick out the best parts and combine them.” Well, with religion, some people think they can pick out “the best parts” and combine them (even if the various parts from different religions are in direct opposition to each other). What they end up with might be an attractive flower arrangement that will make them feel good and make no demands on them, but it will be a religion without roots.

For example, I often hear the phrase “judge not” as someone’s reason that they accept any belief, behavior, or lifestyle. It’s as if it is now impossible to call anything “sin” or “heresy” because we are not to judge someone else. Edwards refers to a study in which The Barna Research Group “concluded that American Christianity is suffering theological collapse. The primary commitments of church members seem to be to peace, the search for personal fulfillment, and the conviction that God judges no one.” (p. 4)

This is replacing a distortion of the command to “judge not” with a concept of “no Judge”. If there is no sin and therefore no ultimate Judge, then God (or whatever you want to call your own personal deity) devolves to irrelevance, or at the most nothing more than a benevolent dispenser of goodies (“cheap grace” as Dietrich Bonhoefer called it in “The Cost Of Discipleship”).

Edwards uses the metaphors of the shore (a fixed point—“the biblical testimony to Jesus as savior of the world”) and the current (“a riptide of cultural values and assumptions” that is the confluence of the currents of “Enlightenment rationalism and the scientific method, pluralism, moral relativism, postmodernism, the quest for peace, and the challenge of other religions”).

This current carries us along without our conscious awareness of its effect on us (because in the current, and without constant reference to the fixed point on the shore, we don’t sense that we are moving). Unless we learn to use and navigate that current to further our understanding and our faith we will drift farther and farther from the shore. That’s his intention with this book—to give us the tools so we can navigate the current and not be swept away by it.

Jesus and Salvation--Part 2

The Book We're Using

In my last post I said the series would follow the outline of the book “Is Jesus The Only Savior?” by James R. Edwards. This will not be a review of the book, nor a study of just this one book, but by following the book’s outline anyone who has a personal copy will know the path the study will take.

Whether you agree with the book at every point is not the point. The study will probably raise more questions than it answers. If you agree with the book, submit your comments. If you disagree with the book (or my comments), submit your comments. We will all learn together, as was my hope in starting my blog.

Here is the outline of the book: James R. Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior? (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: 2005)

Introduction: The Shore and the Current
1. The Quest of the Historical Jesus
2. The Jesus Seminar
3. How Reliable Is The New Testament as a Historical Document?
4. What Can We Know about the Jesus of History?
5. Did Jesus Consider Himself God?
6. Jesus—The Savior of he World
7. Can the Gospel Compete in a Pluralistic World?
8. Is a Savior from Sin Meaningful in a Day of Moral Relativism?
9. The Gospel and Postmodernism
10. Does an Exclusive Savior Threaten World Peace?
11. How Should Christians Think About Other Religions?
12. The Mystery of the Incarnation

Isn’t that a daunting list of subjects? Doesn’t it pose an important list of questions? This should be enough to keep us occupied for one summer. I’m looking forward to the journey, and I’m glad you are coming along with me.

Summer Series On Jesus and Salvation

In the Koinonia Class this morning we discussed several options for our summer study. We landed on one that is very timely in light of The DaVinci Code movie, the Gospel of Judas hype of the past month, and current religious debates—taken from the title of a recent book by James R. Edwards, our study asks “Is Jesus The Only Savior?”

I recommend this book for both of the intended targets of the material as Edwards states in his preface (see below). The material in this book is scholarly, but very readable.

In the preface Edwards says, “A constellation of factors…has subjected the claim that Jesus is the only savior to suspicion and doubt. It has become fashionable to express such doubts in public venues. It is my impression that people are anxious about this question, and that they would breathe more easily if we could all agree that Jesus is a savior of the word, not the savior of the world.”

Edwards goes on to say the book is written to “help two types of readers … (those) whose faith has been unsettled or stimulated by the views of Jesus expressed above … (and) a second group of readers …, one that does not adhere to any particular Christian claims…”

Some of the statements I have heard and the questions that have been raised recently have led me to conclude that there is one overarching religious question making the rounds in our culture—the question of salvation. But it’s not really asked in the way Edwards states it. It comes masked in two other questions: (1) What can we really believe about the Bible?; and (2) What can we really believe about Jesus Christ?.

The DaVinci Code book and movie present the dominant secular view of Western culture—that the Bible is not trustworthy and Jesus was just a (married) man whose teachings and compassion inspired his followers to later claim that he was divine. So, the Church is both deluded and deceptive in continuing to promise heaven to Jesus’ followers.

Following the material in the Edwards book and other sources, we will answer the objections to both the trustworthiness of the Bible and of Jesus as the source of salvation for a world in need of being saved.

Out of my own study and reflection on this and several other books which will be referenced throughout this study, I drew up some questions under a heading of “Salvation Series”.


1. Is there a need for “salvation”?
2. Is there such a thing as “salvation”?
3. Does salvation require a savior? (or is it attainable by one’s own efforts or automatically conferred by some deity, spirit, or force?)
4. What would a savior look like? (what qualifications would a “savior” have?)
5. Are there any “saviors”? (i.e. at least one; how many possible?)
6. Is Jesus a savior?
7. Is Jesus the only savior?
8. Is Jesus the savior for everyone? (i.e. universally available salvation through Jesus)
9. Is Jesus the savior of everyone? (i.e. universally accomplished salvation by Jesus—or that salvation is a fait accompli)
10. What about those who have heard of Jesus and rejected Him as their savior?
11. What about those who have not heard of Jesus, or lived before Him?

You might think of some other questions. If so, feel free to ask them in the comments or email me the questions.

In various ways each of these questions will be addressed this summer. In order for us to stay together, I’ll be following the outline of Edwards’ book. This will also result in an overview of the foundational questions that are essential to explore and answer the ultimate question of the book: “Is Jesus the only Savior?”.

Follow Up To The Gospel Of Judas Debate

An editorial in the current issue of “Christianity Today” gives some important information and analysis of the “Gospel of Judas”. Check it out here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/3.22.html

Some key graphs:

“More importantly, the best liberal scholars admitted up front that this find "tells us nothing about the historical Jesus, nothing about the historical Judas." Those are the words of James M. Robinson, lead scholar of the team that investigated the last great find of Gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi library. Or as Adam Gopnik told New Yorker readers, "The finding of the new Gospel … no more challenges the basis of the church's faith than the discovery of a document from the nineteenth century written in Ohio and defending King George would be a challenge to the basis of American democracy."

"The latest Gnostic gospel may tell us little about Jesus or Judas, but the credulous public fascination with it tells us something about the spiritual state of America. Our nation continues to be enamored with a version of religion—Gnosticism—that is little more than a reflection of the self.”

This graph speaks to the issue of the canon of the New Testament and why this “gospel” was not included.

“The reason that lost Gospels like Judas disappeared is not, as some are now claiming, that "orthodoxy" is simply a record of the winners writing history. Rather, these Gnostic texts were rejected precisely because they had rejected the Christian continuity with historic Jewish faith. Orthodoxy was a serious attempt to be faithful to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob rather than to seek the little-G god within.”

And here is an opinion as to why “The Da Vinci Code” and the “Gospel of Judas” appeal to so many. Read the entire editorial to put this in context.

“Finally, the Gospel of Judas appeals to our American neighbors because we have made a religion out of diversity.

Americans have a phobia about making commitments to truth.”

As we head into the weekend when the movie form of “The Da Vinci Code” comes out, we need all the information available to be able to stand for truth and answer questions that are sure to come.

Does God Ever Send Problems Our Way?

In our Sunday School class this morning we looked at the passage in Numbers 21:4-9 which describes the encounter between the recently-freed-ex-slaves (the Israelites) and a bunch of poisonous snakes. The answers to the following question were informative: “There are 3 ways to look at the appearance of these snakes: (1) God sent them as punishment; (2) God allowed them to afflict the Israelites; or (3) God didn’t actively intervene one way or the other when the snakes attacked, but later came to the rescue. Which do you think was what happened?”

It was interesting to see that as the discussion went along almost everyone came to the second option—that God allowed the snakes to afflict the Israelites. Hardly anyone espoused the position that God sent the snakes, and therefore directly was the cause of the death of some of the Israelites. That was true even though the Bible specifically says, “Then the LORD sent (my emphasis) venomous snakes among them…” and the context clearly shows the reason for the unwelcome gift was the Israelites’ complaining and rebellion against God and Moses.

Clearly what was inferred from variant readings of the Scripture depended less on what the Scripture actually said than on what the readers wanted it to say. That’s not uncommon. When two people read the same newspaper story they often get widely different interpretations of what happened. Or when two reporters cover the same event it may be impossible to discern what actually did happen because they looked at the event through different filters.

Each of us approaches the Bible with our own set of colored glasses. Our past experiences, training, church affiliations (or lack thereof), and our own current relationships with God will color how we see a passage. So, the informative part of the class’s response to the question was what the answers said about us, not what they said about the Scripture.

There are some obvious Scripture references which directly say that God caused something to happen which we would call “bad”. These were generally instances when the people of God rebelled and broke their part of the covenant. Others indicate that God allowed certain things to happen, presumably when He could have intervened and prevented the problem from developing. Other times there is no indication as to God’s involvement ahead of time, but clear examples of God’s coming to the rescue later.

When I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy, stationed in Texas, three sailors came to the base dispensary the same week with the same problem (because they had all three been with the same prostitute the prior weekend). As the base Pharmacy Technician, that same week I would have dispensed allergy medicines, antibiotics for bronchitis (or some other non-sexually-transmitted disease), pain medication, etc.

I wouldn’t have said that God “caused” any of these people to be sick. Some problems we bring on ourselves. Some are a part of living in a material universe and they happen to anybody. Some are caused by other people, and we find ourselves on the receiving end of an accident or intentional harm. These are all different from what might come when we directly tell God that we don’t care what He’s done for us or what He’s told us to do, we’re going to run our own life.

The Bible shows a loving and compassionate God who hears the cries of His people and helps them. That’s not the only facet of God’s character revealed in the Bible, though. Understandably it’s the only one we want to see. However, we need to be careful not to dishonor God by refusing to see the plain language of Scripture in those instances where it is plain that God’s character also includes the possibility of exercising sanctions when we don’t keep our part of the covenant.

In the real estate contracts I deal with all the time there are some parts which look out for one party (the Seller) and some which address the issues of the other (the Buyer). The contract as a whole expects that both parties will honor their commitments, but it also provides for remedies if one party defaults.

That’s how it is in contracts (covenants) between two human parties who enter into the contract as equals. Can’t we also expect that God might exercise some “remedy” when we default on the covenant between ourselves and God? It does give us something to think about, doesn’t it?

Conversion A Death Sentence

This is a reference to the persecution of a Christian in Afghanistan. I’ve linked it to Michelle Malkin’s blog because of her extended remarks, “What do Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush have to say about the monstrous possibility that Rahman may be executed for professing faith in Jesus Christ and possessing a Bible? So far, nothing.”

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004796.htm

Regardless of one’s political beliefs or stance on the war against terrorists, we Christians have to stand up for fellow believers who are persecuted for their faith.

Any religion that imposes its religious laws on a country and demands full obedience from all citizens upon a penalty of death is not a religion of peace. It should not be a mortal sin for a person to worship (or refuse to worship) God as God is perceived by those in power.

We hear a lot about “speaking truth to power”. This is the time to do so. Whether the “power” is the Bush administration, the Karzai administration in Afghanistan, or Islamist radicals who desire to impose Shariah law on every country, killing someone for rejecting a religion is wrong. It must be opposed now, or we may find our own freedom of religion so perverted someday.

Let me modify that last statement—It must be opposed now because it is evil. Regardless of what might happen in the future, this is a present evil that must be fought.

Message in the Funeral of an Elegant Lady

Today I went to the funeral of a lovely, gracious, and elegant lady.  She’s the kind of lady of whom one person at the funeral said, “She’s the closest thing to royalty I’ve known.”  Everyone who knew her, and especially those who spoke of her at the service, saw her as one of the classiest people they ever knew.

They spoke of her as a high school teacher with two master degrees.  They spoke of her love of literature, of art, of music, of theater.  They spoke of her extensive travels to Europe, Asia, and South America.

They also spoke of her love of Jesus, of her strong faith, of her sharing in the ministry of her husband of 53 years.  The two songs her husband requested to be sung were “Amazing Grace” and “When My Life’s Work Is Over”, whose chorus ends with “I shall know Him by the nail prints in His hands”.

You see, in the end, it really doesn’t matter who it is.  Even someone as elegant as she, who would be at home in the most sophisticated company in the world, needs the grace and redemption that comes from the One whose hands were nailed to the cross.  

Her life was a living testimony to her Lord.  Her funeral was a message to everyone present—when life is over all that matters is whether you lived your faith as if it were real and whether the faith you have is in what is Real.

What Psalm 139 brings to mind

One of the scripture passages for this coming Sunday is Psalm 139. I liked this Psalm for years, and came to love it after hearing it put to music and dedicated to a young man who had every reason to doubt God’s love but who praised God for His love.

In 1975 some friends, Bill and Linda Cates, wrote a song paraphrasing Psalm 139. The title of the song is “Psalm 139”, with a subtitle of “Hal’s Song”.

Bill and Linda wrote this beautiful rendition of the Psalm in memory of a friend of theirs who died at age 17 after suffering from multiple birth defects. In a preface to the song they wrote, “On his last night here on earth he delivered his Youth Speakers Tournament speech, ‘Alive and Unique’…” They quoted a bit from his speech: ’You saw me before I was born…’ Thus this song was written, as a memorial to one who would ever remind us of God’s abiding love and indwelling grace, and as a proclamation of the truth, ‘Oh Lord, you know me…’ ”

The song is out of print as far as I can tell, but you should know about it, and if possible hear it some day, for it is beautiful.

Psalm 139, Bill and Linda Cates
(Copyright 1975 by Bill Cates and Linda Cates).

Oh, Lord, You know me;
You know my thoughts;
You light the path along my way.
If I should ever try to hide in the dark,
Your night shines brighter than the day.

Chorus.
And it’s too glorious, too wonderful to know
That I am always in your heart where-ere I go.
In the morning winds or on the raging sea,
You are always watching, loving, guiding me.

Oh, Lord, You made me
perfect in your sight;
Yes, You were there when I was formed.
You knew me long before I first began to breathe.
You knew me well when I was born.

Oh, Lord, how precious to know You’re there,
And that your thoughts turn to my day.
Oh, gracious Lord, please know my heart and my life;
Lead me the everlasting way;

Chorus. (repeated twice)

As I sing through the song in my head, and as I read the Psalm itself, I am humbled by the witness of one who overcame multiple birth defects to so inspire my musician friends; and I am further humbled by the testimony of David about the God who, knowing everything about David’s life, loved him and kept pulling him back onto “the way everlasting”.

With David I can only say,

“ Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.”

Parade of Lights--The Light of the World, Part 2

(See Part 1 here)

Last night’s late Christmas Eve service at our church followed the model, shortened and with some different carols, of the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols made famous by King’s College in Cambridge, England. The interwoven Scripture and Christmas carols and the beautifully decorated sanctuary combined to make a beautiful and meaningful service.

The last Scripture passage read in that Festival is John 1-14. Then we had a candle-lighting service where the pastor lit a candle from the Christ Candle and spread that light to all in the church holding their candles.

This gave me a perfect time to follow my own suggestion in part 1 to “Read it, savor it, and meditate on its meaning. Pray for understanding, even enlightenment.”

The meaning inherent in the passing of the light from the candle representing Christ to the candle each of us held is obvious. We not only receive that light from someone, but we pass it on to someone else. Thus is the Light of the World spread throughout the world—one believer at a time receiving the gospel and then passing it on.

I pray that as this simple illustration is repeated in other congregations, and replayed in our minds from previous candlelight services, we will all be so “enlightened”, receiving the Light of the World into our own lives and passing His gospel on to someone else living in darkness.

Merry Christmas in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Rudy

Parade of Lights--The Light of the World

Everyone is aware of the annual “Parade of Lights” parade in downtown Denver. It became famous (infamous) last year because of a ruling that specifically religious floats were not allowed. Not surprisingly, some Christians complained.

This year that rule was amended, and there were indeed some “Christmas” songs and floats in the (non-Christmas) “Parade of Lights”. Ridiculous? Yes!

This passage from the Gospel of John shows why. It is Jesus Himself who is the light of the world. That phrase falls so easily from the lips: “the light of the world”. So easily we glide right over the phrase. Read it, savor it, and meditate on its meaning. Pray for understanding, even enlightenment.

JOHN1:1-14 (NIV)
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


More to follow…

The Incarnation

It is Christmas time—the season of the year when we celebrate, not just the birth of a baby who grew up to be a great moral teacher, but the birth of one in whom was the union of both divine and human natures. Immanuel (God with us) is one of the names by which he is known. The idea of this union is sometimes called “the incarnation”.

The incarnation can be a difficult concept to grasp. We are familiar with some words from the same root, though. Carnivorous means “flesh-eating”. Chili con carne is chili with meat. We know that carnal has something to do with the body. The Latin root of these words means “flesh”.

Incarnation is not a biblical word. If you look for it with a concordance, you won’t find it. The concept is thoroughly biblical, however. It is seen most clearly in John 1:14.

“ The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)”
or “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” (KJV)

It refers to the fact that in Christ God became human. In the person of Christ was the union of divine and human natures. This theological truth was hammered out in the early centuries of the Church in response to several different ideas which we still see in various forms today: that Jesus was human, but not divine; that Jesus was divine, but not fully human; that Jesus had two natures, but neither one complete—neither fully divine nor fully human.

The Church eventually came to say that in Jesus Christ God became fully human while in the same person being fully God. The term “incarnation” conveys that mystery as adequately as it is possible to do with an idea that, like all mysteries, is not explainable.

At Easter, we think of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the greatest miracle. Perhaps that’s because each of will eventually die, and Jesus’ resurrection gives us hope that we too will be resurrected (see I Corinthians 15). But the greater miracle is that God became human in the first place.

The idea that the Holy, the Creator, the awesome God condescended to live as a human—one of His creatures—is indeed the most fantastic claim of a miracle that one can make. In fact, it is so fantastic, it seems a fantasy and a falsehood to many; and it is not provable by itself. It is a doctrine we must accept by faith.

The virgin birth and the incarnation are not offered as proofs of the divinity of Jesus Christ. We hold those beliefs by faith. The life and work of Jesus Christ, including His teachings and His miracles, are evidence of the claim of the incarnation. It took the resurrection to provide the proof that Jesus was indeed the Son of God.

In the incarnation is the promise of heaven, but only the promise, not the full reality. In Christ people experienced the awe of being in the presence of holiness. They observed righteousness being lived out in their midst. But the experience was time and space limited. As they went away, that experience faded.

When we encounter God today, as Christ through His Holy Spirit works in us, we experience some of that promise of heaven also. But our experiences also fade. We have the Holy Spirit with us, but we are not the Holy Spirit. The best we can hope for is that the Christ who embodied both human and divine, will—through His Spirit—live in us and work through us to extend the experience of “God with us” to others. May it be so.
.

More C.S. Lewis resources

Check out this link to an article in Christianity Today for a list of books about Lewis, categorized to better serve the interests of the reader, including a reprint that is a companion guide to Narnia. Click on it, and you’ll discover another source of Christian books.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Library A guide to the best new books about the man and the myths. By Jerry Root

Companion to Narnia: A Complete Guide to the Magical World of C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia Paul F. Ford HarperSanFrancisco, 2005

Here are a couple of other links to articles about C.S. Lewis in that same issue of Christianity Today magazine.

We Know Jack C.S. Lewis's impact is about to reach new grounds, but for many of us, Lewis has shaped us from childhood to adulthood. By Mark Galli

CHRISTIAN HISTORY CORNER Carpets, Wardrobes, and the Glory of the Real A lesson on reality from fantasy author C.S. Lewis. By Jennifer Trafton

Introductions to C.S. Lewis

I was asked about some resources that would help someone understand Christianity better, and help them compare Christianity with other religions.

I’ll get to the comparison books later. For now, here are two books I recommended that you would probably like. With The Chronicles of Narnia coming to the movies, many will be introduced to C.S. Lewis for the first time. These books will give you a head start in the discussions that are sure to follow the movie.

They can both be purchased at Christian bookstores. Mere Christianity can be purchased almost anywhere, and you can likely get the Art Lindsley book at a local Barnes & Noble or other quality bookstores. I’ve given you the links to both BN and Amazon for both of these books.

I’m a bit past halfway through the Lindsley book, and I think it has an approach and style you would like. He gathers a hypothetical group of readers (from a wide variety of faith backgrounds) to discuss what C.S. Lewis wrote. Their questions form the backdrop for Lindsley’s compilation of quotes from C.S. Lewis in Lewis’ own search for answers (he was at one time an ardent atheist, only coming to believe in Jesus Christ in his 30's).

It is a good introduction to Lewis’ various writings, set forth in a coherent and understandable way. Therefore it is also a good introduction to why Jesus and Christianity make sense for someone steeped in the cultural milieu of the 21st Century. I recommend reading it first, then following up with the original itself—Mere Christianity.

Both of these books are great reads for yourself, and would make wonderful Christmas presents for other thinking Christians or even for skeptics.


Barnes & Noble

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis,

C.S. Lewis's Case for Christ: Insights from Reason, Imagination and Faith, by Art Lindsley

Or---

Amazon.com

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis (Paperback - February 2001)

C. S. Lewis's Case for Christ: Insights from Reason, Imagination And Faith by Art Lindsley (Paperback)

Celebrating Christmas

Increasingly over the past couple of decades we see screeds against the Scrooges who attempt to take the celebration of Christmas out of the “holiday season”. This year there is even a book out called The War On Christmas, by John Gibson.

Why the complaints, articles, blogs, and books? Because there is a concentrated effort to force political correctness (as defined by those who are averse to offending anyone except Christians) and substitute anything in place of overt Christianity in the public square.

This is why we see “Winter Festivals”, “Holiday Festivals”, and “Holiday Trees” in school or public celebrations of the season; and it’s why we hear “Happy Holidays”, “Seasons Greetings”, and other supposedly non-offensive terms in place of “Merry Christmas”.

This week I heard a brilliant response to employees in stores who are instructed to avoid saying “Merry Christmas”, even though retail stores typically count on about a quarter of their annual sales coming from people buying Christmas presents (or are they “holiday presents”?). Here a polite but assertive Christian who is offended by the hijacking of our Holy Days for overtly secular and politically correct “holidays” makes the point.

Store employee: “Happy Holidays”.
Christian customer: “Oh, what holiday is it?”
Store employee: “Uh, Christmas, I suppose.”
Christian customer: “Well, then, Merry Christmas to you.”

Slightly less polite perhaps is a more subtle reference to the wonderful Christmas story starring James Stewart, “It’s a Wonderful Life”. In that movie is the line, “…every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings.” In the modern retort to “Happy Holidays” one says, “Don’t you know that every time someone says ‘Happy Holidays’ an elf dies”.

I like the more positive approach myself. Since the ‘reason for the season” is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and the name of the major holiday in the United States is Christmas, let’s keep the name of the season and celebrate the Name of the Savior.

And, in celebrating the true meaning of the season, I’m in favor of singing Christmas carols as much as possible—and religious ones at that. Here are some that most Christians, and many non-Christians, know:

Angels We Have Heard On High
Angels, From The Realms Of Glory
Away In A Manger
Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus
Go, Tell It On The Mountain
Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
Infant Holy, Infant Lowly
It Came Upon The Midnight Clear
Joy To the World! The Lord Is Come
O Come, All Ye Faithful
O Little Town Of Bethlehem
Silent Night, Holy Night
The First Noel The Angel Did Say
There’s A Song In The Air
While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks

We can sing those with feeling and conviction. Some more secular Christmas songs may be fun and nostalgic, but hardly have the same message. How many of us really know how fun it is to ride in a one-horse open sleigh? And songs about Santa Claus may be exciting for children, but the message is more about gifts than The Gift.

There are definitely occasions when we have to stand up to those who will supplant Christmas with secular and commercial greetings, so let’s do it with grace, and love, and peace, and goodwill toward all. Politely, but firmly, make it a merry Christmas indeed.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good life!

Judges

With all the news about Supreme Court nominees lately, we are familiar with the role of judges.  Or are we?

That’s part of the debate going on in the country—should Supreme Court justices have a judicial philosophy of determining whether laws are constitutional (by strictly interpreting the constitution) or of determining what the laws should be?  That is, are they judges or legislators?

Other images of judges may be obtained from movies or television, even something like “Judge Judy”.  But all of those images are probably far from what a judge actually has to do.

When we look at the biblical image of a judge, though, we see something very different from what we expect of judges today.  A judge didn’t just decide who was right or wrong, or who had broken some law.  A judge established justice—he made things right.  

This is not just an impartial jurist weighing arguments and then mediating a compromise.   The judge was partial—to God’s law, to God’s righteousness and justice, and to God’s concern for the oppressed.  (However, it was not just taking the side of the poor against the rich.  If the poor person was in the wrong, it was the judge’s responsibility to establish justice in that case, too.)

When we look toward the end of the age, what kind of judge will there be?  Some hope there will not be a “judgment day”, that everyone will be admitted into heaven regardless of their faith or life here on earth.  Some expect everyone else to be judged, but they themselves will get a pass.  Some expect to be judged harshly, not realizing that grace might apply in their case.  

I expect that God, who revealed Himself in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and most specifically in Jesus Christ, will be the same God as ever.  

The judge who demanded adherence to the covenant will still judge per His covenant with His people.  

The judge who separated the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) will still be concerned with what those who claimed to be His people did with others, especially the poor, oppressed, and weak.

And the judge who revealed Himself in Jesus, and established a new covenant through Jesus’ sacrifice, will keep His part of the covenant with those who signed on to the covenant themselves.

That’s what I expect.  What do you expect?

"Sectarian War"? or Terrorism

One more update to the previous post: here is a link to an update of the beheading of 3 Christian girls in Indonesia by Muslim terrorists.

One thing this Christianity Today article does that is similar to what I have heard before is to properly identify the problem there.

It says the group called “Laskar Jihad” is determined to exterminate the Christian community in that region and establish Shariah law.

Other media report it as a “sectarian war” or a “religious conflict”. The latter makes it sound like the genesis of the fighting is from both sides rather than a mostly one-sided assault (by Muslim jihadists), with the other side (Christians) trying to defend themselves.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/144/23.0.html

Check it out. What is your take on this kind of violence against Christians?

FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED

As a Christian, you will face temptation, adversity, and problems just like everyone else does.  When (not if) these things hit you, you should neither be surprised nor discouraged.

I’m looking at I Thessalonians 3:1 – 4: 12.  There Paul said, “You know quite well that we were destined for (trials).  In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted.” (I Thess. 3b,4)  He went on to not only confirm that his prediction was true, but to warn them about other matters they should be aware of.

Our world today is not much different from the Roman colonial city of Thessalonica.  Somewhere right now Christians are being persecuted for their faith.  Every one of us is tempted to let our passions control our actions or to fit in with the culture instead of being holy, distinctly separated from the basest parts of society.

Persecution can come to us.  I recently read about three Christian women who were sentenced to three years in jail just because they allowed some Muslim children to come to their Sunday School.  See this article to read more about it: WorldNetDaily: Sunday School teachers get 3 years prison.  Too far away for us to be concerned about it?  “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”  What happens to our brothers and sisters in Christ is our concern regardless of where it is.

And, like those in Thessalonica and every generation, in our sexually charged society we are tempted to misuse God’s gift of sexuality in prohibited ways.  Paul warned that “It is God’s will that you should…avoid sexual immorality” and that “The Lord will punish men for all such sins.”

We are not only tempted to sin ourselves.  We are also tempted to allow immorality to become acceptable because of political correctness or what Cardinal Ratzinger called the “dictatorship of relativism” in his sermon just before he was elected as Pope Benedict XVI.

Pornography pushes its way into everyday life as “free speech”.  It’s hard to avoid it when you go online.  It can become addicting.  

This week I saw the movie “Human Trafficking” on the Lifetime channel.  One of the characters, the physician of the man whose business was enslaving young girls for the sex trade, went from watching child porn online to taking a trip to southeast Asia for sex with a child himself.  

This was not just a movie.  It reflects the reality of human trafficking for sexual slavery that goes on every day.  Some want to normalize prostitution as a woman’s “right”.  Others recognize it as “a job no woman would choose” and see the link between prostitution and sexual slavery.

We can’t assume we will always do what is right whatever comes just because we are Christians.  If we are prepared, we are more likely to stand firm.  And if we know that God has provided the help we need and a way out of the temptations, we have a better chance of overcoming them.  I Corinthians 10:12,13 says it distinctly:

So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Forewarned is indeed forearmed!

A Mentor To Emulate

I stopped by to see some friends and deliver some tickets to a play. I could have mailed them, but they only live a mile away, and I wanted the face to face contact. Although I hadn’t planned to stay, when the husband opened the door and invited me in, I welcomed the chance to visit.

It was just the two of us (the rest of the family was out for a while), and we were able to get to a real conversation pretty quickly. That’s how it is with friends. You trust each other, and there’s not much pretense.

I asked about his work. He shared what about his work gave him pleasure, and what was frustrating. I could relate to what he said because I knew his heart and knew why he was doing the work he has now—he has a passion to work with churches and pastors and help them start other churches. Though never a pastor himself, he is the model of pastoral concern that I admire.

The major characteristic that makes my friend a mentor is that he is real. He is himself one-on-one or when speaking to a large group. He cares, and you can feel that he does.

In the first chapter of First Thessalonians Paul said, “You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord…And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.”

I’ve had many teachers and pastors. I’ve had a few mentors. Those were the people whose lives I watched, whose concern I felt, and those whom I naturally began to emulate. Hopefully, others could see in me a model just as I had seen in my friend and a few others.

As the conversation continued he asked about my business. He knew that some health problems had affected it previously. I replied honestly (I couldn’t do otherwise with this friend) that it had gone pretty well earlier, but was slow at this time.

As I was getting ready to leave, my friend did something that reminds me of this passage I recently studied in Philippians (4:9), “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice.” He was just being true to himself. But he was also a model for the kind of friend I want to be.

What he did was say, “Before you go, I’d like to pray for your business.”

What a gift! What a model to follow! What a friend!

The Antidote For Worry

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

I didn’t fully understand what it meant to live by faith until I started earning my living by commission sales. From 1966 when I graduated from Colorado University until 1985 I was wholly involved in Christian ministry as a seminary student, pastor, and Campus Minister. Although my salary was small, it was still a regular salary. I knew how much income to expect.

My salaried life stopped in 1985 (yes ministerial positions can be “downsized” too). The Lord led me into real estate for my financial support, like Paul had his tent-making business. Since then, I have rarely known two months in advance what my income would be. At times there have been several months with no income at all. Other times the month’s income would not be sufficient to meet bills. And sometimes I would bring in twice my monthly budget in one month. In short, I had to start living by faith—for real!

I had to trust that if I planted the seeds and did the work, God would bless my work with success. Living by faith in real estate can mean trusting God instead of worrying when after working with a client for months (and even years) the property doesn’t sell or the buyer goes off and buys a home with another broker. It also means that most of the time I can expect the seeds I planted will produce the needed harvest.

However, like Habakkuk I have to say that living by faith means,

“Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior." (Hab. 3:17,18 NIV)

Living by faith involves more than income, of course. When illness, job uncertainty or loss, marriage difficulty, trouble with children, threat of terrorism or a myriad of other problems threaten us, our “fight or flight” mechanism kicks in and it is natural to become anxious. Worry can quickly replace peace of mind.

Many years ago I memorized Phil. 4:6,7 in the King James Version. It starts out “Be careful for nothing…”. That sounded strange for a while, until I realized it meant “don’t be full of care”, or “don’t worry”. The NIV’s “Do not be anxious…” hits home more today, with so many anxiety-producing events in life.

We commonly use another word, stress, to describe what we are experiencing: “I’m under a lot of stress.” When someone says that, you can almost feel the burden that is weighing them down—what it is that they are “under”.

This passage in Philippians gives us the antidote for worry, the stress-buster that works. After having it memorized for years, an exercise of meditating on these verses this week made two words stand out. It is not just prayer and petition; it is not just presenting my requests to God that brings peace of mind. It is when I pray with thanksgiving that the peace of God guards my heart and mind (my emotions and my thoughts).

Try this when you start to worry about something this week. Instead of just asking God for help with your problems, list out loud to God those things in your life for which you are thankful. Once you start, it will be hard to stop. [If you have trouble starting, imagine that your home was one of those flooded out in New Orleans or blown away in Mississippi by Hurricane Katrina.] Now, present your requests to God with confidence that He who has provided for your needs in the past will continue to do so in the future.

About this time in your exercise of faith, your shoulders should be dropping back to their normal position, your muscles should be feeling less tense, and you should be able to breathe more easily. The peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will be guarding your heart and your mind. Thanks be to God.

What Is My Goal?

When I was young there were a number of incentives to encourage weekly church and Sunday School attendance.  One I distinctly remember was a perfect attendance pin.  Go to Sunday School every week for a year and get a pin.  For the second year, get a little bar that hung below the pin, and so on.

Many years later I heard a song that was a parody of the perfect attendance pin.  I don’t remember the entire song, that was sung to the tune of “My Grandfather’s Clock”, but one line went, “…my Sunday School pin…for it hung all the way to the floor.”

Paul’s litany of his Hebrew credentials in Philippians 3:4-6 reminds me of that pin.  Paul was not bragging about his background in order to puff himself up (certainly not after just quoting the hymn about Jesus emptying Himself of His glory and humbling Himself by being made in the nature of a human).  Rather, Paul was criticizing those who would puff up themselves for their Jewishness and who would look down on others who did not have the Jewish credentials they had adopted.  

The self-mutilating “dogs” referred to in Philippians 3 supposed that accumulating the credentials of Judaism would give them a kind of righteousness.

Paul had it all, but gave it up for the righteousness that comes from God through faith in Christ.  In his way Paul took off his multi-year perfect attendance Sunday School pin and threw it in the trash.  He put on the mantle of righteousness that is by God’s grace, not his own works or inheritance.

I am intrigued by a few verses in this chapter that I memorized a long time ago: verse 10 and verses 13-14.  

The latter verses first—Paul admits that he has not yet reached his goal.  So, he strains toward the finish line to win the prize of eternal life with Jesus Christ in heaven.  He’s not saying that his works will get him there.  He’s already discarded that as an option.  But Paul knows that the Christian life is not just a one-time decision and a sit-down-and-rest ride to heaven.  It is, like marriage, a one-time vow followed by a lifelong relationship that needs constant attention.  Is there a husband or a wife who can honestly say, “Whew, I’ve made it.  I don’t need to work on my marriage any more.”?

It is in verse 10, though, that the goal is specifically described, and upon closer examination it is shocking.  

“I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.”  (Phil. 3:10 NIV)

Paul mentions five aspects of his goal.  The first, second, and the last parts are something everyone could identify with—to know Christ, to know the power of Christ’s resurrection, and to attain to the resurrection of the dead himself.

But the fourth and fifth aspects are the shocking parts.  Did Paul really say, and mean, that he wanted to know the fellowship of sharing in Christ’s sufferings?  Did he really want to become like Christ in His death?

I think it would be wonderful to have such an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ that I could say, “I know Christ.  It would be exciting to know and use the same power that raised Christ from the dead; and it is indeed the ultimate goal of every Christian to be raised from the dead and be with Christ in heaven.

But when I closely examine my own heart, I can’t honestly say that I get up in the morning and say, “Lord, I want to participate in suffering with you today.”  Nor can I honestly say I am eager to become like Jesus in His death.  Not even if I move that word “death” from its natural and physical meaning to a spiritual one—that I’m eager to die to my own desires, goals, and ambitions in order to live out my life 100% for Christ.

Come to think of it, what is my goal for my life—or for each day for that matter?  

Perhaps it’s time for me to take off my own “Sunday School pin” and adopt a goal that is worthy—one to which I can enthusiastically commit my whole life.

IN PRAISE OF HYMNS

IN PRAISE OF HYMNS

Philippians 2:6-11 is widely recognized as an early church hymn that Paul quoted in his letter on living a life worthy of the gospel of Christ. A life worthy of the gospel has to include the kind of humility and selflessness exemplified by Jesus himself: “Who being in very nature God considered equality with God not something to be grasped, but made himself nothing…”

Hymns help us live that worthy life because they teach us and remind us of the great theological truths of the Christian faith. Every pastor knows the church members get more theology from the hymns than the sermon each Sunday.

Two of the passages that actually use the word “hymns” (Col. 3:16 & Eph. 5:19) have the phrase “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”. There is a difference.

One way I like to look at the difference is to see that the Psalms themselves can be sung in worship, once again giving musical form to Scripture. Hymns are songs of praise to God, often with the Trinitarian formula or a recapitulation of the Gospel. “Spiritual songs” today includes a wide variety of songs: gospel songs, spirituals, praise songs, choruses, etc.

A good example of a classic hymn is what is known as “The Navy Hymn”: “Eternal Father Strong To Save”. There are four verses. The first starts with “Eternal Father”; the second with “O Savior”; the third with “O Holy Spirit”; and the fourth with “O Trinity”.
Not all hymns have such an obvious Trinitarian formula. Others speak of what Jesus has done on our behalf, such as “Amazing Grace” or “O Sacred Head Now Wounded”.

Each of these is a beautiful marriage of text and music. That’s why they lasted. It’s also why they are sung in serious or solemn occasions, when awe is appropriate.

At other times the gospel music of “I’ll Fly Away”, a spiritual like “Swing Low Sweet Chariot”, an invitational such as “Just As I Am”, or a praise song like “Our God Is An Awesome God” speaks more to those gathered in worship.

There is a place for each type of Christian music. Each has its function in the worship of the church. Recently, though, it has become difficult to find a church which regularly uses the classic Christian hymns. Even when the older hymn tunes are used, the text is often “updated” or even replaced with a text of a completely different meaning.

I grew up singing hymns. Many of them I could sing without looking at the hymnal. I know I’m showing my age, but I have to say I miss the hymns I used to sing at church and throughout the week. The songs that have replaced them are not songs that have the same power to capture and uplift my spirit.

I saw an ad on TV for a CD set of 50 Greatest Hymns. I think I’ll get it.

In Solidarity With Other Christians

In Solidarity With Other Christians

The lesson for this next Sunday for the Koinonia class at Calvary Baptist Church in Denver has its focus as: “To discern ways of living in solidarity within the Christian community”.

The basic idea, taken from Philippians chapter 1, is that there is solidarity between Paul (in a Roman prison) and the church at Philippi (which was experiencing some persecution, but was in a much better situation than Paul).

One application of the lesson is that Christians today are in a hostile and decadent environment just as Paul and the Philippians were, so we too can experience joy by standing together and supporting one another.

What a timely lesson. With thousands of people and possibly hundreds of churches affected by Hurricane Katrina, we can glorify God and minister to fellow Christians by pairing church with church. Yes, we can give personally. Many, including Lindsey and me, have given through the Salvation Army or Red Cross. However, that’s not going to rebuild a church that lost its building to winds or flood and much of its financial support when members lost their jobs.

I’ve seen other bloggers with links and lists of churches of their denomination in Louisiana and Mississippi that need help. American Baptist churches can do the same thing. It’s not likely that the Baptist churches in Louisiana and Mississippi will be American Baptist, but we can experience solidarity with Southern Baptists, National Baptists, and others in the Baptist family. What a witness for unity within diversity that would be!

We often hear the phrase, “We celebrate diversity”. I think a more Christ-like spirit is to honor diversity, but celebrate unity. Let’s see what we can do in solidarity with our Baptist brothers and sisters in distress. Any ideas?