Out of Action

Not much today, or for the rest of the week. Carrie and I are going away for our anniversary. If you care, you can check out the place here. It is a Minister's retreat center. Inexpensive, but relaxing. It is a great ministry.

On a separate note, I always hear about these images from the Hubble Telescope. Occasionally I see one and am impressed. Well, Space.com has taken some recent images and posted them on their site. I think they have tweaked them, but they are still unbelievable. Check them out, and tell me which is your favorite. I have mine posted here on the right.

Have a great weekend. Keep me in prayer since I am preaching on Sunday too.

The Disease is the Cure

I am not sure if you read the news last week, but the cause toward curing cancer has taken a major step forward. I was so blown away by this discovery I wanted to post about this last week, but at the same time did not want to interrupt my “Post-Modern Christianity Week.” So here goes. The following is taken from an article posted on wired.com:
“Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have tweaked HIV to create a gene therapy that attacks cancer tumors in mice.

The UCLA AIDS Institute scientists genetically altered HIV and folded it into an envelope made of another virus called sindbis, which typically infects insects and birds. That turned the altered HIV into a missile that hunted down metastasized melanoma cells in the lungs of living mice.”

In case you didn’t read closely, and even if you did, let me repeat—scientists have used HIV to kill cancer cells. The two most scourges of cellular destruction are intertwined? Unbelievable. At my time as a chaplain in the hospital I saw some of the effects that HIV ravaged on the body. And to think, a benign strain of this awful virus can be used to cure another illness that does equally destructive things, well that boggles the mind.

Such a reversal of the normal nature of things reminds me of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:55-57:
“‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

When Christ took sin upon himself, and he also became our death. He searched out the sin and death in all of us, and destroyed it. Christ has turned sin, death, and destruction on their head. They hold no more sway over us. God has achieved the unexpected (our salvation) by means of the unexpected (becoming what he loathes--He uses sin to destroy sin. God’s methodology may be unorthodox, but his love is even more astounding.

Roses Really smell like Poo-oo-oo-oo

On Saturday, Carrie and I celebrated our 5th Wedding Anniversary. Pretty impressive that she would stay with me that long. However, the proximity of this date to Valentine’s Day puts us in an interesting quandary. Do we celebrate both or not? Well, I made it clear that I will not celebrate Valentine’s Day. It is not that I am an old fuddy duddy, or that I am not romantic, but I have come up with the following reasons:

I will not let society dictate to me when, how, and in what ways I “should” show love to my wife.
I will not be railroaded into thinking that I am less of a person, man, or husband because I do not buy into their propaganda.
I do not think that overpriced chocolates and roses are necessary for love.
I do not need a contrived holiday to remind me to show love to my wife—it is an ongoing process that happens each and every day.
I do not need to be told that I must do something special for my wife on this day, when I do special things for her on other days.

With this reasoning in hand, my wife and I have made the decision not to celebrate Valentine’s Day. And we are better for it, especially financially. That picture of roses was taken by me yesterday. Instead of paying $40 for a dozen, I paid $10 for 2 dozen, and they are some of the most beautiful roses ever. How did I get such a deal? I bought them on Saturday when the place was doing anything to get rid of them. But I digress.

Anyway, in the context of the holiday and everything, the verse from 1 Corinthians 11:26 came to mind: “For whenever you eat this bread or drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” We normally hear that verse used at communion at the set time on Sunday morning. But I think that misses the point.
Whenever we partake in Jesus’ death and resurrection, we are proclaiming His victory. Whenever we take up our cross and follow Him, we are proclaiming His death and resurrection.

Just as my love for my wife will not be contained and relegated to a set time and practice, our love for our Savior should never be confined to just Sunday. It is an ongoing proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice, and that sacrifice that demands a response of love from us. Sure, Communion is included in that, but it by no means ends there.

May our love for God be shown regularly and in spectacular ways, unencumbered by tradition and not dictated to us by the world.

A New Kind of Christian Part 5 - A Vision for the Church

This is the final day of Post-Modern Christianity week. I hope it has been interesting and thought provoking. I hope you enjoyed my observations as much as I enjoyed reading A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. I will end today with the post-modern vision of the church. I think you will find that it is very similar to the early church. In fact, it is somewhat built off of a statement from the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church…” Though the idea is wholly McLaren’s, I have reworded some things and packaged it somewhat differently.

************************************

The church does not exist for the benefit of the members. The church exists to equip members for the benefit of the world. To accomplish such a feat, it requires equal parts of community, spirituality and mission, all of course in the context of working with one another, always in view of the Kingdom.

Community—we create a place of belonging where people learn to believe the good news, belong to a group that is learning to live by that good news, and become (together) a living example of it. We are unified and connected to one another, maintaining the humility and gentleness necessary for unity to flourish. We accept anyone whom Christ accepts, without favoritism or judgment.

Spirituality—this is the “holy” part of the creed. But it is not just about individual spirituality, but communal. Our failures and our successes affect the church. What we experience with God in secret must be shared with the community. We read the Bible together, always listening for insights and input of others. We pray as a community, our individual prayers merging with our brothers and sisters. We worship and celebrate together, cherishing God’s faithfulness to His people. In these and other ways, through private and communal spiritual disciplines, we become set apart, holy people. We become disciples, not just followers.

Mission—this is the “apostolic” dimension of the church. Spirituality and Community naturally flow into mission. Since our needs (spiritual and physical) have already been met in through the other two, we are not free to focus on the needs of the world. We can serve instead of being served. We can reach out to the sick, and not the healthy.

The Kingdom—these three aspects of the church focus on manifesting the kingdom of God, the reign of God, and the reality of God’s will being done on this earth. The church is the catalyst for bringing about the Kingdom. A “successful” church is not the end goal. Rather, the goal is for every Christian to be sent out as an agent of Christ (priesthood of all believers), an agent of the Kingdom to bring peace between God and His creation.

******************

Notice there is little new to this model, and the fact that it is a model makes it more modern than post-modern. But I suppose it is more of a vision than an exact plan on how to do things. You may think that this is not original at all. And perhaps you are right. But I ask, how many of our churches actually embody such a model? How many of our churches reflect Jesus’ teachings and the practice of the early church? Few to be sure.

But if our churches were to buy into this vision, I think we would see a marked change in their effectiveness and the impact of the Kingdom in this world. Each church may fulfill and go about these ideals differently, but I believe the end result would be the same—unity and the bearing of much fruit. Christians would make a difference, cease feeling like hypocrites or useless. Their faiths would not be futile, but have purpose and vitality. The church would no longer be an exclusive club of sorts, but a life-giving vessel in God’s hands. But perhaps it is just a dream. Perhaps it cannot occur. Only time and patience will tell.

Let me know if you think differently.

A New Kind of Christian Part 4 - Faith Foundations

At one point, McLaren compares faith not to a building with a foundation, but to a spider web with many anchor points. These anchors may be spiritual experiences, exemplary people we have come to trust, or guidance and teaching from a variety of sources. The great thing about a web is that it is both flexible and resilient. It can be repaired when damaged. It serves various functions.

And the Bible is also an anchor point in this web of faith. Though many people call the Bible the foundation, in reality, Jesus is the foundation, not the Bible. To be more specific, every passage from the Bible that has affected your life could be seen as not just an anchor point, but part of every thread on the web.

And when it comes to the interpretation of the Word, there are problems on both sides of the spectrum:

Conservatives treat the Bible as if it were a modern history book, encyclopedia or law code. But those sorts of categories were rudimentary at best, and you can’t discount the clear difference in what was written then and what is written now.

Liberals, though they acknowledge that the Bible is different from modern texts, still seem to judge it by modern standards. If something in the Bible doesn’t fit in with a Western mindset (objectivity, science, democracy, individualism, etc.) then it is dismissed as primitive or irrelevant.

McLaren suggests a third approach. Instead of approaching the Bible with our modern assumptions and expectations, we approach it more as humble seekers trying to learn whatever we can as we fuel our sincere desire to live for God and do what He wants. In other words, instead of reading the Bible, let the Bible read us. This approach is less aggressive but can be even more energetic and passionate. What if we honestly listened to the story to allow it to speak to us, not coming with our questions that we expect God to answer, but trusting God to use it to pose questions to us?

A New Kind of Christian Part 3 - Biblical Interpretation

Today’s topic is of special interest to me. I have long struggled with expressing my view of how I approach the Bible and then how interpretations might stem from that view. Systematic theology and wooden, literal views on the Bible have never quite settled well with me, especially as I gain a better understanding of the nature of the literature. Mclaren did what I could not. He worded this tension that I had between not having to believe every single word as literal without relativizing it. Interesting thoughts to be sure.

The conservatives are against reinterpreting ancient wisdom in light of contemporary fads or moods, and they’re against weakening the strong, unchanging backbone of the faith, fearing that we’ll be left with a kind of jellyfish spirituality that has nothing to cling to.

Meanwhile, the liberals are against pitting faith against honest scientific investigation and turning faith into an anti-intellectual enterprise. They’re against the resistance to free inquiry and against the privitization of faith. They think that conservatives have retreated to their own private sphere, worrying only about their own personal salvation, leaving the world at large to go to hell ecologically, culturally, and in terms of social justice.

Both sides are against something worth being against.

Often conservatives will say that the Bible is the foundation for everything, and tampering with the foundation causes the whole structure to come down. Thus often the view, from the conservative point of view, is that the liberals are throwing out the Bible and everything that does not appeal to them. Yet, conservatives do the same thing, often unaware:

Conservatives don’t impose the penalties of stoning to death for those who disobey their parents.
They don’t exclude from the worship service anyone whose genitals have been mutilated.
They don’t teach that it is a sin for women to wear jewelry or have a short haircut.
They don’t follow the example of many OT characters such as killing infidels, having many wives, or killing their enemy’s babies.

And why not? Because they approach the Bible with a particular framework that keeps them from applying the Bible literally in such situations. The difference between the liberals and the conservatives is the interpretive framework. But the conservatives often seem unaware of such a framework, and think they are rigorously applying the Bible literally. Thus, when conservatives argue about the Bible’s absolute authority they are arguing about the superiority of their traditional framework through which they read and interpret the Bible.

This does not mean that the Bible is not authoritative. But real authority lies in God, who is there behind, beyond, and above the text, not in our interpretations. The authority is not in what I say the text says, but in what God says the text says. Our interpretations reveal less about God or the Bible than they do about ourselves. They reveal what we want to defend, what we want to attack, what we want to ignore, what we’re unwilling to question. The issue to be considered does not revolve around a book that we can misinterpret with amazing creativity but rather with the will of God, the intent of God, the desire of God, the wisdom of God—the Kingdom of God.

The Bible says of itself, that Scripture inspired by God and authoritative. It is useful as well—to teach, rebuke, correct, instruct us to live justly, and equip us for our mission as the people of God. That is a very different approach than how many take the Bible. We want the Bible to be God’s encyclopedia, God’s rule book, God’s answer book, God’s scientific text, God’s easy-step instruction book, God’s little book of morals for all situations.

But think of a math book. It is not valuable because the answers are in the back. It is valuable because, by working through it, by doing the problems, but struggling with it, you become a wiser person, capable of applying those truths in a variety of ways.

When we let go of the Bible as God’s answer book we get back something much better. It is a book that calls together and helps create community, a community that is the catalyst for change in this world. It becomes the family story—the story of the people who have been called by the one true God to be his agents in the world, to be his servants to the rest of the world. It is an ancient book of incredible value for us, a kind of universal and cosmic history, a book that tells us who we are and what story we find ourselves in so that we know what to do and how to live. It is the story of faith, produced by faithful followers, for faithful followers. It expresses the experience of a few people with the Almighty God, that informs, encourages, and instructs contemporary believers who are creating their own experiences.

A New Kind of Christian Part 2 - Debate

Debates in the church occur on what McLaren calls the “line level.” I have found his insight into this matter to be quite helpful:

There are all kinds of positions on an issue along this line, with the most extreme positions being on the ends. The issue often is, “Where is the right point on the line?” So people pick and defend their points. Each person’s point becomes the point in his or her mind. But what if the point-defending approach is, pardon the pun, pointless? What if the position God wants us to take isn’t on that line, but somewhere up above it?

This illustration really struck a chord with me, being one who is often sucked into debates. I try to be in the middle, and see both sides of the argument. But in reality, I need to not just be in the middle, but be up above the debate. For unity to occur among our people and in our churches, we need to transcend the normal level of debate. Jesus did it all the time. Take for example the discourse with the Samaritan woman. The debate began with where people should worship. She cited two points on the line in the form of two mountains—here on Mt. Gerazim or there in Jerusalem. Back in those days, this was not some arbitrary matter of debate. The location of the very presence of God was at stake. But Jesus would not pick one or the other. The answer to such a question was on a different level, for God desires worshipers in Spirit and truth regardless of the mountain. Thus both mountains are acceptable just as both sides are acceptable. Neither is right and neither is wrong.

This sort of thinking often scares modern people who desire absolute truth, clear boxes and lines, and standards of correct and incorrect. But I ask, is that Biblical? Jesus came to fulfill the law, and by that, it seems, to take the law (and the interpretation of it and the Bible as a whole) to a higher level. The Pharisees would have made great modern believers because of their desire to pigeonhole and make a framework to work within. But even the Bible is full of exceptions, not always clearly delineated rules. I, of course, am not advocating any and every view, interpretation, or belief. But, there are so many debates that, if taken to a higher level, would be far more productive. Think how differently a conversation about Calvinism, charismatics, pacifism, inerrancy of the Bible, women in leadership, and homosexuals would go if it was not about proving someone wrong but instead focused on moving to a higher plane.

A discussion of how the Bible fits into these discussions will have to wait until tomorrow.

A New Kind of Christian Part 1

This week is officially “Postmodern Christianity week” here at the Second Call. I just finished reading through A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. Basically he is the spearhead behind a new “movement” called the emergent church. I had an entry earlier about this movement. This emerging church is the first real attempt that seems successful in bringing the church into the postmodern world. The book is actually more of a dialogue between two people, one is a struggling pastor and the other is an aged Jamaican, ex-pastor, high school science teacher. I didn’t like the extra personal stuff in the dialogue, so I have mined out the best concepts for this prose entry. But I did like the real questions that a man steeped in modernity had for someone struggling to bring postmodernity into the world. I have had the same questions as I struggled with my own faith in the last few years. This entry compares the difference between the current church and the emerging church. (note: his comments are italicized)
***********************************************

Moderns often feel the need to put everything into nice neat categories, which is part of the problem. They believe that they could create a nice framework that would pigeonhole everything. But if you try to categorize this postmodern church and you succeed in creating a postmodern framework, I think you’ve just sabotaged it. We’re talking about a new kind of Christian, not the new kind or a better kind or the superior kind, just a new kind.

At various times he likens this transitional period to the time when the world went from the medieval to the modern period. It was difficult to be sure. But eventually, people realized that if they did not move forward, they would be left behind. McLaren poses two striking questions:

Will you continue to live loyally in a fading world, in the waning light of the setting sun of modernity? Or will you venture ahead in faith, to practice your faith and devotion to Christ in the new emerging culture of postmodernity?

Great thinkers like Luther both embraced and facilitated the change from medieval to modern, and yet remained true to the past. That is the tension and the greatest difficulty. How do you move ahead without alienating and ignoring all that has gone before you? If your desire is to forge ahead, McLaren gives a few things to keep in mind:

Don’t put your confidence in the institution of the church; put your confidence in God
Be open to new ideas and new interpretations of the faith
Don’t be too quick to criticize
Expect things to be messy
Keep going back to the Bible, but not with the standard interpretations blinding you to new interpretations
Try to sort out tradition from the real essentials of the gospel

Whether you are postmodern or not, I think those are guidelines are important in dealing with people in general, and especially people in the church. He concludes this sort of thinking with a challenge:

I want you to invest your lives not in keeping the old ship afloat but in designing and building and sailing a new ship for new adventurers in a new time in history, as intrepid followers of Jesus Christ.

How much are you building and how much are you maintaining? Are you beating the same old path down or are you blazing new ones?

A little rest and relaxation

I’ve finished reading through Leviticus, and though most find it pedantic, I am intrigued by the minutia of ways to properly approach God. One of the main points that is stressed revolves around properly balancing work and worship. That is one reason God instituted the Sabbath day: “There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD” (Lev. 23:3). Yahweh required that one day be set aside as an act of worship to Him. But more than that, it was a day of refreshment for the people.

Even the entertainment industry realizes the necessity of such a provision. I just saw a great commercial today. It features a sophisticated man sitting in a chair. All the walls behind him have Rx on the, and he says:

“The pharmaceutical industry applauds this nation’s obsession with career advancement. Thanks to your inability to balance life with work, sales are through the roof. Indeed 45% of Americans don’t use all their vacation time—a proven cause of stress induced illness and depression. So stay the course. As long as you are committed to all work and no play we’ll provide happiness in the form of a pill.”

The commercial ends with cool shots of roller coasters and families having fun, and the statement: “Logon to UniversalOrlando.com.”

From Leviticus and the Universal commercial, I am reminded of a few things. God has set up the system so that we do not spend out entire lives selfishly working. When we do we become ineffective. More than that, God does not receive the proper attention that He deserves. We try to make up for our overly stressed lives with drugs to give us more energy. Or perhaps worse, we substitute giving God our best with giving him the best we can spare.

But the Sabbath day was meant to be a rest from the trials of life so that the Israelites could focus on God’s faithfulness to them. It was meant as a day of refreshment—physically and spiritually. And though, as Christians, we do not have a Sabbath day, and I don’t equate church with the Sabbath, if we do not have these times dedicated to God for Him to refresh us, we will end up giving Him a contrived substitute. So let us remember to keep the Sabbath, and keep our relationship with God fresh.

Relief Reluctance

I saw a special on MTV the other day about the aftermath of the Tsunami in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand that was very well done. But it got me thinking. There have been two major disasters in the last few years that have had an impact on me—the terrorist hijack bombings on 9/11 and now this tsunami. Both times I have felt compelled to do something to help out. And I suppose it is fine to send money and pray, but I really have felt led to do more.

As I saw the MTV special, there were college kids in Thailand helping sort through the rubble to rebuild. I thought, “Why couldn’t that be me?” Then I remembered: I have a kid now. I have a wife. I have a job at the church. All these responsibilities are my top priority. I don’t begrudge them, because they do bring joy to my life. But I can’t help but think of Paul’s advice to those seeking marriage: “I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32).

It is not just marriage, but growing up, becoming an adult, living in the real world that bring about responsibilities that often hinder our ability to serve those in need. And I wonder, is the system flawed? Are we too engrained in our own selfishness that being an adult means being unable to really help out? Or do we just make excuses?

Either way, every time I see aid going to help out disasters it makes me think: “Why isn’t that me?”

Entertainment and Evangelism

I have always been a big fan of The Simpsons. It is (in my opinion) the most relevant and thoughtful show on television. The commentary that it makes on society is insightful and desperately needed as more and more people act without much aforethought.

If you missed the new episode after the Super Bowl, you missed a classic. There was plenty going on such as decrying the outbreak of showboating and taunting. But the forefront of the show revolved around the result of when religion meets Hollywood. The reactions that came from “The Passion” were varied and often at odds. Some thought that Jesus finally got the recognition he deserved. Others thought anti-Semitism was never crueler. Still others were offended that anyone dared to ruin entertainment with some sort of actual moral influence.

With this in mind, Homer was asked to do the Super Bowl halftime show, and after having no ideas, enlisted the help of Ned Flanders (token Jesus Freak). Together they told the story of Noah in glitzy fashion. The reaction was not good. Boos echoed from the crowd. But the cleverness of the show was the commentary from the news desk:

Ken Brockman (Anchorman): “All over America today, viewers were outraged by the Super Bowl halftime shows blatant display of religion and decency.”

Mother on the street: “You try to raise your kids as secular humanists, but these showbiz types keep shoving religion down our throats.”

Little boy: “Mommy why wasn’t I baptized?”

Mother: “You see. You see!”

Homer: “I thought America was hungry for meaning. I should have just sent a crocodile into space like I originally planned.”

Yes Homer, perhaps you should have stuck with the crocodile. But it leads me to wonder—how do you reach an individualistic society that requires a laissez-faire attitude regarding morality and decency? Should more movies like “The Passion” be made without regard to who may be “offended” by the gospel? Or should do more following the advice of Saint Francis and “Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.”

An interesting quandary. Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated.

Life as I know it

Well, I had something planned for today, but my day yesterday was wiped out with therapy, and the first church league playoff game. So I thought I would fill you in on my current situation. The therapy is for my back (not my mental state). I currently have a pinched nerve caused by arthritis in my lower back. The only hope for a solution—work it out through the physical therapy. Not a lot of hope there. I have been going for a few weeks and doing my painful stretches, and it has not gotten better. Of course, I do still play basketball, which probably doesn’t help matters, but I am too competitive to stop.

Speaking of which, I will now stop playing basketball because we lost our opening game by 3 points. Quite a barn burner I suppose. Now, I don’t like losing during the regular season, but I can handle it. But in the playoffs, when it is 1 and done, I get very frustrated. It is so final. I mean, that is it. I’ve got nothing until next December except pick up games with dog. Not so fun. Oh well, that is the way it goes.

On the Elijah front, he had another “well baby” visit yesterday. He is 28 inches long (95th percentile) almost 19 pounds (75th percentile) and a pretty good sized head (75th percentile). He does have an ear infection, but we received some drugs to help clear that up. Carrie and I are worried, however. The flu has hit our state, and is nearing our region. Carrie’s proximity to children and possible exposure has our guards up. I suppose there will be plenty of hand washing for the next few weeks.

Check back tomorrow for some good stuff from The Simpsons.

A Foggy Death

On Saturday, I was perusing the site of my undergrad Alma Matter (GLCC), and I noticed the weather on the right hand side. It read, “Light Freezing Fog.” I had no idea what such a weather pattern looked like. It both scared and bewildered me. Then my thoughts turned to the awful reality of the situation and certain questions filled my head:

What the hell is Light Freezing Fog!?!?
Is that where the air turns so cold that the moisture in your lungs freeze like in “The Day After Tomorrow”?
Were all of my friends in Michigan in danger of dying such a horrible death?
Was this a sign of the end of the world?




It is now Monday, and there are no reports of instantaneous death from breathing this menacing fog, but I stay vigilant. Global warming is no joke people. Don't be fooled by the Michael Creightons of the world. It's going to happen. Though many say the world will end in fire, I think it will really be in ice. Be ready.

Nothing today. I'm sick with a cold, and worn out. Elijah was a tad fussy yesturday. What are you going to do? Have a great day and weekend.

Paying for Oxen

Now, I am not one who thinks that allegorizing the Biblical text is a good thing. It often causes bad interpretation and completely removes the original context from view. All you have to do is read literature saying that Song of Songs is about Jesus and not about sex to know what I am talking about. That being said, when I read the following text from Exodus, my mind could not help but be moved to an allegorical interpretation. So, while it is not a good interpretation of the text, it is a good lesson nonetheless. Sorry in advance for those who find me deplorable and a traitor to my education.


“If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned. The meat cannot be eaten but the owner of the ox is in the clear. But if the ox has a history of goring and the owner knew it and did nothing to guard against it, then if the ox kills a man or a woman, the ox is to be stoned and the owner given the death penalty. If a ransom is agreed upon instead of death, he must pay it in full as a redemption for his life.” Exodus 21:28-32

When I read it, I couldn’t help but see myself in that bit of law. No, I don’t own an ox, and have never seen an actual goring. But, replace “ox” with “sinful nature” and reread the text. I have committed sins against others (not murder, but that’s not the point). I know that I have a tendency to sin, but yet at times, my sinful nature wanders around unfettered and unabated, wreaking havoc wherever it goes. And the consequences of sin are clear—death. Death of both the sinful nature and my physical body is the sentence handed down.

But then a third party comes in to arrange a settlement. God intervenes and reaches a settlement on behalf of his people. Death, for me, the offender, is no longer the sentence. Death must still be paid out, but it is His Son that dies. And death must still come to the ox, my sinful nature, since it is the offender. All that discussion of “death to self” in the NT is not just talk. It is necessary to make the ransom binding. The sacrifice is not just on God’s part, but on ours as well. And the result—our redemption; our salvation. Praise be to God, who has paid our ransom!

In my never-ending battle to receive recognition, I have succumbed and gotten involved in another effort to pimp my blog. I doubt it will help me think clearer or more profoundly, but perhaps more people will read my drivel.

Passing the Buck

My background is in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. No matter where I go, someone often has something bad to say about the Catholic Church, or specifically the pope. They can’t understand why one man makes decisions, dispenses theology, becomes “god” for the followers. And yet, it seems that the criticism of the Catholic Church might be better directed at the Christian Churches as well. No, there is no infallible Pope, but there are many church members that look to the Senior Minister for all of their spiritual growth and direction. At some point, we look not to God, but to man for answers to spiritual matters. But such a thing is nothing new. It has been happening since the Yahweh revealed Himself to the Israelites. From Exodus 20:18-21:

“All the people, experiencing the thunder and lightning, the trumpet blast and the smoking mountain, were afraid—they pulled back and stood at a distance. They said to Moses, 'You speak to us and we’ll listen, but don’t have God speak to us or we’ll die.'
Moses spoke to the people: 'Don’t be afraid. God has come to test you and instill a deep and reverent awe within you so that you won’t sin.'
The people kept their distance while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was.”

Now granted, the sight of God revealing Himself would have been unbelievable and scary. But one might think that the faith of those in attendance would be bolstered. Instead, it caused wavering on the part of the Israelites. They were invited into the presence of God to receive His Words, and they retreated. They didn’t want any part of God. “Don’t have God speak to us. You do it Moses.” And so, Moses went up and got the Law.

That wasn’t what God wanted. I don’t think He wanted to present His Law to them through a third party. He wanted to do it directly, face to face. As Moses said, this would cause awe in the people. Perhaps they would be less likely to sin if God Himself presented them His requirements. But they wanted no part of it, and Moses dutifully did his part, and in the end, the Israelites did not respond to God’s Law as He wanted.

And in our churches, I see members who don’t really want to be in the presence of God. Perhaps they are scared of what will happen, of what God will ask of them. Perhaps it is just easier to allow others to deal with God while they reap the benefits. Perhaps in their eyes, the work is not worth the reward.

I don’t know what keeps people from really interacting with and experiencing this amazing God. But when we rely on others to do all of the interacting with God, we miss the deep reverence and awe. We fail the test. And perhaps, we end up failing God by being more prone to sin.