Locked Out

Dear Brothers,

Well, I have been locked out. I have not resisted to the point of death, but I have resisted. Today I quit. I have to switch to another site. Not sure where, not sure when. Blogspot blogs are blocked in the RedLands as are many of the other key blog sites like Wordpress and others. I miss the conversations and I hope to get back on the bicycle soon.

Grace and peace to everyone in Christ.

jdubya

Deep Thought o' the Day

"God is not as easily offended as we are."
-jdt

Think on these things.

Tension **

I am left with a dialectic. Not a Marxist socio-political dialectic - as if I even know what that is - nor the so-called dialectic of those who would balance two opposing philosophies. I am left with a more Bonhoefferian dialectic - a tension between two seemingly opposite theologies that leaves just one course of action.

Jesus said, "If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out...if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter the kingdom maimed and blind than to be cast out in the darkness as a whole man."

When we read this, we are left with a problem of compliance. "Jesus hardly expects us to sacrifice an eye or the right hand. Surely, He cannot be serious." We are left in a quandary by this strange command.

Luckily for us, Paul bails us out when he says, "self-abasement is of no value against ungodliness" - meaning the left eye can certainly do what the right once did and the left hand can surely sin in the same manner as the now-disenfranchised right hand. And so with Paul, Jesus' mountain-top decree can largely be ignored.

But one doctrine emerges from this Christo-Pauline tension...a doctrine of obedience. Because a serious Christian cannot ignore the teaching of Christ. He cannot say that by "hand" or by "eye" he meant something totally different. So he must obey, that is, he must not lust.*

This summary is nothing short of a murder of Bonhoeffer's theology. So, having gone so far as murder, I have no shame in continuing to abuse it further. :) There seems to be a certain, similar dialectic in view of our justification. It works like this:

Baptism is of no value to the non-believer, of no value to the man of lawlessness nor the man of religion who lives without faith. It is of value only to the faithful and only to the obedient.

But dialectically speaking, we know the act itself cannot justify the participant and yet the participant finds justification in the act. Likewise, those who seek to be justified by means of the act find themselves unjustified. And conversely, those who seek justification apart from act (that is, obedience) find themselves lacking. If mere baptism were able to justify the world then the whole world could be saved. Alas, faith is prerequisite.

There are other tensions:

Our acts of obedience are not our confidence before God but we would agree that a disobedient man cannot stand before the Lord.

Sometimes I think that in our various theologies we find our hands tied. It shouldn't be this way - is this not the true meaning of "for freedom He has set us free?" Are we required by Paul to call the unbaptized believers "Christians" (for justification's sake) or are we bound by Peter to call only the baptized disciples "Christians" - so that those who have not been immersed are seen to be in grave danger?

Can we say that justification, sanctification and salvation are all inseparably linked and then separate them categorically from each other and from faith and obedience?

We must be careful and wise to speak the whole counsel of Scripture (or even the "whole council" - we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses) in regards to faith, obedience, justification, sanctification, Spirit and salvation. And I know that is our intent. And though I know baptism cannot justify, nor faith, nor obedience, I also know that I am justified through faith. If I can be justified through something that is my own and yet a gift, I can certainly be justified through participation in something that is not my own but rather a work rooted in eternity - a work prepared beforehand for me to walk in.

The baptism dialectic (I don't know what else to call it) exists for two purposes: to demonstrate the Grace of God and to push men to obedience in baptism. If our theology does not encourage, even demand baptism then it has resolved or removed the godly tension - to the detriment of obedience. If our theology demands baptism, as the Judaizers demanded circumcision (Galatians 5), then the dialectic has been removed and the grace of God forgotten.

I invite anyone to help me express this more clearly.

*From Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer

**This is partly in response to what jmt wrote yesterday and partly in response to sk and partly in response to the ramblings and preamblings of c.lewis and because, somehow, I agree with everyone.

Connect Four

I'm not much "feeling it" on the Theology front, so I thought I would brag a little on my chicas. For Christmas, I bought the girls a Chinese version of Connect Four (called appropriately "Four in a Row"). It sat idle for a month a two as Barbie's new boyfriend, the Prince from Beauty and the Beast took playtime precedence.

However, in the last few weeks, Connect Four has been the game of choice. As soon as I walk in the house from work, its "Daddy! Daddy! Do you want to play Four in a Row?" Whenever a guest comes over, the kids bombard them with requests to play. As soon as the unknowing soul gives in to a game or two, the girls quickly ask, "Best out of 5, ok?"

The thing is, they win. Just the other day, I dropped 3 games in a row to Jalen. The average person will sit down on the carpet and play them like children. If you play them like they're just kids...you are going to lose. What's really funny is when the adults begin to play serious...and still lose. "One more game", they say. Finally after a few tries they get their victory. But Jalen and Azeria understand the concept of "majority" all too well. They know who's won the most at any given period and they are not afraid to let you know.

I still manage to win the "majority" of the games...let's say...4 out of 7. But when I dance around after a victory and point at them and ask, "Who's your Daddy?" they roll their eyes and say, "But Daddy, we're only kids. You are supposed to win."

Smart alecs.

Campbell's Soup

I had read somewhere that Alexander Campbell was actually a heretic. Marq posted this excerpt from some of his writings. Campbell actually went so far as to say that there are Christians in other denominations...and some other heretical statements that I tend to agree with.

Life Together

Maybe I am just emotional these days. In truth, I wish I was more so. Like everyone, I long for deep, lasting fellowship. I am not satisfied with the status quo, the endlessly mundane, the isolation and the apathy that fills what I call "fellowship." I want more. At times, I find myself bitter at my situation, finding fault, pointing fingers and self-absorbing. With heavy sighs, I consider the diaspora of my good brothers - each in his own State or in another country. We have been scattered.

However, among that scattered there is a true and incessant longing for that righteous fellowship that is found in the arms of loving brothers. I recently picked up and read "Life Together." As your faith allows, please pull this book from your shelves and re-read the "Community" section. Its simply beautiful- the "grace of God in the visible community."

Herman's New Tick

The other day, I was studying Matthew 12: 1-8

12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

I ventured this question to those who were studying with me: "How did Jesus know that David did not sin through the eating of the Bread of the Presence?"

If you read the account of David's eating in 1 Samuel 21, there is no mention of sin or sinlessness on his part. Certainly some of his other involvements might be suspect at this point but not the eating. To further confuse the issue, Jesus admits that "it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him but only for the priests."

From the context, we would gather that Jesus' antagonists were unable to offer rebuttal to Jesus' interpretation of the 1 Samuel event. Of course, as Jesus freaks, we would also conclude that Jesus was indeed correct in his interpretation.
So the question remains, "How does Jesus know that David did not sin in doing what was 'unlawful'?"

The only thing I can gather is that Jesus saw David's need as surpassing in priority the requirements of the Law or that since the historian did not explicitly condemn David, that He also saw David as innocent in this matter.

And on top of this, Jesus takes his interpretation of an otherwise obscure passage and applies it to his disciples.

What kind of "hermeneutic" is Jesus using? One where the intention of the Law subordinates the Letter of the Law?

The Gent Church

I am back East so I am far removed from all this conversation on the Emergent Church. There is no such thing in my neck o' the woods. Its just plain ol' church - "basement style," as my friend Matt calls it.

Insofar as the Emergent Church assumes its qualities and characteristics from the very definition* of the word "emergent", we would garner that the Emergent Church is something that has arisen quite unexpectedly and calls for prompt action. It has emerged or risen up out of its surroundings and is certainly newly formed and prominent. In this case, "surroundings" should probably be considered Tradition and not Culture.

I thought (and I am not alone), why not have a Convergent Church as well as an Emerging one? "Converging" might be that appropriate step towards unity with a distinct movement toward one particular point. A Convergent Church could be that godly Ecumenism with a Spirit-led convergence and congruency in form, function and development.

With all this Emerging and Converging, we are bound to spring forth with a Resurgent Church - rising again into Life, activity and prominence.

Of course, as the Evangelical community begins to re-emphasize Baptism we might be called the Submergent Church.

Or with all of our aspirations to clean up society and the world through Morals and Ethics, we could be called the Detergent Church.

But in this day and age, I am looking for an Insurgent Church. Not a revolt against authority and government per se, but against the Prince of the Air, against God-less culture, against wickedness, injustice and impurity; a revolt against the status quo, pew-packing and stagnation. Insurgent!

In this case, we would be neither Emergent or Convergent but rather a Divergent Church - with a distinct movement away from the Ways of the World and growing different in both form and practice.

Alas, we are not overly Insurgent nor Divergent. And... gone are the days when we were the Urgent Church - calling people to Christ and immediate action and loudly proclaiming that "Today is the day of repentance!"

So my contribution to the Gent Church conversation will be this: whether we be Urgent, Submergent, Resurgent, Detergent, Divergent, Convergent or Emergent, let us at least be Church.

-----------------------------
* All definitions taken from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.

Save Us From Our Sins

Bible Class Teacher: Why did Jesus die on the cross, class?
Kids: To save us from our sins!
Bible Class Teacher: And what does that mean, class?
Kids: We don't know!

What do we mean when we say, "save us from our sins"?

If you ask this question in your respective fellowships, you might be surprised to hear the answers. I wonder if some believers even really want to theologically "unpack" salvation from sin. Afterall, when you take the wrapper off the box, you find a few dirty things inside - like a God of Justice with bloody hands and that ugly talk of the sin nature and being born under condemnation.

On one hand when we say "save us from our sins," we are admitting that our "sins have made a separation between us and God" and our "transgressions have hidden His face." So salvation is, to some, a removal of the sin barrier that separates us from God. But the reality is, sin has not been the power separating us from a loving God. It has always been the long arm of a loving and holy God that has made the separation. Even from the Garden, after Adam and his Honey ate the Bad Fruit, they were not magically transported from the Garden. (Bite! Blip! Hey! Where are we?) Rather, God came and investigated. After which He removed them from the Garden. It has always been Jehovah who has maintained the separation between God and man. He said, "let us force them from the Garden that they may not eat from the Tree of Life." It was His angels who guarded the way to the Tree.

This is not in contradiction to what Isaiah said, because what the Prophet meant was that sin is the reason for our separation - not the separating power. Even Peter said, "God has the power to hold the unrighteous for judgment." This is an important point, because the Legalist falsely assumes that a ceasing of sin will remove the "sin barrier." Little do we know, sin is not the barrier. God is. A little obedience will not remove the sin. We must turn to God. As David says in Psalms 51, "For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it."

So what do we mean when we say, "save us from our sins"?

For those under the Gospel it must mean a salvation from judgment. Jesus Christ died on the cross not really "for sins" but for God's people. He died to become an atonement for believers and a propitiation of the wrath of God. "For our sins" means that God judges sinners. It means that the unrighteous man is held in judgment by a holy and just God. "Save us from our sins" means that without the grace of Christ, we would be held accountable for every perversity before God. This is why Jesus died, because those under sin cannot be with God. They cannot eat of the Eternal Life-giving Fruit. "Save us from our sins" means salvation from God Himself.

That is a fearful proposition.

So what do we mean when we say, "save us from our sins"?

Some may ask, "What exactly has sin done to warrant us being saved from it?"

Sin is a nasty business. It has entered into the race from the starting gates. David said, "in sin my mother conceived me. In iniquity, I came forth." From the beginning of a man's life to the end, sins wraps its tentacles around us and entraps and smothers and ruins. It is impossible to root out. It certainly can't be pruned back. So when we say, "save us from our sins" are we admitting that our sin has corrupted us? Our nature is beyond the hope of a self-salvation? We are powerless?

For those under the Gospel, "save us from our sins" must mean that we need salvation from our sin. We are unrighteous. In our very natures, we do not want God nor his Righteousness. We are enemies of the Cross. Within ourselves we have no ability to be made righteous. Within our own sinful natures, there is no ability to turn to the Lord, call on His name and follow Jesus apart from the Gospel of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. "Save us from our sins" means both "we can't," and "we won't." It means God must rescue us in His grace. "Save us from our sins" means God is the Savior and we cannot rescue ourselves. When we say "save us from our sins", there is not the hint of legalism, because we know that no repentance, confession, faith or obedience comes without the help and grace of God. "Save us from our sins" means that we are eternally, utterly and unalterably dependent on God.

And that too is a fearful proposition.

Let's make sure our children grow up knowing that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. But let's make sure that there is no mistaking what that means.

End of An Era

Yesterday evening a man came to my house to say goodbye. He brought with him a new young co-worker in the faith, some flowers for Lisa and some books for me. After 12 years of kingdom work in China, he was returning to Korea. His wife had already preceded him. He was packing up the rest of his possessions and saying goodbye to the believers.

Unfortunately, this is a time of travel in China - the Chinese New Year. Virtually everyone returns to their hometowns and to family during this season. Shanghai is a ghost town. So as Mr. Lee was saying his goodbyes, there was no one thank him, no one to see him off at the airport and no one to pray and wish God's blessing on his coming days. So he came to our house last night (we just learned he was leaving) in hopes of a good meal and some prayer.

He sat in our living room and he talked not of all his success but of his failures. His heart was broken. He spoke of his failed vision for China, his failed relationships, his loneliness through the years and the struggle that he has had with the authorities and government. He spoke of his disagreements with other workers and how his heart hurt when man after man refused his counsel - to their detriment.

After 12 years, Mr. Lee is returning to Seoul. He has no home, no car, no furniture. And while he is returning to serve in another capacity in Korea, he returns with nothing. And despite the hardships, the failures and the loneliness in China, he broke down and cried last night and he said, "I don't want to leave. I love China."

I only met with Mr. Lee a few times a year but last night will leave a lasting impression on me. Here was an older Asian man brought to tears through God's humbling hand and his own heart-felt love for China.

Here's to Mr. Lee: a good man, a good teacher and last of all...a lover of people.

More Thoughts on Nehemiah 13

Arcanum

It was in Huntemann's book that I first heard the word, "arcanum." Arcanum is "the secret place." It is that place where the uninitiated are not allowed and in some cases, are even ignorant of its existence. For the church, the arcanum is that place where the world is not welcome. It is a private place where devotion to the apostles' teaching and bread-breaking and prayer take place free from the World's scrutiny. Quiet. Peaceful. Secret. Holy. Arcanum.

In today's world the worship center has "Visitors Welcome" posted above the door and the concept of the arcanum is foreign to us. There are few "secret" places. There are few arenas or realms in church life where the visitor is not welcome. Most are public, open and certainly "an opportunity for evangelism."

As Nehemiah begins his reforms, the first priority was "ethnic cleansing." This cleansing was not just the removal of different races and nations, but separation from cultures and religions and ideologies. Nehemiah was removing external influence and distraction. He was creating an environment for confession and repentance and support and devotion and prayer and unhindered reflection on the Law. The arcanum was a place where trust was established and maintained. Where confession was promoted, expected and done. But it didn't happen while the world looked on with knitted brows and crossed arms. Nehemiah separated himself from the world. Even if only for a day or two.

The expectation of confession can hardly be maintained on "Bring a Friend Sunday." And the implications of tough apostolic teaching need to be worked through sometimes just with friends and brothers. Intimacy is best in private. So is confrontation. And from my point of view...so is repentance.*

Marriage

Wanna let your daughter mess around with a worldly Beau? Or your son date a slut? I have a while before this test comes to my house, but after reading Nehemiah, if my son wanted to get busy with Suzy Q Whore, I might just have to take him down and grab a handful of hair and make him swear an oath. If that doesn't work, maybe the girl will leave him since he'd have those numerous bald spots.

Promoting Purity

Its hard to keep the Sabbath, when you have salesmen right outside the gate. "Fish! Bread! Vegetables! Fruit! 25% off....Today!" Nehemiah did what was needed: he removed temptation. We learn from Joseph and Jesus and Nehemiah and others that sometimes purity takes place only when the temptation is removed. Sometimes we face the temptation and other times we pray "lead us not into temptation" - meaning "I don't want to face temptation." It is right and good to remove things, situations, people - any sources of temptation - if that is what is necessary for purity. So Nehemiah did not just call people to repentance, but he did everything in his power to make repentance possible.

Boasting

More than once, Nehemiah prayed and said, "God, remember me and this good thing I did." Part of me cringes at the very idea of saying to the Creator, "Hey! Look at what I did and remember it" but Nehemiah felt comfortable. Who knows whether we'll be rewarded for each good thing we do but...I suspect so. At any rate, it is impossible to conceive of Nehemiah believing that his good things outweighed his bad or that he saw them as part and parcel to his justification before God. But maybe he just set his heart to one thing: not boasting.

When we do something good for another person or maybe we even accomplish the amazing, our first fleshly tendency is to report it to the first person who will listen. So maybe Nehemiah thought, "If I am going to keep from boasting before men, then maybe I need to point out my good things to God."

To keep from complaining before men, I'll make my needs known to God.
To keep from boasting before men, I'll make my deeds known to God.

Just some thoughts.

------------------------------------

* I believe repentance is a public posture. Repentance only done while in private might not even be repentance. However, many of the events leading to repentance and the commitment and initialization of repentance need not be the world's business. In fact, it is none of their business.

By Any Means Necessary

Warning: This post contains the word "ass"... used improperly.

One of the most exciting pictures of Jesus is that table-turning day in the Temple. His best friend later described the scene by quoting Scripture, "Zeal for Your House has consumed Me." Hollywood has never done justice to Jesus. It has never captured his eyes, his smile, his despair, his passion or his zeal. No movie could ever top our imaginations and our imaginations can hardly imagine a man walking into a crowded Temple market and doing what Jesus did...by himself.

But Nehemiah was this kind of @$$-kicker. Chapter 13 is worth reading by itself.

By Any Means Necessary.

This phrase was popularized by Malcolm X in the 1960's. Pre-Mecca Malcolm, that is. * However, if you've ever read Nehemiah, you know that he was the original Nehemiah X.

Nehemiah had returned to Susa to his cup-bearer position before the king but he asked for a little more leave to check on his hometown of Jerusalem. When he returned, he found the temple service abandoned, one of his arch enemies living in the prime real estate of the temple storage unit, the people of God intermingling with the other nations, marrying and giving in marriage and profaning the Sabbath.

So here is what he did.

If you weren't a Jew, you got the cold shoulder or you got booted. Kicked out of the city. I don't think the people took this lightly, nonetheless Nehemiah forced them out.

He was extremely angry to discover that Tobiah was living in the Temple storage area. He threw all of Tobiah's furniture out of the chamber and onto the lawn. Undoubtedly, if Tobiah had returned to complain, Nehemiah would have whooped his @$$.

Nehemiah then made the people of God honor the Sabbath by stopping work and stopping the shopping. Furthermore, as the foreigners lined up outside the gate to sell things on the Sabbath, he told them in no uncertain terms, "Get away from this gate on Saturday or I am going to kick your @$$."

Nehemiah then gathered together the Jewish men who had foreign wives and children and he "contended" with them and he cursed them. When repentance wasn't forthcoming, he beat their @$$es and pulled out their hair and made them take an oath not to give their families away to foreigners or take foreigners into their families.

Finally, as the son of the high priest was married to another of Nehemiah's arch enemies, Nehemiah chased him out of the city.

Zeal for His House consumed him.

By any means necessary.

This is what Jesus meant when he said, "Pluck out your right eye" and "cut off your right hand." This was his message in the Temple. This was God's message in Numbers 16 and Paul's in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6.

"Be saved from this perverse generation," Peter said.

Purity and sanctification and devotion to God is serious business in our lives, our families and our churches.

I forget that sometimes.

I was reminded by Nehemiah....by any means necessary.

--------------------------

*I recommend for history buffs the Spike Lee biographical film of Malcolm X, starring Denzel Washington.

A World Under Water

I read an interesting little book last month and I was reminded of a couple of things worth mentioning. This is a summary of an article entitled "A World Under Water."

In the days of Noah, the world (κοσμος) came under judgment through its wickedness. From morning to night, every thought was only to do evil. Destruction was the righteous decree from heaven.


As the story goes, Noah spent some 100 years or more crafting his now-famous Ark. The rains eventually came, the floods rose and yet the Eight and their cargo remained safe in the buoyant vessel. The wicked world outside of the boat perished.

As the water rose to cover even the highest of mountains, the waterline demonstrated a certain reality: The world below the water was destroyed, annihilated; the world above was saved – “brought safely through the water.”

And this is the Apostle’s view of “salvation.” Salvation to him is not just “rescue from sins” or “escaping hell to receive heaven” but it is a very real movement from one world to another, from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of Light. It is a salvation (movement) out of a condemned world.

Notice Peter’s language in Acts 2. “Be saved from this perverse generation!” Everything about this generation, this world, this culture, this earth will be consumed. It is all condemned. It is all under judgment. It is all under divine wrath. “Be saved!” he cried out “from this world.” His meaning is that salvation consists in the transfer into the other “world.”

In 1 Peter 3, as Peter recounts the story of Noah’s salvation, we see Noah brought safely “through the water” – lifted from the κοσμος of condemnation to float in the world of God’s renewal and grace. And now baptism corresponds to this. “Baptism now saves you,” Peter says. * In the water, the old world is washed away, destroyed and annihilated. Sins are washed away and consciences are cleaned. The believer is brought safely through the water to life in the kingdom of God. A salvation has happened – that is, a movement from the condemned κοσμος to the position of God’s mercy. Above the water.

Jesus said it. John said it. “Love not the κοσμος – the world. Everything about the world will be washed away in fire and judgment. This world with its power, technology, beauty, culture, intelligence, sensuality and art will all be consumed. The physical earth in its beauty will be consumed (and made new.**) Nothing of this world will remain or stand before God.

As a result, we must never let our affection rest on that which is doomed to melt. We must put our love and desire into that which will remain: The Triune God and His chosen people. God has effected our salvation, so we should never desire the things drifting below the waterline.

-----------------------------------------

* There is much to be said about baptism's relationship to salvation, justification and regeneration that I won't say here. I did say it here.

** I have read a bit about the "New Heavens and the New Earth" but I ain't settled on it.

A Mature Church

"Hand me a brick," the Mason said to the Apprentice. The young man reached over to the diminished pile and palmed the nearest brick. With a sigh, he handed the last piece of the puzzle to the Mason. The Mason balanced the brick beside his muddied trowel and hoisted a battered bucket of gray cement to the top of the retaining wall. With a smile, he applied the last of the cement to the last hole in which the last brick would be placed to complete the last wall of the garden. After the grooves were cleaned and the brick squared, the Mason looked down on his weary apprentice and said with the swelled-chest of satisfaction, "We did it."

"Yes, you did" replied the Apprentice. "Yes you did."

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for works of service for building up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I have been the prideful, selfish Mason.

And I have been doing it all wrong.

Maybe I'll put more up later.

Peace to all brothers in the Year of our Lord 2007.

Somebody ruined Christmass for me

I grew up in a home that celebrated Christmas. The presents. The tree. The ornaments. The cookies for Santa. The whole bit. Our gifts were piled up under the tree complete with ribbons and nametags - as is customary in every house. The tags told us who the gifts were for and who they were from. Dad. Mom. Grandmother. Santa. We opened one present on the Eve and the others in the morning after. Sleep was always light. Bing Crosby sang in the background.

We drank eggnog, watched Miracle on 34th Street, nibbled on sausage balls and sipped apple cider.

Of course, in our house Christmas was not really Jesus' birthday. It was just a day that the world celebrated Jesus' birthday. (The irony of the "world" celebrating anything about Jesus did not strike me until long after I realized that it was actually my father who ate Santa's cookies.)

So here I am:

I don't like Christmas trees. Not even the real ones. There is something weird about traipsing around the city to some empty car lot, buying a tree for 10x its actual value in cut wood, strapping it to the top of your Buick, hauling it home in the dead of winter, digging in the basement for a rusty tree stand, setting up the rootless tree in the tree stand, and then covering the rusty tree stand with an old sheet which serves a dual purpose as it hides the rust and catches dead pine needles. After the tree has "fallen out" we promptly decorate it with ornaments that would be considered gawd-awful gaudy in any other context. Glass eggs, plastic stars and hard Playdough moldings; Las Vegas neon, fiberglass and Gabriel cover the tree.

Speaking of ornaments, I don't like ornaments either. Ornaments are overly sentimental and overly fragile. Which means that the emotions tied to those sentiments are also overly fragile. If you've ever broken someone else's ornament, you know what I mean. And with the ornaments, we hang socks on our walls. Worse still, we put edible stuff in the socks.

I don't much care for Christmas songs either. Most of them. OK, I do like "O Holy Night" and "Breath of Heaven." But Jingle Bells, Away in a Manger, Bethlehem O Bethlehem and Frosty just don't do it for me.

Christmas is all warm and cozy, glittery and glitzy, scented and potpourried. But to me, it smells of tradition. And not that sweet smell of tradition that I associate with other sweet-smelling traditional things.

Admittedly, I have a tree this year. Plastic.

Bah. Humbug.

Yesterday I woke early, had a encouraging talk on Skype with my Negro friend, busted out the guitar and praised God and sauntered into the Assembly on a nice high.

Then the worship leader burst my bubble. She said, "I thought we would just sing some of our favorite Carols this morning. Now who has a favorite Carol?"

Descent.

We sang for 1/2 an hour or so. We had no songbooks handy so we muttered through the "famous" songs, remembering two-thirds of the first verses and most of the choruses. Does anyone know "Angels We Have Heard On High?" Sure! But only one out of the dozen did. Mumble. Hum. Mumble. "An oldie but goodie," I thought.

Today I am thinking, "Who ruined Christmas for me?"

I am torn.

I have a hard time calling it "Jesus' birthday." But I relish the opportunity to discuss the Incarnation.

I have a hard time with the god-like anti-burglar Santa Claus. But I have an easy time saying that the Father is a giver of good gifts.

I have a hard time with trees and ornaments and carols. But I love gifts and children's smiles and hot cocoa.

I have a hard time with the commercial Christmas. But long for the fellowship that the season brings.

I like sleigh bells and snowmen and chestnuts. Yep, they have those in China. Chestnuts, that is. But I find that I am embarrassed to gather around the piano to sing Jingle Bells and Come All Ye Faithful in the same medley.

And yet, year after year I do.

However, in my mind, somehow the religious has infringed on the fun.

Christmas has been washed away in the cynicism. All that is left is a bit of gratefulness.

Thanks to my brother and parents who gave gifts this year. Thanks to my wife and children for their smiles and joy and Bible stories and pecan pie. Thanks to my employer who gave me 3 weeks off for this holiday. Thanks to my co-workers for their kind words and chocolate.

If I push the tinsel out of my eyes, tip back my Santa cap and table my champagne, there is one thing that I am truly grateful for above all things. As is common in the Church:

But thanks be most of all to the Word of God who became flesh in the baby Jesus; who did not see equality with God something to be grasped but emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant. Who was born to lowly Jewish parents, in a dirty barn, in disreputable circumstances. Who grew in statue and in favor with God and man. Who lived sinlessly before the Father. Who fulfilled the law in a life of obedience and a bloody death. Who rose in the flesh again after 3 days in the ground and in Hades. Who reigns as the saviour of sinners.

Yes, thank God for Christ's mass.

The Gay Monkey

A brother brought an interesting idea to light the other day in conversation:

One of the agendas of the gay community is to wrest the responsiblity for being gay from the individual and let Mother Nature take the fall. They are not so bold as to use the "Product of the Environment" argument since too much would be made of their perverse, unstructured and ungodly homelives. The patently secular homosexual will unashamedly admit that he/she is "gay by choice." However, the pat answer for those in contact with the religous world is the tried-and-true "I was born that way. I didn't have a choice." And nowadays there is much scientific "evidence" to support this statement.

But can a gay man be athiest? Surely. Can a gay man believe in evolution and hold to the natural occurance of homosexuality? Not so easily. Two problems arise for the modern homosexual scientist, the gay evolutionist.

One. If homosexuality is a natural trait that has existed for 1000's of years, it is difficult to imagine a trait such as homosexuality surviving among evolving creatures. It has been shown repeatedly that even minor deformities or (to put it nicely) irregularities in animals can lead to isolation and ultimately pre-mature death. If evolving man did not isolate the homosexual Neanderthal, certainly that trait would have receded since it is inferior. Inferior? Homosexuality has lacked the ability to transmit the Gay Gene to even one generation. It just can't propogate.

Two. If evolution is continuing, it seems that it is necessary to exterminate the inferior trait. Thus homosexuality falls prey to the Machine. Survival of the Fittest.

Wrestling in the Baptistry...sounds fun.

The Sneaky Question

There is an underhanded question in the Christian community. (This is my Kierkegaadian definition of "underhanded": the purpose of the question is not to be answered so as to remove ignorance, but to solicit an answer that the Questioner might easily categorize the Answerer based on the response given.) This multi-purposed, underhanded question is "Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?" This question has been proposed to me on more than one occasion; more than two. And based on my "Yes" or "No," the one asking would know whether I believed I was saved by works or saved by grace. No is for grace. Yes is for works.

Take from my experience. Don't answer the question. Just don't. If someone asks you this question, just look at them with a blank stare and then with a subtle misdirection, hide their forehead labels from them.

(I do think there are better questions, like: What must I do to be saved? Or the theological question: What is "salvation?" Or if one is inclined toward the doctrinal, he might ask: Is baptism necessary?)

A New Slant on Urgency

Growing up among scribes and lawyers, the "Baptism passages" had a place of honor. All of these scriptures were irrefutable, self-explanatory and useful for reproof. One of my favorite teachings was the "Do it now!" exposition. According to the Scripture, those with faith in Christ were baptized immediately. That very day. That very hour. That very moment. In keeping with the Necessary Inference law, every person of Faith, should engage in baptism that very hour! (While I have stripped my theology of much of its CoC vestige, I still teach that baptism is important enough to do quickly.)

The baptism passage that struck me recently was the eunuch story in Acts 8. The eunuch had to have been affluent seeing that he served in Queen Candace's court, he was being chauffeured in a chariot and he had a working copy of the scroll of Isaiah. Hollywood dresses all of ancient African nobility in embroidered, white linen and so I can hardly imagine a court official in lesser clothes. Yet here is a wealthy man, a court official, dressed in white, who goes down into a road-side pond for baptism. I hold out no hope that this was a cement-lined, chlorinated, 88-degree baptistry.

Why were people wanting this rite so urgently? There seems to be no "push" by the Preacher to "do it now." Yet, the people wanted to. This is seen in Acts 2 when 3000 were baptized in one day. Couldn't a few have waited until the next day? Or with the jailer in Acts 16. It was midnight when the earthquake hit, couldn't he have waited until the next day? Well, it was the next day... technically. But he and his entire family were baptized that very hour after hearing the gospel and believing.

There is much ado nowadays about baptism being a sign. Among evangelicals (with whom I fellowship), I hear that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward grace" or some variation thereof. Outward symbol. Recently one brother said an "outward expression of an inward condition."

I certainly have no problems with symbols. Take communion for instance. However, Christianity by-and-large is not "symbolic." We do have symbols, signs and certainly outward expressions. However, the signs and symbols are very few. Interestingly enough, baptism is not one of those signs.

In the New Testament, and in cases in the OT (Naaman), baptism is done for a reason. There is a purpose behind it. In other words, baptism is practical. In baptism, something happens. It is never referred to as a symbol or sign of something else. So while, "outward sign of an inward grace" sounds nice, it is just not biblical. Paul teaches that if you have the Spirit, or if you have salvation or if you have an inward grace, you will walk according to that Spirit, live in obedience and sin no more. These are the outward expressions. Confession is an outward expression. Praise is an outward expression. Yet they are not signs, per se. They are not symbolic of salvation.

Those who call baptism a sign (not all) often do so because biblical baptism has been emptied of its purpose and function. It is no longer a place (as the Catholics teach) where righteousness is imparted, where salvation is granted, where the Spirit comes. It is no longer necessary for salvation. It serves no function except to (among many other things) indicate a condition. It is done simply at the command and example of Christ and the apostles. Since we have to do it, it is said, it must have some reason. And so the reason must be...baptism is a sign of greater things.

But as I consider the "urgency model" I am convinced that the early church had a higher expectation in baptism.

Before I continue, I want to make three disclaimers (which are also open to discussion):

I do not believe baptism (the act or the water) has any inherent power to save or administer or produce anything. Baptism is not the source of our salvation; it has no saving power.

I do not believe that a person is made righteous in the waters of baptism. I believe that baptism is for the righteous not to be made righteous.

I do not believe that baptism is the mode of our salvation.

Whew! Glad to have that off my chest. Back to the higher expectation.

What exactly did the church expect to happen in baptism? I believe they expected the gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift is not a gift given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit himself. Why did the 3000 cram impatiently into the baptismal pools and fonts? Why did the noble eunuch seek baptism in a street pool? Why did the jailer gather his family for baptism at 3 in the morning? For a sign? Not at all. It was for the Gift. The very Spirit of God.

Look at Acts 19. Paul comes across some believers teaching the baptism of John. Paul makes a connection between baptism and the Spirit and asks them, "Do you have the Spirit?" They respond, "No, we didn't even know there was a Spirit." (One of the key differences between the baptism of John and the baptism in Christ, is the Spirit.) Paul baptizes them. Indwelling.

God is not giving the Spirit because you are baptized. Rather, He gives the Spirit at the occasion of baptism. S.K. offered this word to me: occasion. It is the occasion when God give his Gift. Baptism is not the mode, or the God-arm-twisting rite. It is the time and place when God gives his Gift to those made righteous through His given faith and grace.

Someone may ask, "Is baptism a sign of our righteousness?" because Paul said "You who have been baptized have been clothed with Christ." He also said, "Or don't you know that those who have been baptized have been baptized into His death?" These two passages are probably not much different in meaning, though the picture is different. However, in these passages Paul is not saying that baptism is symbolic of our entry into death or a sign of Christ-clothing. Christ-clothes are real. His death is real. In Ephesians 1, Paul uses "in Christ." This is a real location. A real place. Likewise baptism is not a sign of all the behind-the-scenes realities, it is an occasion where some of these realities come into play.

My Stoning

A couple of weeks ago, I offered these thoughts to our fellowship and I faced more than a bit of opposition to this teaching. So, as a result I am still mulling over some things and I am not hard-and-fast sold on everything.

One man said, "You might say that baptism is a place where one receives the Spirit, but you cannot say its the only place." I can concede this.
Another sister said, "Baptism is not when you receive the Spirit, you receive Him by asking him into your heart." This statement received a lot of nodded heads. Hear. Hear.

There are two problems with this that I see (and then I will be done for today.):

One, people often use verses that Jesus said (as a description of God) to dictate church doctrine and practice. Like any biblical text, this is good...when done properly. We all agree that God will give the Spirit to those who ask of Him. Yes, it is true, that if you open the door, He will come in. However, as you look at church practice in the first century, what you see (hopefully) is how they understood the teachings of Christ and how they put them into practice. So when people in the NT ask about salvation, the apostolic teaching is not "open the door" and "ask" but believe and be baptized.

The second problem I have is the with this prevailing idea of works. If the Spirit comes into the heart of all those "ask in faith" and does not go into the heart of those who do not ask, does that not mean that the Indwelling is dependent on our asking? Let us not assume that asking and confessing is any more or less of a "work" than baptism. In an effort to avoid one work, many have fallen headlong for another.

The Sum of All Things

At this time, I am seeing everything this way:

We were sick and depraved and far from God. We were separated from God by God because of our sins. While we were yet sinners and enemies of God and the Cross, Christ died us. God, through Christ, the Spirit and the gospel of Christ, brought about in us faith and repentance. Apart from these things there would be no faith. Through the God-given faith we were counted as righteous through the sacrifice of Christ. As righteous people, we entered the waters of baptism. At that occasion, we were baptized into the death of Christ, clothed with Him and given His Spirit to dwell in Us. We have the Seal, the Comforter, the Eye-Opener, the Heart-Opener and the Gift-giver inside us. He will bring us home to glory, our inheritance and our salvation before the throne of God on That Day.

Calling All Brethren

You be iron.

Blocking Pattern

Dear Readers,

The Big Red One has put up the firewall again.

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

Before I begin my story, there are two things you should know about lions, in case you meet one face-to-face:

One, the flow of lion urine is positively counter-intuitive. Seriously. It shoots straight out the back. I'm talking male lions, not just Mrs. Lion.

Two, when it flows... it puts racehorses to shame.

Yesterday, my wife decided to take the girls to Peace Park, a large park very near to our home. Its a beautiful place. Green, with a man-made lake, a real WWII ammo bunker and lions. While the park itself is well-maintained, I cannot boast the same lot for the animals. They live in cages that resemble medieval jail-cells. Their food is little more than the banana-peels and stale bread that on-lookers toss through the bars. Peace Park is one of the last great bastions of anti-PETA. Despite the torrid conditions and the skinny lions, this scene garners hundreds of gawkers a day. Yesterday my family was among them.

Baby D had already had enough of the lion action and was wondering elsewhere. The two girls were still standing in a stare-down with the King of Beasts. After he'd had enough, he let out a lazy yawn, pirohuetted and let loose a stream of pee such as the world has never seen. The stream caught the two beauties right in the face. No body part was left unaffected. Hair, arms and legs. Unfortunately for the my two little ladies, they were standing with mouths agape at the time. They can now say with some authority, "Lion pee tastes nasty!" And even after a bath and brushing teeth and eating fruit and gum, the wild flavor lingered.

This is a story I will keep locked away until they begin dating.

Gross. Blaaaagh!

Lawful

Cigarettes.
Cigars.
Wine.
Public School.
UFC.
Church Buildings.
Medicine.
Birth Control.
Professionals Gifts.
Radio Programs.
Beer.
Pulp Fiction.
Periodic Communion.
Television.
Movies.
Wealth.
Second Car.
Mission Agencies.
Instrumental Praise.
Friday Fellowship.
Secular Secondary Education.
Fundraising.
Working Mothers.