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.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Monday, January 29, 2007
More Thoughts on Nehemiah 13
ArcanumIt 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.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
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
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
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.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
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,(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 gifts to men.”
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.
Monday, December 18, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Saturday, October 14, 2006
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!
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!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
A Common Thread
Several years into the Babylonian captivity, after God has made His name known and revered in the whole Babylonian and Medo-Persian empire, Daniel recalls the prophecies of Jeremiah and is moved to tears, confession and repentance. Daniel gave long days to fasting, sack-cloth and ashes and heart-wrenching prayer. And he said, "Give ear, O God, and hear; open Your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears Your Name. We do not make requests of You because we are righteous, but because of Your great mercy. [9:18 NIV]"
Amidst judgment and punishment, Daniel was aroused to say that Jehovah is merciful. With the city and the holy temple in ashes, with his people scattered to the four winds and he himself a eunuch in the court of heathens, Daniel calls God a God of great mercy. Daniel knew that his people were brought low by the hand of God. Conversely, they would be rescued and made to stand by the that same Hand.
God's grace is a consistent theme in Scripture. As is our salvation on the basis of that grace alone.
Daniel says, "We make requests of you, not because we are righteous but because of Your great mercy." Not because we are righteous. Not because we consent to our punishment. Not because we have confessed our sins in total. Not because we have repented. Not because we are withered from fasting and shamed in sackcloth. But because You are merciful.
While Daniel decried the evils of Israel and committed to godliness through repentance, he knew that those things had no inherent saving power. He knew that in the end, all men must declare their filthy rags to be filthy and acknowledge that their rescue and forgiveness came solely on the basis of God's mercy.
Amidst judgment and punishment, Daniel was aroused to say that Jehovah is merciful. With the city and the holy temple in ashes, with his people scattered to the four winds and he himself a eunuch in the court of heathens, Daniel calls God a God of great mercy. Daniel knew that his people were brought low by the hand of God. Conversely, they would be rescued and made to stand by the that same Hand.
God's grace is a consistent theme in Scripture. As is our salvation on the basis of that grace alone.
Daniel says, "We make requests of you, not because we are righteous but because of Your great mercy." Not because we are righteous. Not because we consent to our punishment. Not because we have confessed our sins in total. Not because we have repented. Not because we are withered from fasting and shamed in sackcloth. But because You are merciful.
While Daniel decried the evils of Israel and committed to godliness through repentance, he knew that those things had no inherent saving power. He knew that in the end, all men must declare their filthy rags to be filthy and acknowledge that their rescue and forgiveness came solely on the basis of God's mercy.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Blessed are the Peacemakers
Since I have been meditating lately on the Beattitudes, perhaps God decided to test me on a point or two.
Last night, I was returning home from B&Q with the family. I was in the front seat of the taxi, the family safely tucked away in the rear. As we stopped at a red light, the driver of the taxi in front of ours, got out of his car and began to yell at two men in an adjacent black car. After a few seconds, the occupants had had enough jawing and they jumped out of their car and began to pound the 50-year old taxi driver.
The sight of this prompted my dear wife to exclaim, "Honey!" Which in our marriage, means "Do something!" I exited the taxi and ran to pull the biggest beater-downer away from the taxi-driver. I put myself in the middle of the fracas and fore-armed the biggie and pushed the taxi driver back.
In my best adrenaline-induced, loud, broken Chinese I repeatedly screamed "That's enough!" The main aggressor cooled it and his passenger backed away, content just to offer obscenities. Alas, the taxi driver was not as smart. He held his grip on the big guy's shirt sleeve. As much as I tried to coax him to let go, he wouldn't. Apparently the shirt was made out of Lycra or something similar because (just like in the movies) the entire shirt ripped right off the other man's body! The taxi driver stumbled backward, regained his balance and stood there holding the shirt. The finger popped right out of the hole in the dike. There was no holding back the tides at that point. The two men went right after the driver again!
But almost out of the sky, two policeman appeared and wrestled the men apart. Unfortunately, not before each got in a few parting shots on the hapless driver. When the Calvary arrived, I returned to my taxi and had quite a lively conversation with my own driver on the way home.
After I got home, I thought about the situation long and hard.
We are called to be peacemakers. I think it was good to make peace. Or try.
On the other hand, I have seen in my lifetime a couple dozen fights and have even been in a little scrap or two myself. (Not in 14 years though.) I have watched my share of UFC and other combat-oriented events. Most fights - in fact a huge percentage - end with just a little blood, sore knuckles, a black eye or a cracked rib. Few end in death or dismemberment. Especially in China.
So I was also considering this notion. Is it right for a man to get out of his car, go over to another car and scream and yell? Isn't there part of us, that says, "You know, that's not right."? If I had just let him get wailed on, (as it was, the guys got in a good 8-10 licks), would he ever yell and scream again? I would hope not. Maybe he needed to learn a lesson. 50 is not too old to learn how to behave.
Hopefully, both ends were served. The older taxi driver learned not to confront two men in their thirties by himself and I saved him from a more serious butt-whooping.
In the future (as this type of thing seems more common), I will probably just let the men go at it. However, where there seems to be some gross injustice (like man versus child or woman or old man), I would have to step in. That also is more and more common.
Anyway....interesting night.
I think there is a lot of peacemaking on the horizon.
Last night, I was returning home from B&Q with the family. I was in the front seat of the taxi, the family safely tucked away in the rear. As we stopped at a red light, the driver of the taxi in front of ours, got out of his car and began to yell at two men in an adjacent black car. After a few seconds, the occupants had had enough jawing and they jumped out of their car and began to pound the 50-year old taxi driver.
The sight of this prompted my dear wife to exclaim, "Honey!" Which in our marriage, means "Do something!" I exited the taxi and ran to pull the biggest beater-downer away from the taxi-driver. I put myself in the middle of the fracas and fore-armed the biggie and pushed the taxi driver back.
In my best adrenaline-induced, loud, broken Chinese I repeatedly screamed "That's enough!" The main aggressor cooled it and his passenger backed away, content just to offer obscenities. Alas, the taxi driver was not as smart. He held his grip on the big guy's shirt sleeve. As much as I tried to coax him to let go, he wouldn't. Apparently the shirt was made out of Lycra or something similar because (just like in the movies) the entire shirt ripped right off the other man's body! The taxi driver stumbled backward, regained his balance and stood there holding the shirt. The finger popped right out of the hole in the dike. There was no holding back the tides at that point. The two men went right after the driver again!
But almost out of the sky, two policeman appeared and wrestled the men apart. Unfortunately, not before each got in a few parting shots on the hapless driver. When the Calvary arrived, I returned to my taxi and had quite a lively conversation with my own driver on the way home.
After I got home, I thought about the situation long and hard.
We are called to be peacemakers. I think it was good to make peace. Or try.
On the other hand, I have seen in my lifetime a couple dozen fights and have even been in a little scrap or two myself. (Not in 14 years though.) I have watched my share of UFC and other combat-oriented events. Most fights - in fact a huge percentage - end with just a little blood, sore knuckles, a black eye or a cracked rib. Few end in death or dismemberment. Especially in China.
So I was also considering this notion. Is it right for a man to get out of his car, go over to another car and scream and yell? Isn't there part of us, that says, "You know, that's not right."? If I had just let him get wailed on, (as it was, the guys got in a good 8-10 licks), would he ever yell and scream again? I would hope not. Maybe he needed to learn a lesson. 50 is not too old to learn how to behave.
Hopefully, both ends were served. The older taxi driver learned not to confront two men in their thirties by himself and I saved him from a more serious butt-whooping.
In the future (as this type of thing seems more common), I will probably just let the men go at it. However, where there seems to be some gross injustice (like man versus child or woman or old man), I would have to step in. That also is more and more common.
Anyway....interesting night.
I think there is a lot of peacemaking on the horizon.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
My Legalist Mind Pt. 1
I was reading Matthew 5. Jesus sat down. He opened His mouth,
"The poor in spirit are blessed because the kingdom of heaven is theirs."
Stop.*
Hmmm.
I kept reading. I saw Jesus say:
You have heard it said, "The rich get richer and the poor get nothing" but I say, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor."
You have heard it said, "Pursue pleasure, reject sorrow, turn sorrow into gladness and be happy" but I say, "Do not be afraid to mourn, there is comfort for the mourner."
You have heard it said, "Survival of the fittest, Dog eat Dog, Might makes right" but I say , "The gentle will inherit the earth."
You have heard it said, "You are good enough; Love you for you" but I say, "Hunger for righteousness and you will be filled."
You have heard it said, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but I say, "The merciful will find mercy."
You have heard it said, "You need to experience the world and you can't be blind to sin" but I say, "Pure hearts clearly see God."
You have heard said every slanderous, gossiping, back-biting, murderous comment, but I say, "God's sons are peacemakers."
You have heard it said, "Watch your rep, watch your back, get yours and stay true to your colors" but I say unto you, "Take the Big One for Me and you'll get a big reward."
---------------
* For some reason, I have always read this passage this way: Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. My mind has said to me, "You are blessed and will be blessed because you are poor in spirit." Something is inherently wrong with that. Are we blessed due to an intrinsic value or characteristic? Or are we blessed because we receive a blessing? In other words, are we in a state of "blessedness" when we are persecuted or when we a rewarded?
"The poor in spirit are blessed because the kingdom of heaven is theirs."
Stop.*
Hmmm.
I kept reading. I saw Jesus say:
You have heard it said, "The rich get richer and the poor get nothing" but I say, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor."
You have heard it said, "Pursue pleasure, reject sorrow, turn sorrow into gladness and be happy" but I say, "Do not be afraid to mourn, there is comfort for the mourner."
You have heard it said, "Survival of the fittest, Dog eat Dog, Might makes right" but I say , "The gentle will inherit the earth."
You have heard it said, "You are good enough; Love you for you" but I say, "Hunger for righteousness and you will be filled."
You have heard it said, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but I say, "The merciful will find mercy."
You have heard it said, "You need to experience the world and you can't be blind to sin" but I say, "Pure hearts clearly see God."
You have heard said every slanderous, gossiping, back-biting, murderous comment, but I say, "God's sons are peacemakers."
You have heard it said, "Watch your rep, watch your back, get yours and stay true to your colors" but I say unto you, "Take the Big One for Me and you'll get a big reward."
---------------
* For some reason, I have always read this passage this way: Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. My mind has said to me, "You are blessed and will be blessed because you are poor in spirit." Something is inherently wrong with that. Are we blessed due to an intrinsic value or characteristic? Or are we blessed because we receive a blessing? In other words, are we in a state of "blessedness" when we are persecuted or when we a rewarded?
Friday, September 01, 2006
How Deep the Father's Love for Us
Can
I just stumbled across this. It touched me. I watched it again and it moved me more. Cody...this is for you.
This is a music video about a father and his son. Over twenty years ago Dick Hoyt ran a 5k while pushing his disabled son, Rick, in a wheelchair. They have since competed in over a hundred triathlons and marathons together.
Visit Team Hoyt
I just stumbled across this. It touched me. I watched it again and it moved me more. Cody...this is for you.
This is a music video about a father and his son. Over twenty years ago Dick Hoyt ran a 5k while pushing his disabled son, Rick, in a wheelchair. They have since competed in over a hundred triathlons and marathons together.
Visit Team Hoyt
Monday, August 28, 2006
No Time Like the Future
Thought for the day. Something that's been on my mind.
Is it possible to organize and arrange your life, work and religion in such a manner as to remove any and all opportunity to demonstrate "love of neighbor?"
I will testify that it is.
Is it possible to organize and arrange your life, work and religion in such a manner as to remove any and all opportunity to demonstrate "love of neighbor?"
I will testify that it is.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
The Ragamuffin Man
Sometimes I feel "led by the Spirit" to the bookshelf. A couple of months ago, my boy Matt left me a copy of Ragamuffin Gospel on the way out. I finally picked it up last night and read well into the night. Its an excellent challenge so far. Brennan Manning is prone to quote the heavy hitters, so his thoughts are strong. I felt like someone grabbed me by the shirt-collar, lifted me up and slapped me a few times. "Grace!" Slap. "Mercy!" Slap.Has anyone else read RG?
"Because," the man said, "when I look at that God, the God of Abraham, I feel I am near a real God not the sort of dignified, business-like, Rotary Club god we chatter about here on Sunday mornings. Abraham's God could blow a man to bits, give and then take a child, ask for everything from a person, and then want more. I want to know that God."
Monday, August 21, 2006
Awe, Shock & Wonder
Marq posted this on his site from theResurgence:
These numbers are astounding to me. Awe. Shock. Wonder.
- Fifteen hundred pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches. (Another way to look at this is 18,000 a year.)
- Fifty percent of pastors' marriages will end in divorce.
- Eighty percent of pastors and eighty-four percent of their spouses feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastors.
- Fifty percent of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
- Eighty percent of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
- Seventy percent of pastors constantly fight depression.
- Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.
- Seventy percent said the only time they spend studying the Word is when they are preparing their sermons.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses feel their spouse is overworked.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses wish their spouse would choose another profession.
- The majority of pastor's wives surveyed said that the most destructive event that has occurred in their marriage and family was the day they entered the ministry.
Don't laugh but I went to a seminary (of sorts) for a few months. Not once did I glance out knowingly to my classmates (wink) and believe that 80% would throw up their hands within 5 years. Of the ones that hang around and survive into their 6th, 7th or 8th years, 80% of their wives would wish they would work in another "field." Of the 20% that do remain, over 1/2 would quit if they could do something else. Who knew that of my class of 50, 20 would have affairs? Or that 35 would have Depression? Or 25 would get a divorce? Or with all the training 8/10 would still feel grossly inadequate to minister?
Yet, I sit here, reading my Bible only in preparation for my studies, struggling with endurance, not knowing the language, failing morally, battling contention and my family torn between ministry and secular work.
And I am not even a pastor.
These numbers are astounding to me. Awe. Shock. Wonder.
- Fifteen hundred pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches. (Another way to look at this is 18,000 a year.)
- Fifty percent of pastors' marriages will end in divorce.
- Eighty percent of pastors and eighty-four percent of their spouses feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastors.
- Fifty percent of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
- Eighty percent of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
- Seventy percent of pastors constantly fight depression.
- Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.
- Seventy percent said the only time they spend studying the Word is when they are preparing their sermons.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses feel their spouse is overworked.
- Eighty percent of pastors' spouses wish their spouse would choose another profession.
- The majority of pastor's wives surveyed said that the most destructive event that has occurred in their marriage and family was the day they entered the ministry.
Don't laugh but I went to a seminary (of sorts) for a few months. Not once did I glance out knowingly to my classmates (wink) and believe that 80% would throw up their hands within 5 years. Of the ones that hang around and survive into their 6th, 7th or 8th years, 80% of their wives would wish they would work in another "field." Of the 20% that do remain, over 1/2 would quit if they could do something else. Who knew that of my class of 50, 20 would have affairs? Or that 35 would have Depression? Or 25 would get a divorce? Or with all the training 8/10 would still feel grossly inadequate to minister?
Yet, I sit here, reading my Bible only in preparation for my studies, struggling with endurance, not knowing the language, failing morally, battling contention and my family torn between ministry and secular work.
And I am not even a pastor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
