Rick and Sandy had a solid marriage. They had been friends since high school, and began dating in college. Sandy was ecstatic when Rick asked her to marry him during their senior year. They had so much in common. They both liked listening to and performing classical music. They both loved to read and hike. But their most beloved hobby was gardening and horticulture. Rick had won several competitions at the state fair for his prize butternut squash, while Sandy was more of a flower person. So when they got married it was a match made in heaven – or perhaps the garden.
After several years of successful and award-winning gardening together, Rick and Sandy decided to move beyond the plant kingdom, and have children. Over the next several years they had 7 children together. While many hobbies and activities were laid aside to raise their children, they still kept up the gardening together, especially Rick's prized butternut squash.
As the children grew older, Rick and Sandy followed the counsel of "few rules, well enforced". This allowed them to have a close and positive relationship with all their children. Of course, the most important rule was "don't mess with Dad's butternut squash" – don't play in it, don't eat it, don't even touch it, just to be on the safe side. The children weren't exactly sure what the consequences would be, but from the look on Dad's face and the tone of his voice, it looked pretty terrible, and they didn't want to find out.
Unfortunately, as with all children, the draw of the "off limits" pulled at them. They wondered, "What is so special about the butternut squash. I wonder what it tastes like. I wonder what it feels like. It looks like it would be fun to play with, almost like a football." Surely it wouldn't hurt to play with just a couple of them. After all, there were dozens of plants and squash in that special section of the garden. What difference would losing one or two make?
Finally, one afternoon, when Rick and Sandy were out ingathering in the neighborhood, Lucy, the oldest daughter and second child overall, said it was time to check out the butternut squash. After all, squash is good for us, and will boost our immune systems. Michael, the oldest, warned against it. "You know that's the one thing that father would definitely be angry about Lucy," said Michael. But, as Lucy had great influence with the younger children, and even with Michael, they all ended up playing in the butternut squash patch, and even eating a few of them. After eating a raw squash though, they had no desire for them anymore, and they slowly began to feel a sense of fear and dread about the return of their parents. On this afternoon, instead of greeting Mom & Dad when they came home as they usually did, all the children were in their rooms – quiet.
When Rick and Sandy inquired why they hadn't been greeted at the door, the squirming and downcast looks of the children caused Rick to inquire about his butternut squash. Soon the whole sad tale came out with accusations against Lucy as the instigator by Michael, and counter accusations that Michael was the oldest and should have controlled things.
From the devastated and distraught looks on the faces of Mom and Dad, the children really became afraid of the consequences of violating the butternut squash law. Sadly and carefully, Dad began to explain that because he was not only a loving Dad, but also a just Dad, he couldn't just forgive their trespass, even if they were truly repentant. They had violated the most vital of rule in their home, and even if he wanted to, he couldn't just forgive them, because he was a just and righteous father. The rules of the home had been violated, and the penalties must be dispensed – or he wouldn't be a just and right father.
First of all, because of their violation, he could no longer allow them to stay in the presence of him and Sandy, because misbehavior and good behavior could not dwell together. From now on, they would have to live in the shed, with the dogs – Winston & Chester.
Second of all, the penalty of their crime must be paid, in order for them to even continue to live on the property at all, even in the shed. Dad explained to them that long before they had had children, he and Mom had decided that if any, or all, of their children should violate this vital family law, then Mom would pay the price necessary for them to continue to live in the shed. She would bear the penalty for them. And then, if they accepted Mom's sacrifice in their behalf, and demonstrated an appreciation of Mom's sacrifice, they would eventually be allowed back in the house.
Sadly and slowly, father, mother, and children trudged out to the garden. There, Dad took one of the broken vines of the butternut squash plant. And as Mom stood under the apple tree, Dad made a noose in the vine, placed it around Mom's neck, threw the free end over a branch, and pulled until Mom's feet were dangling off the ground. Slowly Mom asphyxiated, and died.
Dad turned to the children and said, "Now my justice is satisfied, the price has been paid, the penalty I set is exhausted. You will now be able to come back and live in the house someday. Mom and I did this because we love you. The demands of the law were met."
Now a father and his children could be AT-ONE. Do you want to move back home with Dad?
================================================================================
Where "atonement" came from
The word atonement was first used in 1513, it was soon employed by Tyndale in his translation of the Bible in 1526. The word atone, from which atonement looks like it was derived, did not come along until 1555, through "back formation" from atonement. So what did it mean? The story you've heard is true: atonement really means at-one-ment. The idea of being at one, in harmony. It is a "made-up" word, formed by running at and one together, as the rather free writers of the time were fond of doing. To quote An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English: "atone. Originally to reconcile, from adverbial phrase at one, and preserving the old pronunciation of the latter word, as in only, alone." That's why we say "atone" and "at one" differently today, which disguises their commonality. But in reality, and when they were first used, they meant the same thing. (The original pronunciation of the word one continues in the words only [one-ly] and alone [all-one]).
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary describes the word atonement: "the condition of being at one with others; concord, agreement." There is no concept here of some necessary paying of penalty, of appeasement or placating a hostile person. It is simply "one-ness". The same source gives a further definition: "3. Spec. in Theol. Reconciliation or restoration between God and sinners. 1526 (Tyndale)." and then adds the note "Atonement is variously used by theologians in the sense of reconciliation, propitiation, expiation. (Not so applied in any version of the N.T.)"—an interesting "theological" comment from a work not particularly concerned with religious matters!
This is a far cry from the meaning that the word atonement has assumed in the present: that of doing something in the form of payment or penalty to "atone" for some wrongdoing; a very "legal" word in which recompense is made and obligations met. As Chambers Universal Learners Dictionary puts it: "Atone. To do something good to show that one is sorry for doing something bad."
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary also well illustrates the changed meaning: "atonement. 1. Archaic. Concord; reconciliation. 2. Satisfactory reparation for an offense or injury." The archaic meaning was the original sense, the second definition of making amends is the meaning most often used today.
In this way then the meaning of the word atonement has shifted considerably from its first meaning of one-ness and the state of "one-ment". Tyndale, who introduced the word into his Bible translation, saw it in its simple meaning. Jesus came to make us one with God: "One God, one Mediatour, that is to say aduocate, intercessor, or an atonemaker, between God and man." "One mediatour Christ,..and by that word vnderstand an attonemaker, a peacemaker." (Tyndale, Works, p.158, p.431, cited in An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, art. atone.)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Jesus Mean and Wild
I used to wrestle in high school. And those wrestling matches were some of the most physically intense experiences of my life. No other sport that I have played quite compares to the intensity of a wrestling match in which constant pressure must be exercised against one's opponent. Every muscle is fully engaged and pushed to the limit if you are doing it right. The only match that didn't leave me completely exhausted was one that almost killed me when I was pinned in the first 10 seconds by a three-hundred pound dude that fell right on my chest!
That experience came back to my mind this week as I meditated on the intensity of Jesus' life experiences. Obviously there are many levels on which Jesus' life was very demanding. The man travelled hundreds, if not thousands of miles, on foot in extremely high temperatures! And his attitude reflected the toughness characteristic of such a hard lifestyle when he commented on John the baptist, "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothes? No, those who wear soft clothes are in kings' palaces" (Matt. 11.7-8). That dialogue is worthy of a line in a Clint Eastwood movie. Jesus and John were not soft men in soft clothes saying soft and soothing things! They were rough and tumble prophets, men hardened by tough circumstances. They were willing to stand up and speak out against the religious and political powers that were grinding the poor and oppressed in the dust!
Consider the following texts:
1.) "Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him." (Mark 1.12-13)
Jesus led a Spirit-driven life. And the Spirit will not be controlled by the human demand for comfort and convenience. It is a dangerous thing to pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit! The Spirit will drive us right into the ring where we will be forced to confront the powers of oppression and injustice in our world. Such a life may be difficult but it will be far more meaningful and rewarding than the easy way of just "going along" to "get along."
2.) "In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house." (Mark 3.27)
Jesus came into the world to bind the "strong man," that symbol of all tyrannical power, whether it be religious or political. Jesus' life was difficult because he challenged the authority of every power that diminished and demeaned human beings. He angered the rich, strong and powerful because he stood up for the poor, weak and powerless. More than that Jesus actually empowered the poor, weak and powerless which undermined the ability of those in power to control them! An example of this is Jesus' teaching that the "Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath command is not a means to dominate and control human beings, although that is how it was interpreted and used by the Jewish religious elites (and many since them have done the same!). Rather the Sabbath is a divine law that actually serves human need, and human need takes precedence over Sabbath law. Now that is truly revolutionary!
3.) "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Mark 8.31-33)
Jesus rejected every attempt to divert him from the extraordinary difficulty of his mission. Jesus even called one of his own disciples "Satan" when he (Peter, of course) suggested that Jesus would not have to die. Here again, just like in the wilderness with the great tempter, Jesus rejects the offer of imperial power. He rejects the path toward domination over others and chooses instead the path of service for others. And that choice and the iron will that carried it out ultimately established the Kingdom of God over the Domination System!
Jesus' life was intense because of the tension created by the incredible conflict in which he was engaged. As the bearer of the Kingdom of God he was engaged in nothing less than a jihad against the religious and imperial powers of his day. The only place that Jesus seemed to get any relief from this struggle was in the company of those that lived under the boot of the beast. Jesus enjoyed many parties in the presence of such people!
That experience came back to my mind this week as I meditated on the intensity of Jesus' life experiences. Obviously there are many levels on which Jesus' life was very demanding. The man travelled hundreds, if not thousands of miles, on foot in extremely high temperatures! And his attitude reflected the toughness characteristic of such a hard lifestyle when he commented on John the baptist, "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothes? No, those who wear soft clothes are in kings' palaces" (Matt. 11.7-8). That dialogue is worthy of a line in a Clint Eastwood movie. Jesus and John were not soft men in soft clothes saying soft and soothing things! They were rough and tumble prophets, men hardened by tough circumstances. They were willing to stand up and speak out against the religious and political powers that were grinding the poor and oppressed in the dust!
Consider the following texts:
1.) "Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him." (Mark 1.12-13)
Jesus led a Spirit-driven life. And the Spirit will not be controlled by the human demand for comfort and convenience. It is a dangerous thing to pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit! The Spirit will drive us right into the ring where we will be forced to confront the powers of oppression and injustice in our world. Such a life may be difficult but it will be far more meaningful and rewarding than the easy way of just "going along" to "get along."
2.) "In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house." (Mark 3.27)
Jesus came into the world to bind the "strong man," that symbol of all tyrannical power, whether it be religious or political. Jesus' life was difficult because he challenged the authority of every power that diminished and demeaned human beings. He angered the rich, strong and powerful because he stood up for the poor, weak and powerless. More than that Jesus actually empowered the poor, weak and powerless which undermined the ability of those in power to control them! An example of this is Jesus' teaching that the "Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath command is not a means to dominate and control human beings, although that is how it was interpreted and used by the Jewish religious elites (and many since them have done the same!). Rather the Sabbath is a divine law that actually serves human need, and human need takes precedence over Sabbath law. Now that is truly revolutionary!
3.) "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Mark 8.31-33)
Jesus rejected every attempt to divert him from the extraordinary difficulty of his mission. Jesus even called one of his own disciples "Satan" when he (Peter, of course) suggested that Jesus would not have to die. Here again, just like in the wilderness with the great tempter, Jesus rejects the offer of imperial power. He rejects the path toward domination over others and chooses instead the path of service for others. And that choice and the iron will that carried it out ultimately established the Kingdom of God over the Domination System!
Jesus' life was intense because of the tension created by the incredible conflict in which he was engaged. As the bearer of the Kingdom of God he was engaged in nothing less than a jihad against the religious and imperial powers of his day. The only place that Jesus seemed to get any relief from this struggle was in the company of those that lived under the boot of the beast. Jesus enjoyed many parties in the presence of such people!
The Good News is That Jesus is Stranger Than You Think But Better Than You Can Possibly Imagine
The great theologian and missionary Albert Schweitzer said that Jesus was "a stranger and an enigma" to his generation! In his amazing review of Lives of Jesus written in the 18th-19th centuries he made the point that scholars had simply been making Jesus into their own image. Schweitzer's challenge was powerful when it was first written and it is powerful today. The temptation for all Christians is to shape the materials we have about Jesus to fit our own preconceptions and ideals. As much as possible we all want a Jesus that looks and acts an awful lot like us!
The problem is that Jesus just doesn't fit in any of the boxes in which we put him. For example, what happens when we try to fit everything that Jesus said and did in the "nice-compassionate-man" box? Well, Jesus actually breaks out of that box. Not only in the nasty outburst in the temple scene but in his encounter with a Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter. In response to her plea, "Lord, help me" Jesus said to her, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Now that hardly seems like a nice or comassionate response by any cultural standard. And yet there it is. So we either have to worm our way around the not-niceness of the response and offer lame reinterpretations to make this incident fit our conceptions of niceness or maybe we just throw out the nice box altogether.
Here's a thought. Jesus doesn't have to be "nice" or "kind" or "loving" or "compassionate" or anything else. Maybe we shouldn't try to apply any external standards at all to the words and actions of Jesus. When we do this it actually places our human concepts above Jesus. In this way we turn ourselves and our human values and morals into the standard by which Jesus is judged! The result of this approach is that we just squeeze out all of the challenging material about Jesus' behavior and focus on the things that match our cultural and psychological conceptions of what is good and right. And whether the end result is a liberal or a conservative Jesus doesn't really matter. Either way we have an image of Jesus modified (in reality falsified) to suit our own tastes and preferences.
Let me suggest an alternate approach to the strange and difficult materials about Jesus in the gospel records. When asked by Moses to reveal His name God said, "I Am That I Am." Nothing like answering a question with a riddle! Interesting that Yahweh puts the emphasis on the "That" of his existence rather than the "What." Ultimately, what God is is dependent on the fact that God is! By focusing on the "That" of God's existence we come find a true answer to the question, "What is God?" The same is true of Jesus. Our task is not to judge "what" he said and did by our own human standards and values but to focus on the mere "That" of his existence. Instead of letting our concepts determine our image of Jesus we need to let the existence of Jesus itself shape our notions of what it means to be human, truly human!
The problem is that Jesus just doesn't fit in any of the boxes in which we put him. For example, what happens when we try to fit everything that Jesus said and did in the "nice-compassionate-man" box? Well, Jesus actually breaks out of that box. Not only in the nasty outburst in the temple scene but in his encounter with a Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter. In response to her plea, "Lord, help me" Jesus said to her, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Now that hardly seems like a nice or comassionate response by any cultural standard. And yet there it is. So we either have to worm our way around the not-niceness of the response and offer lame reinterpretations to make this incident fit our conceptions of niceness or maybe we just throw out the nice box altogether.
Here's a thought. Jesus doesn't have to be "nice" or "kind" or "loving" or "compassionate" or anything else. Maybe we shouldn't try to apply any external standards at all to the words and actions of Jesus. When we do this it actually places our human concepts above Jesus. In this way we turn ourselves and our human values and morals into the standard by which Jesus is judged! The result of this approach is that we just squeeze out all of the challenging material about Jesus' behavior and focus on the things that match our cultural and psychological conceptions of what is good and right. And whether the end result is a liberal or a conservative Jesus doesn't really matter. Either way we have an image of Jesus modified (in reality falsified) to suit our own tastes and preferences.
Let me suggest an alternate approach to the strange and difficult materials about Jesus in the gospel records. When asked by Moses to reveal His name God said, "I Am That I Am." Nothing like answering a question with a riddle! Interesting that Yahweh puts the emphasis on the "That" of his existence rather than the "What." Ultimately, what God is is dependent on the fact that God is! By focusing on the "That" of God's existence we come find a true answer to the question, "What is God?" The same is true of Jesus. Our task is not to judge "what" he said and did by our own human standards and values but to focus on the mere "That" of his existence. Instead of letting our concepts determine our image of Jesus we need to let the existence of Jesus itself shape our notions of what it means to be human, truly human!
Are Jesus Sayings Too Radical or Are Christians Too Conservative?
“Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Luke 12.32-34)
I have a book in my library that is entirely devoted to the "hard sayings" of Jesus. Interestingly, most of the hard sayings are actually pretty straight forward and clear. Maybe they are hard not because we don't understand them but precisely because we do. Take Jesus' statement, "Sell what you have and give alms." Is it really that difficult to understand or is it difficult precisely because it is absolutely clear? There is no argument that such an imperative would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to practice. But then why would we expect Jesus' sayings to be any less personally challenging then his lifestyle itself? Maybe his sayings are as unique and unrepeatable as his life itself. And if the bar is set too high for most people to follow is that so surprising?
Maybe the problem isn't with the radical and difficult sayings of Jesus but with our comfortable and affluent capitalistic lifestyles that are offended by such radical concepts as "selling" our possessions and "giving" to the poor. Maybe Jesus isn't too radical, maybe we are just too conservative. Admittedly, it would be nice if Jesus' sayings were less challenging to our innate self-interest and love of personal comfort. But we should be careful about wishing Jesus to be other than he is! If we make him into our image then we'll be left with no savior but ourselves. Better to have a Savior that challenges are very existence then to have no savior at all!
Beware of paring the claws of the lion! Let us be careful not to water down Jesus' radical sayings until they fit our comfortable, materialistic, 21st century lifestyles. We don't need a Jesus that validates the consumersitic pursuits of our consumption-obsessed culture. We need instead a savior that can free us from the fierce grip of greed that ultimately dehumanizes all of us, rich and poor alike. We need the radical Jesus and his sayings precisely because they challenge the equally radical demands of our consumer-culture world!
I have a book in my library that is entirely devoted to the "hard sayings" of Jesus. Interestingly, most of the hard sayings are actually pretty straight forward and clear. Maybe they are hard not because we don't understand them but precisely because we do. Take Jesus' statement, "Sell what you have and give alms." Is it really that difficult to understand or is it difficult precisely because it is absolutely clear? There is no argument that such an imperative would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to practice. But then why would we expect Jesus' sayings to be any less personally challenging then his lifestyle itself? Maybe his sayings are as unique and unrepeatable as his life itself. And if the bar is set too high for most people to follow is that so surprising?
Maybe the problem isn't with the radical and difficult sayings of Jesus but with our comfortable and affluent capitalistic lifestyles that are offended by such radical concepts as "selling" our possessions and "giving" to the poor. Maybe Jesus isn't too radical, maybe we are just too conservative. Admittedly, it would be nice if Jesus' sayings were less challenging to our innate self-interest and love of personal comfort. But we should be careful about wishing Jesus to be other than he is! If we make him into our image then we'll be left with no savior but ourselves. Better to have a Savior that challenges are very existence then to have no savior at all!
Beware of paring the claws of the lion! Let us be careful not to water down Jesus' radical sayings until they fit our comfortable, materialistic, 21st century lifestyles. We don't need a Jesus that validates the consumersitic pursuits of our consumption-obsessed culture. We need instead a savior that can free us from the fierce grip of greed that ultimately dehumanizes all of us, rich and poor alike. We need the radical Jesus and his sayings precisely because they challenge the equally radical demands of our consumer-culture world!
Miracles are More Than Miraculous
"Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mark 2.12)
There is no doubt that the things Jesus did while on earth were stunning and even shocking to those that witnessed his acts! Two thousand years later we still talk about them and try to understand them. And yet miracles are difficult for us to reconcile with the way that we normally experience the world. The daily grind of our lives is pretty routine and mechanical. Life for most of us consists in a series of mundane routines that feel as natural as the ceaseless spinning of the earth on its axis. And yet deep down we probably all long for a little more of the miraculous!
The thing about Jesus miracles is that their significance lies in more than just the miraculous element. In every miracle story in the gospels there is a surplus of meaning that goes beyond the isolated event. If it was only a matter of one man on one occasion walking on water, then so what? How in the world could that possibly be good news for all people in all times and all places? Such an act may very well be miraculous but that doesn't make it the good news!
Miracle is more than just supernatural physical event. There is a spiritual, social, political, and symbolic meaning of miracle that makes those acts of Jesus significant for us all. For example, in the story of in Mark 2.1-12 there is a message of good news that goes beyond an isolated act of healing for a single individual. In that story, Jesus offered forgiveness, the remission of debt, to a paralytic (2.7). However, that claim was challenged by the "scribes" (2.8). Now, the scribes as a social and religious class were the guardians of the temple, and above all the temple existed as an institution to ensure that sin was forgiven through the offering of animal sacrifices.
Jesus was essentially challenging the authority of the scribal class by offering forgiveness apart from the temple-based order. For this the scribes called him a "blasphemer." They essentially accused him of being a practitioner of unauthorized religion. And no matter how ridiculous the charge seems to us in retrospect, it stuck. However, the good news in the story is that in Jesus we find forgiveness of sin apart from any human institution, no matter how sacred, ancient, and venerable!
Jesus' miracles are tremendously good news because they symbolize the truly radical and subversive nature of the kingdom of God. It is a kingdom that cannot be controlled or manipulated by any human power, because it is itself a manifestation of that which is beyond all human power. It is a kingdom that turns the social order of the world on its head. It is a kingdom that embraces the poor, the weak, the marginalized, the unholy and the unclean! It is the anti-kingdom in relation to all worldly empires. And that is a message of good news for all excluded and oppressed people, for all those that long for more than just the same old corrupt and corrupting business-as-usual world!
There is no doubt that the things Jesus did while on earth were stunning and even shocking to those that witnessed his acts! Two thousand years later we still talk about them and try to understand them. And yet miracles are difficult for us to reconcile with the way that we normally experience the world. The daily grind of our lives is pretty routine and mechanical. Life for most of us consists in a series of mundane routines that feel as natural as the ceaseless spinning of the earth on its axis. And yet deep down we probably all long for a little more of the miraculous!
The thing about Jesus miracles is that their significance lies in more than just the miraculous element. In every miracle story in the gospels there is a surplus of meaning that goes beyond the isolated event. If it was only a matter of one man on one occasion walking on water, then so what? How in the world could that possibly be good news for all people in all times and all places? Such an act may very well be miraculous but that doesn't make it the good news!
Miracle is more than just supernatural physical event. There is a spiritual, social, political, and symbolic meaning of miracle that makes those acts of Jesus significant for us all. For example, in the story of in Mark 2.1-12 there is a message of good news that goes beyond an isolated act of healing for a single individual. In that story, Jesus offered forgiveness, the remission of debt, to a paralytic (2.7). However, that claim was challenged by the "scribes" (2.8). Now, the scribes as a social and religious class were the guardians of the temple, and above all the temple existed as an institution to ensure that sin was forgiven through the offering of animal sacrifices.
Jesus was essentially challenging the authority of the scribal class by offering forgiveness apart from the temple-based order. For this the scribes called him a "blasphemer." They essentially accused him of being a practitioner of unauthorized religion. And no matter how ridiculous the charge seems to us in retrospect, it stuck. However, the good news in the story is that in Jesus we find forgiveness of sin apart from any human institution, no matter how sacred, ancient, and venerable!
Jesus' miracles are tremendously good news because they symbolize the truly radical and subversive nature of the kingdom of God. It is a kingdom that cannot be controlled or manipulated by any human power, because it is itself a manifestation of that which is beyond all human power. It is a kingdom that turns the social order of the world on its head. It is a kingdom that embraces the poor, the weak, the marginalized, the unholy and the unclean! It is the anti-kingdom in relation to all worldly empires. And that is a message of good news for all excluded and oppressed people, for all those that long for more than just the same old corrupt and corrupting business-as-usual world!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Reality of His Humanity
'We can relate to God as human beings because God is truly Human.' (Walter Wink, The Human Being, 42)
I came across an interesting fact about Jesus a number of years ago that has stuck with me. I'm not certain about the meaning of its significance yet but it has become something of a fixed point in my thinking about Jesus. Jesus referred to himself using the phrase 'son of man' more than any other title. Interestingly, the original disciples rarely used that term for Jesus and the church has used it even less, both groups preferring the title 'son of God.' However, the fact stands that Jesus's favorite designation of himself was 'son of man' (the phrase is used 84 times in the gospels).
What does this mean? Was Jesus more comfortable with his true humanity than those that followed him? Do we tend to ignore Jesus's human nature because we are so preoccupied with his divinity? Does our concept of Jesus's divinity tend to obscure the reality that he was a finite human being subject to the same limitations as all other human beings? These are all good questions that deserve careful consideration. In fact, that is what the quest for the historical Jesus has been doing for over the past two hundred years. Since the Enlightenment scholars have been attempting to understand something of the human Jesus. Such a quest may lead into some scholarly dead ends but the quest itself is certainly important, especially if Jesus truly was the 'son of man.' His humanity cannot be simply absorbed and overshadowed by his divinity, because that would be to make of Jesus another false christ!
Consider these two important texts about the phrase 'son of man.' First, Psalm 8.3-6, 'When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, the son of man that you care for him? Pay attention to the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, 'human beings . . . son of man,' 'mindful of them . . . care for him.' The plural 'human beings' is equated with the singular 'son of man.' From this we begin to see that the 'son of man' is not strictly an individual but a symbol of a larger group. Second, carefully study the vision of Dan. 7.14 where the 'son of man' appears as an individual with the interpretation in vss. 21-22, 27 where the kingdom is given to the 'holy ones,' the 'people of the Most High.' 'His kingdom' in vs. 14 is 'their kingdom' in vs. 27. Again we see a collective dimension of the 'son of man' symbol. The 'son of man' is more than just a single individual.
What does all this mean for us? The 'son of man' is a liberating and empowering symbol. It is also the antidote for the imperial 'son of God' christology that has dominated the church since the time of Constantine. The church has often used its image of Jesus as 'son of God' to force believers into submission to the will of a dictatorial leadership. It has taught that human beings are ignorant and cannot be trusted to think for themselves. That human beings are faithless and must be coerced with rules and regulations to act responsibly. In short, the imperial 'son of God' of the Constantinian church has been used to beat people into submission to church traditions rather than to liberate them into the spiritual freedom of the children of God!
Jesus is the head of a true and new humanity. As 'son of man' he does not wish to subjugate us as other imperial leaders, both secular and religious, seek to do. Jesus wants to liberate us from all forms of imperial power and to empower us to resist such power by assisting in the work of his kingdom. Through the 'son of man' we are given 'glory,' 'honor,' and 'dominion' in an 'everlasting kingdom' that 'shall never be destroyed.'
I came across an interesting fact about Jesus a number of years ago that has stuck with me. I'm not certain about the meaning of its significance yet but it has become something of a fixed point in my thinking about Jesus. Jesus referred to himself using the phrase 'son of man' more than any other title. Interestingly, the original disciples rarely used that term for Jesus and the church has used it even less, both groups preferring the title 'son of God.' However, the fact stands that Jesus's favorite designation of himself was 'son of man' (the phrase is used 84 times in the gospels).
What does this mean? Was Jesus more comfortable with his true humanity than those that followed him? Do we tend to ignore Jesus's human nature because we are so preoccupied with his divinity? Does our concept of Jesus's divinity tend to obscure the reality that he was a finite human being subject to the same limitations as all other human beings? These are all good questions that deserve careful consideration. In fact, that is what the quest for the historical Jesus has been doing for over the past two hundred years. Since the Enlightenment scholars have been attempting to understand something of the human Jesus. Such a quest may lead into some scholarly dead ends but the quest itself is certainly important, especially if Jesus truly was the 'son of man.' His humanity cannot be simply absorbed and overshadowed by his divinity, because that would be to make of Jesus another false christ!
Consider these two important texts about the phrase 'son of man.' First, Psalm 8.3-6, 'When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, the son of man that you care for him? Pay attention to the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, 'human beings . . . son of man,' 'mindful of them . . . care for him.' The plural 'human beings' is equated with the singular 'son of man.' From this we begin to see that the 'son of man' is not strictly an individual but a symbol of a larger group. Second, carefully study the vision of Dan. 7.14 where the 'son of man' appears as an individual with the interpretation in vss. 21-22, 27 where the kingdom is given to the 'holy ones,' the 'people of the Most High.' 'His kingdom' in vs. 14 is 'their kingdom' in vs. 27. Again we see a collective dimension of the 'son of man' symbol. The 'son of man' is more than just a single individual.
What does all this mean for us? The 'son of man' is a liberating and empowering symbol. It is also the antidote for the imperial 'son of God' christology that has dominated the church since the time of Constantine. The church has often used its image of Jesus as 'son of God' to force believers into submission to the will of a dictatorial leadership. It has taught that human beings are ignorant and cannot be trusted to think for themselves. That human beings are faithless and must be coerced with rules and regulations to act responsibly. In short, the imperial 'son of God' of the Constantinian church has been used to beat people into submission to church traditions rather than to liberate them into the spiritual freedom of the children of God!
Jesus is the head of a true and new humanity. As 'son of man' he does not wish to subjugate us as other imperial leaders, both secular and religious, seek to do. Jesus wants to liberate us from all forms of imperial power and to empower us to resist such power by assisting in the work of his kingdom. Through the 'son of man' we are given 'glory,' 'honor,' and 'dominion' in an 'everlasting kingdom' that 'shall never be destroyed.'
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Dissecting God
A friend recently described his Bible discussion group as “Dissecting God like a frog staked out on the table.” It struck me as both a challenging analogy and potentially instructive of what our quest to know God should be, or perhaps should not be. This seems relevant as our group embarks on a study of Jesus. Get the gloves, pins and scalpels ready.
What do I learn from my friend’s dissection analogy? First, its not about the frog. Dissection’s purpose is the dissector’s learning. The frog, the subject of the dissection, is destined for the bin at the end of the study. There are plenty more in the pond. It follows, secondly, that the study can destroy the very thing we are studying. Our knowledge is advanced, but at a cost to the subject. Third, there is little or no relationship between the dissector and the dissectee. Sure, no doubt some dissectors develop an affinity for their Kermit, giving his all to facilitate their learning – flippers nailed in place. But the word picture conveys a distant, clinical detachment between the student and the subject of study.
Which brings us back to our study of God ...
“Yep, He raised the dead, walked on water, and fed the multitude, so it must be God.”
There is so much more to know about God. What is He like? So, how do we do that? Well, Jesus reinforced that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39). But He does so while chiding the Pharisees for limiting their seeking after Him to just the Scriptures … “for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” As Jesus says in His John 17 prayer for His disciples, experiencing God through Him is life eternal. The Scriptures cannot or should not limit our study of God. John 1 tells us that the Word of God is more than 39 or 66 books. The witness is everything throughout created time that bears witness to God, and that didn’t stop with John the Baptist.
Marriage is a valuable analogy in understanding that there is a relationship dimension to understanding character. How often have I sought to dissect Angela’s character on the basis of the facts alone. Like Sgt Joe Sunday, … “all we want are the facts, Ma’am.” “This is what you did, … this is what you said.” Therefore, as a social scientist analyzing my wife I (incorrectly) conclude that (a) she is selfish, and (b) she doesn’t love me. I call this the Sola Scriptura approach to spousal analysis – clinical, akin to dissection.
Then Angela reminds me that we have known each other for more than two decades, and experience must contradict those two conclusions. There must be another explanation for Angela’s incongruous words and actions. And I reflect on the fact that, yes, it makes sense that my analytical deductions from the recorded facts must also be consistent with my long-term experience of Angela. I look for other explanations.
As in all relationships, the key to knowing God is to move beyond clinical, detached analysis and dare to experience. “Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps 34:8).
1 Peter 2:1-5
What do I learn from my friend’s dissection analogy? First, its not about the frog. Dissection’s purpose is the dissector’s learning. The frog, the subject of the dissection, is destined for the bin at the end of the study. There are plenty more in the pond. It follows, secondly, that the study can destroy the very thing we are studying. Our knowledge is advanced, but at a cost to the subject. Third, there is little or no relationship between the dissector and the dissectee. Sure, no doubt some dissectors develop an affinity for their Kermit, giving his all to facilitate their learning – flippers nailed in place. But the word picture conveys a distant, clinical detachment between the student and the subject of study.
Which brings us back to our study of God ...
- Is it all about us, or about us and God?
- Does our study increase our knowledge, while destroying ‘God’ in our lives?
- Are we involved with the subject of our study?
“Yep, He raised the dead, walked on water, and fed the multitude, so it must be God.”
There is so much more to know about God. What is He like? So, how do we do that? Well, Jesus reinforced that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39). But He does so while chiding the Pharisees for limiting their seeking after Him to just the Scriptures … “for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” As Jesus says in His John 17 prayer for His disciples, experiencing God through Him is life eternal. The Scriptures cannot or should not limit our study of God. John 1 tells us that the Word of God is more than 39 or 66 books. The witness is everything throughout created time that bears witness to God, and that didn’t stop with John the Baptist.
Marriage is a valuable analogy in understanding that there is a relationship dimension to understanding character. How often have I sought to dissect Angela’s character on the basis of the facts alone. Like Sgt Joe Sunday, … “all we want are the facts, Ma’am.” “This is what you did, … this is what you said.” Therefore, as a social scientist analyzing my wife I (incorrectly) conclude that (a) she is selfish, and (b) she doesn’t love me. I call this the Sola Scriptura approach to spousal analysis – clinical, akin to dissection.
Then Angela reminds me that we have known each other for more than two decades, and experience must contradict those two conclusions. There must be another explanation for Angela’s incongruous words and actions. And I reflect on the fact that, yes, it makes sense that my analytical deductions from the recorded facts must also be consistent with my long-term experience of Angela. I look for other explanations.
As in all relationships, the key to knowing God is to move beyond clinical, detached analysis and dare to experience. “Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps 34:8).
1 Peter 2:1-5
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Patterns of Discipleship
"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely you have received, freely give." (Matt. 10.8)
Given Jesus's expectations of disciples most of our visions seem pretty insignificant in comparison. Even on a really great spiritual day raising the dead wouldn't make my list of things to do! The behaviors that Jesus commands of his disciples in this verse are more than most of us could imagine even in our wildest spiritual fantasies. We have too many fear-based psychological defense mechanisms in place to permit that kind of reckless spirituality. But maybe it is exactly this kind of thinking beyond-the-possible that is the meaning of faith itself.
Even science would not be possible without a willingness to think beyond the possible. Especially if we think of the possible as that which is, as the status quo way that we conceive of the world. As it turns out the way that we conceive the world can change dramatically, and those that catch a glimpse of the changing paradigm in advance find themselves outside of the realm of the possible. Prior to the twentieth-century the conception of flight itself was merely a fantasy, something that went well beyond what was thought as possible by the vast majority of thinking people.
When viewed through a naturalistic lens the kingdom of God is an utter impossibility. The hard logic of cause and effect as well as the second law of thermodynamics teaches us that wishing for the raising of the dead is foolish. And yet wild hopes for divine healing and life beyond the grave persist. Why? Are we just foolish dreamers that can't handle the harsh truth of the real world? Are such hopes simply compensations for the hard reality of life in a cold, Newtonian universe? Or do such hopes actually connect us with a kingdom of God that challenges all conceptions of what is possible? A kingdom that teaches us to imagine that which is not possible as the first step toward the transformation of what is to the amazing prospect of what could be?
Is it possible that a church that began with a bunch of dreamers and visionaries has become so stunted by the unimaginative status quo that we have lost touch with that kingdom that breaks all boundaries and explodes our conceptions of what is possible?
Given Jesus's expectations of disciples most of our visions seem pretty insignificant in comparison. Even on a really great spiritual day raising the dead wouldn't make my list of things to do! The behaviors that Jesus commands of his disciples in this verse are more than most of us could imagine even in our wildest spiritual fantasies. We have too many fear-based psychological defense mechanisms in place to permit that kind of reckless spirituality. But maybe it is exactly this kind of thinking beyond-the-possible that is the meaning of faith itself.
Even science would not be possible without a willingness to think beyond the possible. Especially if we think of the possible as that which is, as the status quo way that we conceive of the world. As it turns out the way that we conceive the world can change dramatically, and those that catch a glimpse of the changing paradigm in advance find themselves outside of the realm of the possible. Prior to the twentieth-century the conception of flight itself was merely a fantasy, something that went well beyond what was thought as possible by the vast majority of thinking people.
When viewed through a naturalistic lens the kingdom of God is an utter impossibility. The hard logic of cause and effect as well as the second law of thermodynamics teaches us that wishing for the raising of the dead is foolish. And yet wild hopes for divine healing and life beyond the grave persist. Why? Are we just foolish dreamers that can't handle the harsh truth of the real world? Are such hopes simply compensations for the hard reality of life in a cold, Newtonian universe? Or do such hopes actually connect us with a kingdom of God that challenges all conceptions of what is possible? A kingdom that teaches us to imagine that which is not possible as the first step toward the transformation of what is to the amazing prospect of what could be?
Is it possible that a church that began with a bunch of dreamers and visionaries has become so stunted by the unimaginative status quo that we have lost touch with that kingdom that breaks all boundaries and explodes our conceptions of what is possible?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Vicariously Representing Christ in Our Actions
In thinking of discipleship in action, I was drawn to an interesting quote in Alitalia’s inflight magazine.
“Traveling is part of the pope’s “job”. You are only a “missionary of the word” if you preach it to the four corners of the Earth. It is a condicio sine qua non, a necessity. … Planes are essential and when you travel with popes you realize how small the world is. I remember being struck by the words of St. Francesca Calbrini, the patron saint of emigrants, who said, “the world is too small for me.” She did not just say it, she proved it was true by crossing the Atlantic Ocean twenty-two times on steamships in the late 1800s and early 1900s. “God’s Gypsy”, or the “nun in perpetual motion” crossed the Andes on the back of a mule. Wasn’t America a long way away? Certainly not, for her it was a like a “path to the garden”. Nowadays, we are accustomed to an itinerant Vatican that travels and flies. It is part of the modern-day papacy’s DNA – the other side of his Holiness, who crosses the heavens while waiting to be measured by them. “
And, it occurred to me that it takes more than action. The actions must project God’s character. It takes more than preaching to the four corners of the Earth. What we preach is of more importance than where. As a person not of the Roman Catholic faith, I was positively drawn to the description of the Pope’s personal interactions while traveling.
“… serene, joyful and happy person, because he has accepted this task as an appointment he did not seek; … Nevertheless, he lives naturally and unaffected. His relationship with others is direct and not studied … he does not descend from on high, so people do not feel uncomfortable in his presence, but accepted.”
That is something that would ideally describe every disciple who vicariously presents Christ to the world.
As I wandered around Bologna earlier this week, I marveled at San Petroni, one of the world’s largest churches. In fact it would perhaps have been the largest, if the Vatican had not intervened to ensure it didn’t rival St Peter’s basilica. Lining each side of the church were ornate chapels that were anything but “natural and unaffected”. Interestingly, one chapel contains Modena’s painting that depicts Mohamed being thrown into hell, an artwork recently described as “more offensive than Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses.” In front of each chapel were ornate fences with metal spikes along the top that made it clear which side of the fence I was to remain. By putting a coin in the slot I could turn the lights on in these little chapels or light an electric candle in a rack just outside the railing. Clergy stood by to take my confessions and intercede between God and me. As I watched mass – the chanting, the pageantry of the priests’ entry with the ‘host’, I got the sense that God was “on high” and that he was not “descending” any time soon. God was a long way off, and there was certainly nothing too personal about the relationship between God and man.
Now, I probably don’t have standing to opine on what the actions of another Christian denomination say about God, but I can pose for us the question of what our corporate and individual actions demonstrate about the Master. How do we take the roof off our church and let those in need of healing in? (Luke 5) In our churches, what are the equivalents of fences and spikes separating people from a depiction of God?
Do we accept the “catholic” universality of our commissioning as disciples (Acts 10, esp. v 36; Eph 1:15-23; Matt 28:18-20), or place that responsibility on an organization or other human beings?
© Alister L Hunt PhD
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Experiencing Discipleship – Seeing Jesus as He is
“Ronald Jorgensen! He must be the Bassett Rd machine-gun murderer”, said my father as he reviewed my order book for the day. As part of a school fundraising activity, I had just returned from selling nameplates door-to-door, and, as usual, my father would collect my orders, and the students’ orders, and have Formica engraved nameplates made accordingly. I doubt that Dad had time to review each name, but Jorgensen’s name jumped out at him. “What did he look like?”, Dad asked. I described a quiet, serious man, dressed well in a mid-length dress leather jacket. He was polite to me, and he bought a nameplate without any further questions or discussion.
Dad then went on to tell me the story of how Jorgensen and John Gillies had used a Reising sub-machine gun to kill two men who were also part of New Zealand’s relatively unsophisticated underworld. That happened in the early ‘60s, just before I was born, and caused something of a sensation, apparently, due in part to Jorgensen and Gillies’ admission that they had smoked a joint before ‘doing the deed’, and perhaps in greater part because the crime deeply shocked sleepy 1960’s New Zealand and challenged its self-image.
I remember going back to drop off the nameplate, hoping to get a better look at the Bassett Rd machine-gun murderer. Sadly, I never did meet Mr. Jorgensen again. But I am sure I would have seen him in a different light. I followed with interest his subsequent life – his painting, and his mysterious disappearance in 1983. I like to think he is still alive, although if he is alive he would be several years older than Elvis.
Professor Bart Ehrman recently had a similar experience – with God. As a lifelong, active Christian, a clergyman, a Princeton PhD in New Testament studies, and a distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, he saw God as good. Then Ehrman began to see God as the celestial equivalent of a machine-gun murderer. Or worse. Machine guns kill quickly and efficiently, but God inflicts prolonged torture … very prolonged torture … like, forever. At least, that is what Ehrman had been taught to believe. As he states,
"I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it."
He saw God in an entirely different light, and it changed him. As a moral man, Ehrman saw God’s “rap sheet” and concluded that if God is like that, then he cannot be the deity that He purports to be. Thus, He either does not exist or does exist and He is not the Judeo/Christian God who is worthy of our worship. His brief NPR interview earlier this week is well worth listening to:
Like Ehrman, the disciples, Peter, James and John, also saw Jesus in an entirely different light. You have no doubt read the Transfiguration story in Matthew 17. I wonder what would happen to us if we saw Jesus as He truly is? Would we be repulsed as we realized that this Universe is presided over by a majestic machine-gun murderer, or would we have a Revelation 14 experience of worshiping Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of waters?
© Alister L Hunt PhD
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Preparation for Discipleship
Some years ago I participated in a Buddhist exorcism ceremony in Northern Thailand. Participants in the course I was leading -- senior government officials from the Mekong Delta countries -- became convinced that the residential institute where we lived and learned was infested with ghosts. It didn't help that it was the time in the Buddhist calendar when departed spirits were said to revisit the place of their departure. The Thai staff mentioned that 40 people had died in a building fire on this site, and the human remains had simply been buried with what remained of the building. So, it was apparently natural that the ghosts would return here. But things got really bad when a Laos official reported that a woman crashed through his room's ceiling and lay down in his bed beside him. When he tried to embrace her, she disappeared.
"That's strange", said a Cambodian official, "I had a similar experience." A woman walked through his room's locked, solid door. She continued to walk toward his bed, even though she had no legs. She sat on the end of his bed, conversed with him briefly, and then disappeared. After the initial reports of ghosts and these two authoritative, face-to-face experiences, the Institute was in uproar and classes were almost impossible. I had been out with the class the night before and considered the amount of alcohol consumed to be a reasonable explanation -- the students were 'legless', not just the ghost. And the other noises were probably wild cats. Nevertheless, something had to be done.
And done it was. A Buddhist priest and three monks were summoned to exorcise the ghosts, and a Ministry of Foreign Affairs advisor instructed me that my participation in this ceremony was imperative for demonstrating cultural sensitivity. What this involved was kneeling before a Buddhist altar and before the priests and monks for nearly two hours while they chanted and prayed and transferred energy up and down a string attached to the altar. Officials with cameras were reveling in a PR bonanza.
While kneeling I could think of only two things -- one, the concrete floor with linoleum square tiles, and, two, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's witness (Daniel 3:16-18). They were willing to risk death in such circumstances, and I wasn't even willing to risk offending someone.
So, why am I telling you this story? It illustrates the "Salt Principle" in Jesus' instructions to His disciples (Matt 5:13-16). We are the salt of the earth, and salt permeates. As salt, we enter into the life and culture of the people we seek to reach. I had many interesting religious conversations with officials during the course, many of whom were among "the highest in the land". Perhaps I would not have had those opportunities if I had stayed aloof? Conjecture.
Now, compare Jesus' instruction to permeate with Paul's "Stumblingblock Principle" of 1 Corinthians 8. "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge."
It is clear to me that the "Salt Principle" of Matthew 5 and the "Stumblingblock Principle" of 1 Corinthians 8 are in tension. When should we permeate, and when should we set ourselves apart? The first principle relates to our obligations to those who do not know Christ, whereas the second principle relates to our obligations to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. When is one obligation more important than the other? Which is ultimately more important? Can we uphold both principles simultaneously?
Perhaps Jesus' prayer for His disciples, recorded in John 17, is relevant? Jesus speaks of sending his disciples into the world (v11), but states that they are "not of the world" (v14). Jesus notes that in this respect His disciples are just like Him.
And done it was. A Buddhist priest and three monks were summoned to exorcise the ghosts, and a Ministry of Foreign Affairs advisor instructed me that my participation in this ceremony was imperative for demonstrating cultural sensitivity. What this involved was kneeling before a Buddhist altar and before the priests and monks for nearly two hours while they chanted and prayed and transferred energy up and down a string attached to the altar. Officials with cameras were reveling in a PR bonanza.
While kneeling I could think of only two things -- one, the concrete floor with linoleum square tiles, and, two, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's witness (Daniel 3:16-18). They were willing to risk death in such circumstances, and I wasn't even willing to risk offending someone.
So, why am I telling you this story? It illustrates the "Salt Principle" in Jesus' instructions to His disciples (Matt 5:13-16). We are the salt of the earth, and salt permeates. As salt, we enter into the life and culture of the people we seek to reach. I had many interesting religious conversations with officials during the course, many of whom were among "the highest in the land". Perhaps I would not have had those opportunities if I had stayed aloof? Conjecture.
Now, compare Jesus' instruction to permeate with Paul's "Stumblingblock Principle" of 1 Corinthians 8. "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge."
It is clear to me that the "Salt Principle" of Matthew 5 and the "Stumblingblock Principle" of 1 Corinthians 8 are in tension. When should we permeate, and when should we set ourselves apart? The first principle relates to our obligations to those who do not know Christ, whereas the second principle relates to our obligations to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. When is one obligation more important than the other? Which is ultimately more important? Can we uphold both principles simultaneously?
Perhaps Jesus' prayer for His disciples, recorded in John 17, is relevant? Jesus speaks of sending his disciples into the world (v11), but states that they are "not of the world" (v14). Jesus notes that in this respect His disciples are just like Him.
Challenging.
BTW, what would you have done in this circumstance?
BTW, what would you have done in this circumstance?
© Alister L Hunt PhD
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Lessons From Would-Be Disciples
Let's face it. Jesus doesn't want everybody as a disciple. Now I know that goes against the grain of the ideal image of Jesus as a nice guy that we hold in our postmodern minds. But then why would we expect Jesus not to explode our conceptions of him. If the ancient world in which he was born didn't understand him then what makes us think we will do any better? Do we think that we have an advantage because we have two thousand years of Christian history behind us? As if the church has never been wrong about important spiritual things before. Anyway, if you can at least entertain the thought that our popular notions about Jesus could be wrong then consider the following.
In Luke 9.57-62 Jesus actually said some discouraging (I might even say cruel but I know that might really explode your conception of the master! so I won't!) things to a few men that wanted to follow him. At least they said they wanted to follow him and for most people in the leadership business that is good enough. I mean, it's not easy to even get people to want to follow. As one leadership guru used to put it, "If you are leading but no one is following, you're just taking a walk!" So Jesus is really doing something to just stimulate the desire of other people to follow him. And yet this passage in Luke has him making unreasonable demands of those that want to follow him. Listen in on these three conversations:
First conversation:
“Lord, I will follow You wherever You go.”Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”
Second conversation:
Jesus said to another, “Follow Me.”But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”
Third conversation:
And another also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.”Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
Note four things. 1.) Two of the men that want to follow Jesus have other things they want to do first. These are not bad things. In fact, they are actually very good things, honorable things that they wish to do out of a sense of duty and responsibility. But the good is the enemy of the great. And good things can especially get in the way of God-things! Sometimes even doing our duty can take us far from the will of God. Just think of the pilot of the Enola Gay just doing his duty and dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. And for the soldiers that crucified Jesus it was just another day in the imperial office!
2.) For two of the men that wanted to follow Jesus the focus was on "my house" and "my father." Don't miss this. The patriarchal family was the source of the greatest threat to the mission of Jesus and the kingdom of God. Family is good but it's not the ultimate good or the absolute good. Do we allow our lives to be shaped by family values in such a way that we miss the faith venture of following Jesus?
3.) What does a man that doesn't even have a "place" of his own have to offer those of us that are essentially defined by what we have? Is it possible for consumers like us to follow Jesus?
4.) These three conversations take place at the point in Luke's story where Jesus makes his crucial move toward Jerusalem. Jesus simply didn't have time to coddle disciples that weren't ready for the heat that was quickly coming. That may be tough but then Jesus was no cupcake!
If we're looking for soft and cushy we probably won't want to fill out the application to follow Jesus. We wouldn't make the cut anyway. And that would be a shame because we would miss out on the adventure that is known as the kingdom of God!
© Paul Fisher
In Luke 9.57-62 Jesus actually said some discouraging (I might even say cruel but I know that might really explode your conception of the master! so I won't!) things to a few men that wanted to follow him. At least they said they wanted to follow him and for most people in the leadership business that is good enough. I mean, it's not easy to even get people to want to follow. As one leadership guru used to put it, "If you are leading but no one is following, you're just taking a walk!" So Jesus is really doing something to just stimulate the desire of other people to follow him. And yet this passage in Luke has him making unreasonable demands of those that want to follow him. Listen in on these three conversations:
First conversation:
“Lord, I will follow You wherever You go.”Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”
Second conversation:
Jesus said to another, “Follow Me.”But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”
Third conversation:
And another also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.”Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
Note four things. 1.) Two of the men that want to follow Jesus have other things they want to do first. These are not bad things. In fact, they are actually very good things, honorable things that they wish to do out of a sense of duty and responsibility. But the good is the enemy of the great. And good things can especially get in the way of God-things! Sometimes even doing our duty can take us far from the will of God. Just think of the pilot of the Enola Gay just doing his duty and dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. And for the soldiers that crucified Jesus it was just another day in the imperial office!
2.) For two of the men that wanted to follow Jesus the focus was on "my house" and "my father." Don't miss this. The patriarchal family was the source of the greatest threat to the mission of Jesus and the kingdom of God. Family is good but it's not the ultimate good or the absolute good. Do we allow our lives to be shaped by family values in such a way that we miss the faith venture of following Jesus?
3.) What does a man that doesn't even have a "place" of his own have to offer those of us that are essentially defined by what we have? Is it possible for consumers like us to follow Jesus?
4.) These three conversations take place at the point in Luke's story where Jesus makes his crucial move toward Jerusalem. Jesus simply didn't have time to coddle disciples that weren't ready for the heat that was quickly coming. That may be tough but then Jesus was no cupcake!
If we're looking for soft and cushy we probably won't want to fill out the application to follow Jesus. We wouldn't make the cut anyway. And that would be a shame because we would miss out on the adventure that is known as the kingdom of God!
© Paul Fisher
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Called to Discipleship by Jesus
Jesus' call to that first brave bunch of disciples was pretty amazing. That simple phrase, "Come, follow me" is packed and loaded with meaning. I wonder if we haven't emptied that radical call of its threat as well as its promise of adventure.
Jesus said (and says) "Come." This going toward Jesus required a leaving of some things, if not all things, behind. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And it seems to me that the only people that are willing to leave things behind are those that are dissatisfied with the status quo. The status quo may not even be that bad but it may just not be enough to satisfy anymore. I remember a church in the early 1990's that intentionally wanted to reach "the bored, the burned, and the bypassed." It was tapping into the discontent of its target audience and offering something better. That's just beautiful.
Jesus said (and says) "Come, follow me." This is challenging and exciting. Jesus is on the move and following him means that we have to move to keep up. One of my favorite lines in the movie "Lord of the Rings" is when Frodo says to Sam at the start of their epic journey, "As Bilbo used to say, it's a dangerous thing to step out your front door Mr. Frodo because you just don't know where you might be swept off to." Following Jesus is a journey not a destination. And when you follow Jesus you just don't know where you might be swept off to because if you know exactly where you're going it's not a faith journey your're just taking a walk. A faith journey can be messy and exhausting, but the adventure far outweighs the risk. And there is risk. I recently heard a clip of a speech given by Sir Edmund Hillary. He was the first man to reach the top of Mt. Everest and he passed away last week. He said in effect, "If you set off on an adventure in which you are absolutely certain of success. Why bother?" If every step we take just takes us one step closer to death, why play it safe? So we can safely arrive at death?
Jesus said (and says) "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." My brother-in-law Robert and I participated in a prison ministry event in our community last November. The group that organized the event gave us about 45 minutes of training and provided an inspirational concert on Thursday evening and then on Friday took us into a maximum security prison to share our faith and lead the inmates to Jesus. I told the men that I talked with that I was way out of my comfort zone but had come because God had moved me to do it. They laughed and then one of the guys said, "You know I wasn't going to come out here today and talk with you people. But then I got to thinking why would you guys take time out of your weekend to come and visit us. Nobody comes here unless they have to." With tears in his eyes one of the guys told me, "Thanks for coming to visit with us man."
The organizers of the event, Bill Glass ministries, told us that the church is a locker room. And the only purpose of the locker room is to prepare us to get in the game. Following Jesus is about getting in the game. It is risky, messy, and even dangerous but the reward is greater than any other thing that we can do with our lives.
© Paul Fisher
Jesus said (and says) "Come." This going toward Jesus required a leaving of some things, if not all things, behind. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And it seems to me that the only people that are willing to leave things behind are those that are dissatisfied with the status quo. The status quo may not even be that bad but it may just not be enough to satisfy anymore. I remember a church in the early 1990's that intentionally wanted to reach "the bored, the burned, and the bypassed." It was tapping into the discontent of its target audience and offering something better. That's just beautiful.
Jesus said (and says) "Come, follow me." This is challenging and exciting. Jesus is on the move and following him means that we have to move to keep up. One of my favorite lines in the movie "Lord of the Rings" is when Frodo says to Sam at the start of their epic journey, "As Bilbo used to say, it's a dangerous thing to step out your front door Mr. Frodo because you just don't know where you might be swept off to." Following Jesus is a journey not a destination. And when you follow Jesus you just don't know where you might be swept off to because if you know exactly where you're going it's not a faith journey your're just taking a walk. A faith journey can be messy and exhausting, but the adventure far outweighs the risk. And there is risk. I recently heard a clip of a speech given by Sir Edmund Hillary. He was the first man to reach the top of Mt. Everest and he passed away last week. He said in effect, "If you set off on an adventure in which you are absolutely certain of success. Why bother?" If every step we take just takes us one step closer to death, why play it safe? So we can safely arrive at death?
Jesus said (and says) "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." My brother-in-law Robert and I participated in a prison ministry event in our community last November. The group that organized the event gave us about 45 minutes of training and provided an inspirational concert on Thursday evening and then on Friday took us into a maximum security prison to share our faith and lead the inmates to Jesus. I told the men that I talked with that I was way out of my comfort zone but had come because God had moved me to do it. They laughed and then one of the guys said, "You know I wasn't going to come out here today and talk with you people. But then I got to thinking why would you guys take time out of your weekend to come and visit us. Nobody comes here unless they have to." With tears in his eyes one of the guys told me, "Thanks for coming to visit with us man."
The organizers of the event, Bill Glass ministries, told us that the church is a locker room. And the only purpose of the locker room is to prepare us to get in the game. Following Jesus is about getting in the game. It is risky, messy, and even dangerous but the reward is greater than any other thing that we can do with our lives.
© Paul Fisher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)