Logos Made Flesh

LOGOS MADE FLESH HAS MOVED

2008-03-07T10:12:00.000-08:00

This is just another reminder to everyone that reads this blog on google reader or another method. Logos made flesh has moved to www.logosmadeflesh.wordpress.com.

ATTENTION: LOGOS HAS MOVED

2008-03-06T09:13:00.000-08:00

As of today I've moved to Wordpress. You can now find all past, present and future posts at logosmadeflesh.wordpress.com.

Is the Shack True?

2008-03-04T06:02:00.000-08:00

"I think it's a true story." my friend said. He had been talking about the Shack for the last several days, reading portions, and raising a number of interesting conversations. When he told me he thought it might be a true story, my curiosity was peaked all the more. "I thought it's fiction," I responded. He replied, "you're just going to have to read it for yourself."

After I finished the book I realized what he was talking about. William Young, the author, places himself as a character in the book. He's a friend of the main character, Mack. Young also appears in the forewords and afterwards, speaking in the first person as if the events described in the book are true. This tying together of a real author and the events strongly suggests that the events are true.

There's nothing wrong with this approach. It makes for a good story. Who hasn't told their kids a made-up bed-time story while placing themselves in it. And William Young isn't trying to deceive anyone. He makes it clear in the book and elsewhere that the Shack is a work of fiction.

But the blending of the real and unreal, truth and fiction, is at times within the Shack very hard to distinguish. More than simply making himself a character, Young makes the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit charters as well. And they speak a great deal more than him. It was in their conversations with the main character that I had the most difficult time distinguishing truth from fiction. Clearly Young does not regard the words he places on the lips of Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu as untrue. Young has a point in writing and he uses God, as a character, to make it. I believe Young had the purest of motives in writing this book. But the way in which it is written leaves little room for differing views. The book's warm personal approach leads us to nod our heads in agreement at everything that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit says though it's really William Young who says it.

In this manner Young touches on a number of controversial subjects. For instance at one point in the book Jesus tells Mack that he's not a christian. While this is technically true, Jesus is not a follower of himself, Jesus goes on to say that he doesn't care whether or not someone is Buddist or Muslim, he'll meet them where their at. Although Young is not to specific on what he means by this some could understand this to imply that Jesus is really the end goal of every religion. All will be saved in the end. Since reading the book, I've had people say to me "Jesus isn't a Christian" as if it was Jesus who said it and not William Young. Is it true? This is first and foremost the question that needs to be addressed.

John tells us in 1 John 4:1-3 to test to see if something is true.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming, and now it is already in the world.

I used this quote, not because I believe that William Young is the Anti-Christ. As I have already said I believe William Young had a good and godly heart in writing this book. Instead I quote from 1 John to remind us that not everything that appears to come from God is from God. So remind yourself always to "test the spirits."

Blog News

2008-03-01T10:55:00.000-08:00

Trevin Wax at Kingdom people has justed posted a link to the Longing of Man. Kingdom People is ranked in the top 1000 baptist websites. Thanks Trevin for you support. You can find the original posting of that video here.

The Spiritual Gospel - From Blindness to Sight

2008-02-27T16:03:00.000-08:00

This is part one of a nine part series on the mystery and meaning in the Gospel of John. If the video doesn't play you can find it here.

The Spiritual Gospel - From Blindness to Sight

Each lecture is a chapter in a book I'm working on of the same name. If there's anybody out their who wants to write a book with me, I could sure use the help. Enjoy.

The Trouble with Devotions

2008-02-18T07:49:00.001-08:00

A number of years ago, as a youth pastor, I delivered a challenging message to the youth of my church. The occasion: immediately after a particular stirring time of worship. The students had just finished singing songs, professing their love for God. As I stood in front the room, the spiritual feeling that only true worship brings was still evident in the air

"I have a word for you," I told them. "I felt it as we sang. I don't think this youth group loves Christ enough. There's a lot of half hearted people in this room and it needs to stop. So from now on you need to make a commitment to come every Wednesday night. if you can't come every Wednesday then don't bother coming at all."

The students sat stunned in their chairs. All except for one. From the front row I could here Trista agreeing with my every word. "Amen, amen," she said.

I continued. "And I'm tired of seeing people only raise one hand to the Lord in worship. If you can't raise both hands than you're half-hearted. From now on raise both hands or don't raise them at all."

I could see students start to clam up. But good old Trista there in the front row kept right on saying, "amen."

"You need to bring you're bibles to Church. How can you say that you love God if you don't love his word."

Students started shaking theirs heads and I heard some quietly say "no" And there Trista was "amen, amen, amen!"

"No!" I said. I had been playing and sweet hearted Trista had walked right into the trap.

What I wanted to demonstrate is that rules breed rebellion. When told to do something are immediate reaction is to respond, "the hell I will." But all to often our devotions to the Lord, things like prayer, worship and reading the bible, turn from something that we desire to do into a rule that must be followed. And the devotions that we started as a simple demonstration of love for our Lord become something we despise.

This is the trouble with devotions that good things started with right intentions become a burden to bare rather than a blessing to share. This is the struggle that Paul finds himself in in Romans 7

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death...

God's commandment's when brought against our flesh breeds rebellion in us. This is a trap from which it seems we cannot recover. "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Paul asks in verse 24.

But Paul has the answer and its the very reason he writes the letter to the Romans. We find this answer in Romans 8 - one of the greatest, if not the greatest chapters in all the Bible. It's worth quoting in full.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation— but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs— heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all— how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died— more than that, who was raised to life— is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God his great gift of love in Jesus Christ, God has taken away the commandment and given us a new spirit which cries to God out of a heart of love and thankfulness for what he has done. Next time you sit down to express your love for Lord examine your heart and ask yourself if you truly want to. If your time with the Lord is not coming from a heart of love. Don't do it because you have to. Do it only because you want to.

Update: The Shack on God and Evil

2008-02-12T14:55:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to give those who might have missed it a heads up. Since I began "The Shack on God and Evil" sometime last week, it appeared as if it was older than some of my more recent posts. It is in fact my most recent posting.

Matt

Psalms 90: "Teach Us to Number Our Days"

2008-02-10T15:05:00.000-08:00

After offering some brief thoughts on our experience of time (here and here) I found Psalms 91 speaking volumes to me about God's eternity and the limits of my life.

1 You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

3 You turn man back into dust And say, "Return, O children of men."
4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.
5 You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew.
6 In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away.

7 For we have been consumed by Your anger And by Your wrath we have been dismayed.
8 You have placed our iniquities before You, Our secret sins in the light of Your presence.
9 For all our days have declined in Your fury; We have finished our years like a sigh.
10 As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years, Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; For soon it is gone and we fly away.
11 Who understands the power of Your anger And Your fury, according to the fear that is due You?
12 So teach us to number our days, That we may present to You a heart of wisdom.

13 Do return, O LORD; how long will it be? And be sorry for Your servants.
14 O satisfy us in the morning with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.
15 Make us glad according to the days You have afflicted us, And the years we have seen evil.
16 Let Your work appear to Your servants And Your majesty to their children.
17 Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us; And confirm for us the work of our hands; Yes, confirm the work of our hands.

Another Meditation on Time

2008-02-09T06:12:00.000-08:00

The equal markings and consistent tic of the clock teach us to think about the future as something added to the past. Every moment that occurs is a moment added to a series of equal moments. In this we regard time as a pile of beads consistently added to a string. So why does our experience not correspond? Why do we feel time is speeding up? Why does a year at the age of thirty feel shorter than the one at the age of three?

For us time is not equal because we lack proportion in our experience. The present is not a bridge between our future and past. It is always and forever our end. Every moment of everyday our experience of time is in constant completion. I've heard it said, “today is the first day of the rest of your life.” But it's more true to say “today is the last day of the life that we have lived.” Our experience of time is unrelated to what is yet to come. It's defined only in what has been.

Only by knowing the end from the beginning could we ever experience the consistancy of the clock. For only then could we come to a true sense of proportion. But because our experience of time grows in time we are continually remembering the past as longer than it is. Only God knows the objectivity of the clock. And it is thus thinking of our lives in terms of this instrument that we yet again claim to be Him.

Our time is not the clock and the clock is not our time. So instead of thinking of our lives like beads added to an infinite string we should humbly think of our lives as a pie ever-dividing, recognizing that our life is always coming to an end. The clock suggests we can look outside ourselves and see the future as it is. But a pie's continual wholeness recognizes the fullness of that which has been. In the analogy of the pie we see that each passing moment is shorter than the one before. And thus it accuratly reflects our experience. Time, for us, is indeed speeding up.

13 Life Goals

2008-02-04T17:13:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing to admire about Benjamin Franklin its his focus and determination. At the age of 20, He wrote down 13 life goals that he would follow for the rest of his life. According to at least one author he was partially motivated by Philippians 4:8 "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." The list he made was as follows:

Temperance: Eat not to dullness and drink not to elevation.

Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation.

Order: Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.

Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.

Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e. Waste nothing.

Industry: Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.

Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

Justice: Wrong none, by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

Moderation: Avoid extremes. Forebear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation.

Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring; Never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.

Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

After making the list he committed to practicing one virtue a week. Following this plan he was able to focus on each viture for 4 seperate weeks throughout the year. He tracked his progress by using a little chart, marking a dot at the end of each day next to the virtue he failed to maintain. Obviously the goal was to make no marks at all. And in time he did enjoy a certain level of success.

I'm now 30 years old, ten years past the age in which Benjamin Franklin began to follow the little list. I know it's not too late to start.

Father, I pray that you might give me the focus and determination to live my life in the manner worthy of your Son.

The Shack on God and Evil

2008-02-04T07:59:00.000-08:00

Once again the centeral message of the Shack is an attempt to reconcile God's love and power with the existance of evil. This is no small task. It's a question that has plauged the faithful and philopsophers alike since at least the time of Job. So how does the Shack ease the tension?

Before I answer that quesiton let's look at possible solutions related to the existance of a loving, all-powerful God who allows evil and suffering. Since the tension exists in relation to these three beliefs a solution appears to reside in the modification of one or more of them. Thus one way of easing the tension is to tinker with God's power, a second would be to modifty the meaning of God's love and the third and final option would be to modifty the meaning of evil.

So where does the Shack stand? As I said in my last post, the Shack does not deny the existance of Evil. In fact it's the Shack's graphic depiction of true pain which makes this book so compelling. Mack, the main charachter of the book, is given every reason in the world to believe in a God who is either less than loving or less than powerful. So which does the Shack choose? Does William Young, the author the book, modify our understanding of God's power or does his modify our understanding of God's love?

If you 've read the book I'm sure you can tell.

I think the answer can be found in Mack's dinner conversation with the Trinity. During dinner one member of the Trinty (Papa, Jesus, or Sarayu) ask Mack about his family. At first Mack complies as if the the question was raised by just any friend. But half way through his description he realizes that God should already know.

"Now here I am telling you about my kids and my friends and about Nan, but you already know everything that I am telling you, don't you? You're acting like it's the first time you heard it."
Sarayu reached across the table and took his hand. "Mackenzie, remember our conversation earlier about limitations... Remember that choosing to stay on the ground is a choice to facilitate a relationship; to honor it. Mackenzie, you do this yourself. You don't play a game or color a picture with a child to show your superiority. Rather, you choose to limit yourself so as to facilitate and honor that relationship. You even lose a competetion to accomplish love. It is not about winning and losing, but about love and respect."
"So when I am telling you about my children?"
"We have limited ourselves out of respect for you. We are not bringing to mind, as it were, our knowledge of your children. As we are listening to you, it is as if this is the first time we have known about them, and we take great delight in seeing them through your eyes."

Although this conversation revolves around the issues of why we need to pray, It's clear in this scene that William Young believes that God willingly surrenders his power in order to fully express his love. The Shack dosn't teach that God is powerless to deal with evil rather it teaches that God has willingly surrendered this power in order to enter into a relationship with us.

There's much that's compelling about this solution.

First, it's has biblical support. The heart of the Christian message is that God gave sacraficially, willingly surrendering His power, His Son and His life for the world.

Secondly, it gives us what we most desire. Our need to know God's love is so deep that we're willing to sacrafice almost anything to experience it. And certainly after reading the Shack you feel God's love more.

Third, it explains not only our present situation but gives us a compeling reason why we should pray to a God who already knows our needs.

There is a flip side to these blessing however.

For instance, there are other passages in scripture which firmly establish the power and might of our God. And even the Bible's teaching about Jesus willingly surrendering Himself does not seem to teach that God always does so. God's giving seems limited to the gift of His Son, who by the way is no longer hanging upon a cross, but is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Secondly I must ask, in our rush to modify God's power for his love have we abandoned the God we truly desire to be loved by? The very reason we want to know God's love is precisely because He is the all-powerful God of the universe. When we diminish His power we also diminish Him.

Finally, I must ask is a God who is not willing or able to answer my prayers, a God truly worth praying to. In the scriptures God tells us to pray and expect to receive that which we pray for. But the God of the Shack, diminished in his capacity to perform, seems only content with hearing and not meeting our needs.

The problem of evil is a very difficult issue to address. The Shack has offered a great portrait of the love that God has for us. However in reading it, we must recognize that it is only half of the solution. The Shack has presented us a very clear picture, but it's as if we are only looking at God with one eye. He is the same no matter what we beleive about him but I would rather see all of Him rather than only a part.

What do you think? Is there something I'm missing?

How Do We Witness to a Society that No Longer Feels Guity?

2008-02-03T16:18:00.000-08:00

Evangelicals are facing a crisis. How do we share the gospel of Jesus Christ in the modern world? For Christians who are firm believers in the atoning work of Christ, I think it’s difficult to see how the meaning of the cross is not all that apparent to the world around them. As we tout the power of the cross to save, I’m sure unbelievers are scratching their head in bewilderment how the death of a man two thousand years ago makes a hill of beans difference in their postmodern world. And it saves? Saves from what? I think this was central to the division in those that watched the Passion of the Christ. Christians perceived in the events portrayed in the film a universal significance that has the power to change every man, woman and child. Unbelievers saw a man brutalized for two and half hours.

How does one offer the message of Jesus to a world that does not know God? Historically we have looked to ones recognition of sin as a catalyst for sharing the good news found in Jesus Christ. Jonathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is a good illustration. Edward’s sermon inspired the first Great Awakening. It focused upon the wrath of God waiting to be poured out upon sinners. When Edwards first read the sermon in his little Church in Massachusetts, people began to faint in the audience and cry out with grief at the realization of there own state. This has been the approach of Evangelicals ever sense. Introduce people to the wrath of God against sinners and the hope that is found in Jesus and they will accept Jesus as the means of their salvation every time. This worked well in Edward’s small puritan community where the belief in Judeo-Christian God was axiomatic and like fictional character Hester Pririm in the Scarlet Letter people had to where their sin on there clothing. But what happens when people cease to believe in God or at least a god that is concerned with matters such as right and wrong.

Since the enlightenment, the world has been increasingly moving in that direction. With cosmological discoveries such as those made by Copernicus and Newton, the worlds image of God began to shift from an active present spiritual force that moved the heavens each and every day to a distant clockmaker who wound up his creation and then left it to run. This view of God was more or less an intellectual halfway house between theism and atheism. With the advent of Darwin’s theory of evolution, however, scholars were at last allowed to be as Richard Dawkins has said, "intellectually fulfilled atheists." Invisible deities began to be regarded like Santa Clause. True reality was found in the five senses, tangible empirical experience. Sciences remarkable achievements with its firm belief in the senses have created today a world that trusts in its empirical senses and distrusts things that cannot be tangibly verified. Today whether or not one says they believe in God, for many he has become an absent landlord and or a misguided figment of the imagination.

It’s clear that these beleifs have affected our society. Since the founding of the United States our society has been dominated by the concept of tolerance. However, what it meant in the days of our founding it does not mean the same thing today. Tolerance used to mean the respect two people showed to one another in an argument. This is the foundation of democracy. I am tolerant of your opinion not because you are right but because you are a human being worthy of respect. Debate was fostered by a keen awareness that you are worthy to be persuaded. Today’s tolerance has nothing to do with this former definition and is surprisingly antithetical to its former meaning. Tolerance today is the firm belief that since there is no tangible verification of right then there is no point to debate. Tolerance comes from the belief that there is no right and wrong; no purpose. There are only opinions and nothing more. Today tolerance is found in the absence of meaning and not in debate about it.

What has become of the Evangelical witness in growing spirit of Laze fare? It has become shrill. Witnessing is no longer easy like placing bread before a hungry man. So instead of looking to meet the man’s need we starve him so he eats the bread we give him. Instead of meeting the needs of a society that’s no longer aware of God and his standards the Church has increasingly become the judgmental means of making it aware of its own sin. So instead of being salvation through alleviating guilt the Church has become the sole source of guilt in a society that no longer feels guilty. And thus non-Christians avoid us like the plague.

Sadly we don’t realize that in abandoning belief in something higher than tangible experience unbelievers have begun to suffer from another disease, hopelessness, purposelessness, nihilism. The death of God is the death of meaning. Society ran from the belief in God of absolute truth in part to alleviate itself from guilt but in the process it became mired in an equally depressing reality. If there is no wrong then there is no right if there is no sin then there is no purity. In denying the one they have denied the other. If there is no sin then there is no point, no meaning for ones own existence. If there is no standard then there is nothing to point us in a good or right direction. People still suffer for there sin they simply don’t recognize the meaning of that term. By running from sin they have abandoned all belief in the good, they have abandoned any and all hope of salvation.

The hopelessness are society feels can be seen in their very hunger for entertainment. To free ourselves from the emptiness of living, distraction becomes the number one goal. And the so the cycle continues. We feel nothing so we talk about nothing and the end receive nothing from our experiences. It’s a vicious cycle it’s seems from which we cannot escape.

So how should Evangelicals respond? The first thing is to recognize that Jesus is still the answer. He is the point and purpose for all that is. He is the only one who can free them from the plight in which they find themselves. Secondly we must in part abandon are emphasis on making people recognize their own sin. It’s not our job to convict the world of sin, this is the role of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus frees a sole he will also convict the sinner. It may be a slow process but it will come. Our job is to introduce them to Jesus? He is the meaning, the purpose for which they’ve been seeking.

The Shack as Theodicy

2008-02-03T09:08:00.000-08:00

I can't think of a more personal example of evil and the pain it causes then the abduction and murder of a little girl. How can a loving and all-powerful God allow such evil? This is the challenging issue at the heart of the Shack. All books have questions but none are quite so difficult. All books have stakes but none are quite so personal. Because evil things like this occur its easy to conclude that God is either impotent or sadistic. If God is completly loving and evil exists we conclude that He cannot be all-powerful. If God is all-powerful and evil exists then we conclude He cannot be compeltly loving. A problem, therefore, occurs when Christians affirm (1) God's power, (2) God's love and (3)the existance of evil. To this tension the Shack proposes the very personal resolution found in Christianity.

Resolutions to the problem of evil are nothing new. An attempted reconcilation is what is known as a Theodicy. Numerous philosophical solutions to the problem of evil have been proposed. Most are difficult to define but simpler solutions can all too often be emotionally unsatisfying. For instance the book of Job is a simple poetic narrative but the resolution it offers is God telling Job and his accusers to shut up. Buddism teaches that suffering comes from attachment and thus to solve the problem one must cease to desire. Naturalism, the worldview often esposed by those who believe in evolution, simply abandons the whole problem by denying the existance of God. If there's no God then their no evil and thus no problem to be addressed.

This is the beauty of the Shack and the faith from which it's solution dervies. It's solution is emotionally satisfying. The Shack does not waver in its relentless depiction of evil. Evil and suffering are very real and cannot be denied. By embracing the reality of pain, instead of denying it, the Shack invites us to live outside ourselves and fully embrace life in relationship with others. This is the God found in the Shack. Not a distant and sadistic god who takes delight in our pain nor a weak and impotent god who would love to help us if he could. The God of the Shack is the God found in Christ, the God who willing empties himself in love so that we might walk in a true relationship him.

"It's That Good!"

2008-02-02T09:31:00.000-08:00

If you haven't already read it I'm sure you'll read it in the near future. The Shack by William Young is taking the world by storm. Published this past summer, the book is already in its third printing. And I can see why.

About three months ago I walked past a bullitin board at Multnomah's library and saw a little flier with a bold endorsement, "this book has the potential to do for this generation what Pilgram's Progress did for its." "WOW!" I thought, "that's a big statement." Between the seventeenth and eighteenth century Pilgrams Progress was the only book that ever came close to outselling the Bible.

I told a co-worker about it. He bought a copy, read it, and then immediatly bought five copies to give to his friends and family. He then loaned his copy to another co-worker and she in turn bought a copy for a friend. When I finally got the book I brought it home and had my wife read it. She so fell in love with it that she emailed the author just to say thank you. Friends and blogs alike, I have heard so many independent endorsments for this book I don't know how it couldn't help but sell. And if that wasn't enough, this past Thursday I heard the greatest endorsment of all.

I work as custody officer in Clark County's Jail. I see a lot that's evil in this world. I see lives destroyed and people who destroy them. It's sad to say my fellow jailers don't see much that's good. Christianity dosen't appear to change much. Christian chaplins come in and all too often are manipulated by the inmates. Inmates who say they are Christians are all to often rearrested. Where I work a real Christ oriented transformation is often hard to find.

But this past Thursday this darkness was broken for at least one officer. Last year two girls in their late teens were killed on Highway 14 when a drunk driver, driving the wrong way on the freeway, slammed into their car headon. The drunk driver, however, lived. At her sentencing, this past week, the father of one of those girls, a VPD officer, stood up and spoke for an hour. He forgave the woman for killing his daughter. And he asked the judge if he could give the woman a gift. With the judges approval, the father handed her the Shake. My co-worker who saw this gesture was so moved that she told another officer, "I have to read that book."

Stay Tuned: Brief Thoughts for Future Posts

2008-01-19T10:33:00.000-08:00

I don't know about you but I think faster than I type. So before my thoughts overwhelm the posts I want to write, I thought I briefly jot them down now.

Confession and the Double Minded Man

Confession and the Double Minded-Man
Images of the Divided Self
Twenty Four: Switchfoot on our Longing to Be One
My Personal Experience with Confession

Blindness and Sight

M. Night Shamalayn on the Limits of our Perspective
Tolerance in a Post-Christian World
Sharing our Faith in a World that No Longer feels Guilty

Becoming One with God. I still have to finish explaining the meaning of the water and blood that flow of Jesus pierced side in John 19:34.

Meditations on Time

A Brief Meditation on Time
A Second Meditation on Time

Why is that in the Bible? or Why are there so many different Bibles?

Canon - The Apocrapha, the Psedeophigrapha and the Apostolic Fathers
Text - Why is the NIV missing verses? What happend to the ending of Mark?
Translation - Why does the Living Translation use a swear word?

Anyway, I hope to get these posts and others very soon. At least I know where I'm headed and you do too.

Matt

Confession and the Double Minded-Man

2008-01-17T07:53:00.000-08:00

“Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.” (James 5:16)

I recently had a conversation with a friend in which he expressed deep skepticism at the thought of confessing his sins to anyone but God. “God alone can forgive,” he objected. But while I believe God’s forgiveness is an important end of confession, I don’t believe confession is only about forgiveness. Confession, the Christian discipline of admitting sin to another, is also about healing the divide in us. It’s about bringing into one the person that we are and the person we claim to be.

James was written to address this problem. The theme of the Double Minded-Man or what in the Greek he literally calls the two-spirited man plays in almost every passage of this little book. James calls attention to the double-minded man in his introduction, exposing him in those who wrestle between faith and doubt.

James 1:6-8
“But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

Next James turns to those who claim that God is tempting them to sin. James wants them to make no mistake. Their own duality is what is driving them to sin. “God cannot be tempted by evil, and Himself does not tempt anyone” because unlike us he is One and the same in all his ways.

James 1:17
“Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”

The theme of our divided selves continues throughout the rest of James.

James 1:22
“But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.”

James 2:1
“My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.”

James 2:14
“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?”

James 3:10
“From the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren produce olives, or a vineproduce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.”

James 3:17
“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy…

James 4:7-8
Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

James 4:12
But above all, my brethren, do not swear either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall into judgment

James statement on confession at the end of his little letter thus becomes extremely important for understanding how we fix the problem of the divided self. Through the act of confession we take an active step in eradicating the divide. Confession wips away our masks and leaves standing naked and exposed before our God who is One and the church who is was made in his image.

Blindness and Sight: M. Night Shamalayn on the Limits of our Perspective

2008-01-06T20:58:00.000-08:00

“The world breaks down into two types of people, those who see signs and those who see chance.” So says Mel Gibson’s character in M Night Shyamalan's hit movie Signs. If you’ve ever seen a film written and directed by M Night Shyamalan, you’ll know exactly what he means. Shyamal's films often hinge on two ways of seeing.

In the Sixth Sense, Night takes his audience through the experience of Malcolm, a child psychologist, who is attempting to regain his confidence after being shot by an enraged patient. Malcolm spends the rest of the film working with Cole Sear, a child showing many of the same strange symptoms that plagued this former patient. At first Cole is nervous and keeps his distance from the psychologist but as the film progresses he warms to Malcolm more and more. Half way through the movie, Cole confesses to his counselor that he is afraid because he can see dead people, walking around as if they were alive all the while not knowing they are dead. Malcolm helps Cole come to grips with this gift, telling him that it’s possible they are coming to him for help. If he helps them solve their problems they might just leave him alone. His young patient follows his advice and discovers that it is indeed true and he doesn’t have to be afraid.

The real shocker, however, occurs in a closing scene when Malcolm, along with the audience, discovers that he himself is one of those dead people who sought his patients help. In His moment of realization the film quickly recaps half dozen scenes in which you can see how each scene has been wrongly perceived. Although it appears that Malcolm has spoken to others in the film, in reality no one has spoken to him since his shooting except the young boy. Watching the movie a second time reveals that every action in the movie is ambiguous, encouraging the audience to mistakenly grasp the significance of the story until the very end.

In Signs, Shyamalan again builds into his story this two-sided perspective. The title itself participates in the film’s double meaning. At a first glance, Signs refers to the crops circles and other mysterious appearances that provoke the small family, around which the film centers, to believe they are being visited by aliens. Yet, as the movie progresses we find that while this may be the external situation around which the plot develops, the movie is really about Grant, the father of the family, and his loss of faith in the absence of God given signs. Like each scene in the Sixth Sense, the title is ambiguous. Although the audience doesn’t see it at first, Grant’s statement that, “the world breaks down into two types of people those who signs and those who see chance” mirrors Cole’s confession to Malcolm in the Sixth Sense. It is the statement upon which the film will hinge. Just like the title, evidence for God’s presence is often itself ambiguous. In the end, Shyamalan reveals in the ordered assembly of the numerous quirks in the story, the young daughter’s inability to finish a glass of water, the son’s asthma and the brothers desire to swing a bat all come together to reveal a benevolent God. Although God is never seen in the film, the order in the films closing scene reveals that he is in fact present to those who have eyes to see.

The Village, while not as popular as the Sixth Sense or Signs, still trades on the concept of sight. The film centers on a group of families living in small colonial community and in particular two youths a quite boy and Ivy, a girl who is out going but blind. Throughout the film, the town is dominated by the fear of a wild beast - he who must not be named – that roams the forest, keeping the villagers confined to their tiny world. But when the quiet boy is wounded, the blind girl must confront the forest and seek help from the outside. Remarkably it is she who is blind who is shown that the beast is simply a costume, a phantom created by the elders to keep the young from leaving the village. After groping through the forest she climbs a fence to the other side. In that moment the film cuts to Ivy’s parents back in the village. They open a box and pull out some papers, old photographs to be exact. The photographs reveal a past that is not a black and white pioneer world; instead it’s a colored photo of 1960’s. The audience at once experiences a paradigm shift. In an instant, past and present slam together. The village does not exist in the past, rather it is a gated community locked away from the present. Cutting back to Ivy on the other side of the fence, we find her confronted not by a horse and buggy but a modern SUV. In Shyamalan's worldview the blind are the ones who are truly able to see. For unlike the audience, there blindness has allowed them not to be fooled by the external trappings of this world.

It is Shyamalan's penchant for dazzling his audiences with things hidden in plan sight which has made his films so successful. The movies in and of themselves reveal that there are truly two types of people, those that see and those that don’t. At first the audience is completely blind, ignorant of even of their own ignorance, unable to even comprehend that they are interpreting the story wrong. When the revelation comes however it not only exposes their ignorance but gives them eyes to see.

Logos Made Flesh in 2007

2008-01-01T08:29:00.000-08:00

Two years ago I began this blog by filling in a blank title box; Logos Made Flesh. I chose this title for two reasons. First it connected this blog to my passion for studying the gospel of John, a love that is highlighted in many of my posts. But secondly, and I beleive more importantly, it tied this blog into the heart of all Christian witness, the incarnation of Chirst. In selecting this name, I hoped that many of the posts would seek to do what God did in Christ, bring the word of God closer to man.

This past year, 2007, has seen a number of improvements over 2006. First I have been more consistent in posting. In 2007 no more than a month or two has seperated any given installment. In the spring of 2007, Jason Wakefield also agreed to become apart of the writing team and if you've read his stuff I know you'll agree that its a vast improvement. We have also begun to branch outside the written word as we become aware of other forms of media technology on the web. Film, I believe even more than the written word, is deeply connnected with the reality of the incarnation. And it is through film that I hope to explore the revelation of God in Christ more fully in the years to come.

Here is a list of the posts that have appeared here this year.

"The Longing of Man" (2/22/07) - The significance of the death and resurrection of Christ is found in modern films.

To Him Who Has Eyes to See (2/24/07) - Christian film makers should follow the example of Christ, asking good questions rather than shoving answers done their audiences throat.

Superman as Christ (3/18/07) - Superman Return's teaser is an example of how Christ is subtly proclaimed in films.

What is the Incarnation? (3/21/07)

The Scandal of the Incarnation (3/26/07) - God becoming Man is not as polite as you might think.

The Traveler? (3/28/07) - Who is the traveler in Walter De La Mare's famous poem?

Rain (3/31/07) - To everything there is a season (Jason's first post)

Pondering Heavenly Wisdom (4/17/07) - The ways of God are not the ways of man.

Questions to think about when reading the Gospel of Mark (4/30/07)

Real Beauty? (5/11/07) - Is this fantasey more beautiful then the real?

Seeing the World as a Christian (5/22/07) - A Christian worldview beats the alternative

Becoming One With God Part 1 (5/29/07) What does the Bible teach about Theosis?

The Flow of Blood and Water: Becoming One with God Part 2 (5/31/07)

Marriage in John: Becoming Onew with God Part 3 (5/31/07)

Marriage in John: Becoming One with God Part 4 (5/31/07)

Inviting the Elderly: Diversity in the Church (6/09/07) - When thinking about diversity in Church we often overlook the elderly

Marriage in John: Becoming One with God Part 5 (8/05/07)

Keep Reading (9/01/07) - You'll never understand the Bible until you continually read the Bible.

The Message of Mark (10/15/07) - Jesus calls us to follow.

Blush (12/03/07) - The Scandal of the Incarnation written as a Christmas message

A Brief Meditation on Time (12/12/07) - When we long for the past what we really want is to know the future.

Christ and the Shawshank Redemption (12/26/07) - A portion of my letter, responding to a challenge made about the "Longing of Man."

I hope you draw closer to him this year as you continue to walk with us in this blog.

Matthew Miller

Christ in the Shawshank Redemption

2007-12-26T11:13:00.000-08:00

I do believe the Shawshank Redemption has a religious message. I didn't see it the first time I watched it. The first time I saw it, I loved it not because it was a religious movie but because it was a film about hope. And although I cringed at the portrayal of the Warden, it was hope that made me return to this film again and again. Only after watching and digesting the movie for many years did I finally recognize the hope the movie was depicting.

I see the movie as an illustration of the above/below divide that has been a constant theme in western literature since Plato's Allegory of the Cave. If you aren't familiar with the Allegory I invite you to read it. The problem with Shaw shank’s prisoners and Red in particular is they have become accustom to prison life. Brook's parole, in a clear reversal of our expectations, reveals the terror one experiences when faced with the possibility of living life on the outside. But there is life outside, a point that Andy wants his fellow prisoners to see. He provides them beer on the roof, music over the loud speakers, and the library, all in an effort to prepare them for this life. Andy does it not because he is chained as his fellow prisoners but because he is the only prisoner that's free and or innocent.

The religious connotation of the film, however, does not become fully apparent until Andy escapes from prison. It is in Andy's cell where we along with Red expect to find Andy dead. But instead of finding death, we find the cell empty and instead of being dead, Andy is alive with a new and powerful life lived on the outside. The imagery is so transparent I don't why it took me, a Christian, over six years to see who Andy is. Andy is Christ. Just as when Red and the Warden go looking for Andy's dead body in the cell, the disciples likewise went looking for Christ's. And just as Red found the Cell empty and Andy alive, so the disciples found the tomb empty and Jesus alive.

This connection is the key to the movie. When you recognize this everything in the film because meaningful in light of the gospel (good news). The prisoners of Shawshank and Red in particular like ourselves are bound to this world. Because of this the prisoners fear being paroled just as we fear death: there is nothing waiting for them on the outside. Like Christ, Andy comes into there world as a free and innocent man, spreading hope of the outside world. Just as Christ first miracle is changing water into wine, Andy provides beer on the roof. Just as Christ miracles proclaim the hope found in a life lived in God, Andy's miracles proclaim the hope that can be theirs.

It's Andy escape (death/resurrection) that makes all the difference for Red. Up until that time he is man unwilling to truly face his guilt and punishment. Up until that time he is a man who is afraid of what awaits him on the outside. But Andy's life means life for Red. It’s because Andy lives that Red does not face the same fate as Brooks. The final scene where Red meets Andy on the beach, I believe is the imagery of the believer meeting Christ in heaven.

This is Christianity in a nutshell. You can’t find this imagery particularly in the Gospel of John. In closing I have to ask you one question. You love the Shawshank Redemption, could it be the image of Christ that you truly love?

A Brief Meditation on Time

2007-12-12T10:09:00.000-08:00

Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions. Ecclesiastes 7:10

Nostalgia is a funny feeling. Sitting here in my big brown reclining chair with my feet up and my lap top in my lap, I can think of thousand experiences I would like to relive. Why are the old days always better? Growing up I have desired to be in all sorts of past eras. Sometimes I’ve wanted to live among the Romans at the height of the Roman Empire and at other times I’ve wanted to be in the Old West. Recently I bought a book about the history of Camas, Washington my home town. I look through the photographs and yearn to experience a different time and place. Why does the past always seem better than the present?

But even if you have never wanted to live in another era, we have all wanted to go back and relive our past. There are moments in our lives when the good, warm, safe memories of the past flood our lives and the heart cannot help but bleed for the past. But even if it’s not a safe memory we often desire to return and change the past. I wish I could do this or said this. Things I would have done differently, words I would have spoken if given another chance. We yearn for the past because we have a deep desire to make it right.

In all this yearning, though, I think we take for granted our knowledge of the present. We never think about going back to relive an experience without our current knowledge. It’s a given. We want to go back with our current knowledge secure. But this is precisely the difficulty the writer of Ecclesiastes had in this longing. To long for the past is to long for its ignorance and lake of wisdom. Think about if you went back in time to that special place in your memory but lost all knowledge of the present, the past would then become just another present. Going back to that moment, without knowledge of the current is simply to live that experience without truly appreciating why it was so special or recognizing what was done wrong. The very reason you long to go back is not because you want to relive that moment but rather its that you want to know the future in the present.

As I sent here in this present moment writing this post I don’t know what the future holds. Is this a moment that my eighty year old self would want to come back to experience. It may or may not be. I won’t know until I’m eighty. Nostalgia is not a longing for the past; instead it’s a longing to know our futures. Our present knowledge of the past makes it a safe place. But for the present all bets are off.

A group called the Cry has a song called “Take my hand and walk.” In the song they quote Ecclesiastes “Why were the old days better?” To which the singer replies “because you’re scared of the unknown.” Remember the past, plan for the future, but as long as it is called today, embrace it.

Blush

2007-12-03T08:46:00.000-08:00

It almost goes without saying that extravagant gifts can both humble and embarass us. I'll never forget the Christmas my wife and I moved back from California after being away from home for some two and half years. Surronded by family, friends and strangers alike, I was humbled by the shere number of presents that we received. The pile rose higher and higher and still the gifts kept coming. I looked at the strangers around us and blushed with embarassement how much had been given. It was difficult to accept the overwhelming extravangance of these gifts given in love.

Jesus washing of his disciple’s feet in John 13 is really about the extravangant gift given in the incarnation – its a powerful symbolic reenactment of the word made flesh. Much of the scene echoes Philippians 2:4-8. When Jesus lays aside his garments and takes a towel he shows how he laid aside his deity to take the demaning role of a personal slave.

Peter's rejection reveals the scandelous, sometimes embarassing reality of what God has done. I think in our present society we have lost the shock and the horror that Peter experienced as His Lord exposed himself to perform the slave’s task. I believe it would parallel in some sense the shock of watching Robert Schuller take off his clothes in the middle of his sermon in order to give his clothes personally to you. Imagine your horror as this dignified man takes off his robe unbuttons his shirt and then unzips his pants. Imagine the gasps from the crowd; the red faces the eyes closing and the heads turning away. Imagine the pale skin, aged and overweight body of Robert Schuller standing exposed, offering all his honor and dignity to you. This is what God did in Jesus. We might have been satisfied with a single piece of his clothing but we recieved so much more.

God is closer than you think and perhaps at times, according to the reaction of Peter, even more intimate than you could desire. For the Jews God was something up there, something wholly other. He was a transcendent being, that no eye could see and no mind could comprehend. God existed far removed from the day to day routine of everyday life. The incarnation, the fact that God became man, changed everything. It turned the world upside down. God could no longer be mistaken for an invisible deity far removed from our cares and concerns. He was as Matthew pointed out, Immanuel which is translated “God with us.”

In Christmas we remember how God fully and completely offered himself to us, giving up the entirety of his honor and respect in order to meet every last inch of our need. This gift of nearness may be difficult to accept. The cynic in us can’t believe it. No God would do that. If I was God I wouldn’t do that. But the surprising thing is that it is exactly because he is God that he has done it for us. Notice how John tells us that the cause for Jesus actions was that he knew he came from God and was going back to God. It is precisely because of his being God, a member of the trinity, that He gave himself to us. To be God, according to the gospel of John, is to give sacrafically. For God is a giver (John 3:16). He goes beyound the limits of what even we would do to meet our every need.

In John 13 we find a God that is truly closer than we think. A God that shocks us so throughly in the extravagant gift of himself that we can only help but blush.

The Message of Mark

2007-10-15T15:36:00.000-07:00

For the past several months I've had this sermon brewing in my head. I thought I sit down and share it with you. In preparation for my class on the Life of Christ I've once again been studying the gospel of Mark. There are three things that I think most people find particularly puzzling.

The young man who runs away naked in Mark 14. He’s not found in any other gospel. Who is this man? And why does he appear in Mark?
The ending of Mark in 16:8. The women are told that Jesus is alive and that they should go tell the disciples. But instead the woman run away afraid and say nothing. That’s the end. The longer ending we now have is most likely an attempt to solve the somewhat messy feeling Mark leaves. Why does Mark end his gospel here and in this way?
The Meeting in Galilee. In Mark the disciples are told to go to Galilee in order to meet the risen Jesus but in Luke's gospel the disciples meet Jesus outside of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives and He specifically tells them to stay in Jerusalem. Why does Mark tell us that the disciples need to journey to Galilee?

These are puzzling questions and worthy of careful consideration. I want you to keep them in the back of your mind as we examine the message of Mark.

Mark is the shortest of the four gospels. In his succinct narrative he focus’ like a laser beam on the person of Christ and on those who follow him, his disciples. Like a modern action film, Mark uses rapid cutting. Jesus hits the ground running and never stops. He is a man with a lot to accomplish in a very short amount of time.

From the opening quotation from the prophet Isaiah, Mark defines the action of Jesus as a journey. Three times in this quotation we read of the “way of the Lord” and or a “path for our God.” Throughout the gospel we see Jesus on a journey, a path towards his own death in Jerusalem. It is the disciples alone who called to follow Him. The first thing Jesus does, after his own calling, is to return to Galilee and call his first disciples. “Follow me,” he says to Peter and Andrew on the shores of Galilee and immediately they leave everything to “follow him.” He likewise calls to James and John and they too leave everything to “follow him.” In chapter two, Jesus calls another man, Levi the Tax collector, in much the same way. “Follow me” he says to Levi and Levi like the disciples before leaves everything to follow him. The act of following is again emphasized in Jesus choosing of the twelve Apostles. Mark says that Jesus chooses twelve men that “they might be with him…” The first objective in his selection is a call to nearness. The Apostles are to be where he is. They are to follow him on the road.

And they do follow, at least in the beginning. In Galilee we find the disciples journeying with Jesus back and forth across the Sea. They are with him when His mother and brothers come to take custody of him and when He speaks his first Parable. They are with him when he calmly quiets the storm as well as when he confronts a man possessed with a legion of demons. They are with him when He heals the woman with the issue of blood and they are with him when he raises Jarius’ daughter from the dead. The disciples are with Jesus more than anyone. But the disciples, the group closest to him, don’t have a clue who Jesus is. They are comically and ultimately tragically a dim witted group.

As Jesus abruptly cuts his way through the pages of Mark, people are impelled to wonder, “Who is this man.” The Scribes and Pharisees are confounded by him. When Jesus casts out a demon, they wonder, “What is this, a new Teaching with authority?” When Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic, they ask, “Why does this man speak that way? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The questions go on and on. “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” “Why don’t your disciples fast?” “Why are your disciples doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

But the disciples, the ones called to follow him, marvel just as much. In Mark 4, they ask Jesus about his parables. In Mark 5, they wonder at His cool reaction to a storm. And later they are dumbfounded when Jesus, bombarded by a crowd, asks who touched me? In chapter 6 they are perplexed when Jesus instructs them to feed the five thousand and again are just as perplexed when he tells them two chapters later to feed the four thousand. When Jesus, in Mark seven speaks in very plain language, the disciples turn around and ask Jesus to interpret the parable. ITS NOT A PARABLE, a fact which underscores the disciple’s total lack of intelligence. And even after Jesus has fed the five thousand and the four thousand with a few loaves of bread, Jesus finds the disciples once again concerned about how many loaves they have.

You may not like the fact that Mark is so hard the disciples. You know we can all relate. But that’s why Mark is so hard on the disciples. That’s the very point. Mark is hard on the disciples precisely because we can relate. Mark wants us to see ourselves in this bumbling group of men.
In chapter eight the journey truly begins. Jesus asks the disciples the central question everyone’s been dying to know. “Who do men say that I am?” The disciples provide a few stock answers. And then Jesus turns the question on them, “but who do you say that I am.” Peter in his boldness shouts out “You are the Christ.” It’s the right answer but Jesus takes it in an unexpected direction. Immediately He begins for the first time to teach that he must suffer be killed and after three days rise again. Peter doesn’t get it. Though Jesus states the matter rather plainly, Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes Him. You see the Christ, according to Jewish expectation, was to be a conquering hero, a military leader who would kick the Romans out and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. When Peter called Jesus the Christ, he certainly had this in mind. Jesus, however, doesn’t have the same plan. He is a suffering Christ and not the Christ of Peter’s expectations. Jesus rebukes Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s. He then gathers his disciples and calls them once again to follow. “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospels will save it.” Jesus calls his disciples to follow in his death.

With this dramatic exchange Jesus will set out on a straight path to Jerusalem, beginning in the extreme north of Israel, down through Galilee and on into Judea and Jerusalem. Three times on this journey Jesus will teach his disciples that he is going to suffer, die and be raised from the dead. Each time the disciples will fail to understand and each time Jesus will attempt to correct their faulty understanding. Jesus encounter with Peter at Caesarea Philippi is the first of these three instances.

The second instance is in 9:31. Jesus having journeyed from the extreme North enters Galilee and teaches his disciples once again that, “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, he will rise three days later.” But the disciples still don’t understand and Mark tells us that they are afraid to ask. When Jesus enters Capernaum, a city on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, he questions them about what they were talking about “on the way.” Mark states, “But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.” Their Lord has just proclaimed the impending hour of his own death and here they are arguing about which one of them is the best. Like Peter they simply don’t understand the mission Jesus has in mind. Jesus once again sits them down and teaches a paradox. “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and the servant of all.”

How many of us have seen these internal power plays, Christians envious and fighting over others prestige? Those prepared to die are never concerned about such things.

In 10:33 Jesus will enter Judea and give the most detailed information about his impending death yet. “Behold we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” But James and John in the very next verse approach Jesus with an astonishing request. “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” They just don’t get it. They still think that Jesus is going to be crowned king in Jerusalem. They’re looking forward to being close to an earthly king. Jesus responds, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” They reply all to rashly, “we are able.” Jesus affirms that they will indeed be able but as for sitting on his right and left he cannot grant because “it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” Surprisingly, the only other people we find in the gospel of Mark that are ever on Jesus right and left are the two thieves on the cross. Jesus glory is the cross and he’s calling his disciples to once again follow him on the road. Jesus again teaches a paradox. “Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

But sadly the disciples never get it. When they finally arrive in Jerusalem, they show themselves to be tragically and traitorously inept. Judas, one of the twelve, goes to the leaders and offers to betray Jesus. When Jesus predicts this, Peter and the other disciples respond with oaths of loyalty. But in Gethsemane, Mark states that at the sight of the soldiers, “they all left him and fled.” At the sight of the soldiers, the disciples abandon their call. At the first sign of danger, they all run away. Jesus has called them to follow him to his death. He has called them to suffer. The disciples choose life instead.

It is here in this moment that we find the young man running away naked, leaving his linen sheet behind. Who is this man and why does he appear here? There are some interesting clues. First, a linen sheet only appears one other time in the gospel of Mark and its wrapped around the dead body of Jesus. Secondly, nakedness, after the fall, is always a sign of shame. For these reasons as well as one other that I will reveal in a moment I believe Mark uses this young man as a symbol for the very failure of the disciples. They have been called to follow Jesus to his death but in this moment they all run away in shame leaving the death that Christ has clothed them in behind.

Shocking! The disciples, the very twelve apostles, when confronted with the death that Christ demands turn around and flee. But they are our fathers, they are our representatives. And like them we Fat Christians have abandoned Christ’s call. I’m sure each of us can remember the sweetness of our conversion when Christ first called us to follow. Like the disciples we left everything. Like their time in Galilee, the beginning was trouble-free. It was easy to follow because everything was so sweet. But as the years passed life seemed to seep back in. We got married, had some kids, bought a house in which live. Now there were mortgages to pay, vacations to plan, and cars to fix and repair. We sought people and places that would affirm us. We’ve looked for glory in the eyes of others. Suffering for Christ became the last thing on our minds. And now it’s not a question whether we would follow him to his death for we ceased to follow all ready. Like the disciples we’ve already denied him. We’ve already turned and walked away. Examined in light of Christ’s own example we find ourselves totally lacking. Can we do what Jesus did? Can we walk the road he himself has blazed?

That’s the powerful question in Mark’s disturbing ending. Mark tells us that the women who go to the tomb on Sunday Morning are met by a young man clothed in white. Notice how Mark alone among the gospels doesn’t call this figure an angel. Instead he calls him a “young man.” It’s the same description used for the streaking disciple, the young man that runs away in the Gethsemane, leaving the linen sheet behind. Well, now he’s clothed in white and he has a message for the disciples. “'He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you.” But again in the very next verse the women, like the disciples before, run away and say nothing for they themselves are afraid. The end? Yup, that’s it.

All the questions you had about the disciples, Mark doesn’t answer. Did they go to Galilee? Did they meet Jesus again? He doesn’t say. Why not? Why doesn’t he say? Answer: Because he leaves it to you. Without denying the difficulty, Jesus extends his forgiveness in reestablishing the call. He goes before you. Will you follow? The answer and the end is up to you.

Keep Reading

2007-09-01T08:34:00.000-07:00

Think of the first time you took your regular commute. If it wasn’t already a familiar place, you may have arrived at your destination and not remembered the whole of your drive. Maybe a certain curve stuck out in your mind, a landmark or a sign. But the whole of the trip was not easily learned on your first excursion. As the days and months went by that stretch of road became a little less mysterious. The bold indicators that once attracted your eye began to fade with repetitiveness and more unassuming details took their place, whole sections of the road begin to fill in, anchored around those original markers. Eventually even the smooth flat road seeped into your mind. Unconsciously, bit by bit, it was their when you tried to recall it. So one day without perhaps even realizing it you knew the road like the proverbial “back of your hand.”

Understanding scripture comes about in much the same process as our repetitive drives to work. On the first reading of a particular book you may find a verse here and there resonating in your mind like an eye catching sign. But they hang in your mind isolated and alone with nothing easily remembered before or after them. Only after repeated reading do the gaps in your recollection begin to fill in. Eventually the coherence of a certain chapter begins to take shape as your recall more and more of the connections between its scenes and stories. Finally, as your grasp the authors intended outline, even the whole book will form a string of interrelated thoughts in your mind. Only then can you truly say that you have really read the book. And only then do you really begin to see.

Marriage in John: Becoming One with God (Part 5)

2007-08-05T09:51:00.000-07:00

If you haven't yet begun to read this series of posts let me give you a brief recap. I believe that St. Athenasius and Hilary of Potiers were correct when they claimed that God became man so that we might become God. While this is a shocking statement to most evangelicals (I should know I am one) it is, I believe, a biblical position.. In this series of posts I have begun to show how an examination of John 19:34, the flow of blood and water from Christ's wounded side, in light of John's consistent marriage motif, leads to this conclusion. Christ's crucifixion, according to the gospel of John, is a wedding between God and man.

The Crucifixion

At last we come to the scene of Christ crucifixion; the "hour" of which we first heard Jesus speak about in John 2:1. And like the significance of the hour in that scene, this is the moment of Christ's wedding. The “mother of Jesus” or as we have already seen, the “mother of the groom” is present making this the fifth scene in which a woman plays a prominent role. It is here in the pierced side of Christ that we find echoes of Eve’s creation, the event which explains the basis for John's marriage motif. The comparison are as follows.

Jesus is arrested, crucified and buried in a garden (John 18:1; 19:41) just as Adam is placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8). The importance of John placing Jesus in a garden should not be understated since none of the other gospels call it this. When they do refer to it they call it Gethsemane which means olive press and not a garden.
Jesus has been seeking a bride throughout the gospel of John but thus far he has selected none of them. This I believe is mirrored in the creation story of Eve when we are told that Adam named all the animals but no suitable helper for him is found (Genesis 2:20)
Jesus bows his head and gives up his spirit (John 19:30) just as God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep. (Genesis 2:21). In John's recounting of resurrection of Lazarus, we find that sleep is euphemism for death (John 11:11-14).
Jesus is pierced in the side sending the flow of blood and water (John 19:34). The piercing mirrors the surgery that God performs on Adam. While asleep, God takes from Adam's side (not rib - surprisingly its the the same word used to designate the place where Jesus was pierced) to form His bride (Genesis 2:21)

And the story of the Eve's creation ends with this promise… “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis. 2:24)

These comparisons are nothing new. The early Church father's recognized them. As early as Tertullian (late second century) we find, "If Adam was a figure of Christ, the sleep of Adam was the death of Christ Who was to fall asleep in death; that in the injury of His side might be figured the Church, the true mother of the living." Hippolytus, at the same time, also writes, "Wishing to destroy the work of the woman and to raise an obstacle to her, who had previously issued from the side of Adam as bearer of death, behold, He opened His own sacred side from which there flowed blood and water, plenary signs of spiritual nuptials, of adoption and mystical regeneration."

Even Paul hints at such an interpretation when he writes on the relationship of husbands and wives in Ephesians 5. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the Church in all her glory having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church.

Thus, the flow of blood and water illustrates the marital union of Christ and the Church. It emphasizes the unity that we share with Him. For Evangelicals, this concept is nothing new since Paul himself explicitly talks about it in Ephesians 5. But in this series of posts were talking about the union of God and man. That in Christ man has in some sense become God. This concept goes beyond the traditional evangelical understanding. In order to argue this point we must unwrap the meaning of blood and water. What do these elements mean?

Post Script

Mary in the Garden

If a marriage theme is in fact found in every scene in John where a woman appears then we would expect to find it continued in Jesus meeting Mary in the garden. Mary’s introduction to Jesus in the Garden is the sixth and final scene in which a woman plays a predominant role in the gospel of John. And once again we find a connection to marriage. The scene echoes of the Song of Solomon as well as the book of Ruth.

The Story of Mary echoes the Song of Solomon 3:1-5 in a number of ways. Both Mary and the women in the Song of Solomon

Seek their beloved while it is still dark.
are found by watchmen (angels for Mary).
tell the watchmen they are looking for their beloved. (note in both cases the watchmen do not respond. In Mary's case this is in stark contrast to the appearance of the angels in the other three gospels.)
soon find their beloved and cling to him.

The similarities between the book of Ruth are also as follows…

Jesus tells Mary to “Stop clinging to me” (20:17) ·
Jesus says, “Go to (i.e. Return to) my brethren (20:17) · Say to them, “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.”

Ruth records…

Orpah leaves her mother-in-law, but Ruth clings to Naomi. (1:14)
Naomi tells Ruth to return after your sister-in-law (1:15).
Ruth said…”Where you go, I will go and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, your God, my God.

Inviting the Elderly: Diversity in the Church

2007-06-09T12:53:00.000-07:00

Last year I wrote three part series on diversity in the Church (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). In part 2 I confronted our apparent rejection of the elderly. Church's have adapted to the larger cultural trend to seek youth over age. This is a dangerous development and must be remedied. On Mars Hill Audio, an NPR type radio magazine, C. Ben Mitchell speaks on why and how the Church should be more welcoming toward the elderly. Please listen.

Marriage in John: Becoming One with God (Part 4)

2007-05-31T13:33:00.001-07:00

Mary and Martha and the Raising of Lazarus

(Mary and Martha represent the third scene in which woman play a prominent role in John. The woman caught in adultery is a later addition.)

As with the story of the Samaritan woman, the story of Mary, Martha and Lazarus recalls a romantic scene in Genesis. This time it is the meeting of Jacob and Rachel. The similarities between John 11 and Genesis 29 are as follows…

Both men approach a tomb/well with a stone covering it (John 11:38 -Gen. 29:2-3, 8, 10).
Both men order the stone to be removed (John 11:39 -Gen. 29:7-8)
Both groups of people are reluctant to remove the stone (John 11: 39 -Gen. 29:8)
Both men are moved by the sight of a woman (Mary - John 11:33, Rachel Gen 29:10) Both Jesus and Jacob weep. (John 11:35 - Gen. 29:11)
Both stories involve three main characters (Mary, Martha and Lazarus. (John 11) Rachel, Leah and Leban (Gen. 29))
Both stories record this phrase "Now ____ loved _____." In the case of Jesus it is Martha and in Jacob's case it is Rachel (John 11:5 - Gen 29:18)

In addition to these connections, one must also take account of John 11's surrounding context. The Shepard imagery which pervades Genesis 29 is matched by the image of Christ as the Good Shepard in John 10 (the chapter immediately preceding Lazarus' resurrection from the grave). In that passage Jesus states "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9). Thus Jesus' actions in John 11 must be understood in light of the image he paints of himself in John 10. Like Jacob he is removing the stone to lead his sheep out to pasture.

In addition to these connections its also important to note that Jesus' meeting with Martha echoes the earlier story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman.

Both women come out to meet Jesus (4:9 - 11:20)
Both women claim to know something "I know that the Messiah is coming...(4:25)" "I know that he will rise again... (11:27)"
Both women speak of the Messiah "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that one comes, He will declare all things to us.” (John 4:25) “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” (John 11:27)
Both women go back to the place where they had come from to call others (John 4:28-29; John 11:28)
Both groups of people come out to meet Jesus “They went out of the city, and were coming to Him.” (John 4:30)“And when she heard it, she got up quickly and was coming to Him.” (John 11:29)

This is very interesting since the first story also has a connection to the only other betrothal scene in Genesis.

The Anointing and the Triumphal Entry

The anointing performed by Mary as well as the Triumphal Entry continue John’s marriage theme. This is the fourth scene where a woman plays a prominent role. The scene is in keeping with previous marriage episodes, echoing the most explicit biblical book on marriage, the Song of Solomon.

John 12:1-3 states, "Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume."

I want you to take note of the unique portrait John paints of these scene. This scene is one of the few stories that is repeated in each of the four gospels. Only John tells us that Jesus was reclining with Lazarus at the table and only John records that fragrance of the perfume filled the house. These details, while perhaps reminiscent of a first hand account, bare a striking similarity to Song of Solomon 1:12. "While the king was at his table, My perfume gave forth its fragrance.” The connections to Jesus as King comes only a few verses later where in the triumphal entry Jesus is proclaimed "King."

But the extended passage from John 11:54-12:23 also has ties to another passage in the Song of Solomon. Jesus return from Ephraim through the events of the triumphal entry bare comparison to Song of Solomon 3:6-11.

6 "What is this coming up from the wilderness Like columns of smoke, Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, With all scented powders of the merchant? 7 "Behold, it is the traveling couch of Solomon; Sixty mighty men around it, Of the mighty men of Israel. 8 "All of them are wielders of the sword, Expert in war; Each man has his sword at his side, Guarding against the terrors of the night. 9 "King Solomon has made for himself a sedan chair From the timber of Lebanon. 10 "He made its posts of silver, Its back of gold And its seat of purple fabric, With its interior lovingly fitted out By the daughters of Jerusalem. 11 "Go forth, O daughters of Zion, And gaze on King Solomon with the crown With which his mother has crowned him On the day of his wedding, And on the day of his gladness of heart."

Note the following similarities with Jesus movements in John 11:54-12:23.

Jesus comes comes from the “wilderness.”
He is perfumed. The fragrance is so strong it could be described as “smoke.”
Jesus enters Jerusalem with the crowds surrounding him.
Jesus makes for himself a chair (a chair that is on a donkey.)
John invokes the phrase “daughter of Zion” from Zechariah.
Jesus’ hour (His Wedding?) has come.

The connection to the Zechariah passage (“daughter of Zion”) and king Solomon should not be overlooked. Just as Jesus is proclaimed king entering Jerusalem on the back of donkey, Solomon likewise was anointed king, entering Jerusalem on a mule.

The Anointing and the Triumphal Entry are thus the final preparations for the "hour" of Christ's own marriage.

(to be continued....)

Marriage in John: Becoming One with God (Part 3)

2007-05-31T13:24:00.000-07:00

The flow of blood and water in John 19:34 is the culmination of a marriage motif that runs throughout the gospel of John. The significance of this event therefore can only be felt when one understands the totality of this marraige theme.

The Wedding of Cana

John’s marriage theme begins at the Wedding of Cana where John subtley presents Jesus as the Bridegroom. When the mother of Christ (Note: She is always referred to as Christ’s mother in John's gospel, never as Mary) approaches Jesus about the lack of wine, she assumes a role that in Jewish cutom is reserved for the mother of the groom. One can see by Jesus initial response that this is more than a mere request for wine. Jesus implies that she is pushing him towards His Hour (2: 3-4).

But Jesus does supply the wine and in the process moves towards this hour by taking role of the bridegroom. When the headwaiter tastes the wine, he turns and praises not Jesus but the bridegroom. In this John subtly implies that Jesus is the real bridegroom. "The hour" of which He speaks is a reference to his own wedding which has yet to take place.

It should be noted that this scene has a great deal in common with Christ's crucifxion. Among the many unique details connecting the two events are:

The “mother of Jesus,” (2:1 - 19:25)
Containers of wine “set there” (2:6 - 19:29)
Someone receiving a drink. (2:8-9 - 19:29-30)
The hour – which Jesus often uses in reference to his arrest, death and glorification (7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1, 17:1).

Thus in Christ's first miracle, John has subtly implied that Jesus is a bridegroom moving in the direction of his own "hour" or wedding.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

That which was implicit in the Wedding of Cana is made explicit in the Testimony of John the Baptist.

In 3:38-30, John the Baptist tells his disciples, “You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before Him.' 29 "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. And so this joy of mine has been made full. 30 "He must increase, but I must decrease.”

Here John clearly calls Jesus the Bridegroom while comparing himself to the best man.

Jesus and the Samaritan Woman

John’s record of Jesus' conversation with the woman by the well (only a few verses removed from John the Baptist previous statment) echoes two passages from Old Testament; the betrothal of Isaac in Genesis 24 and the rape of Dinah in Genesis 33.

John 4 possess the following unique points of similarity with the story of Isaac's betrothal

A man travel to a foreign land where he sit down by a well of water.
From the town a woman comes to draw water.
The man requests a drink.
When the woman learns the man’s identity, she rushes home to tell others.
Her family invites the man to stay.
Though no betrothal takes place, the inter-textual echoes suggest there should be.

Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan Woman also, suprisingly, recalls the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34.

John states that the place where Jesus met the woman was near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to Joseph (John 4:5). The plot of ground is only mention three times in the Old Testament. The first time it appears, it immediately precedes and leads to the rape of Dinah (Genesis 33:18:-20).
Like the Samaritan woman, Dinah goes out…
Like the Samaritan woman, she is met by a man who… loves her, speaks tenderly to her.
Like Jesus disciples, the son’s of Jacob only later return to discover what has occurred.

Though John is certainly creating contrasts between Jesus’ conduct and that of Shechem’s, the desire and pursuit of a wife remains consistent with John’s marriage motif.

(to be continued...)

Flow of Blood and Water: Becoming One with God (Part 2)

2007-05-31T13:16:00.000-07:00

“but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. 35 And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.” John 19:34-35

Both the piercing of Christ’s side and the subsequent flow of blood and water in John 19:34-35 are unique to John’s gospel and it is safe to say that the author percieves in them a great deal of importance.

Three times he swears to the event. (1) "He who has seen has borne witness" (2) "and his witness is true" (3) "and he know that he is telling the truth…”
This conclusion, “so that you also may believe,” foreshadows the very conclusion of John "But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by beleiving you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
So striking is this testimony it has been called, “the most solemn protestation of accuracy to be found in the whole work.” No where else does John make such a passionate and personal claim.

What importance then does the author percieve in this flow? First, I would like to begin by saying that John does not entend us to believe that Jesus died of a broken heart. While this may indeed be what biological cause of the flow it is certainly not the significance that John intends. Two factors from John's gospel demand careful consideration.

The flow is the consumation of an extensive water motif.
The piercing is likewise the culmination of a continual use of marital images.

Over the next few posts I will argue that the flow is a capstone binding these two themes together to reveal in Christ side a powerful depiction of theosis (becoming one with God).

Becoming One With God (Part 1)

2007-05-29T10:33:00.000-07:00

Saint Athanasius the fourth century church father and ardent defender of the trinity once said that Christ "was made man that we might be made God." Its a rather shocking statement to modern evangelical ears but Athanasius was by no means alone in this opinion among the early church. Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-367), for example, held that "the assumption of our nature was no advancement for God, but His willingness to lower Himself is our promotion, for He did not resign His divinity but conferred divinity on man." The object of Christ's incarnation, according to Hilary was that, "that man might become God."

Five years ago I would have shuned such a notion. The fall of man, I was taught, was predicated on his desire to become "like God" (Genesis 3) and is therefore a sinful desire. Only heretics like the mormons teach that man can become God. It is a perspective that true Christians should immediatly reject as was done in the creation-science seminar I watched last night.

But even the New Testament seems to express at times directly something of this idea. For instance Peter writes in his second letter, "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature... (2 Peter 1:4)" And Jesus in John's gospels prays, "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may beleive that You sent Me. (John 17:21)"

Today I agree with Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers. In the following series of posts I would like to tell you how I came to this perspective through realizing the significance of John 19:34.

Seeing the World as a Christian

2007-05-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

I delivered this message for Grace Foursquare's Youth Group this past Christmas. I scribbled out these notes in preparation. I hope you can understand the argument. It's a message that has been brewing in me for a long time.

You’re growing up and you guys are beginning to see the world in a completely different way. The simple answers that you had when you were children just don’t cut it anymore. How many of you used to believe that Santa Clause placed those presents under the tree. How many still believe in Santa Clause? Why not? You can’t see him, right? It seems too obvious.

Now you guys are pondering more important questions. “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “Is there a God?” And Like Santa Clause you're thinking of chucking the latter. Why? Because you can’t see God. You can’t touch God. You can't hear God. You can’t smell or taste Him. You're thinking, “I’d believe if I could see him.”

The established elite, scientist, artist, and educators, today almost unanimously teach that what we can, see, taste, touch, smell and hear is all there is. There is nothing outside this material world.

Scientist teach Evolution - In its broadest sense, it is the attempt to explain everything through tangiable existence and thus without God.

Artist teach Subjectivism. There is no meaning beyond the physical/tangible work of art. There is only opinions, no right and no wrong. There is only painting, the dance, the sculpture and nothing more. There is no God

Educators teach us tolerance - Tolerance today is not about accepting the God given right of individuals to disagree but a mandate to recognize that intangible beliefs do not have a tangible existence and thus cannot be regarded as True. Thus there is no God

Thus, we live in a world that denies the existence of God. So why should you or I believe that He exists?

I'm going to tell you up front tonight that I’ve never seen God. Never heard God nor have I smelt him or tasted him. I’ve never experienced God with my five senses. In fact even the Bible clearly says, “No one has ever seen God.” (John 1:18) So where does that leave us? God doesn’t exist, right? Wait. Let's think about where that leads us.

Our eyes only see objects. They cannot see meaning. If we abandon God based upon empirical criteria we must also abandon such notions as love, beauty, morality, justice, hope and equality. For like God, these ideas are immaterial and cannot be verified through empirical experience.

I can't empirically verify you as a person either. The philosopher Descart argued, "I think therefore I am" I know I think and possess feelings. But do you? I can't honestly say. You may simply be a robot, an animal, or a figment of my imagination. Sorry, your movement, speech and actions doesn't compare to the the empirical evidence I have for my own existence. I know that I feel pain. I experience it. But I don't know if you feel pain. I can't experience it for myself.

But even if I could come to believe that you exist, empirically I know even I won't exist forever. Because I can see in the experiences of others that this physical life will come to end. We will die. You know whats even more scary, all the things we do in this life won't matter a bit. Because we will all be forgotten. We will die and we will be forgotten. How do I know this? How many of you know your grandparents? How many know about great-grandparents? How many know about your great-great-great-great-great-grandparents. If you being the children of your parents do not know the people who lived, laughed, struggled and died so that you may exist how is your memory secure?

It was this very notion that lead the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes to despair "meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless" We will die and everything we have been and done will be forgotten (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11). In his despair he sought...

pleasure, riches and fame (2:1-11)
education (2:12-16)

But in the end, he recognized, death, the limits of this physical world, will overtake us and destroy any meaning that we vainly create.

I've seen the sorrow in this perspective. The first funeral I ever attended was in my sophomore year of high school. A long time fellow student of mine, Holly Phillips, had been killed tragically in a car accident. She was beautiful and now she was dead. I attended the funeral more to support my fellow students then to morn the absence of Holly. But as I sat near the back watching the people in the dark sanctuary, I realized for the first time what life is apart from God. Except for the uncontrollable wailing of Holly's mother at the front of the room, everyone sat in uncomfortable silence listening to her pain. Students unaccustomed to death fidgeted in their seats. Holly's mother was alone. She was divorced and now her only child was dead. Her wailing was the guttural response to a future without hope or meaning. All that she had was gone and she had nothing, nothing, nothing tangible to hold on to.

If there is nothing outside the physical world, then life is like a board game without an object or a point. We run around seeking a goal that does not exist, a point that is beyond recovery. No wonder that suicide is the third leading cause of death for 15-24 year olds. The only logical response to a world like this is to kill oneself. We all die. Only the smart one ends it sooner rather than later.

BUT ITS NOT LIKE THIS. I don't want you to despair. There is life. There is more than what we can see taste touch smell and see. Their is something beyond the limits of our physical senses.

Let me give you a little bit of philosophy. The greatest of all the Greek philosophers was a man nicknamed Plato. In his book the Republic, he offered a picture to illustrate the world in which we find ourselves. We are like prisoners in a cave, Plato said. All our lives we have been chained to face the wall. without the ability to turn around. Behind us, men travel back and forth on a walkway and a fire behind them casts shadows on our wall. Because of our limited perspective we tragically mistake the shadow for the reality. This allegory is a great illustration of Plato's theory of the forms. Plato believed that reality is eternal, true, invisible and unchanging. Material things as we can see from our experience quickly fade away and die. But true things remain forever. 1+1 will always equal 2. It was that way before man existed. It will be that way when we are gone. A particular horse is only a concrete representation of the idea of the horse. When that particular horse is gone, when all horses are gone, the idea of the horse will still remain. It is an eternal truth that man can recognize or choose to ignore. It does not need him to be true.

This is not difficult stuff.

Think of a symbol like the American Flag. We understand what symbols are – Symbols are intangible representations of intangible ideas. For the empiricist the American Flag is simply a multi-colored piece of cloth. But for the one who has eyes to see it is the tangible representation of the United States itself.

Like meaning, the modern empiricist is also unable to see design. He or she would be unable to distinguish between and Indian Arrow head and a rock. Although made of the same substance one is the creation of random events the other of purposeful design. Is it any wounder that many leading evolutionist can see no difference between a person and a fallen twig. To him both are objects and nothing more.

In both these examples there is a reality beyond surface appearance. It is true and eternal weather or not one recognizes it.

The reason I’m saying all this is because I want to bring clarity to how one comes to know God. I can’t see God but so what I can't see meaning, love, justice, hope etc. either. I still know they exist. I see a car and although I can't see the designer, I know that it was designed. I can't see the wind but yet I see the effects of the wind.

But there's more. God hasn't remained aloof, a distant and unexplainable force. The gospel of John tells us something good and true has occurred. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning.” The word Logos is an ancient word that Greek Philosophers used. It meant the Point, the Purpose, the Explanation for all that is.” It was the invisible and eternal creative force that brought everything into existence and held everything together. And the beauty of this is that John 1:14 states, “The Logos became Flesh and dwelt among us.”

Earlier I quoted you only part of the verse, “No one has ever seen God. The verse goes on to say "But God the one and only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” This God is the man Jesus Christ

This magic eye picture is a good illustration of who and what Jesus is.

When you look at the picture
you may only see a repeating pattern of electronic art. But if you stare at it, meditate upon it an image begins to emerge. In the same way when some look to Jesus they see only a man. But for those who stare and reflect He is the image of God. In John 14:1, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the father.”

One of the greatest "Christian films" that has ever been produced was neither written nor directed by a Christian. But the film illustrates the gospel so well I can not help but mention it here.

To the blind, The Shawshank Redemption is merely a story about prison. It is a story of a man named Red who befriends a man named Andy. Both Red and Andy are prisoners in Shawshank prison serving life sentences. Told from the perspective of Red, Andy is always offering his fellow inmates hope of the outside world. He provides them beer on a roof top, music in the rec yard, and a library stock full of books. You see the prison in which these men live is more than a building of stone. It is the world they know. It is a world they are surprisingly afraid to leave. Why? Because nothing exists for them on the outside. The world is Shawshank and nothing more. The fear and loneliness of the outside world is so great that it leads Brooks, a parole, to suicide. But Andy sees things differently. He reminds his fellow prisoners again and again of a world that exists outside the walls. And it is only in Andy's escape from Shawshank and the hope of seeing him again that Red finds life instead of death when he himself is paroled.

The Shawshank Redemption is a movie about Plato's allegory. Just as the gospel of John is in a small sense devoted to Plato's understanding of the world. But the Shawshank Redemption goes beyond Plato's allegory to answer the question that has troubled so many. How does a man escape and exist in that world outside our tangible experience? The Shawshank Redemption provides that same answer as John. We need a savior, a hero to rescue us from ourselves, a guide to point the way and go before us, and friend to wait for us there. Andy is Jesus. And we are Brooks or Red. To the first life is bleak and pitiful and unworthy to be lived. To the later it is full of beauty and wonder because their is friend who waits for us beyond.

The Shawshank Redemption not only illustrates the surface/subtext existence that we find ourselves in (the prison represents our tanigable existence while the outside represent the eternal world) it also symbolically points to our need for Christ. Thus the movie is a fitting picture of how Christians view the world. Just as surface plot of the movie is not blatantly about Christ or the material/immaterial devide, so this world in which we live does not blatantly reveal God. Meaning arises through reason reflection (sometimes called "faith." lol) We cannot see God with our natural eyes but we can and do see him in our immaterial existance (the life we live everyday).

Just because you can't see something dosn't mean its not there. Like the Shawshank there is meaning in the world we so often fail to see.

Only in seeing God do we have life. And only in Jesus can we see God. The second funeral I ever attended was for my cousin Nathan. In the summer before his senior year of highschool he developed cancer. The last time he ever walked was to receive his high school diploma. One month later he died. The funeral I attended was in stark contrast to the one I witnessed for Holly. It was a sanctuary full of believers. Sure there were tears but there was also a deep sense of hope and celebration. There is sadness at the funeral of Christians for sure. But the sadness is recognized to be temporary. I was sad that I would never see my cousin again in the life here and now. But I knew that I would see him again in that life to come. Thus we sang and clapped, thanking God for the wonders of his creation. We listened to songs about our future in Christ and invited others to be apart. Joy was present in difficulty because for both Nathan and his family because there is friend who sticks closer than a brother.

Real Beauty?

2007-05-11T18:47:00.000-07:00

If you thought that was telling check out this site...

www.portraitprofessional.com/content/gallery.php

Is this fantasey more beautiful then the real?

Question to think about When Reading the Gospel of Mark

2007-04-30T09:04:00.000-07:00

One of the intentions of this blog is to encourage our readers to examine the scriptures with clarity and depth. All to often we treat the word of God like a fast food happy meal. We gobble it up and then expect a prize. But sadly we miss the prize because in our haste we've swallowed it instead.

In this post I don't want to give the answers. I want to challenge you to further reflection. To sit and meditate upon the scriptures. What is God trying to say?

Let's start with the book of Mark.

In Mark, where, when and by whom is Jesus called Son of God? Who calls Jesus Lord? Who calls him Rabbi or Teacher? Is it important? Why or why not?
What is a disciple according to Mark? What do the disciples do?
What connection is there between the stories of Mark 1:39-3:6?
Why does Jesus teach in parables? Why does he begin to teach them at this certain point in the story?
What connection is there between the stories of lake crossing, legion, woman with the issue of blood, and Jarius’ daughter in Mark 4:35-5:43?
What is the meaning of the stories in Mark 7? How do they help to interpret one another?
How is Mark 8:27-30 a turning point in the gospel? Do you see a new pattern beginning to emerge? If so what is it?
Where, in Mark, do we first learn of Jesus' impending death?
James and John ask to sit on Jesus right and left in Mark 10:35-40 but Jesus says these places have been prepared for others. Who are the others to whom Jesus refers?
What does the fig tree represent in Mark 11:12-23?
What is the significance of the streaking disciple in Mark 14:51-52? Where else does a young man appear and who else wears a linen sheet?
Why does Mark end at 16:8? What are some possible explanations?
After reflecting on these questions, how do each of these topics combine to illustrate Marks major themes and purpose?

I encourage you to post your reflections in our comments box. Remember there are three rules for studying the bible. Context, context, context.

Pondering Heavenly Wisdom

2007-04-17T11:03:00.000-07:00

Consider heavenly wisdom:

Gaining life by death
Matthew 10:38-39
And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Wisdom through foolishness
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness,"

Strength through weakness
2 Corinthians 12:9-10
But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Wealth by poverty
2 Corinthians 6:10
as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

Greatness by humility
Mark 10:44; Luke 14:11
…and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Does this heavenly wisdom make natural sense? No. It is seemingly contradictory. Life by death, strength by weakness? It doesn’t make natural sense. But to those who are followers of Christ it makes perfect sense. Christians are sometimes scorned as simpletons by the world because of the world’s inability to understand or even comprehend this heavenly wisdom.

The reason we as Christians understand these concepts is because we have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. But that is only the beginning. True wisdom is found in seeking and applying these principals to our life as we walk the narrow path. Wisdom, even heavenly wisdom is just knowledge until it is applied. And the application of heavily wisdom is the essence of a Christ follower’s life.

How do we give our life, how do we become foolish and weak, how do we be poor, how do we become humble? The answers for us are not found in the Christian living section of the bookstore, but by searching the Lord constantly and humbly. This searching is often moment by moment. (There goes the idea of a 15 minute devotion time). Our prayers will often be without ceasing as we realize we constantly need Him and His guidance and wisdom in every situation. By humbly seeking, asking and knocking we are in a sense dieing to our own fleshly desires, we are saying that our plans and will are foolishness, we acknowledge our ultimate weakness, and we are showing we are indeed poor in spirit. In the seeking we find fulfillment (Matt 6:33). Notice that as we seek we take the focus from ourselves and put it rightly on Him. That of course is where wisdom begins (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 9:10; Proverbs 15:33; Ecclesiastes 12:13).

So you could say that heavily wisdom is found in searching, and the searching is a result of applied heavenly wisdom. This reasoning would seem circular and contradictory to some of this world. But to those of us whom the Holy Spirit resides, it makes perfect sense!

Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
If you turn at my reproof,
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
Proverbs 1:20-23

Rain

2007-03-31T10:51:00.000-07:00

It’s just after 8:00am on this gray Saturday morning. My two oldest girls are at a church sleepover so the house is unusually quiet. All I hear is the drip of the coffee pot, the pecking of my fingers on the keyboard and the noise of my mind.
From where I sit at my computer desk I can look through a glass sliding door directly into the backyard of our house. My eyes scan back and forth looking at all the work I need to do. If only it weren’t raining. But with the rain also comes my rest. For I cannot go outside and work now, I must wait for better weather. It’s ironic, the rain nurturers the plants (and weeds) and causes them to grow, but it also hinders me from maintaining them.
My yard mocks me…
Oh how I wish my mind would be as quiet and peaceful as my house is. You would think with my kids away and the rain outside I would grab a good book or flip on the TV and just relax.
But there is unrest in my soul. There is work to be done.

Earlier this week, the sun was out. So I threw on my work shoes, went out to the shed and fired up the lawn mower. I started out on our little patch of grass in the front yard. As I went, I noticed it was a little warmer that it had been. But before I knew it, I was done. On to the back yard!
The grass in the back was a little higher than the front. And because of the shade of the surrounding cedar trees the grass was still wet from the previous night’s dew. I also noticed I had 3 new mole holes. My ambition left little by little as my mower and I entered into combat with perils of my back yard. I wished my day had been spent at rest.

It would seem that life can sometimes be like impatiently waiting for the rain to stop or yearning for a more relaxing, cooler day. In our eagerness to get out and make the yard beautiful we might take for granted those days of rain that bring the growth. When the rain does stop falling and the sun is out we grab our rake and the gas can and head out. Sometime during our work we gaze into the hot sun and wish it were a little cooler. Or when looking at the work ahead of us we grow weary and wish for rest. We wish for a day when we could just grab a good book or flip on the TV.

The writer of Ecclesiastes would most likely stand over us, put his hand on our shoulder, empathically smile and say, “For everything there is a season…” a season for the rain, for growth, rest and patience, and a season for sun, for action, labor, and accomplishment. Wisdom and contentment are found in making the most of whatever season we find ourselves in.

The wind is blowing outside. I don’t feel it on my face and don’t know where it has been or were it is going. I only know its there. The trees outside are gently blowing in time with the chorus of my wind chimes. There are times when I have felt the wind on my face and could have even told you what direction it was going. But not today. Today I trust it is blowing because of the effects of it and my experience of being in it.
With the wind comes my peace.

It's now half after 9:00 and I find myself now looking outside and enjoying all the shades of green and the buds on my magnolia bush.

Maybe I will grab that book…

Oh look, the rain has stopped.

The Traveler?

2007-03-28T11:06:00.000-07:00

The Listeners
By Walter De La Mare

'Is there anybody there?' said the Traveller,
Knocking on the moonlit door;
And his horse in the silence champed the grasses
Of the forest's ferny floor:
And a bird flew up out of the turret,
Above the Traveller's head
And he smote upon the door again a second time;
'Is there anybody there?' he said.
But no one descended to the Traveller;
No head from the leaf-fringed sill
Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes,
Where he stood perplexed and still.
But only a host of phantom listeners
That dwelt in the lone house then
Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight
To that voice from the world of men:
Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,
That goes down to the empty hall,
Hearkening in an air stirred and shaken
By the lonely Traveller's call.
And he felt in his heart their strangeness,
Their stillness answering his cry,
While his horse moved, cropping the dark turf,
'Neath the starred and leafy sky;
For he suddenly smote on the door, even
Louder, and lifted his head:-
'Tell them I came, and no one answered,
That I kept my word,' he said.
Never the least stir made the listeners,
Though every word he spake
Fell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house
From the one man left awake:
Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup,
And the sound of iron on stone,
And how the silence surged softly backward,
When the plunging hoofs were gone.

When I first encountered this poem I thought that it was a poem about the absence of God. We as the travelers have come looking for God but he is not there. We have kept our promise but he has not kept his. It wasn't until someone called my attention to the fact the Traveler is capatalized. A detail that suggests the reverse. The Traveler is God coming to call upon us. But instead of people he finds the hollow shell of a house. Like a theif in the night he came and found men asleep.

The listeners are you and me. As we read we here His call and knock on the door. Are you asleep?

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with himi, and he with Me. (Revelations 3:20)

Subscribing to Logos Made Flesh

2007-03-27T08:30:00.000-07:00

You can now subscribe to Logos Made Flesh, Simply add your email address in the box to the right and every new posting will be forwarded to your email address. Your information is confidential and will not be sold or utilized in any other way.

The Scandal of the Incarnation

2007-03-26T08:13:00.000-07:00

There is more to the story of Jesus washing His disciples feet in John 13 then a one time lesson in servant leadership.

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God, rose from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself about. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. And so He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, "Lord, do You wash my feet?" Jesus answered and said to him, "What I do you do not realize now, but you shall understand ahereafter." Peter said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me." Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and ayou are clean, but not all of you." For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, "Not all of you are clean." And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? "You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. "If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. "For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you." (John 13:1-15)

It should come as no surprise that there is more to this scene then meets the eye. Only John, a gospel well known for its use of symbols and metaphors, recounts this event. Instead of recounting Jesus institution of communion as Matthew, Mark and Luke do, John tells the story of Jesus' bathing his disciples. Doesn't that seem odd? Thus the first question we should ask is why John would replace a story of the first communion, a story that signifies Jesus death on the cross, with a simple story of Christ washing his disciples feet?

There are a few details that I would like to call your attention to.

First, Jesus action arises from His awarness that He is God. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God, rose from supper... While this passage dosn't explicitly claim that Jesus is God, it does bring to mind various places in John where it is claimed (John 1:1, 14). Jesus awarness that He is intimately connected to God the Father is the foundation of His action.
Second, water is a symbol for the Spirit throughtout the Gospel of John; From John the Baptist first declaration that he baptizes in water but Christ will baptize in the Holy Spirit to John explanation in John 7:37-39 that water represents the Spirit.
Third, the water represents Christ. When Jesus goes to wash Peter, Peter at first refuses. But Jesus says to him, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." By refusing the washing of water, Peter has inadvertantly rejected Christ.
Fourth, The image of Jesus laying aside his garment and humbling himself in the form of a servant brings to mind another passage of scripture, Philippians 2:5-8. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross!

Together these details suggest that footwashing is a symbolic reinactment of THE INCARNATION. Its an illustration of what it means to say that God became man. Jesus laying aside his garments represents how he laid aside his glory. Pouring the water into the bowl represents the Word (water) becoming flesh (bowl). And the washing of the disciples feet represents Christ giving of Himself, of His Spirit, to His disciples.

In addition, the act itself signifies the scandal of the Incarnation. I think in our present society we have lost the shock and the horror that Peter experienced as His Lord sat down to wash his feet. I beleive it would parrallel in some sense the shock of watching Robert Schuller take off his clothes in the the middle of his sermon to walk among his congregation. Imagine the peoples horror as he takes off his robe, unbottons his shirt and then unzips his pants. Imagine the gasps from the crowd, the red faces the eyes closing and the heads turning away. Imagine the people standing up and walking out of the Crystal Cathedral. Imagine the pale skin, aged and overweight body of Robert Schuller standing naked before the world. That is the scandal of the Incarnation. That is the scandal of God washing men's feet. This is the scandal of the cross.

What is the Incarnation?

2007-03-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

What is the Incarnation? Simply put, the Incarnation is the Christian belief that the invisible God became man. If you have ever eaten a can of chile con carne you'll known the root meaning of the word. To incarnate is to in flesh (i.e. meat). A carnivore is an animal that eats meat. The Incarnation is the fact that God became man.

Many passages of Scriture undergird this belief.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross! (Phillippians 2:5-8)

The incarnation is not just a nice belief. It is essential for a relationship with God. It is the connecting link between word and action; the meeting ground of meaning and the material world. John 1:18 states, "NO ONE has EVER seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." This final phrase "made him known" also means "to explain." The point and purpose of the Incarnation was to completely explain God. Priests, Pastors, and Preacers, throughout the ages, have attempted to explain the Word of God, to flesh it out and apply it to daily life. Jesus Christ, as the Incarnate Word is the realized application of all that the Father requires. To look at Jesus is to see the invisble God.

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? (John 14:8-10)

At Biola University, my alma matter, there is a mural of Jesus holding out the bible. The mural is entitled "The Word" and thus is fitting illustration to this present topic. The pages of the bible are red, like many bibles used to be. The interpretation is found in the fact that the same hue is found in the pigment of Christ's skin. Christ is the Word made Flesh.

I also find it fitting that Logos is the Greek word that our English bibles translate as Word in John 1. The word logos has an important history among Greek philosophy but it also has immediate recognition today. A logo is a tangiable representation of a company or organization. Logos are visual statements that expresses the heart of what a company stands for. Logos advertize as well as inspire. Today, its as if your company is invisible until it has a logo. Christ is the incarnate Logos. He is the invisible God tangiably represented. In him we have experiential access to the Father.

But there is more to the Incarnation then the fact that God became man. The Incarnation is the tie that has unified all things. It is right that even our calendars hinge on Christ's birth. Christ's Incarnation has forever established a link between the immeterial and the material, between spirit and body, between faith and practice, between purpose and existence.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Collosians 1:15-20)

Superman as Christ

2007-03-18T22:04:00.000-07:00

I love this preview. It illustrates how words and images in our culture can subtely combine to proclaim Christ. Christ isn't Superman but Superman is a representation of Christ.

To Him Who Has Eyes To See

2007-02-24T09:47:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking a great deal about Christ and film in the last few years. Studying the gospel of John has particularly opened my eyes to the presence of Christ in film. I used to think that a Christian film must be transparent. The story must promote Jesus or His followers directly. But as I studied John's use of symbols, irony, double entendre and allusions, I found that the power of the Gospel is often displayed in mystery, riddle, and ambiguity, instead of blatant propoganda

Jesus' Example

Our Lord taught in parables. He provided answers in the form a mystery, leaving his listeners to solve it. Jesus offered His parables to those who had "ears to hear." It is often mistakenly beleived that Jesus taught in parables as an illustration. "Jesus taught in parables so that people would understand his point." But this isn't what the Bible says.

Mark 4:10-12 "And as soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven." (see also Matthew 13:13 ;Luke 8:10)

Thus, Jesus taught in parables so that only those seeking the answer would understand. He was the Sower who spread the seed. But His seed would only grow in the ground that was willing to receive it.

The gospel of John doesn't record any of Jesus' parables. But it does quote the same words as Matthew, Mark and Luke use in relation to Jesus' parables. It comes at the end of Jesus public ministry.

John 12:37-40 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him; that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "LORD, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this cause they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; lest they see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them."

John dosn't use parables. Instead he offers us Christ's actions as the mystery to be deciphered. This is why John calls Jesus mircles "signs." Jesus miricles arn't simply supernatural acts or good deeds they are messages to those who has eyes to see.

Christians films should follow the example of Jesus. They should provide the answer witout spelling out directly the solution. Christian story tellers must become master caftsmen at indirection and ambiguity.

Why We Don't Follow?

Protestant/Evangelical movies (not to mention novels and songs) have tended towards blatant transparency because of the nature of our worship services. Our primary method of teaching has been through the preaching/interpretation of the Word. Teachers and Preachers don't like mystery and therefore they train their congregations to hate mystery as well. While I was putting together the Longing of Man someone asked me if I was going to use clips from the Passion of the Christ? When I told him I wasn't he looked at me as if I were failing to proclaim the gospel.

Catholics have tended to be better story tellers because their worship service proclaims the mystery of the mass. For years the Catholic Church performed all of their services in Latin. Paritioners were left to either interpret the signs and symbols all around them or walk away in frustration. Surprisingly this example follows closer to Jesus's use of parables then the teaching methods of the Protestant Chruch.

We as Evangelicals in particular cannot accept mystery because we don't want to aknowledge the fact that no matter what we do some will simply go away empty handed. Only when we begin to accept this will we follow the example of Jesus and truly become great story tellers.

Why We Should Follow?

Teaching will never be successful unless the student first ask the question. All too often teaching and preaching is done with unstated assumption that the student is in need of the answer. But does the student know it? Does he want it? All great teaching/preaching begins with opening the students to the quesiton as well as ones need for the solution. Only then is the student prepared to embrace the answer.

Evangelical preaching has assumed for far to long that people are asking the right questions. At one time we might have assumed this because the culture was largely Christian. But no more. People no longer operate under the same basic beleif systems. And therefore they more often then not come to our services without first pondering the quesiton. More and more we find ourselves preaching the choir as fewer and fewer people come to our services looking for answers.

Christian propoganda films (i.e. Left Behind, Omega Code, Facing the Giants -this last one I actually thought was prettty good) simply push our answers on the culture. "You won't come to us so we'll come to you," I would say is the motto of most Christian film makers. But without asking the quesitons the answers in Christian films become obnoxious to the non-beleiver. And again we find ourselves preaching to the choir. I'd say in the last decade the Christian audience of a Billy Grahm crusade has grown to well over 90%.

This is why the Christians use of ambiguity and mystery in film is essential.

1) By offering mystery and ambiguity we sow the question in the hearts and minds of the non-beleivers and thus prepare them for the answer on Sunday Mornings.

2) By setting transparency we open the doors to a wider audience. Christians and non-christians alike can watch our films together without feeling exploited. Instead of only the choir attending our films, we'll find non-beleivers asking the right questions as well.

3) By embracing ambiguity and mystery we can begin to realize that non-Christians sometimes get it right. The best Christian films I have ever seen have been made by non-Christians and were rated R. Films like the Shawsank Redemption and Magnolia, surprisingly explore the right questions and mysteriously point to the right answer. They provide the right foundation for sharing our faith.

The Longing of Man

2007-02-22T09:50:00.000-08:00

This idea came to me in late November. I was driving home from Canby Bible College when "Did you feel the mountains tremble" by delirious came on the IPod. The song has always reminded me of Christ's resurrection; the moment at which He triumphantly leads the captives out of hades to stand before the gates of heaven. Four years ago I attempted to write a screenplay with that image and this song as it finally. I shelved the idea, however, in frustration that such a movie would ever be made. But as it so happened, as I drove home that day, I had just finished teaching on how the Shawshank Redemption reveals Christ only a few moments before. And as I listened to the sone and pondered, images from various movies danced in my head. I realized that while I may never make a movie about the glories of Christ's resurreciton, that movie has already been made. The wounders of our Lord are proclaimed in film again and again. Surprisingly for most Christians its often times in rated R films or movies that never explicitly speak His name. Our Lord has triumphed not just over the grave, nor simply over those who have choosen to accept him. He has captured the hearts of all mankind. They simply fail to recognize it.

"Religion isn't only source"

2006-11-27T08:23:00.000-08:00

Well I'm finally published. The Columbian published my first letter to the editor on Thanksgiving. Here it is.

Author Sam Harris, featured in the Nov. 18 AP story, "Christianity crux: Author questions role of religion in America," beleives the world would somehow be better without religion, particularly Christianity. While it is true that religion has been the source of numerous conflicts, the same is equally true of all stronly held beliefs including atheism.

The greatest causes of human misery in the 20th century were not motivated by religion but rose instead from communist and fascist states bent on eradicating traditional belief in God. It therefore cannot be argued that religion is source of the world's pain. Instead Harris must argue that a secular world offers something more than a religious one. And this he cannot do.

When one abandons the notion of God, one must also abandon such "mythological" notions as love, beauty, morality, justice, hope and equality. For like God, these ideas are immaterail and cannot be verified through science. Harris wants us to reject God and therefore to reject meaning.

Thrill of Heaven?

2006-11-24T21:07:00.000-08:00

What amusement does heaven contain? In a world that defines entertainment in conflict, it’s sometimes hard to fathom pleasure in a world without pain. Think about it. Some of the greatest amusements in the United States are watching movies and sports and riding roller coasters. In movies and games, it appears the greater the struggle the greater the thrill, right? Without conflict would a movie or game be as great? Isn't the amusement of a roller coaster the exhilaration of facing your fear? If heaven is a place with no fear, pain or conflict, then on the surface it seems a rather boring place.

It's not difficult, therefore, to see why the world likes hell more than heaven. The non-Christian pictures heaven as sitting on a cloud strumming a harp. In one episode of the Simpsons, Homer pictures himself in heaven lying on a cloud that looks like a medical bed. He raises and lowers the bed repeatedly “cloud goes up, cloud goes down” he says over and over again. Contrast that with the worlds understanding of Hell. Hell isn't the place of torment that the bible describes. Instead, it’s the party place. It's a place with all the exhilarating vices that we find here on earth.

I'm sad to say the church hasn't given an all together different picture. If you ask the average Christian what will heaven be like they'll probably say something like its worshipping God before his throne continuously throughout all eternity. Certainly there is a sense of excitement in this. But "for all eternity." I don't know about you but even I get board in church. So what is the thrill of heaven?

How should Christians respond to a world that scorns the notion of a perfect world? I believe we must recognize that the thrill of heaven is the same thrill we experience when we watch a great movie, read a good book, watch an incredible game, or ride the scariest of rides. Am I saying that in heaven there will be a place of pain, suffering and conflict? Absolutely not. I'm saying pain, suffering and conflict isn't the source of entertainment. Experience informs us that the greatest of stories are nothing more than challenging riddles in narrative form. “What’s going to happen next? Will the guy get the girl? How will he or she survive? Will the team make another touchdown? The questions compel us to turn a page or sit through another commercial. Discovery, not conflict, is the essence of amusement. And what does heaven have to offer us more than discovery? Heaven is the grand unveiling of all the mysteries and questions of life. It’s the throne of he who is the creator of mystery and riddle. Hell, in contrast to heaven, is a place of the unanswerable question. It’s the place where pain, suffering and torment never come to an end. Have you ever had a question that you thought you knew but the answer simply alluded you. “It’s on the tip of my tongue” you’ve probably said or have heard someone say. Hell is like that question. But on a much greater scale. It nags and frustrates but never comes to an end.

Religious and Political Errors

2006-11-11T10:14:00.000-08:00

Ben, you are absolutely right in pointing out our Evangelical errors. Evangelicals have erroneously caused untold millions to associate coming to Christ with a conversion to the Republican Party, placing an unnecessary yoke (i.e. just like circumcision) on those of a more liberal persuasion. But the problem is not the fault of Evangelicals alone; some blame must rest on the Democratic Party and on our two-party system. Evangelicals associate themselves with Republicans not because they are for capital punishment, gun-control, low-taxes, or less government, rather they associate themselves with Republicans because they are pro-life. And life is not a minor New Testament issue, as your post seems to imply. This issue reaches to the heart of the gospel (i.e. liberation for the least, the last, and the lost). It is this single issue, which has more than any other co-opted the Evangelical Church. The Democrats have failed to be consistent with their values (i.e. Anti-killing in war and crime but pro-killing in the case of the unborn) just as Republicans have failed to be consistent with theirs (pro-killing in war and crime but anti-killing in the matter of the unborn). I honestly believe that if the platforms of both parties flipped on this single issue then Evangelicals would migrate to the Democratic Party and in the process become more liberal on issues such as the environment and government control. Our problem is a matter of choice. Politics rests on alliances. If Christians want to have a voice then they must vote for a single party and thus they are forced to choose their bedfellows. The right of the government to the sword has more New Testament support (Romans and 1 Peter) then the private killing of innocent children. And so for "now" I vote Republican. Give me a better way.

Is Everything Meaningless? John's Response to Ecclesiastes (Part 5)

2006-04-20T18:17:00.000-07:00

Why does John end much like Ecclesiastes? What point is he attempting to get across? When we examine the gospel of John we find there are two different worlds; a higher world and a lower world. For instance in John 3:12 Jesus tells Nicodimus, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Likewise in 8:23 Jesus states, "I am from above, you are from below; you are of this world, I am not of this world." These two different realms represent two different modes of knowing. The lower world is the world of tangiable experience. It's the world we can see, taste, touch and hear. In the words of Ecclesiastes, it's the world "under the sun." The higher world, on the other hand, is the world outside the limits of Ecclesiastes empirical knowledge. It's the reallity to which the writer of that book only briefly alludes. John on the other hand, makes this higher world the very foundation of his story. According to John the higher world, that which is above the sun has come to man. In John 1:1-18, John tells, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning... And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us... No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is the bosom of the Father, He has made Him Known." John, like Ecclesiates, focus' attention on seeing and believing; like the former book He expresses the importance of a tangiable witness. Like Ecclesiastes John recognizes the source of all things is God. But unlike Ecclesiastes, John testifies that the hope, the purpose, the point, the Logos of the higher world has entered thetangiable world and made Himself known to man. (Again sorry it's taken me so long to write. I going to finish this series. I promise.)

Is Everything Meaningless? John's Response To Ecclesiastes (Part 4)

2006-04-20T15:27:00.000-07:00

Sorry its been so long since I have really written anything. I need to learn to bite the bullet and just publish my posts instead of obsessing over every word. That's why I started this blog in the first place; to practice getting my words on page in a reasonable amount of time. Well here it goes.

What does Ecclesiastes have to do with the gospel of John? Good question. For starters both Ecclesiastes and John end in much the same way.

Ecclesiastes:

In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful worlds and to write words of truth correctly. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd. But beyond this, my son, be warned; the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearing to the body. The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:9-14)

John:

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25)

Notice how both Ecclesiastes and John end on a statement concerning many books. Ecclesiastes warns of an endless craving for books. John suggests that if all the deeds of Jesus were written, the whole world could not contain the books that would be written. Sounds similar doesn't it? Well if you think I making mountains out of mole hills there's also a statistical connection. Out of the sixty-six books in the bible, only these two works end with a statement concerning books.

Dig a little deeper the connection between Ecclesiastes and John grows even stronger. Both endings, surpisingly, are postscripts written by someone other than the main author. The majority of Ecclesiastes is written from a first person perspective. Read it and you will see how many times the first person singular pronoun (a.k.a. "I") appears. But the end refers to the author in the third person (i.e. the "Preacher"). John, like Ecclesiastes, also ends by the hand of someone other than the main author. "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Notice how "his" is not included in the "we."

These connections shouldn't come as a surprise for those familar with John's Gospel. John intentionally creates many subtle allusions to the Old Testament. For example...

When Jesus says in John 1:51, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man," he echoes Genesis 28:12-19. "Jacob had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."
Jesus meeting with a woman by a well in John chapter 4 recalls Abraham's servants meeting with Rebecca, the future wife of Isacc, in Genesis 24. Both the servant and Jesus go to a forign land, sit down by and well and ask a local girl for a drink.
After Jesus crosses the sea in John chapter six he is confronted by a grumbling (6:41, 61; 7:12) crowd wanting the "mana" which Moses provided the children of Israel. This recalls Exodus 16, where the children of Israel after crossing of the red sea "grumble" for food in the desert (Exodus 16:2, 7, 8, 9, 12; 17:3).

These words and phrases are very specific. Often times they only occur twice in the entire bible, once in John and once in the story he is establishing a connection with.

The list of these connection could continue. But for our purposes it is important to note that many of John's key allusions point to a particular genere of Jewish writings known as wisdom literature. These writing include such apocraphal works as Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solmon as well as Old Testament works such as proverbs. and yea you guess it, Ecclesiastes.

So the question is why does John establish a connection to the book of Ecclesiastes? I'll focus on that question in my next post.

Is Everything Meaningless? John's Response to Ecclesiastes (Part 3)

2006-04-14T11:09:00.000-07:00

The narrow naturalistic, seeing-is-beleiving perspective, which leads the writer of Ecclesiastes to despair, can be expressed best in this illustration.

By limiting his search to the world "under the sun," the writer of Ecclesiastes guarantees the results of his findings. If a higher world does not exist then the world is "meaningless."

Is Everything Meaningless? John's Response to Ecclesiastes (Part 2)

2006-04-02T09:47:00.000-07:00

I don’t know how many times I have heard someone say, “I’ll believe it if I can see it.” It’s a common expression in a world where “seeing is believing.” Since the world is tangible concrete proof matters. But there is a problem with this naturalistic perspective. Our eyes simply cannot see meaning.

The writer of Ecclesiastes (a.k.a. Qohelet or The Assembler) expresses the point best. In his book, he observes the world “under the sun.” Like a modern scientist,

“He seeks out experience of every kind as the most accurate path to insight. He looks, observes, considers, reflects and testifies to the validity of his conclusions; “I said in my heart” (1:16; 2:1, 15; 3:17), “I gave my heart” (1:13, 17; 8:9, 16), “I saw” (1:14; 2:24; 3:10, 16; 4:1, 4, 15; 5:17; 6:1; 7:15; 8:9, 10; 9:11, 13; 10:5, 7), “I know” (1:17; 2:14; 3:12, 14; 8:12), and “there is” (2:21; 6:1, 12, 8:14; 10:5)… If asked “How do you know?” Qohelet readily responds, “I saw it.” (James Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes pg. 28)

Because of this seeing-equals-believing outlook, Qohelet cannot discover any meaning in life. (Ecc. 1:2; 12:8).

He seeks pleasure.

I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy yourself.” And behold, it too was futility. I said of laughter, “It is madness,” and of pleasure, “what does it accomplish?” (Ecc. 2:1-2)

He seeks wisdom.

So I turned to consider wisdom, madness and folly... Then I said to myself, “As is the fate of the fool, it will also befall me. Why then have I been extremely wise?” So I said to myself, “This too is meaningless.” (Ecc. 2:12-15)

In the end, Qohelet cannot even distinguish the significance between men and beasts.

“For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they have the same breath and there is no advantage for men over beasts, for all is meaningless. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?” (Ecc 3:19-21)

“Meaningless, Meaningless, all is Meaningless,” He both begins and ends his book.

I hope you will read the book of Ecclesiastes and feel the spiritual void welling up inside the modern world. Scientists, whose eyes are tuned to the natural world more than any other group, tell us that we are the product of blind, purposeless chance. There is nothing outside the material world. We have no more significance then a fallen twig. And like the writer of Ecclesiastes they cry, “Meaningless.”

Stay tuned for Part III.

Is Everything Meaningless? John's Response to Ecclesiastes (Part 1)

2006-03-30T18:43:00.000-08:00

I hope you won't mind if I move on from specific examples of John's deeper meaning. I could go on and on about the subject. I haven't even touched on John’s use of chiasms or the importance of this gospel’s wedding theme. But in this post, I want to begin to address how and why John's deeper meaning is important for the world today.

Almost a year ago I had one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life. Surprisingly it came not through an enlightening revelation but through a gradual loss of spiritual sight. Over a period of months the depths of my worldview receded in doubt from the boundless vistas of God’s higher world to the natural world immediately in front of my face. I was blinded to spiritual realities. I regarded the intangible world as the product of my imagination. All reality is physical, I thought. For the first time I began to believe there is no God.

At first I thought this understanding might bring a sense of release. If God does not exist then there is no morality or sin; no Cosmic Kill-Joy riding my back. I’m free to do as I please. But instead there came a sudden sucking nihilism (nothingness). "What purpose is there if there is no God?" What meaning is there if reality is only what I can see? If right and wrong do not exist, what significance is there in living? I’m a man adrift on an endless uncaring ocean with neither motor nor land in sight. Without a Creator/Judge there is no destination, no means of travel, no delight in arriving; all directions are equally void of meaning.

The experience opened my eyes to the present bleakness engulfing the modern world. Like me, mankind no longer sees the horizon for the trees. Everything is defined by the material world. Science has gone beyond the empirical data to argue that all truth is material. They say we owe our existence to evolution (i.e. blind purposeless chance). In Art, where some higher meaning should still prevail, we have blank canvases, spattered paint, and toilet seats hung upon walls. If an artist is questioned as too his art's meaning, he remarks, "That is for individuals to decide.”

Ask the common man on the street if he suffers from a lack of meaning and the answer will probably be no. But it’s not because he’s not aware of the pain. We numb ourselves from the emptiness of living. We gratify the impulsive desires of our flesh. We fill ourselves with drugs, alcohol, sex, television, video games, movies, music; all the temporal entertainment we can find. But still we cannot satisfy our insatiable hunger for meaning.

It’s nothing new. The emptiness related with this naturalistic perspective has continued on down through the ages. “Meaningless, Meaningless all is Meaningless,” the writer of Ecclesiates proclaims.

How to Study the Bible.

2006-03-28T12:30:00.000-08:00

Some people have asked me how to get the most out of their Bible study. Here are the essentials.

Pick a book and read all of it. Don't get stuck on a single chapter or verse before you've surveyed the horizon. Always work from whole to part and back to whole again. Read it and then Read it again.
Take Notes (mental or otherwise). Ask questions. What happens in chapter 1, chapter 2 and so on? Note any patterns, topics and or themes. Write your questions and observations down. You might want to throw out the modern chapter divisions and outline the book yourself.
Connect the Dots. Answer your questions with a regard to the whole book. Don't ask, "What does this chapter or verse mean to me? before you've asked, "How does this verse fit into the book?

Matthew's Ending Twist.

2006-03-23T07:13:00.000-08:00

Matthew ends his gospel with this...

"But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Matthew 20:16-20)

Let's compare Matthew's ending with Mark and Luke's.

Mark's gospel ends at verse 16:9, "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Both the abruptness and the sour image have lead most scholars to conclude that Mark's original ending has been lost.

Luke's gospel on the other hand ends much like Matthew. Jesus opens the mind of the disciples to understand the scriptures, promises the gift of the Holy Spirit and ascends into heaven. Christ's acension is so important to Luke that he again repeats it in Acts 1.

When we compare Matthew and Luke side by side we find that in Luke Jesus leaves the disciples, but in Matthew he doesn't. Instead of describing an ascension Matthew quotes Jesus as saying "and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Why dosn't Matthew tell us of Jesus acension?

The fact that Matthew doesn't tell of Jesus' ascenion is even more profound when we understand a little more about Matthew's Gospel. Just before the ending, Jesus instructs his disciples to "Go, Make disciples... Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." This is important because a major theme of Matthew's Gospel is the teaching of Jesus. Matthew unlike Mark and Luke is structured around five major blocks of teaching. If you have a red letter edition they are easy to spot.

-Matthew 5:1-7:27
-Matthew 10:5-42
-Matthew 13:3-52
-Matthew 18:2-35
-Matthew 23:1-25:46

Each block of teaching deals with a unique theme or idea. But even more important for our discussion is that fact that each block is bracketed in the same way. In each instance Jesus gathers his disciples to him and when he is finished teaching he departs.

-Matthew 5:1-7:27

Disciples Gather (5:1-2) - "When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying...
Jesus departs (8:1) - "When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed him."

-Matthew 10:5-42

Disciples Gather (10:1) - "Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority..."
Jesus departs (11:1) - "When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities."

-Matthew 13:3-52

Disciples Gather (13:10) - "And the disciples came and said to Him "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
Jesus departs (13:53) - "When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there."

-Matthew 18:2-35

Disciples Gather (18:1) - "At that time the disicples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
Jesus departes (19:1) - "When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan."

-Matthew 23:1-25:46

Disciples Gather (23:1) - "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples."
Jesus departs (26:1-2) - "When Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion."

If you have read all these verses you can clearly see a pattern that is established. The final block, however, breaks the mold a bit. Instead of departing or leaving the place where he was teaching, Jesus tells that disciples he is going to be crucified. This declaration must be seen as in fact Jesus' ultimate departure.

What does this then have to do with Matthew 28:16-20? The end of Matthew once again repeats this pattern. Jesus gathers his disciples together (v. 16). Once again he teaches them. But unlike the former teaching blocks, Jesus does not depart. Instead, in an abrubt twist, Jesus promises to be with them "even to the end of the age."

Have you ever heard that silly word game? Someone asks you "what's white, a liquid and comes from a cow? Answer: Milk. Again they ask "what's good to drink with chocalate cake?" Answer: Milk. Again they ask what do babies drink? Answer: Milk. Finally they ask what do cows drink?Answer: Water. If you thought it was Milk then you probably got laughed at. But the principle of this joke works much like the expectations that are built up in Matthew. Just when you thought that Jesus would leave. He stays. Just when you thought Christ would'nt be there for you. He is.

Christ never leaves.

Do I HAVE to Tithe?

2006-03-18T10:48:00.000-08:00

The claim that Christians must tithe has weak New Testamental support. Tithing is a good principal. It is not a New Testament command.

Almost all support for Tithing comes from the Old Covenant law. Yet according to the New Coventant we are no longer under the law but grace. Romans and Galatians clearly teach that the law was a steward until the time of Christ. In Christ the mosaic law is set aside. Although we are called to obey the moral code which undergirds the mosaic law, we owe no aligence to law itself. In addition, the New Testament never establishes tithing as part of this moral law.

Only two verses in the New Testament may compel a Christian to tithe: Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 (this is telling since the New Testament teaches so much about giving) Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." "without neglecting the others" has a clear ring to it. You should tithe. But who is the "you"? It certainly isn't beleivers. Jesus is denoncing the hypocracy of those who were required to obey the law, the Pharisees. Jesus says yes you are obeying it but you certainly aren't fulfilling it. With Christ's death, the letter has been fulfilled and the new age of the Spirit has arrived.

Still some argue that the Tithe is part of the New Age because it existed prior to the Old. Abraham, who lived at least four hundred years before the law, tithed to the king of Salem. The argument goes, If the Father of the Faithful tithed without the law should we do no less than he.

Yet the same thing could be said of circumcision. In fact circumcision has more support in the story of Abrahm then tithe. When Abraham tithed he appears to do it freely and without a specified purpose. Circumcision, however, is given by God to Abraham as a sign of the "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 15). In fact the language of Genesis implies that circumcision should be performed on every male who follows Abraham. The Apostles had a hard time when the first Gentiles were converted . Should circumcision be binding for them? God said no (ACTS 10). When the Apostles declared in Acts 15 the things that were binding on gentile believers, the list did not include circumcicion and or tithing.

The tithe like circumcision is a yoke that hinders people from coming to Christ. "Give ten percent," the preacher says while he gets in his limo. "Pay your tithe," the preacher says while he makes plans for a bigger and more expensive auditorium. "Don't rob from God," the preacher says while his Church fails to provide for the needy. I know how non-Christians see the Church. Although Jesus said "the world will hate you" he never gave us permssion to give them an excuse. People aren't dumb. Even athiests give to the Salvation Army because it provides for the needy. If the Church wants money, do what the Lord commands.

The clear instruction of the New Testament is to give. It never says give to the Church. (The offering in Corith is for the needy Jerusalem Christians.) I won't deny the Church is a good place to give, however. The Bible only instructs us to give to those who are in need. True and faultless Religion is to take care of Widows and Orphans, James says. When was the last time you saw a church take care of its Widows and Orphans?

Give because it is right and good to give. Give because God has given to you. DO NOT GIVE OUT OF COMPULSION. If you do, Paul warns us that we will be required to obey the whole law. And The law has never saved anyone.

Plurality: The Solution to our Segregation (Diversity: Part 3)

2006-03-10T09:10:00.000-08:00

If you have come with me this far, I hope you will agree that diversity is essential to the Body of Christ and at the present we as the Body are suffering from our uniformity. In this post I want to suggest a solution to our present segregation. What is it going to take to put the Body of Christ together again?

Our lack of uniformity typically arises from the image and perspective of a single head pastor. If a pastor is black the congregation is typically black. If the pastor is white then the congregation is usually white. If a pastor is a vocal conservative or a vocal liberal the congregation will typically refect his views. There are exceptions of course but the principal appears to hold true. A single image and perspective draws a like-minded crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing the pastor of descrimination. As an individual the pastor simpy cannot consistently reflect more than a single perspective. He can only present authentically the views and opinions he holds.

The solution to our segregation then is to open up our pastorates to a variety of perspectives. Instead a single pastor our churches should be lead by a variety of pastors. Why can't churches have a black pastor and a white pastor, a liberal pastor and conservative pastor, a young pastor and old pastor, an intellectural pastor and a goofy pastor? Why shouldn't the leadership reflect the diversity that we desire to see in our congregation?

A pastor who is surrounded by a diversity of co-equal pastors will be more timid in the perspectives he presents. When a pastor is a monarch (single ruler) he may feel free to rule his congregation as a king. Diversity in leadership calls the pastor to account and causes us to rely upon the scriptures rather than our own opinions.

Not only do I beleive this the solution to our present segregation I also believe it is more consistent with the teaching of the New Testament. I encourage you to do a little digging on this subject. Start here for good biblical analysis on the Plurality of Elders.

Where have the Elderly Gone? (Diversity: Part 2)

2006-03-04T18:05:00.001-08:00

If you haven't thought about the importance of diversity maybe you haven't felt its absence. Let's face it, if an African American, Indian, or Hispanic individual have never attended your church you probably won't ask where they've gone. But there is a group of people who should shock almost any congregations by their absence. I'm speaking of the generation born prior to World War II.

Where has the "Greatest Generation" gone? I don't know about you but I don't see them in church anymore. I see a lot of aging Baby Boomers, Genereation Xers and Melinnial kids, but the generation born prior to World War II seems surprisingly under represented. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't go to church. I'm saying they don't go to my church.

I've talked to quite of a few individuals of my grandmothers generation. I've found that many are attending churches that represent the values and styles of there own generation. They attend churches where people sing hymns, share pot-lucks, listen to long indepth sermons, and are not subject to the constant beat of drums. They are attending churches as they use to be.

I attend a church thats the exact opposite. Its a very modern church. There are no hymn books, instead we project all worship music on two giant screens. We don't have pot-lucks, instead we have coffee bar. Instead of deep indepth sermons, we have drama and videos to capture the decreased attention of the audience. We don't have a senior minister but we do have a childrens pastor, a junior high pastor, and a high school pastor.

Let's face it, the elderly haven't left us, we've left them. We've raced ahead without listening to the wisdom and incite of the generation that has gone before. We've been so self-centered, seeking our own prefrences over that of others. Why arn't we more accomodating? Why don't we sing hymns? Why does our worship always have to sound like a rock concert? Why don't we take the time to listen?

If you have never recognized your church's lack of diversity this is a good place to start. I hope you can see that church is perhaps becoming even less diverse then it was fifty years ago. I hope you can see that diversity is not always about race. We need to show the world that Jesus has broken down the barriers dividing the world. How, you ask? I'm glad you asked. I'll focus on that topic in my next post.

Diversity and the Church (Diversity: Part 1)

2006-03-03T13:45:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I was subjected to six grulling hours of diversity training. Suprisingly this training wasn't a lesson in inter-racial communication nor was it a pro homosexual appeal. The class focused on generational diversity. Yea, you heard me. Generational Diversity. For six hours, My fellow co-workers and I were payed time and half to play games, watch videos and discuss various situations all in an effort to creat tranquillity among the four generations occupying the workforce today. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a waste of time. I realized that more than the workforce, the Church is in desperte need of diversity.

Once upon a time the local congregation mirrored the diversity within the community. The local "Catholic" or "Orthodox" congregation was comprised of every varity of Christian within a given local. The rich and poor, the free and the slave, the Jew and the Gentile all worshiped together. Diversity wasn't a catch phrase. It was the life of the Church. Christianity followed the words of the Apostle Paul, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. The Church recognized diversity as it strength. Paul compares the Church to a single body. As a body possess a multitude of parts, each valuable to the whole, so the Church is comprised of many individuals, each essential for the functioning of the Church.

With the advent of the protestant revolution, however, the diverstity within the Church was shattered. Luther's stand against Rome turned the world upside down. Instead of working within this diversity, Luther placed the member (himself/ his conscience) over the Body. Though in one since we can admire Luther's actions, in another we should find them wholly reckless. By placing himself over the body he created the justification for every sort of divorce. When individual needs become more important than the needs of others divorce will inevitably occur. (Thus it's in some sense ironic that England's divorce with the Catholic Church was brought about because of Henry the VIII's desire to divorce his wife.)

Ever since that initial break, the Church has fragmented into a thousand denominations, as well as millions of local churches each catering to the demands of a particular nich market. There are Baptists, Anglicans and Presbryterians churches each with their pet doctrines and practices. There are churches comprised mainly of those in the World War II genereration and there are churches geared more for Generation X. We have black churches and white churches, hispanic churches and asian churches. If you like sports you can find a church that emphasizes sports. If you perfer music or good stroy telling you can find a church that emphasizes these things as well. What ever your preference there is a church for you.

"So what," you might say. They are innocent desires. No. I beleive its much more henious than that. Our natural inclination is to seek comfort and shelter. We don't like having our point of view called to account. So naturally we seek people and institutions that mirror ourselves. We like people who affirm us, people who praise our opinions. So we end up praising and supporting the like-minded beliefs of those around while dispariaging the beliefs of groups outside our own. It's a push-pull system. With one hand we pull those like ourselves towards us and with the other with push the diffrent away.

This may be natural but is right and holy? What if our attitudes and opinions are wrong? What if we are walking the wrong path? Have we made Jesus in our own image? Have we pushed the seeker away? Who will shatter the realm of our security and call us to account? If the people you gather around are just like you, the answer is probably no one.

I encourage you to think about the diversity in your own congregation. What is the nich your church? I'll continue this topic in my next post.

Simple Advice for Ministry Transitions.

2006-02-28T11:06:00.000-08:00

A few years ago I wrote this article hoping that it would be published in Group magazine. I have seen far to many groups and churches torn apart due to the egotism of a single leader. Group rejected the article. They said they wanted to encourage and not discourage longevity in ministry. I think they missed the point. I wish all Christians leaders would take this advice to heart.

In high school I watched four consecutive pastoral transitions tear my youth group apart. Each new leader inevitably changed the way things were run as we, the youth, wanted to remain loyal to the way things were done. Some youth became bitter, dozens more left. You’ve probably seen or experienced it before, the sometimes-certain destruction transitions bring.

Let’s face it you’re going to leave. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but some day you’ll say goodbye. And chances are at some point you’ll find yourself ministering in the shadow of a former leader. There’s nothing we can do to protect our youth from change, but we can make change less precarious. Your transition as well as your successors can be a positive experience if you follow these six simple rules.

Rule #1 - Remember You’re a Servant.
First and foremost, recognize you’re a servant. The group does not belong to you. Leaders who think they own the group fail to listen. Conscious or unconscious, good intentions or bad, they build the group around themselves. They quickly start new programs, end old ones, and refashion the ministry according to their own vision. In this, the youth are forced to choose between the old and the new.

If Christ is the king of your group, no such choice should exist. Remind yourself as well as your youth, Christ was, is and will be the King; staff changes, not the management. You are a servant, no more and no less.

Rule #2 - Follow Your Predecessor.
Chip failed miserably. He had been a successful youth pastor before with a lot of great ideas. The problem: we already had a great ministry. Every Friday night, a hundred or more teens would come to “CLUB REVELATION,” listen to Christian bands and hear one of a dozen leaders preach the gospel. It wasn’t for Chip. He immediately canceled our Friday nights, changed our name to “Impact,” and became jealous every time we spoke of our former youth pastor. He found new leaders, passing over the ones he already had, and rarely spoke with the youth one on one. Within a year, our leaders were gone, my friends were gone and Chip had gone as well.

As you enter a ministry position, remember the youth as well as their former leader were there before you. No matter how you feel about your predecessor’s programs, it was God who called him to lead for a time. He or she formed relationships and established a foundation. By continuing to build on this foundation you prove your commitment to the group. In return they will willingly follow.

Rule#3 Lead When Their Ready to Follow
The time will come for you to initiate change but wait until the youth are ready to accept the changes you make. Remember just because someone has made you a leader, doesn’t mean the youth have made you theirs.

Becoming a leader takes time and effort. Talk to your kids and get to know them. Take them out to eat. Discover their likes and dislikes. If you truly care about the teens in your group you will grow with them and not against them.

Shawn succeeded where Chip failed. He had never been a full-time youth pastor; in fact, he had never been in a youth group before. However, what Shawn did offer was a willing ear and patience that outlasted all others. Since he didn’t have a lot of ideas, he waited until we were willing to follow, and follow we did.

Rule #4 Remember Your Temporary Position
Your exit plan begins the moment you start. The temporary nature of your position demands it. Remind your students, as well as yourself, your time of ministry will end. If we don’t remind them, they will hang their hopes on us. After you leave feelings of abandonment will naturally occur. However, by reminding them of our impermanence we highlight Christ’s endurance. Therefore remind your students again and again, you will leave but Christ remains forever.

Rule #5 Groom leaders.
Part of building a solid foundation for the next youth pastor is providing a foundation on which he can flourish. That means #1 training leaders in the Christ/servant mentality. However, It also may mean to look for successor among your own church. The best transitions are smooth transitions. Overlapping responsibilities between two leaders is the smoothest transitions of all. Like the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, your attitude should be “he must become greater and I must become less.”

Rule #6 Continue relationships
Just because you leave should never mean you’ve divorced yourself from your kids. Once you’re a youth pastor, you’re a mentor for life. Your still a servant of the same Lord, therefore the youth are, in some way, still your responsibility. From time to time give them a call, ask about them and pray for them. Don’t undermine the new youth pastor but give him your full support.

By following these six simple rules, a youth pastor insures a peaceful and rewarding move.

Two Worlds, One Solution: Why the Logos became Flesh

2006-02-26T11:17:00.001-08:00

John's use of Irony, Double Entendre, Symbol and Allusion are not mere artistic ornamentation. John employees these two-storied literary devices to highlight both the problem of and the answer for the world.

The gospel of John continually talks about two worlds. For instance In John 3:12, Christ distinguishes between "earthly things" and "heavenly things" and in 8:23 He separates Himself from His opponents, stating, "You are from below I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world."

In John the division between these two worlds represent the fundamental problem of man. In John 3:6, Jesus states, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." John also tells us that "God is Spirit." and "no one has seen God at any time..." This higher world is beyond the limits of the world of flesh and blood. Flesh cannot see Spirit. Man cannot see God.

The answer to this dilemma is the Word made flesh. God, the very God became man in order that we may interact with God. The two worlds became one in Jesus Christ. This is the miracle of Christmas. The atonement for our sins is not just in Easter (i.e. the crucifixion), it also is in his birth. Christmas reminds us that God bridged the divide between heaven and earth.

The problem of God's intangibility, however, continues to exist even after the incarnation. There are essentially still two ways of seeing Jesus. The Jews of John's gospel look at the outward appearance of Jesus and wrongly saw only a man. However, there are those whom God has granted the gift to see, look at Jesus and see beyond the man to the very image of God. They see the deeper meaning and not simply the surface.

John's use of Irony, Double Entendre, Symbol and Allusion fits like a glove within this two-tiered story. Following the example of the word made flesh, John writes a gospel with surface and subtextual meaning in mind. Jesus himself is the symbol of God the father. He is the tangible representation of the intangible God.

Many will only look at the surface of the Gospel of John and see only matters of historical curiosity. Christians, however, must see in John the meaning behind the physical appearance, they must read between the lines.

I could go on and on about the deeper meaning within John. But in my next post I would like to begin to address how this deeper meaning effects our every day life.

John's Dual Meaning...

2006-02-26T10:26:00.000-08:00

In my last post on the Gospel of John, I attempted to show why we must look for a deeper meaning within John's Gospel. In this post I hope to show you how John develops that meaning.

John utilizes a number of literary devices. He uses irony, double entendre, symbols as well as allusions. These devices possess a common thread: they each utilize two levels of meaning.

Irony is a conflict between two levels of meaning. Perhaps the greatest example is in John 11. The leader of the Jews gather to decide what to do with Jesus. Ciaphas stands up and "prophecies" to the group that it is better that one man should die than a nation perish. Ciaphas as an enemy of Jesus clearly means that Jesus is a threat to the stability of the Jewish nation. John, however, sees a deeper ironic meaning. Jesus will indeed die for the nation.

A double entendre is a word or a phrase which possess two meanings. A good example of double entendre within the gospel of John is found in John 3. When Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born "again." Nicodemus takes the word again to mean a second time. This leads him to think that he must enter his mothers womb a second time. But the Greek word which our English bible's translate as again also means "from above." It is this higher meaning which Jesus seems to intend.

Symbols like double entendre also possess two meanings, a lower physical meaning as well as a higher spiritual meaning. The symbol is a tangible representation of an intangible idea. A good example of symbol within John can be found in John 13. When Judas leaves the last supper to betray Jesus, John says, "and it was night." Here John is not merely telling us the time of day, he is hinting at the spiritual blackness which has come with Judas' rejection of the "Light of the World."

An allusion also presupposes two meanings. An Allusion is the implicit referencing of a person or an event, which has occurred in context external to the text. John's gospel is replete with allusions. Among the best known is John's subtle allusions to Genesis 24 in Jesus conversation with the Samaritan woman. John 1-2 is another example. John opens his gospel with a specific timetable of seven days. These seven days correspond to the seven creative days of Genesis. (This is why on the surface John disagrees with the synoptics over Jesus itinerary after His baptism.) We may call these examples of allusion external allusions because they reference information outside of the gospel of John itself.

Allusion may also be internal. Just as John references events outside his gospel, he also echoes event that have occured within his gospel. One of the ways in which he does is through something called a "chiasm." A Chiasm is ancient form of parallelism. Each idea parralels another, converging at a center. 1 John 3:9 is a perfect example of a Chiasm... "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

A) No one who is born of God
B) practices sin
C) because His seed abides in him
B') he cannot sin
A') Because he is born of God

There are many Chiasm within the gospel of John (For example John 1:1-18; 1:19-28; 1:29-36; 1:32-51). They are not all short. John 2-4 is one long extended Chiasm mirroring content, charachters, events and themes. The first miracle of Cana (2:1-11) is echoed in a second (4:46-54); Jesus' actions in Jerusalem (2:12-25) are recalled by the Galilleans (4:43-45); Jesus Conversation with a ruler of the Jews (3:1- 12) is contrasted in His conversation with a Samaritan woman (4:1-42). Jesus' third person commentary (3:13-21) is mirrored in John the Baptist's third person commentary (3:31-36). The whole Chiasm centers on Jesus superior baptismal ministry and that Jesus is the Bridegroom and John is only the Best Man. (3:22-30)

Examples of Irony, double entendre, symbols, and allusions (including Chiasms) abound. My point is not to overload you with examples. I simply want to show you that this two layered story is an important trend within the gospel of John. It's a trend that is important for understanding John's deeper meaning as well as his worldview. I will address John's worldview in my next post.

How the Incarnation affirms the Arts.

2006-02-25T18:35:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading "Lewis Agonistes*: How C.S. Lewis Can Train Us to Wrestle with the Modern and Postmodern World." This book is a valuable resource for every Christian who wants to engage the World with the truth of the Gospel.

In one particular inciteful jaunt, Markos attempts to spell out how the Incarnation (i.e. the Logos becoming flesh) justifies and affirms the arts.

"As the Catholic doctors of the ancient and medieval church were busy demonstrating the polysemous ("many signs) nature of Scripture, the theologians of Eastern Orthodoxy were equally busy endowing the visual arts with a similar weight of earthly and divine meaning. As anyone who has ever studied the history of Orthodoxy or spent time in an Orthodox Church quickly learns, icons are central to the theology and worship of those who look to Constantinople rather than Rome as the spiritual center of their faith. I suppose the simplest definition of an icon would be "a pictorial representation of Christ, Mary, or one of the saints." However, for Eastern Orthodox Christians (wheater they be Greek or Russian or Armenian), icons have always meant a great deal more.

The iconis a crux, an axis, a nexus at which physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal meet. At the heart of Orthodoxy as at the heart of any true Christian church lies the twin mysteries of Incarnation - the belief that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God, and the Resurrection - the belief that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead. The icon testifies to these sublime truths. As man and God meet, historically, in the person of Christ, so do the human and the divine meet, symbolically, in the physical depiction either of Christ himself or of a fallen man made holy (saint in Greek means "holy") through life in Christ. As Jesus effected the redemption and glorifiction of the flesh through his bodily resurrection (indeed, in Orthodox churches Christ still bears the stigmata he won on the cross), so the icon is a mute but powerful witness to the fact that physical matter can bear and contain divinity and that the natural elements of this world, though subject now to futility, will one day be brought to perfection (Romans 8:18-23).

The icon is a way station, a meeting ground where past, present, and future realities converge. The Christian who stands before an icon and notes the elongated fingers, the strange olive sheen of skin, and the oddly shaped features like a face seen through flickering candlelight is reminded that at a percise moment in history God entered our world, and by making the invisible God visible, made possible all symbolic art that attempts to capture phsically a reality that is spiritual...

The icon does not, of course, embody divinity in a full and perfect form - only Christ does that. Rather, it is the very fact that God did take on flesh in the person of Christ that empowers the arts and enables them to strive toward the divine. As intimated above, Christ, by allying himself with our natural, fallen world of signifiers run amok, baptised physical matter as a fit receptiacle for divine meaning and presence. This is why the New Testament, though it continues to forbid idolatry in all forms, does not repeat the specific Mosaic commandment against graven images. If Christ can become flesh without "polluting" his divinity, then it is permissible for human beings to paint and sculpt images of the Incarnate Christ. For the Muslim, of course, the very thought that God would take on flesh is the greatest of heresies: a fact that explains why the Muslims are the most unapologetic of iconoclasts (they do not allow any kind of representation, even of the prophet Muhammad).

Indeed, any Christian defense of the arts must finally rest on the Incarnation, that most slippery of doctrines." (Pgs 126-128)

*Agonistes means "one who wrestles"

Hope and Redemption in the Beautiful Letdown

2006-02-16T08:43:00.000-08:00

I can't tell you how long its been since an album has really reached me. I love music. I love profound words even more. But when great music and profound lyrics mingle at a certian time and place, the heart cannot help but beat in time with both the rythm and the words.

I'm almost positive that you can recognize what I'm saying. Think of album or a song that has really reached you. It more than likely was a combination of these three things: music, lyrics, and occasion. For me Petra's "Beyound Belief" probably would have been just another album if it hadn't been for Anggi Finley (now Wakefield) giving me that tape in the early days of my salvation. The music was good, the message was real but it was the time more than anything that made the album come alive.

Now a new Album has reached me in the same way as Beyound Belief. Switchfoot's Beautiful Letdown is both great music and a great message. But more than anything it has come at the right time and in the right place.

You may not know this but I work as a Custody Officer in Clark County's Jail. It's not your normal place to work. In any given day I see drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes, child molesters, murderes and theives. It's easy to classify these people as something other then oneself, beyound hope. The people I work with do it all the time.

I've recently changed shifts. Now I work in the pods. And I’m sitting here listening to this album surrounded by 185 inmates. I’m engulfed like an island, feeling the crashing waves of there broken lives beating against my isolation. They can’t hear the music pulsing inside my tower. They can barley see me through the glass. But I can see them. Just in front of me, not more than 50 feet, is a man whose failed attempt at suicide killed a Clark County Sheriff’s Officer last year. I see a dentist who after two years of separation from his wife, returned to brutally stab her to death in her home. Behind me there is a woman who is locked up and pregnant with her third child. Hooked on heroine, she’s taking methadone in effort to save her babies life. To me these people have become more than just names in the newspaper. I see them as more than crimes they commit. And as I listen to Beauitiful Letdown, I feel cries for redemption.

In the words of Jon Foreman, the voice and guitar player of Switchfoot, "THE BEAUTIFUL LETDOWN is about real life: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It’s an honest attempt to reflect on the great and terrible aspects of being human, the tension of existence. A lot of people run away from this tension because the problems in our world are too hard to face. But the tension of being human is where we live and think and breathe. In fact, the very lowest moments in our lives are when we stand toe to toe with the truth about ourselves and our world. The way I see it, hope means nothing at all if hope doesn’t reach to the core of our need. THE BEAUTIFUL LETDOWN is where meaning and hope invade our greatest and worst moments. THE BEAUTIFUL LETDOWN is where we live, who we are, and where the future begins."

As I sit in my tower I see the tension expressed in stark detail. The beauty of God's redemption is that it was meant for them. The beauty is that it is meant for me.

Prophetic Untimeliness

2006-02-11T10:11:00.000-08:00

"To always be relevant you have to say things that are eternal."

Although a very short book, 119 pages, Prophetic Untimeliness packs a very powerful punch. Os Guinness calls the Church to bear the offense of the Gospels and walk out of step with the temporary trends of our times. Although he dosen't name names, Guinness appears to have the seeker sensitive Church in mind. It's one thing to follow the example of the Word who became flesh in order to make known (relevant) the invisible God. Its quite another thing to lose ones distinctivness in order to fill pews. It appears that the later is becoming more and more that state of the Church. I believe it has impart become the mantra of my own. This saying is certainly true, "He who marries the spirit of the age makes himself a widower."

Guinness provides three ways in which we can learn to be untimely (untrendy).

Develop an awareness of the unfashionable.

Its easy to preach the "good news" it quite another to preach the bad. The heart of the Gospel is hostel to our carnal nature. Yes there are doctrines and beliefs that we are comfortable with but there are also doctrines and beliefs which offend us. We must seek balance messages of condemenation/confrontation with comfort/consolation.

Cultivate an appreciation for the historical.

Nothing can confront our modern perspectives like a healthy dose of history. For our American Church living a life of luxuary in this modern age it has become a popular belief that God will not allow the righteous to suffer (i.e. the name-it-claim it crowd). By cultivating an appreciation the historical we are confronted by this mordern distortion. A good way to gain an historical perspective is by reading old books.

Pay constant attention to the eternal.

This may seem as difficult as asking a fish to think of a world outside the water, but its not. We as Christians recognize that God's word is eternal. The same word that spoke the worlds into existance is the same word that sustains the world today. That same Word has been given to us in the Bible. I can hear my audience groaning even now. "The bible is old news, we want something new." But let us remember that today's new is tommorrow's old. Only by enteracting with God's word can we enteract with the eternally relevant.

Does John have a Deeper Meaning?

2006-02-10T11:49:00.000-08:00

There are essentially two ways of reading the gospel of John. For the casual observer, John is a mere historical account of Jesus words and deeds. John’s meaning is straightforward and uncomplicated, what the gospel says is what the gospel means. Meaning exists on the surface. But for those who take a second look, John's gospel appears to be more than a literal account of Jesus ministry and message. One begins to get a sense of this through a careful comparison of the gospels.

A cursory glance at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reveals that they have much in common. Each narrates the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth in apparent biographical detail. Each record his ministry and message, as well as the miracles he performed. Each of them slows down and zooms in on the events of Christ’s crucifixion and above the reports of his resurrection. But a more detailed inspection we find that the four Gospels of the New Testament group themselves into two distinct groups.

Matthew, Mark and Luke possesses an interrelationship that is absent from the gospel of John. It has been estimated that 92% of Mark's gospel, the scenes he uses, the order in which he uses them, as well as his very wording, can be found in Matthew and Luke. Luke and Matthew also share a great deal, possessing some 200 versus in common. For this reason the first three gospels have been dubbed the Synoptic Gospels, meaning "to see with or together." John, on the other hand, does not partake of this interrelationship. As Peter Ellis so eliquently states, "John deals with the same revealed truth as Matthew, Mark (and) Luke... His way of speaking about that truth, however, is different. Like waters from the same source, the Johannine... and synoptic traditions all come from the same historical Jesus but flow through different lands, pick up different textures, and emerge as observably different rivers."

Lets look at some of John's unique features. Matthew, Mark and Luke each tell us that Jesus cleansed the temple one week before his crucifixion. In John, however, Jesus cleanses the temple at the beginning of his ministry. Did it happen at the beginning or the end? Some have tried to reconcile the two accounts by stating that Jesus cleansed the temple twice. However, this appears to be an addition to what the scriptures are saying.

Another example of how the Synoptics and John disagree is in there presentation of the Christ's temptation in the wilderness. The synoptics each state that after his baptism, Jesus went into the desert to be tempted forty days and forty nights. After the temptation he returns to Galilee. John on the other hand never mentions the forty day period. Instead he gives a specific day by day account of Jesus baptism by John and his return to Cana of Galilee. In John there are only three days seperating Jesus' baptism and his return to Galilee. Thus, in John there is no room for the temptation.

The question becomes how are we to deal with these contradictions. If we take the gospels in these instances as straight forward historical/biographical accounts they clearly disagree. Origen, the third centuray Christian teacher, provides us with our options in dealing with this dilemma,

"The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought in the outward and material letter."

Should we abandon the inspiration of scripture? By no means. The answer to this dilemma is in how we interpret these accounts. The truth of John's gospel is not to be sought in the outward and material letter but rather in its deeper meaning. In my next post I will show how John creates a two layered story, possessing both surface and sub textual meaning.

The Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of John.

2006-02-08T17:10:00.000-08:00

The Da Vinci Code has struck a nerve. When published in 2003, it appeared at the top of best seller’s lists across the nation. On the competitive New York Time’s List, it remained for an astonishing 136 weeks. Within its first year, it sold more than any other adult novel in the history of publishing, and it continues to sell, boasting in the fall of 2005 34 million books in print worldwide.

The books success has not surprisingly spawned a number of investigations. In the fall of 2003, ABC News produced, Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci, a one-hour special devoted to an exploration of the novel’s central claims. A search of Amazon.com reveals dozens of books with titles such as The Da Vinci Code Decoded, Secrets of the Code, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, and Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, all devoted to dissecting the contents of this single book. If that wasn’t enough, now a movie, the ultimate proof of a novel’s success, is scheduled for release in May. The combined talents of Director Ron Howard and Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks insure that the popularity of the book has yet to wane.

This phenomenal success cries out for explanation. What is so unique about The Da Vinci Code to cause this pandemic in book sales around the world? Although on the surface the book is merely a novel: a fictional story written for sheer entertainment, its pages contain a very interesting conspiracy.

As the title suggests, the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci occupy a central place within this mystery. According to The Da Vinci Code’s author, Dan Brown, Da Vinci's paintings “seem to overflow with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes… hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the text… clues to a powerful secret.” For The Da Vinci Code, Leonardo’s painting of The Last Supper holds the most surprising revelations of all.

At first glance, The Last Supper is a simple depiction of Christ and his disciples. They are seated, facing the audience, behind a long straight table, Jesus separating six disciples on either side of him. Every line of the spacious high-ceilinged room, as well as every gesture, expression or position of the disciples points to Jesus, who looks slightly downward toward his outstretched hand. It does indeed appear as Leonardo claimed that the scene is a representation of the moment at which Christ said to his disciples “…one of you will betray me.” To the right of Jesus, Simon Peter leans past Judas Iscariot to ask, the beloved disciple, who the betrayer might be. To the left of Jesus a disciple asks with inquisitive hands, is it me. Several figures point upwards as if reminding the audience from wince Jesus came and to where he shall return.

According to the Da Vinci Code, the meaning of the Last Supper resides beneath the surface. The book invites us to take a second look, abandoning our preconceived notions about its interpretation or meaning. Is Da Vinci doing more than presenting Christ and his disciples? If this is indeed a representation of the last supper, and the moment at which Christ announces his betrayal then the painting possesses some surprising details. First, the book points out there are thirteen cups littered over the table, not just one, as the gospels appear to indicate. If indeed there was a single distinguishing cup (i.e. the Holy Grail) that Christ passed to his followers, why is it not depicted here? The book answers the Grail is not an object, but rather an individual.

To the right of Jesus sits a person who art historians have long identified as John the beloved. According to John 13, it was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who reclined next to Jesus during this crucial moment. A second look, however, uncovers a startling paradox. The individual seated to the right of Jesus lacks the masculine qualities associated with a male disciple. This person has flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and possibly the hint of a bosom. The seat of honor appears not be occupied by a man but rather a woman.

The figure not only appears to be a woman, The Da Vinci Code argues the very symbolism within the painting demonstrates she is a woman. The absent space dividing Christ and this feminine looking figure makes an unmistakable “V”. The book claims this “V” along with its opposite the “^” are ancient symbols corresponding to woman and man. The “^” symbolizes the hard edge of a man, his warrior instincts as well as his procreative genitals. The “V” on the other hand, symbolizes the soft nature of the woman as well as her uterus, the place within a woman that carries a child. The book argues, to find this indistinguishable “V” proves that the figure seated next to Jesus is in fact a woman.

The symbolic connection between Jesus and this figure also runs deep. If you trace Jesus from his left hand, over his head, down to his right hand, up the left arm of the female figure and once again down over her head, we find that Jesus and this woman together make an unmistakable “M.” Jesus and this woman also are connected by corresponding colors. Jesus wears a blue robe and red tunic. The woman wears a red robe and blue tunic. Visually the corresponding blue and red suggests a bond between Jesus and this person that does exit between Jesus and the other disciples.

This second look at The Last Supper has had a profound impact on the success of the book. Editor Dan Burstein recalls that as he read the book for the first time, he came to this particular section about the painting around 4:00 in the morning. “I got up out of bed and pulled the art books down from our library shelves. I looked at the Leonardo panting that I had encountered, of course, hundreds of times previously, yes, it really does look like a woman seated next to Jesus! I thought.” The fact that a plausible clue has been hidden in one of the most famous paintings of all time is riveting.

Through the clues within this painting, The Da Vinci Code postulates its central conspiracy. According to the book, Da Vinci was a part of a secret society which existed in one form or another down through the ages, extending from a time before the Church transformed the image of Jesus. The Jesus of history married Mary Magdalene, the closest of his female disciples, and through her bore a child. The Church, however, covered this relationship in an effort to proclaim Jesus divine, believing He could not be God if he had sexual relations with a woman. So the male dominated Church abolished Mary Magdalene and the child she bore, along with all reverence for pagan worship of the female image. For the Da Vinci Code, Reclaiming Jesus’ lost bride is a step towards reclaiming the “sacred feminine” abandoned by the Church so long ago.

The Da Vinci Code’s success is its penchant for finding mystery in the mundane. It’s this hidden level of meaning which has inspired the imagination. To a culture hypnotized by ten-second commercials and bill boards passing at sixty miles an hour, the concept of a deeper meaning appears as something novel. Educated as we are in this warp-speed society we are not accustomed to mediating on anything longer then a few seconds. The Da Vinci Code offers a chance to slow down and find vital messages locked within images we simply don’t take the time to look at. The Da Vinci Code has unlocked an all but forgotten world, a world that is only seen through reflection. We want something deeper, something more than surface to sink our teeth into. And thus, gone are Brown’s former books of far removed symbols of the NSA and NASA. Now Brown has placed his mystery within a framework important to everyone and in a context familiar to all. Instead of focusing on complicated mathematical constructs and theories unintelligible and uninteresting to many, Dan Brown has focused on the hidden meaning of art, and not just any art, but some of the most hallmark images known in western tradition, The Last Supper, The Mona Lisa, the Cathedrals of Europe.

Wheres the connection to the Gospel of John? Brown draws upon several books to support his conclusions. A large portion of the book arises from the best selling claims of Holy Grail, Holy Blood. Which attempt at exposing the history of the Priory of Sion was a best seller in the early 1980's. Dan Brown also utilizes The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and the Goddess in the Gospels written by Margaret Starbird.

Starbird, once a devout Catholic, was trained in divinity school. When she read the claims of Holy Grail, Holy blood she set out to discredit them. But in the process she found new evidence within scripture that these claims were true. Starbird points out that the gospels are replete with calling Jesus the bridegroom. Imagery of a wedding also abound. She states “throughout the Gospels Jesus is presented as bridegroom, but it is now widely claimed that he had no Bride.” Among the most startling is a piece of evidence found in the gospel of John.

Only John among the gospels states that the anointing was performed by Mary of Bethany while Jesus was seated with Lazarus on the eve of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Only John of the gospel writers states that the fragrance of the perfume filled the house where they were seated. This scene seems suprisingly remenesent of Song of Solomon 1:12. “While the king was at his table my perfume gave forth its fragrance.” This reference to one of the most sexually explicit books of the bible raises some interesting questions. Starbird goes on to note that the Church has made another connection between Christ and Mary and the Song of Solomon. Such as reading the Song of Solomon 3:2-4 on Mary Magdalene’s day. A fact that even Hypolutus commented on his commentary on the Song of Solomon.

Though I would disagree with Starbird on many of her conclusions this does not detract from some of the interesting connections she makes. Does John possess hidden clues about Jesus marriage? Is John a riddle on the level of Dan Brown’s interpretation of the Last Supper? Is John like this proposed interpretation of the Da Vinci Painting? Is John a code?

Other than the book of Revelation, no other New Testament book compares with the mystery locked within the gospel of John. John’s gospel says a great deal more than it actually says. Like “body language,” its meaning proceeds through more than just words. What seems clear and simple on the surface is never so simple. John is mystery waiting for the perceptive reader to unlock. If I may appropriate in part the words of Dan Brown, the gospel of John overflows with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes, hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the text… clues to a powerful truth. John is mystery greater then paintings of Da Vinci.

How did my facination with John's Gospel begin?

2006-02-08T17:05:00.000-08:00

I became interested in the gospel of John in 1999. As a youth pastor working busily preparing activities and messages to deliver on Wednesday Night, I had the additional responsibility of teaching the dozen or so faithful kids who showed up on Sunday Morning. I always needed something to teach and I always seemed to lack the time. Flipping through the Bible, in one particular frantic quest, I came to the gospel of John. John has it all, I thought. It’s a good place to start.

Up till that time in our Sunday School, I utilized a game called “Crack the Case.” Someone would read a case, normally having to do with a murder. They would present the case to the group and the group would have so many minutes to solve the case by asking yes and no questions. The youth really enjoyed it. I enjoyed it too. It was a good way of using up time. At the end of each game, I would tell the class that this is how someone should perform bible study. Ask a question. No question is to dumb. Answers only come with questions and observations. The bible is a mystery, I said, and we who study the bible are the investigators.

Thus without studying the gospel of John or making a lesson plan, I began to read. We read a little each Sunday and then I began by asking some questions. Sometimes the class was better than others. I found quickly that I, the teacher, was becoming the student as I developed a deeper and deeper curiosity for the text.

My initial curiostiy began while exploring Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus tells Nicodemus “No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). Though I had read the gospel quit a few times, for the first time the water caught me by surprise. What does water mean? In my personal devotions I had come across 1 John 5:6, “This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only but by water and blood.” The water appeared almost identical. Water and Spirit and Water and blood. I thought, clearly water is short hand for a deeper truth.

I began to read the whole gospel of John, asking questions and looking for clues. I found that water is almost everywhere in the gospel of John. From John the Baptist testimony in chapter one to Christ crucifixion in chapter nineteen. Why did John use water so much and for what purpose? The more I searched the more I learned and gradually a thesis began to develop.

I began to tell everyone about my search. It fascinated me and I loved to see peoples faces as they learned something new. I wanted to write a paper on the subject. I shelved the idea, however, when in 2000 I moved to southern California to continue my education at BIOLA univesity. In the stacks of BIOLA's library I found a whole book on the topic written by Larry Paul Jones.

Two years later I picked up the quest again. In the mist of researching a paper on baptism and the reception of the Spirit in Acts 19, I encountered several articles on water in the gospel of John. I began to read the gospel of John again. I picked up Larry Paul Jones’ book and found that his arguments were incomplete. I found there was need for further research.

In Spring of 2002 I went to BIOLA’s library and began to copy every article of interest that I could find on the water, as well as the meaning and interpretation of John. I encountered ideas that I had only heard about in passing in my studies at Multnomah Bible College. I began to ask new questions about John’s gospel and to formulate new ideas.

The Summer came and with it a chance to devote all my reading to this single subject. Ideas began to pop inside my head like popcorn. By the time the summer ended and my final semester at Biola began, I had read over a hundred articles and books on the subject.

That Fall, I approached biblical studies department about the possibility of doing an independent research class on the subject. I found Wayne Flory an open professor. Over the course of the semester I poured myself into writing on this single subject. My paper "Water in the Writings of John" was now only a small portion of a theory that explained almost every aspect of John's Gospel.

Why is Scripture's Deeper Meaning Important?

2006-02-03T09:18:00.000-08:00

Some have expressed to me a concern that if we teach there is a deeper meaning in scripture then some may begin to question their ability to discover scripture's meaning. This thought has certainly crossed my mind. It has also occured to me that a belief in a deeper meaning may smak of liberal eleatism. It could divide the Church into the so-called have and the have nots. People may begin to lord it over others that they are enlightened. "I'm smarter than you are," some may begin to think. I hate snobbering. "knowledge puffs up but love builds up" Paul said. I couldn't agree with him more. So why do I still beleive that we should call attention to this deeper meaning?

The world is only getting faster. With twenty second commericials and bill boards passing at sixty miles an hour, our minds have been trained not to think of anything for more than a few seconds. More and more messages have to be bold, straight forward. We have abandoned subtelty. Sarcasm has replaced irony. Churches, likewise, have kept pace with the increased velocity of the world. Sermons have to be short, whorship has to be catchy, the list could go on and on. Sunday morning has become like a shot in the arm for the weekly rat race, rather than the healing touch of a patient nurse.

The speed has caused the world and the Church to abandon refleciton, to see only the surface. For most the world has no more subtelty then a traffic sign. Truth for them is merely what we can see, taste, touch and feel. When the Church encourages this belief by keeping up with the world rather than slowing it down, it abandons the very message it seeks to convey. Without reflection we cannot see God, for though evidence for him exists in the mateiral world, he cannot be seen in the material world. Only through reflection do we see God and only by reflecting on Jesus do we really know who God is and what is to be Godly in this material world.

I beleive that by showing people that there is a deeper meaning in scripture we challenge them to think deeper about scripture as well as the world around them. We challenge them to slow down, take and a second look, and reflect on the meaning of scripture.

Did John Know That Jesus Was Born in Bethlehem?

2006-02-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

I don't know if you happened to catch the CBS special on the birth of Jesus this past December. I didn't watch it myself, but I did read a portion of the transcript. The program looks like it gave equal voice to both doubters and believers. The doubters got the first word and the believers got the last. What I wanted to address in this blog is the questioned that is raised concerning the geographic origins of Jesus in the gospel of John. John Dominic Crossan, a one time Catholic monk turned hostile to the Christian faith, states,

“Born in Bethlehem... nobody else seems to know anything about it in the New Testament…. It doesn't seem, for example, that John, in John's gospel, has any idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.”

Crossan is referring to John 7...

John 7:40-44 Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, "This certainly is athe Prophet." 41 Others were saying, "This is 1the Christ." Still others were saying, a"Surely 1the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? 42 "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from athe offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" 43 So athere arose a division in the multitude because of Him. 44 And some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him.

On the surface, John never says anything more on the subject. Crossan assumes that if John new Jesus had been born in Bethlehem he would have stated it. However, what Crossan fails to recognize is that beneath the text John is in fact doing this very thing. If we continue on with this passage we read...

John 7:45-52 45 The aofficers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, "Why did you not bring Him?" 46 The aofficers answered, b"Never did a man speak the way this man speaks." 47 The Pharisees therefore answered them, a"You have not also been led astray, have you? 48 a"No one of bthe rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? 49 "But this multitude which does not know the Law is accursed." 50 aNicodemus said to them (he who came to Him before, being one of them), 51 a"Our Law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" 52 They answered and said to him, a"You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee."

The issue in John 7:40-52 is not where Jesus was born but rather where he is from. Everyone knows that Jesus is from Galilee and because of this they want to exclude him from being the descendent of David and thus not born in Bethlehem. Notice in this passage how both the Pharisees and the people reject Jesus because he is from Galilee. The Pharisees even challenge Nicodemus to "search" the scriptures to "see that no prophet arises out of Galilee."

It has often been the retort of modern interpreters to state that Jonah was a prophet from Galilee. But so what? The Pharisees are not saying that a prophet couldn't arise from Galilee as much as they are saying that THE PROPHET LIKE MOSES cannot arise from Galilee. But what if we did search the scriptures as the Pharisees challenge? What would we find.

We would find that Galilee is only mentioned six times in the Old Testament. But in one prophetic passage of Isaiah we find...

Isaiah 9:1-7 1But there will be no more agloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He btreated the cland of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the 2Gentiles. 2 1aThe people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them. 3 aThou shalt multiply the nation, Thou bshalt 1increase 2their gladness; They will be glad in Thy presence As with the gladness 3of harvest, As 4cmen rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For aThou shalt break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their boppressor, as 1at the battle of cMidian. 5 For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire. 6 For a achild will be born to us, a bson will be given to us; And the cgovernment will 1rest don His shoulders; And His name will be called eWonderful Counselor, fMighty God, Eternal gFather, Prince of hPeace. 7 There will be ano end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the bthrone of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with cjustice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. dThe zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Does this verse have any connection with John 7. YES!! The very next verse after John 7:52 is John 8:12; John 7:53-8:11 being a later addition. In John 8:12, Jesus declares,

John 8:12 a"I am the light of the world; bhe who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."

On the surface John never declares a connection to Isaiah 9. However, if we listen to John's implicit commentary (i.e. his deeper meaning) we will begin to see what John is doing. Is John doubting the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or is he merely providing biblical evidence for the messiah coming from Galilee as well? Just as the Christ was prophesied to come Bethlehem, he was prophesied to come from Galilee. If Jesus fulfills the Isaiah prophecy the how can we doubt that he fulfills the Micah prophecy as well?

Micah 5:2-5 1But as for ayou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From byou One will go forth for Me to be cruler in Israel. 2His goings forth are dfrom long ago, From the days of eternity." 3 Therefore, He will agive them up until the time When she bwho is in labor has borne a child. Then the cremainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel. 4 And He will arise and ashepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will 1remain, Because 2at that time He will be great To the bends of the earth. 5 And this One awill be our peace.

Because Crossan looks at only the surface he fails to recognize the true purpose of John's statement.

2006-02-01T13:30:00.000-08:00

Silas and I

Working out the Implications of the Logos.

2006-01-31T12:44:00.000-08:00

If Christian maturity is working out the implications of our faith then we have a lot of ground to cover.

Many Christians wrongly beleive that a pastoral position is the only full time occupation for the Lord, that some how secular jobs are not as important as devoting oneself to "sacred" pursuits. God, for these beleivers, can only be seen in Church or the Bible. This view has led to a compartmentalized Christianity; Sacred day on Sunday, secular activity throughout the rest of the week. But Jesus as the Logos made flesh holds some profound devotional truth. Because Jesus is the Logos what we once deemed secular is in fact a worthy avenue of worship to our Lord.

John did not invent the term Logos (i.e. Word). It possess a history from before the incarnation. The Logos for the Jews was identified as Lady Wisdom (i.e. Sophia) of Jewish Wisdom Literature (Proverbs 1-8, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon etc.). She existed in the beginning as God's master craftsmen, taking delight in the world of men. She possessed the mind of God. She new his plans and the working of the world. If someone possessed her, he possessed life itself. For the Greeks the term Logos arrived with earliest of the philosophers (i.e. lovers or friends of sophia). The Logos for them was the purpose, the meaning, the rational explanation for all that is. To seek after the Logos was to seek after the ordering of the universe.

When John calls Jesus the Logos made flesh he is calling our attention back to both Jewish and Greek ideas. Jesus is the divine designer, the master craftsman, the point and purpose for all that is. This means that to seek after the rational ordering of the Universe is to seek after Jesus himself. "The creaton of declares the glory of the Lord." (Psalms 19). There is no distinction between sacred and secular because God created it all.

Paul in Colossians picks up on this application of the Logos (the Sophia of Proverbs). He calls Jesus, "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." This is expressly said of wisdom in the Wisdom literature. Paul continues, "For in him all things were created, both invisible, and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him." "All things have been created through Him and for Him." Paul finds that the application of this is that we are not bound to keep the Old Testament dicotomy of secular vs. sacred. "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day." He goes on to say, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!'" Because Christ fills all and all there is no distinction between secular and sacred. Jesus is the point of both sacred and secular persuits weather one knows it or not.

What is Christian Maturity?

2006-01-31T12:32:00.000-08:00

What is Christian maturity and what is its goal?

Recently someone asked me if I thought Proverbs 3:5-6 represented the goal or vision statement of Christian maturity.

This is what I said...

I think Proverbs 3:5-6 is a wounderful verse. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding in all of your ways acknowledge him and he shall direct your path." The verse is certainly foundational. "The fear of the Lord," or as the writer of proverbs says here "Trust in the Lord," is the beginning of Wisdom. Before we set out on the journey of life we must make trust in the Lord our resolve. Trust is the ever present foundation of Christian growth. Faith is the Matrix in which the Christian matures. All understanding is built upon faith.

However because trust is always needed in the Christian life, the verse may potential stifle Christian growth rather than encourage it. Instead of faith guiding someone to Christian maturity faith may become the end goal in and of itself. Someone could rightly reason, If trust equals Christian maturity and I trust in the Lord then what point is there in anything further? (This appears to me to be the reasoning of the "name-it-claim- it crowd) The book of James continues to rebuke this mentality even today.

While deeper trust is certainly a goal of Christian maturity it is not the goal entirely. In what sense is the trust of a new beleiver diffrent from the trust of a mature believer? The new beleiver while trusting in the Lord, holds misconceptions about what that trust entails. For instance a new believer may still beleive in a "woman's right to choose" or in naturalism or in his or her own ability to command the actions of God (i.e. the name-it-claim-it crowd). The mature beleiver on the other hand has worked out the implications of his faith through prayer, study, and meditation and continues to do so. Growth then is faith working itself out. It is making application of the trust we already possess. As St. Augustine said its "fath seeking understanding." The mature believer is one who continually works out the implications of his belief, who binds his thoughts to the scriptures and discovers how they apply to his or her life. In this sense a mature believer is one who ceases to be spoon fed. Like high school diploma which does not represent absolute knowledge but rather a students ability to think on there own, the goal of Christian education is not knowledge but rather an ability to wrestle with issues within a faith worldview.

In this sense Proverbs 3:5 and 6 is an appropriate verse for Christian maturity. If we start with trust then God will show us the application of this faith in every direction of our lives. Trust however is not the entire measurement of Chrstiain maturity. Christian maturity is measured by the depth to which Christians have reached in uncovering the implications of there faith. This is the path to which Proverbs 3:6 refers. In this sense the goal of Christian maturity is becoming more like Jesus rather than simply believing in Jesus.

Dedication

2006-01-31T12:15:00.000-08:00

I dedicate this blog to the pursuit of Christ. He is the purpose and point for all that is.