I’m a self-confessing word nerd. Sometimes, as recently as earlier today, I find myself looking up a word, only to still be “reading the dictionary” 10 minutes later! But, in defense of my love of words, it was God who made humans with this amazing capacity to use words to say things, to be told things – to communicate. It is even possible for God to use words to communicate to us (Isaiah 55:8-11) and for us to communicate with Him (see the Book of Psalms).
Words have what is sometimes called marked and unmarked meanings. The whole process of interpreting everything from the article about the Braves game yesterday in today’s paper to the Bible itself. Our political culture seems to be in constant banter about how the words of the Constitution are to be interpreted.
I think I have at least one friend among the writers of Scripture when it comes to be a word nerd. In Ephesians 4:29, tucked in among a whole slew of descriptive phrases about the behavior of those who follow Jesus, Paul says, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” (NASB) Unless I’m reading those words incorrectly, if a word doesn’t edify, it isn’t wholesome.
That’s not, however, how this particular collection of words are often used. A friend in ministry told me about a youth minister who overheard an elder in the church say a naughty word, when a wrench he was using to fix a door closer slipped and he banged his knuckles pretty badly. This particular elder was a godly man - known far and wide for his generosity and his willingness to do whatever needed to be done. At the time of this incident, he was actually funding the rent on a gymnasium for the youth program of his church that wasn’t budgeted at the time.
While I’m not suggesting that he should have said the word he said as his knuckles hit a sharp edge and started bleeding profusely, it wasn’t the worst word I’ve ever heard. The youth minister was quick to point out that the church shouldn’t have an elder who used “unwholesome words,” quoting this very verse.
In less than a week, the whole church knew that an elder had said a bad word – despite the fact that the only person who heard it was the youth minister. The only way that could have happened is that the youth minister let others know.
Whose words were “unwholesome?”
In Miroslav Volf’s The End of Memory, he points out that even by remembering things incorrectly, we end up bearing false witness against another person. When we say those over-stated memories out loud, we use “unwholesome words.”
The point isn’t that words don’t matter – even words that in our cultural setting are viewed as “bad words.” I’m not advocating that it is appropriate for Christians to speak crudely and in impolite ways. But I do think it is possible for a person to never use one of the “four letter words” we identify in our culture as crude and impolite, but still have an “unwholesome” vocabulary. We don’t have to use four-letter words to be guilty of not edifying others with our words.
May our words be signs of the grace of God – both “marked and unmarked.”
13 July 2011
11 July 2011
Are The Liberal Arts Liberal?
That question could also be phrased, “are there conservative arts?” Do left-wingers study in liberal arts schools and right-wingers study in other kinds of schools? What about the “moderate arts” – where do you go to school to get that kind of education? Would there be a school where I could go and get an education in the “fundamentalist arts?”
It is an odd thing that for some followers of Jesus, any idea that has the word liberal attached to it is automatically assumed to be from the pits of Satan worship! That might explain why any survey you see suggests that among conservative Christians, the percentage of income given to the work of the Kingdom is so paltry. After all, Paul uses the word “liberal” in describing the giving practices mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8. Here’s what he says, “We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift.” (2 Corinthians 8:20, NIV) Can’t imagine how the conservative, Bible-believing translators of the NIV allowed that word to slip into the translation!
We live in an age where it is difficult to keep up with the “arts and sciences” well enough to be able to communicate the Christian gospel in an effective manner. It’s one thing to be able to parrot someone else’s interpretation of Scripture, but a whole different thing to be taught to think for yourself and be given the tools to direct that thinking. The broader our education (think liberal arts) the more likely we are to avoid spending life as a parrot and learn to think, study, evaluate, and come to understanding.
Many Christian colleges, born in the reactionary approach to education of another age, have moved more and more in the direction of “liberal arts” with a healthy dose of good, quality, biblical education in the mix. That produces graduates who have more potential than can be adequately measured to change the world in which we live.
It’s one thing to be biblical. I’ve spent most of my adult life helping students discover how to discover for themselves the meaning of Scripture. The compliment I like to hear most is “he teaches me to think.” But one can be biblical to the core, and if you don’t understand the world in which you have been called to serve God, you aren’t likely to communicate that biblical message. An education that is broad enough to include literature, science, history, the social sciences, the humanities, psychology, education, communication, languages, and the like – as well as biblical and theological disciplines – is most likely the kind of education that prepares one for a life-time of service in the Kingdom of God. It produces graduates who can be both biblical and relevant.
The global culture of the 21st century can’t be influenced by those who see “biblical and relevant” as an “either/or” proposition. It must be “both/and.” What better way to create the “both/and” than in a good, solid, and broad approach to education?
Sometimes I hear people suggest that the reason Christian colleges have moved more in the direction of the liberal arts is because we have more and more students coming who want a good Christian education, but don’t plan on a vocational ministry as their goal in life. While I think that is true, and good – it is only part of the story. The move to liberal arts isn’t a move to bad theology, no theology, watered down theology, or any of the other negative terms that often get thrown in that direction. It actually is a move that prepares those who plan on vocational ministry in ways that are good, godly, and essential in terms of preparing young adults for a life of serving Christ – no matter their vocational goals. It also provides the opportunity to give students in a wide variety of vocational choices a solid biblical and theological foundation.
On the spiritual formation pamphlet that we use at Point University – and have been using for the five years I’ve served in my current role – we say this:
Every student at Point University will see the importance of integrating faith and vocation.
This means that we strive:
• to practice the idea of the priesthood of all believers;
• to see vocation, regardless of what it is, as mission;
• to learn how to effectively bear witness to our faith in any setting, without being overbearing;
• to learn in every classroom setting the relationship of the subject at hand to our faith; and
• to ensure that no student graduates without having been exposed to the ideal of integration of faith and vocation.
But we also realize that a part of our core mission is to prepare young men and women for ministry-connected vocations. Here’s what we say to that reality:
Some students at Point University will sense that they are called to ordained ministry.
Thus:
• some will find themselves in church settings as preachers, worship leaders, education leaders, spiritual formation facilitators, student and children’s ministers, administrators, etc.;
• some will find themselves in global settings as missionaries, campus ministers, church planters, relief workers, educators, health workers, etc.; and
• some will find themselves in parachurch settings such as colleges, seminaries, camps, convalescent centers, orphanages, relief agencies, urban ministries, campus ministries, etc.
For the life of me I can’t see how that is somehow to be viewed as deserting the mission! Counting my four years as a student and now 35 years as a faculty/staff member, I’ve been at this school for over half of its existence. I’ve seen more changes than I can count. One of those changes is that I’ve never seen as many students committed to transforming the world as I do right now.
Some of them come here wanting to play sports, and end up in ministry or some other vocation with a solid biblical foundation. Some come wanting a business degree and end up doing campus ministry. Some come because their parents see us as a reform school – and end up being transformed by the community that makes up this campus as it lives out the Jesus story in inviting fashion. Some come thinking that they want to be in vocational ministry, only to discover they really aren’t wired for that and can more effectively serve God is some other vocational choice. Thank God the broader approach to education gives them that option!
It really is about mission – not style of education. If Christian colleges should have embedded in their reason for existence the desire to transform the world – then Point University is on mission!
It is an odd thing that for some followers of Jesus, any idea that has the word liberal attached to it is automatically assumed to be from the pits of Satan worship! That might explain why any survey you see suggests that among conservative Christians, the percentage of income given to the work of the Kingdom is so paltry. After all, Paul uses the word “liberal” in describing the giving practices mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8. Here’s what he says, “We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift.” (2 Corinthians 8:20, NIV) Can’t imagine how the conservative, Bible-believing translators of the NIV allowed that word to slip into the translation!
We live in an age where it is difficult to keep up with the “arts and sciences” well enough to be able to communicate the Christian gospel in an effective manner. It’s one thing to be able to parrot someone else’s interpretation of Scripture, but a whole different thing to be taught to think for yourself and be given the tools to direct that thinking. The broader our education (think liberal arts) the more likely we are to avoid spending life as a parrot and learn to think, study, evaluate, and come to understanding.
Many Christian colleges, born in the reactionary approach to education of another age, have moved more and more in the direction of “liberal arts” with a healthy dose of good, quality, biblical education in the mix. That produces graduates who have more potential than can be adequately measured to change the world in which we live.
It’s one thing to be biblical. I’ve spent most of my adult life helping students discover how to discover for themselves the meaning of Scripture. The compliment I like to hear most is “he teaches me to think.” But one can be biblical to the core, and if you don’t understand the world in which you have been called to serve God, you aren’t likely to communicate that biblical message. An education that is broad enough to include literature, science, history, the social sciences, the humanities, psychology, education, communication, languages, and the like – as well as biblical and theological disciplines – is most likely the kind of education that prepares one for a life-time of service in the Kingdom of God. It produces graduates who can be both biblical and relevant.
The global culture of the 21st century can’t be influenced by those who see “biblical and relevant” as an “either/or” proposition. It must be “both/and.” What better way to create the “both/and” than in a good, solid, and broad approach to education?
Sometimes I hear people suggest that the reason Christian colleges have moved more in the direction of the liberal arts is because we have more and more students coming who want a good Christian education, but don’t plan on a vocational ministry as their goal in life. While I think that is true, and good – it is only part of the story. The move to liberal arts isn’t a move to bad theology, no theology, watered down theology, or any of the other negative terms that often get thrown in that direction. It actually is a move that prepares those who plan on vocational ministry in ways that are good, godly, and essential in terms of preparing young adults for a life of serving Christ – no matter their vocational goals. It also provides the opportunity to give students in a wide variety of vocational choices a solid biblical and theological foundation.
On the spiritual formation pamphlet that we use at Point University – and have been using for the five years I’ve served in my current role – we say this:
Every student at Point University will see the importance of integrating faith and vocation.
This means that we strive:
• to practice the idea of the priesthood of all believers;
• to see vocation, regardless of what it is, as mission;
• to learn how to effectively bear witness to our faith in any setting, without being overbearing;
• to learn in every classroom setting the relationship of the subject at hand to our faith; and
• to ensure that no student graduates without having been exposed to the ideal of integration of faith and vocation.
But we also realize that a part of our core mission is to prepare young men and women for ministry-connected vocations. Here’s what we say to that reality:
Some students at Point University will sense that they are called to ordained ministry.
Thus:
• some will find themselves in church settings as preachers, worship leaders, education leaders, spiritual formation facilitators, student and children’s ministers, administrators, etc.;
• some will find themselves in global settings as missionaries, campus ministers, church planters, relief workers, educators, health workers, etc.; and
• some will find themselves in parachurch settings such as colleges, seminaries, camps, convalescent centers, orphanages, relief agencies, urban ministries, campus ministries, etc.
For the life of me I can’t see how that is somehow to be viewed as deserting the mission! Counting my four years as a student and now 35 years as a faculty/staff member, I’ve been at this school for over half of its existence. I’ve seen more changes than I can count. One of those changes is that I’ve never seen as many students committed to transforming the world as I do right now.
Some of them come here wanting to play sports, and end up in ministry or some other vocation with a solid biblical foundation. Some come wanting a business degree and end up doing campus ministry. Some come because their parents see us as a reform school – and end up being transformed by the community that makes up this campus as it lives out the Jesus story in inviting fashion. Some come thinking that they want to be in vocational ministry, only to discover they really aren’t wired for that and can more effectively serve God is some other vocational choice. Thank God the broader approach to education gives them that option!
It really is about mission – not style of education. If Christian colleges should have embedded in their reason for existence the desire to transform the world – then Point University is on mission!
06 July 2011
Skubalon
Our sexual nature is – to say the minimum – complicated. If we want to cast blame for that reality – and I’m not suggesting we should – we have to blame God. He, after all, is the One who made us “male and female.” We’ve been confused about what that reality means for most of human history.
It shouldn’t be too surprising that the history of humankind is littered with story after story, describing our sexual identity, behavior, and morality. We don’t have to look beyond the text of Scripture itself to see these brutal but real phenomena. From Abraham’s dishonesty about the role Sarah plays in his life to Solomon’s innumerable wives and concubines, with David’s indiscretion tucked between, the very heroes of the Hebrew Bible seem to battle their sexual identity, behavior, and morality regularly.
What has always seemed a bit odd to me in all of this is that it is so easy to be unmoving and unforgiving about the sexual discretions of those whose behavior is different (we think worse) than ours, but completely understanding of what is more “normal,” which mostly means is something we either have done or people we know and love have done.
As clear evidence of that, think about the current trend among conservative Christians to promote some sort of legal definition of marriage that is clearly a “one man, one woman” definition. At the heart of those trends is a level of discomfort with homosexual behavior, and the idea that a legal definition of marriage will at least be a way of “taking a stand.”
I’m very comfortable thinking that marriage is, as intended by God, “one man and one woman.” But I’m not sure, if we are serious about taking a stand for God, that such a definition of marriage is adequate. Shouldn’t we add “committed to each other for life?” Jesus Himself said that God “permitted” divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, not because it could be included in the definition of a biblical marriage. That we never hear that from those who would have believers join forces and manipulate the federal or state governments we live under to include the idea that marriage is “one man, one woman, one time” in the definition, seems to suggest that our concerns here are more in the context of anti-homosexual behavior than they are “defense of marriage.”
Oddly, we tend to ignore what Jesus Himself said about divorce and remarriage, while making an issue out of something to which He never directly speaks. In case you’re wondering, I know about the “exception clause” in Matthew and I know about the comments in Romans 1 Paul makes about homosexual behavior. I’ve read and studied Paul’s comments about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and his seeming option to remarry because an unbelieving spouse leaves his or her partner later in that chapter. I’m neither attempting to suggest that a divorced and remarried person isn’t fit for the kingdom, nor am I attempting to suggest that homosexual behavior is an acceptable approach to our sexual natures.
It just seems a bit more complicated than getting the church to sign petitions, pass ballot initiatives, and outlaw any kind of marriage that isn’t “one man and one woman.” How is it that we are relatively comfortable with what often is a kind of “serial polygamy” approach to divorce and remarriage, but unbending on homosexual behavior? Again, no attempt here to throw divorced and remarried people out of the church, or to merely wink at homosexual behavior as acceptable.
But, if we are going to decide that some state or federal law can save the world if we can get a “defense of marriage proposal” made into law, then shouldn’t we aim for it to be a reflection of God’s ideal, and not our own cultural, religious version of God’s ideal? And while I’m at it, what in the world makes us think that a law passed by a state legislature or the federal congress can actually accomplish God’s ideal in the first place? For crying out loud, God gave Israel some rather direct laws, and it was still necessary for Jesus to come and redeem us. Can we somehow outdo God here?
Vicki and I have been married to each other for almost 38 years. We have been absolutely faithful to each other for those nearly 38 years and I don’t see that changing. We are “legally married,” and have the Florida marriage certificate to prove it. But that legal document has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to be a faithful husband to her. I promised God, her, my family, and a church full of friends that I would be faithful until death parted us. No piece of paper signed by a probate court judge could ever trump that promise.
Sometime I hear people trying to define “sexual immorality” in all sorts of ways. Of course things like adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, and the like get on the list. But when it comes to our sexual natures, humans are far too creative for there to be a list which covers it all. It seems to me that a better approach is that we define “sexual morality.” That’s easier, shorter, and less likely to be misunderstood.
It is this simple: sexual morality is either a healthy, fulfilling, loving relationship between one man and one woman committed to each other for life; or a life of celibacy. That really is God’s ideal. I have to wonder what difference it would make if followers of Jesus were better known for proclaiming God’s ideals on the subject than people who pick and choose from the list of immoral behaviors. If I were gay and thinking about the whole following Jesus thing, I’m pretty confident some preacher type would have to answer my question about why my particular sexual misbehavior was worthy of exclusion, but other kinds of sexual misbehavior weren’t.
In 1 Corinthians 5, the chapter in Paul’s epistles that addresses the most egregious kind of sexual misconduct (“of a kind that is not tolerated even among the pagans” 5:1), Paul makes it clear that his concern is not that the Corinthian believers isolate themselves for sexually immoral people in the world, but that sexual misbehavior not be accepted among believers. (5:9-13) Unless I’ve completely misread those words, his point seems to be that the church has no right to demand that non-believers abide by our values. There is a sense in which it seems that to do so gets it backwards. Clearly some of the believers at Corinth had interesting pedigrees – spiritually speaking. (6:9-11)
Paul has a kind of confidence in the Christian gospel that suggests any life can be changed. “Such were some of you” (6:11) leaves no doubt. But unless we find a way to engage sinners – homosexuals and heterosexuals who haven’t lived up to God’s ideals – we will never know whether or not the gospel has that power. We won’t even have a chance to declare it.
It shouldn’t be too surprising that the history of humankind is littered with story after story, describing our sexual identity, behavior, and morality. We don’t have to look beyond the text of Scripture itself to see these brutal but real phenomena. From Abraham’s dishonesty about the role Sarah plays in his life to Solomon’s innumerable wives and concubines, with David’s indiscretion tucked between, the very heroes of the Hebrew Bible seem to battle their sexual identity, behavior, and morality regularly.
What has always seemed a bit odd to me in all of this is that it is so easy to be unmoving and unforgiving about the sexual discretions of those whose behavior is different (we think worse) than ours, but completely understanding of what is more “normal,” which mostly means is something we either have done or people we know and love have done.
As clear evidence of that, think about the current trend among conservative Christians to promote some sort of legal definition of marriage that is clearly a “one man, one woman” definition. At the heart of those trends is a level of discomfort with homosexual behavior, and the idea that a legal definition of marriage will at least be a way of “taking a stand.”
I’m very comfortable thinking that marriage is, as intended by God, “one man and one woman.” But I’m not sure, if we are serious about taking a stand for God, that such a definition of marriage is adequate. Shouldn’t we add “committed to each other for life?” Jesus Himself said that God “permitted” divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, not because it could be included in the definition of a biblical marriage. That we never hear that from those who would have believers join forces and manipulate the federal or state governments we live under to include the idea that marriage is “one man, one woman, one time” in the definition, seems to suggest that our concerns here are more in the context of anti-homosexual behavior than they are “defense of marriage.”
Oddly, we tend to ignore what Jesus Himself said about divorce and remarriage, while making an issue out of something to which He never directly speaks. In case you’re wondering, I know about the “exception clause” in Matthew and I know about the comments in Romans 1 Paul makes about homosexual behavior. I’ve read and studied Paul’s comments about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and his seeming option to remarry because an unbelieving spouse leaves his or her partner later in that chapter. I’m neither attempting to suggest that a divorced and remarried person isn’t fit for the kingdom, nor am I attempting to suggest that homosexual behavior is an acceptable approach to our sexual natures.
It just seems a bit more complicated than getting the church to sign petitions, pass ballot initiatives, and outlaw any kind of marriage that isn’t “one man and one woman.” How is it that we are relatively comfortable with what often is a kind of “serial polygamy” approach to divorce and remarriage, but unbending on homosexual behavior? Again, no attempt here to throw divorced and remarried people out of the church, or to merely wink at homosexual behavior as acceptable.
But, if we are going to decide that some state or federal law can save the world if we can get a “defense of marriage proposal” made into law, then shouldn’t we aim for it to be a reflection of God’s ideal, and not our own cultural, religious version of God’s ideal? And while I’m at it, what in the world makes us think that a law passed by a state legislature or the federal congress can actually accomplish God’s ideal in the first place? For crying out loud, God gave Israel some rather direct laws, and it was still necessary for Jesus to come and redeem us. Can we somehow outdo God here?
Vicki and I have been married to each other for almost 38 years. We have been absolutely faithful to each other for those nearly 38 years and I don’t see that changing. We are “legally married,” and have the Florida marriage certificate to prove it. But that legal document has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to be a faithful husband to her. I promised God, her, my family, and a church full of friends that I would be faithful until death parted us. No piece of paper signed by a probate court judge could ever trump that promise.
Sometime I hear people trying to define “sexual immorality” in all sorts of ways. Of course things like adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, and the like get on the list. But when it comes to our sexual natures, humans are far too creative for there to be a list which covers it all. It seems to me that a better approach is that we define “sexual morality.” That’s easier, shorter, and less likely to be misunderstood.
It is this simple: sexual morality is either a healthy, fulfilling, loving relationship between one man and one woman committed to each other for life; or a life of celibacy. That really is God’s ideal. I have to wonder what difference it would make if followers of Jesus were better known for proclaiming God’s ideals on the subject than people who pick and choose from the list of immoral behaviors. If I were gay and thinking about the whole following Jesus thing, I’m pretty confident some preacher type would have to answer my question about why my particular sexual misbehavior was worthy of exclusion, but other kinds of sexual misbehavior weren’t.
In 1 Corinthians 5, the chapter in Paul’s epistles that addresses the most egregious kind of sexual misconduct (“of a kind that is not tolerated even among the pagans” 5:1), Paul makes it clear that his concern is not that the Corinthian believers isolate themselves for sexually immoral people in the world, but that sexual misbehavior not be accepted among believers. (5:9-13) Unless I’ve completely misread those words, his point seems to be that the church has no right to demand that non-believers abide by our values. There is a sense in which it seems that to do so gets it backwards. Clearly some of the believers at Corinth had interesting pedigrees – spiritually speaking. (6:9-11)
Paul has a kind of confidence in the Christian gospel that suggests any life can be changed. “Such were some of you” (6:11) leaves no doubt. But unless we find a way to engage sinners – homosexuals and heterosexuals who haven’t lived up to God’s ideals – we will never know whether or not the gospel has that power. We won’t even have a chance to declare it.
29 June 2011
As It Was Meant to Be
In his intriguing commentary on the current state of Christianity, Gabe Lyons, in The Next Christians, makes this statement: “I call them restorers because they envision the world as it was meant to be and they work toward that vision.” (Kindle, locations 672-90)
When the Bible is read holistically, as opposed to the very-segmented way it is often read, the idea that God created us to live in community – loving Him and loving one another – rises to the surface as one of the fundamental truths the Bible reveals. After all, it was God Himself who declared, as He observed Adam in the garden all alone, “It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18) The rest of the Bible’s story might easily be described as God’s pursuit of that ideal for His creatures. No wonder Jesus would declare that if we can work out a way to love God and love our neighbor – we have figured out what God intended for us at creation.
The kinds of Christians Lyons describes as restorers, have learned that truth. They see the brokenness in the world – both in creation and creatures – and believe that God is calling His people to help mend that brokenness at every level and in every way possible.
Such an attitude reminds me of another saying of Jesus. It comes from the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:16. “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works, and give glory to your Father in heaven.” Could it be that our most powerful witness, our most effective way of influencing the world for Christ is in our work of “mending that brokenness at every level and in every way possible?”
If I break something of little value, there is no real motivation to mend it. If I break something that really doesn’t belong to anyone, there is no real motivation to mend it. But, when I break something that does have value, or does clearly belong to someone, then I automatically think I should fix whatever it is that I have broken.
Restorers seem to get that. They recognize that the creation and His creatures have great value. They understand that “the earth is the Lord’s . . .” and know that it truly belongs to someone. It might motivate us all to become better “menders” of the brokenness around us if we reminded ourselves occasionally of the great value of this creation and that, when all is said and done, it really does belong to God.
It is in that understanding of Scripture, read holistically and purposefully, that we can begin to see the world as it was meant to be. When we begin to see that – we have all the motivation we need to find ourselves mending broken things and broken people.
When the Bible is read holistically, as opposed to the very-segmented way it is often read, the idea that God created us to live in community – loving Him and loving one another – rises to the surface as one of the fundamental truths the Bible reveals. After all, it was God Himself who declared, as He observed Adam in the garden all alone, “It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18) The rest of the Bible’s story might easily be described as God’s pursuit of that ideal for His creatures. No wonder Jesus would declare that if we can work out a way to love God and love our neighbor – we have figured out what God intended for us at creation.
The kinds of Christians Lyons describes as restorers, have learned that truth. They see the brokenness in the world – both in creation and creatures – and believe that God is calling His people to help mend that brokenness at every level and in every way possible.
Such an attitude reminds me of another saying of Jesus. It comes from the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:16. “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works, and give glory to your Father in heaven.” Could it be that our most powerful witness, our most effective way of influencing the world for Christ is in our work of “mending that brokenness at every level and in every way possible?”
If I break something of little value, there is no real motivation to mend it. If I break something that really doesn’t belong to anyone, there is no real motivation to mend it. But, when I break something that does have value, or does clearly belong to someone, then I automatically think I should fix whatever it is that I have broken.
Restorers seem to get that. They recognize that the creation and His creatures have great value. They understand that “the earth is the Lord’s . . .” and know that it truly belongs to someone. It might motivate us all to become better “menders” of the brokenness around us if we reminded ourselves occasionally of the great value of this creation and that, when all is said and done, it really does belong to God.
It is in that understanding of Scripture, read holistically and purposefully, that we can begin to see the world as it was meant to be. When we begin to see that – we have all the motivation we need to find ourselves mending broken things and broken people.
15 June 2011
Back at You
Never one to shy away from those in-your-face moments, Jesus seems unwilling to let those who come to Him with questions get away with their own silliness. A great example is found in the opening verses of Matthew 15 where Jesus is asked a question about His followers. “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?” (15:2, NRSV)
One might expect that Jesus would launch immediately into a discussion of the difference between tradition and Scripture, but before He ever gets to that idea, He returns a question for a question. He says to them, “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (15:3)
The fact that their question has to do with “your disciples,” that is, they don’t say, “Why do you break the tradition of the elders?” probably suggests that at the heart of their question is the accusation against Jesus that He is teaching His disciples to break these traditions. The question probably isn’t just a complaint about an occasional lapse of judgment where tradition is ignored, but a more systemic approach to tradition that says it is unimportant.
Rather than defending His disciples, which is perhaps what the Pharisees wanted, Jesus turns the question on them. Using the same verb for “to break,” (which is found only in this text and Acts 1:25 in the entire New Testament) Jesus answers them by asking, “Why do you break the commandment of God in order to keep your ancient traditions?”
This is “back at you” at its best! They are now backed into a corner of sorts – where they will need to explain how they could possibly view human tradition at a higher level of authority than the commandment of God. It is interesting that Jesus says “commandment” in the singular, not plural. Perhaps their idolatry of tradition has trumped the entire message from God.
It isn’t too difficult to find a kind of convicting spirit in this text. Convicting not just of the Pharisees who asked the question, but convicting of us as we look at our own lives. Where are we guilty of letting tradition get in the way of obeying God? It is so easy to confuse “tradition” and “doctrine” that we probably don’t even think about it in the ways that we should.
This is close to the point of the story of the Good Samaritan. Remember that in answering the “who is your neighbor?” question, Jesus has two very religious people avoid doing what godly people should have done. This is pretty much in the name of their traditions over the commandment to love your neighbor.
I have to wonder a bit, about my own life – that’s the only one for which I can answer. How often do I miss out on opportunities to love God and love neighbor because I’m keeping tradition that has little or nothing to do with either of the great commandments. Not unlike the Pharisees, we can easily slip into our self-assigned roles as judge and jury and be condemning of those who aren’t quite so impressed with our “tradition” and appear, from our vantage point, to be unworthy of the name, Christian.
Of course, there is a sense in which the idea of tradition has an important place in our lives. But, whatever that place is, and especially when by tradition we tend to mean traditional, it cannot be allowed to get in the way of obeying God!
One might expect that Jesus would launch immediately into a discussion of the difference between tradition and Scripture, but before He ever gets to that idea, He returns a question for a question. He says to them, “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (15:3)
The fact that their question has to do with “your disciples,” that is, they don’t say, “Why do you break the tradition of the elders?” probably suggests that at the heart of their question is the accusation against Jesus that He is teaching His disciples to break these traditions. The question probably isn’t just a complaint about an occasional lapse of judgment where tradition is ignored, but a more systemic approach to tradition that says it is unimportant.
Rather than defending His disciples, which is perhaps what the Pharisees wanted, Jesus turns the question on them. Using the same verb for “to break,” (which is found only in this text and Acts 1:25 in the entire New Testament) Jesus answers them by asking, “Why do you break the commandment of God in order to keep your ancient traditions?”
This is “back at you” at its best! They are now backed into a corner of sorts – where they will need to explain how they could possibly view human tradition at a higher level of authority than the commandment of God. It is interesting that Jesus says “commandment” in the singular, not plural. Perhaps their idolatry of tradition has trumped the entire message from God.
It isn’t too difficult to find a kind of convicting spirit in this text. Convicting not just of the Pharisees who asked the question, but convicting of us as we look at our own lives. Where are we guilty of letting tradition get in the way of obeying God? It is so easy to confuse “tradition” and “doctrine” that we probably don’t even think about it in the ways that we should.
This is close to the point of the story of the Good Samaritan. Remember that in answering the “who is your neighbor?” question, Jesus has two very religious people avoid doing what godly people should have done. This is pretty much in the name of their traditions over the commandment to love your neighbor.
I have to wonder a bit, about my own life – that’s the only one for which I can answer. How often do I miss out on opportunities to love God and love neighbor because I’m keeping tradition that has little or nothing to do with either of the great commandments. Not unlike the Pharisees, we can easily slip into our self-assigned roles as judge and jury and be condemning of those who aren’t quite so impressed with our “tradition” and appear, from our vantage point, to be unworthy of the name, Christian.
Of course, there is a sense in which the idea of tradition has an important place in our lives. But, whatever that place is, and especially when by tradition we tend to mean traditional, it cannot be allowed to get in the way of obeying God!
08 June 2011
Somebody Has to Say Something
I tend to listen to way too much talk radio driving to and from work, church, and other places. I actually changed the radio in my car so I could use my iPod to listen to either music of choice – The Cotton Patch Gospel music comes to mind – or Tim Keller podcasts or audio books. My talk radio tastes range from news programming (Scott Slade on WSB in the mornings) to the want-to-be sports guys on 680 the Fan (especially Braves programming) to an occasional Neal Boortz (at least he knows and admits that he is primarily an entertainer).
Because the best traffic information in Atlanta tends to be on “WSB AM 750 and now 95.5 FM,” I sometimes am forced by circumstances to listen to Sean Hannity in the late afternoon drive time routine. A little of that goes a long way! It isn’t so much about politics as it is the hypocrisy that always noses itself in when arrogant and under-educated people have an unchallenged platform. Even when the political opinions he expresses are similar to mine, he does so in such bombastic, rude, and quite frankly, un-Christian fashion, that I think “I’ll vote the other way!”
But even that isn’t the most egregious part of his routine. Have you noticed, if you dare admit you’ve listened, that he tends to refer to the current White House occupant as “the anointed one.” I admit that I’m not the smartest theological mind in the world, but I’m fairly confident that the phrase “the anointed one” is a reasonably good translation of the Hebrew word Messiah and the Greek word Christ. One would be hard pressed to find more sacred names for Jews and Christians than Messiah and Christ. Yet Hannity, who constantly reminds his listeners that he is a Christian and espouses what he would define as Christian values and even occasionally sits as an interpreter of Christian Scripture – routinely and callously uses the sacred name of Jesus of Nazareth as an epithet for a president he doesn’t like. That his audience – at least if the callers are indicative and the political demographics are reliable – is made up of conservative Christian listeners and he gets away almost daily profanely using the name of our Christ just makes no sense at all.
But that’s not all. A frequent line he uses – especially when he assumes the role of "the great answer giver of all time" – comes straight out of the mouth of Jesus. “Let not your heart be troubled.” Those are words, I’m sure you know, that Jesus used on the Thursday night before His crucifixion while in the upper room with His disciples. How many Christian funerals have we attended where those words were quoted as offering comfort to grieving loved ones? At what must have been the most difficult moment yet in His life and ministry, Jesus offered words of comfort to the twelve men gathered with Him that night, a night in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. Yet Hannity flippantly throws out “Let not your heart be troubled” whenever he seems to think that his answer solves the world’s or our nation’s political conflicts.
How ironic that as he uses “the anointed one” as a pejorative title for the President of the United States, he himself capriciously uses the words of the One who proclaimed that He and He alone was Christ.
The obvious fact that Christians are Hannity’s biggest fans and allow such violation of the third command (You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Exodus 20:7, NIV) probably speaks more prophetically to those of us who call ourselves Christians than it does to Hannity. It at least means that we have valued political opinion over the Kingdom of God. I know we don’t intend to say that, but I just don’t know how else to see it.
Perhaps I can start a movement – Christians who don’t tolerate violating God’s name – even when it that means disagreeing with our political favorites!
Then there's Glen Beck . . .
Because the best traffic information in Atlanta tends to be on “WSB AM 750 and now 95.5 FM,” I sometimes am forced by circumstances to listen to Sean Hannity in the late afternoon drive time routine. A little of that goes a long way! It isn’t so much about politics as it is the hypocrisy that always noses itself in when arrogant and under-educated people have an unchallenged platform. Even when the political opinions he expresses are similar to mine, he does so in such bombastic, rude, and quite frankly, un-Christian fashion, that I think “I’ll vote the other way!”
But even that isn’t the most egregious part of his routine. Have you noticed, if you dare admit you’ve listened, that he tends to refer to the current White House occupant as “the anointed one.” I admit that I’m not the smartest theological mind in the world, but I’m fairly confident that the phrase “the anointed one” is a reasonably good translation of the Hebrew word Messiah and the Greek word Christ. One would be hard pressed to find more sacred names for Jews and Christians than Messiah and Christ. Yet Hannity, who constantly reminds his listeners that he is a Christian and espouses what he would define as Christian values and even occasionally sits as an interpreter of Christian Scripture – routinely and callously uses the sacred name of Jesus of Nazareth as an epithet for a president he doesn’t like. That his audience – at least if the callers are indicative and the political demographics are reliable – is made up of conservative Christian listeners and he gets away almost daily profanely using the name of our Christ just makes no sense at all.
But that’s not all. A frequent line he uses – especially when he assumes the role of "the great answer giver of all time" – comes straight out of the mouth of Jesus. “Let not your heart be troubled.” Those are words, I’m sure you know, that Jesus used on the Thursday night before His crucifixion while in the upper room with His disciples. How many Christian funerals have we attended where those words were quoted as offering comfort to grieving loved ones? At what must have been the most difficult moment yet in His life and ministry, Jesus offered words of comfort to the twelve men gathered with Him that night, a night in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. Yet Hannity flippantly throws out “Let not your heart be troubled” whenever he seems to think that his answer solves the world’s or our nation’s political conflicts.
How ironic that as he uses “the anointed one” as a pejorative title for the President of the United States, he himself capriciously uses the words of the One who proclaimed that He and He alone was Christ.
The obvious fact that Christians are Hannity’s biggest fans and allow such violation of the third command (You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Exodus 20:7, NIV) probably speaks more prophetically to those of us who call ourselves Christians than it does to Hannity. It at least means that we have valued political opinion over the Kingdom of God. I know we don’t intend to say that, but I just don’t know how else to see it.
Perhaps I can start a movement – Christians who don’t tolerate violating God’s name – even when it that means disagreeing with our political favorites!
Then there's Glen Beck . . .
01 June 2011
The Newness of Our Gospel
Abraham Lincoln, in his annual message to Congress in 1862, said “As our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.” Those words were said in the midst of a nation struggling with identity. At some level, that is what the nation would eventually look like.
When I think about “church” in our culture, it seems to be that at every turn, churches are “struggling with identity” and trying to determine what it “will eventually look like.” There is no doubt that because our world changes so rapidly, we have to find a new way to make our case to those outsiders we seek to bring inside. We must learn to think differently about how that best happens and our response to that thinking will have to be “new.”
Jesus addressed issues like this when He declared, “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.” (Mark 3:21-22, NIV) It makes me wonder if Lincoln might have read a little of Mark before writing his speech! “Our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.”
The challenge of “new” never goes away. Human culture is never very stationary, though often in the subculture of individual congregations, culture gets very stationary. Leonard Sweet, a professor at Drew University, would argue that, in the case of the church educating ministry leaders, we easily get stationary and don’t think “anew.” An op-ed piece in the 27 April 2011 New York Times, written by a religion professor at Columbia University, says “Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market.” In other words – no one is thinking “anew.”
Gabe Lyons, in The Next Christians, boldly suggests that the future of the witness of the church in our world will demand the kind of thinking that focuses on “how things ought to be” and not “how things are.” In other words, if we keep putting the “fermenting gospel of Jesus” into the old forms and models, it inevitably will “burst the old skins and both will be wasted.”
I wish I were smart enough to be able to know exactly what “thinking anew and acting anew” looks like. If I were, I’d be writing these devotionals from a remote island beach setting, living on my book royalties! But I am smart enough to know this: if we keep failing to realize that we live in a very “anew world” and keep failing to realize that the gospel we believe is “ever anew,” then we will never change and transform the world.
May God help us to realize, as even Lincoln did, “Our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.”
When I think about “church” in our culture, it seems to be that at every turn, churches are “struggling with identity” and trying to determine what it “will eventually look like.” There is no doubt that because our world changes so rapidly, we have to find a new way to make our case to those outsiders we seek to bring inside. We must learn to think differently about how that best happens and our response to that thinking will have to be “new.”
Jesus addressed issues like this when He declared, “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.” (Mark 3:21-22, NIV) It makes me wonder if Lincoln might have read a little of Mark before writing his speech! “Our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.”
The challenge of “new” never goes away. Human culture is never very stationary, though often in the subculture of individual congregations, culture gets very stationary. Leonard Sweet, a professor at Drew University, would argue that, in the case of the church educating ministry leaders, we easily get stationary and don’t think “anew.” An op-ed piece in the 27 April 2011 New York Times, written by a religion professor at Columbia University, says “Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market.” In other words – no one is thinking “anew.”
Gabe Lyons, in The Next Christians, boldly suggests that the future of the witness of the church in our world will demand the kind of thinking that focuses on “how things ought to be” and not “how things are.” In other words, if we keep putting the “fermenting gospel of Jesus” into the old forms and models, it inevitably will “burst the old skins and both will be wasted.”
I wish I were smart enough to be able to know exactly what “thinking anew and acting anew” looks like. If I were, I’d be writing these devotionals from a remote island beach setting, living on my book royalties! But I am smart enough to know this: if we keep failing to realize that we live in a very “anew world” and keep failing to realize that the gospel we believe is “ever anew,” then we will never change and transform the world.
May God help us to realize, as even Lincoln did, “Our case is new, we must think anew, and act anew.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)