Let me make this perfectly unclear: the new words of Jesus

Of late, my faith, my pilgrimage, seems to have been taking me in the general direction of creativity and imagination. I am starting to awaken to the realization that much of the journey of faith absolutely must involve imagination. Without it, we dry up. We wither.

Creativity is not the artist’s luxury. Pilgrimage is about movement and courage, but it must also cultivate imagination, stimulate. If a pilgrim of faith only moves, only works, then the aches and pains of the journey become our pre-occupation, and it’s easy to become bitter or to just settle down and take it easy.

In my previous post, I discussed the creative writing class that Tamie and I co-teach. We want to coax and/or challenge our students to break out of conventional language (clichés, vague writing, the received stories about yourself/others/the world). We want them to write something new. We want them to break out of convention: use new words, explore new language, tell a new story. Last week a young woman broke down into tears while I was chatting with her at the end of class. She desperately wants out of her narrative, the story that she always screws things up. The guards comes to take her back to her cage. She has to quickly wipe away her tears.

I want to transition these ideas about imagination into a discussion regarding theology and faith. What happens when the language of theology becomes fossilized? What happens when the language we use to describe faith hardens? It’s like crusty old bread that has lost its soft, moist texture.

Jesus, as it so happens, was the just the sort of chap who used new language and challenged old, prevailing assumptions. (Something about new wineskins for new wine.) Of course he did. We all know this. Yet I am wondering if there isn’t something more fundamental to be learned. Is it Jesus’ message that we should be concerned about? Or should we be imitating Jesus’ approach? Put another way, should we be concerned that we get all of the details correct when it comes to “what-Jesus-taught,” or did Jesus pass on to us a way of being-in-the-world, a way of using new language to break out of the conventional clichés that lock us into cliché lives.

Put another way, in a more universal sense, is spiritual liberation found in repeating, reciting, and reusing the words of old? Or is liberation a freedom to create and imagine new possibilities?

There is an extended passage in the Gospel of John that has many words about words, and words about Jesus’ words, and words about the words that others worded about Jesus’ words. I am thinking specifically about chapter six.

Jesus is drawing crowds.
Jesus tells the crowds that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The crowd responds with a collective “Whoooooah!” “This is a difficult word, who is able to hear it?” (v. 60)
Jesus responds: “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (v. 63)
Many split the scene. After all, cannibalism ain’t kosher.
Jesus turns to the twelve. His amigos. His homies. “Will you stay or will you go?”
Peter speaks for them all: “You have the words (rhemata) of eternal life” (v. 68)

The crowd responds that Jesus words were “hard/difficult” (skleyros) to understand. Some commentators suggest that the crowd understood Jesus, that is they comprehended him, they just couldn’t accept the word of Jesus. I agree with the commentator (Craig S. Keener) who agrees that the term here generally connotes something that is difficult to accept, “Nevertheless, it was hard to accept because they misunderstood it, as is characteristic of those who hear Jesus without faith…Even his disciples did not always understand initially, but they would in the end because they persevered.” (p. 693)

Jesus was of the tradition of those who throw a monkey wrench into convention language and disrupt our lives when our way of being becomes stale and stagnant. “Jewish sages, like other ancient Mediterranean sages, often spoke in riddles; the historical Jesus, like other Palestinian Jewish sages, employed parables.” (Keener, 692)

Jesus used words to do different kinds of things, to imagine new possibilities. But notice that Jesus forced his audience to engage their hearts/souls/minds to the point that they were baffled. He deliberately convoluted his message. This is very different from much of the contemporary creativity of the techno-savy church crowd. For so many, the lights, the cameras, the sound equipment, and the three point sermons are all meant to be as clear as possible about "the message." But Jesus' point was never primarily to deliver a message. It was to disturb our messages, it was to displace our conventional language so that we are pushed to the breaking point. Once we have come to the end of our selves, once our received paradigms completely fail, that's when we can start to engage our imagination. So much money is being invested to clarify. Jesus came to un-clarify, to challenge all that we thought was clear, and in doing this, Jesus seems to activate something deeper within.

But as I said, it is not in dispute that Jesus broke paradigms with his imaginative use of language. The real question for so many of his 21st century followers is whether his example should be followed. And this is no small question because so much of religion is built on Jesus’ language as the foundation. That is, Jesus’ words are used as the basis for doctrine or for practice, but Jesus’ use of imagination and creativity is often not the basis of faith. Jesus' methods of using language to break paradigms, well, this was just Jesus' crazy way. It was a means to an end. But should it be an end in itself?

Could following Jesus be construed along the lines of following our imagination? Can we hold to the words of Jesus and completely miss the point by failing to engage Jesus’ example of imagination?

Are we to follow the example of Christ and be creators of new language? Like Jesus, to create new language and push ourselves to the brink? Is that why Jesus never wrote his teachings down, because he expected those who came after him to build on his work of creativity? Why does the Gospel of John, in the famous and poetic prologue, allude to Genesis 1 and the creation? The Logos was creating with God in the beginning.

Jesus left the world, when presumably he could have stuck around for a while, but he handed on his work of imagination to his disciples and those who would follow them. Ah, but Jesus did leave a replacement….but a replacement who was even more tricky in her use of language: the paraclete (the comforter, or Holy Ghost), who contorts language even sometimes beyond recognition. The book of Acts describes the Spirit as moving people to speak in languages not their own, the languages of others.

My suggestion here is not that the words of Jesus are unimportant. I am merely speculating that if these words are not combined with imagination, then they can easily become lifeless. What is more, if we look closely we may see that our received interpretation of the words of Jesus, the interpretation handed down to us, may be unimaginative and uninspiring.

What seems to be missing in so much of faith and theology is creativity. We must not merely possess the words of Jesus, we must ignite our imaginative souls. Jesus not only passed along words, he also left us with an example of how to use language in a dynamic way, to retell our worn out stories, to challenge prevailing authorities who use religion and power to oppress, to break out of the conventional clichés that lock us into cliché lives.

“Ye must be born again.”

In the Beginning

I found some interesting quotes at James's blog on John H. Walton's The Lost World of Genesis 1. I have not read the book, but the following are a list of ideas that I thought were interesting.


The place of humanity in the cosmos:

"It has already been mentioned that whereas in the rest of the ancient world creation was set up to serve the gods, a theocentric view, in Genesis, creation is not set up for the benefit of God but for the benefit of humanity—an anthropocentric view. Thus we can say that humanity is the climax of the creation account. Another contrast between Genesis and the rest of the ancient Near East is that in the ancient Near East people are created to serve the gods by supplying their needs. That is, the role of people is to bring all of creation to deity—the focus is from insde creation out to the gods. In Genesis people represent God to the rest of creation. So the focus moves from the divine realm, through people, to the world around them."—The Lost World of Genesis One, page 69 [Taken from http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2009/06/focus-of-creation-is.html]

"In the ancient Near East people were created as slaves to the gods. The world was created by the gods for the gods, and people met the needs of the gods. In the Bible God has no needs, and his cosmic temple has been created for people whom he desires to be in relationship with him. In modern materialism people are nothing but physical forms having no function other than to survive. The theology of Genesis 1 is crucial to a right understanding of our identity and our place in the world."—The Lost World of Genesis One, page 149 [Quote taken from http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/humanitys-role-in-world.html]

My thoughts: I have heard preachers who preach quite passionately about how important it is to have a "theocentric view" as opposed to an "anthropocentric view." The Westminster Confession claims that man was created to glorify God and enjoy him forever. But I think I take issue with the dichotomy between "theocentric" and "anthropocentric." If one views God as an imminent part of creation, as the New Testament certainly does (God is "in all," and "through all," etc.), then the point is not to find out who is at the center. Rather, the whole cosmos is interdependent. This seems to fit the entirety of the biblical texts, which do not place humanity or God on the throne, but present a narrative of God and human beings interacting together. Each move effects the other.

On a modern, scientific approach to life:

“Our scientific worldview has gradually worked God out of the practical ways in which we think about our world. When science can offer explanation for so much of what we see and experience, it is easy for our awareness of God's role to drift to the periphery. It is not that we believe any less that he is active, it is just that we are not as conscious of his role. The result is a practical (if not philosophical) deism in which God is removed from the arena of operations.

“In contrast, when God's work is fully integrated with our scientific worldview and science is seen to give definition to what God is doing and how he is doing it, we regain a more biblical perspective of the work—a perspective that is theologically healthier.”—The Lost World of Genesis One, page 143 [Taken from http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/gods-role-in-world.html]

On Genesis being an account of functional origins, not material origins:

“Unless people (or gods) are there to benefit from functions, existence is not achieved. Unless something is integrated into a working, ordered system, it does not exist. Consequently, the actual crative act is to assign something its functioning role in the ordered system. That is what brings it into existence. Of course something must have physical properties before it can be given its function, but the critical question is, what stage is defined as 'creation.'

“In the ancient world they were not ignorant of the senses and the level at which objects could be perceived by the senses. They wold have no difficulty understanding the physical nature of objects. The question here concerns not what they perceived but what they gave significance to...our ontology focuses on what we believe to be most significant. In the ancient world, what was most crucial and significant to their understanding of existence was the way that parts of the cosmos functioned, not their material status.”John Walton in —The Lost World of Genesis One, 27-28 [Taken from http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-constitutes-creation.html]

"Concordist approaches, day-age readings, literary or theological interpretation all struggle with the same basic problem. They are still working with the premise that Genesis 1 is an account of material origins for an audience that has a material ontology. Modern inability to think in any other way has resulted in recourse to all of this variety of attempts to make the text tolerable to our scientific naturalism and materialism."—The Lost World of Genesis One, pages 106-107 [Quote taken from http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-thoughts-on-genesis-1.html]

"...This book has proposed, instead, that Genesis 1 was never intended to offer an account of material origins and that the original author and audience did not view it that way. In fact, the material cosmos was of little significance to them when it came to questions of origins. In this view, science cannot offer an unbiblical view of material origins, because there is no biblical view of material origins aside from the very general idea that whatever happened, whenever it happened, and however it happened, God did it."—The Lost World of Genesis One, page 113 [Quote taken from http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-thoughts-on-genesis-1.html]

Doyle's Meaning/Language Approach:

Our friend, John Doyle at ktismatics has been writing, researching, and blogging about a theory similar to the above "functional" creation account. John suggests that God is actually creating something in Genesis 1, but the point of the narrative is not to suggest that God is creating physical material--that's just not the intention of the text. Rather, the text is showing us that God is creating meaning, linguistically marking off what is what. It makes sense then, that as text moves along God will hand off this task to the man he created: I've shown you how to create meaning with language, now it's your turn.

That's Doyle's approach, in a very small nutshell. I'll let him flesh it out a bit more, if he has a few extra moments.

I like the "functional" creation account and I like the "meaning" creation account. I think they both get us closer to the intention of the text, which is not to convey the creation of matter (as we think of it in our Modern scientific mindset), but the creation of something eve more profound: meaning, language, function. That, like God, we have the ability to create the linguistic meaning and parameters of our world.

Thoughts?

For more on Doyle's approach see the following links:
Maybe the Witness is Me
The Mythic Truth
Does Genesis Qualify as True Myth? (Cf. True Myth--5 interpretations)
Original Sin Reinterpreted

Did God write the Bible?

Or, perhaps more to the point, Should we call God an "author" of the Scriptures?

Yes, that's a much better question.

Interestingly, enough, while many conservative Christians here in the U.S. of A. would adamantly affirm that God authored the Bible, the Bible itself doesn't really seem concerned to make the point. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is never a statement that identifies God as "author" of the Scriptures.

I remember a few years back in one of my seminary classes (at a very conservative seminary), we were in the midst of a class discussion. Someone referred to God as the "author" of Scripture. So, I casually asked the question, "Is God the author of Scripture." The class (including the Prof.) started laughing; they thought I was provided dry comedy relief, in the distinctive Erdman style. However, they quickly realized I was, in fact serious, and we continued with the discussion for only a short while longer. Most in the classroom quite obviously hadn't considered whether God should be considered an "author" of the Bible.

"But what about 2 Timothy 3:16, Jon!??! What about it??!! Huh! Huh!"

Yes, good friend. 2 Timothy states that all Scripture is theopneustos, meaning "God-breathed." So, what does that mean? Well, honestly, it isn't clear! This is the only instance the term theopneustos is used in the New Testament. It is obviously a metaphor, but a metaphor for what? Authorship? I don't know. I'm not convinced. That all Scripture contains a "breath" of God is one thing...to say that this means God had a hand in the writing process. I don't, friend. Should we stretch the term "breath" and look for an exhaustive definition? Or should we simply appreciate the ambiguity of a good metaphor?

Also, my good 2 Timothy 3:16 friend, bear in mind the context of the metaphor: the Bible has some good practical use. In other words, the idea of Scripture being breathed by God relates to its pragmatic value. I find the Scriptures far more useful when approaching them as a pluralistic perspective on life and faith.

What are the implications of dropping the idea that God is the "author" of the text. While I do not as of yet have anything resembling an exhaustive philosophy of the Bible to give you, there are a few points that seem rather clear to me.

First, let's say that the Bible is written by men. It is most naturally read as a conglomeration of diverse writings. "God-breathed," yes. "Written" by God....let's say "no."

Second, the Bible is highly contextual. It contains perspectives relevant to the issues that people faced in their day. So, for example, according to OT law, if a dude rapes a girl, his "punishment" is that he has to buy the girl and make her his wife. Well, for that day it was probably a good law, considering how badly women were treated. But by our standards today (according to our 21st century American context), this is a ridiculous law! The Bible deals most primarily (but certainly not exclusively) with issues closely related to the context of the day.

Third, the theology found in Scripture is highly pluralistic (even contradictory I would say, though some would disagree!). This third point kind of follows from the first two. One example of this seems to be the character of God. God might be unchanging according to one perspective in one book of the Scripture, but in another, he is shown to respond to what we do and even to change his mind.



Fourth, the Bible itself shows a movement and a progression. The most blatant example would obviously be the New Testament writers recontextualizing the Old Testament to better "fit" and to better understand the event of the coming of the Messiah. That is why some of the "proof texts" that you see in the NT don't seem to fit (at all!) the original context from whence they were plucked! The concern of the NT writers was to BOTH find continuity with the OT but to go beyond it and address the issues of their day and the new challenges and opportunities available to the faithful.

Fifth, in light of all of the above, I think that the point of reading and applying the Bible today is to recognize the need to continue to recontextualize the Scripture, to realize that the power of the written text is primarily to focus our attentions on the current day and to think critically about the unique issues and questions that we face. If there is a "constant" or an "absolute" in all of this, it would have to be the presence of the Spirit of God--the "living and active Word of God" as the book of Hebrews says.

To say that the text is "God-breathed" then, is not to say that it has all the answers to today's questions (evolution, abortion, homosexuality, women's rights and status, sexual ethics, pornography, etc.). The text is certainly a guide, and a very important one; but the primary connection is not to the text itself, but to the God of the text. Karl Barth said that the Bible is not the revelation of God but the record of the revelation of God. I kind of like that thought and approach. For Barth (and others), the Word of God becomes the Word of God as it is proclaimed in the contemporary context. The text, then, seems to become more dynamic.

What say you? What are the various implications if we drop the terminology of God being the "author" of the Scriptures?

A Single Devotion

Paul says something interesting in 1 Corinthians 7:27

Do not seek a wife. (NASB)

What if, like, Paul meant this.

I kind of tend to think that he did, which puts Paul a bit at odds with the view of most religious communities in our day. Typically, religious-minded folk tend to desire the reproduction of their species; that is, Evangelicals want to perpetuate the Evangelical race, Mormons want more Mormon babies, Muslims want to see more young Muslims, Patriotic Americans want to see their offspring multiply, etc., etc., etc. We like to see fresh young faces come in to the religious fold because it gives us a sense of security that our religious tradition/institution will continue after we are gone. Our lives and meaning and purpose will thus continue after death and this helps to satisfy our desire for immortality: to leave something behind that lasts.

Marriage in most religious communities is encouraged as the norm: Find a like-minded believer and settle down for a good life and make babies and train (brainwash) them in the ways of the faithful.

But, like, what if Paul meant it? What if it is truly better to be unmarried? This puts him at odds with those who peddle religion to the masses. However, it is more in line with the spirit of the prophets (including Christ), who did not see religiosity as the primary objective; they always were digging for something deeper and more pure.

Here is some of what else Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:

"32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord." (TNIV)

The last phrase is interesting: that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. I think this "undivided devotion" is the key to Paul's thought here: renouncing the hassle of married life for sake of devotion to the kingdom. Paul says this is the "right way," which flips the paradigm on its head. It is no longer a matter of perpetuating a religious tradition or institution; instead, the Christian life is about seizing every moment in our fleeting lives and putting it to use for Christ. This is 100% Pearl-of-Great-Price type devotion. It is rare. It is dangerous. It is risky. Paul's life was about the now. He lived this stuff and that's why he preached it.

It is far safer to make babies and pay dues to the institution than it is to renounce the things that drive us. There are many fundamental drives that marriage seems to satisfy, and this is why most get married. It is not for "love" or "friendship," etc. It is to satisfy our drives and desires: Sex, Companionship, Sex, Friendship, Sex, Security, Sex, Happiness, and Sex. This, of course, is fine for the masses. It is fine for the religious majority. I don't want to be overly critical here; I just don't want to soften what Paul says. It is clear: If you want to live undivided for the Lord then being single is the best option.

My mother, of course, would respond with something like the following:

"A Christian couple gets married because they can better serve God together than they can apart."

That's cool. And, I'm sure that this was probably true for my parents and other couples. But, let's be honest here. For most of the religious faithful, the statement my mother made is merely a cliche and an excuse to satisfy our human drives and desires. Again, that's fine for the majority. I don't mean to step on any toes. But what does irritate me a bit is when the religious mass either forgets these verses from 1 Corinthians 7 or else goes through an exegetical gymnastics routine to soften the blow. This is typical of the religious masses because they always want to be "giving their best to God." But when desires/drives come in to conflict with "giving their best to God" as defined by the scriptures, then they need to tweak their interpretation of scripture a bit so that they can fulfill their desires/drives, while still believing in their hearts and minds that they are "giving their best to God." But Christ was not blooded upon a cross so that we can have our cake and eat it to, as the saying goes.

Most of our lives are compromises made to satisfy our desires and still retain God as our number one. Mostly, we play politics with God: we give a little and God gives a little. In the end we can reach an agreement.

All I'm calling for here is a bit of honesty. There is a reckless, single-minded devotion to Christ. But it hurts. And you aren't going to find it in the cozy suburbs of the United States. Pure devotion is sacrificial. Mass religiosity is designed to soften the blow. We accept Christ's sacrifice as sufficient for our sins, but we maintain the right to withhold any similar suffering.

He was despised and rejected, and we esteemed him not.

You Do Not Belong Here

"...so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others..." Romans 12:5

After eleven chapters of dropping theological bombshells the after shocks of which the church is still trying to understand, Paul begins chapter 12 of his letter to the Romans by urging each believer to present his or her body as a "living sacrifice." This imperative to present one's body is followed up by an appeal not to "conform to the world," but to be transformed (think "metamorphosis") by a renewal of the mind (the nous). The result is mind and body sacrificially dedicated to God.

Then verse 3 shifts us into our discussion of the body of Christ. First off: Don't think more highly of yourself than you ought to. And then we move into the metaphor of a body. One body with many "members" or "parts." We all have various functions: The body has a purpose and each part of the body has a different function. And yet we are all somehow working together. This is something of a task-oriented Christianity. No surprise that Paul would begin commenting on the fact that the body is here to do something; that we all work together. Paul was the first major missionary. He was a "go getter" as we say here in rural Indiana. Paul fearlessly plowed forward into new territory to spread the Gospel and establish new converts and new churches. The same energy that he had put into squelching the faith and persecuting members of the Jesus movement known in some circles as "The Way" was now redirected toward the spread of the "good news" of reconciliation to God through faith and through Jesus.

Generally speaking, I think that most American churches resonate with the idea of function. Each church has an all-you-can-eat buffet of ministries and programs to get involved with, often listed in helpful summary format within your weekly bulletin.

Function.

Task-oriented.

Rick Warren writes a book entitled The Purpose Driven Church and the danged things get bought off the shelf like Spock-ears at a Star Trek convention.

Back to the passage.

The task-oriented Paul now makes an interesting move: He follows function with belonging. We who are many form one body. Oh, and by the way, "each member belongs to all the others." This is the translation from the NIV, which focuses on "belonging." Function is critical for Paul, but it is rooted in our belonging one to another. What does this "belonging" entail, I wonder?

Commentator J.D.G. Dunn finds this belonging (or "one another") terminology to be "a slightly odd variation of the body metaphor." However, it serves very effectively to bring out the degree of interdependence which Paul regards as the most important point to draw from the body imagery (here as in 1 Cor 12; also Eph 4—note v 25; “each member belongs to all the others”—NIV), thus underlining the fact that the body language is primarily for Paul an ecclesiological rather than Christological concept (hence again the variation in terminology as between 1 Cor 12:12-13 and Rom 12:4-5). The consequence for ecclesiology also needs to be borne in mind: as Käsemann notes, “No ecclesiastical hierarchy can be deduced as constitutive from the motif of Christ’s body.” (WBC p. 724)

I find it interesting that Dunn calls this idea of interdependence and belonging to be the "most important point to draw from the body imagery." Why is this the most important point? I would venture to suggest that without interdependence that a sense of real "belonging" that is its foundation, the body of Christ merely becomes a task-oriented church that may get things done. At this point we lose a true sense of belonging amongst our members. "Church" takes on something of the corporate model where we clock in, do our job, then clock out and go about living our own lives and going about our own personal business. Without feeling a true sense of belonging a member of the body of Christ finds that a wedge is driven between "church life" and "personal life." We have a working relationship with the other members. But we don't really belong.

Dunn also comments that the "body" is more than a mere metaphor, but is rooted in the real-life context of the community of the early church: "the body imagery is actually an expression of the consciousness of community and oneness experienced by the first Christians as they met 'in Christ.'" (WBC p. 724)

Interesting comment by Mr. Dunn. Though the early church had a sense of purpose and function, they lived in a very closely connected community. We recall Acts chapter 2:
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Therefore, when Paul speaks of "belonging," he is not necessarily issuing an imperative, but is expressing something that already had occurred and was currently being experienced in the early church - the communities understood belonging because they lived it out. This may also shed light on the imperatives in the book of Hebrews. Perhaps the encouragement to "not give up meeting together" in 10:25 refers to the exhortation to "encourage one another daily" back in 3:13. Do these references provide another instance of the early church living out community and developing a true sense of belonging? By living in such close proximity as to be able to actually encourage each other daily? Lane indicates that this may be the case: "The admonition 'encourage one another every day' may actually presuppose a daily gathering of the house church, which would provide the occasion for mutual encouragement (cf. Windisch, 31; Michel, 106)." (WBC, p. 87)

So, where does that leave us as churches here in America? I would argue that most churches are "busy." Some more busy than others. Some more active than others. Some more purposeful than others and some who get much more done. We have tasks that accomplish things and make a real difference in the world, while there are others of us that are just kind of busy without any true impact. Essentially though, I think we all have tasks that we are trying to do. Ministries, programs. More ministries, more programs. But all without true belonging.

Do you truly experience belonging in your local fellowship?

Are there other believers who know the real you? Your hopes and dreams, your deepest fears? Are there people who understand your weak points? People who know what gets you excited in life (no matter how quirky or strange!)? Are there people who have your back? Who care about your soul? People who know your soul?

But then we could flip it around? Do you have souls for which you care for? Can you say that there are other believers who belong to you?

Not likely.

Belonging simply isn't a priority. And why should it be? The early church faced serious persecution in some cases. In other cases, they were religiously ostracized from fellow Jews or viewed with suspicion by local Gentile governments. You really need community when community is all you've got.

We don't have persecution in America. (And no, the existence of the Democrat Party and the release of the Al Gore movie does not, it turns out, qualify as persecution.) We've got cable channels we never watch and huge vehicles that can drive us places that we will never go. We don't really need belonging, do we???

Also, in the early church there was a lot to work out in regard to this new Christian faith and way of life. Who was Christ? God or man? What do we do about food that has been sacrificed to idols? What about the Law of Moses? Circumcision? There was a lot to talk about, and then there was the whole aspect of understanding what the new birth meant and how salvation worked out in the living of this new life of servanthood and discipleship to Christ.

Thankfully we have this all worked out these days. Have a doctrinal question? Go ask your pastor - he went to seminary. We have weekly sermons that tell us how we are to live and surely that has to be good enough.

Belonging?

Nah.

But perhaps all is not well in paradise. Sin issues seem prevalent in churches. For example, those that are "good conservative" churches (see Ted Haggard) are not immune from issues of marital infidelity. Marriages crumble at such a fast rate that even "the world" has a tough time keeping up. And it ain't because people don't know better, either. I have a hard time believing that "good Bible preachin'" is the answer to all of the marriage woes - as if people didn't already know that a broken marriage is not a good thing. And although I have zero experiences in the area of marriage (and by God's good graces I never will!) it strikes me as a bit silly to think that using "biblical counseling" as a catch all is going to have a real impact on layers upon layers of distrust and anger that builds up between two people.

Oh, and of course there are the addictive and compulsive behaviors that we don't really talk about because....uh...because those things are kind of uncomfortable to talk about....and, well, yea.....better to just deal with stuff like pornography, compulsive eating, anxiety, and that "indiscretion" with the co-worker.

But seriously, though. Where would you go if you really wanted to deal with your stuff? Yea, I mean that kind of stuff. The stuff that you are too ashamed or embarrassed to admit to anyone except....well, except to people with whom you experience authentic belonging. Do you really belong to a group of believers who know you as well or better than you know yourself?

The fact is that for all of the money we pour into our churches we have little to show for it in terms of belonging. Where are the forums and opportunities to truly guard against the "deceitfulness" of sin, as Hebrews 3 talks about? This deception is most often self-deception. But where are the caretakers of our souls? To whom do we "belong"? Again, more Bible isn't always the answer. Many of our conservative Christian churches use "Bible" as a band-aid for a flesh wound. What we really need is a chance to understand how the Bible works out in my life and the lives of those who belong to me. I think the complexity of the current age demand it. Preprepared answers don't cut it, anymore. No matter how Biblical they are. Each age and culture faces issues that require the Scriptures to be examined anew. Not to study simply to find out "what it meant back then," but to explore the implications of faith for the now.

The American church today is a social gathering alongside a desire to get some things done. But what does this mean for a pomo generation? Issues of isolation and compulsive/addictive behavior are common place. It's all amplified. But how do we deal with these things within institutions where we don't belong to anyone and they don't belong to us.

The fault of the weakness of the church in the postmodern age has nothing to do with so-called "godless" postmodern philosophers like Nietzsche, Derrida, or Baudrillard. I no longer take any conservative Christian leader seriously who believes that abstract philosophy can stand up to the church and create the current moral impotence that plagues us. Our failure is not a failure of abstract ethical theorizing or a need to take a stand for the "correspondence theory of truth." This is just silly. I say the following with no apology or reservation:

If the gates of hell cannot stand up against the church, then no postmodern theorist can either

But Postmodern theory is not the problem. The threat is not external, the issue is internal. It is a pride in institution that supersedes authentic relationship.

American Christianity has no belonging. Consequently the body has weakened and atrophied. We are attempting our tasks and striving to fulfill our function in an anemic state. How unfortunate. The body of Christ was meant to represent Christ. Yet, for all practical purposes Christ's body is still wheezing in the grave, too weak to emerge and make a difference in the world.

The most fundamental aspect of the body of Christ is true belonging. It is only when we truly belong that we can begin to make a real difference in the lives of the 21st century believer and demonstrate to the world that the body of Christ is, in fact, alive and no longer lying, weakened and cold, in the grave. But this cannot occur until each member belongs to all the others.

A God Ordained Spat?

Acts 15:36-41 relates the "sharp disagreement" between Paul and Barnabas:
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. (NIV)


Barnabas was the "Son of Encouragement." In the above account there seems to be something of an implication that he was rather soft. Paul, on the contrary is driven. Ever the task oriented pioneer, the relentless missionary will let no one stand in the way of the Great Commission - and especially not the youngster, John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas. (Col 4:10) In the words of Michael Corleone, "It's not personal. It's business." And thus this pro-Paul passage tells us that Barnabas "took Mark and sailed for Cyprus," while Paul took Silas and was "commended by the brothers" and continued on in the mission, "strengthening the churches."

Interestingly, it wasn't all that long ago that the "son of encouragement" introduced the wet-behind-the-ears convert, Paul, to a timid group of church leadership suspicious that the Christian-killer they knew as "Saul" had ulterior motives in joining up with the Church. (9:27) Barnabas and Paul set out as missionaries together. And, in fact, in the early days it is Barnabas who takes the lead; his name is mentioned first in the book of Acts. That is, until the confrontation with Elymas, the Sorcerer: "At this point Luke begins to give Paul greater prominence than Barnabas in the mission narrative, calling their party 'Paul and his company' (13:13) and mentioning Paul’s name several times before that of Barnabas (13:43, 46, 50)."[1]

The dynamic duo made quite the pair. In Acts 14:27 we read that upon returning from a successful journey "they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." In Acts 15 they navigate and influence a critical church debate on circumcision and salvation. (Not exactly a "hot topic" today, but of no small matter for a movement emerging from Judaism where covenant fidelity was measured against the requirements of the Law, which meant debating issues related to keeping the Sabbath and whether to cut or not to cut.)

But despite bringing the Gospel to city after city, Paul and Barnabas are not immune from trouble. Hence there may have been more to the story than a simple disagreement over John Mark:
But the parting of ways between Barnabas and Paul may well have been occasioned by more than the personal disagreement mentioned in Acts. Although Acts hints at no disagreement between Barnabas and Paul on the conduct of a mission to gentiles, Paul’s letter to Galatia indicates that the two did not share identical views on the observance of Jewish dietary laws. Paul writes that at Antioch he was distressed when Peter refrained from eating with gentiles out of deference to representatives from James. Paul objected to Peter’s abrupt withdrawal from his practice of table fellowship and writes that “even Barnabas” sided against Paul (Gal 2:11–13).[2]

So, what do we make of Paul and Barnabas? How do we interpret their "sharp disagreement"? The book of Acts gives no more mention of Barnabas. Paul continues to dominate the center stage. Does this mean that Barnabas was in the wrong?

Perhaps.

But is it also possible that this is something of a divinely inspired disagreement?

The Son of Encouragement followed instinct. He did what he had always done: encourage. He had encouraged Paul and he was going to show the same second-chance grace to John Mark, even despite JM's earlier desertion. And who's to say that this was the wrong move?

On the other hand, maybe JM really couldn't hack it? Maybe Paul needed another hardened old soldier to take the beatings and hunger and overnight stays at the local Super 8 Prison. (See Acts 16:22-24) I don't think the kid could've cut it.

So, what do we have? Different gifts going different directions. Different visions exploring different options? Is this disunity? Is this an unholy divide? Or is it possibly a God ordained split?

Notes:
[1] Daniels, "Barnabas" Anchor Bible Dictionary (1:610)
[2] Ibid., 611

Freedom - Discussion Link

I left a quick post on "freedom" over at a sister blog, The Discussion Link, which is a blog related to my local church. This goes along with some of the recent discussion here as well as over at Ktismatics on the issue of desire and how it relates with Law. Specifically, the question is whether or not Paul (in his letter to the Galatians) is simply replacing one Law with another law. Yet in 5:1 he talks about "freedom." Is this uninhibited freedom? Radical freedom? Dangerous freedom? I think so.
Here is the link if you want to weigh-in: Freedom

In the beginning

bere'shith bara' E'lohim hashshamayim ve'et ha'arets

I shamelessly steal the concept of "First Lines" from my bbff (best blogging friend forever) John Doyle, wherein one analyzes the first lines of profound literary works.

Is there a more profound first line than that found in Scripture? The first lines of Genesis?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

I say "profound" in the sense that few first lines have stirred such zeal, passion, and controversy. In America we have had great battles in our educational systems of what it means that God created - or even whether God needed to create.

That God "created" raises the what and how questions: What did God created and how did he do it? Did God create a finished product (chicken) or did he set in motion the forces of the earth (egg)? Did God create the world, or just snap his fingers ala the big bang?

And so we dance.

What is the relationship between faith and science? Do we believe the Good Book or the godless scientist? And who will teach our children? Who will influence their young minds??? Young earth, old earth, big bang, Evolutionist, Creationist.....

Yes, and so we dance....

God got the ball rolling. That much is clear from our first line. All things start with God as author. The text introduces us to the main player, the Cosmic Father Figure. The one, who, for better or worse, we must all reckon with in some way. God says, "Let there be" and there is. Now let's see where this thing goes.

So, God creates a text - or a script. But this is a living script. We see it played out. The Calvinists tell us that the script is already written. Is it? Others tell us that the script is unwritten, and as we act we write our own script. Mr. Rose from The Cider House Rules turns to Homer and says, gruffly, "We live here. We write our own rules."

But we put this issue aside and leave it to the theologians and we move along to the more pressing issue. For the more important issue, I believe, is that of interpretation. How do we interpret the script? Once an author creates a text s/he must release it and set it free for better or worse into the world of interpreters. Some will "get it" and others will not. And yet others might "get it" even better than the author. The author even learning more about the script after sending it out into the cold, cruel world. But the point is that the text is written and then gifted to others for their interpretation.

The interpretation question is the why question.

In a similar way, God gifts the creation to interpretors. Interpreters, well, like me. Like you. We read the script. We watch the play. And we interpret. The theological question of interpretation is more basic, I suggest, than is our freedom of the will. Debates between free will and God's sovereignty are endless and ultimately circular. But we all interpret. We all assign meaning to the stories we see. We look at the creation that God has made and it impacts us. What do we think of this cosmic drama? How does it hit us? What conclusions do we draw? What conclusions do we not draw?

And what of the author? What of the creator? This is interpretation, as well.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

Do we judge the Creator based upon his creation? What is the connection? Augustine said, "You have created us for yourself and our hearts are restless until we find our rest in you." Were we created in the "image" of God? And what does this mean? Do we have a built-in connection with our Creator? Again, this is interpretation.[1]

We all take that step of determining what it all means. For some God is to be hated for his creation. Others are indifferent - he created and I live it out. Still others pursue the Creator, like Augustine, with reckless abandon. And then there are many, perhaps most, who find the Creator useful - God is useful as the symbolic representation of the religious institution of their choice. God is the gold that gives currency to the institution of church or state. He is stability.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....but you and I have the divine prerogative of giving it meaning. We are the meaning-givers. The meaning-creators. This is our nature. This is our gift.

Does God meet all of our needs?

Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
1 Corinthians 4:15

Most of us who are good Christians and were raised in good Christian homes and went to good Christian churches were taught that God can and does meet all of our needs. Particularly our spiritual and emotional needs. I want to take this post as an opportunity to question that.

From the moment of conception we rely on others to fulfill us. When we are born we require feeding. As babies we are helpless and if we don't get someone to feed us we die quite quickly. In fact, if we don't have the right kinds of food in the right amounts it will negatively affect our brain developments. This is clear enough in a physical sense, but it is also true in an emotional sense. If we are not touched and loved as babies it will negatively affect not only our physical but our emotional development. And this is true at all stages of development: We rely on father, mother and friends to provide affirmation, love, security, and a host of other things necessary for us to develop normally. In the absence of these things we become scarred and develop disorders and coping mechanisms.

Ok, so we are on the same page so far. But then what if we carry this over into the spiritual world. Can we say the same kinds of things? Do we need spiritual fathers/mothers/friends for spiritual fulfillment and maturity in the same way that we need them for healthy physical growth? I think we are sometimes under the impression that God is all we need when it comes to our spiritual growth. But is this really the case? Or do we, perhaps, need the church community in the same way that a baby needs milk? Is it a matter of spiritual survival?

I won't bore you with my personal, spiritual sob stories....well, ok, maybe just one! During a period of my life I was isolated from serious and genuine accountability. This led to a serious fall into sexual sin. I lacked someone(s) in my life to regularly probe into my situation and clearly define the lines and boundaries - to directly state the rights and wrongs of my situation - someone(s) to look into my life and speak truth. Without it I died. I died in a very figurative sense, of course, but I think the damage was certainly as real and frightening as a baby deprived of nourishment. And I think I could relate many other similar experiences.

Do believers need other believers for the survival of their spiritual souls? Does life depend upon it? Is there really that much at stake???

For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children...
1 Thessalonians 2:11

iread

ipurchased an ipod
as well as the sport pack
the sport pack includes a chip that beams a signal
up to my ipod
to tell me how fast iam going

when ifirst got the sport pack
iread through the manual
the ipod sport pack isn't terribly complicated
but still it requires a bit of knowledge

so ihit the road and tested the gadget
it didn't work for me
and so ireturned to the manual for more instruction
and the second time around isaw more in the manual than ihad seen before

so what is the point?
after all, iwouldn't waste your time with nonesense
here it is:
our experiences inform our understanding of the text
experience and understanding go hand in hand

when ireturned to the manual after testing the gadget
ibetter understood what it was that the manual was saying
the manual was fresh
the manual seemed new, in a lot of ways

the same thing happens when iread the ancient Scriptures
experiences of life change us
and the Word is new when we return to it
why is it new?
because we have moved
because we have changed
life has transformed attitudes, perceptions, and outlooks
in the stream of life the Word finds new ways to communicate on different levels

iread
ichange
iread

Stuff and Treasures

So, from Fight Club we learned that "The things you own end up owning you." There is a remarkable parallel with Jesus' words: Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

We generally think that we invest our lives, time, energy, money, etc. in the things that are important to us - and, of course, that is true. We do buy things that are meaningful, spend time with people who are important in our lives, and invest our energy in careers, charities, etc. that seem worthwhile.

But this is not the lesson from Jesus or Fight Club. The things you own end up owning you. That is the reverse of how we normally view our investments. The point is that there is a sense of a lack of control. What we surround ourselves with - the stuff we own, the people we hang with, the jobs we work, etc. - begins to dominate our thoughts and attitudes and heart and mind. In Fight Club the object was to rebel against and destroy the consumer-driven culture that had tightened its grip on people's lives by sucking all of their investments into marketing schemes - to always be in search of the newest device, or that perfect table set, or the statement wardrobe. The heroes of Fight Club believed that such a culture had so engrossed people that it was only to completely rip away and destroy the system that there was any hope.

I see a somewhat similar line of thought in Jesus' words. Our treasure is that in which we have invested ourselves. These investments represent our priorities. But what we invest it will turn around and end up dominating us. As human beings we do not have the luxurey of being purely objective and picking out the things that are important to us. Those things we invest in end up turning around and locking us into a system of thoughts and actions and feelings. The things that we own end up owning us.

It's not so much that we invest our hearts into our treasures. It's that our treasures turn around and grab ahold of our hearts. We are desinged, by nature, to respond to our treasures. Our treasures own us.

Asa's feet

2 Chronicles 16:12 states:
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians. (NIV)

Question: Why didn't Asa seek God? He was one of the few God-fearing kings that we read about in Chronicles/Kings. So, why not seek God for a personal problem? He had seen God work before? He had heard of God's mighty works for his people: parting of the sea, deliverance from enemies, manna from heaven, etc. Couldn't the God who parted the sea help him out with his feet?

A few verses before (verse 9) says:
For the eyes of the LORD range through out the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.

It is always interesting how matter-of-factly these statements are made. If the strength of the Lord is such an available commodity, then why didn't Asa seek it to help him out with his foot issues?

What is it in a person that causes them to stretch out to God for help? Conversely, what is it in a person that causes them to not reach out for aid in times of trouble, and to seek a physical/material solution - something more tangible?

Engaging the Needy

Matthew 25

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I heard a good sermon today by Bryan Loritts on engaging the less fortunate. His main point, in summary, was that there is a profound connection between our engagement of the poor and our relationship with Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the essence of the above Matthew 25 passage.


Loritts began by poking fun a bit at today's "missions trips." You know the ones: We raise money and go to some cool foreign country - maybe even rough it a little bit and do some work for missionaries - and in the end it is really more like a vacation. It is kind of a part of the Christian culture these days, especially for teens. But Loritts' point was that this doesn't cut it in terms of really engaging the less fortunate, and we often find ourselves "stepping over" the less fortunate in our own community in order to be a so-called missionary for a week in another country.


Now, for my part I've always been skeptical of celebrities, politicians, and others who lay down the guilt trip about helping the poor. In most of these cases it just seems to me to be a facade or a power play. This is particularly true of politicians who use their appeal to the poor as a basis for winning our votes and thereby gaining political office. So, the politician for the poor may be concerned about the poor, or he/she may just be interested in getting into power. Since, as a general rule, I think that politicians are basically PR spin machines (empty suits with little substance) I find their appeals to "help the poor" to be a bit rhetorical.


Neither am I impressed by celebrities who often appear to me to be arrogant and condescending. In most cases they have spent too much time in the bright lights and their vision is cloudy. They present these doomsday scenarios and often portray the poor as mere victims of an unjust social machine, powerless to ever improve their lives. Only we, through the gracious and loving act of those wonderful celebrities, have the power to improve their lives. And, oh yes, here is the telephone number where you can call and give us your credit card number.


In short, the public appeals to my heart most often fall on deaf ears. I will admit wholeheartedly that I have a callous around my sould when I hear the know-it-all celebrity or the soon-to-be-powerful politician.


But that brings us back to the point by Loritts: What am I doing in my immediate vicinity? What am I doing in my immediate community? That is the question on which our eternal lives literally hang in the balance. I think synacism about the holier-than-thou politicians/celebrities is justified, but what do I do when I see a need?

I heard Donald Miller speak recently and he told about an "epiphany" experience. He was sitting on a bus and saw someone who obviously had extreme handicaps sitting a few seats ahead of him. The person has all kinds of issues that would make them completely undesirable including, as I remember, spit running down their chin. Don said that he thought to himself, "I should be humble enough to go sit by that person." But as soon as he had the thought he realized that he had just elevated himself above that "undesirable" person and created a hierarchy whereby he was more important than that other person. In other words, there is no situation when encountering our fellow man should be humbling. If it is "humbling" to associate with a person, it simply means that we have been already deceived into believing that we are better than another.


Jesus' point in Matthew 25 is not, I believe, to merely mobilize us into action. Action is good. However, I think the real emphasis in this passage is going at the motives and attitudes of the heart: Do we have the compassion and desire to serve. When that is in place then action follows, and this action becomes guided in the right direction. It is no longer a matter of serving just because it is the fashionable thing. It is not a trip overseas for a week of beaches and sun. It becomes a life-fascination and obsession to reach out beyond myself and truly engage with others. Others become a focus and I am the vehicle to serve.


The focus is on the needy. It is easy to sign up with a celebrity and send a check in the mail to make us feel good. It is the easy (and sometimes stupid) thing to vote for a politician thinking that he is going to aid the needy. Programs and organizations are great, but they are safe because they keep us at a distance from the real problem: We don't have to get our hands dirty. But the real question has to do with whether we reach out to those with whom we rub shoulders with everyday.


According to Jesus this issue is personal. To turn away those in need is to turn away Christ, himself. It is a an area of conviction for me, personally, and a huge challenge to our American Christian culture. It is not so much a matter of what I do (giving to the celebrity or voting for the politician), rather, it is a matter of what I do not do. Failing to have a heart of compassion for the needs that are all around me - in my immediate neighborhood, city and town - shows a lack of concern for Jesus, himself, and an utter and absolute failure to grasp his vision and heart.