I've been reading Ezra

Ezra is a bit of a crazy book. It falls in a place in the Bible that is pretty hard to find, and he's not in it that much anyway. What it does lay out is a great theology of church and state working closely together. The king of Babylon, which had, as a nation, taken the whole of Israel away from their land to make them assimilate with the Babylonians, finally decided to send them back. There was a mixture of them causing trouble, and God prompting the king (by revealing that this God, YHWH, had given all the nations to Cyrus, the king, and God needed a house) to send His people home. The focus of their (the Jews') mission, the second they stepped through their home city gates, was simple: Rebuild the Temple. The Temple was the focal point of this community of God-Fearing Jews. The Babylonians had destroyed in their general pillaging, so the nation of Israel entreated the king at the time, Cyrus, to provide resources to undo Babylon's unhelpful way of doing things. Between the Jews and the kings of Babylon, the Temple is restored.

I noticed a few things in the opening chapters of the book of Ezra that struck me as odd and/or profound. (I have a friend who is profound - i.e. anti-lost.) The first thing to take away is as soon as the Jews found evidence of the original place of the Temple (namely, the cornerstone) they worshipped God extravagantly. There were sacrifices and singing and shouting. There was mourning for their absence from the land for so long, there was excitement at the prospect of the Temple being restored, there was engagement with God as they knew it was Him that had brought them home. It was a great time. They made so much noise the surrounding countries heard some of the raucous behaviour.

This leads me to think of a true reaction when something is about to happen, not something has happened. But they've hardly opened their toolbox when they stop everything and worship God for who He is. He's done stuff up to this point, but we also know He's going to do a lot more. God's pretty darn awesome. This worship was sacrificial. It cost them a fair chunk of their livelihood as livestock was being killed left, right and centre. But it was because He is amazing, not because He will give it back. It doesn't really matter if He will, actually. Just as long as we honour Him for His brilliance.

The second part is the confusion brought about by some enemies of the state wanting to help them out. This happens after the LOUD NOISES from Israel's people. Why would these enemies offer to help? Well, they claim to have the same God. It's true. They were know as Samaritans that were converts but in a twisted way. Instead of getting rid of their idols, they added God onto their list of gods to placate. The worship of this God of Israel wasn't the issue. The Jews don't really say anything on the matter. But why wold they accept and even rejoice in the help that comes from the king of Babylon, but refuse help from those semi-related to them (most Jews referred to Samaritans as half breeds, or mongrels...)? The point is in method. I will open this up more fully next time.

For a different approach to this book take a look at my older brother's study on liveasif.org. Do a search for "Thoughts of a Saint and Slave"

My Gospel keeps getting shrunk

Ask me about it...

What to do with culture...

Don Miller, author of books like 'Blue Like Jazz' and 'Searching for God Knows What', started a blog a while ago. His most recent post tackles the issue of what American politicians refer to as 'The Culture War'.

I responded to his questions...

1. Do you believe you are in a cultural war?

I think war is a strong word. And, if your terminology of war is correct (which I think it is - compliments to the writer), I don’t think destroying culture is even possible, so why try.

2. How do you feel (and respond) to attempts from the left and right to recruit you into a cultural war?

“Change” is word thrown around like it means something. The only thing it means to whoever is recruiting is making more and more people think they are right, and the other person isn’t. That isn’t change; that’s accentuating the SAME.

3. If war involves killing, and if a metaphorical war involves metaphorical killing, what does killing look like in this cultural war?

Killing is removing people/ideas that would otherwise remove you/your ideas. So it’s selfish arrogance that there is superior living, and it is achieved by me, all others must submit.

4. If you were to move beyond a cultural war, a step that might involve compromise, do you feel like you would be “giving in” to an enemy in any way?

I think I agree that cultural war isn’t good terminology for what happens when two different belief systems collide on a culture. If you don’t agree with something in culture do you allow compromise? Compromise must, probably, be defined as acceptance that it happens, rather than trying really for it not to. So, if abortion is the issue, we must accept that abortion happens. Whether it happens safely in a clinic, or possibly life-threatening-ly on the streets, is the response of society. That isn’t what I would call a bad thing. Facilitating abortion to the point of convenience and making it a necessary topic of discussion doesn’t help culture in it’s struggle with it.

Culture isn’t something to ‘give in’ to, but respond to. The response is the action leading to people believing in acceptance, rejection, or a mixture of both. Compromise leads to resenting something that isn’t bad until it is responded to. The response mustn’t feel like it’s giving in. It should feel like something we do as part of bettering (not battering) people. Jesus liked to respond to things, or tell stories to help people respond to him. It wasn’t really attacking culture, but the people thinking culture was the great thing we own.

5. What does peace negotiation (an important part of any war) look like in the cultural war?

I don’t know.

As a Christian community, there is a general mis-communication that makes people believe that culture is wrong. I'm sure I've posted on this enough times, but the idea of removing ourselves from culture is as equally absurd as deciding that culture itself dictates what we should believe. In fact, there needs to be an application of what I would call the Gospel, to redeem corrupted parts of culture to what they're frustrated trying to be, and a praise and strengthening of the parts of culture that bring the improvement of people. It is all in the worldview, brought about by the resurrection of Jesus, and the future hope of New Creation started by Him.

The idea that we war against cutlure is more like a struggle for middle ground. Church leaders are the ones who incorporate Christian culture into churches, and this increases relevance in the culture they find themselves. It isn't seperate, rather complimentary. There are different things, but styles of worship, communion, baptism (in the sea? only if there's any sea), preaching, is all part of keeping the Gospel applied to culture. It isn't seperate from the society it finds itself, because it always relevant. People always need forgiveness, and part of finding relationship with God is found in every section. It may be considered a little or a lot. It may be manifested in great and monstrous miracles, or through families putting the past behind them. But it is always possible because of the life, death, and Resurrection, the Faithfulness, of Jesus.

The question to answer is how to engage.

1. How should a church engage with the society it finds itself?

2. How should the two communities co-exist?

3. Where is the separation, and interaction?

4. Where does compromise for the majority come in?

Thought for the day

A good way to look at your relationship with God...

The word usually translated pursue in Ancient Greek, literally means 'to systematically harass, or oppress'.

Paul told Timothy in a letter to "systematically harass/oppress righteousness, faith, love, peace, and people doing the same as you"

See what happens.

Hard Times

I'm writing a post, which interestingly coincides with what went on tonight. It will be published tomorrow lunchtime. Suffering is an interesting topic and this study I am publishing will come back to it again and again as I go deeper into the frustration that has seen the 'prototype of Hope'.