More on Hope

I've been reading a couple of books recently. As is usual with me if something doesn't quite fit with what I believe, or it's something I used to believe but I realised was wrong, it doesn't calm me down. On the other hand, if something I realise I was believing was wrong, but now I've got it right in my head, it doesn't calm me down either. The product, however, is different. One causes excitement, the other anger. You work out which is which.

The two books differ massively in their content. 'Purpose Driven Life' by Rick Warren is a 'day-by-day' devotional book, putting life into perspective. I read it about 2 years ago, or so, and thought it would be good to read it again since I couldn't remember anything about it. Before I even got to the point where the book started to anger me (my challenge earlier must seem easier to you now) I spotted a simple, but ridiculous annoyance with the content; the translation of the Bible. He is a user of the Message translation. It's not really a translation anyway, it's a paraphrase. That basically means that every time he quotes the Message I'd much prefer him to give a bible reference and paraphrase it himself. I not really a believer that this particular paraphrase does justice in interpreting most of what the bible says.

The other book is called 'Surprised by Hope' by Tom Wright. I think I'm most impressed with myself because I must be about halfway through and I only bought it on Thursday, which is pretty good going for 'has-to-read-it-in-my-head-as-if-it's-being-read-aloud' me. I like Wright's provocative prose (that rhymes..or something), simple summaries of alternate view points, and the sense of 'as much as this is setting out some pretty important stuff, I'm going to have some fun along the way.' I'm a fan of Wright, anyhow, because when he quotes the Bible, he doesn't use other translations meaning he would then have to tell you that 'this word in Greek here, actually means this', or anything like that, he just looks at the Greek and tells you it's a translation into English...which it is. I also like him because I have a few friends who tell me he's a genuinely nice guy, and my dad backs that up. He has a soothing voice too.

Day 6 of Purpose Driven life (doesn't sound it's setting itself up for a great finish if my problems come so early), and Warren sets about describing a response to a biblical life metaphor. Life metaphors (as a short aside) are those those things we best describe life, which work themselves out in how we live them. Warren gives three; a test, a trust, and a temporary assignment. My confusion comes right there, between 2 and 3, if you like. A test I can just about deal with. My life is a test. OK, I should probably aim to do well. Why is it a test? Well (one might say in light of a Christian worldview) if you really believe in Jesus then surely your life should reflect that by the way you live you life so God will test you.

Why, then, do I have confusion arise between trust and temporary assignment?

A trust, means God decides to give his world to us humans and trust us with looking after it. We are stewards of the world. OK then, I'll do my best with it. Just for you.

A temporary assignment, means I don't live long on this world. I'll be leaving soon so nothing really matter what I do here because I'll soon be gone forever.

Each on their own work nicely, but together they mismatch, conflict, and tell me to react two different ways to the same thing. But the Bible, which he quotes (from the Message, bless him), doesn't give two different reactions to the same thing, it gives the same reaction. I guess you'd guessed that.

'Surprise by Hope' contrasts the last point, and I didn't even realise it would, to my surprise. Wright comes along, talks a lot about the resurrection of Jesus, shows historically that it has to have happened (leaving the historian and scientist to make up their own mind, because no amount of evidence will back up a claim that it didn't happen; i.e. it takes faith) and then works through the mass of implications that follow his resurrection. There seem to be quite a few.

He summarises all the various beliefs of the past 4-6000 years or so, and shows how each one doesn't really work. The biggest one is platonic in it's roots; that the material world is bad, but the spirit inside each person is the thing that lives so let's a whole amount of that, thank you very much. Gnosticism is the belief in body and soul (two separate elements) and the soul is what's really important so let's make sure that our souls are well attended through some kind of spirituality, and then we'll all bundle off to heaven when we die, tra-la-la.

This belief has crept into Christianity (that rhymes). The 'going-to-heaven-when-we-die' has become one of those naturally accepted facts, even though it's not that biblical. The reaction to that would be: it doesn't matter what happens on earth, because I'll be in heaven soon enough; life is but a wisp of smoke. It's what Warren clearly says, but his own advice on how to react to it is completely in conflict with what has just been said. If I'm going to end up elsewhere, this life really has very little to offer so I'll take what I can thank you very much. Warren suggests (and it's true but just not in line with the 'facts' he's putting behind it) that this world is never fully satisfying, but heaven is, so live as if you're a citizen of 'up there' and don't hold on to anything here. The trouble with that is that no one is holding on to anything 'down here' and just using up the whole lot and hoping for the heaveny bit at the end.

Do you see now the conflict between these two metaphors? How can I be entrusted with something that doesn't matter? Isn't that a bit foolish of God? I thought he created the world for a some reason, not just to have it done away with in the end.

It appears that creation itself is evil. Not that it was once created and it was very good, but now it's not but I hope someone comes along to fix it, but that it was created by God, it wasn't ever really good, and Jesus has come to give us a chance to really get away from this wretched place.

God made this world because he wanted it to be good, and really it is. It's got a lot of evil continually making it less and less good, but ultimately the fascination of creation is that it is beautiful, whether that's really explainable or not I don't know. Is it ever as beautiful as it once was, I don't know, but I do know, that it is attractive enough to reflect bits and pieces of God here and there in an attempt to give us the hope that life keeps going.

The resurrection of Jesus creation starting again. It's new creation. Inaugurated eschatology if you want some posh words.

To start the gospel with sin, is to put the whole world in condemnation and give everyone a hope of getting out of here. To start the gospel with God and him creating a whole bunch of wonderful stuff, is to put the whole world into a groaning waiting, yearning, hoping for the wonderful new creation, and gives everyone who would choose to believe in the death of Jesus and the implications of that, and the resurrection of Jesus, and the implications of that.

Sorry, Rick, day 6 wasn't so helpful for me.

Something about what the papers won't shut up about.

What an embarrassment. The secular world (at least the UK) can't find anything better to talk about than religion. How fun. And at the forefront is the leader of the Anglican communion on the front page of most newspapers for 3 or 4 days in a row. I think the way it comes across is that the last thing society expected an Archbishop to do was comment on it.

Rowan Williams in a clumsy little way has taken Britain by surprise a few times already. That doesn't make it ok. I wonder how many chances a man in this kind of stature should get before he's recommended early retirement. I personally would prefer to keep the post and show that it was no mistake to give him this kind of responsibility.

What's in a name?

There are three things I've seen this morning that have made me cringe at the faulty worldview of society. I'm not saying that my worldview is correct, but the need to run from the problem that humanity has self-diagnosed simply because they can't think up a sufficient answer is worrying. I'm basically saying that what I believe is more correct than the general secular public (the general secular public believing they don't believe anything).

The first thing I saw was a poster on the back of a bus that states: "The Power of Me can tackle bullying." (This isn't right.)

The second thing I saw was a poster on the side of a bus that states: "You can choose to stop abuse." (This is wrong)

And the third things was a newspaper headline that claimed a 5 year old girl had been raped, leading to question about what her life would be like in the future.

The first two made me angry by the blatant attempt at society trying to save itself from self-destruction, while the last one made me utterly frustrated at the general medias need to express more bad news. It's starting to get the better of me. Day after day I read of people being harmed in a variety of unoriginal ways, and equally people offending, and the papers give the usual doom and gloom with not real look at any possible hope. I've had enough. Who, in their right mind and day-to-day reading, decide that the best way of finding out what's going on in the world is to read about more death, assault, abuse, poverty, famine, disease, and general depravity? Equally, who thinks a good way to make money is to fill pages and pages of recycled paper with the same stories as every other week but with names of people and places, and ages, changed?

Society has reached a stand still. Nothing is improving. We have gadgets and gizmo's that make us find out about this non-improvement faster than the week before, but I wouldn't call that an improvement. I'd call that masochistic. I don't mean to rant but it does really grind my gears.

You know what else grinds my gears? The posters on buses that I mentioned.

How can we improve society when 80% of the population have chosen to follow their own "enlightened" path, instead of learning from the past 6000 years of human history and realising something has to change?

As part of Western culture I can't say I'm not to blame, but if there's no realisation that things won't improve by doing things the way they've always been done, then I won't continue to be associated with such a deprived way of life. The trouble with the past 50 years has been the need to include everyone, offend no one, and save everyone from everyone else with protective barriers meaning children won't get the right discipline in their situations, adults won't get the right discipline in their situations, and, if you think that you can't do your job anymore, you can sue your boss. I'm getting to my point. I just seem to be coming across as a profoundly angry man; which I suppose I am.

What you may have come to realise is I believe that all this...boils down to Jesus.

And it's enough with the chit-chat...Jesus is the message that people need to hear. It's the thing that empowers and releases the people from their own depravity. Bullying is never about having to stand up to the person who bullies, the answer to it is that the bully himself interacts with people in a way that he knows works, and keeps him in survival mode. It's that basic. The bully wouldn't act the way he does without good cause that boils down to the fact that, in every case, whether it's bullying which we don't particularly like or lying which we don't think is that bad, or abuse, or murder, it boils down to the fact that the sinner (the person bullying, lying, abusing, or murdering) was first sinned against. It becomes a vicious cycle that is always traceable back to a need to create a survival mode of keeping people at a sufficient distance to remain ourselves.

In reality, to know all this helps no one. To know Jesus came to demonstrate such freedom is much more vital knowledge. What's coming around is the need to realise that the gospel (the good news that Jesus is Lord/King over all things because he was raised from the dead) is the power of God in motion. It's power (not the power of ME) is the thing that will be able to effectively fight bullying or abuse because it doesn't just bring freedom to the bullied and abused, but it also brings reconciliation between the bully and the bullied. This is something that has been decided unthinkable, but it is the power and wisdom of Yahweh, not some human concept.

To finish with a story, a girl (let's call her Jane) was sharing something in a school assembly. She spent a short 15 minutes in front of 200 or so teenagers telling them the most important thing for them to was 'follow your heart.' It was a passionate message, and the children were clapping her and thinking, 'this is a good message, I like this philosophy.'

Afterward a friend who had come to listen to her share asked her a simple question. 'Would you have said the same thing if you'd know that a young Hitler was sitting in the audience? Or a young Staling, or Genghis Khan?'

She replied, 'I'd never thought of that.' As shock filled her face she realised the mistake she'd made. She had assumed that the human heart is primarily a source of good. Which it isn't really.

The trouble with telling people that 'the power of ME can tackle bullying' is that there will be a portion of people who will interpret the message to think that, with enough will power, they can reverse the roles and become the bully.

I'll leave it there I think.

This Hope (08)

I recently read an article called 'What Evangelism Isn't' and then went on to list 3 examples of things considered evangelism which he then said it wasn't. The first was personal testimony, the second helping the poor, and the third apologetics. I then read some responses to the article...

Commenter 1

We need to have a way of spreading good news to
the wealthy and the well and the educated who have too many answers and too much
to eat and have no need of a doctor. They also give to the poor but they are
wealthy enough to do it. However, their souls need saving by Jesus too. The way
to reach their heart is to shock them by our becoming poor and yet still feeding
the poor ourselves from what little we have, even while we are poor. We must
become simple and poor yet generous and kind. We must give up wealthy lifestyles
and give up our education and give up our health and yet still minister in joy
and thanksgiving to the educated and the wealthy who have not been redeemed.
They must surely be ashamed when we who were once wealthy have stepped down and
become outcasts for the kingdom. Too many pastors want to be called reverend and
want to be revered for their learning and hold high positions and be consulted
by politicians and attend town functions and parties and be highly regarded.

Commenter 2

Excellent article! I am surprised at how many
of the commenter's want to hold onto a weaker version of evangelism where merely
feeding the hungry, or merely helping the poor is held up as equivalent to
preaching the gospel. Yes, those things are important, but there is no
difference between the service work of the atheist and the Christian if the
gospel is not preached.

Commenter 3

The ridiculousness of this article just
highlights what a false category 'evangelism' is. Jesus didn't worry about what
evangelism is and isn't and neither should we. He preached the Kingdom, he
healed the sick, he fed the hungry, he invited the outcast in. Let's go do the
same.

You may guess that the one I agree with the most is the third commenter. The funny thing about the three examples set by the author of the article is that they don't carry at all the same thrust. Jesus practiced primarily the encouragement of feeding of the poor, followed by personal testimony (in some form), and I saw very little apologetics (the defense of the faith). How on earth did apologetics even get in there?

When Jesus walked the earth He was beginning to realise what He had to do. He was becoming more and more self aware and, by the time He first stood up (or sat down, because that was the tradition of teachers in those days) in front of a great crowd in the temple He had pretty much worked out His mission. Even though It upset everyone He began something that we could call evangelism. Or just plain mission (pretty much the same thing). His life was a demonstration of something greater, and it was His life that made everything after it possible - the growing of disciples, the church, the Spirit falling on so many, people being set free and healed, etc. His demonstration was a representation of the gospel, or the kingdom, or a mixture of both. By welcoming in the outcast, or going out to the outcast so they can be brought in Jesus was demonstrating the love that would be ultimately shown in it's fullness on the cross.

By living the life He led, healing the sick, helping the needy, pointing out the religious, and shaming the people against God, He demonstrated the Gospel giving Himself opportunities to then explain Himself. Saying things along the lines of, "The kingdom of God is like.." What happens when actions are piled onto actions, and the actions aren't self motivated ways of building self image but, in fact, gospel, Jesus-motivated acts of pure love because they were first loved by God the actions force the person at the thrust of it to be challenged by their own worldview. When someone acting a certain way doesn't make sense the natural thing to do is challenge it.

Jesus living His life the way He did challenged people in more than just showing them they might be wrong. It was practically a living attack on their lifestyle. It challenged the self-righteous the most in His day, because they were right and their living made everyone else feel rotten. Nowadays the lifestyle of Jesus would be similar but it would cut through the heart of all those people who think themselves as right and the ultimate authority. He would challenge racism, sexism, prejudices against the ugly (or the pretty), hatred against people who are rich or poor, in need or comfortable, healthy or sick, whatever the thing that divided communities He would challenge. Imagine that kind of character. You would ask questions straight off, or at least challenge their authority.

This is the lifestyle that all disciples of Jesus are called to. A lifestyle that attacks (a better word may be 'intrudes') the worldview of everyone not yet adopted into His family.

That's a long way round of saying I think apologetics is a poor excuse for evangelism. It's no use to unbelievers, non-Christians, whatever you want to call it. The Wisdom of God (the thing that makes the whole life, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus make sense) is foolishness to anyone who isn't born again. Arguing about facts whether truly factual or not won't create converts. People will be persuaded but that's only another step.

True evangelism is the lifestyle that forces questions to be asked and speaking words in line with the lifestyle that explains and reinforces the kingdom of God. And it's interesting that in the book of Jonah, Jonah's gospel presentation goes: "Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!" That's it. No lengthy explanations of the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation of God in Jesus, or the doctrines of grace and love from God. I suppose it's that classic argument that St. Francis of Assisi used - "Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." I don't think he's completely right, but he's got a better idea than 'preach the gospel, if necessary demonstrate it.'

Speaking Sacrificially

Of course we love to think of ourselves as a self-giving society..that is the Church. A kind of counter-culture compared with Western society. We somehow find pleasure in depriving ourselves from things that are so useful...or at least satisfying. We 'obediently' give up things that help but don't help (apparently) and discover some kind of secret blessing. So New Years comes around and it's time to be more disciplined, do less of this, more of this, be more open and honest, stop and think before saying some silly things, and that is supposed to improve our lives. When deep down we know that all the motivation in the world wouldn't be enough to hold back, or even start something. That is, without Jesus. All decisions are never put in the context of Jesus, it's always our personal gain, pleasure, improvement, salvation.

I remember reading in the Old Testament (the first half of the Bible, where Jesus is only hoped for and things in His place are killing sheep, goats, doves etc.) and Yahweh says "I don't want sacrifices..." I was more than a little taken aback. Didn't God put into place the sacrificial system? There is another bit to that verse, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Yahweh would much prefer sacrifices not happening. The other half is something like I desire mercy, or loyalty. Basically God wants people that follow Him, not people who kill animals to save themselves. God put into place things that meant He could look on His people, but His people looked at the sacrifices as saving them, not God as saviour. And why is God saviour? Well, is He not the one who own all of creation? Is He not Himself named as Provider? He is the one who provides not only the means to redeem His people but the resources to accomplish it too. This is something of stewardship, but where a sacrifice is made it should really be a sacrifice, not a necessity. A sacrifice is something that takes just a little more than is sensible away to be given to God.

And God much prefers mercy and loyalty. In all of the things God asks of His people, He never ever wanted them to turn the laws into their own gods. When Paul talked again and again about the law, about religious people, he tried to show that the reason the law is in place for the same reason as any comparison is put in place to show that one cannot be the other; i.e. anyone following the law, in fact, cannot. With that in mind Paul spends time in most of the letters he writes to various churches describing himself before he met Jesus. He was the exact kind of person that Jesus spent a lot of time making fun of, challenging, or being in general conflict with.

The conflict comes when one person (let's say, Jesus) comes along living a perfectly sinless life but living in a way that is empowered by both grace and truth. The grace would be fully accepting and the truth would be completely steadfast in how He perceived the world. And another person (let's say a pharisee, or lawyer) has been living a 'blameless' life keeping in step with all the laws set by Yahweh. The trouble with this conflict comes when someone who sees

themselves as righteous but then told they are full of hypocrisy; or even children of Satan.

Imagine that someone telling you your mum had slept with satan.

Anyway, Jesus has been telling everyone that He had come to earth, not to follow the law, which is as much, and no more, than any other man could do, but that He had come to fulfill the law. What a claim.

"You see all of these commandments written in  stone here, and listed in the courts here, and the temple over here, I'm not just going to be doing exactly what they say (with the right perspective, not any of your religious mumbo jumbo nonsense like not picking an apple from an apple tree on a day of rest if you're hungry), I'm going to accomplish it, fulfill it, complete it."

That is only possible if this guy isn't just a man, but also divine. i.e. some kind of God-Man.

What does this have to do with sacrifices? Well you probably know the basic link which is Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, the most pure sacrificial lamb dying for the sins of His people. But there's more than that. Jesus had this crazy idea that people would follow Him. And this is where it gets tricky. Jesus, making the sacrifice necessary for us to do nothing to gain favour asks something of us. Jesus said, "Anyone who wants to save their own life will lose it, but anyone who wants to lose their life for my sake, will find it." It's a bit cryptic, but Jesus is getting at something deeper than our own life.

What He's getting at is a new worldview, a new perspective of life. He wants people to see their lives as something utterly different. Currently everyone would be living entirely to save their own life (the religious, for example, working up their good deeds for inspection), but Jesus came into the world knowing He would have to die. The only way someone could live a life that fulfilled it's potential would be for them to give up their own life for Jesus' sake. If people lived trying to live a good enough life, by their own means, they would lose it, because it would be motivated by their own selfishness (whether visible or not). If someone realised they couldn't save their life, but Jesus could, giving up a life for Jesus' sake, to change the world, as Jesus wants all His followers to do, that would be the fulfilling of a life, in the way it was supposed to be done.

So a sacrifice is quite simply giving life a new perspective, holding loosely to it in order that life may be lived to the full. When you hold loosely to all things perishable life is much easier to live.

Jesus at Christmas, and some insights...

I had to ask myself, what is Christmas about, really? I've been to church 5 times in 3 days and a lot of lovely things were said but I couldn't see everything adding up. We have God in Jesus being born, finally, after 4000 odd years of waiting, and on the other, after 2000 years we give gifts and sit around a tree, eating turkey and hoping some family time is established. So 1 (God) + 2 (Problem) + 3 (Israel tasked with restoration) + 4 (Jesus starting what Israel started) = 5

There's plenty missing.

This post grabbed my attention somewhat. But I think there's so much more to the Christmas story. The celebrations that happen make no sense. They sit with a conversion of a pagan festival, some use of an old viking character and mixing him with a good saint. There isn't enough of Jesus to make it worth while. On top of that, Jesus wasn't even born in the winter months. If the Shepherds were out in the fields then it would have had to have been sometime between April and October. So that adds to the oddness of all this season throws at us. Enough of the complaints you hear say that the Christmas season has lost it's meaning when, if you look at all that's going on, there isn't any meaning to it. Some could say peace, love and joy, but that's not solely a Christian sentiment. It's a general religious sentiment that has established most religions. This season has at some level that magical fairy story edge to it all. It's of the truth of prophecies and the realisation of God putting into motion the final pieces of a chess game where the opposition, no matter how well he thought he was doing, realises the last moves he makes are futile.

But that is what the season and celebrations represent. The Christmas story found in Matthew and Luke, with some alternate angles from John, has some key elements that put the birth of the universal Saviour into the steps of someone who live out a purely prophetic life in every way. Leaving a trail that can only point to Jesus as the one True God in Human form heading for the ultimate penalty to give His life as a ransom for many. etc. etc.

It begins in the temple. Zechariah (or Zacharias), some priest of the second temple in Jerusalem, was visited by Gabriel, and angel. He said to Zak that his barren wife would give birth. He didn't believe it and so, as is Yahweh's wonderful sense of humour, he was struck dumb. He couldn't speak. It could have been worse, though. Unbelief can be deadly. But this reflects the beginnings of the nation of Israel whose God is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These three, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had married women who were barren. Which wasn't something to be proud of in them days. But, because this was going to be the nation of God not man, God did what He wanted and gave these three barren women the ability to bare children and give birth. So for three generations starting the nation of redemptive history, God was the instigator of the next. As is the case 3000 or so years on, Zechariah starts the preparation of this new remarkable story with the same story as Israel had begun.

We briefly stop off at a small hut. And this is all the more miraculous. Gabriel, not one to be given a lot of work, but clearly key for speaking for God when the prophets had died away, visits a teenage girl and tells her that she will be 'with child.' She says 'I'm not married,' which meant in those days 'I haven't done anything that would make it that way, and I'm not planning to until I get married to my partner to be, Joseph.' This is something that shows how this event is leading to the climax of Yahweh's redemptive plan. After Adam had condemned the world through disobeying God, Yahweh was going to use Israel to undo what Adam had done. The descendants of Abraham, from the line of king David was the key to it all. And it wasn't to save itself, but to save the world. This is how redemptive history is developing, and it starts again through the preparation of Zechariah's wife giving birth, who will prepare the way of the Lord; John the Baptist's cousin, Jesus the Christ.

In Bethlehem is where the truly significant stuff takes place. Beside Jesus being born, Gabriel takes a few of his friends out and sings to some shepherd telling them to go visit this new born King. The shepherds on the field will not have been picked because they were the only bunch of people outside at night. It's a prophetic symbol. Yahweh in the old testament is referred to as a shepherd of His people a number of times, and Jesus refers to Himself as a shepherd as well. The shepherds are prophetically chosen to show God's purposes in the birth of this youngling. On top of that they bring with them another prophetic symbol. A lamb. This is another representative symbol of Jesus. Jesus who is known in heaven as the lamb that was slain. It is a symbol of His death, as the shepherd is a symbol of His love so wide that He would go out of His way to find His lost sheep. Self sacrificial symbols and all He's done is lie in a manger,

Then some visitors arrive. Another number of prophetic symbols, visiting the King and representing Him at the same time. Some wise men arrive with 3 gifts, They're sometimes called kings, which is the first prophetically minded detail; seeing as Jesus is the new born King as told by Gabriel the angel. Wise men would mean they have wisdom, looking deeply into word of God and discovering that a sign would be certainly seen. They saw a light to follow, but it is the wisdom I am interested in. Jesus lived a life of wisdom prophetically living out the purposes of God, as these wise men, these magi, are doing the same thing, representing the walk Jesus began. They brought some gifts, Gold for His royalty, frankincense for His religious place in the history of His people, and myrrh for His eventual death, burial, and resurrection.

And we finish back in the temple. A guy called Simeon, a priest, had been promised he would see the Son of God before he saw death. He did and committed the rituals necessary for any new Jewish son. The Jewish law states: "Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." This is symbolic, or even prophetic of the setting apart of Jesus for His ministry. A lot went on and a lot of special things took place. But in all the events surrounding Jesus birth, Yahweh's incarnation or embodiment in the world, there were probably a maximum of 15-20 people who really knew the significance. I had always thought why people thought Jesus was being ridiculous when He started His ministry after so much surrounding His birth, so much expectation. But when we look at the people who really knew what was going on, Mary and Joseph would have kept it quiet with a pregnancy outside of wedlock, Elisabeth, who knew Mary's child was significant, would have been more overwhelmed with her own womb being full of a child when she had been barren so many years, and the shepherds were local to Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth.

I'm still not sure the purpose of the celebrations when we try to make it a Christian festival and yet nothing of the 'traditions' bring anything to mind. This Christmas I have missed God a lot more than others, even though I have heard many good things said. Nothing helps me connect the two; the traditions and Jesus birth. Anywhooo

Merry Christmas.

What is prayer?

I was looking at how Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, thinking and meditating on it's various forms and came to quite a good conclusion of how we should pray. I'm not sure whether I'll share it with you, but I'll definitely share some thoughts on the lyrics of Cliff Richards Christmas number one from years ago...

Nothing against old Cliff.

Firstly, Jesus addresses His father. That's fairly important.

Circulating around Jesus' message we can quickly discover He's not a crazy man trying to give some kind of escape from what we think we need freedom of. In fact He decides to come along and show us we need freedom something that we were previously unaware of. Pretty good going Jesus. Moving on, His message moved quickly from something else to 'save' to a belief system that put God at the top of your tree. Quite literally He, God, Yahweh becomes your Father. You, by believing in Jesus, become 'grafted onto the vine,' or 'adopted into the family.' Basically you get a new responsibility, and a new pecking order. Pretty good going for something as simple as believing in Jesus. Jesus, in addressing this head-on, teaching others to pray by using a title as intimate as father, shows a family quality of this faith, that previous and alternative lifestyles wouldn't allow. Children from the same family must come together, especially when they have a perfect father, not some competitive, favouratist father.

Next we have the location of Yahweh. He's in heaven. He's in the 'not yet.' Or the kingdom of heaven that Jesus is showing is upon us. This is where He is, and this is what you inherit if you're part of the family, so join in. It puts everything at the right point, in order to set the world view in motion.

Thirdly is this interesting and dense phrase; 'let your kingdom come, let your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.' Notice it doesn't say in heaven as it is in heaven. This is definitely about changing this earth not waiting until we are taken from this place.

This is something at which we take action. Jesus tells everyone He meets that 'the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!' This only provokes this odd reaction because it's not supposed to be invisible. This phrase offers our complete surrender to God, while at the same time wanting to see more of Him. Your kingdom come; Your rule over more and more in it's invisible yet tangible reality. Your will be done; Your way of doing things, not mine. One earth as it is in heaven; bring these two conflicting realities into harmony with one another. Make them come together and be restored. Awesome.

Give us this day our daily bread; provide the things that are bear essentials
Forgive us our sins; I'm wrong you forgive, let your grace rule over me
As we forgive those who sin against us; make me more like you, Jesus

Lead us not into temptation; Renew my heart and mind into a holy and blameless living sacrifice
and deliver us from evil; be gracious and protect me from the unworking of this world

Yours is the kingdom; your rule is the greatest and best way to work
Yours is the Power; your will is so abounding I want to see it work
Yours is the Glory; and all I want to do is for your honour and praise
For ever and ever; I can't see you losing
Amen


I notice one big thing in all of this prayer. There aren't any questions. There is not explicit guidance. Imagine that. I remember a friend sharing with me an insight that said something along the lines of 'wherever you go the light of Jesus, the lamppost, the lantern; it won't lead you, it will follow you.' If Jesus wanted a lot of His sheep to follow Him explicitly we wouldn't just be a complete pen of clones, but we'd also all be tripping Jesus up wondering where He would go next. To follow 'The Way' would not be some kind of special path, although that metaphor is used. It would be closer to having the right kind of glasses on to be able to see what's up ahead and which options could be taken. Jesus never really tells us to go to God if we have three job offers and they're all pretty amazing, but one's got these extra perks that I'm not sure would be a good thing because what if it makes me less content and...blah blah etc. etc.

He says things like 'don't you expect God to provide, you of little faith?!'

What if this happens, Jesus? Well then make a decision. You have this renewed spirit that shines my light wherever you go. It doesn't really matter what decision you make as long as it doesn't mean you sin. And if it does mean you sin then turn around and come back. We all make mistakes. Basically, what His message is is 'we're not ruled by law we're ruled by grace.' Jesus taught us to pray everyday for the basics. That way we've got all the bases covered and we can live in trust that God is bigger than us, and always will be. It's a good family to be in.

Of course in all of this...I could be wrong.

This Jonah character

What would it mean if someone said to you 'the greatest sign I will perform is the sign of Jonah?'

I'm sure we'd all remember the bit where he's in the belly of a massive fish; at least that's the bit that stands out for me. Especially when he starts singing; it must have been quite a weird sensation for the fish. So we could assume the sign of Jonah would be a marvelous magic trick whereby the victim in question would disappear into the belly of a fish...only to emerge again after three days. Of course the book of Jonah's story has more in it than that. He hears clearly God's voice and clambers on to a boat going in as far the opposite direction as possible. He gets thrown out of the boat and nearly drowns (gets eaten, then thrown up on a beach) hears God's voice and tries to run away a second time, then finally gives in and does what he's told, only to be utterly disappointed with the results. So maybe the sign of Jonah is disappointment. Surely the conclusion to a story reference would be more applicable, not just a pretty extraordinary feature to the narrative. Just like the story of the prodigal son is because 042518. You work it out

Of course the prodigal son is probably a bad example. The familiarity of the story has made term prodigal to mean something utterly different from what it really is. We have this idea the a prodigal would mean someone who walks away from his family, but it doesn't mean that at all. I think in some senses the prodigal son referred to did not think through his words that carefully and perhaps what was said and taken to heart wasn't his basic motive. He was saying he wished his father dead by asking for his share of the inheritance, but I doubt he had thought that far. His living shows that, although the sign sent said 'I'm wishing you dead and getting out of here,' he wasn't bright enough to think about other people. He saw a large wealth, thought half would do him nicely and asked for it. And he went off to live as a prodigal. A prodigal meaning someone who lives lavishly.

Jesus was the one who was claiming his greatest sign would be one of Jonah. And yes (you may have already cottoned on to it) he did go into a tomb (belly) for 3 days before rising again. But was that really what He was referring to? Or, at least, was that the only thing He was referring to? Just as Jesus' life was about His death Jonah's life was about something major too. Jesus, by living established and accomplished many things. Maybe even more than that. His life had new teaching, astonishing claims, fights starting, questions asked, miracles occurring...could that be it? Who knows? I'd like to think I do, or I wouldn't speculate over here.

What miracles did He perform. Well; there was that water into wine moment, and the blind man - wait - men seeing, a couple of the lame walking, some leper cured, a woman cured of bleeding of some kind; then He fed 5000 on one occasion out of a small packed lunch, then fed 4000 on another occasion out of a smaller packed lunch; He calmed the sea, walked on it, told a fig tree to shrivel up and die and the tree didn't argue; He talked to a Samaritan, He went into the houses of prostitutes, and terrorists, Roman collaborators, and thieves, sinners in general in fact. The last set doesn't seem particularly miraculous does it. Maybe stepping out your comfort zone and taking some pepper spray with you just in case, but nothing magnificent.

Besides the fact that the various 'Jesus Critics' if His day weren't particularly happy with His choices, there was a man who wasn't afraid of divides of any nature. (After his resurrection even physical dividing walls didn't put Him off walking through them.) He came into Jewish culture to...'perform the sign of Jonah?'

What was that, really?

Jonah's mission wasn't to get swallowed up into the belly of a fish. His mission was to take the news of God's kingdom to the city of Nineveh which continued to disregard God's threats and go their own way. God stepped in, told Jonah to tell them to repent, and tried to sort the place out. God is concerned about the whole world, not just His own people, it appears. Jonah went into a fully disobedient, sinful city, that didn't know God, told them that if they didn't turn from their ways and worship God they would be destroyed and saw the whole community transform. Jonah wasn't happy, only because Nineveh were His people's enemies. That was the reason Jonah kept wanting to run away, but it wasn't worth his life, fortunately. He turned around in the end.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't come to die. He did. But the accomplishment of His death is one that removes those prejudices, and it's one that Jesus acted out while He was alive as an example of what was possible after His ascension. The idea of this reconciling spirit I discussed somewhat in a post about a month ago. The ultimate description is that Jesus died for a personal salvation and a corporate transformation. What on earth did you think the church was for. Nineveh, as a whole city, turned around. Imagine what could happen in your local community if Jesus was at the centre of it.

Why should I hope if my death is imminent?

Looking into the verse halfway through the first chapter of Philippians where Paul claims 'to live is Christ but to die is gain.' What on earth does he mean? Looking at the whole book and what Paul was writing for, it appears Paul was almost definitely heading to his own execution. Paul was the kind of guy who'd stirred everything up. Jesus was around and had told plenty of Old Testament scholars (or experts in the law, or Pharisees) that they were completely religious and were working to their own destruction making law-keeping higher than God. Paul, so oblivious to the fulfilments of prophecies and the law over the years suddenly had his eyes opened in some kind of 'Damascus road' experience. He saw Jesus fulfilling the law, and the prophets' words, and realised the 'Messiah' had come. Paul spotted, in Jesus, after years persecuting the church, that the liberator of the political system and a whole alternate life had been accomplished in Jesus. He turned things around in his ministry because of what Jesus had done on the cross.

This was good news for the body of Christ, bad news for the Jews, and the Romans, and the terrorists of the day, and almost every other belief system in effect. In practical terms that meant 'the world' was not a fan of Paul. It meant the authorities thought it best for Paul to stop preaching this 'good news' and he should be sent to jail. (In the book of Acts he is recorded to have been arrested by the Romans, by persuasion of the Jews, at least three times.) So now, writing to the church in Philippi, he's living out every day, working closer and closer to his execution. I guess, in some sense, his death looked like a relief. His letter to the Corinthians gives some insight:

I know I sound like a madman, but I have served [Christ] far more! I have worked harder, been put in prison more often, been whipped times without number, and faced death again and again. Five different times the Jewish leaders gave me thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea. I have traveled on many long journeys. I have faced danger from rivers and from robbers. I have faced danger from my own people, the Jews, as well as from the Gentiles. I have faced danger in the cities, in the deserts, and on the seas. And I have faced danger from men who claim to be believers but are not. I have worked hard and long, enduring many sleepless nights. I have been hungry and thirsty and have often gone without food. I have shivered in the cold, without enough clothing to keep me warm.

Then, besides all this, I have the daily burden of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my feeling that weakness? Who is led astray, and I do not burn with anger? If I must boast, I would rather boast about the things that show how weak I am. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus, who is worthy of eternal praise, knows I am not lying. When I was in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas kept guards at the city gates to catch me. I had to be lowered in a basket through a window in the city wall to escape from him.

He's had a rough time of it. Now he's in prison waiting for the day when he can leave it all behind and go to be with Jesus. And we get to the point after he's just said 'But the ones who are jealous of us are not sincere. They just want to cause trouble for me while I am in jail. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that people are telling others about Christ, whether preached in pretense [we need more converts] or truth [these people need to hear] I will rejoice [says Paul].' Then we get a bombshell. He goes from having a hard time, to death. And the gold comes forth from his lips; and it's quoted many times with little understanding as to what he really meant.

'For to live is Christ, but to die is gain.'

What?

What the hell does that mean?

If I'm alive then it's Christ, but if I'm dead it's better?!

Me living=Christ?

What?

Yes. Paul has gone mad. Twice in two letters. He's saying first that he is a much better apostle because he's been given more punishments for good than anyone else. And then he says that that life is Christ. Oh. Wait. It makes a little more sense. Jesus' life consisted of constant rejection because He was doing good. Jesus' death was complete agony, punished for not sinning at all. Well. Obviously people don't like people who make no mistakes. They wouldn't fit in. Paul has been living a life exactly as Christ. What it means is the reaction to his actions will be the same as the reaction that Jesus got to His actions. And everyone who realises who Jesus was and what He achieved through living and dying and rising and ascending really was want to be just like Jesus. A mini-Jesus; a mini-Christ; a Christ-ian.

So to live as Christ is to live with the consequences Jesus showed us. And it is to persevere through those things as if they were 'momentary afflictions.'

To die is gain? Well, perhaps Jesus' death is a lot more meaningful than any Christ-ian, but I begin to think that perhaps Paul was onto something. Jesus died, went before God suffering the death He didn't deserve but chose to take it, rose again in this wicked new body (that's wicked in a good way) that could walk through walls, tried it out on the cursed earth, probably playing a few tricks, opening scriptures, eating fish, and then He flies off to heaven to be with His dad. Pretty awesome.

Until Jesus comes back to judge all the world, to die is to just get up to Jesus be with Him and the Father, in fact be with the whole Triune God for ages and ages, until we get our fresh new bodies with add-ons. Of course, that would only be for those who have experienced the 'live is Christ' bit. That's the hope of an imminent death. Being with Jesus. Look it up; it'll be pretty cool.

What was Jesus doing, coming down to earth like that?

I started reading this book - mentioned last post - and decided to investigate the public opinions of the author and his writings. I came across this. This guy, author of the blog, has recently released a book called 'Spiritual Discernment.' After reading the review & finishing the book it reviewed I analyzed this guys thoughts. It didn't truly impress me. What I could see was some guy writing a book then attempting to show how to put it into practice. I suppose that's the trouble with the people who blog. People like me. The downside, of course, is he did a bad job. The book I read is, most definitely, challenging. One could almost say offensive. It challenges the 'Heaven after you die' mythology, the box of culture in which we put Jesus, and, although mentioning little of His death, the mission Jesus death. I see this book, not as redefining, but showing more of Jesus; a bigger Jesus, if you will. Of course if this new perspective is true some of the old perspectives must be thrown out, but that does not mean all other perspectives are wrong. We must look to hold many perspective together, as God does His own attributes.

For example, at the McLaren level of which Jesus enters the Roman Empirical culture, Jesus' mission is to show and establish the kingdom of God as a new political system, freeing the oppressed into a new way of life. His death & resurrection showed that the Romans could not succeed against the advancing kingdom of Heaven.
At the traditional level, Jesus' mission was to establish Himself as an alternate leader, a Messiah; Ultimate Mission: The Cross (i.e. His death).

Perhaps this wouldn't be so bad, but it leaves holes all over. Jesus came to proclaim the kingdom of God. His mission was to show how the kingdom the people of God envisioned, though seemingly impossible in the current situation (and, in some cases, unwanted) - too many poor, too many soldiers, too many sick, too many sinners - was, in fact, at hand; here; upon us.

Of course if Jesus came to be that prophet of challenging so many His death seems, not only inevitable, but accomplishing little. Now, if Jesus came to do both, that would show something of God that is, in fact, in perfect sync with His character. God is concerned with both body and soul, mind and matter of the people of earth. He wants to see the world working, not just into this world preached an awkward and intriguing message, each day stepping closer and closer towards the inevitable; His execution. He knew it would end this way. He wouldn't shut up about it, on occasion. And yet, He wasn't obsessed with it. He came to turn the whole world upside down; He came to take some young fishermen, tax collectors, terrorists, under His wing and send them off on the continuation of God's mission. And He ended His missionary journey with the most horrific death imaginable, treated as a criminal even though He was the only man ever to do nothing for His own selfish ambition.
What was His death?

It represented many things. It is the obsession of many of His later disciples. It is shown, quite plainly, as the ultimate act that puts His whole life into context. Every action would only make sense because He was killed/sacrificed, and that He rose from the dead, victorious over the most unnatural thing in the universe....DEATH.

I think the key sentence is putting His whole life into context. Without His death, His life makes no sense. Any other person doing the same things but escaping execution would have been a hypocrite. He had to die; not simply to be that sin-offering, that sacrifice, that man with His arms open wide as the greatest act of love ever seen. He had to die for His life to be fully meaningful. All His message taught, all He stood for, it was heading towards His death to show the kingdom of God was more powerful and was advancing and was upon us and was here and was something to be part of and was a kingdom worth the citizenship of. More powerful than the Roman Empire, advancing stronger and forcefully and not losing ground and fully sustaining; more so than the Roman Empire. It was more real than the Roman Empire, and it cost the life of Jesus for our citizenship.