On belonging nowhere you can see

I recently did a study on Philippians 3. I didn't realise how much effect the preparation was having on me, until I went back to reading 1 Peter. What you have to realise is I spend a lot of time just browsing around the bible and seeing if there is something good I should write down somewhere. For the record I am never disappointed, but I don't always have a pen. There are similarities between the people of Philippi, to whom Paul writes, and the recipients of Peter's first letter. It's not just that they believe in Jesus, there is something even more significant.

The Philippians were a colony of Roman citizens. They were mainly veterans of the Roman Empire, shipped off to somewhere else because they were retired soldiers and had a habit of causing trouble. With a colony built on the background of Roman veterans, the majority of the inhabitants of Philippi considered themselves better Romans than people in Rome. It was like Rome away from Rome. Paul wrote to the church there, and wanted to shift their thinking a bit. If you're writing to a church that is already an experience of dual citizenship, it's worth getting them more accurately thinking of their citizenship. Paul tells them in chapter 1 verse 27 that they should "live a citizens worthy of the Gospel." This would have perhaps caught them off-guard, but probably also helped them to realise they were living as Romans not in Rome, so should probably live as followers of Jesus, though not with Jesus at that time.

On the other side of the proverbial river, was Peter writing to a scattering of Christians, from all over the known world. He refers to them as "elect exiles" and pushes them to think, not of where they were from and where they are now, but actually what they had been born into (verse 4 chapter 1 of first Peter) and what they can look forward to. They have an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, because of the power of Jesus' resurrection. That is, then, the premise of a life of rejoicing in all circumstances. The premise by which this whole section rests, however, is an exclamation of such power: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"

Paul in Philippians chapter 3 complains about these "mutilators of the flesh" who were in basic terms performing ritual racism. They were wandering around telling all the men that if they were really to belong to this new "people" (i.e. the Christian community) they should get circumcised. What that said to the congregation was what the Jews of the New Testament and Old had been guilty of all along; their nation was the chosen nation and superior to all others. They had to belong to this specific people group. It would be like telling a black man they had to have skin grafts so they would be white and fit into the church. However, Paul's whole point by the end of the chapter is obvious: "...our citizenship is in Heaven, and from it we await a saviour..." i.e. We belong in Heaven and as we are already seated in heavenly places we can await the coming again of Jesus, living in the perspective of our transformation, that great inheritance promised to us by the God-Man Himself, Christ Jesus out Lord.

These two distinct and precise ideas have been floating through my mind as I've wandered around, really noticing a difference that Jesus has made in my life, and others, and realising I belong to Him and to them, and not to anything I can set my eyes on on earth. There is a transition that can be seen as people trust fully in Jesus. It's incredible. The real challenge is living as a citizen worthy of the Gospel. But my reaction to living somewhere I don't really belong came out in a poem I wrote last night. I hope you like it; it made me laugh when I read it.

Exile

I don't belong here
I don't really fit
There's not a neat space
Why isn't the world like a kids toy?


The picture is called "I don't belong here" from explodingdog.com

An Aphoristic book...

The Bible has been given a reputation as one of the most quoted books in history. This blog is guilty of helping that along a little. My trouble with the quoting of it, however, is not a standard argument. The Bible says a lot of great things. It also says a lot of confusing and sometimes worrying things. What my concern with where I see a whole bunch of people are going is quite straight-forward. People have view points and find Bible verses to back it up. As an example, the Gospel of Mark is 16 chapters long with 678 verses, only one of which gives us an "atonement" theology of the passion narrative. That verse is Mark 10:45, when Jesus is telling his disciples how they should live in an upside-down world. That tells me that that book isn't really about "atonement" but about Jesus as a revolutionary, living an alternative "right-way-up" life and upsetting the people he had come to "save."

Wouldn't it be better if people stopped quoting scripture that supported their action plans, and started reading the Bible for it to inspire their action plans? That has been the trouble with so many church movements of the past, that decide "it's how it's always been done" and change is a word used for your own private spirituality happening at home, not an intrusive word you "new" churches seem to be discussing. It's the trouble with a lot of established churches, and even church movements, that when they are told that, perhaps, Martin Luther (the man responsible for the split of Catholic and Protestant) wasn't completely infallible. When he translated "salvation by faith" in Romans, he added "alone" so he could clarify what he was trying to argue in a Catholic run society. And down the line, that means confusion when the Bible doesn't say that explicitly.

My annoyance isn't with salvation, though. Salvation is a wonderful thing, and we are saved by grace anyway, not faith, so that's fine. What is my pet-peeve, is that reading the Bible gives you one kind of theology that can never be totally clear cut, is always malleable, and it continues to tell you that Jesus is bigger than that anyway. I think I noticed my annoyance the most when I was given "The Doctrine of Scripture" as a lovely clear-cut manual. The paper/lecture involved a man quoting this verse out-of-context, followed by that verse out-of-context, and then jump between these two other verses out-of-context, with this man saying this about this man (out-of-context) and another man saying this about the Bible itself (apparently), and that was out-of-context too. My point being that in all of that I thought it would be much simpler for someone to say "I'm not convinced of the idea that the Bible is all God's word," to which the defense would simply ask "have you read it? You should. If you have keep reading it and it will change your life. If you haven't start as soon as you can for your own sake." I'm more convinced of the Bible's authority from reading it than from someone else telling me, and reasoning with me.

The word Aphorism means, basically, a proverb. As much as the Bible is full of the wonderful stuff from God, I've never been up for memorising scripture. I have one reason. I hate being told I'm wrong out-of-context. We can draw "atonement" theology from one verse in Mark, without realising Jesus' point was much more important than telling everyone he was going to die as a ransom. In fact, his dying as a ransom was a message that was illustrating his point from the argument it's a part of. Not many people know that because they jump to his insight into that cross without realising he probably only said it for readers a few thousand years later to have something to hold on, when he was saying something much greater to his disciples.

I come to my conclusion. I've gone off topical preaching, because all I've just described happens, and we don't get anywhere. We get stuck like a broken record on our vision and values, we get stuck in our own self-help Gospel, without reading a book as it's been written. We get bored of hearing the same things because no one tells us that the Bible is bigger than "20 Christian Basics" and we're left in the rubble of preaching through a book of the Bible because it's the "right thing to do" when we look for our topics in the Bible and leave the text where it always has been; black and white on a crumpled page. The church that makes assumptions of the body is the one that takes doctrines and topics in suitcases that they fail to unpack but merely throw around with corners catching people in odd places bruising all sorts of people. We need to realise that as a unified body, working together, to deal with the Bible is to share in it's story from creation to new creation, wrestle with it, dwell in it, live in it, and enjoy it as it's authority is found in Jesus, not in the words itself.

Multi-coloured Wisdom

I wonder what multi-coloured wisdom looks like. I'm actually making an extra special effort to post a blog on the 29th of February because, of course, there's at least 4 times less opportunity to post on such a wonderful day as today, than any other day. I'm fortunate enough to have had some thoughts today that tie together wonderfully, and think it's good to post about something positive when you want a quick thought list on the web.

Although I am annoyed spell-check wants me to spell colour without a 'u'.

In Ephesians (a book of the bible found in the New Testament) there is this phrase which got me thinking a lot about the church and today's culture and society.

Chapter 3v10-11 says: [The] intent [is] that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's good to have the whole sentence there for less confusion, even though there is a lot in there. I wanted to focus on one word. That's how much I value the Word of God.

πολυποίκιλος - polypoikilos

1) much variegated, marked with a great variety of colours
a) of cloth or a painting
2) much varied, manifold

I like the term 'multi-coloured wisdom.' It adds something different. I think it adds something extra to what the agent it is referring to, namely the church. And can you imagine a multi-coloured church? Wouldn't it surely be a nightmare? Well I know, and you know, I'm not saying that. The whole idea of God's church, God's people, is that it represents perfectly God's heart. It does that because God loves all sorts of people. Everyone to be precise. It sounds wishy washy and vague, but it's true.

The greatest sign of God's love is the Cross of Christ, which can't be fully understood, but it is that while we were far off from God He came near and saved us. I especially was far off, because I'm not a Jew. Jesus came as a Jew to open up the promise or covenant of God's people to be for all nations, as it always had been, but not under the Mosaic law (the law of Moses) under the grace of God and love of God shown through Jesus Christ's death. His resurrection causes all "rulers and authorities" to bow before Him. How is it shown? Through the multi-coloured church. It's one of those funny things I can't get my head around, but the wisdom of God is foolishness because He shows that people, who shouldn't work together, can.

There's more, and I think I got a bit carried away there. The multi-coloured wisdom of God can be seen in the church. And the church is far more than some spiritual anomaly of a wisdom that looks like foolishness. When I say "people who shouldn't work together can" I don't just mean working class working with upper class, managers working with bin men, artists working with salesmen, men working with women, there is a crossover that will happen through the Spirit of Christ which shows far more of God's wisdom than that.

The whole point of the Jewish mission was to go 'forth' and tell the nations of the One and Only God of the world, the creator of heaven & earth. Jonah (prime example) went to a foreign city to tell them God wasn't happy with them. There are numerous occasions in the Old Testament where God blesses 'foreigners' or 'aliens' who please God because they act in faith that this God is the true God. Jesus' death and resurrection opened up the blessing of being a covenant people to fall on all who believe that Jesus is King, not just those who have been circumcised; which is excellent news to men in general.

In fact, there was a certain amount of rebuking done by an early follower of Jesus, named Paul, who was against the circumcision of new believers because it could send the message that there is still only one nation that belongs to God. The multi-coloured wisdom of God can be seen by the multi-coloured believers in the world. A multi-coloured church, representing many nations, languages, colours, and so on has the capacity to proclaim to rulers and authorities that Jesus is Lord and they aren't (church or state). God's blessing of all nations comes when the Gospel is shown to give the potential of a rainbow-coloured church.

And so my final point. The rainbow. I know this is something of a leap, but I think there is something in the multi-coloured nature of God's communication with His image-bearing creation. In Genesis 9 (the first book of the bible) the end of the story of the flood with Noah as God's agent is described. A dialogue happens between these two characters (God & Noah) which has instructions and promises, both to be kept by each other.

“I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
“When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,
“I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
“When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

YHWH (God) has a habit of repeating Himself. I'm jumping to this conclusion, but I think God has decided to create a new rainbow on earth as it is in the heavens that when we come together as an all sorts church, as a church that consists of all kinds of colours, nationalities, backgrounds, languages, job-titles, family sizes, God is reminded of His covenant that he will not only 'remember His covenant' so that 'the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh' but, in fact, look to His son, who died on behalf of all flesh, so that the world would be blessed by His own covenant people. God looks at the church with adoration, because it is the body of His only Son, and He wants to use it with the intent that "now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I hope that made sense.

I don't get politics but...

I was listening to a lecture by some guy called John Piper. He quoted some Bible that says "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit." It's from 1 Corinthians 12, if you're interested.

What I found most intriguing was that what John Piper started to explain was the meaning of the passage, was not at all what I expected him to say. The reason I say this is because Piper is one of those good bible teachers that you trust most things he says. One thing I also know is that 1 Corinthians was not a letter written to Bethlehem Baptist Church (of which Piper is a preacher). If it was it would called something like 'Paul's first Epistle to that future church of Bethlehem (not in Israel) of the denomination Baptist (no relation to John the Baptist)' At least I'm pretty sure.

What Piper said as a nice explanation of the verse, regardless of the fact that he was using it to illustrate a different point to the text itself - it talking about gifts of the spirit and the nature of that Spirit. He decided a good way to explain this text by applying it an actor on stage.
'An actor,' this is a paraphrase of what he was saying, 'can perfectly easily say "Jesus is Lord" without having that Spirit. That's not the point of the text. Basically the text is really saying that no one can claim Jesus is Lord of their life and really mean it.'
Before I start to really lay into old John, I'm not saying he's wrong. He's right. It just struck me there is a much greater and easier explanation of the verse.

In the context of the letter, obviously, this pagan non-Jewish collection of Christians were a little confused and their church was going a bit wacky. On top of that, it was a city situated in the depths of the Roman Empire, and as much as Christianity was growing through any means possible, the fastest growing cult of the day was the 'Caesar cult.' The majority of citizens in the Roman Empire believed Caesar was descended from the gods, he was a son of god and was the Lord of the world. So many people believed this that there was a danger to even consider that someone else could be 'Lord.' I hope you know where I'm going.

A truly dangerous thing to do would be to claim that someone other than Caesar is Lord. Jesus for example. In fact, the implications of saying Jesus is Lord, is to inadvertently draw on the assumption that therefore Caesar isn't. So an encouragement would be to tell people who are bringing immense judgment on themselves actually have the Spirit of Jesus in them.

And what an encouragement all the more that if you're saying this and trying to live a life where some man deluded by power isn't dictating your life, but Jesus son of the Living God, who is risen from the dead is ruling you life, then there are some great gifts on offer for you?! Well. I'd say enough said, but I might just follow through a little more. Paul has written:

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone."

So he says on this subject of gifts of the Spirit, just remember who you were first. You were led astray by all manner of distractions. Don't be ignorant in this. There are gifts on offer if you'd just pay some attention (key word is gift brothers). You should have full assurance that if you're claiming Jesus is Lord and therefore Caesar isn't then you have the Holy Spirit living in you. Does that make you feel good or what?

This spirit gives you loads of different gifts, and there are different things you can do as a Christian because of this one Lord, you're stuck with doing one thing. But whether there is some kind of special work of the spirit by a gift that builds the church's spirit, or a gift of service that you do empowered by that same Lord that builds the church's body, either way, it's the God, the God of Israel, that empowers these acts in everyone.

I have to be honest that sits right with me. In today's society, obviously, we don't have a massive empire, claiming to be immortal, with a dictator who is convinced he is a son of god - though there are some pretty crazy people in power; there always are, I guess. It takes a bit of work to get that to fit with the Western culture, but the understanding fits with the writing in a much truer way.

Be encouraged then, if you stand on your faith even though it brings persecution, that should serve as a reminder that the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all His gifts remain on offer. Is Jesus King in your life? Then be encouraged that every act of service you do, or any point where you allow God to work through you, you are a true channel of the Spirit of Jesus.

Well done!

Watch out world

The trouble with allowing yourself to get carried away when you're typing is that you end up somewhere you didn't expect to be. Last post was entitled 'What do we become?' which was fitting with the content. And yet, I had on my heart something different to get across. As soon as I started talking about baptisms (and there's a danger for me to get carried away again), I got so excited by all the inner deep meanings of it. It's a wonderful thing in all sorts of ways. But I had wanted to talk about another universal truth that I had started to understand and wanted to express.

What do we become? It is full of meaning. The future is what I'm getting at; what do we become in the future? This is what can be described as the slippery slope of success, to use alliteration. Or the treasuring of a timely truth. (I know I'm annoying someone at this point.) Perhaps, to universalise it in completion; the worship of the world will go one way, the glory of God leads us another.

Two things are true in society today. One is that everyone believes something. The other is that everyone is worshiping something. This shapes a person, a community, a society/culture, and the world. The West would most likely believe they don't have God to worry about, life is about success and it is expressed by having a lovely house which is clean and has plenty of stuff in it. The East would most likely decide God is a silly thing to worry about, whether He exists or not, and the most important thing is the appearance of your family; anything that brings shame on you, brings shame on those who share your name so be very careful how you act, and what you allow out into the open.

A good question to ask both East and West is 'what is this God you don't believe in?' but I think that's for another time. The thing I wanted to drive at was this crazy wall of an idea that you become what you worship. Maybe a better term would be sacrificially love. So we can deduce (for example) that a generalisation of the West is that they 'sacrificially love' money, and as such they define themselves and others around them as customers, partners, debtors, creditors, rather than as fellow human beings. It becomes worse if there is a worship of power.

What am I saying? That we can't do community anymore? Well, there is a high class individualism I've experienced and it's not healthy. Sometimes, people don't realise we need other people. If I go out for coffee, I need one or two bus drivers, someone to take my order, someone to take some money off me, and someone to take my cup and clean it. The establishment needs a supplier, which would need transport, which would need a driver/pilot, etc.... That's a lot of people for one coffee. I don't think self-sufficiency is very cool. I'm not sure if that's a good term, but I have been watching a fair amount of 'That 70's Show'.

I suppose it's a danger to worship things that make us into objects rather than human beings. As humans we're supposed to be human and the only way to really be human is worship something that we bear the image of; let's say God as revealed in Jesus. So imagine a whole community worshiping Jesus; like church for example. It's getting to the point where I would say church is a great thing and it's full of wonderful people being really human :o)
It's not, but it's something that has more chance of happening among other people trying to be really human, than being around a load of people looking at each other in terms of good financial categories.

What's the church for though? We can worship Jesus until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it the best place in the world for every human being. Worship isn't just for Sundays, it's a lifestyle. The thing about God is as we draw near to Him in worship, He draws near to us. We notice in the gospels and elsewhere that the way God/Jesus generally worked was drawing His people into intimacy with Him and then sending them into the world to start it's healing. I think that is a good 'generally' for the church. We come together as a body to be corporately drawn to Jesus in His embrace. We live our lives together and apart being drawn to Him, and sent out by His same love to carry out healing on the world that He so longs to see.

He started it in the resurrection, and continues it in each person who believes in their heart He is risen from the dead. It's an ongoing process and it's hard work, but so rewarding in terms of where this world is headed; transformation.

What do we become?

Church threw in an extra service the other night for the sake of some guys in our church wanting to be baptised. I love the imagery. Baptism is always more than getting a whole lot wet and drying off for the sake of some guy in the sky. I don't even think he's "up there" anyway; Jesus that is. When I was baptised nearly 2 years ago now, I didn't fully grasp what was taking place. I think I grasp a bit more, but it continues to astonish me. I've been sharing a lot about this new creation (or inaugurated eschatology) recently which has led me back to the reminiscent state of me becoming what has been popularly known as a Christian.

A lot of my friends came along to watch me get wet. I didn't quite get it; it's obviously a massive deal to those who have realised more about what happened to them, and want to witness it in others. Getting baptised gave me an opportunity to share something of my journey. It turned from a travel diary into something of an awards ceremony. I thanked 5 different people.

My parents: They have been together for about 25 years and I never saw them argue. It was a sign of what is really going on with Jesus and his followers. They were good parents to me and gave me freedom to make the faith I now have my own, not reliant on their's.

My older brother: I had seen him change, seen his passion for the bible, and seen his passion for theology. It made me want to study the bible myself and that kicked me into the final steps of becoming a child of God.

My younger brother: He grew my faith by continually working with a fluctuating youth group, that had more interest in playing games than anything serious. The members had been faithful, then unreliable, then bored of it and looking for something else. He had stuck with it all, helping the worship in the more Jesus focused meetings feel like it was owned by the group itself.

As I shared the part about my younger brother I had cried. More of a blurt than an outpour of tears but something had hit me. To this day, I can't really work out what it was.

I thanked Jesus for working in my life, and thanked Dave Mullen for convincing me it was something I needed to do.

After it all I look back and I can see it was crucial. I modelled externally what had happened internally. Primarily, new creation. The dunking signifies death. Jesus died too. Let's publicly share in that, is the general way of thinking about baptism in today's church. The bringing up out of the water brings the cheer. It also brings a sense of relief to both the dunkers and the dunkee. And probably the viewers as well. That signifies new life. Like eggs. I say eggs because they eventually hatch and you've got a fluffy yellow problem on your hands. That could lead me to a further point, but I think I'll leave that for another time.

New life. Why new life? My friend Adam was preaching at the baptisms this time, and with his remote control convertible car he explained - that is more of an in joke to anyone reading this and reminiscing as opposed to those people wanting to find out what happened. What happened was remarkably predictable, but I found out a certain Mike Reeve was very good at telling his story. There's this verse, which is usually taken as a single sentence to prove a point - like taking a random sentence out of this increasingly long post to show something which may or may not be relevant - which says 'anyone in Christ is a new creation, the old has gone the new has come.' Lovely and poetic.

Besides my hang-ups with the term in Christ because it's so ambiguous in the original language so I won't go into it, it's a good verse. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you will be saved. Despite the massively political agenda hidden in the verse there, which is highly irrelevant for the point I'm making, the prospect is clear. With Jesus being raised from the dead New Creation begins. Anyone believing with their heart that he has been raised from the dead can now, quite plainly, be termed as 'in Christ' whatever that really means. I guess I'll go with being crucified with Him and raised with Him...therefore also a new creation; which fits with that other verse.

I like that, it's pretty darn good. I'm not sure what my point is, but baptisms are a great way of encouraging everyone who believes and confesses and stuff that they have this new life to live. Nice.

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.'