Acceptance and Tolerance in Church

I really am a little nervous about this post, but it's pretty important to me so I'll go on with it anyway.

In my life, experience, and opinion, one of the hardest, if not THE hardest thing to do in Christian community is to fully accept someone. In Romans 15:7, we are commanded to receive/accept one another has Jesus has accepted us. In my NT professor's opinion, this verse is the climax of the book. All the theology of salvation and sanctification is "merely" a foundation for this statement. I tend to agree with him.

If taken to its fullest application, this statement is virtually impossible. How can we possibly love, accept, receive, tolerate, and embrace others the way Jesus does? When you think about it, most people have a lot of annoyances, quirks, idiosyncrasies, and even sins that inhibit love and acceptance.

So am I saying that we fully accept people despite their sins and imperfections?

YES!

Why?

Because if you really think about it, that's what Jesus does for you (and more so, me!) on a yearly, monthly, weekly, daily, and hourly basis! Really. Jesus puts up with more than you can imagine from your own self, the least we can do is put up with it from others. Remember Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant, that those who don't forgive the trifles we put up with from others declare themselves not to be part of Jesus' followers. Tough, but true. You can try to argue with Jesus, but I'm not sure how far you'll get.

Just take a second to think of how many things cause you to judge others and prevent you from accepting others.

Sports teams, nationalities, Favorite music, favorite tv shows, political ideologies, sins, personalities, home state/city, and I'm sure there are a bevy of others.

Now before everyone gets mad at me for wanting to leave people drowning in their sins and not holding them accountable, let me just say again: Jesus puts up with an awful lot from you--so remember that before you judge someone, or totally refuse to embrace them as fellow Christians.

And in case you're wondering, the thing that prompted this is my own experience of being left out, "picked last", and overlooked for small reasons, and my own intoleration of others.

Thank you, house church, for showing me what full acceptance really looks like!

Awkwardity and Jesus

One of my favorite comedy routines is Jim Gaffigan talking about Christianity. I think you can find the routine on youtube or his website or something. Just Google it, why should I do all your detective work?! Or just take my word for it, it's hilarious.

In one of his bits, he talks about how things get immediately awkward whenever anyone brings up the topic of Jesus. Even the pope gets weirded out by it, he claims. "Easy fella, I keep work at work!"

I have definitely found this to be true in every case. There is something immediately awkward about any situation that "Jesus" is uttered as anything but a swear word. Why is this? As far as I know, there is no weird feeling in the room when discussion turns to Satan, Buddha, or even Muhammad.

Is it because "Jesus" immediately makes people recognize their failures, imperfections, and sins? Is it because the devil don' like it? Is it because "There's just something about that name?" Does the name, "Jesus" have magic voodoo powers?

More than anything, I lean toward the first option, especially in the North American culture of entitlement and self-esteem that says we're not perfect but we're really awesome and stuff and anything is in our power, regardless of who we are.

Maybe it's because the topic of Jesus is always tethered to the topic of hell. No small wonder, since Jesus never seems to resist an opportunity to talk about hell. In fact, he's really the only Bible character who talks about it at length. Kind of odd for the hippy, dress-wearing, pacifist, long-haired philosopher.

OK, so one, two, three: share your thoughts and comments on things being awkward when Jesus comes up in conversation. For instance: reading this blog...?

Sharing Jesus: True Hollywood Stories

Well, not "Hollywood" per se, but Kansas City doesn't have any exciting true stories of intrigue and suspense: that is, until now!!

I want to depart from the theoretical rights and wrongs of Christianity and describe some of my experiences in real, true, gritty, raw format. Excited yet? I know I am.

To begin, I confess that I am a horrible, horrible coward when it comes to talking about Jesus with other people. This is partly because I don't want to be made fun of and partly because I don't like revealing my passions to anyone: musical, artistic, design, love, sports teams, or whatever. I like to play everything close to my chest and remain mysteriously (and coolly) aloof from friendship and any level of intimacy.

The result? I have very few friends and a phobia of intimacy on many levels.

Anyhow, I'm sure you're not reading this to hear me complain about my social problems like a tweeny-bopper girl at a giggly slumber party. On to the titular concerns (that is, relating to the title, not what you're thinking!).

As strange as it may sound, there is a lot of difference in trying to explain and persuade to Christianity someone who is a divorced 50-year-old man and a late-twenties philosophy major. The first wants short, simple answers that I have a hard time giving because I tend to get logorrhea ("diarrhea of the mouth") and over explain all the junk behind how people arrive at simple conclusions. This, however, is a great method for the latter guy.

My point is, it is difficult to adapt effective speaking methods to different kinds of people. At times, it frustrates me, because it means that I have to put more time and energy into things.

Or . . . maybe I should just pray about it more and let the Holy Spirit do his job.

Anyway, it's a lot more fun to talk about Jesus and it's pretty wild not having all the answers to the hard questions of life. I've found that if it's too easy, it's probably wrong, but oh well.

Can anyone out there relate to this? Did everybody follow what I just said?

Legos and Leviticus

Well, to be honest, this post does not have much to do with Leviticus, but laws from God in general, and I just liked the alliteration, so I stand by my title.

Going through Matthew in our church, I am struck (probably purposefully by the author) by the competing philosophies of the Pharisees and Jesus. (sarcastically: "NNNOOOOOOOOO, REEEEAAAALLLY?!?!!?!).

This difference is especially noticeable vis a vis Sabbath laws. In historical Judaism (specifically after the exile) there were three main pillars of religious practice that were strictly emphasized in order to maintain distinction between the people of God and the "goyim": the Gentiles. These were Sabbath, diet, and circumcision (all found in Leviticus, and the title is referenced!).

Thus, when Jesus engages the establishment on Sabbath laws, he is treading some mighty rough water (or possibly walking on it, I guess?). But he makes a very striking point in one such meeting: he states that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.

To me, this line of reasoning sums up all of God's laws, Leviticus and otherwise, in that they are a gift to man for his benefit and not as a punishment. In this way, God's laws are like a parent giving his child a nice lego set.

What was that???

Yup, laws are like legos, though admittedly not as fun. The Pharisees wanted to ensure that the laws were kept to prove how much better they were than everyone else around them. In this way, they built their lego models, and displayed them proudly, yet they put them in fancy acrylic display cases fenced off with velvet ropes and made sure nobody touched them.

All the while, God's intention was for us to play with them, and also to invite others to share the fun with us. Now, to be sure, laws, like legos, are fragile and prone to breaking. But there is a difference between iconoclastic bashing and smashing of God's good gifts and breakage that happens in the course of normal play.

Naturally, God would not want people to smash his gifts to us, but neither would he want us to devote all our energies into keeping something so pristine and untouched that it is completely unenjoyable. Instead, we are called to enjoy God's gifts, to exercise good stewardship of them, and to invite others to enjoy them with us. We are not to use them to abuse and exclude people, and then to judge them for playing with inferior toys.

So what do you think? Is this a good analogy or not? Where does it break down? What scriptures support or deny this analogy? Am I being lazy in forcing readers to do my research for me?

And finally, does Mizzou have a chance in the NCAA Championship coming up?

Cynicism and Preaching

Preaching has been coming into question over the past decade (more or less) with arguments like the shorter attention spans of the hearers, the inauthenticity of pretentious pastors, its inability to actually change lives, and various and sundry other arguments.

Proponents of preaching, cite biblical references, historical precedent, and start screaming louder and louder to drown out opposition. Yet they fail to seriously take into consideration the charges brought against them. (I am talking here of people I have heard defending preaching, such as John MacArthur and his cronies, and even Mark Driscoll).

I am a little tougher sell, though. I have blogged before about the danger of overusing the lecture format in church, and how it can be abused. This time, I want to try to sell preaching, but with different philosophical foundations behind its use and function.

First and foremost, let's face it, the gospel must presented orally at some point. Actions, pictures, songs, and attitudes are the backup singers: insufficient on their own, but when paired with the melody line, it creates a fuller, more beautiful experience and expression of the original idea.

The main problem I see to preaching is how to communicate truth to a society that is completely overrun with iconoclasm, sarcasm, cynicism, and skepticism, much like a medieval city overrun by rats and lice. How can one break through the wall of skepticism without demolishing the building?

I have a few solutions that are both difficult to describe and master, but must, I believe, be present.

To begin, as I learned in preaching class, the purpose of a sermon is NEVER knowledge. The purpose of every sermon is to connect people to the God of the universe, to lead them to the bridge between time and eternity, the God-man, Jesus. Confronted with the presence of God, people will then see who they are and be drawn to repent and motivated to do good and spurn evil.

This kind of preaching can only be achieved through prayer, because it is the power of the Holy Spirit, working in the hearts and minds and lives of the hearers. So preachers must pray, pray, pray.

Next, as a result of enlightenment philosophies of the past several hundred years, preaching has been replaced with cold, lifeless, abstract propositions, and has seen fit to leave behind the active, living, concrete metaphors and vivid word pictures. When you actually examine scripture, it is almost entirely made up of metaphor, story, song, and parable. Very little of the Bible is abstract or purely propositional in nature.

Certainly, propositions are made/implied by these vehicles of communication, but what service is done by taking the concrete and making it abstract and theoretical?

So we are to let the Bible speak on its own terms, and use parables and metaphor and figures of speech to engage the imagination of the hearer. And finally, we MUST know our audiences and take their objections seriously. We must listen to the questions they are asking, the concerns that they are raising, and reply humbly and sincerely.

The last point is my biggest disappointment in most preaching. The message has nothing to do with me, because none of my questions are raised and dealt with. Naturally, the preacher cannot deal with every objection possible, but the objections must be contemporary and should be real, not just the whim and imagination of what the preacher thinks an objector might sound.

Paul is the best example of raising objections to his own points. Books like Romans and Corinthians are brilliant examples of answering logical objections with real solutions. In writing, it's known as the "hypothetical interlocutor," but who cares! Put the people's real questions in your mouth. And preach Jesus.

I'll deal more with propositions in my next blog. This topic just ran away with me! Hooah!

I don't usually like to blog about personal issues, but I suppose every rule has to have an exception. Today, my wife and I were preapproved for a mortgage, and have thus taken our first steps toward homeownership.

I am really excited! I am looking forward to shopping around, and picking out a place that will finally be "ours," with no hassles about damage, no worries about the people downstairs, and a backyard to relax in.

I would appreciate your prayers in this enormous undertaking for all the aspects, and just that the house won't collapse or catch on fire or something like that. At least not for a long long time.

I am also really really wanting a place in which to cultivate a community of faith--i.e., start a church, so I really want a place conducive to meeting, talking, hanging, and the occasional whatnot.

Plus I'd like to thank a historic recession/depression for low low house prices and historically low interest rates!

Worship--What the Heck?

One of the most frustrating things about being interested in Christianity and especially in Greek and Hebrew is that I have to suffer through hearing other people butcher texts and run roughshod over them (What up Dr. T!!).

This is ESPECIALLY true with the word "Worship."

Some common definitions heard in pulpits (and behind music stands) are that it "literally" means to ascribe worth, and the Greek "literally" means to kiss toward.

Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh, but........

Here's the thing. Yes, in Greek the word translated as worship can be broken up with the words toward and kiss. But a word is generally not the sum of its parts. Consider the word "diaphragm," which "literally" means "across a fence." Ummmmm, what?

Anyhow, when we worship, we are not, somehow, blowing kisses at our boyfriend, Jesus. Rather, the "kiss toward" is kissing the ground in front of a king, like you lost a contact lens. It is prostrate position, bowing down, bending over, to do homage, etc., etc., etc. Similarly, the Hebrew word for worship just means "to bend over." No confusion there.

Ergo...

When we "worship" God, we are not sending up silly love songs (and yes, Paul McCartney, I have had enough of silly love songs about God!) or just saying what he's worth (Far more than you can imagine!). If you want the absolute best expression of true worship found in the Bible, it comes from the mouth of John the Dunker (traditionally: "Baptist"):

"He must increase, but I must decrease!" (KJV)
"He must become greater; I must become less." (NIV)
"[He must] move into the center, while I slip off to the sidelines." (MSG)

So simple, yet the implications are farther than we can see. It is about words (including songs) and deeds (yes, works! <>) that increase God's reputation on earth, that increase God's value and importance to us, that increase his authority over our lives! He must increase!

And proportionally, we must decrease! The best part of Purpose Driven Life is the first sentence: "It's not about you." It's not about me. It's ALL about Jesus.

Worship happens when we are alone, face to face with God, when we are with other Christians, and when we act like His kids to both the sheep and the annoying goats (we were all goats at some point in our lives).

God is not "most glorified in us when we are most satisfied with him" (a la John Piper). Rather, God is most glorified, honored, and worshiped by us when He is the biggest and we are the "leasterest," as the apostle Paul so beautifully invented (Eph. 3:8).

The "Ever Fixed Mark"

I'm sure that the more refined readers will recognize the title as being stolen from Shakespeare (Sonnet CXVI to be precise).

So what does an old love poem have to do with western culture's movement from modernism to postmoderism, Christian existentialism, and my life so far? Good question!

"Modernism" can be grossly oversimplified as the search for foundations, and even THE foundation. Modernism as we know it was launched with the Cartesian formula "I think, therefore I am." Existence was founded on being rational. The human mind was the pinnacle of creation, and it was thought that no mystery or problem was beyond a solution based on the scientific method.

Eventually, humans figured out that most of what "I think" is based on "my" experience, and "my" culture, and "my" worldview. This discovery led to the mission to deconstruct all previously held general assumptions of facts (and even "proven" facts) by exposing the foundations upon which they were held as mere aspects of "truth," only "relative" to each person's experience. (my right pinky is getting tired of all these quote marks...)

The search for foundations, the "ever fixed mark[s]" upon which everything would stand, has led to the attempted destruction of every thought, theory, and practice. The result is a feeling of "lostness." Philosophers have variously called this feeling despair, angst, homelessness, and sundry other synonyms. It is evident in all our culture, the constant motion of life to avoid these feelings, the acknowledged emptiness of the entertainment, on which we spend countless hours and dollars, the lyrics of many bands (esp. alternative) like Coldplay, U2, and many other less famous performers.

The deeper we dig, and the harder we try, the more questions we find, and the more variables and aspects appear. Science is still trying desperately to put together the grand unified theory of everything, and there is still little consensus on how life begins in naturalistic ways other than "it just does." Wars still rage on, even despite our human "evolution" beyond these things.

So now to bring this around again to the title: humanity is more in need now than ever of an "ever fixed mark."

Is it any wonder that the Old Testament, which is filled with imagery of humanity as transient (filling the earth, scattering after Babel, sojourning in Egypt, wandering in the desert, being exiled from the promised land, etc.) has such "outmoded" titles for God in the Psalms such as Rock, Refuge, Fortress, Tower, Established, Forever...

---

The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer,

My God, my mountain where I seek refuge,

My shield and the horn of my salvation,

My stronghold.

---

Long ago You established the earth,

And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

They will perish, but You will endure;

All of them will wear out like clothing.

You will change them like a garment,

And they will pass away.

But You are the same, and Your years will never end.

---

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

---

"Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds . . .

O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken"

The Most Dangerous Question

I am a guy who loves questions. I love to question everything and every process and every rule I encounter to see just how much scrutiny it holds up to. I especially love it when people ask me questions. I love being the answer man. Questions, questions, questions. It's how I learn and grow.

I wonder now if God is the same as me in this regard. I know when Jesus was on earth He was the master at answering questions with really insightful questions in reply. So in that sense, it was never really a good idea to ask Jesus a question because, more often than not, you left with a metaphorical limp.

I have been asking God a lot of questions over the past year. Why didn't this happen? Why am I still in a city full of sucky sports teams? Why does everyone else prosper by God's grace? Why is God so intent on holding me back? Why did I succeed so overwhelmingly and easily in seminary only to sit the bench in real life? Why have none of my crazy schemes worked? Why, why, why, why, why?

Yet it occurs to me that the question most important to me is the most profoundly unanswered question in the Bible. Honestly, I really appreciate more and more the parts of the Bible where God does absolutely no talking, and people are forced to cling to the rumors and almost-forgotten promises of generations past. Books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, Judges, Nehemiah, the really long middle of Job, the end of Genesis, and even the New Testament epistles bear testimony to the sometimes excruciating ordeal of having only the benefit of hindsight in seeing the fingerprints of God's workings behind the scenes.

And that's the only way to answer the hard and painful why questions. I think, like Job, if God even got close to telling us why then our brains would explode and our faces would melt. OK, so not EXACTLY like Job....

Why? Because He is God and He gets to decide what happens and when it happens. It's a perk of being God. That may sound trite and easy at first, but it is assuredly not, because God is also good and loving and faithful and longsuffering and present with us always. These traits are hard to fuse together because, at least in my mind, the good and loving thing to do would be to tell me all the stuff that will happen.

But I guess for me, "such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain..."

But seriously, why am I the way that I am? Anyone?

Defining Church

I was listening to a favorite preacher of mine the other day (hoo-ray for podcasts!) and he was talking about needing to define what a church is before you start one.

Sounds logical.

I decided to try a little bit, so here goes:
"Church" in the Greek is actually best defined as "Assembly." Much like the word "synagogue," it can refer to both the members (primary) and the place of assembly (secondary). Since the Greeks had all kinds of assemblies (political, religious, parties, etc.), the reason for assembling was very important. The reason Christians assemble is to worship Jesus, our great God and Savior.

So, step one, assembly should involve worship.

The New Testament gives some hints at other things that should happen when Christians assemble: prayers, use of spiritual gifts, public reading of scripture, encouragement, giving money, meeting needs, confession of sin, prophecy/teaching, baptism, Eucharist/Agape meal, and several other things. But of course, the focus of all these things is Jesus.

We (scholars and I) are pretty certain that early Christians used and adapted the synagogue sabbath service as a guide for their assemblies, which involved prayers, singing, Scripture reading, and teaching.

I could blog about this all night, but the conviction I come down to is this:

Church--
A group of people who assemble together at regular intervals for the purpose of worshiping Jesus Christ as our God and the only hope of eternal life. In these times, Christians are to obey the highest commands of Jesus to love God and to love each other by means of using their spiritual gifts to build each other up as growing students of Jesus to the glory and praise of God.

Then, I should maybe add something about sacraments and church discipline (accountability) and something about leadership. But I think I've already blogged enough about those things and I'm sure people are already sick of my fantastic armchair quarterback abilities.

Send me some comments if you dare....I might just reply to them....but I probably won't.