All for King Jesus...

Last night Jenni and I were looking at the stars and talking about God's promise to Abraham. Rich Mullins always said that one of those stars was lit just for us. We talked about God's promise to Abraham, that through him many nations would come.

This morning I started thinking how that promise really did not come about through Abraham, nor through Isaac, but it came through Jacob. Each of them was promised that the covenant made with Abraham would be fulfilled in them.

We do not hear this type of covenant again from God until David comes onto the scene and then it is promised again a very similar type thing, that his kingdom shall pass down and never be removed.

God has been playing this game of chess with the end game in mind all along. The entirety of Israel's history was deliberate strategy on the part of God to bring the messiah Jesus into the world to deliver mankind from the bondage of sin. Understanding this we can see why it was Jacob's direct lineage and not Isaac or Abraham's (both had sons that were not part of the fullfillment of God's promise - Abe had Ishmael, Isaac had Esau but all of Jacob's children became the nation of Israel) was the lineage through whom God choose to bring forth the nation of Israel. David was chosen because the DNA he carried was the DNA of the savior.

It makes me wonder how God is directing the flow of humanity in our world in order for Christ to return again.

New Testament - Old doubts...

Last night I was thinking about the New Testament. I was thinking just how outlandish it all is. The idea that God would put on skin, that He would walk around, that He died and that through that our sins are forgiven and we are redeemed from an afterlife spent in hell. I thought about the idea that He was then raised back to life after being for 3 days, I mean, His heart had not beaten for three days, rigamortis had set in, he was , . It is all so unbelievable. What I started thinking about is how there are so many other documents that record events that are just as spectacular or at least similar in their miraculous nature, that we simply discount as frauds. The book of Mormon is one that comes to mind readily.
Here is what I realized. The New Testament is different from all other Manuscripts of this type. It is a set of documents that were all written in the same span of time that the events took place. Let me explain it this way. People live for 60-90 years. Jesus died in the early 30 AD's. The new Testament was all written before or up to about the 80's. This means that a maximum of 40 years had surfaced between the latest writings of the New Testament and the of Jesus. THIS MEANS: that the reports of the New Testament were testable. Individuals could have read the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and simply gone and talked with Nicodemus or Zacchaeus and asked if they had really witnessed Jesus in the manner the gospels record. No other document that I can think of has this same kind of "testability" to it. Joseph Smith wrote about things that had supposedly happened in the past. There is no way we can go and ask someone, did this happen. But early observers of Christianity had this luxury. It is no wonder the church grew by leaps and bounds in those early days. People in Jerusalem had seen all that had happened, they had heard reports and they were asking themselves, "what does this all mean?" Along comes Peter, he does a bit of preaching and explains the "Good News" and THOUSANDS accept Christ. It is no wonder. They accepted because it filled in the blanks for what they had witnessed.

Salvation Stipulation...

I was recently asked, "at what point is a person saved?". It was one of those theoretical questions that you feel like you can only give a heretical answer to. The underlying question this person was asking was, "Does baptism really have anything to do with salvation?". We talked about it and came to no great conclusion. I told him I view salvation as a process, not a one time event. It is a matter of repenting, believing, confessing and baptism. All these things do not happen every time all at once. So, if someone dies before the process is complete, are they saved. I would probably say yes, but for those of us alive, does that mean we can neglect the process, I would say no.
What it got me thinking about, and the reason for this rant is the idea of the word "saved" we Christians like to throw about. The idea that we accept Christ and are, at once, presently translated into a new person - we are longer on the recieving end of God's punishment stick. Our talk about being saved is as though it is a present reality a current occurence. Our idea of the word is tha "I am saved" (meaning I am currently, presently saved from sin), the scripture, on the other hand, talks about salation in the idea of "those who are being saved" (2 Corinthians 2:15), as far as I can tell, and I certainly will leave room for me to be wrong, salvation is a future tense reality, not a present occurrence in our lives. Hebrews 9:28, speaking of Christ's sacrifice to take away sin says "and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." 1 Peter 1:9 says "for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls." (The emphasis in both verses is mine). It seems that salvation is a life long process that we are all rending ourselves through until the day of Christ or our final breath on this earth. Does this mean that as believers we are no different? That no change has actually taken place in us? I would say not. We have become the dwelling place of God on earth. The Holy Spirit dwells within us, those who are believers, He is our deposit until the day of that salvation (read 2 Corinthians or follow this search link). This means that God is freeing us from sin and yet we are bound by it. This means that we still hurt, still die, still cannot understand, and we still see as though we are looking into a foggy mirror. There is a day when salvation will come on a white horse and he will have his name tattooed on his thigh. His sword will protrude from his mouth and once and for all we will be healed.
So, when is a person saved? When they die...

A philosphical question and a question of philosophy...

As Christians, we are constantly trying to get rid of those elements of society that function in an immoral manner - porn on the web, violence in video games, sex in TV and movies, etc. My question is for those "free willers" out there, those Armenian brothers:
If God is a God of choice, desiring that individuals chose him, then why do we try to rid an individual of choice? Let me clarify, why do we try to rid ourselves of the negative choices in life?
Do we make for stronger Christians if we remove any possibility of sin?
Do we make for better Christians if we take away any chance of falling away?
Will grace abound? Is our job to clean up society and remove temptations? (I am not talking at a personal level, I am talking at a corporate level).
Someone might well then say, "what choice do we have but to get rid of immoral things, they corrupt, kill, maim and smell bad." Of course they do, they are immoral because they are in direct opposition to the things of God (which tend to smell quite peculiar and tantalizing). But is getting "rid" of this societal corrosion really the answer? Even God left Adam & Eve with a choice, he left them the chance to be immoral. It has always boggled me how much time we Christians put into banning, badmouthing, and breaking down immoral activities only to have five more pop up in their wake. I have long felt that, if anything, we loose ground in this fight. Perhaps, we do not gain ground because our struggle is not meant to be against imoral "things". Perhaps, God has never desired a moral nation or people, but an obedient, loving community. Perhaps, He cares much more about the condition of our souls than the language on our lips (fixing the first will lead to a rebirth in the former).
This is why Christians being involved in the working of politics and schools, homes and businesses, is of the utmost importance, because we must find a way to give a choice to the masses. We must make sure that the world not only has sex, drugs, and rock n' roll to chose from, but that they are able to see and chose the grace that can be found in a relationship with Jesus... If we make clear what is wrong but leave out what is right, we only make for moral people. I am about changed lives, not moral people...

Thoughts Spawned by a Rabbi

So I have been listening to this podcast by Rabbi Mintz in New York. They are very interesting. The class is a study in the history of Jewish and Rabbinic Law. I have learned a lot and been very interested. It has been interesting in the way an art gallery full of replica paintings would be interesting. It is like seeing an origional and yet not having the same depth or character as the origional. I mean no disrespect. It is after all a study of the history of Law not of Yahwey. What the Jewish law makers set out to do after the period of the judges, kings and prophets was to take the torah and explain it. They did this through the Talmud and the Mishnah. These documents set out general explanations of the law found in the pentatuch (the first five books of the Old Testament- their only testament or covenant). What happened was, they Jewish community, after returning from exile, no longer had prophets to tell them what God wanted. They had a temple where they could sacrifice to him, but all they had to live by was the previous prophetic message, the law of Moses, and the oral tradition (said to be handed to Moses on Sinai and passed on orally). The early pharisees, the predisesors to the Rabbi's, would take a law like "You should keep the Sabbath holy", and they would say, "Ok, we understand that we need to keep the Sabbath holy, and that we are not to work on the Sabbath, but what constitutes holy and work." The Talmud and the Mishnah are authoritative works that define these types of open ideas. The Mishnah was created in the early 200's ad and it is the written oral tradition, the Talmud came shortly after and it is a commentary of sorts on the Mishna, it not only contains the tradition, but seeks to define the tradition even more by presenting differing Rabbinical arguments. An example of a law in the Torah that needed this kind of definitive process in more recent years is that they were not allowed to start a fire on the Sabbath, this was considered work. So, in modern days the Rabbi's argued and debated whether or not you could flip a light switch or not on the Sabbath, because when you flipped the switch they were not sure whether you were starting a fire or not. These laws are the replicas I spoke of in my annalogy. We are quick to dismiss this kind of legalism, but it comes out of a deep respect for God, it comes out of trying not to overstep what God has commanded. But as Jesus would say, you uphold your traditions and forget the great things of God's law, love and mercy. At the time of Jesus these laws were still in an oral form and you would go to a Rabbi to get his take or argument, his "Talmudic" type saying. When Jesus comes he takes the oral tradition and the teachings of the Rabbi's and turns them of their heads. He says in Matthew 23 some harsh words concerning they way they handle the law of God, vs 23-24:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. It is such beautiful imagery and such fierce words. Jesus is attacking a not just a tradition, but something they believe to come from God on Sinai with Moses. He might as well have spit in their eyes. But, that is not the point of what I am saying although I do like to watch a good fight. What I am saying, I guess what struck me about listening to this Jewish Rabbi talk. Was just how little any of it had to do with God himself. The whole enterprise became so focused on the law that it forgot the lawmaker. It became so rigid in principles it set out that it could not conceive of a God who went beyond their principles. The tradition was to be fluid, it was to change with it's context, but it was always about the tradition, never about God, not really. I mean, that is what most of the prophets are screaming out. That is what Jesus came to rail against. This is why we needed a new covenant, because in the old, the law that was to only be a school teacher became the stumbling block... Anyway. This was very interesting to me, hope it makes sense. It is very long, and probably needs editing to make sense seeing as how it is 7:14 in the morning, but alas, I am to lazy and I figure you can grasp my meaning without me fixing my mode... Hah, I hope so anyway...

El Logos

On Friday I subbed at Jenni's school (St. Mary's Catholic School). We had to attend mass. I had several thoughts as I participated in the goings on, actually there was more observation than participation. One major thought I had was how much scripture is weaved in and out of their liturgy. The priest even hit on this in his homiletical address. He talked about the words they say right before they take communion and how they are a reworking of the words the centurion said to Jesus in Luke 7, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." (what Catholics say before receiving the Eucharist).
My thoughts over the extraordinary inclusion of scripture into all that they do made me ask the question of "Why?". Why does the Catholic Church have so much scripture inter weaved within their mass and prayers. I have a feeling that the answer has to do with several factors. One major and obvious factor is that the scripture is one of the places Catholics base their belief of Jesus upon (the other being the church - as I understand the Catholic theology). Other factors I might speculate upon would be literacy rates throughout history, the availability of printed scripture, etc. I don't know that I have a good answer as to why, but as I asked the question of "why" I found myself asking "why not?".
The typical protestant church puts much pressure on congregants to study scripture on their own accord. We have individualized the faith. The letters written in the New Testament were letters written to churches, not individuals (excluding Philemon, and the Timothy's - even these letters became documents that were passed around from church to church). It is also inconceivable that the early church had copies of every letter for every person, it is more likely that each congregation (however you want to interpret that) had it's own copies of some of the letters, and maybe not even all... I imagine these types of prayers and repetitious speaking was a common event in their services in order to place the words and thoughts of God in the minds of their people.
I can't believe that we have taken this completely out of our protestant churches. We elevate "fly by the seat of your pants prayers" above scripted ones because they have more personal meaning. By doing so we loose the benefit of filling anothers mind with the Logos (the word). We leave out the congregational reading because it is dry and dull, and yet for some it is the only time they will allow the words of life to pass through their lips.
I am not saying we need to adopt a Catholic service as our own. It was indeed interesting to me - but part of that has to do with it being different. I feel much of it is dull and slow paced, not because the content has lost it's power, but because our culture has lost it's patience. I will be doing thinking on this. I think it is a great idea to be instilling the scripture within a person without expecting them to necessarily have to go and sit down and read it...

The Stars

Oh man, I got to work just a little while ago, and it was like 3:20 in the morning. The stars were spectatcular. I think for the first time I understood the Psalmist saying "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" I mean, wow. Have you taken a good look at the universe lately? I sat there and wondered at the fact that God takes me into account at all...
I have to say, I also find it amusing that when God was throwing all of the stars out there, he couldn't help but create some dot to dots. I mean, honestly, you can't tell me that Orion is an anomaly. How beautiful...

Theologians

I was reading last night some works by great early theologians. It was interesting because the two were in stark contrast to one another. One, Justin Martyr, describes this synthesis between philosophy and theology. His argument is that philosophers were simply trying to describe the "Logos", the "word" as best as they could with their limited knowledge and that the truth found within their philosophies was still truth and was even "Christian" truth because it described the "Logos". He argues that the contradictions and so forth in their philosophy was only there because they had an imperfect perception of the Logos, but now that Christ has come, the Logos incarnate, we have a full picture of what it should really look like. All confusion is lifted.
Tertullian on the other hand had quite a different perspective, he said that the pagan philosophers and Christian theology had nothing to do with one another, he eludes to the the ideas found in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 of there needing to be a complete separation between the two ideologies.
Augustine comes to the rescue of both and says that there is some truth that can be gleaned from the philosophers of old, but that we should not presume to place to much importance on their ideas. We should let Christ supersede by all means those ideas of philosophy.
As I have been studying the Emerging Church and their movement, I see a similar argument arising. One group trying very hard to be relevant to a philosophical movement (post-modernism, whatever that may be), and one group saying that we should not adopt the morias of our culture, rather change them to be Christ-like. I am wondering who our Augustine will be that will help unite the cause in understanding. It seems like the two voices that are predominant in this discussion really do take the thing entirely too far.