A Parable (Kind Of)

There once was a boy named Arthur who did not love anyone. He was a just a boy who seemed to have no heart. Not even a warm embrace from his mother could make Arthur feel love for her. He did not want to love, and made no effort to try.

Although Arthur didn't love anyone, he did love to bake cakes. Not only did he love it, but he was also very good at it. Arthur would bake cakes for his mom and dad, and his friends, and even the bullies at school. He would bake cakes for his teacher, his bus driver, his babysitter, and even the homeless people on the street.

He didn't love them, but everyone thought that Arthur loved them because he was always making them such delicious cakes.

One day Arthur's grandmother told him to enter one of his cakes into a cake-building competition. He became very excited because he knew that he could win. His cakes were that delicious. There was a problem however . . . there was a 100 dollar entry fee. No little boy has 100 dollars. Arthur thought for awhile, and finally said to himself, "I know what I will do…"

Arthur's grandma was a dear old woman, who loved everyone and was very kind to them. It turns out that she was actually pretty darn rich as well. Arthur knew this.

One day, Arthur "accidentally" dumped poison into a cake that he built for his grandma.

"Grandma," Arthur said with an evil smile on his face, "I built you a delicious cake!"

Arthur's grandma replied, "Thank you, my dear beloved Arthur, your cakes always bring joy into my old heart."

She reached out her old wrinkled hand and cut out a small sliver of cake for herself. Arthur watched in anticipation as she placed it on a small plate and fished a fork out of the drawer. Sweat began to form on the brow of the young boy, who's lack-of-love was rivaled only by the most twisted, tortured old souls of this world.

Grandma took a bite and chewed slowly.

"Mmm..." she said, "a triumph as always, my beautiful child."

This kind word to a heartless boy was the last that Arthur's grandma would ever speak. Gasping, she sat herself down in her chair and gently drifted off to a nap that she would never wake from.

***

Two weeks later, the boy-who-did-not-love sat between his weeping parents. They were in their grandma's lawyer's office, getting ready to read their dear old lady's last wishes.

"To my only daughter, and son-in-law:" The lawyer read, "I leave you with half of my entire life savings."

Arthur's parents gasped in shock. Arthur wasn't sure how much his grandma had saved during her life, but figured it had to be a lot since she was very old.

"And to my darling grandson," The lawyer began, "I leave…" The lawyer paused for a moment, and a confused look swept across his otherwise expressionless face.

Arthur was growing impatient. He already knew what the lawyer was going to say, since he and his parent's were the only people that his grandma knew, then the other half of her savings must have been left to him. "I wonder how famous my baking skills will be after I win the cake building competition?" He thought to himself, growing increasingly annoyed at the lawyer's hesitance.

"ahem…," the lawyer continued, "And to my darling grandson, I leave all of my love. Anyone can build a cake, my child, but only the most special bakers can do it with love."

By: Marianne and Jimmy

Patience

Hey everyone,

I have been excited by all of the feedback and comments that this blog has been getting. It makes me happy to see how many people come out with passionate beliefs, and solid opinions. Last week I started school again...and that probably does not mean good things for the regularity of my posts. Hopefully, the quality of my posts will increase (and there is definitely room for that), but the quantity will certainly decrease. It is a bummer because I have had to bail out on two different Bible study occasions because there is just too much work (sorry, guys...I promise, Beers Bibles and Buddies will prevail)!
When I do post a blog it will most likely be related to something that I had to read for school. I'm taking classes on the New Testament (learning about the historical and theological background behind the gospels and the book of acts), Contemporary Theological Trends (learning about recent trends in theology such as liberation, black, and feminist theology), Prayer (discussing the theology and practice of prayer), Pastoral Counseling (learning tools and methods towards helpful and Biblical counseling), and Writing of the Mystics (reading all kinds of mystics)...so I will definitely have a lot to talk about!
Anyways, thanks again to all of you who took the time to come to my blog, and to respond to my posts. I get really excited every time that I see someone left a comment because that means there is one more beautiful opinion to check out. I look forward to all of your feedback in the future! Check back again soon!

Jimmy

"Putting Faith In Its Place?"

My best friend Marc posted this video on Facebook and said that he found it interesting, so I thought that I would check it out. It's about 10 minutes long, but is worth the watch...



The argument is nothing new. God simply cannot be proved with foundational, empirical evidence. And to this guy (who is definitely smart), no god at all can be proved based on any kind of logic. This is true. I guess my response back would be: God is outside of our logic, that is why He can seem illogical. All of the classical arguments for God attempt to use logic in order to form a scientifically acceptable persuasion as to whether God exists or not. And while there are a lot of good arguments, they all eventually fall short. It stands that an argument for God's existence cannot be based on human logic. Point conceded.

Also, these arguments for God do not necessitate the existence of a Christian God.

The point that I do not agree with is when he says that even if there IS a higher intelligence there is no way of making specific claims about it (for example, saying that he is loving, and forgiving). He argues that a statement like "an alien created the universe with a push of a button" would be just as valid as making claims that the creator of the universe is a loving savior. I disagree with that based on the arguments of religious tradition, and God's self-revelation. I believe that the tradition handed down to us through the Bible (by its various editors and writers) concerning God and Israel to be true. I believe that the same God whom I worship is loving and forgiving, etc. because he revealed himself to be so (most perfectly in the person of Jesus Christ). I believe the Christian God to be a God who has revealed himself both by breaking-in from outside of AND working within the laws of nature.

Over all, the argument is a scientific one that is based in the foundational and empirical reasoning of modernism. This mindset assumes that science is the be all and end all of everything. Have a problem? Science can solve it. Whatever science dictates is true. And while science does have value, purpose, and truth, it cannot (by necessity) provide all the answers. Even the most basic of science and math can be deconstructed to the point of belief. If we break something down enough it inevitably gets to a point where we just have to shrug our shoulders and say, "because I believe it to be true." The is true about science and religion. Start with any principle or belief and if you keep breaking it down, and peeling away at it there comes a point where you just can't explain it anymore, and that is where belief comes in.

But this is an argument that has been going on, and will continue to go on for...well, until the end of us. It will not be resolved here.

While I might not agree with every point of argument that this obviously very intelligent man makes, I do agree with his final assessment. Who we have faith in should dictate how we treat others. Since we believe in an all-loving, forgiving God who gave Himself up on the cross...it follows that we should strive to be loving, forgiving, and sacrificial. Demeaning people based on what they believe is not love. Love is giving, forgiving, listening, dialoging, communing, laughing, and crying with and to one another.
Even though this guy delivers this message at the end of an argument that basically states "a Christian God is illogical, and wrong", I still believe that his final statement is a noble one.

The Old Testament? Yeah, I've Heard of It But..."

Recently a few friends decided to start up a Bible study with one another, and I am pretty excited about it. The little get together has been dubbed “Bibles, Buddies, and Beers”. It seemed appropriate since we are buddies reading and discussing the Bible over a couple of beers. What else would we call it? I thought for awhile about what book of the Bible we should so diligently read through. We could have done Romans, and discussed the intricacies of Paul’s arguments throughout the book. Or we could have read through the gospels, focusing on the parables and the sayings of Jesus. We could have read through the Psalms, and create a discipline of prayer based around the reading of those prayers and poems.

Yes, we could have discussed any one of those books, but in the end the decision fell upon the book of Judges. Yes, Judges. One of the most confusing, disparaging, gut-wrenching books in the Bible. “Why Judges?” You may ask. “Is it because the Bible study group consists of only guys, and they just want to read a book about war, fighting, and machismo?” Nope. That would be stupid.

Ultimately, the book of Judges was chosen BECAUSE it is one of the most confusing, disparaging, gut-wrenching books in the Bible. Read Judges 19, for example, throughout the course of an entire night a woman is brutally raped and murdered by a group of men. Read Judges 11, where Jephthah makes a vow with God that ultimately leads to him having to sacrifice his own daughter. It sounds a little bit like the story of Abraham and Isaac, but in this story…there is no angel that holds back Jephthah’s hand.

The book of Judges and, indeed, the rest of the Old Testament has been disregarded in a lot of churches as, well…the Old Testament. There is no need for it because we Christians now have the New Testament, what is the point of having the Old Testament? It seems that the only parts of the Old Testament that are used are the Psalms, the suffering servant passages, and anything else that Jesus or Paul might have happened to quote. Treating the Old Testament in this way is disrespectful to the entirety of Scripture. Ironically, it is generally churches that claim to have a “high view” of the Bible that disregard the Old Testament.

I don’t know for sure, but I am guessing that part of the reason that the Old Testament is sort of “written-off” is because of passages like Judges 11 and 19.

But the reality is that these passages are in the Bible. The same Bible that we elevate as holy, inspired, and authoritative. Every Sunday morning when we read Jesus’ words on love and grace and forgiveness, stories of rape and murder in which God remains disturbingly silent are just a few pages to the left.

So what do we do? Do we close our eyes and ignore those stories? Get rid of the Old Testament altogether? Call it uninspired?

No. Of course not. Any healthy reading of the Bible should involve struggle. A struggle for understanding, a struggle to find God in the words of Scripture. It’s a struggle we will often lose. Like Jacob wrestling with the angel of God, we must stubbornly take hold of the Bible and wrestle with it. We have to fight, yell, kick, scream...and sometimes, we have to disagree. Jephthah is honored as a faithful man for sacrificing his daughter, not only in the narrative of the Old Testament but also in (gasp) Hebrews 11 (The New Testament). Do I think he is a faithful man? No. The dude killed his daughter. But that does not mean that I write off the story as some folk-tale based in a culture that I am light years away from.

The struggle is finding God in these words. The God most perfectly revealed to us as a loving and forgiving God by Jesus Christ is in those stories. Somewhere. He is speaking to us through our reading of those words, but sometimes we don’t have the ears to hear. We have to wrestle with the words in order to find God and hear what He is truly saying to us. Like Jacob, we will often come away from the struggle limping and defeated...but with a renewed passion for God, and a new respect for the Scripture that has been handed down to us. We cannot ignore the tradition that our faith was born out of. Finding God as he has revealed himself to us in the Bible is difficult, and sometimes can seem impossible. But through prayer, meditation, and an actual ATTEMPT at passages like Judges 11 and 19 I have complete faith that God will somehow be revealed.

How do you feel about the way the Old Testament is handled at your church?

How much have you read the Old Testament?

(Thanks to Scott Knees for the "Jacob wrestling with the angel" analogy)

A Citizen of the Kingdom

The city of Philippi was an important Roman city that stood on the very edges of what was considered to be the western world. The city was filled with people who enjoyed the much-sought-after status of “Roman citizen”. As citizens of Rome the people of Philippi enjoyed the highest privileges granted by the Roman government. They did not have to pay poll-taxes, or land taxes, they were protected from certain legal punishments (such as beatings and being imprisoned without a hearing), and they were free to buy and sell land as they willed. They had it pretty easy, and more than likely the people of Philippi were very proud of their citizenship. Why wouldn’t they be? They were Romans after all. They were a part of the most powerful empire in the world. High classed, educated, and cultured…unlike all of the “barbarians” and “second-class citizens” who occupied other parts of the empire.

Philippi was mainly occupied by Romans, but it also had a significant Greek and Jewish population. Macedonian Greeks and the Jewish people would probably have been considered “second-class” citizens. They did not enjoy the same privileges as the full-fledge Roman citizens, and thereby were not as “important” as the Romans. But then, all of the sudden, Paul comes preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. A gospel in which there is no Jew or Greek, man or woman, master or slave. By converting to Christianity the members of the Church in Philippi had become equal members in the body of Christ.

Instead of being citizens of Rome, Romans were being called to first be citizens of the Church. The all-important citizenship which the Philippians had cherished so dearly was being undercut by the gospel. Instead of being Romans first, the gospel which Paul confronted them with demanded that they be Christians first. They were being called to boast in the gospel, and not in their citizenship. All of the sudden, being Roman was not all that important.

Needless to say, this would have cause a lot of problems. The problem did not just lie in the fact that these diverse peoples were now trying to act as one group. The problem lay in the fact that the gospel demanded that the Romans give up their faith in the government and have faith in Jesus Christ. They were to be Christians first. They are followers of Christ first. Their identity would no longer be based in their “Roman-ness”, but in their “Christian-ness”.
Try going to a church that has an American flag in their sanctuary and tell them that they are Christians first and Americans second. Preach to them that, if necessary, they are called to give up their loyalty to their country and be loyal to the church alone. Preach with fiery conviction that being an American means nothing compared to the glory we have as members of the body of Christ!

Actually, don’t try doing that. You probably won’t make it out of that church alive.

It is a difficult thing, a very controversial thing, to hold the Church up before our government. It can even be dangerous. We are fortunate enough to live in a country with a government that allows us to openly criticize it. Christians in countries like China do not have that privilege and daily put their lives at risk because of what they believe. Yet loyalty to Christ before government is exactly what Paul calls the Philippians to in 1:27 when he says, “live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel.” The Greek word that Paul uses when he says “live your life in a manner” can literally be translated to mean “live your life as a citizen” or even “take part in the government”. In 3:20 Paul refers to the Christians in Philippi as being “citizens of heaven”.

First we are Christians. Before anything else, we are members of the body of Christ. Before race, gender, nationality, political loyalties, denomination, or (dare I say) sexual preferences. I’m not saying that these things are not important. They all make up a huge part of who we are. They define us and shape our individual identities. But we cannot miss the forest for the trees. We should always be willing to take a step back from what separates us in order to gaze upon what unites us: Jesus Christ. It is in the body of Christ that we find our true identity, our true loyalty, our true citizenship, our true worth. It is as the body of Christ that we must act in the world “standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel.” Standing together requires love, humility, and respect. It is difficult. Very difficult. Luckily, we worship the God-Man who best showed us what love, humility, and respect is all about.

What does it mean to you to be a citizen of the Church first, and to your country second?

What do you think of my assessment? Is it fair? Is it unpatriotic?

What do you think?

The Necessity of Discipleship: The Infancy of Born Again

In the last 50 years the “seeker-sensitive” church model has taken the country by storm. A seeker-sensitive church follows a model where the gospel is regularly introduced clearly and invitingly in a way that the hearer can respond to. The point of a church that follows this model is to convert people to Christianity. It can be a very effective model, and it works…for awhile. Willow Creek is a classic model of a seeker-sensitive church. They presented the gospel week after week in a way that people could respond to. The church started in 1975 and met in a small, rent-out theater in Palatine, Illinois. The church exploded, and they currently have 23,000 members that regularly attend the weekend gatherings. Recently Willow Creek realized that something was not quite right, and they began to re-examine their way of doing church.

The downside of a seeker-sensitive model that the leadership at Willow Creek began to realized is that there is no “next step” for the new converts. The point is to make Christians, not to train Christians. Because of this mind-set there are no ministries for the more “spiritually-mature” Christians who might poke their head in the door. This is not always the leadership’s fault, per se, because seeker-sensitive models tend to grow so fast with such large numbers that the resources to effectively disciple each and every new convert just are not there.

Imagine a husband and wife who keep getting pregnant and having children. They are consistently pumping out child after child after child. It seems great, because the family is growing larger and there are more children to love. They have enough money to take care of them all, so they keep having more. Ok, now imagine that these parents have no intention of raising their children. They love and take care of the first and second babies, but then when the third and fourth come around they ignore the first and second. Then when the fifth and sixth come along the third and fourth get neglected, so on and so on. This cycle keeps happening until almost all of the children are being neglected except for the newborn babies. If you saw this happening, wouldn’t you think that this couple was being irresponsible?

Born again Christians are new born Christians. They require the same amount of attention and care as a new born (well, almost….). Yet there are churches all over that are pumping out newborn-again Christians without the intention of fostering their development. This is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. Newly born-again Christians need to be lead along the path of discipleship in a fashion that teaches them how to eventually walk it on their own. Without this proper guidance a new Christian will easily get lost in the world.

We need churches to train disciples. Pastors and church leaders should be educating their congregants how to practice proper discipline. We cannot be disciples without having discipline. A discipline of prayer, a discipline of meditation, a discipline of silence, a discipline of sacrifice, a discipline of communion, a discipline of…well, you get the picture. This cannot be done in a once a week 1-hour meeting. So what are some ways that this type of training can happen?

This morning I was reading through this article by Dan Kimball in the Next-Wave: Church and Culture web magazine. In it Dan talks about the obligation of pastors and church leaders to train their congregation in how to effectively read the Bible. He points out that too many Christians rely on Sunday mornings, and on their pastors interpretations and teachings for their Biblical “feeding”. What Mr. Dan Kimball is proposing is a teaching model or a teaching mind-set where the congregants become “self-feeders”. By providing study guides and Biblical commentaries, the congregation can not only enrich their spiritual lives but also learn some solid exegetical techniques. I love this idea. It is a vital first step, and grounding point, on the path of discipleship.

What do you think are some other ways that the church could effectively train Christian disciples?

What do you think of handing out commentaries to your congregation? Do you think that could foster a reliance on Biblical commentaries when it comes to reading Scripture?

What do you think of the seeker-sensitive church model? Do you feel it is on the decline, or do you feel that it is here to stay?

Breaking Down Barriers

Recently it has become more and more apparent to me that it is probably not a coincidence that there are no female pastors at my church. The more I looked at the pastoral staff, and even at the Sunday school staff, I noticed that there were no women teaching to a group that consisted of both boys and girls in the entire church! In fact, the sole woman on the pastoral staff is not referred to as the "women's pastor", she is actually called the leader of the ministry to women. There seems to be a restriction on the role that women can play within the church.

Now, I feel that I should say that I respect this point of view and the people that hold it. The fact that I do not agree with the pastoral staff at my church on this issue does not mean that I doubt their calling, capability, and leadership skills. They are all good men who have a deep passion for God, and daily seek after new ways to glorify Him. They are men of great Christian heart who are desperately seeking and working towards the Kingdom.

I have been reading Paul's letter to Philemon. I love reading this letter because I feel like I am peeking into Paul's personal e-mail account. It is a public letter that is worded very intimately. Within the body of his letter, Paul focuses his attention on the broken relationship between a master and his slave, Philemon and Onesimus (respectively). It seems that Onesimus was not a very good slave, and may have been mistreated by Philemon. So, it is believed that they had a falling out of some sort and Onesimus somehow ended up at Paul's side. After spending some time with Paul, Onesimus became a Christian. After his conversion, the role that he played as a slave is drastically changed. And in this letter Paul pleads this case to Philemon. Paul desires Philemon to hold no grudge against Onesimus, and to accept him back as a brother in the body of Christ.

Slavery does not carry the same imagery to a person based within a 1st century Graeco-Roman context that it does to us. When we think of slavery we think of American abolition, the Civil War, and racism. To a 1st century Jew or Roman, however, slavery was based more around debt than racism. If you were born into slavery it was because your father, or your father's father owed your master something. Even then, most slaves would be released either after 7 years, or when they turned 30. They were, however, still considered to be property and "less than human". Aristotle referred to slaves as "human tools", and that is the mindset concerning slavery that has continued on even up until today.

When Onesimus became a Christian his identity changed. While social position was still that of a slave, his position as a human being had radically changed. Paul says in verse 15, "Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother -- especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." How shocking it is that a man who was once a slave to Philemon is now his brother. The entire relationship dynamic between a slave and his master has changed. When Onesimus joined the body of Christ he became a brother in Christ. Sure, to the world he was still a slave. But to the Church he was now an equal member within the body.

To Paul there is no distinction within the church. It does not matter that Onesimus was or even still is a slave. Now that he has joined the church he is a Christian before anything else. Within the body of Christ all barriers are broken down, and people are free from the bondage and oppression that is placed upon them by others. Paul says in Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." To me this means that no one should be put in a box, especially if that box is based around their gender, race, or social status.

This brings me back to women and the church. It is my belief that women should be able to take any role that they are called to. Whatever restrictions were put on them by the world, by society, or even by themselves are lifted off by Jesus. The Spirit leads us all in different and wonderful ways.


What do you think of what I have said about the role of women in the church?

What is your opinion?

What do you believe the Bible says about the role of women in the church?

Richard Dawkins: Still Mean, But Not Quite As Much

Richard Dawkins is an outspoken biologist who acts as a sort of "preacher" for atheism. In his book "The God Delusion" he draws out a long argument against religion (specifically Christianity and Islam), and in favor of beliefs based purely in the realm of science.
The book was, undoubtedly, polemical. Any Christian or person who had a belief in God was considered a moron. He considered theologians to be irrational, and their "field of study" should be categorized with ancient mythological studies. The role of the Church, in Dawkins' view, is to manipulate the political system in their favor, oppress women and homosexuals, and to incite war in the name of Christ (all of which are valid and necessary critiques).
It seems that in his upcoming book, he is less concerned with Christianity and Christians as he is with the belief in evolution. He has turned from attacking the belief in God towards defending the theory of evolution. It seems that he found the task of "converting" people away from atheism too daunting, and instead is trying to find a middle ground. It's almost as if he is saying, "Look I know now that I can't get you to stop believing in God, but will you at least believe THIS?!" Which is an easier compromise. Anyways, I'm posting an article he wrote (which I guess is an excerpt from his forthcoming book) here.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece

How important is it to you that the creation happened in 7 days?

What do you think of Richard Dawkins and his approach to Christians, and Christianity as a whole?

"Do YOU read the Bible literally?"

The most common question that is asked of Christians today is, "Do YOU read the Bible literally". It is usually asked with an air of condescension, as if only idiots and crazy people read the Bible literally. I have been asked this question before, and in the past I have reacted with the response, "well...its complicated...". I'm never happy with that response, and neither is the person who asked. Its not a question that I believed can be answered in one sentence.

The Bible is a library that was gathered together over a thousand years. It is made up of books from different genres, written by different people in unique times, places, and situations. This is a fact. Knowing this, it should follow that we do not read every book in the same way. We should not read Matthew the same way we read Psalms, nor should we read Revelation the same way we read Romans. An affective reading of the Bible is done by exploring the context, historical setting, and intention of the writer(s). To make claims about "what the Bible says" without doing so would be doing it an injustice.

So I don't want this to be a blog where I just talk and talk. Here is how it will go down: I will introduce a topic, and you will all join in the discussion. Theology, and discussing God should not be a lecture, it should be a conversation! So join in!

How would you respond if someone asked you, "Do you read the Bible literally?"

What does "reading the Bible literally" mean to you?