If on Tuesday, February 5th  you happened to be at the mall at the same time as my family you would perhaps notice that we are all decked out with shirts and hats from the latest Super Bowl in Glendale, Arizona. Perhaps you might even say to yourself, “Lucky dogs they got to go to the Super Bowl. It must be nice to have that kind of money.”

That’s perception.

Reality? My sister, who lives in Arizona, arrived yesterday for a visit. Her flight from Phoenix to Chicago was rescheduled, so she had a lot of time on her hands. So,my sister, doing what she LOVES to do, shopped the Airport stores looking for gifts for each of us. We all now own a hat or shirt that advertises the Super Bowl game that will take place on February 3rd in Glendale, Arizona. The hats and shirts will be the closest we ever get to a Super Bowl.

As you can see there is a big difference between the perception of the first paragraph and the reality of the second.

In Evangelicalism, perception IS reality. It doesn’t matter what you believe. Truth doesn’t matter. What others perceive your truth to be….that is what matters. It is quite common in Evangelicalism to tar other people with labels like heretic or declare people deniers of the gospel. It doesn’t matter what the truth is. All that matters is what the critic percevies the truth to  be. When challenged about their false perceptions, the critic attempts to sidestep the issue by playing the guilt by association game.

The guilt by association game works like this: “You have a link on your website to Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Brian, McLaren, Billy Graham, etc so you must be ___________________.” (fill in the blank with perceived judgment)  If you drink or smoke or do any of the things perceived as wrong by the morality police then you are jusged as  worldly or even unsaved. If something is perceived to be worldly then it is worldly. Truth doesn’t matter.

For all the blather in many Evangelical circles about truth, I am not convinced truth really matters. It is all about perception. I have been accused several times of denying or compromising the gospel. Never mind the fact that  NO proof for that assertion exists. In fact, I will give someone a 100.00 if they can show one instance where I deny the gospel. I figure that 100.00 is never going to leave my bank account. But, truth doesn’t matter. I defend Rob Bell, and Rob Bell denies the gospel, so I am guilty by association. (and BTW, I do not believe Rob Bell denies the gospel.)

Years ago, I preached in a little Baptist Church in Utica, Ohio. When it came time to collect the offering the pastor put a blank, folded piece of paper in the offering plate. He told me afterward, that it was important for  Church members to “see” (perception) him giving, so when he didn’t have anything to give, he put in a blank piece of paper. Once again, it is all about  perception.

Sometimes, I wonder how much of my Christian life is built on perception rather than reality. As a minister, I learned quickly how to act the part of a super-spiritual Christian.  Reality didn’t matter. All that mattered is that people perceived their minister to be a “man of gawd”.

I wonder if our Churches could really handle reality? Honest, open, confrontational, loving reality.

Your thoughts?

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

Such are the words of Paul in his letter to the Romans, as he describes ways we are to be loving of all of those around us, who walk with us in this life. In my days of working in Leadership Development, I became acquainted with all sorts of quotes, but one that stuck with me was one by Rudolph Guiliani in his book on leadership:

Weddings Optional, Funerals Mandatory

Basically, his advice was that when people are celebrating that it is important to let them know that you are happy for their good fortune, even if there are conflicts which prevent your physical presence. In the case of someone in mourning, though, not only is your empathy/sympathy important, but your physical presence is, as well. In Guiliani’s advice, your time and presence demonstrates to a mourner, far and above anything else, your love for them.

In the first century, when a loved one died, it was customary for them to be placed in a 2-chambered tomb. One chamber held the body of the deceased, and the other was for the close friends and family of the deceased to sit in mourning for a week after the death. In many cases, the burial chamber was sealed after three days (as was the case with Lazarus), due to the smell, but the mourner would still remain. This allowed time for news of the death to spread to the outlying communities, and for well-wishers to comfort those who were mourning.

Upon reaching the tomb, the comforters would weep with the grieved, and tear their clothes.

This is part of the image I believe Paul is painting in his advice for Christians.

Sadly, there are those who claim the Christian faith who have turned Paul’s advice on its head, out of a sense of Schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the misfortune of others), who mourn for those who rejoice and rejoice for those who mourn. If you want an example of an anti-Christ spirit of today, you need look no further when something like this happens.

What has become incredibly odious is the practice of using someone’s death as a political or religious platform – whether the death of soldiers overseas, a political figure, a religious leader (or the wife of a disgraced religious leader), or a famous actor. Such an occasion is NOT the time to score political points. Such an occasion is a time to demonstrate love.

Heath Ledger

Last night, I was heartened to find out that Chris Rosebrough was choosing to speak out againt the actions of some falsely acting in the name of Christ, specifically Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, in their plans to picket the funeral of actor Heath Ledger.  Why Ledger?  Because of a gay character he played in Brokeback Mountain (which I’ve not seen), and – most importantly – because his funeral will get lots of press coverage.

Here’s a video (HT: Chris R.) with Phelps’ own words:

Rosebrough writes:

Therefore, We’d like to ask you to pray AND find a way to combat this hate by sending messages that share Christ’s love with Heath Ledger’s family and loved ones. If we don’t take a stand against this type of hate done in the name of Christ then we will become silent accomplices to Westboro’s gross and inhuman sin.

I could not agree more, and I am doubly blessed that this was written by Chris R and that we agree on this matter.  I would hope that the message received by Ledger’s family about the love of Christ is not the one preached by Phelps and the WBC, but the one preached by Paul and affirmed by those truly demonstrating Jesus’ love…
If anyone has contact information of where to send condolences to Ledger’s family, please post it in the comments, as I couldn’t find any online.

…Mark Driscoll had an excellent sermon on the subject of Birth Control a couple weeks back that I think is worth a listen.  He’s currently in a series that is answering questions submitted to Mars Hill (Seattle), voted on, and ranked in the top 9.  While I don’t agree with Driscoll on some stances thus far in the series, I think he nailed this one.

 

 Birth Control and Christians: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Its time to judge some fruit.

XXX Church
Financed and produced accountability software, which they offer for free.

Was way out front in warning about how much porn addiction there is in the church.

Was way out front in sounding the alarm about the damage porn does both to the church and to society.

Buys space at porn trade shows in order to bring the gospel to where porn stars and producers are.

Has supported spiritually and financially porn stars trying to leave the business.

Way of the Master
As far as I can tell mostly just complains about other Christians. Seriously, can you find an actual example of them actually doing something? Google shows me nothing.

I’ll let you judge which of these ministries is carrying out the gospel.

[Again, this is an older article of mine with some updates made to it, dealing with the misuse of certain scriptures in modern Christianity. Also, contrary to some belief, this is not in response to any particular ODM, blog or writer, but more as a study of scripture in context...]

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, ” ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’” (Matthew 21:12-13)

Probably my first exposure to orthopraxy involving this verse was 15 years ago, when a youth group in our church was raising money for a mission trip, building a church in Mexico. Some of the kids purchased some boxes of doughnuts and “sold” them for donations toward the trip, standing next to the coffee urn in the church foyer. One of the staff members gave them a haranguing when he saw them, “because Jesus threw people out of the temple for buying and selling there”!

In the years since, it has been very interesting to see the vast number of references to this particular story about Jesus, along with the varied interpretations of what he was doing and why he was doing it. Some use this story to decry Christian merchandising, selling of items within a church building, dishonesty, or Judaic worship. Others use it as an example of justified righteous anger with any of the above items and more. But what was Jesus really attacking, why was he angry with it, and what scriptural and contextual support do we have to determine this?

The Setting

Josephus and other Judaic records (from the Essenes) tell us that in the latter Second Temple period (during Jesus’ life and after it, prior to 70 AD), the sale of animals for sacrifice originally took place in the Royal Stoa of the Temple (the area under the porticoes in the upper part of the diagram above). Early in the first century, these records indicate that pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem were no longer able to bring their own sheep for sacrifice, but they had to purchase sheep raised by the Sadducees in the hills around Bethlehem. This created a need for more space to buy and sell sheep in the Temple grounds. Because the selling of animals and the exchange of money was so profitiable for the Sadducee party, they then expanded their enterprise into the court of Gentiles (the area in front of the Royal Stoa).

If you will notice in the picture above, there is a short wall within the great court which was the closest non-Jewish believers and the ceremonially unclean could come to the Altar and the Holy of Holies. Warnings were inscribed on this wall, cautioning those who did not belong further inside the courts that they would be put to death for passing this wall, called the soreg (see the picture to the right). When the Sadducees expanded the area for selling animals, this effectively removed almost half of the space available to gentiles and ‘unclean’ Jews in the Temple grounds!

At the same time, there is also indication – confirmed in recent archaeological finds – that the Sadducees used weights and measures which were as much as 70% biased in their favor. To purchase sheep at the temple, pilgrims had to exchange their local currency into the temple currency. And so, faithful Jews who came to the Temple for sacrifice during the mandatory festivals, were being cheated when they exchanged money, and the god-fearing non-Jews who came to Jerusalem to the House were being forced out of the Temple.

It is upon this stage that Jesus entered the temple and turned over the tables.

Jesus’ Anger

There is significant evidence from Jesus’ very words that what made him so angry was that people were being kept away from worshipping God. Jesus uses two quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures in a form of remez (a ‘hint’ that must be interpreted by reading the verses just before or after the quoted scripture).

First, he says – “My house will be called a house of prayer” – which is quoting from Isaiah 56:7. If we read this verse and those surrounding it, we can see that this quotation is placing an importance of God’s House being a house of prayer for all nations, and that God desires that many beyond Israel should be saved.

6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to serve him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to worship him,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant-

7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”

8 The Sovereign LORD declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.” (Isaiah 56:6-8)

In the gospel of Mark, which is primarily directed to Christians in Rome (who did not have as deep a knowledge of scripture) includes additional words to complete the remez – “my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations“. (Mark 11:17)

The second half of Jesus’ statement, which can legitimately refer to the dishonesty in the money-changing tables (also supported by Jesus’ turning these tables over), would also have been understood by religious Jews in his audience as a pronouncement against the Temple, itself, because of the sins being committed there. He says, “but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’”, which is a direct quote from Jeremiah 7:11. Let’s read the verses just before and after this:

Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”-safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD.

” ‘Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. While you were doing all these things, declares the LORD, I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen; I called you, but you did not answer. Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim.’ So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you.

Just for the record, Shiloh was located in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was utterly destroyed by the Assyrians, as prophecied by Isaiah. Shiloh, itself, had been razed by the Philistines in appoximately 1050 BC, as well, due to the sins of the poeple. And so, from this remez, we can easily surmise exactly how angry Jesus was with the sins of the people, and what would be the ultimate result of their sins.

Who is Jesus Angry With?

If there is any question whether Jesus is angry with the money changers, themselves, or the Sadducees (who were in control of the workings of the temple, and who made the decision to exclude Gentiles to make room for selling), Matthew gives us a clue in the passages after the turning of the tables.

The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.

“Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him.
“Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read,
” ‘From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise‘?”

From a literal reading of Jesus’ words, the words do not appear to give an answer to the chief priests (who were Sadducees) and the teachers of the law. However, Jesus is again using remez, which both of these groups would definitely have understood, quoting the first half of Psalm 8:2. If we read all of this quoted verse, we once again get a deeper meaning.

From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.

In Jesus seemingly innocent declaration ‘From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise’, we can see that he has declared that these religious authorities are the enemies of God. This is definitely a harsh statement!

And so, here is another example of how, by understanding the cultural context of the scripture and the rabbinical teaching techniques used by Jesus, we get a much clearer and vivid picture of what occurred in this Biblical story.

[This is a partial repost of an article from a couple years back, dealing with the original context of the events and teaching in John 6.]

______________________

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:60-66)

This is part of a very interesting narrative, covered in all of John 6, on one of the conflicts in which Jesus was involved – where the people wanted him to be one thing, while his purpose was very different in nature.
The typical (mis)use of this passage I’ve heard goes something like this – “Jesus’ message was not a popular one, and so it doesn’t really matter all that much if we’re offensive in the way we present it. After all, Jesus drove away all but his twelve disciples with his message, winnowing out all of the ‘false converts’ in the process.” Such an interpretation of John 6 is unfortunate, and tends to spring from ignorance of the world Jesus lived in, and in this case, the Galilee region.

Galilee Geography

To get a firm grasp on this passage (and a number of other stories in the Gospels), it is helpful to know the geography and demography of the Galilee region.

On the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee primarily lived the hasidim, the pious ones. Some, primarily of Pharisaic or ‘orthodox’ affiliation (not to be confused with modern Orthodox Judaism), believed that a purity of faith and obedience would bring God to overthrow the Romans and establish the Kingdom of God, and did not condone violence or political power in overthrowing the Romans and unseating Hellenism. The other primary group of hasidim, called zealots, believed that God would use them to overthrow the Romans and Hellenism using whatever means necessary.

The hasidim primarily lived in and around Capernaum, Korazin and Bethsaida (an area dubbed ‘the Orthodox Triangle’ by the late archaeologist Bargil Pixner), and the zealots lived in and around Gamla (just NE of the Sea of Galilee in the Golan Heights) and Magdala, near Mount Arbel (see the map above, or click it for a larger view).

Tiberius, in the southwest part of Galilee, was where secular Jews referred to as ‘Herodians’ lived. Tiberius, itself, was an unclean city (as it was built over a graveyard), and was cut off from northern Galilee by Mount Arbel, which came all the way down into the water (today, a road has been built, and it is silted in 20-30 meters from the waters edge during dry seasons).

On the east and south shores of Galilee was the Decapolis, ten pagan cities founded by Hellenistic Greeks. No good Jew would be caught in the Decapolis, as almost everything there was ‘unclean’, they ate pork, and worshipped many gods. (It was here that Jesus healed the demoniac amidst the tombs, casting the demon into a herd of pigs.)
Early Contextualization

As you read about Jesus’ miracles and teaching, you will find that he tailors his methods (and miracles) to those places:

When he is in the Capernaum/Bethsiada region, he uses many more scriptural quotations (particularly invoking remez and other techniques), and when he performs miracles in this region, he is recorded many times telling those he healed ‘do not tell anyone’ about the miracles.

However, when he heals the demoniac in the Decapolis, he tells that man to go tell everyone!

Why the difference?

With the dominance of zealots in northern Galilee, it is likely these people will want to make him into a military messiah who will lead them and throw out the Romans (as they were also recorded, by Josephus, to be the most fervent in their search for a Messiah). Think about it. How valuable would it be to have an army with a king who can feed an army without carrying food, immediately heal any injuries and raise the dead? Sign me up for that army!

Back to the Story

Now, to get the full context of the John 6 passage, we really need to read the whole thing. First, we have Jesus near Mount Arbel on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, where he miraculously feeds the five thousand people. After this, we read:

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

Mark tells us that he went up the mountain to pray (interestingly, Mount Arbel is known in Judasm to be the rabbi’s ‘prayer mountain’ – a solitary place where rabbis go to pray). From verse 15 (highlighted above), we can see that the crowd must have been heavily zealot influenced.

Meanwhile, his disciples take their boats up to the Orthodox Triangle, somewhere between Capernaum and Bethsiada. In the middle of the night, he walks across the water to meet them. The next day, the crowd figures out that Jesus has left for the other side, and hurries over there to see him. Why, though?

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

So, Jesus notes that the crowd was looking for him to provide food (having already recognized that they were looking for a physical messianic deliverer in v. 15).

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’“

They still didn’t get it. They were still looking for Jesus to provide food. His message wasn’t even second, third or fourth consideration. So, Jesus becomes a little more direct in his answer:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

Are you starting to notice a pattern here?

Some have argued that the reason for the single-mindeness on provision of food could be attributed to general poverty in the area. However, this region of Israel was (and still is) on of the most fertile in all of Israel, and many Second Temple period scholars believe that the Galilee region was fairly well off (comparable to ‘middle class’ in the First Century culture) because of the rich natural resources in the area. It is much more likely that the desire for miraculous provision was in line with providing for a standing army or preparation for a siege (NOTE: Mount Arbel was the site of a siege, where zealots held out against Herod for a period of time. Later, Gamla would be the last stronghold before Masada to fall to the Romans).

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

It was becoming clear to them that Jesus wasn’t going to be feeding them that day. The key word here is ‘grumble’ (Jesus repeats this word back to them in the following verse).  As in many cases in scripture, using such a specific word often refers back to its first use – in this case, Exodus, where people ‘grumbled’ to Moses because of what they would eat and drink there in the desert. This fits with the discussion that has already come up because the people asked about manna in the desert when their ancestors were with Moses.

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Jesus has now chosen to stick with his ‘bread’ metaphor (after all, His is the ‘bread of life’ and he was born in Bethlehem (lit. house of bread, or bakery)), which fits with his role as an atoning sacrifice. Some have taken part of this literally to develop the doctrine of transubstantiation, which was never intended, but rather that one would have to accept Jesus flesh and blood as an atoning sacrifice, and no longer the blood of doves, rams and goats. We, fortunately, have the gift of hindsight and the Holy Spirit to understand Jesus’ words and the prophetic import. His audience, however, wanted him to be a miraculous provider and to lead them (i.e. to be the next Moses).

At this point, Jesus had not only lost the crowd, but he was also going to lose those who followed him solely as a physical messiah. This had to do not so much with ‘hard teaching’ as we think about it today (repentance, self-sacrifice), but with ‘hard teaching’ for those people who believed that Jesus was going to deliver them from Roman oppression. It cannot be expressed how huge a let-down this was those people.  The idea that the Messiah would save them from Roman oppression as a ruler and king in Jerusalem was at the core of Messianic belief – but that this salvation would not be a physical one had never entered their minds.

Later, in 68 A.D., it would be these zealots rebelling under the leadership of Simon bar Giora (who some believed to be a messiah) that led to the fall of Jerusalem. However, because the Messianic Jews chose not to fight against Rome, instead fleeing to Pella (per Jesus warning in the Olivet Discourse), many were later persecuted by Jewish zealots in retaliation (though far worse persecution of the Jews would come later from those who claimed to follow Jesus’ teaching).

And so, with the crowds upset and/or gone, we finish this passage of scripture:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

One last item to note here is that the name ‘Iscariot’ is indiciative of Judas being a zealot, as well.  The name ‘Iscarior’ comes from sicarii, the knife often carried by zealots when they assassinated public figures. This coda to the story is one more indication that it is the zealot idea (changing the world through violence and political intrigue) that Jesus is rejecting, and that those who seek Him for such purposes will be disappointed, because that is not his purpose.

So What?

Going back to the original thesis, this passage of scripture has nothing to do with winnowing out ‘false converts’, or acceptability being offensive in one’s presentation of the Gospel. This has everything to do with keeping the purpose of the Kingdom in focus, and Jesus’ (and only Jesus!) role as sacrifice and salvation for all men who will listen to the Father and comes to His Son. If you drive the weak and wounded out of the kingdom, you are just a resounding gong or clanging cymbal, nothing more.

Additionally, as we’re now into the four-year-cycle of the “silly season”, it is likely that Christians will be putting hope in the government being the solution to the problems we face – specifically problems linked to the purpose of the kingdom.  For those of us who start being seduced by this idea – that Jesus will bring his kingdom about via political means – John 6 is a warning to us, as well…

In response to some questions (and requests), I am going to repost some older articles on scriptural context and interpretation in the coming days, following on the heel’s of yesterday’s repost.

________________

It is interesting how the Spirit works – I don’t know about you, but I cannot count the times that I have read a passage of scripture, a chapter in a book, or listened to a sermon and *BAM* within the next day or so I find that I need exactly what I heard/read. What if I hadn’t taken the time for personal study and devotion? It is a sobering thought.

Interestingly, when I hear/read scripture being misused (particularly by literalists), I often bite my tongue, waiting for that ‘leading’ or ‘tugging’ that seems to then happen when I see the exact passage misused multiple times by multiple individuals in multiple forums.

Today is just such a day, and the passage(s) in question are the three gospel accounts where Jesus states that ‘the poor you will always have with you’. These are located in Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8. Where these scriptures seem to be (mis)used is in casting aside calls to be ‘missional’, particularly relating to serving the poor and addressing poverty at home and abroad. Usually, the misuse is along the lines of “We should be far more concerned with eternal issues, rather than temporal ones. Besides, Jesus said that ‘For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.’”

So, what is Jesus’ point here?

First off, let’s look at the context. All three accounts are of the same event in Bethany, where Jesus is eating at the house of Simon the Leper with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, Judas and at least some of Jesus other disciples. There, a woman (identified by John as Mary) took expensive perfume and anointed Jesus with it (two accounts accentuate her use of it on his head, the other account accentuates the use on his feet – possibly indicating that she was anointing the head, heart, hands and feet, as with a miqvah.)

Then, Judas criticizes Mary’s actions by saying ‘Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages!’. However, John also includes this statement about Judas’ motives:

He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:6)

So, we can already see that the question being put to Jesus isn’t really a genuine one in the first place. It was one that was self-serving with the appearance of appealing to service to the poor. And so, Jesus answers:

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” (John 12:7-8)

As I’ve discussed on a number of occasions, Jesus was a master rabbinical teacher, using PaRDeS and Parable as his key methods. As such, this teaching contains (at the very least) P’shat and Remez.

The P’shat (or ‘plain meaning’) is often expressed in contrast and placed second (like with ‘you have heard it said X, but I say to you Y’). In John 12:8, the emphasis (or plain meaning) is after ‘but’. The key is ‘you will not always have me’ and not ‘you will always have the poor’. So, to give the proper interpretation to Jesus’ words, you would see that he is agreeing with the sentiment (you will always have the poor), but making an exception based on his physical presence and the significance of Mary’s anointing with the perfume to be used in his burial. This is not a callous statement that ‘we will always have the poor, and therefore we have no responsibility to do anything about it’ – that is 180-degrees apart from His teaching!

To emphasize this, we need to look at the remez (the ‘hint’). When Jesus says ‘You will always have the poor among you’, he is actually quoting from Deuteronomy 15:11, which states ‘There will always be poor people in the land.’ If you will remember, to understand remez, we must look at the verses immediately before and after the one quoted. Jesus’ audience, who had the Torah memorized, would have been able to do this instantly -

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. (Deut 15:7-11)

So, if it wasn’t obvious from the P’shat, the Remez should not only put the lie to those who misuse Jesus’ words, but show us, once again, that – while the eternal destination is not unimportant – our temporal responsibility is to care for both the physical and spiritual needs of those less fortunate.

________________

While I probably could have gone on and discussed the brilliance of Jesus’ approach, and the modern social-science derivatives (such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), this was just looking at the scriptural interpretation. Perhaps I’ll pick it up and continue at some point in the future…

(Note: I’m not a fan of either of these presidential candidates — nor any of them, for that matter. So I’m not interested in a political discussion. The political realm just happens to be where this example lies.)

In Monday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got testy with each other. There was one exchange though, that gave me a serious case of déjà vu:

Obama: I was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

Clinton: I was fighting against misguided Republican policies when you were practicing law and representing your contributor … in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

See the difference? Obama claimed to be working with actual people. Conversely, for Clinton, the important thing was to be anti-Republican, (apparently, the highest calling that any human being can aspire to).

Then I got a flashback.

A bit over a year ago, I wrote an email to one of the group-written incarnations of Slice asking why my comments kept getting un-approved, despite the fact that they were civil and not particularly strident. I contrasted my comments to stuff like:

RICK WARREN IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!

– and –

Houston will be a desert before I accept a liar, a slanderer, a self-promoting name-dropper, and a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit as a brother in Christ. (regarding Warren)

I marveled that such anti-Biblical skubala was permitted on a site on which comments were carefully screened.

Put down your coffee before you read the next sentence. I don’t want to be responsible for the spit-take all over your computer screen.

The response that I received was that comments at Slice were not carefully screened. Rather, the only comments that were disallowed were apologists for the emerging church and Rick Warren, and comments that were truly malicious.

Since my actual point was totally ignored (the anti-Biblical nature of some comments), I re-iterated it again. The response that I got this time stated that even guessing who is saved is unbiblical.

I responded that I was glad that this was her stance, pointed out that this was not the stance of all the writers at Slice, and then asked the following:

Does this mean that you place a higher priority on being anti-emergent and anti-Warren than on being pro-Biblical?

“Surprisingly”, I didn’t receive a response to that note.

Sure, being pro-Biblical will inherently mean that we’ll be “anti” some stuff. But the latter follows the former. Talk about getting the cart before the dead horse that you’ve been beating.

Recently discovered document, from backstage at the REDACTED show.

_____________________

TO: “Christians” with Artistic Gifts
RE: Success and Doing Your Best

It has come to our attention that you are employed in the world of entertainment. While this, alone, should disqualify you from the book of life, since you claim the title “Christian”, please realize that we will be watching you like a hawk. At some point, you will fail, and when you do, you will get a foretaste of what your experience will be like in hell, as we will be the hands and feet of God to deliver it to you. So please, keep in mind the following:

1) If you are ever interviewed, our skepticism of the press will vanish to be replaced with an “absence detector”, which identifies anything and everything you never said in that interview. Even if you DID say what didn’t get printed, it does not matter – you must not have said it forcefully enough, or else they would have printed it.

2) If you are involved in an artistic venture that requires dancing, you are going to hell. Unless you are encased in a full-body cast, we will characterize your performance as “writhing around” and “fanny shaking” and “pelvic thrusting”. Fanny-shaking is of the devil.

3) If you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter if you’re wearing a burkha. Your dress will always be called ‘immodest’, and characterized as “fleshly” or “worldly”. Deal with it.

4) If you’re an actor, you’d best marry another actor and ONLY perform with that person. Otherwise, do not take any part which requires you to so much as hold hands with another actor. If you do so, be prepared for an onslaught of criticism for your cavalier attitude toward sexuality.

5) If you are required to travel as part of your work, please realize that – unless you travel back to your home church EVERY week – we will exoriate you for your lack of faithfulness in attending your local church. NOTE: If you have support from your local church community while you’re on the road, that doesn’t mean you’ll get a free pass. We’ll just criticize you because of all of those people who can’t afford such nicities.

6) DO NOT, by any means, attain any level of ‘success‘. If you do, it will be evidence of your carnality and worldliness, which we will roast you for. If you are successful, that is a sign that you’re not being persecuted, and, therefore, not a Christian. Your best bet is to suck enough to prevent success, but not so much that your tithe won’t pay for the new educational wing at your “church”. Remember – the tallest blade of grass is always the one that gets cut down first.

7) If you do not mention “Jesus” (”God” doesn’t count) at every available opportunity, we will trumpet this as evidence of your fleshly, worldly motivations and your selling out on the altar of worldly success. We will thump our breasts to show what an awful hypocrite you are!

If you are a painter, we’d best not find any paintings of things outside of Christianity (or, worse yet, which depict anything apart from a modernist or romantic view of the Biblical account). If we can construe something to be anti-Christian, we will, and we will blame you.

9) If you are a singer, every song had best mention “Jesus” (not “God”), or you’re a worldly sell-out.

10) If you are an actor, never play the part of a villan or do anything that would be a sin. Additionally, do not ever act in a movie that gets a rating of PG or higher (unless it is a semi-realistic portrayal of the crucifixion, in which case we will only criticize you for being a Catholic instead of being a Christian). We may give you a pass, though, if you act in poorly-produced pre-mill dispensationalist fantasies.

11) At some point in your life, after you are on the public stage, you will sin. We will be there to point it out for you, just in case you don’t see it. After this, we will be sure to label you by your sin for the remainder of your life. If we could (and unfortunately, your lawyers would probably prevent it), we would engrave it on your tombstone. Regardless, we will bring it up at every turn to justify why were were right to hate critize you in the first place. If, by some chance, you don’t have publicly known sin after awhile, we will dig into your past to find it for you.

12) If you attend a church that is not on our short list of “approved” churches (like Grace Community Church in CA), then you don’t really count as “Christian”, as your pedigree is suspect. Should we ever see you in the same photo with Rick Warren, Erwin Mcmanus, Rob Bell or other “Christians” we hate disagree with, you can pretty much expect the ink to flow from our loving pens.

So, please realize that as a Christian artist, you have chosen a profession with more minefields in it than the Kuwaiti border. Your best bet would just be to turn back now. Should you decide to trudge on forward, remember – we will be watching you – like a hawk.

In Christian love,

The watchmen (and women)

Christian men have become too feminized, according to some. It seems that all those lattes, diet sodas, and I-Phones have turned us into the spiritual equivalent of the local Girl Scout troop. That is, at least according to this article, which portrays a version of a feminized Christian man in this way:

“All you truth-detectors and discernment watch-dogs are just so nasty all the time… Can’t we all just get along? Just be nice; make nice; play nice; and OOZE nice? I don’t think it is loving to criticize others. You’re all just a bunch of big ‘ol meanies. You think you know it all. If you say anything negative, I’m just going to ignore you. Tissue please… it’s just too much to bear…”

The problem with this is that it’s a classic strawman. I’ve never once met a person who’s said anything like that, even on the far left. I have heard and read various requests that call for reasoned responses. I have read things that call the Church to get it’s own house in order before criticizing others. Yet somehow, the calls are translated into a caricature of limp-wristed, cardigan-wearing man. Why is that?

I think that in a large part, this is an instance where the American church has let masculinity be defined by the culture. Even though we live in the era of the “sensitive man” to some extent, it seems that the image that is still glorified most is the warrior, the strongman, and the conquerer. Why do we love football so much? Why do we like movies where one guy takes on an army? It celebrates these type of men.

For a large part this is what this article is defending. It is portraying the ideal Christian man as someone who fights for truth, defends against heresy, and guards the Church. Now these things in and of themselves aren’t wrong. The problem is that using war-like language has led to some serious distortions in the past. It easy to get confused as to who the real enemy is. This type of language has a way of inciting people, and unfortunately the Church’s history of violence is something we need to own up to.

So what is the definition of masculinity we should look to? What is the Biblical role of men. In some ways, the Bible is surprisingly silent on gender roles. It does give us some guidelines, though. Paul says in Ephesians 5:25-27:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

So, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? He put His life on the line for her, and He served her. Christ wasn’t about “winning” some culture war. He was about serving others. He was about washing the disciples filthy, stinking feet. He was about radical sacrifice. This is the true measure of a man.

The measure of a man is not about presenting a strong front. It is not about being inpenetrable. It is about having the courage to serve. I will end with this quote by G.K. Chesterton:

Brave men are all vertebrates; they have their softness on the surface and their toughness in the middle.