As I’ve been working on a piece with Christian P on a Tom Wright from a talk  of his last February, I came across another one of his discussions & lectures – this one at Wheaton college last month – on the historicity of Jesus and the kingdom of God.  There was some good stuff in it that I didn’t want to get lost, so here’s a particular excerpt I thought to be interesting:

The Jesus story is precisely about this world, this creation – not about the private life of one private group of people. The canonical story is the public story of the real Jesus and the real world.

And to live within the gospel story – all its wonderful stuff about what it means to “be people of the story” and so on – I fully embrace that as I sure a lot of you know. But to live within the gospel story is not to enter a private world separated off from the story of the rest of the world; it is to enter the same public space, time and matter world with all of its risks. To imagine that by saying “story” we escape the public world’s risks – or are immune to it – is to fail to see which story it is.

So my first big problem about not really doing history properly is that we shrink the story of God and God’s kingdom in Jesus, and the story of Jesus bringing Israel’s destiny to its climax – those two stories joining up to become one – we shrink that to the abstract categories of “divinity” and “humanity”. It is much “safer” and less risky to do that, but much less like the actual Gospel – both of the canon and of Jesus.

The second point is about the kingdom and the cross. I was at a conference a couple of days ago […] we were talking about this a lot, and I made the point that in my diocese there are many churches which are basically “kingdom churches” that don’t know what the cross is there for; and many that are basically “cross churches” that don’t know what the kingdom’s all about.

There are many Christians (in my church, at least) who see in the Gospels, Jesus healing people, feasting with outcasts and sinners, bringing a new way of life. They say “that’s the man for me. I’m going to follow him. He’s the person. I’m going to really want to be like that. I’m going to go do that stuff as well.” And there are many noble people who have given their lives to kingdom work in some of the toughest parts of my country and your country and so on.

“Follow Jesus…” and then they get this puzzled look and say “what a shame that his public career was cut short so soon. He was on a roll with that stuff. He could have gone on doing that for years…”

[audience laughter]

The fact that we feel that is funny is a measure of where we are, because there are many people for whom that isn’t very funny at all, actually.

But then you see, the opposite of that is that there are many churches for whom it would have been totally sufficient for Jesus to have been born of a virgin and then died on a cross and never done anything in between.

And then you think, “so why did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John bother to write all that stuff up?” And then we’re back to what [earlier speaker] Nick Perrin said “chips, and dips and pieces of stuff that are just nice, optional hors dourves” before the main course of Pauline theology which we hook on to the story of Jesus death and resurrection.

No.

The gospels – the canonical gospels – are quite clear that the kingdom and the cross go together. But much later western church tradition has manifestly found that conjunction very, very difficult and has often played kingdom and cross off one against the other. Because it’s had one version of reality off making the world a better place by doing kingdom work and another version of reality that is about Jesus dying for our sins so we could go off to heaven – and never the twain seem to meet.

Good stuff. Check it out here.

From the Apostle Paul, to the church in Colossae:

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

And the church in Galatia:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And the church in Corinth:

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

In short – if we, as Christians, happen to believe that Paul had something important on the issue of races and classes, then we ought to recognize that its core is this: In Christ, there is no discrimination between races, classes, sexes or nationalities in the salvation they have received.

In this respect, it is love that ought to lead Christians to both respect and love all men, as loved by God, created in His image, and paid for by Jesus’ blood, if only they will recognize him as Lord.

Unfortunately, as he is wont to do, Satan takes something that God has made good – a love and respect for all men – and has taken that grain of truth and twisted it into a false view of “tolerance”, and then inflicted it upon the people of the world. Even though I’ve not paid incredibly close attention to the news this past week or so, I’ve heard (or been sent) a number of stories that all seem to have this tension as a common thread between them.

Read the rest of this entry »

This past weekend, I had lunch with a good friend of many years, John, and afterward we spent some time discussing Paul and his letters to the different churches (among other things).  John’s in a house with three daughters (the youngest of whom is in college) and my youngest son is a senior in HS this year, so our need for male companionship (outside of the family dog) lends itself to all sorts of interesting conversation.  But I digress…

I was remembering my NT professor’s instructions that when we read any of Paul’s epistles, we need to remember that he isn’t just sending a random shout-out or bantering with the churches he’s writing to, but that he’s actually answering some questions they’ve got and giving advice on specific situations within the church.  So – since we only have the answers, but not the questions, it is important that – if we want to do a deep study of any epistle – the first thing we ought to do is to try and discern the questions posed to Paul.

Somehow, John and I got onto the topic of I Corinthians, and he told me something he’d picked up in seminary regarding the questions posed to Paul that led to this particular epistle.  If you read the context of this letter, and the second epistle to the church in Corinth, it becomes evident that the church in Corinth had a problem that was not all that uncommon today:

1) There was at least one – if not multiple – vocal busybodies within the church who disagreed on issues of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

2) The busybodies were calling out those they disagreed with in the church, and playing out their personal grievances in public.  While some might have been legitimate, a number of them were quite petty.

3) They also were instituting somewhat of a hierarchy within the church – possibly based on social status, but more likely based on their “seniority” within the church.

4) One of the busybodies took it upon himself to write to Paul, and most likely (as possibly the first FDDM – “foot-driven discernment ministry”) hand delivered it to Paul.

John suggested I read I Corinthians as if the questions Paul was answering questions from this context, and that it would likely make the entire letter seem coherent in its entirety, rather than a collection of disconnected thoughts.

John suggested I read I Corinthians as if the questions Paul was answering questions from this context, and that it would likely make the entire letter seem coherent in its entirety, rather than a collection of disconnected thoughts.

And he was right.

And what was funny (at least to a nerd like me) was this:  When I got to I Corinthians 13 (the “love chapter”), it took on a whole new light.  It also made me wonder if reciting this chapter at weddings, framing it and putting it on the wall, etc. as a “beautiful expression of what love is” might not be missing the point a bit.  Maybe it’s a little bit more like taking a letter you received from Mom and Dad while away at college, scolding you for problems you’ve gotten yourself into and framing it for public consumption.

If you have time today – or even if you don’t – I think perhaps sitting down and reading I Corinthians with the possibility that the above context was what Paul was replying to might be a good thing for each of us today.

Grace and Peace,

Chris

Here is a recent submission we’ve received here at PPP.Info:

I have written a book called, “The New Pharisaism: How Spiritual Bullies Attack the Church.” The book deals specifically with the damage caused to church leaders, Christian ministries, and local churches by organizations such as “The Berean Call,” “Slice of Laodicea/Crosstalk America,” “Light House Trails Research Project,” “Media Spotlight,” “Southwest Radio Church,” “Apprising Ministries,”"Understanding the Times,” and many others.

In the church today, we are faced with a new level of intensity when it comes to spiritual abuse and bullying. As you know, this New Pharisaism falsely claims that New Age, Eastern mystical, and occultic practices are being introduced into most churches in America as part of the apostasy of the last days. This inflammatory and divisive material has made its way into local churches through individuals and small groups of bullies who have used it for their own selfish gain and self-promoting agenda.

My book also deals extensively with how to stand against this attack and how to find healing and recovery after the attack has occurred.

I believe that the book is an invaluable resource for your readers and anyone who is dealing with Pharisees today. The book is fully documented with scores of footnotes and is based on the careful exegesis and the sound exposition of God’s Word.

“The New Pharisaism” is available as a ebook download on my website at www.thenewpharisaism.com. On the website, you can also read about my credentials, download the introduction preview, and see the table of contents.

I would be most appreciative if you would let you readers know about this book.

Thank you and may God bless,

Pastor Bill Slabaugh

Has anyone read this? Any volunteers?*

*- My pocketbook is running incredibly low right now, so if anyone has $13 and reads this, I’d be interested in a review…

OK, so for the past couple of weeks, the outrage from the “pro-choice” left increased  in decibels and shrillness in anticipation of a 30-second commercial to air in the Superbowl from Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow and his mother, in support of life (when she was pregnant with Tim, as a missionary overseas, she was afflicted with a condition where the medical advice was to have an abortion – instead, she carried him to term).  For example, Joy Behar on The View derided Pam Tebow’s decision, as Tim could just as easily turned out to be a “racist pedophile”.

And that was one of the nicer comments.

I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.  In this case, though, I have to tip my hat to them.  In the words of the Washington Post’s pro-choice sports columnist Sally Jenkins, to write last week:

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

Indeed.  FotF’s strategy of not releasing the video in advance now appears somewhat brilliant in its ripping the veneer off of much of the pro-abortion left, as their rage built with CBS over its’ willingness to air the ad.  [Which is rather revealing that a group called the National Organization for Women went nuclear over CBS airing the Tebow ad, but had no similar outrage over the aired GoDaddy commercials, which - I would think - were far more offensive to women (and men).]

So, the game is over now [I really didn't want to see either team lose, though I was hoping for overtime instead of interception to end it], and the ad has aired.  So, what was all the fuss over?  Here you go…

Be prepared to be offended:

Really offensive, right?  Brilliantly played, Focus. Brilliantly played, I say.

In watching this whole thing played out, it reminded me of how many times we (myself included) deride things, sight-unseen, simply because of the source or the anticipated message, only to be left with egg on our faces (and lots of “splainin’ to do” afterwards”.

Way back in 2006, Mark Driscoll was interviewed prior to speaking at the Desiring God conference that year.  One of the interview clips can be found here, but I’ll quote the salient part:

When [missionary] Hudson Taylor shows up in China, and dresses in Chinese dress, and learns Chinese language, and eats Chinese food, and gets a Chinese haircut, everybody says, “There’s a good Christian.” When we do that in punk rock culture, people think it’s capitulation. I think there’s hypocrisy there. That’s why we’re not reaching Americans. We have a double-standard that we get stuck on the style and we forget the substance of the Gospel.

A missionary family (we’ll call the couple George and Mary — names changed for safety/anonymity sake) was recently at my church.  The people group to whom they minister are very disinterested in reading.  So much so that it is not uncommon for houses in that part of the world to lack indoor plumbing but have satellite television.  Another example — to be considered a best-seller, a book has to sell only a few thousand copies.

While their ultimate goal is translating the Bible — this people group does not have the Scriptures in their language — George and Mary realize that in the short-term, they need to set a primary focus on spreading the Word through other media (though, even this is not simple, due to laws in their region).  As George was describing the unique challenges that they face, he noted that their desire was to be — parents, cover your children’s ears — relevant.

A horrified gasp went up from the congregation when he used such a dirty word.  Actually, I’m kidding.  His choice of that word summed up what they were trying to do, given the culture of the people with whom they are dealing.  His point was that their message to those people is not “get your act together, get interested in reading, and then we’ll deem you worthy of telling you about Jesus”.

I doubt that anyone would fail to laud George and Mary’s efforts.  So why, exactly, does any mention of relevance in our culture get poo-poo-ed on so quickly and thoroughly by so many?

Are people in our culture less unsaved?  I keep seeing an image of Westerners showing up at the pearly gates, and St Peter does his best Maxwell Smart* impression, saying, “Missed it by that much.”

* (the Don Adams version — I’m old)

I’m just a few pages away from finishing the book Game Change. The book is about the 2008 Presidential election. It’s the first purely political book I’ve bought in a long time, maybe ever.  The book is decidedly Pro-Obama and an Hillary.

It’s been a fun read. The book showed me many things I didn’t previously know and yet those things reinforced for me some things that I had been thinking all along.

This post has nothing to do with Politics or the book. I just wanted to give you the background.

It occurred to me throughout the book that many people cast their vote not based on ideology. That is to say, many of the people throughout the book talked about why they cast their fate with a particular candidate. Time and time again it came back to one word. Not the plan (with some of the candidate’s the plans were very very similar). I mean obviously the Republicans were going to vote with the Republicans and Democrats with Democrats, but ultimately it came down to something intangible.

That something is called hope.

It struck me as I read this sweeping book about the sport of politics that hope is the one thing that the church has in spades. I mean think about it! We have hope that God is and will make all things new. He’s reconciled all things to Himself.

God gives us the promise of Hope. In fact one of the most misquoted verses in the whole Bible is because often the person doing the quoting leaves off the most important phrase. You know the verse.  It says

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you

Now, I’ve heard this verse used to defend people who are literal 6 dayers and why they fight for it. I’ve heard heretic hunters use it. Of course they never actually get to the next part of the verse. It says

to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. ¹⁸For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

Give an account for the hope you have in you. What is that hope? Christ died for you for me to bring us to God. I wonder if the reason we’re so rarely asked about our hope is because we don’t actually act like people with hope.

The fact that passage goes on to talk about how our gentleness and respect (actions) are our actual defense and not our finely tuned theological statements is just a bonus. Not our megaphones, or our witty blog lines. Not our book deals, or our denominations. Not how many years we’ve been in “professional ministry.” Not our cred’s.  Our action.

Did you ever wonder why he had to put the whole gentleness and respect in right after talking about hope. I think it’s because hope is offensive and scary to many people. In fact just today I talked to a guy who said, “Let me tell you something, hope is an f-ing scary thing. It may be the worst thing ever. A man can go crazy with hope.”  I’m going to withhold the rest of the conversation because the words would cause too many you to focus on them instead of the post. (Maybe me too?)

May you be someone who is filled with hope. May you be someone who people ask about the hope found in you. When pastor’s betray you, and friends abandon you. When Christians give more kindness to drug addicts than to you and you’re worse nightmare comes true may you be able to see and hold onto the hope found in you.

When you are at the end and are convinced you can’t go another step, may you be filled with the Hope that only God can give. May God grant you the clarity to see the Hope He offers.

May you always remember that God died for you.

*UPDATE*  An earthquake hit Oklahoma today.  4.0 on the Richter.  No word from Pat yet on the pact that Oklahomians had made with the devil.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html

Not much comment is needed for this one.  And no, I’m not sorry about the title.  I probably didn’t put it strongly enough.

The people in Haiti need our prayers, our relief and support.  We should mourn with those who mourn, not look for ways to suggest that they sold their souls to the devil and got their just deserts.

Let’s start the week off right with a little fun.

It has been reported that sen. Harry Reid made some racially charged statements concerning pres. Barack Obama. Now many are calling for his resignation as majority leader among other things.

As it turns out, the Pres. has accepted Reid’s apology and some are even defending Reid.

Then there’s this happiness:

And there’s more.

This teaches me a couple of things. First, racism is still a problem in this country.

Second, there is an extreme double standard about race in this country too. Some get a pass; some do not. There is nothing different about Reid’s comments and those made by Trent Lott several years ago–comments that cost Lott his career in the senate. Why is there is a double standard?

Third, we should all choose our words carefully. It could very well be that these statements were given in a context that is different than just the soundbites (or quotations) we are hearing of. Nevertheless, words mean things and people are listening to our words.

So I’m not making any personal point because I do not have any particular opinion. What I am interested in is your opinion: Should Reid resign? Is there is a double standard? Will race ever not be an issue?

This is a different kind of post for me and I realize that this sort of post can be dangerous and cause all sorts of hate and discontent. I also realize many of you dislike Anne Coulter and many dislike Al Sharpton (and some dislike Geraldo and Fox News and me). Be that as it may, try your best to keep this civil and adult.

Share this Post

I just finished reading Have a Little Faith by Mitch Albom. It’s a short book (249 small pages) that tells the story of two people: one a Jewish Rabbi and the other a Christian Pastor. It’s a wonderful little book and I recommend it to you. I don’t think you are going to find every aspect of the book appealing, and much of it will leave you wondering how someone (namely, Albom) could come so close to something so beautiful and come away with so little (I found the last sentence a rather unfitting conclusion to the book even if it is a good thought nonetheless).

One of the stories told in the book is that of Pastor Henry Covington who started a ministry in Detroit, Michigan called I Am My Brother’s Keeper. Pastor Covington’s story is beautiful and full of grace. It was in a chapter about Pastor Covington that today’s thought overwhelmed me.

I thought about how churches and synagogues usually build memberships. Some run schools. Some host social events. Some offer singles nights, lecture series, carnivals, and sign-up drives. Annual dues are part of the equation.

At I Am My Brother’s keeper, there were no dues, no drives, no singles nights. Membership grew the old-fashioned way: a desperate need for God. (Mitch Albom, Have a Little Faith, 217)

The story that led Albom to write this is wonderful and alone makes the book worth its price. Please note: This is not a criticism of the way churches do things. It is, rather, a positive affirmation of how Pastor Covington serves his God and community and how God, through Jesus, meets desperate people in desperate situations.

Have a nice weekend everyone. Be blessed and a blessing.