Jesus Is

Jesus st sunset


I have heard it said that Jesus never actually called Himself God. Even if the Gospels recorded those exact words in Jesus’s mouth, I believe many would find ways of discounting what He said. It was no different in Jesus’s day.

Jesus did not say, “I am God” in those exact words, but what he did say could not have been misunderstood by his audience. Jesus made many statements, but one in particular strikes me as the most significant. Before I get to that one statement, a little background is helpful. Continue reading “Jesus Is”

Conservatives, Progressives and Sheep

Light Post Against WoodsChristians are a very diverse group of people. From fundamentalists to Unitarians, there is a quite a range of beliefs. There seems to be little in common at the ends of the spectrum, and sometimes even from the middle to the ends.

The temptations are to stick stubbornly to one set of beliefs to the exclusion of others or to accept them all.

It can be rather daunting to consider all of the very earnestly and sincerely held beliefs of people who call themselves by the label “Christian”. Live and let live is certainly my tendency. When Jesus says, “Enter through the narrow gate”; however, I want to be one who enters that narrow gate (or door), wherever it is! For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (Matt. 7:13-14 & Luke 13-23-34 (door)) Much rests on being “right”.

There are certain accepted, fundamental and core doctrinal statements that most of the Christian world accepts. Jesus was God who came in the flesh, was born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, suffered and died on the cross and rose again. He died as atonement for our sins, and by his death and resurrection we are forgiven and may enter into fellowship with God. Jesus was God and man. He is part of the godhead – being God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit – three in one. There are certain things that are accepted by most people who call themselves Christian. Is this the narrow gate? (or the wide path?)

There were certain things that were accepted by the religious leaders of Jesus’s time, too, and it turns out they were wrong about many of those things. Jesus called into question the spiritual interpretations and conventions of His time. The Sadducees and Pharisees were the spiritual leaders, and they more or less represented the conservative and progressive points of view. The Sadducees were the conservative “old believers”, accepting only the Mosaic Law and rejecting the newer revelation. They were the aristocratic priesthood focusing on temple worship. The Pharisees were the progressives, embracing the newer revelation (the rest of our Old Testament), believing in resurrection, angels, spirits and rewards and punishments after death.

The Pharisees were a lay group of priests and more in touch with the common man. That may explain why Jesus seemed to run into them more often. Significantly, though, Jesus raised the ire and was rejected by both groups. It seems both the conservatives and progressives of the day missed the boat. (And, that is the problem with labels.)

Jesus did not embrace the conventional beliefs of his day. He was God who became man and walked among His own people, and his own people knew Him not. He seemed attracted most to the irreligious and sinners.

Jesus took issue with accepted beliefs of religious leaders in His time (calling the Pharisees such endearing terms as “white-washed tombs”!), but we also see him describing the right way as narrow and few will find it. No wonder so many Christian groups see themselves as the only way. Who wants to admit their way is not “the” way, especially if there is only one Way.

I am not sure we can really compare today with the time of Jesus. God was doing a new thing, something that had never been done. God was inserting Himself into His own creation and moving the story of man in a whole new direction. Still, I think it is noteworthy that both the conservative and progressive religious leaders had issues with Jesus, and He with them.

When Jesus addressed the Samaritan woman at the well, he was speaking to one who would be rejected by both camps of Jews. She questioned why He, a Jew, would ask her, a Samaritan, for water. Jews and Samaritans had fundamental disagreements over where to worship and who were the chosen people of God. There was even a greater chasm between Jews and Samaritans than Sadducees and Pharisees. Jesus blew through the doctrinal divide by speaking of living water that quenches thirst so that anyone drinking of it will never thirst again.

It was not that Jesus was rejecting what we might call “closed-minded” thinking. He was rejecting wrong thinking. Jesus clearly thought it important that people believe and understand truth. Jesus says one of the most “closed-minded” things imaginable when He said He is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the father except through Him. (John 14:6)

And, so the “dilemma” continues: who is right and who is wrong? In some sense, it is not a matter of right and wrong thinking. When the Samaritan woman asked Jesus whether the Samaritans who worshiped on their own mountain or the Jews who worshipped in Jerusalem were right, Jesus threw her a curve ball: it is not where you worship, but who you worship (the Father) and how (in spirit and truth).

Jesus says the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, and so His followers will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and follow Him. (John 10:7-11)

I was prompted to write this after reading an article on 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible compared to how fundamentalists interpret the Bible.

I do not want to be dismissive of doctrine. I am reminded that, from early on, the disciples and apostles who were entrusted with the very message of Jesus, delivered to them in person and visited upon them by the Holy Spirit in dramatic fashion on the Day of Pentecost, were very protective of that message. Examples of their concern for the truth of the message exist throughout the New Testament. The message, itself, is obviously of central importance.

They also learned that things like the food a person eats, whether a person is circumcised or uncircumcised, whether a person is a Jew or a Gentile does not matter. It does not matter if a person worships on a mountain or in Jerusalem, in a temple or not in a temple; what matters is the living water, God the Father, worshiping in spirit and truth. It is a matter of the heart. The Shepherd calls His sheep, and the sheep know His voice. We are ultimately all either in a relationship with our God or not. And that makes all the difference that matters.

An Overview of the Genesis Story

Sometimes we get lost in the forest and miss the trees. Below is a take on Genesis from 30,000 feet as told by some creative folks at www.http://jointhebibleproject.com/  I enjoyed and the fresh look at age old stories put together in an overview. Below is my breakdown. At the end of this article is a link to the entertaining video.

God & the World

God made the world and declared it is good

God made man in God’s image: Adam is the Hebrew word for humanity; and Eve is the Hebrew word for life. Representative of God’s character in the world God made.

God sends them out into the world to be creative, as God was, but he gives them a moral choice about how they do it.

The moral choice is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all about

God tells them not to eat of it or they will die.

Up to that point God provided and defined what is good (His creation)

God has the knowledge of good and evil and made it attainable for humans (the choice)

The tree represents that choice: will humans accept God’s definition of what is good, or will they define what is good for themselves.

This sets the stage for sin – the desire and act of defining and controlling what is good for me and my tribe, even at the expense of you and your tribe

People are not good at defining good and evil without God – Genesis 3-11

Downward spiral

Adam & Eve can no longer trust each other – they were naked and felt fine about it before, but now they feel shameful after eating the forbidden fruit and hide from God and each other

Cain becomes jealous of Abel and kills him

Lemak accumulates wives, property and sings songs of being more violent than Cain and is proud of it

Things get so bad that God proceeds to wipe out humanity except for Noah and his family

We think of God as angry, but he is sad and grief stricken; to save the world He washes it clean with the flood

But even Noah takes a turn – he plants a vineyard, gets wasted and things get sketchy

Babel ends this portion of Genesis – God knows that men, if unified, will seize the opportunity to seek to become like God and that will be bad

God scatters them so they can not wreak anymore havoc

When humans seize autonomy from God and define good and evil themselves it results in corruption, tragedy and death

Abraham & His Family

Begins God’s mission to rescue and restore humanity

Before the video link, I want to make a few comments. First, it seems elemental to me that God creative Adam and Eve to be creative beings like God (in the image of God), but the link between that and the tree of knowledge of good and evil I find interesting. God gave them a choice to accept what God provided them and defined as good or to eat of the tree and define what is good for themselves. I have not heard things put exactly that way before.

Building on that, the choices that humanity makes are awful. Cain kills Abel. The strong become boastful of violence and domination over others. Even after the flood “cleanses” the world for a fresh start, Noah, himself, stumbles into weirdness. And when humankind repopulates, they become unified in an endeavor to reach the heavens for themselves, which will only allow them to cause more trouble and damage than they would otherwise be able to do; so God divides them by language and scatters them. In doing that, He creates some checks and balances that minimize the trouble they can cause.

The beginning of Genesis is the story of the moral choice that humanity made, to seize control of defining good and evil for themselves, and rejecting God’s definition. It does not go well. We do not do well with the choices we make.

While the video ends here, the next portion of Genesis is summarized as the beginning of God’s rescue mission to save and restore humanity through Abraham and his family. We will have to wait for the summary of the rest of Genesis.

I am certain that the overview can be done in different ways and emphasize different aspects of the Big Picture. I think this overview is compelling. The fundamental choice that we all make is whether we will “do it my way” or submit ourselves to God’s way. Will define good and bad for ourselves or accept how God has defined it?

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUV7mWDI34

What is your take? Is this a good overview?

Straightening the Crooked Path

2012-10-21_15-18-06_197


When uneducated and inaccurate statements are made about evolution, materialism or scientific evidence, people smirk and are quick to point out the ignorance. Uneducated and inaccurate statements about the Bible raise hardly a snicker.

Apparently in defense of homosexuality, I have heard people suggest that the Bible endorses many forms of sexual and gender relations that most people today find more offensive than a loving, gay or lesbian relationship. That is the point of this Upworthy post – “The Top 8 Ways to Be ‘Traditionally Married’ According to the Bible” (sarcasm noted).

I am not going to take on the subject of homosexuality in this piece. I will leave that to others. My issue is with the claims that the Bible endorses deviant sexual acts in the Old Testament. The intention of this type of argument is to undermine the Bible as a standard for conduct, to undermine the reliability or the Bible and to suggest that people who believe the  Bible is inspired from God are either hypocrites or do not understand their own Scripture.

But the statements about what the Old Testament says beg the question of their accuracy. I should note at the outset that reports of things that happened are not endorsements of the actions reported. Would anyone mistake a newspaper article on the kidnapping and rape of a ten year old as an endorsement of kidnapping and rape of ten year olds?

Much of the Old Testament is a chronicle reporting things that happened. There are statements of what God purportedly communicated, to be sure, but much of it is written as a history. Clearly, there is a difference between a history or chronicle (report of what happened) and a standard of conduct. Was anyone confused in middle school when reading about the Holocaust in history books that the textbook was endorsing the Holocaust?

If you read the Bible from beginning to end, and attempt to understand what it says, you will find that it reads like a chronicle of God revealing Himself to men and women, and the responses of individuals and people groups, especially the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, to those encounters. The history includes an unfolding of knowledge and understanding, if you will, little by little over a long period of time. It is not terribly unlike the history of science and the unfolding of knowledge and understanding of the universe.

The Bible reports the ancient view of women as chattel, a view that was almost universally shared in every part of the ancient world during times in which physical strength and prowess determined a “might makes right” society. We find throughout the Old Testament examples of women being granted much greater rights and respect that the culture of the time afforded them. Still, the treatment of women reflected in the Old Testament must be viewed in the context of the culture of the time.

Compare that to Paul’s entreaties in the New Testament that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies (Eph. 5:28) and “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (a self-sacrificing love that exults the needs and interest of another above one’s own).  (Eph. 5:25) The whole passage in Ephesians is prefaced by this statement: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph. 5:21) Paul reflects a more “enlightened” view of women than what was reflected in the Old Testament.

The changes are not contradictory; they are progressive. The Bible chronicles the growth in understanding of what it means to be a follower of God. We have some a long way. The things that people commonly did thousands of years ago are no longer tolerated. Things that were accepted centuries ago are no longer accepted today. All that means is that people have changed; God has not changed. (Heb. 13:8)

None of the activities and relationships reported in the passages cited in the Upworthy piece purport (in the text itself) to have the “blessing” of God. Even the passage in Genesis 2:24 does not read as a command, but as a statement: “a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh”.

The Upworthy piece and other pieces like it are gross mischaracterizations of the Bible and what it says by people who have not given serious effort to understand what they have read.  A serious discussion about anything should start from an accurate beginning point. Beginning a discussion with inaccuracy will not lead to understanding; it will just lead us down a crooked path.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Postscript ~ As for commandments, Jesus actually raised the bar. One of the Ten Commandments is, “You shall not commit  adultery.” Jesus said,

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:29) 

The context of this statement is the pronouncement that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt. 5:17) Jesus revealed that God’s standard is even higher than what the Pharisees thought. God’s standard goes beyond what we do, and includes what we think and who we are. 

Who has not lusted in their hearts? No one! By God’s standards, we are all deviant; we are all sinners; we have all missed the mark.

…. and that gets to the heart of the Gospel ….

but a person must understand the Law and the purpose of the Law to understand the Gospel  (Good News). Revisiting the Garden may be a good place to start. 

 

Calvin & Will

Lynn Johnson Calm Beach


Calvinism and Arminianism represent two diverging views of God’s relationship with man. The two views are summarized at the graceonline.com website and charted at the jesusfollowme.com website. In a nut shell, Calvinism represents the view that people are predestined to believe or not believe; and Arminianism represents the view that people have free will to believe or not to believe. I am oversimplifying the positions, of course.

As an aside, I am no theologian. I was one thesis short of a religion major in college (finished with an English Literature major). I became a believer in college in the midst of prevailing liberal thinking and unbelief. I say this only to acknowledge that I am not an expert, but I have a personal faith in Jesus Christ. I have no doubt that I was drawn by God and that salvation comes by grace through faith, not by anything I have done or will ever do.

The countervailing views get to the heart of the Christian faith. Does God choose man? Or does man choose God? Continue reading “Calvin & Will”