The four letter word Theology

I read a very useful quote the other day about hermeneutics and it got me thinking. In his witty succinct manner Douglas Wilson says:  "Theology is simply remembering the verses you read over there while you read the verses here."

Now I love Theology, hence the subtitle to this blog, but unfortunately, often it gets a bad wrap. I keep seeing blogs that encourage people to stop saying that the Bible is clear. Well I would agree if the Bible is not clear on something. But I think the Bible is clear on a lot of things, especially if you take the time to learn how to read it. I also read another one about proof-texting, the author didn't flesh out how this works exactly other than to say not to do it. But what the term means is not to take a verse out of context and use it to prove your theological point.

Remember in the temptations of Christ, Satan said to Jesus "It is written", but before we say "That is right! we shouldn't try to prove things from the Bible!" But remember, Jesus also said "It is written" in his responses to Satan when tempted. The obvious take away is one was doing it better than the other. Jesus knew why it was written. You could say he took the time to understand the context and meaning of the passage, or he had good Theology.

In fact the exchange between Jesus and Satan, I believe, is a perfect example of why we need to be exceedingly clear when we use the Bible and how to do Hermeneutics.  

Paul even makes a big deal when telling Timothy about being sure his doctrine is good.  1 Timothy 1 is all about this. He reminds him again in 4:16 saying that it will save his life and his listeners'.  Paul reminds young Timothy again in 2 Timothy 2:15 To study and show himself approved, rightly dividing the word of Truth, why? To not be ashamed.

So, yes, some use it to their shame, but it can and should be used well. 

Unfortunately, to some terms like doctrine and theology are considered the four letter words of the church. Why? Because doctrine divides and theology/knowledge puffs up. I have also seen a bit of this in both Bible college and seminary. The Bible theology professors have one slant and the systematic professors have a slightly different slant and rarely the two shall meet.  I had the privilege of studying one in Bible college and the other in seminary and I have personally felt this challenge. I have seen this many times and I think I have learned something. I think that an example lies with Augustine.

Augustine was a benedictine monk who lived in the 3rd century in northern Africa and his theology has influenced many theologians and thinkers to this day. Sure, he had some problems in systematic theology and some problems in biblical theology especially in the old testament. But one thing he had down was pastoral theology. What I mean by pastoral theology is not just another of the theological disciplines but the way his theology impacted the way he led his people.  His theology generated a change in his life that meant he gave his for the sheep. They knew he loved them.

It was his theology that translated to rubber meets the road faith.

Part of the problem I have seen is that sometimes we communicate with too much straight Bible and not enough "Hey I am with you" language. When the time isn't taken to see why the Bible says what it says people start to think it is distant and too hard. But this can lead to people saying do not proof text, or rather do not make Biblical assertions. Other times however there is too much "Hey I am with you" language and not enough Bible, but that is a different problem for a different day.

I see the problem as one having to do with a lack of pastoral theology, or I should simply say a lack of usefulness. This is where the boot meets the boardwalk.  This can be reduced to answering the question "Yeah but what does that even mean?" Pastoral theology as I am using it is delivering doctrine and theology in a way that doesn't cause people's eyes to gloss over and start checking Facebook on their phones. It leaves people challenged and excited for the word and not leaving with them saying
"And that's why I don't read the bible."

The pastor has to first be real and relateable. Read Augustine's The Confessions and you'll see this real quickly. As useful as knowing that the Greek word for "work" means a lot of synonyms for work is, this may not be helpful to the listener.  A pastor has to take the time to make the language understandable. If not then often the language he uses is not simply flying over the hearers head but angels are not allowing it to leave the stage. The listener wants to know how difficult passages speak to their lives, or, if they even do? But a pastor must stick mostly to the text. This may mean making assertions and defending a position. Because it is the text that is authoritative not our opinions or what we want to speak about that week. If we follow the first two steps this won't sound as boring as it sounds. Sure add stories, add anecdotes, but the meat should be the word, that is why God gave it too us. That is why so much history and blood was spent to preserve it.

Finally a pastor should be one who remembers that "Theology is simply remembering the verses we read over there while we read the verse over here". This is really just another way of what Paul says to Timothy in 2nd Timothy 2.
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 

Pastoral theology is presenting the word in enjoyable, relatable, understandable, applicable truths, which it is if the time is taken.  Part of this translates to the people feeling that their pastor is believable, relateable, approachable, and that he cares for them and this in turn that God feels the same way. The point is not to sell ourselves but the bible is clear "How will they hear without a preacher?" The pastor is in a sense "selling God" but the people will not buy-in, if the pastor is distant, cold, aloof, grandiose, or merely selling himself.

I have seen how this type of preaching leaves people with distance from the pastor and the word itself and thus they concluded that Theology is not good.

Augustine is a major influence in all of Christianity.  By his pastoral theology he won his people with love and charity, and ended up literally giving his life for them, to serve them.  He understood that to lead was to serve, and thus the people saw God.  His Theology pointed him to charity, but it came from rightly handling the word of truth.

Theology sometimes has hard truths for us. The Bible sometimes makes difficult assertions. While knowledge may indeed puff up, sometimes doctrine is meant to divide.  You can usually tell one way or the other if love is in the mix.

Augustine won me over personally to the pastorate while studying him in seminary. The way he loved his people inspired me to continue in pastoral ministry when i was tempted to walk away. I was letting the burn out and challenge of people in the ministry overcome me until I truly understood that love was the key to ministry. Augustine understood his role of loving the sheep while bringing the word.  

To his people theology wasn't a four letter word, to them theology meant that the pastor loved them, and more importantly that God did.  It is truth and love, love does not discount truth, and love is void without truth.

thanks

Do you believe in Magic?

Ronald MacDonald has taken what the Lovin' Spoonful (1965) has given us and delivered it to us between two hamburger buns. Yes we believe in magic, the world wants to believe, but is that OK with you dear Christian?

As I mentioned previously I read all the Harry Potter books and watched all the movies. They were great!  That obviously tells you a bit of the direction I am going in, but let's talk about why.

The arguments seems to go well don't your read your Bible? Haven't you read Deuteronomy 18:9-14

⁹ “When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. ¹⁰ There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer ¹¹ or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, ¹² for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. ¹³ You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, ¹⁴ for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this.

Well yes, yes I have. The question is what does this mean for us today? This seems pretty straightforward, do not practice the stuff.  Do not consult mediums, do not seek out fortune telling, do not use tarot cards, etc.  This is not simply the case in the Old Testament because these practices are condemned in the New by Paul in Acts 13.

When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water they thought they were witnessing magic calling him a ghost. When the people saw the miracles performed by the disciples they may have thought they were witnessing magic, a magician tried to pay money for it. Pharaoh tried to duplicate God's miracles with Magicians.  Magic is a real thing and that is why God warns against it. There is real power behind magic fueled by the enemy.  The Pharisees accused Jesus of doing his miracles by a very real but other power. Jesus then explained to the Pharisees what blasphemy is. It concerned Jesus when they equated his power with the power of Satan to say the least. The difference seems to lie in the source of power. The question becomes where is the power coming from? The Bible paints the picture of either from God or from the enemy. True enough.

So there is good power to be tapped from the Holy Spirit and evil power from the enemy. So some may ask the question about white magic versus black? The response is the Bible does not distinguish, both are not from God. God gives his own power and the enemy tries to duplicate it.  Actual power, actual sources.  If you are engaging in actual sources, seeking actual power then you are in violation of the Bible and you are opening yourself up to other worldly spirits. 

The New Testament warns us about even blaspheming the heavenly beings of which we have little understanding. (2 Peter 2:10, Jude) Do not engage them, do not seek their power or influence, they are real, but we are protected from them.  Our God is greater.

OK, but what about reading a book that has it in it? Or a movie that includes it? Or playing a game that uses it as a game-play mechanic? What is that exactly, how does that work? Now that is a good question.

So how does this translate to works of fiction? Fiction creates worlds and world views and fantasy is not based in reality. For example, is the force from Star Wars demonic? Or is it George Lucas's way of communicating a world view in which his story is framed? A different world view perhaps?
"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." --Ben Kenobi to Luke Skywalker aboard the Millennium Falcon. (1977). Good scene!

This is essentially the main story element to the Star Wars Universe.  Now this has obvious eastern philosophical thinking influences.  But does that mean George is pushing Hinduism? No, he is simply creating a backdrop for telling the story of the Skywalkers. I am free to take away what I want from the story, for instances: Light sabers are cool, The Force is cool, and Han Solo is cool.  The question becomes is this OK for the Christian to read, watch, enjoy? Well the answers seems obvious, no? Star Wars is fine, leave Star Wars alone!  Houdini!

Jude borrows ideas from the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is as superstitious and magical a book as they come, there is a reason it is not included in the Cannon, but it still useful for understanding Jewish traditions. Paul even quotes from Greek poets and philosophers to get his point across in Acts which would be considered foolish superstitious idolatry in and of itself, but he found it useful for the gospel.  So how it is used is also important. 

But what about other works of fiction that are not so conspicuous?
Harry Potter sets up a universe where magic is real and there are witches and wizards living right under our noses. Magic in this case is simply a story telling feature that gives supernatural elements a defining and working set of rules. Magic is what describes the powers that these individuals have. It is setting up a world view where this is the norm, this is not about Satan versus God. The magic is a part of the world, simply hidden from view. It does have good versus evil, there is a difference.

Back to the Star Wars example. It is the same with science fiction. In science fiction the magic factor is how the author solved the problem that science can't in the real world answer. Just give it some sort of future sounding technology and move along. How do you blow up a planet? The Death Star obviously. But to use a more extreme example? Super hero movies, where do the powers come from? Often from an accident or an extreme circumstance. But to push our "Christian" rote answer would be to say "Is the power from God, no? Then it is from Satan!" Therefore do not watch or read comic book hero movies. Do you see how this line of reasoning doesn't engage the mind very well, and will never reach a culture that does?

Some would then say well magic is different it is named in the Bible. Like I said, the point is the source of power. If in real life all actual magic comes from Satan then fine I agree. But if an author sets up magic as part of the governing rules to communicate the way his universe works, we should not equate that with Satan and God. An author is allowed to think outside the box. The author who creates gets to set the stage and decide. Now obviously an author can choose to equate magic with the demonic, that is different. But this is not often the case because even authors know what Satanism represents and often want to distance themselves from it. But even in cases when authors do use Satanism in books it is usually the easy way to communicate "Well this person or movement is just plain Evil." They are trying to sell books after all.

So if an author uses a setting with Magic, we need to realize this is their attempt to explain something away. There is no reason to attribute this to actual evil. Even when an author does use the demonic and angelic they are typically setting up a dualism which still fails to capture the reality of magic, the world view is still different. Also for a Christian to hold rules this strict is to condemn C.S. Lewis and J.R. Tolkien. What we really end up saying is that some parts of culture simply cannot be redeemed. But the Christian should be redeeming culture as C.S.Lewis and J.R. Tolkien did to fantasy, not condemning them for using magic and wizards as a narrative tool.

What we really end up saying is people are not free to use their imagination.   

What the Bible is getting at is contacting the powers behind the magic which again comes back to the source. If authors are getting rid of those sources of power and creating something else we should not force them to take up the demonic side because of our failure to engage. As Jesus reminds in Mark 9, if someone wants to do good let's not condemn them because it doesn't look specifically like a Christian good.

I agree with the Bible, avoid contacting the powers, and avoid pagan cultic practices, and if any of these stories do encourage you to do these then by all means cast them away. Or if in a certain case the author is trying to influence you then by all means burn the book. But perhaps it does create a temptation for you, then realize this is an example of the individuals temptation. So if they create a temptation for you then by all means distance yourself but do not condemn a brother who does not also feel tempted. But watching a stage magician or illusionist is not different from reading fiction with magical elements in it. They are both fake. The Bible is concerned with the actual spirits and powers not the mere labels of magic being added to make-believe.  

This is like saying all secular music is from Satan and all Christian music is from God. A Christian needs to think in broader categories than this. There are more colors than black and white and I am not talking about the many shades of grey. The Christian needs to evaluate all his entertainment with wisdom not with rote fear. A Christian needs to properly evaluate all aspects of life, we have a tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater on a lot of things. Maybe someone in your life has had a bad experience with this or that issue, then please, safe guard yourself. But let's not create new laws for others in order to distance everyone from the actual commandments as the Pharisees did. Jesus always brought them back to what was written not what they believed. 

Next time you are watching or reading something and start to freak out because there is a mummy on screen or talk of the force or someone is casting a lightning bolt at a goblin, pause, take a breath, and ask yourself these questions: If anything, what is this encouraging me to do, causing me to feel? Do these violate Christian principles? Then apply as appropriate. But allow God to move differently in others as far as your temptations go.    

So go out there and cheer for Gob Bluth on his merits as a magician, not just because his job does or doesn't incorporate magic. I really believe that the Christian needs to take the time to examine what is going on in their entertainment, by critically thinking about it, not simply by running from it.

Christians should be engaging culture not getting ready for the next witch hunt. 

thanks

Sex and Violence

Based on a previous post about the comedian and my response to that I recently had a short discussion with a friend of mine on the merits of Christian consumption of entertainment. Specifically about how our entertainment speaks and how we receive, respond, and even have a voice with it.  I had that discussion and while I was still pondering how this works I heard a radio discussion about why Harry Potter was not allowed to have Christian themes or anything redemptive because of its use of magic. 

I know that Harry Potter was so five years ago but this still speaks to the current problem of what do we consume for entertainment. Now I have read all the Harry Potter books and watched all the movies. That perhaps lets me speak to the issue or admit that I can't because I have already succumbed to its "magic" as another Christian dupe. But I will attempt to cast my spell and see if I have any influence at all.  Expelliarmus!!

Now perhaps my obvious bias will turn off a few but kidding aside, Christians do need a response on entertainment, but it should be based on the Bible and reason and not fear. I will focus on just a few areas used within entertainment: sex, violence, and magic with pagan practices.

So let's ask some hard questions should Christians watch "R" movies?  What content should be avoided?  Are some subjects too evil for Christians to view? Can Christians engage in any of these without it being sin?

I will admit that the one that I think makes the most sense is sex.  This is one with the least nuance. This is the one that Bible tells us to flee from.  This is the one that Job made a covenant with his eyes over.  This is the one that proverbs warns us against. This is the one that can cause marriages to be destroyed.  This is the one that Leviticus has the most addendums to for wrong practices. This is the one that gets repeated in the New Testament over and over again to take extra caution over. 

So what should the Christian response be? Shame? Fear? No we have tried that and it doesn't work. The Christian response should not therefore be that it is evil or shameful, but it does need a warning.

Some want to say "Well, that is the Old Testament" and true enough it is, but these warnings and commands are reiterated in the new Testament by Paul and then again at the Jerusalem council.  The issue was on what, if any, parts of the law Gentiles need to pay attention to. See Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Acts. Then some say "But Song of Songs is all about sex!"  True it is, but a theme of the book is not to awaken it before its time.  This is the point, sex is an amazing thing, when it's in the right context. 

The song of songs is meant to celebrate sexual love. Which it is, a celebration of a gift of God.  The Bible even contains stories of sex, but when it does the purpose was about the heirs that come from them and not for the purpose to arouse, when it is not about a bigger purpose the Bible is replete with warnings after warnings on this subject.  

Let's teach our kids that it is not a hateful, shameful thing, but that it is a wonderful thing but that it is reserved for marriage. So sexual content? In marriage? Good. For arousal and entertainment outside of marriage? Bad. For more information read your Bible. This is why porn is a problem, it involves actual people most of the time and its cause is for arousal. Christ clarified the way this sin works with the mind, so lust is the real problem, this happens with actual contact or not.

It seems to me that in the 80's and before, sex was often used in movies to communicate that the couple actually loved each other. Obviously this had range as well, but now it seems that sex is simply used to entice.  It sells, it always has, but it didn't used to be only for a enticement.  It seems as the times go on and as we become much more "mature" and able to handle these things we are simply injecting it into more and more of our entertainment.  

I once had a friend who had recently got married and told me that he still went to topless bars.  I was surprised not because he was a Christian, because he wasn't, but because this type of sin actively wars against the vows of marriage. I asked him why and he gave me the typical response, that he simply looked and didn't touch.  I told him that I could never do that because it causes desire which leads to darker more, tactual places. Then I asked him how long did he think it would be before only looking wasn't enough?  He got the point.

So 50 shades of Grey? Nope.

Moving on...

Violence, this one is perhaps more nuanced than sex because it is in all stories. The Bible is full of stories of war and battles and the victors are viewed as heroes and God frequently communicates himself to us as a warrior which is something to be looked up to.  Ecclesiastes says that there is a time for war. War involves violence. God frequently involved his people in war and conflict, and used it as a legitimate punishment for evil. Even if the evil was other forms of violence.

The Bible encourages people to view warriors and victors as honorable and worthy or praise. The question then becomes all violence?  Well no, the Ninevites for example are historically known for their brutality and gory shows that they put on to scare their enemies.  This is why Jonah didn't want to preach repentance to them because of the gross nature of their violence. The rule of an eye for eye was implemented not to make the world go blind as Gandhi said, but was to restrain evil.  This was to put a cap on violence. We tend to go overboard with this stuff. 

True enough that in the New Testament Jesus comes and shows a more excellent way.  He shows the way of restraint and he seems to teach passivity when it comes to our experience of personal violence.  But God himself essentially says leave the violence to me. "Vengeance is mine."  Actual violence is to be avoided by Christians.  But violence is given to the government to restrain evil, that is until God arrives on the scene to deal with it himself. God doesn't himself have a problem with punitive justice.

So violence is nuanced, God uses it, but should we be entertained by it?  Well again the Bible frequently uses valor and victories to tell a story, so that does not seem so out of bounce. But what about gore? What about slasher flicks?  Well I would draw the line there. It would be similar to the games of the Roman empire. Sure there were victors with stories of honor but essentially it was slaves in a bloody sport to the death for the citizens entertainment.  Like how WWE is only for entertainment, except people were actually killed, and the acting was better. I don't believe that Christians should have attended the Roman games and we should avoid gory entertainment, especially when there isn't any redeeming factor. I wish zombie movies could tell there bleak and human survival stories without having to emphasize and capitalize on the gore, maybe a pipe dream?

The gore element seems to be the 'lust' factor in violence, it is only to entice with death. It seems silly to discuss brutality factors but that does seem to be the point. What is this violence enticing me too? Is it causing me to honor soldiers and valor or is it enticing me to glory in death? This may be why the Gospels exclude the gory details of crucifixion. The fact the word excruciating had to be invented to describe it should be enough to make the point. If not Mel Gibson helped us on this bit. 

A further nuance? Well violence in films and TV do not hurt actual people in the making.  The way Jesus addressed this sin was anger leading to violence. When we view violence it is not typically fueling anger in the person watching as porn does with lust. Violence is usually a MacGuffin, which is why we walk away with such themes as self-sacrifice, justice, honor, service, camaraderie, valor etc. While again in porn there is no MacGuffin it is about the acts being witnessed, it is to stimulate. This is why a book or a movie about the gulf war or famous battle is fine. 

So Saving Private Ryan? Fine.

So for the Christian the purpose is how do I think Christianly about this?  The Christian must answer these questions to engage culture. It must be more than a knee-jerk reaction to offense but a Biblical response, especially when the outside world loves to point out hypocrisy. So take the time to learn why the Bible says what it says and when it says it. Learn why the Bible had battles and had heroes.  Psst. it had something to do with God's judgement. For another example that maybe defies the gore element I spoke on?  To avoid a knee jerk reaction, think about  the Passion of the Christ. It was gorier than most films but the point was to show what Christ suffered for us, the extent of his suffering. I think that that is very redemptive. This was a unique situation where the gore did help the point, but again use your Christian mind to decide.  

This is just such a big topic that these first two points have taken longer than I had thought, so I will do part two next time.

thanks

Is this news Good?

With Easter come and gone I have been thinking about our message and why it doesn't always sound as good as it is supposed to sound. 

The Gospel.  The cornerstone of our faith. Romans gives us a great summation of how to have faith. The Romans Road as some have dubbed it is a series of verses that is still very helpful for explaining the Gospel. Some may think it archaic in presentation; to simply present the verses and then an expect a full conversion after hearing it; I would agree, but the content of the verses are still very useful and true.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Wait what? Is God maybe not OK with this?
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.
OK we should want to avoid this and want that, a bit harsh?
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in that while we still sinners Christ died for us.
Ok, Hey this does sound good, so what's the catch?
Romans 10:9 That if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.
Ah but here is the rub, if someone isn't offended by the first point then this one brings issue. In Christian circles we think that this is so simple, just believe! Be saved! Make it to the finish of Romans 5:1 Therefore since you have been justified through faith you have peace with God through Christ. Right? Easy? Easter!!!

I have seen the problem, which has always been the problem. The recognition of sin and our fallen state is a hard pill to swallow at first.  But then confessing that Jesus is Lord and believing in his resurrection is admitting some other things about ourselves. This is admitting that perhaps we have been an offense to God. That perhaps my sin is separating me from him. Did my sin somehow contribute to his death?  Is that something I am really prepared to come to terms with despite how good the end of this road is. Am I prepared to be humble before an accusation that I am not OK?

For a Christian this is good news. For someone who has already agreed to these terms this is very good news. For someone prepared to come to these terms, this is very good news. For someone who is not, then the Gospel is not so good.  It is not so exciting, because there is a veiled accusation. There is a veiled message that I am not cool with God the way I am. This is the reality of the Gospel, it does have a catch. We have to be humble and accept the truth it points out in us. In faith we repent of trusting in ourselves and we place our trust in him.

People love the idea of a loving Jesus with all the acceptance. But Jesus' acceptance comes on the other side of my repentance. Again the repentance is a turning in my mind from going it on my own to going on because of him.  This is my acceptance that I am not OK, that I might even be on the pathway to hell. That I am currently dead and an offense to God.  Now we do not even have to present this amount of detail in the message but rest assured that someone who is offended has come to this realization. They have put two and two together and they don't like. This is why the Bible even tells us that this is offensive.

If it is offensive, doesn't it push people away? So what is the answer? How do we fix this?

We don't. This may be easy for some and not for others, but the ones it is harder for have to work through it. We are not free to soften the message's impact.  It has eternal consequences, it is supposed to.

Despite this, what has happened is we have tried to help the Gospel out anyway.

The solution? To present a less offensive Jesus. Now it is not this overt, which is why it is difficult to talk about. But I hope I can show here that it is true. The method? Let's only focus on one aspect of the gospel, the love. And I know the moment I say that people will say "What do you have against love?" Well, I don't have anything against love, but the Gospel's true love is on the other side of something. It is on the other side of our coming to terms with truths from the Romans Road verses above. Wait, didn't God display his love to us while we were still sinners? Yes, yes he did, but that is a general offer, that is his loving nature. But for it to be efficacious, the love of God's forgiveness, he asks of us something. John 3:16 has an "if" clause. If it didn't we would have universalism and evangelism would be moot.

If people were already OK and loved then we wouldn't need to tell them. But if they are not, then I had better help them see and point them in the right direction. Our presentation of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" has started to sound like original sin is no longer a thing, which people love!

But what this has done to the gospel is what the angry mob said to Jesus on the cross in Mathew 27.
39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

They would believe in Jesus if he simply came down from the cross. The King of Israel has no business on a cross. The King of Israel has no business dying an insurrectionist's death. The King of Israel has no business being a substitution for our atonement. This is similar to what Satan tempted Jesus with. "I will give you the world, if you just worship me", without all that going to cross and suffering. But Jesus had to go through the path he went as the Bible says to learn obedience, he was the suffering servant. He was born to die. And he asks us to take up a cross and follow.

We think we are doing people a favor by avoiding sin and the death part and making the Gospel more palatable. But we are really joining with the angry mob and with Satan when we downplay Romans 10:9. God raised Jesus from the dead because sin caused his death. Our sins, not his. A payment had to be paid. It required the death penalty. God's love is freely offered but is was not free of charge. The cross speaks volumes. The cross has meaning. The cross speaks of our need and his answer. The good news cannot be offense free. Somebody had to die, because somebody did something worthy of the death penalty. This is offensive because it points to us. We have to acknowledge this exchange.  

Running past the cross to the love is not simply a case of the cart before the horse. This is making the goodness of the good news not that he died for us, but that he accepts us the way we are, as we are, where we are.  But He doesn't, we have to be cleansed. To not do this takes away the rescuing element. It is affirming us as we are, and who wouldn't love that? But the gospel is not affirming it is undermining. It undermines our security in our self.  It is a painful reminder of our need for salvation. It is a mirror to the face with a bright light revealing all our blemishes. It does not cover up, it tears down all defenses and then asks "Am I welcome to continue?" It causes vulnerability.  As we say yes, then in our nakedness before God he reaches out and embraces us at our worst, fully exposed but fully welcomed. This is the Good news.

"But Gabe no one is questioning this, we just want to reach more people!"

Cool, but the issue is that people in the church have still taken up the "Hey man don't judge me mantra." This is evidence that the offense of the cross and our part in it has been circumvented.

Without humility, and a recognition our sin, then the Gospel is an imposition. If it is an imposition than our response is not repentance but anger. This is a result of an anemic Gospel, hence this blog entry. Our job is to be clear on the Gospel not soften the blow.  It is not our job to change this.

I am not adding works to the Gospel. I am simply returning to it what we have subtlety stripped away. I know this makes it sound like I am trying to make the Gospel harder, but I am not I am trying to make the message clearer. We focus on love and rightfully so, but its aim is always to draw people to repentance, drawing to repentance means an honest confrontation with the cross. So let love live on but as Paul McCartney sang Live and let Die.

In order for us to live we have to allow Christ to die. Don't worry he rises again, it's awesome!

thanks

Easter Bunnies, Jesus, and Johnny Cash

1 Corinthians 15:14 
"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

Without the resurrection our faith is pointless. With the resurrection our faith is everything.

Easter is here again, on Sunday. Easter is great because it means He is risen! I once had to wear an Easter Bunny costume to hand out candy to kids shopping at a local grocery store in Tucson. (I was also Chuck-E-Cheese at Chuck-E-Cheese's) My church used to have sunrise services with camping and egg hunts in the national forest of Tucson. Easter bunnies and eggs of course have little to do with Christ rising again. The tradition started with the Lutherans in the 17th century and functioned in a similar way to Santa Claus. A bunny bringing golden eggs and candy for the good boys and girls before Easter. The eggs and bunny are tied to fertility and newness with spring. As I said before with Christmas the meaning doesn't entirely matter anymore to most people as it simply adds to the celebration of Jesus rising again. 

It causes excitement and points to something bigger than itself. The celebrating is the point as I hinted at before with the Christmas discussion.  It is about what we are celebrating. The eggs and bunnies and chocolate are just a way to add festivities to the day that we celebrate that Jesus has risen and we have an everlasting hope. And Kimberly and I will definitely hide eggs with candy in them for Raphael when he gets older. For now, I will eat his candy and pet the bunny. 

But I will tell him that this holiday is the capstone of the Christian year! This is the day that all Christians remind themselves that Jesus has conquered death. This is the Gospel concluded. In the end death will not have it's sting. This is the Christian hope that one day we will rise again as Jesus did. As Paul reminds us that Christ was the first fruits of resurrection.

This is why Johnny Cash sang quoting the apostle Paul:

Oh Death where is your sting?
Oh grave where is your victory?

And he also sang:

Ain't no grave that can hold my body down

He sang these songs because he understood the message of Easter. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. He has validated all his teaching. He is the messiah and he does in fact have the power over death and thus he does have the power to forgive sins. Even though the Pharisees were offended that Jesus was offering something that only God himself can do. This is why the resurrection is so great! It means Jesus was right! It means everything that he said is true! And thus he has the relationship to present us to Father in favorable terms. He himself is also God.  

Easter is the message that Christians are supposed to get to. The good news of the Gospel is supposed to get to the rising from the dead part. This is the content of faith. Who do we say that Jesus is? Our answer is what defines our faith. The Christian answer is he is God in the flesh. He is the mouth piece of God, his miracles attested to his relationship to the Father and his ability to forgive. The resurrection was the capstone of testimony to who he is. His power to overcome death is why we have a world religion following after him.

The resurrection is God's exclamation point on the witness of Jesus. If you didn't believe his message about himself from just the miracles that he performed on Earth, or from his powerful teachings with authority, then believe because not even death could hold him down. He is still alive today. Jesus Christ is not a historical past character, he is an ever present alive deity in heaven. And he is calling.

This is what Easter is about. He is real and he is fantastic! And better yet he is still offering his story to you and to me.  He is still offering forgiveness and a relationship with God. Because he is risen it means Christianity is not simply a movement that honors some long dead dude with cool ideals that we think will work for an ever crappy world.  No, Christians follow a very much alive Jesus Christ who fully suffered and died on a Roman cross in the first century and then on the 3rd day from death rose again to life.  

Do you believe that? That is the question for all people.  

I suppose only those that are interested in a relationship with God will bother to answer. But for those who have answered in the positive, they get to fully celebrate Easter as a remembrance of the amazing miracle that testifies to our very much alive God Jesus Christ.

Easter reminds us of his victory. Easter reminds us of our future. But Easter also reminds us of the world's need.

John 3:16 Says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life."

The dual message of Easter is that He is risen, that we get to rise also! But also that some won't. Some haven't yet come to terms with Jesus Christ. Some haven't believed. 

Johnny cash sang that death has no sting anymore, that the grave will not hold him down. But for many it does and it still will.  

In our reminder in this day of his resurrection, let's not forget that he has a Gospel that he wants us to share.
Let our excitement of Jesus carry over into an excitement that he offers himself to those out there in the world that need him as well. I believe part of the celebration should be that the Gospel is still readily available.  So as part of the celebration remember we are not still on the earth to simply celebrate but to perpetuate.

So be excellent to each other, party on this day (on Sunday) but share the Gospel, share your Joy!

thanks