More Than The Essentials

We (Church of Christ/Christian Churchers) take pride in the fact that we only take a stance on the essentials. "In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love." It is a great slogan, but, as is the nature of slogans, it fails to capture the complexity of the situtation. (Whether we really only take a stance on essentials is up for debate.)

On an individual level, the slogan works. We do not need to walk around judging other people based upon non-essentials.

The problem is that the church has to deal in and have unity in non-essentials. We have to agree on music style, times of our gatherings, what church finances will be used on, language of worship, whether we will celebrate our temporal kingdom on national holidays, what missionaries to support, and a multitude of other things. In order to be healthy churches, we must agree on non-essentials. The form it usually takes is that we do not struggle through the issues and just do what has always been done. This causes a church to begin doing what is not best for the community, although it might be what is most comfortable.

Every church, when it was planted, went through the struggle of making decisions on every non-essential. After five years, the unhealthy church fails to revisit those essentials while the healthy church evaluates and makes sure that they are still doing the non-essentials in a way that is best for bringing about the kingdom of God. It might be exactly the way it was five years ago, but they would have made the conscious decision to do things the same way.

We might agree that essentials are all that is necessary for salvation, but focusing solely on the essentials leads to a minimal Christianity and is impossible once we start to be involved with a community of believers. Let us get past thinking we only take a stance on essentials; in reality, we take stances as a community of believers on so much more.

Back in the 70’s there was a movie called “Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind”. Basically the thinking was that there were 3 types of encounters with aliens. The first kind was a sighting. You can see something from far off but not quite grasp it like a UFO. The second kind was physical evidence. Perhaps there was something that you could examine close up left from the presence of the extraterrestrial like goo or something. Then the Third kind is contact – coming face to face with the alien.

Most of us have encountered Jesus in one of the three ways. But what are our expectations when we come into contact with Jesus. Are we in awe? Are we blown away? Or has our understanding of Jesus make our encounter of him casual, as if we don’t expect a lot to happen.

John 1:43-51 contains a story of such an encounter:

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

Nathaniel thought he knew everything about what God was doing. In Nathaniel’s opinion nothing good could come out of Nazareth. But Nazareth was small and in the boonies, with about sixteen hundred to two thousand inhabitants. It was just a Podunk town that had no significance in the grand scheme of things. And so, Nathaniel did not expect a messiah to come out of Nazareth. And so he asks, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” And that question still lingers. Sometimes we ask it – is this Jesus worth considering?

When you come to church do you have any expectations? Is there any excitement? Or do you think you have it all figured out? Do you think you know what is going on, that you know who Jesus is, and that he has already finished his work with you? It’s just church. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

But Phillip says, “Come and see.” And so the story continues.

When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael asked him, “Where did you get to know me?” Jesus answered, “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.” Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Jesus answered, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.” And he said to him, “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

Do you see the irony in this story? Nathaniel thought he knew Jesus, having never met him. But in reality, it was Jesus who knew everything about Nathaniel. It just took one revelation from Jesus for Nathaniel to change his tune. He went from, “Nothing good can come from Nazareth” to “Rabbi (teacher), you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” All it took was seeing Jesus in a new light to completely reverse his perception about Jesus. He went from thinking he had Jesus all figured out to proclaiming him as the Savior.

But Jesus doesn’t let him off the hook there. He says, you think you know me now? You haven’t seen anything. That vision of you under a tree was just a parlor trick. I will show you more than you can imagine. And he references an Old Testament story often called Jacob’s ladder. Jacob had a vision of angels coming down and going up into heaven on a ladder. And the point is clear – Jesus is bringing a new way to encounter God. Jesus is a new ladder to heaven.

We look at this story and think, “That is kind of nice.” Jesus shows Nathaniel something new and Nathaniel begins following Jesus. But this story touches on a much deeper question – a question you may not have actually thought about and considered, but one that you may have already answered in your minds. The question is simple – Do you believe that Jesus can really do anything else in your life, or is it over? Has he already done it all? After all, most of you are baptized and feel saved like you are going to heaven. Is that it? Do you know everything you need to know about this Jesus and how he works?

As I said, most of us have never verbalized that question, but we live like we know it all. Nothing phases us. We aren’t excited to encounter Jesus in worship anymore. And I believe it is because we have not had a close encounter of the 3rd kind. We have had sightings and have caught a glimpse of Jesus perhaps through singing praises to Him. We see evidence of Jesus by hearing what he has done and reading about him in the Bible. But how about encounters of the 3rd kind – have we really come into contact with Jesus? Have we sought him out?

Seeing Jesus is what Christianity is all about because it leads us to imitate Him. That is why those who encounter Jesus are never the same.

The invitation from Jesus is simple – “Come and See”.

Come and see the rock that has withstood the winds of time.
Come and see the flame that tyrants and dictators have not extinguished.
Come and see the passion that oppression has not squelched
Come and see what Christ has done.
Come and see the changed lives.
Come and see the pierced hand of God touch the most common heart, wipe the tear from the wrinkled face, and forgive the ugliest sin.
Come and see. He avoids no seekers but makes contact.

The invitation is to come and encounter Jesus. Perhaps a closer encounter than you have ever experienced. May we become like Nathaniel and proclaim anew that Jesus is the Son of God and our King.

Life or Death in 2 Questions

I'm preaching through the words of Jesus found in Luke. We are just now entering the Sermon the Plain. It has been really fascinating for several reasons. On three occasions in the last month and a half people have felt the need to raise their hands and interact with me during them message. I'm glad they feel comfortable doing this, but still its strange.

It is has also been one of the most challenging sets of sermons I've ever preached. We are searching and praying for fresh ways to live his words.

Here are two of the questions that I have received about these sermons:

1. [Concerning Jesus' response to the rich young ruler] Do I really need to sell everything I own and give it to the poor?

2. [In regards to a statistic I used stating that 3 billion people live on $2 a day or less] Are you suggesting that we should live on $2 a day too?


These are dangerous questions. There is life and there is death in the question.

I fear answering the first one may do more harm than good. It seems like the moment a sincere pursuer hears from wise, well-intended teachers that Jesus does not ask all of his would-be followers to sell all they have, they feel entirely free from the weight of the command. They rarely ask if they are one those that Jesus would ask such a thing. They rarely settle for selling 75% of what they have, 50% or even 10%. They are off the hook. They're done. All that is left is the murky principle of not loving their piles of possessions.

And the second question... I would not ask anyone to live on $2 day. But if we agree that we should not have to be subjected to such condition, then what do you with Jesus "Golden Rule": Do to others as you would have them do to you?

Both questions are faulty, though I am convinced both men are sincere in their pursuit of the Jesus Way. They both come from a place that asks what is required. What must I do? This is a sort of warped legalism. Nothing you ever do will be enough. Let's get that out of the way. You are saved by grace.

The better question is what more can I do for him? What are you going to sell and/or give to the poor? How can you help bring more balance to people who work harder and longer than we do?

Can we stop the constant measuring of how much we have done and how much we have yet to do? Can we instead focus on "what's my next step in pursuing Jesus-likeness"?

Salvation or Love - Anabaptism, Evangelicalism, and a Slogan

I just read an excerpt in Two Kingdom, Two Loyalties by Perry Bush.

The part that struck me is the response of the Mennonites after World War II. During World War II, many Mennonites compromised the Mennonite conviction of nonresistance. (At the risk of oversimplifying - when they talk about nonresistance, they mean love that turns the other cheek.) This falling away fromt he church teaching was an issue that the leadership in the Mennonites denomenation worked hard to fix. One of the ideas they came up with was to create Peace Teams. These teams would be comprised of young men who had served in Civilian Public Service camps rather than fight in the war during WWII. These Peace Teams went out to the churches and taught them the way of nonresistance. Perry Bush explains the situation well in the following paragraph:

In their tour of the local communities, the Peace Teams uncovered a number of matters for concern by the wider church. Several congregations illustrated the degree to which tensions from the war still registered marked strains. In Fisher, Illinois, reported one of the teams in 1948, local toughs warned them to lay low on their message to avoid offending several military veterans who "have just become re-adjusted." Another factor eroding nonresistance that the Peace Teams ran into time and time again was fundamentalism. More than once the teams uncovered the prevailing attitude that "salvation is the most important thing, not nonresistance. Therefore our real buisness as a church is to do mission work and save souls; nonresistance is a minor part of the Bible." They found such attitudes particularly in regions such as Illinois, where the influence from Bible institues such as Moody in Chicago had penetrated deeply. In other places, the Peace Teams found that too great an openness to an outside culture resulted in an uncongenial climate for their message. As one team member summarized, an historical approach worked well "in a communtity that wants to be 'Mennonite,' but not too effective in one that wants to get away from the 'old way.'"

I think I find myself somewhere between the Anabaptist tradition and Evangelicalism (I would actually that was what was encountered by the Peace Teams rather than Fundamentalism, but the lines are rather blurred where they meet). As this excerpt shows, the Anabaptist tradition (Mennonites and Amish) is focused on Christians being the people God has laid out for them to be. Bush seems to state that nonresistance is more important than evangelism. An evangelical would disagree; they are focused on winning the lost around them. I lean more toward the Anabaptist stream of Christianity because I believe that people see the Lord by the people of God being the being they were designed to be. Evangelism happens through faithfulness rather than tricks of language and logic that persuade an individual that they need the Lord.

It is important that we do not compromise our faith in order to satisfy our government or any other earthly institution, including the institutionalized church. A repeating theme in my posts lately is that is not easy to define what compromising our faith actually entails. How far is too far or how far is not far enough? We see this in the Mennonite struggle after WWII. The leadership in the church said military service was a compromise while many of the local ministers and parishioners saw nothing wrong with it. To those who are nonresistant, the teaching seems clear in Scripture; however, that which seems clear to some does not appear as clearly to others.

Christian Churchers like myself fall back on the slogan: "In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love." By its very nature, that slogan is anti-anabaptism and pro-evangelicalism because we define essentials as to those things that are essential for salvation. That might not be the right approach.

How far is too far? - Part 2

My post last week received some good replies. I spent a lot of time responding to Troy's reply. He asked some good questions in regards to me considering myself non-violent yet still participating in violent video games and watching movies which contain violence. This is an edited and expanded version of my reply to his comment.

***

There are all sorts of varying degrees in regards to non-violence. Some people take non-violence as far as to stop eating meat. That would be a complete separation of an individual from violence of any kind. I just took Isaac to the butcher shop where we saw cows hanging and how they butcher them for us to eat. I definitely do not go that far in regards to non-violence.

Most of us could all go further in regards to non-violence. I have yet to be in a situation where my own views have been tested. I am probably not as strong as I plan to be and teach one should be. I hope I never have to find out.

If I were to describe my form of non-violence, it would be to not have angry thoughts toward any other person and to never infict harm on another human being no matter what the circumstances. When it comes to entertainment, I do not have a problem with violence which makes me seem like a liberal to people more non-violent than me; however, most of America would view me as more conservative on this issue. I am not using liberal and conservative in the same vein as political context since liberals are more conservative on this issue. I have a friend who would describe himself as non-violent, yet he would still kill to defend his family. I would not consider him non-violent, but that is because he is more liberal than me on the issue. (See brief post - Our Everchanging Dichotomy of Truth)

I am less violent than most and more violent than a few if we were to lay it out on a line with complete non-violence on one end and total violence on the other. The key is to focus on love and not on non-violence. We can get caught up in a legalistic test of fellowship if I judge people based upon their view of violence. Having a legalistic approach to the issue does not further the gospel one bit. What can I do to be the most loving rather than what can I do to be non-violent? I believe if we focus on loving, it would encompass non-violence.

Shannon wrote a reply on my blog years back in regards to this subject. He might not still stand by it, but I like it with a few tweaks.

It has nothing to do with whether the actor is sinning, but whether I am sinning. You could have a lady taking a shower in a movie (last time I checked, God is not against showers), she may not be sinning, but I sure would be if I were to watch it.

Or from the other side, I could watch lots of sins and not have it be a sin for me. I could watch people, steal, gossip, brag, etc...

That's the deal. For most of us, most violent films do not cause us to want to be violent. Whereas, for most of us, most sexual films do cause to think sexually.

I would argue that if the woman was showering naked in front of a man that was not her husband in order to tantalize him or to just make money, that would be a sin. That is where I would diverge from Shannon's post on the subject. A woman showering is not wrong. A woman showering in such a way that she is doing it knowing that a man who is not her husband would be watching her is wrong.

Troy brought up whether whether we are condoning sin by watching football or boxing. The debate would all come down to whether football or boxing is a sin.

As for violence in a movie, nobody is committing a sin in making it and nobody is committing a sin in watching it unless they have a lust for violence from watching it. The violence is all fake.

I did take my kids to a hockey game the other night and was very uncomfortable there with the glamorized fighting. A fight broke out on the ice and everyone started cheering. It all seemed strange to me. It was much worse to me than boxing because boxing is a sport of discipline where the boxers have to refrain from being angry. At the hockey game, these guys appeared to be very angry at one another and wanted to hurt each other. I told my kids that people should not act that way. Maybe we should have left.

In the end, we need to always try to be like Jesus. If someone is being faithful to their understanding of Jesus and are more violent than me, I should not hold their stance on violence as a test of fellowship despite my belief that non-violence is an outgrowth of a heart of love. In the end, we all need to work on being more loving than we are. We cannot feel that we have arrived at a life of love because we refrain from doing something. A life of love is a life of action, not a life of restraint. Restraint might help us be more loving, but it is not the goal. Being Christlike is the goal; that makes love a mutual goal. Christ's love should be overflowing from us that everyone around should see him through that love. If not, we have work to do. I know I do.

Our Ever-Changing Dichotomy of Truth

Those who are more conservative on issues have a tough time accepting those who are more liberal. The view is usually that the more liberal people are too free and have strayed from the truth. Those who are more conservative are just viewed as a little silly or fascinating. They are fine in regards to adhering to the truth; they might take it too far and make the gospel less accessible, but they are still remaining faithful to the truth. We all think we have the right views, or we would change those views. I would like to figure out how to escape this crazy ever-changing dichotomy in which I am always right without becoming ultra-liberal.

How relevant is the blood of Jesus?

A fellow named Dever said, “Of course we should contextualize the gospel—not to make the gospel more palatable or acceptable to the sinner,” he said, “but to make the offense of the gospel clearer.” He insisted: “Don’t try to improve the gospel by making it more relevant—you’ll lose the gospel.”

I've been thinking about our attempts to be "relevant" lately. Most attempts to make the gospel relevant focus on removing removing its 1950's trappings and put a more current spin on it. Most of this has to do with aesthetics such as dress, meeting places, music styles, and the use of multimedia.

I'm all for meeting people where their at. Get the tv addict with commercials, shows and movies. Get the music junkie with whatever gospel-lyric-infused imitation tunes get their attention. Get the punk rocker with pierced preachers. If wearing chaps helps you connect with lost cowboys, then strap them on. That's fine. god loved us enough to meet us where we were, as we were. Just remember that he loved us too much to leave us that way.

If people find the gospel more palatable because you dress it up in one of these gimmicks, that's fine I guess. But please do not confuse what is appealing to the worldly people you are trying to reach with what is actually relevant. Nothing could be more relevant than where one stands with Jesus.

Just be sure the method of communicating the gospel does not overshadow the message.

How far is too far?

I have been reading and researching more on conscientious objectors in the twentieth century. I found one story extremely challenging to my faith. It is a personal story from the book I Couldn't Fight. It has caused me to wonder: "How far is too far in regards to nonresistance or is there never a too far?"

Lloy Kniss wrote his story in regards to the time he spent in training camp as a man of conviction in regards to violence during World War I. This war was the worst period in our nation's history in regards to the treatment of the group the government labeled conscientious objectors. Lloy, like many other conscientious objectors, was ridiculed, mocked, and eventually beaten for his stance to not fight. The main flaw in the governments system was that they attempted to break the objecotrs by throwing them into the normal training camps. That created an environment for scorn, abuse, and murder in a few unfortunate cases. It was successful in breaking the faith of many men who were convicted of nonresistance, but there were others who stood firm to their convictions. Lloy was such a man.

The following excerpt has forced me to think about whether I am truly following Christ and carrying my cross or whether I just like wearing a cross necklace. (I really do not wear a cross necklace.)

The next day Sergeant ------- (he did not include the name) came to the tent and called me to go with him. I think I had refused to do something he wanted me to do. He took me into the large bathhouse. He and I were in there alone. He locked the doors. He told me to stand at a certain place. Then he asked me a question that made me either recant my position or say no, which would displease him. I did not answer in his favor, so he hit me in the face with his fist. He was a very large man and very strong. He asked me another question, and then hit me in the face with the flat hand. He repeated this many times, alternating his fist and his flat hand, or he would wring my nose or bump my head against the stud in the wall. He would hold me by my hair with his left hand, to keep me from falling when he hit me with his right hand. My eyes were hurting, my nose was bleeding, and my lips were cut and bloody. For a week or two I had black eyes and a swollen face. He never hit me again after that. But I was fortunate because he was unfair in my favor. He mistreated some of the other boys much worse than me. It made me almost wish he had been harder on me, or better yet, that he had not been so rough with the others. He broke a number of bones in others.

Evidently this was never reported to Washington, D.C. These officers would have lost their positions if we had reported them. Someone asked me later, "Why didn't you report him to Washington?" My answer was simply, "Then where would have been my nonresistance?" These men felt safe because they knew we would not report them. This was a compliment to our sincerity. In the case where they put the uniform on me, I reported to my parents, and they, in turn, to Washington, but that was a different case because I wanted to get rid of the unifrom. This did not bring any punishment to him. Being beaten is different from being forced to do something wrong as far as the law is concerned.

I am left with the thought that I am just non-violent, not non-resistant. But is that what I should be. Is non-violence really turning the other cheek or walking the extra mile? Is it really loving my enemies? Non-violence would allow me to report the pricks that beat me and have them removed from their positions. Non-violence allows me to fight in every way except physical against those who are destroying the environment, fighting wars, or just trying to make me pay a bill that I should not have to pay. Non-resistance seems to be a complete lifestyle of turning the other cheek. Part of me wants to say that it worked for him but it was a just a choice. I am not required to follow such a radical path.

Then I see Lloy's heart. He held no bitterness toward those who wronged him. He reminds me of Jesus on the cross. That is an incredible thing. Then I examine my heart; it is not nearly as pure. I would want to get an officer fired who beat me. I would proclaim, "Father, convict them for what they do!" I would argue that I am submitting to the law of the land and they are also under that same law. If they break the law, they should be reported. For if I do not report him, then other people will also receive unecessary beatings. Is it loving to report the man so others would not receive beatings or to love the man who beat me by not reporting him? If only loving were not grey at times.

I just cannot see how one can function practically in the world being nonresistant. Maybe I have too little of faith. I used to have the view that non-violence could not be practically lived out. It might be time to take another step, or maybe that step is just one step too far. How far is too far? Is there such a thing a too far in regards to following Christ?

Later in the story, Lloy shares this story. I find his story an amazing testimony. Whether it was the same man that gave him that specific beating or not, the essay is not clear.

At Pittsburgh I had to change trains. It was late in the evening when the train arrived. The depot was filled with people. As I was going from one train to the other, a young man came out of the crowd and wanted to shake hands with me. I did not recognize him at all. He was very much surprised that I did not know him. Now he was in civilian clothes. When I saw him last in Camp Greenleaf, he was in uniform. He was a corporal then.

He was discharged before I was. His home was in a suburb north of Pittsburgh. He said, "I found out that you were coming through here tonight on your way home, and I came to meet you to apologize to you for the way I treated you in camp." He had been a bit rough with me several times. I assured him that I held nothing against him. In fact, this is the way I still feel today toward all the officers wo did not understand me and so mistreated me.

A response to some thoughts

I wanted to write an immediate response to Shannon’s post last week about not living out the Bible. I was offended. After all, I will be entering into a PhD program this fall with the intention of becoming a teacher. Kierkegaard's words all but make me out to be a “scheming swindler.” But I refrained because my first response would have been a knee-jerk reaction to statements with which I disagree.

The quote from Soren Kierkegaard contains much truth, but perhaps not the entire truth. His premise is simple – the Bible is easy to understand. This concept is directly opposed to what I teach my students in my survey classes. I tell them that the Bible is difficult to interpret and requires education and a good grasp of original background and context.

So am I wrong? Or is he? Am I teaching a lie and perpetuating lies or has Kierkegaard just missed it on this one? I think there is a middle ground. On the one hand he is completely correct. In an effort to justify selfishness and avoid sacrifice, we try to explain away verses that seem too difficult. Maybe we assume Jesus is using hyperbole, or perhaps we put limitations on how far we fulfill Jesus’ commands. Let me give it a shot based on some of Shannon’s passages:

“At some point we have to resist an evil person, don’t we? What if no one resisted Hitler? Where would we be? Speaking German and living under a dictatorial regime, that’s where. And in regard to that whole ‘be perfect’ business. Jesus didn’t mean we could actually attain it, but we should just shoot for it and rely on grace if we fall short.”

Yes, Kierkegaard is right – it is pretty easy to dismiss Jesus’ words. But are all of Jesus’ words to be taken literally? Should we actually gouge out our eyes if we have a lust problem? Should we actually cut off our hands if we are kleptomaniacs? It seems unlikely that Jesus expected his listeners to take these words literally. Also, in today’s world we don’t have to walk a mile with anyone (referring to a law requiring them to carry a Roman soldier’s pack). So how could we go 2 miles? Clearly there is some level of interpretation and application that must go on instead of simply taking Jesus’ commands at face value.

The real problem is that theology, especially on the academic level but also in our churches, has become merely an intellectual pursuit instead of a life changing one. Theology that does not impact your life and merely proves or disproves a point about God has little value (Kierkegaard might say “no value”). Like a Medical Doctor who does not practice his/her craft is the Disciple who is not formed, changed, and challenged by his/her doctrine.

"But the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions." 1 Timothy 1:5-7 (NRSV)

Tragically Hip

I'm halfway through Shane Claiborne's "Irresistible Revolution." I'm very excited about it, but I do have one reservation about him though. It is a very minor concern, but it has been on my mind quite a bit lately. And I want to get it out, so that it won't distract me fro the rest of what he is saying in the book.

So, here is my complaint: Shane is really cool.

He has dreadlocks, cool glasses, piercings, and a bandanna. He has stories of hanging with punk rockers, Mother Teresa, Tony Campolo, Duffy Robinson, and Rich Mullins (and working at Willow Creek). And that's just the first half of the book. There is nothing wrong with this. It's cool. I'm not even trying to suggest that his "tries" to be cool. I'm just saying he's cool.

Cool scares me these days. It is very alluring, but in the end it has to be the least valuable of just about anything we are drawn too. Funny can change a mood. Smart can lead to fresh perspective and sometimes wisdom. But cool seems to accomplish little more than being good looking.

It is the same thing that concerns me about Rob Bell's videos, Dan Kimball's hair, Erwin McManus' clothes, this pastor's glam shot (he he), and David Crowder's voice. They're all very cool.

There is really one thing that scares me about cool. Cool comes and goes as the fickle tide of desire brings in the new cool to replace the old cool every few minutes.

Really, I cannot get into the level of sacrifice that Claiborne describes if this is going to be one more fad. I want to buy in, but can I trust the content of his message to remain after we've all lost interest in how cool the cover art is?

I hope so. The great thing about the Bible is that I have no idea how Jesus wore his hair, what kind of shawl he wore, how often he went barefoot, or what kind of music he liked to rock out to. I have no way of knowing how hip he was, so it cannot be a distraction. All his words remain. The tide of fad cannot touch him.

Ultimately, I pray that it is the parts of Shane's message that most mirror Jesus' that stick with me and drive me to change and grow.

Just some thoughts...

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it, because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obligated to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in this world?

Soren Kierkegaard

Here is a list of some of the harder teachings of Jesus from Matthew 5 alone:
*Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
*Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven
*For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
*I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
*Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
* I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
*If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
*And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
* I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress
*Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
*Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
*Do not resist an evil person.
*If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
*If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
*If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
*Give to the one who asks you,
*Do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
* Love your enemies
*Pray for those who persecute you
*Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


More to come...

Our Toolbox of Methods

There is a new house near our church building. It is a barn house - a house that looks like a barn. I have always wanted a barn house. If I was a handyman and into construction, I might go over there and ask how they built the windows and all other neat construction tips. If something was extremely interesting, I might even want to see the tools they used to build it. Nothing beautiful is ever built without the proper tools, materials, and skill of a laborer.

This leads me to our spirituality. A lot of the time we are doing the same old things with broken down tools which eventually causes our faith to be stagnant or fail. The only things we need to cling to are the essentials. Every other method or tradition can be discarded, but that does not mean that they always should be. They don't build tools like the use to, and the same thing is true in spirituality.

But it is not the tools that a person is judged by. It is the end work. We might share essentials with brothers and sisters in Christ and disagree on near everything else. That is fine. What matters is that we do not stop at the essentials but use the tools available to build a life that is reminiscent of Christ. Is that house even worth looking at the tools for? Are our lives lived in such a way that anyone would ever wonder what makes us this way? Maybe we need a new toolbox, or to just open our dusty toolbox and start building.