Remember when blogs first came out and everybody, including (incredibly smart, handsome, caring, intimidating) engineers wrote cloying messages like they were 13-year-old girls visiting Paris?
Yeah, me too!
But I think you'll admit that my writing has improved as a result of this little endeavor. At the very least, it's sparked conversations with friends on just how exactly it is possible to live your life as if the Earth were flat.
So I know it's a little early for New Years Resolutions, but I'd like to codify what I'd like to talk about in the future:
1. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Did you know my roommate thinks that St. Paul is dumb? It's true! But Paul's letter speaks to many important issues, ranging from social/cultural hot-button issues like homosexuality, to the role of religion in government. But that's just to get butts in the seats. The letter is also very clear when it explains how Christianity is supposed to work. As Luther wrote, "This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel."
2. Twilight. I fear for our nation's youth!
3. Movies that are Not Twilight. I would review Rachel Getting Married if I had seen it. Unfortunately, I was stabbed in the back on that. Et tu, Brute?
4. Meta-critiques of my own hubris and arrogance. (Hint: this post counts!) Who uses the word 'hubris', anyway? Insufferable pricks, that's who. How come I have to prove to everyone how much smarter I am, how much righter I am, how much better I am? When will my parallel construction end?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
American Culture At a Glance
In the Youtube comments to Beyonce's "If I Were A Boy":
cuddels9x20x08 (4 minutes ago):
my ex could learn a thing or 2 from this song :(
cuddels9x20x08 (4 minutes ago):
my ex could learn a thing or 2 from this song :(
Saturday, December 20, 2008
John 21
It's a Saturday, I've grown tired of reading rather than writing, so I might as well finish off this gospel. I've very much enjoyed this little project, as it's helped me study the Gospel in depth, and even revise my position on some issues. I hope the (few) readers of this have been informed as well, even if they have simply been informed that their friend David is a religionist and science stopper.
If reading this Gospel has changed one view of mine, it is my treatment of the miraculous and the evidence we have for Christianity. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of my religion, I used to say that faith is all the proof we will ever have. Indeed, if God had given us stronger proof (say, a giant message scrawled in the sky) it would destroy the value of belief. It's easy to get a test right if you're told the answers.
But I'm beginning to reconsider this. We are told, ultimately, that faith is needed to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that this faith is created by the Holy Spirit. After all, when John runs to the tomb, we read simply that he saw and believed. But for those of us with weaker faith, we're given a lot of remedial help. Thomas puts his hand into Jesus' side and feels where the nails went through his hands. Jesus performs all sorts of miracles and John writes that 'these words are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'
So it's not like God hasn't been helping us out. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of Christianity, why not say that Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, healed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, had a loud voice from heaven exclaim 'This is my Son- listen to him!', walked on water, raised the dead, fed the 5000, calmed the storm, and rose from the dead himself? You might not believe that evidence, but that belief comes as a consequence of faith.
Anyway, on to the final chapter of John's gospel, which has lots of applications for the big-c Church, as well as simple reconciliation for all men.
********************************
Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish
1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.[a] It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3"I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.
6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[b] 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
********************************
This isn't really about catching fish, obviously. The disciples are about to become 'fishers of men'. They are about to start the Church. This section emphasizes that they do so ONLY by the grace of God- without Jesus' help, they catch nothing. This doesn't mean that there should be no outreach ministries or missionaries (quite the opposite), but it does mean that it is not worship bands or powerpoint screens that make Christians- it's the Holy Spirit. The best way to employ those outreach talents is to make them obedient to Christ.
*****************************************************
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
************************************************************************
This is the part of reconciliation I was talking about. Peter just weeks before had denied ever knowing Jesus. The fact that Jesus asks him three times if he loves him evokes Peter's denying him three times in the courtyard as Jesus was on trial.
Isn't this sort of mean of Jesus? I'm sure the last thing Peter wants to be reminded of is that time that he boasted of dying while fighting for Christ and then turning his back on him when Jesus needed him the most. On top of that, Jesus goes on to explain that Peter will die a pretty gruesome death! This is not the kind of reconciliation we see in the movies. We do not see:
Peter: I was whack.
Jesus: Let's hug it out.
To understand this, I think you have to understand Peter. He is the leader of the disciples, a bold man on the surface. But this boldness isn't supported all the time. Even though Peter has the ambition to see Jesus walking on water and asks Jesus to let him do it too, he is frightened by the wind.
From Matthew 14:
********************************************
During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29"Come," he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
**************************************************
Later, in Matthew 16:
***********************************
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
****************************************************
Finally, it's important to understand why Peter denied knowing Jesus in the courtyard. Not only was Peter very upset that Jesus wasn't going to be the kind of Messiah Peter wanted him to be, Peter was clearly scared for his own life. Peter is shocked and horrified when Jesus tells him in the garden that he has to die on the cross. I quote these passages trying to gain a little insight into the psychology of Peter. And I think it's not much of a stretch to say that Peter had a huge fear that many people share: the Fear of Dying.
This is why it's so important when Jesus says that Peter will die. He addresses the elephant in the room. But something has happened in the last few weeks that makes Peter able to lead the new church and suffer imprisonment and eventually death. That something, of course, is Christ's death and resurrection.
As Paul will later write, "Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
As proper a note to end on as any. E'en so, Lord Jesus, quickly come.
If reading this Gospel has changed one view of mine, it is my treatment of the miraculous and the evidence we have for Christianity. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of my religion, I used to say that faith is all the proof we will ever have. Indeed, if God had given us stronger proof (say, a giant message scrawled in the sky) it would destroy the value of belief. It's easy to get a test right if you're told the answers.
But I'm beginning to reconsider this. We are told, ultimately, that faith is needed to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that this faith is created by the Holy Spirit. After all, when John runs to the tomb, we read simply that he saw and believed. But for those of us with weaker faith, we're given a lot of remedial help. Thomas puts his hand into Jesus' side and feels where the nails went through his hands. Jesus performs all sorts of miracles and John writes that 'these words are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'
So it's not like God hasn't been helping us out. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of Christianity, why not say that Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, healed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, had a loud voice from heaven exclaim 'This is my Son- listen to him!', walked on water, raised the dead, fed the 5000, calmed the storm, and rose from the dead himself? You might not believe that evidence, but that belief comes as a consequence of faith.
Anyway, on to the final chapter of John's gospel, which has lots of applications for the big-c Church, as well as simple reconciliation for all men.
********************************
Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish
1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.[a] It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3"I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.
6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[b] 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
********************************
This isn't really about catching fish, obviously. The disciples are about to become 'fishers of men'. They are about to start the Church. This section emphasizes that they do so ONLY by the grace of God- without Jesus' help, they catch nothing. This doesn't mean that there should be no outreach ministries or missionaries (quite the opposite), but it does mean that it is not worship bands or powerpoint screens that make Christians- it's the Holy Spirit. The best way to employ those outreach talents is to make them obedient to Christ.
*****************************************************
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
************************************************************************
This is the part of reconciliation I was talking about. Peter just weeks before had denied ever knowing Jesus. The fact that Jesus asks him three times if he loves him evokes Peter's denying him three times in the courtyard as Jesus was on trial.
Isn't this sort of mean of Jesus? I'm sure the last thing Peter wants to be reminded of is that time that he boasted of dying while fighting for Christ and then turning his back on him when Jesus needed him the most. On top of that, Jesus goes on to explain that Peter will die a pretty gruesome death! This is not the kind of reconciliation we see in the movies. We do not see:
Peter: I was whack.
Jesus: Let's hug it out.
To understand this, I think you have to understand Peter. He is the leader of the disciples, a bold man on the surface. But this boldness isn't supported all the time. Even though Peter has the ambition to see Jesus walking on water and asks Jesus to let him do it too, he is frightened by the wind.
From Matthew 14:
********************************************
During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29"Come," he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
**************************************************
Later, in Matthew 16:
***********************************
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
****************************************************
Finally, it's important to understand why Peter denied knowing Jesus in the courtyard. Not only was Peter very upset that Jesus wasn't going to be the kind of Messiah Peter wanted him to be, Peter was clearly scared for his own life. Peter is shocked and horrified when Jesus tells him in the garden that he has to die on the cross. I quote these passages trying to gain a little insight into the psychology of Peter. And I think it's not much of a stretch to say that Peter had a huge fear that many people share: the Fear of Dying.
This is why it's so important when Jesus says that Peter will die. He addresses the elephant in the room. But something has happened in the last few weeks that makes Peter able to lead the new church and suffer imprisonment and eventually death. That something, of course, is Christ's death and resurrection.
As Paul will later write, "Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
As proper a note to end on as any. E'en so, Lord Jesus, quickly come.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama Victorious
You know what it feels like? It feels like when you're a kid, and you look down for a moment, and you lose your parents at Target and you completely freak out. You go to where they just were. You scan all the aisles. You're terrified.
But then you go around a bend and see them, and you know everything is going to be ok. The grownups are in charge.
But then you go around a bend and see them, and you know everything is going to be ok. The grownups are in charge.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
To Caesar what is Caesar's
Dedicated to Miss Chrissy Harbin, whose views diverge with my own in so many ways but who continues to be a person with opinions I value and trust.
This morning, there was a Bible Study between services on Christian Public Policy: Does Such a Thing Exist? The startling answer: probably, but we can't agree on too many specifics.
The discussion first looked at defining the separation between church and state, namely that there should be one.
Relevant Passages (Since we're Lutheran, we consider God's Word a pretty good source on this):
****************************************
Matthew 22:15-22
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
*******************************************
Romans 13:1-7
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
**************************************
Paul's letter to the Romans and Jesus' words here say that there should be a distinction between church and state. St. Augustine called these two cities.
The church is its own organization with its own rules and regulations, established to serve its own purposes (e.g., preaching Christ and him crucified), and the government is its own organization with its own rules, regulations, and purposes (e.g., provide for public welfare, common defense, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity).
Put another way: Christianity isn't all that concerned with the speed limit on I-94, or CAFTA, or Card Check. It's concerned with sin, prophesy, redemption, evangelism, atonement, sacrifice, sanctification, grace, love, miracles, and salvation. Similarly, Congress does a good job creating the EPA, but can't do anything to protect your soul.
So, different roles, then. But what if those roles intersect? What if the government wants you to do something that God does not?
Relevant Passages:
*******************************************************
Acts 5:17-29
Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."
At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!
**************************************************************
Daniel 2:48-49, 3:1,4-6,8-12,16-18
Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel's request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court...
King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, ninety feet high and nine feet wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon...Then the herald loudly proclaimed, "This is what you are commanded to do, O peoples, nations and men of every language: As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."....
At this time some astrologers came forward and denounced the Jews. They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, "O king, live forever! You have issued a decree, O king, that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music must fall down and worship the image of gold, and that whoever does not fall down and worship will be thrown into a blazing furnace. But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—who pay no attention to you, O king. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up."...
...Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
***************************************************************
Daniel also gets in trouble and is thrown into the lion's den for not toeing the religious company line. But he is one of the most powerful men in the government, as are his friends. So the principle here is clear: if the civil law of a government forces you to sin, you still shouldn't do it.
In the passage from Acts, a similar message. Even if the government prohibits righteous action, you still should do it.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Veggie Tales Tangent
I watch a lot of Saturday morning cartoons. One of those was the ostensibly Christian-ish 'Veggie Tales', which (kind of) retells Bible stories using anthropomorphic vegetables. They even do a show about the Hebrews in the fiery furnace that I quoted above.
Except they change the story importantly enough that it loses all (Christian) meaning. Instead of forsaking the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, these talking tomatoes are required (against their will) to sing a song to a giant chocolate bunny about how eating candy is awesome. So, instead of being a story about incredible faith in God and His deliverance, it becomes a story about standing up to peer pressure. And eating less candy.
While technically a virtue, eating less candy is pretty far down on the ladder.
Does this watered-down-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness cartoon reflect an alarming trend among modern Christianity today to spout uncontentious platitudes that is poisoning our children?
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
You may have noticed that we are still a long, long, long way away from anything resembling Christian Public Policy. So far we have just two boundaries: different roles, and obeying God rather than Jim Doyle.
Here's a third we discussed this morning: be adamant about following the civil portions of the ten commandments. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not give false testimony. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Of course, I felt this third boundary begged the question a bit. Would Moses have made the same distinction between civil and religious law that we do? Surely the question now becomes, "which of the ten commandments counts as civil law?". Until recently, it was illegal to do many things on Sundays. Adultery isn't a crime, either, though governments often use it as a grounds for granting divorces, so it is recognized.
Not only are these commandments important for us to follow, but we have some kind of duty and obligation to get other people to follow them, too.
Relevant Passage:
*********************************************************
Ezekiel 3:18-19
When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
*************************************************************
Now, that's an exhortation to the prophet Ezekiel to tell people what God told him. He's in trouble either way, so he might as well have the people of Israel be mad at him rather than God. Its application to government and Christian public policy is a little more tenuous, though.
The passage (and others) suggests that if I see people around me sinning, I am required to do something about it. This isn't incredibly controversial: if one person sees a murder in progress, most people would think it would be bad to not testify in court.
But this still isn't all that helpful. Take abortion as an example. Christians are required to do something about abortion, but what that something is isn't exactly clear. Ezekiel isn't supposed to go around with a glock and demand that the Israelites of his day shape up- he's just supposed to announce how angry God is. And whatever you think about abortion, it's very clear that Christians have announced how angry God is about it. But do we codify that into the civil laws of the United States of America? We still haven't had a whole lot of direction there, yet.
So that was about as far as the discussion this morning got. The last part we talked about was investigating John 18. Just a reminder of the important parts:
*************************************************
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
*********************************************************
The discussion said that Christians too often hide behind this passage to not get involved in politics. The passage establishes Jesus as a religious leader, not a political one (at least, not yet). It doesn't say that Christians shouldn't be politicians.
Overall, I felt that the discussion lacked a little rigor and clarity. Saying that Christians should speak out against murder doesn't logically entail that abortion is to be punishable by death. Jesus and St. Paul seem to have a dim view of government: compared to eternal salvation, it's small potatoes. But Christians are also supposed to "take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ".
So don't pay too much attention to government. Except when you should. Codify the Ten Commandments. Except for some of them. Don't speak for God through government. But do follow Christian principles even when you're not at church. Color me confused.
Barack Obama tried to lay out his governing philosophy as to where to draw the line in his book, "The Audacity of Bill Ayres". I don't feel like quoting it, but the basic premise was that Christians should not use religious arguments to write civil laws. The definition of human rights should be based on argumentation like whether a fetus has consciousness, or whether it can feel pain, or whether it will have a non-suffering-filled life, or whether it has 'agency'. It cannot be about a soul.
The governmental principles surrounding environmentalism should not be about stewardship or creation. They should be about sustainability, balancing industry and nature, or that the natural world has intrinsic value (provided that that value isn't put there by God).
Frankly, I find this disingenuous and, ultimately, ineffective. If my purpose is to enact environmental legislation, and my motivation is that God says we should be good stewards of the Earth, why should I translate that motivation into something more palatable for the general populace? Isn't that just, you know, lying? I don't really think that the aesthetic beauty of a tree is worth 20 utils, while the paper from that tree only provides 15. It's just a cloak.
Further, I just don't think that non-religious justifications for human rights are strong enough. Andrew Hanson and David Hume may think otherwise, but even non-Christian Thomas Jefferson wrote of a Creator giving people inalienable rights. If you have to invent a crypto-religious proxy-belief to convince other people, don't be surprised when that proxy-belief isn't as robust or convincing as the real thing.
Kind of like how Intelligent Design people are fence-sitters.
Why not mean what you say and say what you mean? If people don't like your environmental laws, they don't have to vote for you. If the court thinks you've violated the First Amendment, so be it.
I wish I could pack these ideas into Sunday morning only, Chrissy, but God's grace has few boundaries. So either kick the religious wackos out of your party, or come over to the Democrats with me. Don't you want to vote for a winner?
This morning, there was a Bible Study between services on Christian Public Policy: Does Such a Thing Exist? The startling answer: probably, but we can't agree on too many specifics.
The discussion first looked at defining the separation between church and state, namely that there should be one.
Relevant Passages (Since we're Lutheran, we consider God's Word a pretty good source on this):
****************************************
Matthew 22:15-22
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
*******************************************
Romans 13:1-7
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
**************************************
Paul's letter to the Romans and Jesus' words here say that there should be a distinction between church and state. St. Augustine called these two cities.
The church is its own organization with its own rules and regulations, established to serve its own purposes (e.g., preaching Christ and him crucified), and the government is its own organization with its own rules, regulations, and purposes (e.g., provide for public welfare, common defense, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity).
Put another way: Christianity isn't all that concerned with the speed limit on I-94, or CAFTA, or Card Check. It's concerned with sin, prophesy, redemption, evangelism, atonement, sacrifice, sanctification, grace, love, miracles, and salvation. Similarly, Congress does a good job creating the EPA, but can't do anything to protect your soul.
So, different roles, then. But what if those roles intersect? What if the government wants you to do something that God does not?
Relevant Passages:
*******************************************************
Acts 5:17-29
Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."
At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!
**************************************************************
Daniel 2:48-49, 3:1,4-6,8-12,16-18
Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel's request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court...
King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, ninety feet high and nine feet wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon...Then the herald loudly proclaimed, "This is what you are commanded to do, O peoples, nations and men of every language: As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."....
At this time some astrologers came forward and denounced the Jews. They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, "O king, live forever! You have issued a decree, O king, that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music must fall down and worship the image of gold, and that whoever does not fall down and worship will be thrown into a blazing furnace. But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—who pay no attention to you, O king. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up."...
...Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
***************************************************************
Daniel also gets in trouble and is thrown into the lion's den for not toeing the religious company line. But he is one of the most powerful men in the government, as are his friends. So the principle here is clear: if the civil law of a government forces you to sin, you still shouldn't do it.
In the passage from Acts, a similar message. Even if the government prohibits righteous action, you still should do it.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Veggie Tales Tangent
I watch a lot of Saturday morning cartoons. One of those was the ostensibly Christian-ish 'Veggie Tales', which (kind of) retells Bible stories using anthropomorphic vegetables. They even do a show about the Hebrews in the fiery furnace that I quoted above.
Except they change the story importantly enough that it loses all (Christian) meaning. Instead of forsaking the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, these talking tomatoes are required (against their will) to sing a song to a giant chocolate bunny about how eating candy is awesome. So, instead of being a story about incredible faith in God and His deliverance, it becomes a story about standing up to peer pressure. And eating less candy.
While technically a virtue, eating less candy is pretty far down on the ladder.
Does this watered-down-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness cartoon reflect an alarming trend among modern Christianity today to spout uncontentious platitudes that is poisoning our children?
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
You may have noticed that we are still a long, long, long way away from anything resembling Christian Public Policy. So far we have just two boundaries: different roles, and obeying God rather than Jim Doyle.
Here's a third we discussed this morning: be adamant about following the civil portions of the ten commandments. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not give false testimony. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Of course, I felt this third boundary begged the question a bit. Would Moses have made the same distinction between civil and religious law that we do? Surely the question now becomes, "which of the ten commandments counts as civil law?". Until recently, it was illegal to do many things on Sundays. Adultery isn't a crime, either, though governments often use it as a grounds for granting divorces, so it is recognized.
Not only are these commandments important for us to follow, but we have some kind of duty and obligation to get other people to follow them, too.
Relevant Passage:
*********************************************************
Ezekiel 3:18-19
When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
*************************************************************
Now, that's an exhortation to the prophet Ezekiel to tell people what God told him. He's in trouble either way, so he might as well have the people of Israel be mad at him rather than God. Its application to government and Christian public policy is a little more tenuous, though.
The passage (and others) suggests that if I see people around me sinning, I am required to do something about it. This isn't incredibly controversial: if one person sees a murder in progress, most people would think it would be bad to not testify in court.
But this still isn't all that helpful. Take abortion as an example. Christians are required to do something about abortion, but what that something is isn't exactly clear. Ezekiel isn't supposed to go around with a glock and demand that the Israelites of his day shape up- he's just supposed to announce how angry God is. And whatever you think about abortion, it's very clear that Christians have announced how angry God is about it. But do we codify that into the civil laws of the United States of America? We still haven't had a whole lot of direction there, yet.
So that was about as far as the discussion this morning got. The last part we talked about was investigating John 18. Just a reminder of the important parts:
*************************************************
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
*********************************************************
The discussion said that Christians too often hide behind this passage to not get involved in politics. The passage establishes Jesus as a religious leader, not a political one (at least, not yet). It doesn't say that Christians shouldn't be politicians.
Overall, I felt that the discussion lacked a little rigor and clarity. Saying that Christians should speak out against murder doesn't logically entail that abortion is to be punishable by death. Jesus and St. Paul seem to have a dim view of government: compared to eternal salvation, it's small potatoes. But Christians are also supposed to "take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ".
So don't pay too much attention to government. Except when you should. Codify the Ten Commandments. Except for some of them. Don't speak for God through government. But do follow Christian principles even when you're not at church. Color me confused.
Barack Obama tried to lay out his governing philosophy as to where to draw the line in his book, "The Audacity of Bill Ayres". I don't feel like quoting it, but the basic premise was that Christians should not use religious arguments to write civil laws. The definition of human rights should be based on argumentation like whether a fetus has consciousness, or whether it can feel pain, or whether it will have a non-suffering-filled life, or whether it has 'agency'. It cannot be about a soul.
The governmental principles surrounding environmentalism should not be about stewardship or creation. They should be about sustainability, balancing industry and nature, or that the natural world has intrinsic value (provided that that value isn't put there by God).
Frankly, I find this disingenuous and, ultimately, ineffective. If my purpose is to enact environmental legislation, and my motivation is that God says we should be good stewards of the Earth, why should I translate that motivation into something more palatable for the general populace? Isn't that just, you know, lying? I don't really think that the aesthetic beauty of a tree is worth 20 utils, while the paper from that tree only provides 15. It's just a cloak.
Further, I just don't think that non-religious justifications for human rights are strong enough. Andrew Hanson and David Hume may think otherwise, but even non-Christian Thomas Jefferson wrote of a Creator giving people inalienable rights. If you have to invent a crypto-religious proxy-belief to convince other people, don't be surprised when that proxy-belief isn't as robust or convincing as the real thing.
Kind of like how Intelligent Design people are fence-sitters.
Why not mean what you say and say what you mean? If people don't like your environmental laws, they don't have to vote for you. If the court thinks you've violated the First Amendment, so be it.
I wish I could pack these ideas into Sunday morning only, Chrissy, but God's grace has few boundaries. So either kick the religious wackos out of your party, or come over to the Democrats with me. Don't you want to vote for a winner?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
John 20
Perhaps the most important chapter in the Bible. I'm not incredibly optimistic that my comments will be more helpful or elucidating than just reading the thing, so expect less analysis and more reflection.
***************************************
The Empty Tomb
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)
*********************************************************
The 'other disciple' is John, the writer. Throughout this gospel, he calls himself 'the disciple Jesus loved', which is as powerful a testimony to the character of Jesus as his raising the dead or healing the sick. The message of having both "Jesus was so great- he walked on water!" and "Jesus was so great- he loved me!" is that Jesus is not only holy and powerful, but that he is personal and interested in each of us.
Also, this section is important for combating another strange heresy I've encountered: a denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It's become somewhat popular to interpret the Bible as allegory or myth rather than history. Jesus didn't really rise from the dead- his spirit did, or his spirit lives on in all of us as long as we keep it alive, or...something. I don't know. Ask the Episcopalians. But Jesus isn't a ghost- his body isn't in the tomb, which means it must be somewhere else. And this isn't a grave robbing- the linen is folded neatly. Mary's first idea is wrong. If you question the validity of scripture, that's one thing. But it's entirely different to insist that it says something other than that Jesus rose from the dead with his body.
Thirdly, this passage speaks to the nature of belief. We're told that John 'saw and believed'. John hadn't even seen Jesus alive yet, but he still saw the empty tomb and believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Did John base his belief on empirical evidence? Kind of- I suppose you could argue that he saw the absense of Jesus's body as evidence of his resurrection. But John also trusts God and trusts his friend Jesus, and that's where this belief stems from. Jesus had told all of them what would happen in the Upper Room, and John and Peter are just piecing it together now.
Lastly, on this bit about how the disciples didn't know from scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead. It's included in here to show that the disciples would have no motive to steal Jesus's body and pretend that he rose- the thought just never occurred to them. Fulfilling prophecy is important throughout the New Testament, but the mechanisms of this are strange. Jesus has a great knowledge of the scriptures, so it's clear that he knows what he has to do to fulfill them. But his disciples only know about it afterward, and they are the ones who will preach Christianity. Why is this?
Perhaps it's because fulfilling prophecy for prophecy's sake destroys its legitimacy. Imagine that you are living in 200 B.C. and want to be a messiah. To get people to believe you, you have to fulfill scripture. So you get yourself a checklist of important parts of scripture, then go down the list fulfilling what you need to. You read that none of your bones should be broken, so you get really good health insurance. You read that 'out of Egypt I called my son', so you go down to Egypt and hang out for a while, then come back. Then you hold a press conference about how you've fulfilled all prophecy. This strategy works as long as the Press believes the same interpretations of scripture, but this is begging the question, a bit, isn't it?
That may be a good reason why the disciples are so in the dark for so long: by not knowing God's plan fully, it becomes a story about God's plan being carried to fruition by Jesus, without help even from his friends. For more on this nature of prophecy, read Oedipus Rex, Minority Report, or Harry Potter.
*********************************************************
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.13They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"
"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."
16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.
*******************************************************
This section speaks for itself. Just keep track that Mary doesn't believe in the Resurrection until Jesus walks up to her and speaks her name and gives her a hug, even if John (and maybe Peter) already do.
********************************************************
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
**********************************************************
Again, this shows Jesus rising in bodily form- his hands and side are still pierced. How his body still breathes and metabolizes with a ruptured spleen or liver or whatever isn't explained. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe the reason why Jesus wasn't recognized before was that he looked a little different. Or maybe he didn't allow Mary to recognize him at first.
Jesus has some good first words, too: "Peace be with you!" He is declaring just what his resurrection means: it is proof that God and men are now at peace with one another. This message must be preached to all corners of the world.
*******************************************************
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
**************************************************************
Again, this goes to the nature of belief, and is a little hard to comprehend. Jesus says that it is a virtue to believe in Him and his resurrection even without having seen him. But he also appears to his disciples, anyway. How hard is it to believe in the resurrection if you see Jesus die, then see him ten days later alive again? Not as hard as it is 2000 years later, I think we'd say. But John adds that this Gospel serves as a testimony, making belief easier and possible.
Moreover, what moral courage does it take to believe in the resurrection when you see Jesus right in front of you? This is what Jesus means when he says that those who do not have this empirical evidence are 'blessed' when they still believe.
Some might argue that this sets a bad precedent: can't I go to God on Judgment Day and say that it's not fair to save Thomas because he got to put his finger in Jesus's side, but all I got was this lousy book? Or what about people who don't even have that- it's easier for me to be a Christian because my family is.
Scripture answers this in plenty of ways, saying that God saves who he does and that his reasons for doing so are beyond our comprehension, saying that he's given everyone a conscience and knowledge of God so that "every man is without excuse", saying that he's testified about himself a whole lot- through the Old Testament, and here with the New. But this section also says that God listens to our concerns about our own faith. It should be enough for Thomas to believe his friends' testimony about Jesus. After all, that's all Christians today have. But God is prepared to go beyond what is needed, and will indulge us and help us believe in him.
He did it before when Peter walked on water. He did it again with the father of a girl who had died. He did it again with Thomas. And he does it again today. If we are feeling insecure about God's existance or his grace or resurrection, we can pray to Him for help, and we know that God will answer our prayer, and that He will say to all of us: "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Monday, September 1, 2008
And the award for most-f'd-up-thing-I've-read-recently goes to...
A comment on Tyler Cowen's blog, in a post about Sarah Palin. Palin has a child with Down Syndrome, and decided to not abort it, even though she found out early in the pregnancy. That's a very moral thing to do, and I respect Palin for doing it. She seems to truly believe and practice what she says she does, which is more than I can say for many (affair-having, closeted homosexual, money embezzaling) Republicans.
Anyway, a commenter named 'talenkine' posts this:
Surely Palin knew that having a down syndrome baby would be a credibility indicator, so that makes her decision less of a true credibility indicator. It seems plausible that she wanted to abort the baby but didn't because it could help her career (and because of the risk that someone might find out about her abortion, which could be devastating to her as a pro-life politician).
As you know, I don't really give a lot of credence to the 'culture wars'. I hold religious beliefs that many people find out-dated, offensive, silly, or stupid. I think their religious beliefs are offensive or stupid. Then we arm wrestle, I win, and that's that. But when someone is so jaded and cynical that every action is a calculated move for More Power, I am surprised and start to buy into the Culture Wars theory.
Palin also wants to teach Creationism in the classroom. As a believer in Creation who supports teaching Evolution in public classrooms, I am less impressed with her. My view of science is less that it is a Pursuit of Truth, and more a Pursuit of Workable Solutions. You may believe that disease is caused by tiny trolls living inside your belly. Someone else might think it's the result of escherichia coli, which can be combated by substituting penicillin to make their cell walls burst from water pressure. It matters less which theory of disease is Correct, and more which theory of disease is more likely to lead to technology which prevents disease.
There, I said it. Science is only a tool for better technology, not a means of Finding Truth. Sucks to your ass-mar, Richard Dawkins. That's something only an absurdly reductionist arrogant engineer would say. Andy, I expect you to categorize this belief- I can't remember if it's Determinist, Consequentialist, Popperian, post-Popperian or what. And none of your sass.
And another thing! A friend of mine commented on how Don Miller gave the closing devotional at the Democratic National Convention last week. Don Miller is a writer, popular among young Evangelicals. He's also a Democrat. I'm no Evangelical, but the prospect that there could be other young Christians who are also politically liberal and vote Democratic is very exciting to me. Here's his prayer:
"Father God,
This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.
We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.
We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.
Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.
Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.
Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.
Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.
Help us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.
Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.
We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.
Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world?
A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.
Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world?
Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.
Lastly, father, unify us.
Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.
And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.
God we know that you are good.
Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.
I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.
Let Him be our example.
Amen."
Sorry for the weird formatting. But is it too reactionary of me to be a little uneasy with this prayer? I'm not saying you have to pray the Book of Concord or the Large Cathecism or anything, but something a little more Jesus-y than 'gave his own life against the forces of injustice' would be nice. There's nothing particularly wrong or doctrinally unsound about the prayer, but I'm beginning to understand more and more why WELS frowns upon this sort of thing. It's very easy and tempting to reduce prayer to something so bland and non-offensive that no one can be upset with it, but that isn't exactly how Jesus taught us to pray.
My brother and I went to a Fraternity Dinner once, when the Whitewater Chapter came over to celebrate the opening of a Pi Kappa Alpha chapter here in Madison. The people were interesting, the food was delicious, and it was a fancy time. But I haven't been more uneasy than when they led a prayer at the dinner. Everyone had their heads bowed except for Ed and I. We shared a look of skepticism and discomfort. That makes us caricatures of prudish, WASP-y, WELS-er elites, I know, but surely someone out there on the Internet will have my back on this one.
Look at my record-high levels of ennui! I ask for Democratic Christians, and when one makes a prayer I think is wussy, I still can't be satisfied. I highly doubt I will find the Republican prayer any more acceptable.
Anyway, a commenter named 'talenkine' posts this:
Surely Palin knew that having a down syndrome baby would be a credibility indicator, so that makes her decision less of a true credibility indicator. It seems plausible that she wanted to abort the baby but didn't because it could help her career (and because of the risk that someone might find out about her abortion, which could be devastating to her as a pro-life politician).
As you know, I don't really give a lot of credence to the 'culture wars'. I hold religious beliefs that many people find out-dated, offensive, silly, or stupid. I think their religious beliefs are offensive or stupid. Then we arm wrestle, I win, and that's that. But when someone is so jaded and cynical that every action is a calculated move for More Power, I am surprised and start to buy into the Culture Wars theory.
Palin also wants to teach Creationism in the classroom. As a believer in Creation who supports teaching Evolution in public classrooms, I am less impressed with her. My view of science is less that it is a Pursuit of Truth, and more a Pursuit of Workable Solutions. You may believe that disease is caused by tiny trolls living inside your belly. Someone else might think it's the result of escherichia coli, which can be combated by substituting penicillin to make their cell walls burst from water pressure. It matters less which theory of disease is Correct, and more which theory of disease is more likely to lead to technology which prevents disease.
There, I said it. Science is only a tool for better technology, not a means of Finding Truth. Sucks to your ass-mar, Richard Dawkins. That's something only an absurdly reductionist arrogant engineer would say. Andy, I expect you to categorize this belief- I can't remember if it's Determinist, Consequentialist, Popperian, post-Popperian or what. And none of your sass.
And another thing! A friend of mine commented on how Don Miller gave the closing devotional at the Democratic National Convention last week. Don Miller is a writer, popular among young Evangelicals. He's also a Democrat. I'm no Evangelical, but the prospect that there could be other young Christians who are also politically liberal and vote Democratic is very exciting to me. Here's his prayer:
"Father God,
This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.
We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.
We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.
Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.
Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.
Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.
Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.
Help us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.
Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.
We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.
Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world?
A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.
Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world?
Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.
Lastly, father, unify us.
Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.
And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.
God we know that you are good.
Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.
I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.
Let Him be our example.
Amen."
Sorry for the weird formatting. But is it too reactionary of me to be a little uneasy with this prayer? I'm not saying you have to pray the Book of Concord or the Large Cathecism or anything, but something a little more Jesus-y than 'gave his own life against the forces of injustice' would be nice. There's nothing particularly wrong or doctrinally unsound about the prayer, but I'm beginning to understand more and more why WELS frowns upon this sort of thing. It's very easy and tempting to reduce prayer to something so bland and non-offensive that no one can be upset with it, but that isn't exactly how Jesus taught us to pray.
My brother and I went to a Fraternity Dinner once, when the Whitewater Chapter came over to celebrate the opening of a Pi Kappa Alpha chapter here in Madison. The people were interesting, the food was delicious, and it was a fancy time. But I haven't been more uneasy than when they led a prayer at the dinner. Everyone had their heads bowed except for Ed and I. We shared a look of skepticism and discomfort. That makes us caricatures of prudish, WASP-y, WELS-er elites, I know, but surely someone out there on the Internet will have my back on this one.
Look at my record-high levels of ennui! I ask for Democratic Christians, and when one makes a prayer I think is wussy, I still can't be satisfied. I highly doubt I will find the Republican prayer any more acceptable.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
John 19
Let's finish this thing sometime, eh?
Or think of military, political, cultural, technological approaches to power. This philosophy is basically Nietzsche's Will to Power Meets Civilization IV.
Now, how this relates to the section of scripture at hand. Jesus, as God, is infinitely more powerful than Pilate or the chief priests. But he is, ironically, subject to their will and their judgment. This irony is intended to show that Pilate's (and by extension, all worldly) authority and power is ultimately nothing compared to God's. All human authority and power is given by God. The breaking of the hierarchy seen in the Garden of Eden, and again at Babel and throughout the Bible, is put back in order.
This approach to what constitutes true power is truly radical- to think that the humblest believer will hold a more powerful place a billion years from now than the most powerful king, president, or general!
Next, on to passing the buck. We're told that "from then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free", so Pilate was obviously trying not to take responsibility for Christ's death. Then again, the Jews can't be held accountable either-that's why they took Jesus to Pilate in the first place. If they execute Jesus unilaterally, it will destroy everything they had worked for. They wanted to negotiate with the Romans years later and say, "Don't be so harsh on us, we have been loyal subjects and deserve a bit of leeway. You owe us that much. Didn't we prove it to you when we brought you Jesus the rebel? We could have supported him and rebelled against you, but we didn't." To have the Romans reply, "You killed him yourselves, we had no part in your infighting. Jesus was no threat to Roman rule, so we credit you with nothing" won't do.
Eventually, both sides pass the buck, just as Adam did ("the woman you put here gave me the fruit, and I ate"), just as we do in our own lives, but both are eventually found culpable. Interestingly, both sides absolve themselves by appealing to a Higher Authority- but it's Caesar, not God. They'd like to do something different, but they can't pull rank on this, and the highest rank is...Caesar. Again this is the defining notion of the Rebellion: putting Man ahead of God.
*************************************************************
Many of the disciples will challenge the rule of Rome, saying that it is ultimately under the rule of God, and they will be crucified as well. The one disciple that doesn't get martyred is John, the writer of this gospel, and the one charged with taking care of Jesus' mother.
**********************************************************
***********************************************************************
This part about piercing Jesus's side is important because it proves that he was physically dead. When asked about the reanimation of dead tissue in Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder says, "You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind! Dead is dead!" Perhaps what is so offensive and terrifying about Frankenstein (and zombies, and vampires) is the way people go about seeking immortality- by getting help from the Devil, or human biology.
But we'll see another Way shortly.
Jesus Sentenced to be Crucified
1Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, king of the Jews!" And they struck him in the face.4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!"
6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"
But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."
7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."
13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.
15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.
16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.
**********************************************************************
There are a couple things at play in this section, including the nature of authority, and passing the buck.
First, on the nature of authority. Pilate is a very powerful man, as the Roman governor. But just what is power? The most memorable definition I ever heard came back in the 10th grade, in that inappropriate, offensive, but clear vernacular: "power means you can tell those two guys over there to start f&^%ing each other, even if (or especially if) they're not gay."
Or think of military, political, cultural, technological approaches to power. This philosophy is basically Nietzsche's Will to Power Meets Civilization IV.
Now, how this relates to the section of scripture at hand. Jesus, as God, is infinitely more powerful than Pilate or the chief priests. But he is, ironically, subject to their will and their judgment. This irony is intended to show that Pilate's (and by extension, all worldly) authority and power is ultimately nothing compared to God's. All human authority and power is given by God. The breaking of the hierarchy seen in the Garden of Eden, and again at Babel and throughout the Bible, is put back in order.
This approach to what constitutes true power is truly radical- to think that the humblest believer will hold a more powerful place a billion years from now than the most powerful king, president, or general!
Next, on to passing the buck. We're told that "from then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free", so Pilate was obviously trying not to take responsibility for Christ's death. Then again, the Jews can't be held accountable either-that's why they took Jesus to Pilate in the first place. If they execute Jesus unilaterally, it will destroy everything they had worked for. They wanted to negotiate with the Romans years later and say, "Don't be so harsh on us, we have been loyal subjects and deserve a bit of leeway. You owe us that much. Didn't we prove it to you when we brought you Jesus the rebel? We could have supported him and rebelled against you, but we didn't." To have the Romans reply, "You killed him yourselves, we had no part in your infighting. Jesus was no threat to Roman rule, so we credit you with nothing" won't do.
Eventually, both sides pass the buck, just as Adam did ("the woman you put here gave me the fruit, and I ate"), just as we do in our own lives, but both are eventually found culpable. Interestingly, both sides absolve themselves by appealing to a Higher Authority- but it's Caesar, not God. They'd like to do something different, but they can't pull rank on this, and the highest rank is...Caesar. Again this is the defining notion of the Rebellion: putting Man ahead of God.
*************************************************************
The Crucifixion
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18Here they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."
22Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."
23When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
24"Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it."
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said,
"They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing."[a] So this is what the soldiers did.
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
************************************************
Many of the disciples will challenge the rule of Rome, saying that it is ultimately under the rule of God, and they will be crucified as well. The one disciple that doesn't get martyred is John, the writer of this gospel, and the one charged with taking care of Jesus' mother.
**********************************************************
The Death of Jesus
28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"[b] 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."[c]
The Burial of Jesus
38Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. 39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[d] 40Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.***********************************************************************
This part about piercing Jesus's side is important because it proves that he was physically dead. When asked about the reanimation of dead tissue in Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder says, "You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind! Dead is dead!" Perhaps what is so offensive and terrifying about Frankenstein (and zombies, and vampires) is the way people go about seeking immortality- by getting help from the Devil, or human biology.
But we'll see another Way shortly.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Back at it- John 18
I initially took a break from these, as the conclusion of the school year, the conclusion of the weekly Bible Study, and a bit of a thematic conclusion in the book of John itself all suggested putting this on the shelf for a while. But today's a lazy Saturday with everybody out of town, and I haven't written in a while, so it's either this, baseball, or politics.
***
John 18
Two things of note, one of plot, and another of more purely religious substance.
First: what's up with Judas' betrayal?
As a child, I don't think I fully understood even the pure mechanism of Judas' betrayal. When I saw betrayal in movies or books or TV, it was a little more plain. The James Bond Girl ties him up and sets up a bomb to betray the West. The guy from The Matrix tells the Machines where to find Neo. Isildur keeps the One Ring for himself instead of throwing it into the lava and betrays Elrond! But leading the soldiers to Jesus isn't as obvious as this, so I didn't get it right away.
Surely the soldiers knew where Jesus was before. He had been teaching in the streets and mountainsides and temples. It seems to be that they needed a quiet spot away from crowds where Jesus was most vulnerable, so they could arrest him and there wouldn't be a big public outcry against it. That's Judas's betrayal: show the soldiers where Jesus is so there isn't a riot. Only someone with intimate knowledge of Jesus would be able to supply that information, so this is what makes Judas's betrayal both necessary to the religious authorities doing it, and actually effective.
But would there have been a big public outcry if Jesus had been arrested in public? Only a few days before, Jesus had come into Jerusalem hailed as a king. Everyone had a big parade. He was very popular. I think it's reasonable to think that if the High Priest had moved then, if there had been guards who had swooped in to take away Jesus, donky, colt, and all, there would have been a riot.
But Jesus was also a somewhat controversial figure. When he told people that they needed to eat his body and drink his blood, we're told that a great many people turned away from him- "surely this is a hard teaching!" Even when he drove out demons from people (see Matthew 8), this made others frightened of him and they begged him to leave their town. Earlier, in John 8 and again in 10, Jesus makes a very straightforward claim to being the Son of God ("before Abraham was born, I Am!"), and is almost stoned to death.
Lastly, on Good Friday, those same voices that cried out 'Hossanah in the Highest!' days earlier scream, 'Crucify! Crucify! We have no King but Caesar- give Barabbas to us!' We're told that the people are manipulated by the Teachers of the Law to say these things, so it's unclear whether this represents their true feelings, or if they're coerced. Probably a mixture of both, though. (This is not an argument that these actions cannot be condemned or that they get off the hook. Adam and Eve were tricked and coerced into eating the fruit, but played an active role in it themselves, too)
The point is important. The people need to rabidly support Jesus, or else Judas's betrayal is pretty meaningless. But they also need to be upset with him and reject him, or else he will not be crucified in the end, and moreover, I will not be able to see myself in the crowd, shouting for Christ's death along with the rest of my fellow sinners.
The fact that I can see myself in that crowd at times, that as the illustrious Alex Gallagher once posted on our wall, "Sometimes we murder our saviors", is as dramatic an illustration of God's grace as any I can conceive. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us".
So what facilitates this shift from support to dejection? We can maybe answer this by looking at what makes Jesus popular, and at what makes him unpopular in the past. This also dovetails a bit with my second point in this section of scripture. Jesus is at his most popular when he's healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame, when he's feeding 5,000 people with bread and fish, when he's preaching that poor people have the riches of Heaven to store up.
He's very unpopular when he says that He is the way to get there, that followers have to give up everything to follow Him, and that He (and he alone) is the Son of God. In short, people expect a different kind of Messiah than Christ has come to be. They want a political King to overthrow the Romans. They want a medical King to heal their diseases. They want a cooking King to give them food without cost. When they find out that Jesus is instead a spiritual King, they turn on him.
Perhaps Peter himself is one of these people frustrated with Jesus. He thinks that right now, tonight, in this very garden, is where the Revolution is about to begin. He pulls out his sword and delivers the first blow in establishing God's Kingdom on Earth. And is quickly repremanded by his best friend: what you think is going to happen, isn't, Peter. Is it any wonder that Peter denies knowing his best friend three times and weeps bitterly? Peter finds that what he has dedicated his life to is a lie.
Isn't this very much like what we see today, too? People are very eager to believe in a Nice, Gentle Jesus who tells people to be excellent to one another, the kind of Jesus who gives great big hugs and wipes away tears, but who is a super-glossed-over version of the Jesus in the Bible who demands your love and life and says he is the Son of God. If you ask people what they think the central teaching of Christianity is, they are very likely to tell you to "treat others as you would like to be treated", and not "Jesus was the Son of God who died for our sins."
*****
***
I've always loved this exchange that Jesus gave. It's designed to always proclaim and testify about Jesus. The Son of God being put to death for the crime of blasphemy, of claiming to be what he was, is as much an act of rebellion as Adam, as Babel. Those who claim to be unjustly punished for the sins of their fathers should remember this. Sin is not just stubbing your toe or getting confused and carrying a 2 when you should have carried a 1 while doing addition in your head. It's not just hurting someone else's feelings unknowingly. It's not just moral weakness. It is active, knowing rebellion. When I confess that I am by nature sinful, I am confessing not only that I am possible of human error and 'oops!' moments, but that in my inmost being, there is a part of me that hates God, that rebels against him, that is jealous of his power and questioning of his love.
***
He denied it, saying, "I am not."
This section also speaks of two foils. Peter is a foil of Judas, and Barabbas is a foil of Jesus. Barabbas is a political rebel, the kind of person Jesus could have chosen to be if he'd wanted. An army with endless amounts of bread and divine protection would make for an unstoppable rebelling force. Barabbas's rebellion is a reflection of our own against God.
Peter is a foil of Judas because his actions are almost as painful as Judas's betrayal: he vehemently denies knowing his friend, his teacher, his Lord. But whereas Judas feels like Jesus cannot forgive him and eventually takes his own life because of it, overwhelmed with guilt and having nowhere to release it, Peter finds forgiveness and redemption. He is the first disciple to visit the empty tomb. His reconciliation with his friend later in this Gospel is a reflection of the reconciliation we all have with God as a result of Christ's death and resurrection.
***
John 18
Jesus Arrested
1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.2Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.
4Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"
5"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.
"I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
7Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?"
And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
8"I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go." 9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."
10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)
11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
***Two things of note, one of plot, and another of more purely religious substance.
First: what's up with Judas' betrayal?
As a child, I don't think I fully understood even the pure mechanism of Judas' betrayal. When I saw betrayal in movies or books or TV, it was a little more plain. The James Bond Girl ties him up and sets up a bomb to betray the West. The guy from The Matrix tells the Machines where to find Neo. Isildur keeps the One Ring for himself instead of throwing it into the lava and betrays Elrond! But leading the soldiers to Jesus isn't as obvious as this, so I didn't get it right away.
Surely the soldiers knew where Jesus was before. He had been teaching in the streets and mountainsides and temples. It seems to be that they needed a quiet spot away from crowds where Jesus was most vulnerable, so they could arrest him and there wouldn't be a big public outcry against it. That's Judas's betrayal: show the soldiers where Jesus is so there isn't a riot. Only someone with intimate knowledge of Jesus would be able to supply that information, so this is what makes Judas's betrayal both necessary to the religious authorities doing it, and actually effective.
But would there have been a big public outcry if Jesus had been arrested in public? Only a few days before, Jesus had come into Jerusalem hailed as a king. Everyone had a big parade. He was very popular. I think it's reasonable to think that if the High Priest had moved then, if there had been guards who had swooped in to take away Jesus, donky, colt, and all, there would have been a riot.
But Jesus was also a somewhat controversial figure. When he told people that they needed to eat his body and drink his blood, we're told that a great many people turned away from him- "surely this is a hard teaching!" Even when he drove out demons from people (see Matthew 8), this made others frightened of him and they begged him to leave their town. Earlier, in John 8 and again in 10, Jesus makes a very straightforward claim to being the Son of God ("before Abraham was born, I Am!"), and is almost stoned to death.
Lastly, on Good Friday, those same voices that cried out 'Hossanah in the Highest!' days earlier scream, 'Crucify! Crucify! We have no King but Caesar- give Barabbas to us!' We're told that the people are manipulated by the Teachers of the Law to say these things, so it's unclear whether this represents their true feelings, or if they're coerced. Probably a mixture of both, though. (This is not an argument that these actions cannot be condemned or that they get off the hook. Adam and Eve were tricked and coerced into eating the fruit, but played an active role in it themselves, too)
The point is important. The people need to rabidly support Jesus, or else Judas's betrayal is pretty meaningless. But they also need to be upset with him and reject him, or else he will not be crucified in the end, and moreover, I will not be able to see myself in the crowd, shouting for Christ's death along with the rest of my fellow sinners.
The fact that I can see myself in that crowd at times, that as the illustrious Alex Gallagher once posted on our wall, "Sometimes we murder our saviors", is as dramatic an illustration of God's grace as any I can conceive. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us".
So what facilitates this shift from support to dejection? We can maybe answer this by looking at what makes Jesus popular, and at what makes him unpopular in the past. This also dovetails a bit with my second point in this section of scripture. Jesus is at his most popular when he's healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame, when he's feeding 5,000 people with bread and fish, when he's preaching that poor people have the riches of Heaven to store up.
He's very unpopular when he says that He is the way to get there, that followers have to give up everything to follow Him, and that He (and he alone) is the Son of God. In short, people expect a different kind of Messiah than Christ has come to be. They want a political King to overthrow the Romans. They want a medical King to heal their diseases. They want a cooking King to give them food without cost. When they find out that Jesus is instead a spiritual King, they turn on him.
Perhaps Peter himself is one of these people frustrated with Jesus. He thinks that right now, tonight, in this very garden, is where the Revolution is about to begin. He pulls out his sword and delivers the first blow in establishing God's Kingdom on Earth. And is quickly repremanded by his best friend: what you think is going to happen, isn't, Peter. Is it any wonder that Peter denies knowing his best friend three times and weeps bitterly? Peter finds that what he has dedicated his life to is a lie.
Isn't this very much like what we see today, too? People are very eager to believe in a Nice, Gentle Jesus who tells people to be excellent to one another, the kind of Jesus who gives great big hugs and wipes away tears, but who is a super-glossed-over version of the Jesus in the Bible who demands your love and life and says he is the Son of God. If you ask people what they think the central teaching of Christianity is, they are very likely to tell you to "treat others as you would like to be treated", and not "Jesus was the Son of God who died for our sins."
*****
Jesus Taken to Annas
12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.Peter's First Denial
15Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, 16but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in. 17"You are not one of his disciples, are you?" the girl at the door asked Peter.
He replied, "I am not."
18It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.
The High Priest Questions Jesus
19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.
23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" 24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.***
I've always loved this exchange that Jesus gave. It's designed to always proclaim and testify about Jesus. The Son of God being put to death for the crime of blasphemy, of claiming to be what he was, is as much an act of rebellion as Adam, as Babel. Those who claim to be unjustly punished for the sins of their fathers should remember this. Sin is not just stubbing your toe or getting confused and carrying a 2 when you should have carried a 1 while doing addition in your head. It's not just hurting someone else's feelings unknowingly. It's not just moral weakness. It is active, knowing rebellion. When I confess that I am by nature sinful, I am confessing not only that I am possible of human error and 'oops!' moments, but that in my inmost being, there is a part of me that hates God, that rebels against him, that is jealous of his power and questioning of his love.
***
Peter's Second and Third Denials
25As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, "You are not one of his disciples, are you?"He denied it, saying, "I am not."
26One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with him in the olive grove?" 27Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.
Jesus Before Pilate
28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"30"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."
31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."
"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. 32This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.
33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
38"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"
40They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
***
This section also speaks of two foils. Peter is a foil of Judas, and Barabbas is a foil of Jesus. Barabbas is a political rebel, the kind of person Jesus could have chosen to be if he'd wanted. An army with endless amounts of bread and divine protection would make for an unstoppable rebelling force. Barabbas's rebellion is a reflection of our own against God.
Peter is a foil of Judas because his actions are almost as painful as Judas's betrayal: he vehemently denies knowing his friend, his teacher, his Lord. But whereas Judas feels like Jesus cannot forgive him and eventually takes his own life because of it, overwhelmed with guilt and having nowhere to release it, Peter finds forgiveness and redemption. He is the first disciple to visit the empty tomb. His reconciliation with his friend later in this Gospel is a reflection of the reconciliation we all have with God as a result of Christ's death and resurrection.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Grifter-no-more
My friend's got a girlfriend
((((and)))) he hates that bitch
He tells me every day
He says "man I really gotta lose my chick
In the worst kind of way"
She sits on her ass
He works his hands to the bone
To give her money every payday
But she wants more dinero just to stay at home
Well my friend
You gotta say:
I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
I guess all his money, well it isn't enough
To keep her bill collectors at bay
I guess all his money, well it isn't enough
Cause that girl's got expensive taste
I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Well I guess it ain't easy doing nothing at all oh yeah
But hey man free rides just don't come along
every day
Let me tell you about my other friend now
My friend's got a boyfriend ((((and)))) she hates that dick
She tells me every day
He wants more dinero just to stay at home
Well my friend
You gotta say:
I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
oh yeah
I won't give ya no money
I always pay
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a
job!
(I'm newly employed, don'tchaknow)
((((and)))) he hates that bitch
He tells me every day
He says "man I really gotta lose my chick
In the worst kind of way"
She sits on her ass
He works his hands to the bone
To give her money every payday
But she wants more dinero just to stay at home
Well my friend
You gotta say:
I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
I guess all his money, well it isn't enough
To keep her bill collectors at bay
I guess all his money, well it isn't enough
Cause that girl's got expensive taste
I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Well I guess it ain't easy doing nothing at all oh yeah
But hey man free rides just don't come along
every day
Let me tell you about my other friend now
My friend's got a boyfriend ((((and)))) she hates that dick
She tells me every day
He wants more dinero just to stay at home
Well my friend
You gotta say:
I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a job
oh yeah
I won't give ya no money
I always pay
now now Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
now now Why don't you get a
job!
(I'm newly employed, don'tchaknow)
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Furthermore
I made the recovered cherry coke ice crystals into alcohol-filled ICEE's with the magic bullet and some Kahlua. It tastes pretty much like what I expected: ok. But it enrages me when I drink my salvaged Coke smoothie and read on weather.com that a plurality of online voters, (39.4%) do not think that global warming is true.
Frankly, I'm surprised at this. I don't understand how this misconception is out there. I offer my armchair ruminations:
1. Shoddy science reporting. Even though our society is increasingly driven by technology and this technology relies on advances in science, the layperson has a very ill-informed view on science or how the scientific method works. Blame schools all you want, but I'm of the opinion that this is because people have very ill-informed views on just about anything not relating to their narrow experience. I may be really into environmental chemistry and air pollution control and measurement, but I don't know a whole lot about (say) livestock.
I feel like people have this too-perfect view of science. If a man with a white lab coat says it is true, it Must Be So. Furthermore, complicated variables, conflicting data, systematic and random error do not exist- everyone must agree on science. As a corollary, when two scientists disagree, the effect they are researching must not be very scientific. The jury's still out.
But it's not. There is a huge consensus that the Earth is warming. You may blame it on sun spots or random chance or volcanoes, but you don't get to blame it on the Jew-run media anymore.
2. Shoddy political work. Why is this even a political issue? Democrats are more likely to believe in global warming, Republicans are more likely to not believe in it. This might be a nefarious plot by the Republicans to Destroy the Planet, but I'm more apt to quote Upton Sinclair: "If a man's paycheck depends on his not understanding something, you can rely upon his not understanding it." Sorry, oil companies.
Frankly, I'm surprised at this. I don't understand how this misconception is out there. I offer my armchair ruminations:
1. Shoddy science reporting. Even though our society is increasingly driven by technology and this technology relies on advances in science, the layperson has a very ill-informed view on science or how the scientific method works. Blame schools all you want, but I'm of the opinion that this is because people have very ill-informed views on just about anything not relating to their narrow experience. I may be really into environmental chemistry and air pollution control and measurement, but I don't know a whole lot about (say) livestock.
I feel like people have this too-perfect view of science. If a man with a white lab coat says it is true, it Must Be So. Furthermore, complicated variables, conflicting data, systematic and random error do not exist- everyone must agree on science. As a corollary, when two scientists disagree, the effect they are researching must not be very scientific. The jury's still out.
But it's not. There is a huge consensus that the Earth is warming. You may blame it on sun spots or random chance or volcanoes, but you don't get to blame it on the Jew-run media anymore.
2. Shoddy political work. Why is this even a political issue? Democrats are more likely to believe in global warming, Republicans are more likely to not believe in it. This might be a nefarious plot by the Republicans to Destroy the Planet, but I'm more apt to quote Upton Sinclair: "If a man's paycheck depends on his not understanding something, you can rely upon his not understanding it." Sorry, oil companies.
Disaster!
Someone put two cans of Cherry Coke Zero in the freezer where they exploded. I cut my thumb taking one of the cans out, and can only hope that I've brushed out the remaining bits of frozen Coke from on top of the chicken breasts, ice cream, and venison steak.
I hope I don't get tetanus from this.
I hope I don't get tetanus from this.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Back to Politics
There's this girl that I like. Now it appears that she likes another guy. It must be because he's political and stuff. I bet I could be political, too.
I'm beginning to think, as a Democrat, that having Hillary Clinton in the race is good for the party's chances in the fall. I guess I'm alone in this. The claim is being put forth that Hillary Clinton wants to win so badly that she's willing to go to any length to do it, and if that means salting the Earth so that no Democrat can grow, SO BE IT!
I first disagree with this point just as an accurate narrative of what has happened. Clinton hasn't been that cutthroat. About the only things I can remember that qualify are:
1. Reverend Wright. Was this an incredibly off-base attack that has nothing to do with anything? Yes. Was it damaging to Barack Obama? Maybe. It's strange, but pundits give evidence for this by showing exit polling data. Of those people who didn't vote for Obama, a major reason given was Rev. Wright. But, if you look at the overall trend for Obama, his numbers before and after Wright in terms of popularity and so on were pretty much equal. They went down, sure, but they were already going down before Wright was ever an issue, and they've gone back up since.
In other words: it appears from my armchair analysis that Rev. Wright didn't cause many people to not vote for Obama. Instead, it gave people who were already not going to vote for him a reason for doing this. This fits in well with one understanding of psychology and behavior: we're much more likely to pick a conclusion and build reasons around it, rather than weighing evidence and reaching a conclusion.
2. That commercial where the kid is sleeping and the phone is ringing at the White House. Do you know where your children are!? So it was a silly commercial. Not exactly going for the throat.
3. The One Where Obama Knows That One Guy. Clinton (or someone) said that Obama lived next door to some other guy who did bad things. And also, when he was a lawyer, Obama did some work for a guy who was a radical in the 1970's. Maybe it was the same person? I don't know. But whatever. My point is that it's pretty tame and not very damaging to Obama's chances in November.
Further bolstering my first point that Hillary Clinton hasn't been playing ruthless: if you think she can be mean, just wait for the Republicans and John McCain. Hillary Clinton may say, "Think of the Children!", but John McCain has already said that terrorists want Obama to win. If I'm recalling correctly, it wasn't Hillary Clinton's people who have circulated the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim- that would be the crazy right.
So, to conclude my meandering first point: Hillary Clinton isn't salting the Earth. She poses a very small threat for Democrat's chances in November.
My Second Reason Why Hillary Clinton Staying In The Race Isn't As Bad As You Think: it's kind of like altitude training for Obama. We can argue all we want about whether Obama's health care plan covers everyone (it doesn't), or if Hillary's plan will turn us into France (I hope so). But just discussing the issue gets it into everyone's consciousness and frames the debate in a positive manner for Democrats come November. Imagine how completely inadequate John McCain will look by comparison when he says that he wants employers to, uh, group together, or something.
Extend this to any issue you'd like. The longer Barack and Hillary talk about their plans for Iraq, the more that hurts John McCain when he says we should stay there for 100 years and bomb Iran and Palestine and yadda yadda.
So, to conclude:
1. Having Hillary Clinton in the race at the very least poses little threat to Obama's chances in November. She hasn't taken the gloves off (at least not yet), and doesn't seem to be going for the killing blow any time soon.
2. It may actually help the Democrats because it frames issues in a Democratic light.
Of course, this ignores the fact that John McCain is free to do whatever he wants in the meantime before Denver, while Obama is getting pounded. Don't worry. Even if the nomination process goes all the way to Denver, that leaves Obama plenty of time to beat up McCain. Witness Barack schooling him re: Al Qaeda in Iraq. Barack doesn't really start attacks well, but his reaction to them makes his opponent look like an idiot. He's like the anti-Kerry.
I'm beginning to think, as a Democrat, that having Hillary Clinton in the race is good for the party's chances in the fall. I guess I'm alone in this. The claim is being put forth that Hillary Clinton wants to win so badly that she's willing to go to any length to do it, and if that means salting the Earth so that no Democrat can grow, SO BE IT!
I first disagree with this point just as an accurate narrative of what has happened. Clinton hasn't been that cutthroat. About the only things I can remember that qualify are:
1. Reverend Wright. Was this an incredibly off-base attack that has nothing to do with anything? Yes. Was it damaging to Barack Obama? Maybe. It's strange, but pundits give evidence for this by showing exit polling data. Of those people who didn't vote for Obama, a major reason given was Rev. Wright. But, if you look at the overall trend for Obama, his numbers before and after Wright in terms of popularity and so on were pretty much equal. They went down, sure, but they were already going down before Wright was ever an issue, and they've gone back up since.
In other words: it appears from my armchair analysis that Rev. Wright didn't cause many people to not vote for Obama. Instead, it gave people who were already not going to vote for him a reason for doing this. This fits in well with one understanding of psychology and behavior: we're much more likely to pick a conclusion and build reasons around it, rather than weighing evidence and reaching a conclusion.
2. That commercial where the kid is sleeping and the phone is ringing at the White House. Do you know where your children are!? So it was a silly commercial. Not exactly going for the throat.
3. The One Where Obama Knows That One Guy. Clinton (or someone) said that Obama lived next door to some other guy who did bad things. And also, when he was a lawyer, Obama did some work for a guy who was a radical in the 1970's. Maybe it was the same person? I don't know. But whatever. My point is that it's pretty tame and not very damaging to Obama's chances in November.
Further bolstering my first point that Hillary Clinton hasn't been playing ruthless: if you think she can be mean, just wait for the Republicans and John McCain. Hillary Clinton may say, "Think of the Children!", but John McCain has already said that terrorists want Obama to win. If I'm recalling correctly, it wasn't Hillary Clinton's people who have circulated the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim- that would be the crazy right.
So, to conclude my meandering first point: Hillary Clinton isn't salting the Earth. She poses a very small threat for Democrat's chances in November.
My Second Reason Why Hillary Clinton Staying In The Race Isn't As Bad As You Think: it's kind of like altitude training for Obama. We can argue all we want about whether Obama's health care plan covers everyone (it doesn't), or if Hillary's plan will turn us into France (I hope so). But just discussing the issue gets it into everyone's consciousness and frames the debate in a positive manner for Democrats come November. Imagine how completely inadequate John McCain will look by comparison when he says that he wants employers to, uh, group together, or something.
Extend this to any issue you'd like. The longer Barack and Hillary talk about their plans for Iraq, the more that hurts John McCain when he says we should stay there for 100 years and bomb Iran and Palestine and yadda yadda.
So, to conclude:
1. Having Hillary Clinton in the race at the very least poses little threat to Obama's chances in November. She hasn't taken the gloves off (at least not yet), and doesn't seem to be going for the killing blow any time soon.
2. It may actually help the Democrats because it frames issues in a Democratic light.
Of course, this ignores the fact that John McCain is free to do whatever he wants in the meantime before Denver, while Obama is getting pounded. Don't worry. Even if the nomination process goes all the way to Denver, that leaves Obama plenty of time to beat up McCain. Witness Barack schooling him re: Al Qaeda in Iraq. Barack doesn't really start attacks well, but his reaction to them makes his opponent look like an idiot. He's like the anti-Kerry.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
John 17 and a Wii
We just got a Wii, and it is so freaking fun you have no idea. On to John 17.
I'd like to note again that this section both 'give[s] eternal life' and also defines what that eternal life consists of. Jesus didn't die on the cross so that we might never die, but in exchange our eternal life consists of reading owner's manuals for all of eternity. It's an eternal life, and a life that consists of things that are worthy of eternity.
I remember being completely freaked out as a kid at the concept of eternity one night. I couldn't sleep at all, the whole night, I just couldn't stop thinking that a consciousness that goes on forever would be a terrible thing. Probably that's because our normal experience is so often filled with pain or suffering or boredom or discomfort or ennui or melancholy that I couldn't imagine anything else. But I'm not asking for an eternal life with 'the only true God, and Jesus Christ' to be non-stop pleasure, either. It gets too saccharine that way. It's more than pleasure, it's the happiness that can only come from finally coming home after a long trip, of being reconciled to a friend, of being at peace with someone you originally hated.
John 17:17 is often used as support for the proposition that the Bible is divinely inspired and is therefore what we should use for deciding theology, as opposed to, say, popular opinion or the authority of Popes or councils. I never really thought it was all that fair: "the Bible says that the Bible is true" is circular reasoning at its finest. But I've come to a better understanding of this verse in particular as a result of making my way through the earlier parts of John.
It could be the defining message of this entire gospel: the Truth. John recalls Jesus proclaiming himself "The Way, The Truth, and The Life." He says that all those "on the side of Truth listen to me." Pilate will later sneer, "What is Truth?"
And what is it? I think the blind man Jesus healed earlier in the Gospel (chapter 9) sums it up nicely:
24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God,[b]" they said. "We know this man [Jesus] is a sinner."
Or look later when Jesus is arrested and smarts off to the High Priest and gets hit in the face. Jesus says, "If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if what I said was the truth, why did you hit me?"
That's not really a rhetorical question, you know. The man hit Jesus not because he thought Jesus was lying- he knew that Jesus was telling the truth. Why did he hit him, then? Perhaps he was scared of what would happen to him if he didn't. Perhaps he was simply a cruel person. At rock bottom, he hit Jesus because he preferred his own lies to Jesus' truth, just as Eve preferred the Serpent's lies.
So that passage, "Your word is truth" is a little more meaningful than "the Bible says that the Bible is true". I hope I'm expressing this coherently.
A call for unity of purpose throughout the Church that I still long to see. Thy kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
Jesus Prays for Himself
1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.I'd like to note again that this section both 'give[s] eternal life' and also defines what that eternal life consists of. Jesus didn't die on the cross so that we might never die, but in exchange our eternal life consists of reading owner's manuals for all of eternity. It's an eternal life, and a life that consists of things that are worthy of eternity.
I remember being completely freaked out as a kid at the concept of eternity one night. I couldn't sleep at all, the whole night, I just couldn't stop thinking that a consciousness that goes on forever would be a terrible thing. Probably that's because our normal experience is so often filled with pain or suffering or boredom or discomfort or ennui or melancholy that I couldn't imagine anything else. But I'm not asking for an eternal life with 'the only true God, and Jesus Christ' to be non-stop pleasure, either. It gets too saccharine that way. It's more than pleasure, it's the happiness that can only come from finally coming home after a long trip, of being reconciled to a friend, of being at peace with someone you originally hated.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6"I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.John 17:17 is often used as support for the proposition that the Bible is divinely inspired and is therefore what we should use for deciding theology, as opposed to, say, popular opinion or the authority of Popes or councils. I never really thought it was all that fair: "the Bible says that the Bible is true" is circular reasoning at its finest. But I've come to a better understanding of this verse in particular as a result of making my way through the earlier parts of John.
It could be the defining message of this entire gospel: the Truth. John recalls Jesus proclaiming himself "The Way, The Truth, and The Life." He says that all those "on the side of Truth listen to me." Pilate will later sneer, "What is Truth?"
And what is it? I think the blind man Jesus healed earlier in the Gospel (chapter 9) sums it up nicely:
24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God,[b]" they said. "We know this man [Jesus] is a sinner."
25He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"
26Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
27He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?"
28Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from."
30The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
34To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.
The image is pretty remarkable. The self-deception shown by the Pharisees here is incredible- they are truly spiritually blind. Jesus speaks the Truth: he says that he is God, and he is, he says people are sinful, and they are. Jesus explains exactly how the world works, and the world rejects him.Or look later when Jesus is arrested and smarts off to the High Priest and gets hit in the face. Jesus says, "If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if what I said was the truth, why did you hit me?"
That's not really a rhetorical question, you know. The man hit Jesus not because he thought Jesus was lying- he knew that Jesus was telling the truth. Why did he hit him, then? Perhaps he was scared of what would happen to him if he didn't. Perhaps he was simply a cruel person. At rock bottom, he hit Jesus because he preferred his own lies to Jesus' truth, just as Eve preferred the Serpent's lies.
So that passage, "Your word is truth" is a little more meaningful than "the Bible says that the Bible is true". I hope I'm expressing this coherently.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."A call for unity of purpose throughout the Church that I still long to see. Thy kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
John 16
This keeps me writing- good!
After having the Bible study last week, which surprisingly went for about an hour and a half, the main thing we talked about was how to communicate the Gospel with unchurched friends. The biggest barrier to that message, we felt, was apathy, and a denial of the existence of sin. It's hard to get people worked up for salvation from something they don't think exists, or is not important.
Why is it that, when asked to put the teachings of Christianity succinctly, people will say, "Be a good person and you get to go to Heaven"? Why isn't the first thing people say, "Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he died sacrificially so believers in him get to go to Heaven"? Last week a woman asked me if Lutherans thought that Jews would go to Hell and seemed genuinely surprised when I (uncomfortably) said yes. I'm not mad at the woman- it was an honest and important question- but I am a little frustrated in myself and other Christians if the most basic parts of Christianity aren't communicated well.
This also implies that perhaps I don't know much about other world religions. Is the teaching of Islam really obedience to Five Pillars (Charity, going to Mecca on a pilgrimage, obedience to moral teachings, believing that there is one God and Mohammed is His Prophet, and one more)? Has my public education failed me?
Anyway, on to John 16, which begins with some leftovers from last week about persecution. Whoever divided up John screwed up that part, so I'll begin at the fifth verse:
So it appears the world is guilty on three charges: sin, righteousness, and judgment. Sin is 'missing the mark' of perfection that God has for us. The world stands guilty of sin because 'men do not believe in [Jesus]', which I take to mean that they cannot even see the target to shoot straight at it. The world stands guilty of not being righteous as well. This is proven by Jesus going to the Father; Jesus is the only righteous person, so his absence from the world highlights the absence of righteousness in the world. How 'not being righteous' is different from 'being sinful' is a little unclear. Does this just mean that we haven't done things that are good, in addition to doing things that are bad?
In any event, Jesus concludes with passing judgment on the world. It's a bit like a courtroom trial: The World has done wrong, it has not done right, and it is condemned as a result of this. The sentence, according to Paul, is physical (and spiritual) death. Good thing Jesus goes on:
One nitpick: the disciples say, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech." I think that this is one of the more difficult sections to understand, at least compared to other sections of John, where Jesus says stuff like, "Whoever believes in me will never die" or when he physically hands some bread to his betrayer, or when he predicts his death and then says the Son of God must be 'lifted up'. Use any and all to get the message across.
I know that my Redeemer lives. What comfort this sweet sentence gives.
After having the Bible study last week, which surprisingly went for about an hour and a half, the main thing we talked about was how to communicate the Gospel with unchurched friends. The biggest barrier to that message, we felt, was apathy, and a denial of the existence of sin. It's hard to get people worked up for salvation from something they don't think exists, or is not important.
Why is it that, when asked to put the teachings of Christianity succinctly, people will say, "Be a good person and you get to go to Heaven"? Why isn't the first thing people say, "Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he died sacrificially so believers in him get to go to Heaven"? Last week a woman asked me if Lutherans thought that Jews would go to Hell and seemed genuinely surprised when I (uncomfortably) said yes. I'm not mad at the woman- it was an honest and important question- but I am a little frustrated in myself and other Christians if the most basic parts of Christianity aren't communicated well.
This also implies that perhaps I don't know much about other world religions. Is the teaching of Islam really obedience to Five Pillars (Charity, going to Mecca on a pilgrimage, obedience to moral teachings, believing that there is one God and Mohammed is His Prophet, and one more)? Has my public education failed me?
Anyway, on to John 16, which begins with some leftovers from last week about persecution. Whoever divided up John screwed up that part, so I'll begin at the fifth verse:
The Work of the Holy Spirit
5"Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[a] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
16"In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me."
So it appears the world is guilty on three charges: sin, righteousness, and judgment. Sin is 'missing the mark' of perfection that God has for us. The world stands guilty of sin because 'men do not believe in [Jesus]', which I take to mean that they cannot even see the target to shoot straight at it. The world stands guilty of not being righteous as well. This is proven by Jesus going to the Father; Jesus is the only righteous person, so his absence from the world highlights the absence of righteousness in the world. How 'not being righteous' is different from 'being sinful' is a little unclear. Does this just mean that we haven't done things that are good, in addition to doing things that are bad?
In any event, Jesus concludes with passing judgment on the world. It's a bit like a courtroom trial: The World has done wrong, it has not done right, and it is condemned as a result of this. The sentence, according to Paul, is physical (and spiritual) death. Good thing Jesus goes on:
The Disciples' Grief Will Turn to Joy
17Some of his disciples said to one another, "What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,' and 'Because I am going to the Father'?" 18They kept asking, "What does he mean by 'a little while'? We don't understand what he is saying."19Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, "Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me'? 20I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. 23In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
25"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."
29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."
31"You believe at last!"[b] Jesus answered. 32"But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.
33"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
Just when this condemnation stuff was getting everyone a little down, Jesus comes back by saying that he has overcome the world. It will look like Jesus has lost-- didn't it look like that on Good Friday and Saturday and the first part of Easter Sunday?-- but this grief will turn to joy. The disciples finally seem to get it: Jesus is the Son of God, he will go away (die), but he will come back (the Resurrection), and this will somehow connect God to people once again. Attaboy, disciples.One nitpick: the disciples say, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech." I think that this is one of the more difficult sections to understand, at least compared to other sections of John, where Jesus says stuff like, "Whoever believes in me will never die" or when he physically hands some bread to his betrayer, or when he predicts his death and then says the Son of God must be 'lifted up'. Use any and all to get the message across.
I know that my Redeemer lives. What comfort this sweet sentence gives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)