Thomas' Role Model

Luke 7

18 John's disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' " 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me."

This passage is from Luke 7, after Jesus had been performing many miracles and even claiming the Sonship of God. In Luke 3:22, a voice from heaven (presumably God's) calls Jesus his Son outright. The first chapter of John's gospel shows John giving assent to Jesus' divinity. Yet, in chapter 7, we encounter John's crisis of faith, going so far as to question the messiahship of Jesus. John had seen or heard of the miracles, and most likely had even heard the voice of God during Jesus' baptism. So why did John doubt the messiahship of Jesus?

I think a major part of understanding John's question is to recognize the circumstances John was in. He sent his disciples to ask Jesus this question while he was in a prison cell. Also, John was asking this question, not in spite of Jesus' miracles, but because of them. If Jesus was powerful enough to perform all those healings, why was He not powerful enough to rescue John from prison?

Jesus did not seem too upset by the question. In fact, he blesses those who follow God in spite of His ministry: "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me." In essence, Jesus is saying, "Yes, I show the way to God for some, but I may make it harder for others." This is the paradox of Christ's life. Depending on where we are in life, and what circumstances we are undergoing, Jesus either makes it easier or more difficult for us to connect to God. John didn't have a problem with Jesus’ messiahship while he was preaching in the desert; in fact, he welcomed it. But when he found himself in prison, the way wasn't so easy, and doubts naturally came to the surface.

There are so many things I love about this story (I know, it's a strange story to love), a few being:

John, whether asking from frustration or a real desire to discern truth, was bold enough to ask THE question. This was not the equivalent of an inerrancy debate - this was what Truth depended on. Is Jesus really God? If that discussion is a biblical precedent, then I think we can handle anything in the emerging church conversation.

Jesus didn't answer the question. He treasured John's ability to decide by the Spirit's leading. Jesus presented His track record, and gave John the freedom to decide for himself.

Jesus recognized the frustration and pain of John, and blessed (blesses) those who ask tough questions. Sometimes, I think Christians are afraid to diminish God's honor or offend His sensibilities by asking point blank questions. At least in this story, Jesus not only recognizes John's right to ask the question, but his courage to get to the point.

Peace & Blessings.

(Re)Defining Sin

Ok - I can imagine that the title alone has already raised some red flags for some readers, and rightly so. It's one thing to talk about re-interpreting scripture, re-structuring the Church, etc. But don't mess with sin! I agree. Sin is a serious topic. Hang in a while, and I think you'll see that I treat it just as seriously as any evangelical would. My purpose here is not to reason away the seriousness of sin, but to do it more justice than is traditionally done.

One thing that all Christians should be able to agree on is the centrality of Christ and his teachings. In regards to spiritual law, Christ gave assent to two commands that sum up his view on how sin should be judged: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27). So often, Christians bring to the "sin discussion" various do's and dont's from throughout scripture. Christ simplified it for us. He gave us a love command to measure what is sinful and what is not. In Mark 12:31, Christ tells us there is no other command that supercedes these two love commands. So how should these words of Christ help us to redefine sin?

1. Sin is the absence of loving relationship with God and people. Sin is not first and foremost an act of commission, but an act of omission. Sin can be decided based on the lack of presence of love.
2. Sin is failing to love God, neighbor, and self. Loving God is basically living in the presence of God, or having our being in His Spirit. Loving our neighbor, at least in Luke's gospel, is loving the other (i.e. those we would traditionally have nothing to do with). A lover of neighbors is one who has mercy on the outcast/other (v.37). Loving ourself is first self-identifying with the other, then loving the self. In other words, loving the self is recognizing that we have as much standing in the experience of grace as the person we consider most different from ourself, and that we love ourselves as much as we love the other person. Most Christians get the "love your neighbor as yourself" command backwards, because they start with only loving what is easy to love about themselves. Starting the neighborly love process from the foundation of the other stretches the command to a new, and more difficult level.

Sin, therefore, is not about a list of do's and dont's, but about acts of love toward God, others, and self. Therefore, rather than the person who follows the most rules, the most sanctified Christian is the one who loves the most.

Peace & Blessings.

Sola Christos

The traditional mantra of evangelical Christianity since the Protestant Reformation has been sola scriptura, or scripture alone. Whether or not the original intention of this idea was to make an idol of the Bible, that has too often become the case in modern evangelicalism. Truth, as an objective reality, has been equated with the actual words of the Bible. Was this ever the intention of God, or has Christianity become a book-based spirituality rather than a person-based spirituality?

Whenever I think of Truth, I think of it in terms of relationship, not in terms of propositions and doctrines. To me, Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, how can we possibly understand the many verses of scripture referring to Jesus (a person) as the truth? Take a look at the following verses while trying to reconcile the modern idea of truth as right propositions.

"For me, to live is Christ."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life."

"I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

To live is Christ. How can this make sense in any other context than truth as relationship? It makes much less sense to say, "To live is the virgin birth." People do not live by propositions, but by relationships. Everything that is anything is bound up in a series of relationships, without which there really is no meaning. I ... am the truth. This is the most plain biblical statement of the person of Jesus being equated with actual truth. Christ does not precede "the truth" with statements of dogma - He begins the sentence with a proper noun, Himself. There is no full truth outside the person of Jesus. A book cannot be perfect truth. Only a Person can accomplish that. The third verse gives Christians a clear view of what the Bible is: a witness to the Truth. Jesus encoutnered the same problem in his day, with religious people wanting to make the scriptures the end all of truth. Life is found not in religious texts, but in a personal relationship with Christ.

Robert Webber asks a relevant question: "Do we believe in a book or a person?" It is an either/or question. Either there is one, perfect true direction of worship, or there is not. Only God can be perfect, and perfection deserves our worship. Leonard Sweet has written a wonderful book dealing in part with this subject:

http://www.randomhouse.com/waterbrook/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781578566471

Peace & Blessings.

Beyond Gender

Most of us are aware, particularly our gay, lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters, of the church's track record on the issue of homosexuality and other trans-barrier sexualities. Instead of being welcomed into the family of God as vitally contributing participants, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons have traditionally been ostracized and vilified as perverts - those not capable of entering into the kingdom of God. The letters of Paul (assuming traditional authorship assignments) have been central in this program of vilification. Conservative readings of the opening chapters of Genesis, and legalistic readings of Leviticus, have also played a major role in the pogrom.

Most traditional biblical scholars and church leaders have proclaimed that Jesus was silent on the issue of trans-barrier sexualities. However, a new insight from Matthew 19:12 has recently come to the fore in biblical scholarship circles. For those not familiar with the passage in question, Jesus speaks of the acceptance of eunuchs, both natural and self-made, into the kingdom of heaven:

12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Because of cover-ups in interpretation stemming from traditional ideas of man/women gender roles, the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words have long been lost to the Church. In order to dilute the powerful message of Jesus in this passage and continue in the promulgation of traditional gender roles, biblical scholars have felt the need to view the eunuch as a non-sexual creature. After all, if sexual roles were divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pro-creation, what sexual role could a eunuch possibly have? The sexual options available to eunuchs are unthinkable to those entrenched in traditional heterosexist gender roles.

History, however, has a different story to tell concerning the sexualities of eunuchs. Any surface reading of ancient histories will show that eunuchs were not only servants of imperial courts, but enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as sexually active participants in a variety of roles with men and women. Because the phallus was of utmost importance during ancient times in conferring the status of manhood (i.e. personhood), eunuchs were despised as well for their state of castration. In other words, though they were politically powerful, they were moral and social outcasts. As is the case with all phobias, "eunuch-phobia" was a result of fear toward something not understood (or understood all too well). Men feared eunuchs because of the sexual and social power they exhibited in spite of their lack of phalli. Men of the time felt the need to vilify eunuchs because their power was derived from non-heterosexist gender roles: eunuchs performed the bottom role (i.e. being mounted) traditionally assigned to women and slaves.

It is in this context of ostracism that Jesus spoke acceptance to eunuchs, and to modern persons of trans-barrier sexualities. It is interesting to note that Jesus prefaced Matthew 19:12 with the words, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." Times have not changed so much. Certainly, everyone has not received this saying with the openness in which Jesus himself said it. Hence, the divisions in many denominations centering on controversies of sexuality. How much more beautiful the body of Christ would be if every person were accepted with the grace and love of Christ Himself.

Peace & Blessings.

Surface Christianity

I suppose dogmas have always been a part of the organizational church since the times of the Church Fathers. Though there is much controversy surrounding the formation and use of the following passage from Philippians, it is considered by many scholars to be one of the first hymns used in the early church, and may also have served as a type of creed:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As a hymn, this is beautiful, and there is not much in it to ruffle the feathers of orthodox Christians. However, it is a product of Pauline theology, and it should be noted that Christ never promoted or suggested creeds of any kind. He usually taught in parables which were (and are) constantly subject to various interpretations. It seems that the teaching style of Christ, and most other teachers of his time, was designed to make people come to their own conclusions. I am not saying there was no point of truth in the teachings of Christ, but that the truth was multi-layered and relative to the hearer's progress on life's journey. Unlike Paul and other NT writers, Jesus rarely presented a statement of doctrinal truth as necessary belief. His whole ministry was designed to attract followers, not doctrinally correct theologians.

I think two portions of the gospels present this side of Jesus better than any others: Matthew 11:28-29, and John 21:15-19.

28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

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." 17The 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." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 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!"

Following Christ is the focus of the gospel. Some of his disciples did not really know who Jesus was. Matthew 16 tells the story of Jesus asking his followers who they thought he was. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, and some said Jeremiah. Peter eventually says that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, but does not scold the others for their answers. Though this passage is often used by preachers to proclaim the divinity of Christ (and I have no argument with that), a deeper point is that Jesus accepted followers who were not aware of his divinity.

So what about creeds and dogmas? What purpose do they really serve in light of Jesus' acceptance of followers not aware of his divinity? From a human standpoint, I think dogmas serve to massage the ego, to place certain people within a community, and to place others outside the community. It's really all about a reversion to law vs. grace. People with correct answers are in; people who are passionate disciples but don't believe the dogmas are out. This may be a Pauline way of doing things, but it certainly isn't a Jesus was of doing things. [Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but I am a disciple of Christ]

Surface Christianity depends too much on right belief, and too little on right action. It seems that Jesus was more concerned with conversion as process (i.e. following him) than conversion as belief. When Christianity becomes a set of beliefs, a series of creeds, it diminishes into something Christ never intended. He desires zealous followers who love him, no matter what idenity they assign to him. No doubt, there are myriad more zealous "Christians" who've never heard the name of Christ, than those who claim the name "Christian" and have all the correct answers.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 2

If you know anything about open theism, you already know the main points I'm going to flesh out: (1) God is not omnipotent, (2) God is not omniscient, and (3) God is engaged in real war. Of course, most of the open theists within evangelicalism tend to want to keep the traditional terminology while re-defining what that terminology means. I think it's better to just discard the terminology for the sake of clarity. I have claimed what I believe God is not. It follows that I should try to attempt to explain what God is, at least in my experience of Her. Let's take it point by point.

God is not omnipotent, but powerful.

Traditional Christians are scared silly when they see this sentence, which is why there is such an uproar in evangelical communities surrounding open theism. Of all the open theistic writers I've read, Clark Pinnock does the most justice to this idea. [Disclaimer: just because I mention Clark Pinnock doesn't mean he wants to be mentioned in the vicinity of my writings]. However, as I mentioned before, he tends to want to keep the traditional word while re-defining it. Omnipotence, in its traditional reference to God, means He is able to do anything that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, He is able to stop the rape of the afore-mentioned 9 year-old girl if He so chooses. For any thinking Christian, it is easy to see where the problem arises. If God is good, and also omnipotent, then why would She allow such horrible, senseless things to take place? Now, I use the word senseless for a very good reason. Most traditionalists would argue that there must be some unrecognized good purpose to come of the girl's rape. That is why God allows it. Can such a rationalization, as much as it grates against everything we know of God, be true? Wouldn't the Spirit give some kind of assent to that view if it was in fact, correct? What do we feel horrible when defending God with this excuse?

I think the answer lies in its inherent falsity. As Christians, we all know God is good by our experience of Her. She doesn't give a stone when we need bread. She loves us more than our earthly parents love us. Would any earthly parent allow their child to be raped? Is there any good future thing that could come of that? No. God is completely loving, and limited in Her actions. There are some things She simply cannot interfere with. This has nothing to do with man's free will, but everything to do with real spiritual warfare (see # 3).

God is not omniscient, but learning.

Traditionally, God's omniscience means that He is able to know everything in the past, present, and future. Current open theists re-define omniscience to mean that God knows everything that can be possibly be known, then proceed to discuss what can truly be known vs. what cannot be known. I do not see the sense in sticking with the term omniscience. It's just confusing. For too long, the term has been used to mean that God simply knows everything. In other words, before the girl's rapist was born, God knew he was going to be a rapist, yet went ahead and allowed his birth. If omnipotence and omniscience are true as traditionally believed, then God is directly responsible for the girl's rape because He had the power and knowledge to put a stop to it. How could a loving God, who is also all-knowing and all-powerful, not put a stop to it? Yeah, yeah - the free will thing. But if God had prevented the birth of the rapist, free will would not have even been an issue.

Therefore, along with omnipotence, I also believe omniscience should be discarded. Because God loves freedom, and freedom requires real choices, God creates the universe in a way that She cannot possibly know the real possibilities that can occur in Her universe. She has to work with the things that happen. The rapist could have been a humanitarian with good character, but he chose to be a rapist. This occurred from an infinite number of possibilities, none of which God knew beforehand. God only knows the present reality, and a limited amount of future choices which she deduces from the current actions of free beings. This is basically what current open theists teach, though most of them insist on keeping the tricky work, omniscience.

God is engaged in real war.

Though I've already discarded two major traditional Christian beliefs, I think this third point is the most important. It also satisfactorily answers (at least to many pre-modernists and postmodernists) why God cannot be omnipotent as traditionally believed. Satan is a real being, and he has legions of real demons that follow his rebellious lead. I dare you to tell a friend you believe Satan is a real personality, and see the response you get. It's not a popular belief in our modernist-entrenched culture. However, it fits well with the entire biblical story (not that that's a prerequisite for truth), and makes sense of evil.

Think about the facts of war in our physical reality. There is rarely a winner or loser at the outset, though certain factors may give a side some advantage. Fighting must occur, losses and wins experienced, for a victor to emerge. Why would it be any different in the spiritual realm? Why would biblical writers describe battles of evil and good forces with such detail and life likeness if there was not some truth to it? More to the point, why would a young girl be raped if there was not some evil force fighting off God's protective hand?

Evil exists, not because God is capricious or ordains evil, but because She is involved in a real battle with the forces of evil, with free creatures of immense strength who want nothing less than to rule this world. Scripture and the Spirit give us hope that good will eventually prevail, but in the meantime, we as humans are in the crossfire. Not only that, but we are also called to participate by bringing love and grace into our own relationships and communities.

All of this doesn't answer every question concerning the existence of evil. It may raise even more questions. However, it does give us a congruent feeling with the Spirit that God is pure love, and only wants the best for all Her children.

Peace & Blessings.

Wrestling With God

I can see it now. The lights dim, people in their pews (chairs, whatever) waiting with bated breath for the ultimate smackdown. The mic descends slowly from the ceiling overhead the ring, a minister wearing black spandex waiting to make his announcement. D-Generation X blares over the multiple Panaray MB-4 modular bass loudspeakers strategically located around the periphery of the sanctuary. Mic now in hand, the ministers yells, "Let's get ready to rumble", drawing out "rumble" for maximum effect. Ah, I can only imagine.....

What if we approached God, more often than not, with an attitude of confrontation rather than submissiveness? What if we did this not just within the Community meeting, but also individually? I don't know about you, but sometimes I just get plain lethargic in worship services and in my personal journey. I am so used to saying "OK, God, have it your way", rather than "I don't think so. Let's go outside." I am not suggesting an attitude of defiance; rather, I am bemoaning our inability to question in order to discover. Take a look at the story of Jacob's wrestling match with God in Genesis 32: 22-32.

22The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." 28Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." 29Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. 30So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." 31The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.

What has happened to this ancient tradition of fighting with God? It's not an avant-garde suggestion. All the prophets did it, and the wisdom books of the Bible are filled with questions, not answers. Why have we become so laissez-faire when it comes to following God? Jacob wrestled with God, breaking his leg in the process, and threatened God with continued fighting if he did not receive a blessing. How much more rich our journeys would be if would just learn to be comfortable with "fighting" God! It'd probably make His life a lot more interesting too.