Grateful...

I am grateful to those Republicans in the House and Senate who, in the face of great pressure to vote against reopening the government, agreed to compromise.  You know it had to be a sacrifice for them. It looks like they thought it was the right thing to do, not the easy thing to do.

That, to me, is the sign of a true statesman, someone who can lose graciously for the greater good. In this case, it was to make a choice for what they believed was the lesser of two evils.  I have no doubt but that Senator Dan Coats of Indiana and my own Congresswoman Susan Brooks believe with all their heart that the Affordable Care Act is a bad thing. But they apparently thought defaulting on our debt obligations and keeping government employees out of work was a worse evil at this moment.

There are spiritual lessons here. Jesus was not an idealist. That was the Pharisees we love to hate. Jesus believed in getting an ox out of a ditch even if it was the Sabbath (Luke 14:5).  Paul urged the Corinthians that it was better to be cheated and lose, even when you were in the right, for the greater good (1 Cor. 6:7). Jesus' death was the greatest example of a person who was right but surrendered to being wronged for the greater good.

My point is that there is a time to compromise and there is a time to lose. There is even a time to lose a battle so you can fight another day. I remember talking to some missionaries in Sierra Leone who struggled with whether to leave the country during civil war. With some disgrace, they decided it was better to live and be able to come back than to die and never be able to minister there again. No doubt they had to wrestle with the shame of this decision, maybe even the anger of those left behind, but they believed it was the best course of action.

A pastor who operates with a "my way or the highway" attitude is a pastor destined for failure. And we know plenty of laypeople in the church with that attitude--we don't think highly of them. In the university, there is a time when you fight for your outcome. Then there is a time when you realize you've lost the argument and you yield to the majority. Those who don't are not people you ultimately want around in the long term.

The heart of the gospel is a story of winning by losing.  It's about the last being first.  Any construction of Jesus that sees him as a "win at all costs" down here kind of Messiah needs to go back to the Bible. That's the mistake Peter made when he corrected Jesus about going to Jerusalem to die. "No, Jesus," Peter thought.  "Messiahs don't die.  They always win."

So let me express my gratitude to Boehner and Cantor for voting yes.  Surely it had to be the right thing to do for them to vote against all the political pressure going the other way.  My respect for them has gone up greatly.

Compromise is not always a dirty word. There's a another term for it--mutual submission.

My Jesus Books are out!

The Kindle editions have been ready for over a week but I've been waiting for my two Jesus books to hit Amazon before mentioning them here.

They're out!

The first covers the basics, the core elements of Jesus' earthly mission, including his passion and resurrection.



The second focuses more on the gospel portraits and their unique themes, with the final chapter talking about the way Christology reached its final form in the early centuries of the church.

Jesus 2 is in the (e)mail

The second Jesus volume is now sent off.  I believe the first volume will be called Jesus--the Mission and the second something like Jesus--the Gospel Portraits.

The chapters ended up a little different from when I started.

1. Mark the Basics (the basic story of Mark)
2. The Hidden Jesus (Mark's messianic secret)
3. The Virgin Birth (in both Matthew and Luke)
4. The Sermon on the Mount
5. The New Moses (the other sermons of Matthew)
6. Good News for the Poor (Luke's central message)
7. Good News for the World (other themes in Luke)
8. The Book of Signs (the first half of John)
9. The Book of Glory (the second half of John)
10. The Second Person of the Trinity (the path to what Christians currently believe about Christ)

I'll be interested to see what people think of it!

Living the Love Command: Health Care

continued from yesterday
_________________
...Another issue that has embroiled the United States in recent years has to do with whether the government should orchestrate a system that provides health care to all Americans as much as possible. Such laws are incredibly complex and involve multiple angles. For example, there is the question of whether such a system would break America financially and thus inadvertently cause far more harm than any good it might do. There is the question of whether the United States government would administer its part of such a system efficiently, or whether such programs tend to turn into cumbersome bureaucracies.

But there are also some philosophical and theological questions that are often raised for which we have clearer answers from the values of Jesus. Would Jesus object to a tax on me that would benefit others? Certainly he would object to an oppressive tax, one that did harm to me and especially one that primarily functioned to make someone else rich. But the New Testament unanimously teaches that believers should pay taxes (e.g., Mark 12:14-15; Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:13) and unanimously discourages hoarding personal wealth.

At the very least, Jesus would commend those who give to others who are truly in need. “Do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt. 7:12). Surely a normal person, the person Jesus has in mind, would want medical help when he or she needs it. Giving so that others might have medical help is thus very much in keeping with Jesus’ values.

Most of us are not the sort of expert who could speak authoritatively about whether a particular law might be a good one or might be effective to provide health care to all people. But the initial bias of the Jesus follower will inevitably be that if it were possible for me to contribute in such a way that more people would have health care, then my spirit will want to do that. The bias of a Christian toward the goal is not ambiguous—it is toward helping others in need. Only the way in which that need might best be provided might be ambiguous for the Christian.

Although we shouldn’t have to provide further support, the New Testament is full of instruction that unequivocally endorses this attitude. “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). “In humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Phil. 2:3-4). “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10).

There are other questions of course. Even though this is the attitude Christians should have toward helping others, should a Christian support forcing those who do not have the mind of Christ to contribute to the help of others. I personally believe that God grants a good deal of freedom to others to disobey his will. He will set the world straight eventually, but for now he largely lets us self-destruct with our own selfish and sinful behaviors.

The case is different when my selfish behavior and freedom hurts someone else. So God surely would want me to stop a murderer from exercising his or her freedom to murder. So at what point does providing for the health of others, including saving the lives of others, move out of the realm of God’s allowance for personal freedom and move into the realm of moral obligation? At what point do we fine the priest and the Levite for not helping the mugged Israelite, and make it a law to be a good Samaritan?

The end of the whole discussion is that specific legislation will be complicated and will require the expertise of many to determine whether it is advisable or not. What is clear theologically is that Jesus would have supported a system that provided health care to those who did not have it. He would have spoken harshly to those who resisted it for selfish reasons, just as Matthew 25 speaks to those who could have helped the hungry and thirsty, but chose not to do so. The spirit of Jesus is clear, even if we might take different positions on how to work out those values.

Living the Love Command: Immigration

Warning: This post may be annoying to some.  Walk away as desired.  I am filling in a gap in a chapter in the Jesus book on applying the command to love one's neighbor.
______________
What does it mean to live out Jesus' priorities today, especially for those who live in the United States with its current issues? An important warning should precede any controversial discussion of this sort. Principles and values are one thing. Playing them out politically is something quite different.

I have often found that when there is significant debate over an issue and the issue seems like a slam dunk to me, I'm probably missing something. There are usually extremely intelligent people on every major side of a debate, and presumably every one of them sees something true in the debate. Usually, if we can calm down and actually listen to each other, everyone can gain something.

I also believe we as humans are prone to blind spots. We are prone to rationalize our true motivations, to make ourselves seem purer and more noble than we are. We are prone to take positions based on the "herd" to which we belong rather than sound reasoning. We are prone to oversimplify things and make things black and white that are actually gray.

So what would Jesus' values be in relation to an issue like illegal immigration?  Those who are most in favor of hard core tactics in relation to illegal immigrants usually say things like, "These are people who are breaking the law who must be punished."  "These are people who are taking away the jobs of the people who actually are from here." "These people bring drugs and criminal activity into the US."

It seems to me that it is appropriate for a country to be careful who comes in and out of its borders, to protect its people.  The spirit of Jesus surely values protecting the innocent in one's own country, as well as those in other countries! But it is hard to hear Jesus saying anything in the previous paragraph. Should there be laws about borders and should there be enforcement of those laws? Surely. But when the response to something is out of proportion to the cause, something else is going on, something psychological and beneath the surface.

Jesus never put law over people. Rather, he disregarded the law when it came into conflict with people, as we've seen. And there is often not a little hypocrisy in those who like the "law" argument when it comes to the issue of immigration. Do you speed? Do you fudge on your income taxes. Do you ever use the stop sign rule, "No cop; no stop"?

There is nothing intrinsically more significant to the imaginary line between the US and Canada than the sign that says 55mph or the law to wear your seat belt.  It is a man-made line, a legitimate one, but one created by one people to keep other people out. Immigration laws are human-made laws, not divine laws. Such laws change regularly, unlike biblical instruction about adultery or falsely accusing someone.

No one who reads the gospels on their own terms could conclude that Jesus would let a stranger in the land starve to death, a value deeply ingrained in the Old Testament Law (e.g., Exod. 22:21; Lev. 25:35). If an immigrant commits a violent crime, s/he should be prosecuted for the crime, not for being an immigrant, whether legal or not. Certainly there should be some consequence for a person being in the country illegally.  Otherwise laws over boundaries become meaningless.And there is a legitimate argument that making too many exceptions to a law only encourages more law breaking.

But one has to suspect that the furor over immigration that arises from time to time is as much about immigration, period, as it is about illegal immigration. This is the case because this is not a new story. It is a story that has been repeated all over the world time and time again throughout history. It happened when the Irish came to America. It happened when Italians came to America or the Chinese. Americans still tell Polack jokes as an artifact of an earlier immigration wave.

What is usually going on in these situations is a fear of the other and a fear of how the other group might change our traditions and our ways of life. The only thing new about Hispanic immigration today is the fact that white Americans may not be in the majority in the future.  Of course there really is no such thing as "white."  "White" is simply the word we use for all the non-African, non-Asian past immigrants who have been here long enough to blend together--English, Irish, German, Swedish, Dutch, and a host of others.

Jesus would demand that we not judge others because of how they look. I have a number of family members who were born and raised in the United States but who have one parent from a foreign country. Some of them have darker skin than others. Those with the darker skin get stopped more often by the police and sometimes get followed around in stores. Again, you cannot be a true follower of Jesus and approach others in this way.

Jesus would demand that we love the illegal immigrant and that the consequences of illegality in our laws be just but loving.  If our legislators were ever to cross the line, then Jesus’ example is one of law-breaking. The founders of my church were abolitionists, who were willing to break the law of the land when the lives of slaves were at stake. In the same way, it is possible that there would be a time when our commitment to Jesus’ values would require civil disobedience on matters relating to immigrant individuals.

It is not my intention to try to spell out precisely what that would look like or exactly what circumstances would call for that sort of action. It is only to say that in God’s eyes, it is just as important for the immigrant to have a job as the citizen. The foreigner is every bit as important to God as the person born in the USA. And if the foreigner is God’s child, s/he is more deserving of God’s blessing than the natural born.

Sin and Sickness

Another missing piece from the first Jesus book...
______________
Before we leave the topic of the miracles Jesus did, I should mention a connection the New Testament sometimes makes between sin and sickness that may seem strange to us today.  For example, in John 9 Jesus and his followers come upon a man who had been blind from birth. The disciples immediately assume that it was the result of someone's sin.  "Was it him or his parents?" they instinctively ask.

In this case, Jesus denies it.  The man was not blind because of anyone's sin. But the New Testament does not deny that physical sickness can result from sinfulness. We have a tendency today to "demythologize" such things.  Sure, if you are promiscuous, you are bound to get some disease. Sure, if you are completely self-indulgent you are likely to get liver disease or lung cancer.

But this is scientific, normal cause-effect thinking.  The biblical writers saw a potential connection between sin and sickness in a way that would not normally occur to us.  For example, Paul tells the Corinthians that some of them have become sick and some actually died as a punishment for the divisive spirit and cliquish spirit they have shown when eating the Lord's meal together (1 Cor. 11:30).

James 5 makes this same connection when it talks about praying for the sick.  The elders of a church are to pray for the sick. "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven" (Jas 5:15).  James doesn't explicitly say that some sickness results from sin, but it seems implied.

The same connection may be there in Matthew 9 when Jesus first pronounces the sins of a paralyzed man forgiven and only later heals him.  The nearby teachers of the law believe Jesus is blaspheming when he thinks he can pronounce the man's sins forgiven. [1] However, the fact that Jesus also heals the man presumably shows that Jesus does have the authority to forgive sins.  After all, if the man's sins were connected to him being paralyzed, then the authority to heal presumably implied the authority to forgive sins.

There are great dangers with associating sin with sickness today.  We can fully believe in healing as Christians and yet strongly affirm that it is not God's will for every sick person to be healed.  If sickness were always--or even primarily associated with sin, then forgiveness would often involve healing.  It just doesn't seem to work that way.

Jesus has also made it clear that it is not our place to judge the intentions of people's hearts (Matt. 7:1). There are many overt actions a person may do that are obvious enough.  A person is planning to blow up something and accidentally blows up himself.  But it would be very wrong indeed to presume that someone is sick because of some sin he or she had done. Indeed, such an approach to sickness would likely reveal an evil heart on our own part, a hateful spirit.

So while the connection is real in the Bible and we should not say it cannot be so, we are probably right, in the end, only to connect sin with sickness when there is a natural, cause-effect relationship.  For example, anger, rage, and bitterness can indeed facilitate high blood pressure and heart disease. Gluttony and overindulgence can indeed lead to diabetes and many other sicknesses. Any other connection is best left to God.

[1] This is a little puzzling, since presumably priests pronounced people's sins forgiven all the time after they offered the appropriate sacrifices.

Life Reflections on the Kingdom

Filling in some missing pieces in my first Jesus book...
____________
“Your will be done, in earth as it is in heaven.” We do not know when Jesus will return to earth and God will set up his eternal kingdom. Should we just wait and do nothing in the meantime? The gospels themselves urge us to press on.

I remember singing a song growing up in church that said, “We’ll work, till Jesus comes.” The song perhaps found its inspiration in John 9:4: “As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.” We find a similar idea in the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19, where a man goes off on a journey to be crowned king. He leaves varying amounts of money with his servants (a mina was an amount of money) and tells them to “Put this money to work until I come back” (19:13).

What are we to do while we wait for Jesus to return? In John 9, the “work of God” Jesus does is healing a blind man to show the power of God. In Luke 19, Jesus tells the Parable of the Minas after the tax collector Zacchaeus has decided to stop cheating people and to give half of his possessions to the poor. Accordingly, being a good steward of what Jesus has left us in the parable directly has to do with using our resources to help those in need.

But we can extend the idea of “occupying ourselves” until Jesus’ return to anything we might do in this world to try to live out Jesus’ values and to bring the values of his kingdom into the world. First, is God king in our individual lives? We cannot control so much of what goes on around us. We certainly cannot control what other people do, at least not for long. Often we cannot even control ourselves.

But I have more control over myself than I do most anything else in life. I can control my attitudes. I often cannot control my circumstances or how other people treat me, but I can work with God to control how I respond to life and others, as well as the choices I make.

A good first step in bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth is for God to be king over my life. When I know what God wants me to do, what the right or wrong thing to do is, will I commit with God’s help to make the right choice? Charles Sheldon once urged his congregation to ask themselves “What would Jesus do?” in every choice they made for a week. Although people unfortunately have vastly different ideas of what Jesus would do in various situations, it at least gets us to where we are not doing things that we are pretty sure God doesn’t want us to do!

It is also not God’s style to force the world to conform to his will, at least not for now. If it were his way, then evil would have stopped a long, long time ago. God will bring his kingdom with force in his own good time. In the meantime, the model of Jesus is one of “wooing” the world to God by showing the world his love. It is one of doing good in the world, of healing the sick, helping the poor, themes we will explore in later chapters.

Some tried to make God’s kingdom come by force in the days of Jesus (11:12), but God will come in force on his schedule. Our task as Christians is not to try to force America or any other nation to become a Christian nation. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to influence our world for good, especially when we are talking about helping others and making the world a better place.

There is an important distinction here. We demonstrate the spirit of Jesus when we stand against the oppression of others, when we stand for others. This is something quite different than preaching against sin in the sense of rule-breaking. Standing against oppression comes from a different spirit than making sure sinners are punished. The first is the spirit of Jesus, the second is a vindictive spirit hiding under the disguise of righteousness.

So let us work till Jesus comes. Let us work at helping others, using the “mina” or “talent” (Matt. 25:14-30) God has given us to help others. May the Spirit work through us to perform miracles in the lives of others. Let us try to influence the world to love one another and to serve its true and ultimate king.

And when we can stop oppression or work to change unjust structures of society, that is a good work. This is not forcing the world to serve God. It is forcing the world not to oppress others. We have witnessed movements in the last two hundred years that have abolished overt, public slavery. We have witnessed the empowerment of women in Western society for women to have the same opportunities and voice as men.

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). This is the way things will be in the kingdom of God. If it is possible to see the structures of modern society become a place of this sort, a color blind, gender blind society, then we will be doing good work till Jesus comes.


The kingdom work that Jesus did while he was on earth focused primarily on inviting everyone who would to be included, especially those disempowered in Jewish society. No one needed to face the coming judgment of God on the world. And God would be particularly angry at those who refused to allow in those who wanted to come.

Jesus 2 Begins

Time to start volume 2 of the Jesus series I've been writing. I'm not quite done editing the first volume, but need to get some writing momentum going in my life.
___________________
Chapter 1: Mark, the Basic Story
This is the second of two books on Jesus.  The first volume aimed to give an overview of Jesus' mission while he was on earth, the basics.  What are the core features of his ministry on earth? What are the elements that the gospels share in common, especially the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

This second volume is then interested in the unique themes of each gospel, the specific contributions each individual gospel makes to our understanding of Jesus.  How is each gospel different from the others and where does it likely fit in the history of the early church? Did the gospel writers know about the other gospels and, if so, did they interact with what the others had written?

A good place to start, though, is to summarize the core features of Jesus' earthly mission from the previous volume.  Jesus was on earth from around 6BC to AD30.  He was born in Bethlehem south of Jerusalem and grew up in Galilee about a three day's journey north of Jerusalem, not far from the Sea of Galilee.  Augustus was the Roman emperor when he was born, and Herod the Great ruled all the land of Israel as a king under Augustus.  Tiberius was emperor when they crucified him under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

His ministry began near the end of the 20's. At that time Israel was divided up with different rulers. A Roman governor ruled in the south, in Judea where Jerusalem was.  In the northwest, where Galilee was, a son of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, ruled not as a king but as what was called a "tetrarch," the "ruler of a fourth."  It was this Herod who beheaded John the Baptist.

Jesus' mission really got started after Herod arrested John "the baptizer." Jesus had traveled down to the south, to the Jordan River, and was baptized by John. John was likely preaching that God was coming both to judge the world and to re-establish his kingdom on earth. In preparation, John called the people to repent of their sins against Israel's covenant with God and wash themselves in the Jordan through baptism.

The fact that Jesus submitted to this baptism shows that he must have substantially agreed with John's message.  But while John's message focused on something that was coming, including the coming of the Messiah, Jesus' message focused on the arrival of the kingdom.  Jesus appointed twelve key disciples, or followers, symbolizing the restoration of Israel. While he was not very open about it publicly, he eventually made it clear to his disciples that he was going to be the king of the kingdom that was arriving in his ministry.

The cornerstone of Jesus' preaching and teaching was thus the kingdom of God that was starting in his ministry but would not fully arrive until some time that only God the Father knows.  He taught primarily in parables, stories that clarified the truth for some but were riddles for others. The kingdom was to be for everyone, so he targeted especially the "lost sheep," those like the poor and widows, who the powerful ignored or, worse, abused.

He healed the sick--more of those disempowered.  He cast out demons, cleaning the spiritual house of Israel in preparation for the coming rule of God on earth as it is in heaven. He trained his key followers to carry out the mission first everywhere in Israel but, as it would turn out, eventually in the whole world.  He taught them the core principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.

Lastly, he died and rose again from the dead. While many Christians focus almost exclusively on Jesus' death, this was not the focus of his time on earth. We have good reason to believe that his death generally took his disciples by surprise. Similarly, his resurrection seemed to take them by surprise as well. It's a reminder to us that we have much more to gain from Jesus than simply his death and resurrection. We have much to gain from his life as well.

The rest of this chapter continues to review the overall thrust of Jesus' earthly ministry but from a slightly different perspective. What you will find as you move through this book is that the Gospel of Mark was a primary source behind Matthew and Luke. These three gospels are called the "Synoptic" Gospels because they are similar enough to look at side by side.

So to start off, let's look at the core story of Jesus in Mark. All but about 31 verses of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke.  That fact makes Mark an excellent place to begin Matthew and Luke as well.

Jesus' Ethic for Individuals 5

... continued from Saturday
_________________
Of much more immediate importance to us as individuals is how we should apply Jesus' ethic to our daily lives. If I'm in the seventh grade and someone punches me, do I just let them get away with it? If someone takes my chocolate milk at lunch, do I offer them my dessert as well? If someone is going to beat up my friend, do I jump into the fight to help or do I just pray for them?

I'll confess that I'm not entirely sure what to say. Jesus seems to say not to fight back.  On the other hand, he cast out demons--forces them out. Walter Wink's interpretation is so tempting, that turning the cheek, going the extra mile, were responses that would shame the bully. He gives a version of oppression that makes subservience a position of strength, because the oppressed take charge of their oppression. We are having a say in our bullying by participating in it by choice.

So there were some whites in the Civil Rights era who participated with African-Americans in their social location of discrimination.  Non-violent resistance made a protest against injustice without doing harm to anyone.  People sat in a place they were not supposed to sit and allowed themselves to be dragged off to jail, forced the oppressor to oppress according to his unjust rules. It is hard not to think these sorts of actions fit the spirit of Jesus because 1) they speak to how society should be if love of one's neighbor were truly the rule and 2) they do so in a non-violent, submissive way.

"There is a time for everything," Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, and verse 8 includes a time for war and a time for peace.  When Jesus was on earth, he indicated it was not time to war against the Romans.  It was a time to conform to their games, pay their taxes, and get on with the more important mission of the kingdom. Does that mean there is not a time to fight back or work aggressively for governmental change? Probably not.

Wisdom is knowing when it's time for what. Should we work for justice in the world?  Should we speak out for the oppressed?  Surely the spirit of Jesus says "yes."  The prophets did. They spoke out for the oppressed and against the oppressors. Note that they did not speak out primarily against sin and violations of law--those were more the complaints of the Pharisees and Jesus' opponents. The prophets primarily prophesied for people, not against law-violation.

Standing up for others is always a clearer Christian value than standing up for ourselves. Jesus was standing up for others when he cast out demons. Jesus was standing up for the excluded of Israel when he overturned the tables of the money-changers. But isn't there a time to stand up for yourself as well?

A person can choose to take oppression and thus do it from a position of strength, of choice.  There is surely a time to submit to suffering. When I am the powerful one and someone with less power is striking out at me, there will often be no need for me to retaliate.  Jesus changes the rules when he makes the question one of loving my neighbor. The rule is not, "Make sure justice is done" but "How can I help you?"

But there is surely a time for justice, perhaps precisely because the oppressor is unlikely ever to change. Wisdom is again knowing when it's time for what. Force usually begets more force and escalation. Sometimes the only way to stop a cycle of violence is for a strong person to stand down, to let the last strike go unanswered...

Watch out for Power 3

... continued from Wednesday.
_____________
Jesus addressed a specific context in Galilee, although the Gospel of Matthew presumably wanted its audience to see this teaching as applying to them as well. However, we at least have to ask the extent to which Jesus' teaching on non-violent conformity was local or timeless and universal. What exactly might Jesus say--or Paul for that matter--if he were addressing a democratic society or one where the state at least seemed less evil? This is the difficult task we face together of working out faith in a world that is much different in many respects than that of Jesus, and we have to "test the spirits" carefully when people like me make suggestions.

The first thought that occurs to me is that Jesus would probably tell us to be very, very careful when we try to wade into the world of politics and power. You've heard the saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  It's not in the Bible, but it fits the sense we get in the gospels that the vast majority of the humans in power in the story--except for Jesus--are morally questionable. The high priest, Pilate, the Jewish leaders, they are not the ones to model oneself after.

Sure, there are some with power who are true seekers.  Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, the centurion, they are the exceptions. But in general, "it it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:24), where wealth is a form of power.

Christians believe that although Christ had all power, he "emptied himself" of that status and willingly took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7). Paul says that we are to serve each other this way as believers.  And we should not too quickly dismiss Jesus' instructions to the rich young man when he told him to "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor" (Mark 10:21). How easy it is for us to slough off this statement as just something for this one man, while obsessing on more peculiar statements like "Women should remain silent in the churches" (1 Cor. 14:34). Jesus' trajectory away from money and possessions was completely consistent throughout his ministry. [1]

Yet we do see individuals with significant resources and possessions in Scripture. While we need to linger longer on the warnings of Jesus and the New Testament against wealth, it is true that this trajectory is not absolute. Those with power can do good in this world and in the kingdom. God can use a pagan king like Cyrus to accomplish his will (Isa. 45:1). There is a time for the Christian statesman and the Christian patron.

I think of the curious statement Jesus makes in Matthew 10:16 to be "shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." A snake has power. Surely that's why we fear them so much, especially in places where the primary snake is a rattlesnake, a cobra, or a black mamba.  The dove has no thought of harming others. It hardly has any sense of its own danger.

The two images together are striking, to have the power to harm but to be harmless. Surely this is Jesus' philosophy of power. There is a rare person who can have immense power and yet use it for good. We may all think we would be the exception. The ambitious Christian will no doubt gladly smile, raise his or her right hand and say, "Yes, yes, I seek power only to do good." But it will not be true in the vast majority of cases...

[1] By contrast, numerous women ministered in the early church from Priscilla, who led the way in discipling Apollos (Acts 18:26), to Phoebe, who was a deacon (Rom. 16:1), to Junia, who was an apostle (Rom. 16:7).

Turn the Other Cheek 2

... continued from Monday.
_____________
So the ethic Jesus taught in relation to secular authorities was an "interim ethic," not in the sense of an ethic only for while he was on earth but only for the time before Jesus returned. There would be a time for confrontation of the worldly powers. But God would take the lead and now was not the time.

Neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament authors were addressing a situation where it was at all likely that believers would be able to transform the structures of society. The presumption of both what Jesus and the New Testament says is that you will be in the position of the weak and disempowered. Jesus' ethic is thus an ethic for the oppressed and powerless in society.

Even then, we should not assume that the specifics of the approach Jesus took at a specific time and place in history is meant to be the approach for all times and all places. Jesus largely advocated non-violent conformity to the will of the Romans. "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles" (Matt. 5:41). "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well" (5:40).

Walter Wink famously suggested that these were actually actions of non-violent resistance. [1] By responding in these sorts of ways, you shame the person.  "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" (5:39).  You thus force the person to strike you back-handed, an allegedly shameful way to hit someone.

Perhaps Wink captured a valid dimension of Jesus' rhetoric. But Matthew 5 puts these comments in the category of not getting revenge.  The Old Testament Law says, "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deut. 19:21).  But Jesus says, by contrast, "do not resist an evil person" (Matt. 5:39), and the next paragraph is about loving one's enemies. The attitude Jesus advocates here is not one of defiance--not even non-violent defiance--but conformity with loving hope toward one's oppressor.

By the way, it is revealing once again that Jesus has the authority to modify Old Testament Law.  The sequence in Matthew 5--"you have heard but I say"--is not simply a deepening of the law, as we saw in the previous chapter.  Jesus modifies the Law in a substantial way. The Law says "Show no pity." Jesus says in effect that his "fulfilling of the Law" (Matt. 5:17), using the love commandment as the guide, shuffles and changes some of the Law. Here is another example where, at least on an individual level, the normal practice of Deuteronomy is negated. [2]

Jesus addressed a specific context in Galilee, although the Gospel of Matthew presumably wanted its audience to see this teaching as applying to them as well. However, we at least have to ask the extent to which Jesus' teaching on non-violent conformity was local or timeless and universal...

[1] E.g., Engaging the Powers.

[2] However, a key distinction is that Deuteronomy primarily targets a "civil" context.  This is the context of societal justice.  Jesus is addressing an individual context.

Conflict with the State 1

Thus far in this chapter we have looked at some of the conflicts Jesus had over his authority and some of the conflicts he had over differing values. In this final section, I want to look at the way Jesus engaged the secular authorities of his day, especially the Romans. Jesus really didn't get into conflict with the powers of the "state" until the end of his earthly mission, but he had some things to say along the way.

One of Jesus' most famous sayings on this topic comes in Mark 12, when some individuals are trying to trick Jesus. They ask Jesus "Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?" (12:14). If Jesus says "no," they can perhaps get him in trouble with the Romans. If Jesus says "yes," then perhaps they can get him in trouble with those who think he is the messiah, the king of the Jews.

Jesus' asks to see a coin and gives his well-known response, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (12:17). The saying drives a strong wedge between matters of God and matters of the secular government, as if they are two distinct kingdoms that have nothing to do with each other. Unsurprisingly, different Christian groups have seen in this response slightly different models for how Christians should engage the culture around them. [1]

Some have taken Jesus to imply a kind of isolationist position, as if Christians should not get involved in broader culture or politics. The Amish would be an extreme example of this approach, but there are Christians who refuse to vote or engage political issues today. Some Christians have traditionally been "conscientious objectors" who do not participate in the wars of a country.  Those things are the realm of Caesar and a Christian should stay out of them.

The Lutheran tradition has generally taken a different tact. Jesus seems to say to pay the tax. In a fascinating story in Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus indicates that they should not have to pay the temple tax. But so that they will not cause trouble, he has him go fishing.  In the mouth of the fish he catches is a four drachma coin, with which Peter pays the tax for himself and Jesus.

So the Lutheran tradition has usually taken the approach that we are in these two kingdoms at the same time. They have nothing to do with each other, and they are in conflict with each other. It is impossible to reconcile the two to each other. So our lives are full of contradictions. The lives we live in the secular world don't fit with the lives we live in the spiritual realm.

Both of the above approaches seem extreme. If we look a little more closely at what Jesus might have meant, there is first the matter of coinage and money. The world of Galilee was primarily an agrarian world and a world of trade. In our world today, we cannot escape using money. But in Jesus' world, money might easily be seen more as a foreign element, the stuff of taxes and foreign powers. The coin with Caesar's face on it has nothing to do with God. Give it back to Caesar.

The words of John 19:11 to Pilate capture the situation well: "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." In the background of Jesus' conformist approach was surely the belief that God was going to come and judge the Romans in due time.  As Paul would later put it, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? ... God will judge those outside" (1 Cor. 5:12-13). [2]

So the ethic Jesus taught in relation to secular authorities was an "interim ethic," not in the sense of an ethic only for while he was on earth but only for the time before Jesus returned...

[1] The classic here is H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture. There have been a number of responses in recent days, including D. A. Carson and others***

[2] Interestingly, Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 to indicate that, when Christ returns, we will take part in the judgment of the world. It's just not a function he saw Christians performing in the meantime.

Not Being Hypocrites 4

... continued from yesterday
_______________
Standing in the background of these sorts of judgments is our picture of what God is like. Is God's primary feature his justice, understood in the modern sense? Then perhaps punishment is his primary action in relation to humanity and the world. Then perhaps wrath toward wrongdoing is the primary lens through which to view him. [1]

This is not Jesus' understanding of God. For Jesus, God is like the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He is yearning and longing for the return of his son who has gone astray. He demands nothing of the returning son. There is no legal process for his return; no forms have to be filled out. Instead, he throws him a party.

The God of Jesus does dispense final judgment, as I explore in chapter 8. But mercy is his more dominant mode of operation and justice understood in the sense of stopping those who oppress the weak. This is a key distinction. Many think of prophetic anger and divine justice in terms of punishing those who deviate from some abstract law or rule. By contrast, prophetic anger primarily had to do with those who oppress--it was about being for people more than being against sin in some abstract sense.

There are just a few key lessons to take away from Jesus' conflict with various leaders of Israel over values. The first is of course to have the right values. Justice, mercy, and faithfulness is the short list Jesus gives in Matthew 23. Justice is about standing up for those who are weak or oppressed. Mercy is about making exceptions to the rules because you see the possibility to grow and learn a lesson. Faithfulness is about living always with God and the greater good in view, not my own selfish good.

A second application is to "major on the major," not to "major on the minor," as the saying goes. What is really important? When you are focused on what is truly important, you will make exceptions when it is appropriate. You will see when it is appropriate to ignore purity rules or Sabbath laws. Jesus says at one point, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?" (Matt. 12:11). The "rules" are meant for our good, and most of them are not absolute rules, meaning that there are exceptional situations.

Finally, it's bad to be a hypocrite.  A hypocrite is someone who wants to look like she has Jesus' values but really is only putting on a show. The outside looks clean, but the heart is evil and full of the bones of the dead. Some of us don't even realize we are hypocrites. The human heart has an amazing capacity for self-deception. Often we cannot change ourselves, but coming clean with ourselves about our true motives is a first step. God and others can bring us the rest of the way.

[1] Sometimes this view is confused with a focus on God's sovereignty, his being in control. But this is a circular line of thinking--it assumes what God would want if he were in control. God can be in control and insist that justice is the primary focus, or God can be in control and insist that love is the primary focus.

Standing for the Right Things 4

... continued from yesterday.
___________
Jesus calls this approach to morality hypocrisy, putting on a good show on the outside while having nothing of value on the inside.  One of the most striking images Jesus gives in this chapter is that of a "whitewashed tomb" that is clean on the outside but inside is "full of the bones of the dead" (Matt. 23:27). So it is all too easy to give the appearance of doing all the right things--dotting all the i's, crossing all the t's, and filling out all the paperwork in triplicate--when in reality one's heart is far from God (cf. Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8).

In the end, it all boils down to the twin love commandments that the previous chapter explored: love God and love neighbor. We are faithful to God, centering our lives around his interests and values more than around ourselves. And we know that his values more than anything else are to love one another (1 John 4:7-8).

As I argued in chapter 3, justice in a Jewish context was not about making sure wrongdoers are punished. That's what we mean by the word "justice."  In a Jewish context, justice was about making sure that those like widows, orphans, and the poor were taken care of.  When Micah 6:8 says that the Lord requires Israel "to act justly," the prophet is thinking more than anything else about things like having "dishonest scales" (6:11). The prophet is thinking of the rich who cheat the people of Israel (6:12). It is from passages like this one in the Prophets that the phrase "social justice" comes.

The teachers of the Law that Jesus rails against were unjust in similar ways to those the prophets indicted.  At one point, Jesus said that these people "devoured widow's houses" (Mark 12:40) at the same time that they make lengthy prayers and enjoy the most important seats in synagogues and in banquets (12:39).  To clean the inside of their cup, Luke 11 says, they need to be generous to the poor (Luke 11:41).

One of the most fascinating parts of Matthew 23 is the fact that these Pharisees, although they acted exactly like those from the past who persecuted the prophets, somehow thought they were different from those who persecuted the prophets. "You say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets'" (23:30). It's something we need to be careful about today, that we don't find ourselves opposing Jesus' values while thinking we are standing up for him.

For example, we can certainly debate about the best way truly to help the poor or to address those who are illegally in the country. But there is little room for debate about what Jesus' values would have been. He would have strongly advocated to help those who are in need in the most holistic sense. A lot of Americans earn plenty of money but are "poor" in the sense of being overwhelmingly in debt. Jesus would have advocated a course of action to heal their lives and habits every bit as much as to heal those in a cycle of generational poverty, unable to see a way of living that is not dependent on the government for help.

We can debate about the best specific course of action in each case. What is clear beyond any reasonable doubt is that Jesus would have pushed to help them in the most wholesome way. He would not have advocated an approach that says, "They've made their bed. Now they need to lie in it." Justice for Jesus was not about making sure those who messed up got their "just desserts." It was quite the opposite, actually.

That is not to say that experiencing consequences should not be part of the equation. The key is that the function of consequences is to teach a person how important it is to do better. The function for Jesus would not be to punish them because they have violated some rule or law. That is where some Christians end up making the rules the goal, like Jesus' opponents did, rather than the true underlying goal and value, which was to help those in trouble.

An important moment in my own spiritual pilgrimage was an Easter morning in 1987 when I read through the book of Galatians.  It dawned on me that my "rule-oriented" approach to Christianity was not that of Paul and Jesus.  Imagine my surprise to realize that my way of thinking about God was actually much more like that of Paul's opponents and Jesus' opponents than that of Paul and Jesus themselves!

So when my forebears criticized Martin Luther King Jr. for being a law-breaker, they were on the opposite side of Jesus.  Jesus would have seen the injustice of making African-Americans being forced to sit at the back of a bus and would have eagerly broken human laws in favor of the divine principle. The example he has left us is of someone who followed the rules when they were innocuous, but of completely ignoring them when a matter of injustice was involved.

So whatever we think about laws of immigration or about securing our borders, there is no reasonable doubt about what Jesus' approach would be to a specific human in need in front of him. His approach would not be, "Sorry, Charlie, you broke the law and now you're going to starve to death."  His first thought would be, "What is the most loving thing to do for this person in front of me," not "Now you're going to pay for breaking the law."

Standing in the background of these sorts of judgments is our picture of what God is like...

Intentions are the Key 3

... continued from Wednesday.
_______________
The problem is that the Scriptures inevitably have to be interpreted and, even once we interpret them, we constantly have to apply them to new kinds of situations. If the Law says, "you will not do any work on the Sabbath," then the next question is, "What exactly is work?" For example, how far would a person need to walk on the Sabbath before he or she had worked? Or does walking even fit in the category of work at all, or playing on a playground?

There is a certain personality that is driven to clarify these sorts of issues, to do away with ambiguities. If you tell me I must honor my father and mother, then what does that look like? What if my father is abusive? What if my mother is an alcoholic?  It is always honoring to obey your parent? I don't want to disobey the commandment, so what exactly do I need to do in each circumstance?

If I am not to kill, then is capital punishment killing? What about war? Is killing in war a violation of the commandment?  These are exactly the sorts of questions that the "traditions of the elders" tried to answer. Some Pharisees no doubt were strict because they wanted to make sure without a doubt that they were doing the right thing. Others no doubt enjoyed the rules a little too much and became legalists who lost sight of the point.

The kinds of personalities that are wired to answer these sorts of questions can be very helpful to us. They're the kinds of people we want to help us organize an event or keep our financial records. They're detailed people who can make the difference between a good idea that never happens and something great in the real world.

And we should not be too quick to criticize how many rules the Pharisees had.  The Law in the Bible may have had 613 rules, according to popular count. But we have far more traffic rules.  Does everyone in the car have to wear a seat belt? How far do I have to stay behind the car in front of me or turn off my brights because of oncoming traffic? Rules can come with good intentions, and they can also take over and strangle the life out of us and others.

It is at this point that Jesus turns to the question of attitude. Some Pharisees, like so many Christians, lost sight of the main point. It comes down to our hearts. Evil comes from the inside out, not from the outside in. What you eat can't really make you unclean in any meaningful sense. Uncleanness is a matter of a person's heart or intentions. Out of the heart come the evil things that truly defile us (Mark 7:21-23).

This is Ethics 101.  Jesus here gives us the core fundamentals of what is important to God. Yes, the specifics of what we do can be important. If I kill someone, that is very significant, no matter why I did it. But God's evaluation of me is solely based on my intentions. Did I intentionally kill the person? Why did I do it? Was I trying to protect someone? Was I negligent?

Notice that what I know is the least important element in the moral equation. The implication would seem to be that my specific beliefs are the least important aspect of who I am as I stand before God. Paul also says that "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).  He is saying that far more important than what I believe is that I act with complete commitment to God in relation to whatever I believe.

Wrong beliefs can be harmful to myself and others, to be sure. It is important not to harm or wrong others--even with good intentions.  But in the long run, my attitude is the first and most important order of business as far as morality is concerned.

This is the recurring critique of the Pharisees in the gospels. [1] They "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." They may go to great lengths to keep a little gnat out of their cereal bowl while crunching on some rather large cockroaches.  Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees for being strict. He didn't have a problem with them tithing a tenth of various spices--a tenth of my mint to the temple, a tenth of my cummin, a tenth of my dill (Matt. 23:23). He didn't criticize them for straining out the gnats.

The problem was that they missed the really important aspects of the Law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. In fact, the individuals in view here used the technicalities of the Law to get out of keeping these core values. While the purpose of taking an oath is to guarantee to someone else that you are telling the truth, some apparently swore by things they thought didn't count so that they could give the appearance of telling the truth while still lying. So they swore by the temple or altar instead of the gold in the temple or the sacrifice on the altar (Matt. 23:16-19).

Jesus calls this approach to morality hypocrisy, putting on a good show on the outside while having nothing of value on the inside...

[1] See chapter 3 for the important reminder that not all Pharisees were this way. For example, Nicodemus in John 3 is a Pharisee and some Pharisees became Christians and yet were able to remain Pharisees too (cf. Acts 15:5; 23:6).

Traditions of the Elders 2

... continued from Sunday.
_____________
... But before we go any further, we should probably be a little more precise about exactly what "rules" we are talking about. It is common to call some of the rules Jesus didn't pay much attention to as the "traditions of the elders." For example, the Pharisees ask Jesus in Mark 7:5 why his followers ignore traditions about how they wash their hands. Jesus’ reaction is fairly typical. He points out that their priorities are out of whack. They pay a lot of attention to their own traditions and yet miss the blatant values of Scripture.

As an example, Jesus points out how some individuals use traditions about dedicating things to God in order to get out of taking care of their parents.  They simply say, "all the resources I would have used to take care of my parents belong to the Lord," and then they can't take care of their parents (7:11-13). "Sorry, Dad and Mom. I gave away all your food and clothes to God."

This sort of legal maneuvering in the service of injustice is exactly the kind of thing that really angers us today. A person may know how to use the technicalities of the rules to get out of doing the heart of why the rules are there in the first place. Some institutions get bogged down with bureaucratic nonsense and process, and never actually accomplish anything. We hate it in government, when it seems like nothing ever gets done or when a criminal gets off on some technicality.

It is easy to place the blame on the fact that these Pharisees were following human traditions rather than the Bible itself. That is indeed an element of the passage. They are following "merely human rules." What is harder is to see how often we do exactly the same thing.

For example, once when I was a boy and visiting a worship center, I was told that I could not swing on the playground because it was Sunday. The logic went something like this. We are to "remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy" (Exod. 20:8). According to Exodus 20:9-11 and other places in the Old Testament (e.g., Neh. 13:15-21), what this means is not to do work on Saturday.

 But in the interpretation of this person, Sunday is now the Christian Sabbath, so a Christian shouldn't work on Sunday. Further, what is the work of a child?  Is not playing on a playground the work of a child? Therefore, children should not play on a playground on Sunday.

Now it didn't harm me to have to leave the playground. But it is helpful to realize that it was exactly this sort of logic that led the Pharisees to insist people wash their hands before eating. It had nothing to do with hygiene. It had to do with the purity rules of Leviticus. They were trying to make sure that you didn't inadvertently make yourself unclean because of accidentally touching something unclean. They were being extra-holy.

Some Protestant traditions have built this warning into their core statements. The Methodist tradition drew from the Anglican tradition a statement that the Scriptures "contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." [1] It reminds us immediately of Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees in Mark 7.

The problem is that the Scriptures inevitably have to be interpreted and, even once we interpret them, we constantly have to apply them to new kinds of situations...

[1] Taken from the Discipline of the Wesleyan Church (2008). However, the Wesleyan is simply drawing from Wesley and the Methodist tradition, and Wesley took the statement from the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church?

Conflict over Values 1

I've been dripping through a chapter on the conflict Jesus got into with various leaders around him.  My last post on the subject finished a section I'm calling "Conflict over Authority."  Now I want to start a second section called "Conflict over Values."
___________
Jesus' first conflict in Mark is about whether he has the authority to forgive sins. His second conflict follows almost immediately. Some scribes and Pharisees have problems with the fact that Jesus accepts an invitation to eat with many tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:14-17).

I've already explored Jesus' interest in the lost sheep of Israel in chapter 3. In this one, I'm interested in the fact that Jesus' values got him into conflict.  One of Jesus' values was that people trump rules for their own sake. So it was more important to Jesus to reclaim the tax collectors and others of Israel who had gone astray than to worry about Levitical purity rules. The Parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates these priorities as well--saving a life trumps purity rules.

Another story in Mark 2 takes it even further. If redeeming the lost trumped the rules and saving a life trumped the rules, Jesus interaction over plucking grain showed that even basic hunger could trump the rules for him. In Mark 2:23-28, he and his disciples are passing through some grain fields on the Sabbath, on Saturday. Some Pharisees criticize this followers for violating the fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping in holy" (Exod. 20:8).

What is truly interesting about Jesus' response is that he does not say what we might expect.  He does not say, "You Pharisees don't understand what this commandment is really about." What he does is tell about an incident where a high priest gave holy food to David and his men to eat, something that was only lawful for priests to eat (Mark 2:26). His point is that it was appropriate on that occasion to make an exception to the rule.

We should probably keep in mind that there is an implicit comparison here between David the king and Jesus the messiah. Jesus may not be saying that just anyone is allowed to pluck grain on the Sabbath. He may be saying that he is about to be king just as David was about to be king, and therefore it is appropriate to make an exception. Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath" (2:27). His authority trumps even that of  Scripture and the Ten Commandments.

But before we go any further, we should probably be a little more precise about exactly what "rules" we are talking about...

Forgive Sins 5

... continued from before
_______________
A final issue raised by Jesus' healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 is the authority to forgive sins. Given the association between sin and sickness in their minds, perhaps these teachers of the law had the mindset that the paralytic's condition was God's judgment on him or his family for something he or they had done. In that sense, what authority did Jesus have to pronounce forgiveness if healing did not accompany? Perhaps in their minds, if God forgave the man, God would heal the man. Of course Jesus made his line of questioning moot when he went on to heal him.

We might leave the issue there if we did not find an intriguing charge by Jesus to his disciples in John 20. It is the evening of Easter Sunday. Jesus appears to ten of the disciples (minus Thomas).  He breathes on them and invites them to receive the Holy Spirit, perhaps John's equivalent of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Then comes Jesus' startling pronouncement: "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

This statement would not be shocking if Jesus were merely saying, "When you know I've forgiven someone, feel free to announce it to them."  It then becomes an empty statement.  "If you make it through the traffic light, you have made it through the traffic light."  Yeah?  So what?

What is shocking is that Jesus seems to be saying one or both of two things. First, someone may want to have their sins forgiven and I am giving you the authority to keep them from being forgiven. Secondly, there may be people who do not want their sins forgiven that you can forgive anyway. The first is problematic because it implies an unloving, unchristlike attitude to the point of causing someone's condemnation. The second is problematic because it implies that we can dispense out salvation to those who have not made an act of faith.

It would be nice if this were merely a statement about healing. Jesus would be giving the authority to heal and thus, by implication, to repair the consequences of sins in some situations. Surely at least we can take the statement that far. Jesus has given the church authority to administer discipline and, if you would, penance in consequence of sin. Penance is a sacrament in the catholic tradition that helps a person work through their guilt by doing some act of repentance. Afterward, that person's sin is considered forgiven.

While Protestants generally have strong reservations about such things, perhaps there are elements of such practices that are not only biblical but healthy. In my tradition, the Wesleyan tradition, we used to talk about doing restitution for a wrong you had done. In effect, it amounted to a kind of penance for a wrong you had done. You "made up" for something you had done by doing something.

The high Protestant traditions, especially the Lutheran tradition, has rightly suggested that we cannot earn God's forgiveness by any amount of "work" of this sort. That must remain our core theological position. Forgiveness for sins is given to all who genuinely seek God and repent, who turn in their hearts in a new direction. This is a matter between them and God into which no human can interfere. I cannot stop someone from coming to God and, ultimately, I cannot help someone come to God beyond a certain point if it is ultimately his or her choice.

But I can be a channel for them to feel God's forgiveness.  Restitution and penance resonate with the human psyche, with the way we are built. We may not be able to "feel" forgiven without action of some sort. I'm reminded of a famous scene in an old movie called The Mission, where a notoriously wicked man cannot feel forgiven for killing his brother. [1] Although it is unnecessary, the priest finally charges him to carry a large load of armor on his back through the jungles of the Amazon.

At one point, he struggles to the top of a waterfall with the tremendous load on his back. He is almost to the top but then, in his weakness, is pulled back by the load. He is in danger of falling back down to his death. The priest comes and cuts the rope holding it and the weight falls to the bottom of the waterfall. Suddenly the man starts crying uncontrollably.  The load is lifted.  He feels forgiven.

As a Protestant, I do not believe that penance or restitution is necessary to have God's forgiveness for sins, nor do I believe that anyone can keep someone from forgiveness if he or she genuinely is seeking it from God. But I do believe that God has given the church the authority to discipline those who do wrong and that the church can require a person to do certain acts to demonstrate repentance and feel forgiveness. This authority has been abused in the past and is a sacred charge, but it is the best way for us to apply these striking words of John 20.

One additional word on this verse seems appropriate. There are times when we can experience doubt or uncertainty about God. Particularly in this day and age, there are many challenges to old ways of thinking that can confuse and cause doubt. Some are not bothered. They have the mixed blessing of not being troubled with ideas that don't fit the ideas with which they start out. [2]

However, most of us at some point have questions. A growing phenomenon today is when older saints in the church begin to have questions near the ends of their lives. Similarly, it is quite normal these days for those in their late twenties to experience serious questions about matters of faith.

In those instances, fellow believers can play a significant role in having faith for those who are doubting. I've heard of ministers having faith for older saints, even for former church leaders, on their death beds. And I've heard of younger believers having faith for fellow Christians questioning in their twenties.  I remain firmly a Protestant in my sense that faith is a personal and individual matter. But perhaps we have also missed out on the role that the body of Christ can play as channels of God's grace and forgiveness to one another, as well as a means of grace through discipline.

[1] info***

[2] It's a mixed blessing because it is overwhelmingly unlikely that any one person starts out with all the right ideas. Those who are blissfully unchanged by any new thought are people who inevitably spend their lives in ignorance about many things.

Opposition to us today 3

... continued from Saturday
______________
... Who were these teachers of the law?  Mark doesn't identify them as Pharisees and this is just as well, since the Pharisees were primarily located in Jerusalem. [1] Jesus also is not in a big city, just in the seaside village of Capernaum. Most likely, then, these are very local individuals who play some official teaching role in the synagogue.

We can't know if there was an actual synagogue building in Capernaum. The building there now that pilgrims visit comes from over a hundred years later. In general, synagogues at this time were gatherings that usually did not have devoted buildings. [2] We have few archaeological examples of actual synagogue buildings at this point in history. Some did exist, but not in the prevalent way we now assume. Perhaps these gatherings were in homes, as the gathering in this story.

We should not be too quick to condemn these teachers. We know so much about Jesus in hindsight. To them, Jesus was a miracle worker that they definitely needed to check out. But he probably didn't fit their preconceptions of the kind of man God would choose. Wasn't he born under suspicious circumstances? Isn't he an artisan who works in wood and such--on the lower end of society to be sure? [3]

Some opposition is sincere and some comes for dubious reasons. Perhaps these teachers were completely sincere in their opposition to Jesus. Admittedly, it doesn't feel that way as we continue to read the gospel texts. It feels like they were intimidated by someone whose authority called their knowledge and authority into question. And rather than step back and submit to someone greater than them, they used their energies to oppose him.

Opposition usually involves more than just disagreement over the issues. There are usually personal dimensions involved. Sometimes we are jealous of others and what we perceive as their advantages or good fortune. Sometimes we feel embarrassed by them because their strengths seem to expose our weaknesses. Sometimes they make us feel insecure in our position or habits of living. Sometimes such insecurity is real and sometimes it is imagined.

Of course others are wired to enjoy opposing others. Some people have a lust for power and opposing others is their way of gaining more. No one must stand in the way of their ambition. It's not clear to me that the teachers of the law in Mark were of this sort.

Finally, there are a few people who genuinely oppose others because they believe the ideas or actions of another person are dangerous. They of course can be right or they can have a zeal not based on knowledge (Rom. 10:2). At least some of Jesus' opposition probably was sincere, but a great deal more probably was not.

Much of the time, the opposition doesn't seem to bother Jesus.  By and large, Jesus doesn't go looking for opposition, it comes to him. He simply conducts his mission and moves on. He doesn't feel threatened by the opposition. He is confident in what he does. In the case of the paralytic, he substantiates his claim to forgive sins by healing the man.  

We may very well also face opposition and conflict today as we try to do God's will in this world. Unlike Jesus, we may sometimes be in the wrong. There is a time for us to examine ourselves and see if we are on the right path. Are my motives pure or am I on a self-serving mission? Do I genuinely understand God's will or is my own zeal not based on knowledge? I may not be able to see myself clearly. I may need to seek out someone else who I trust to be honest with me.

But we should not always second guess ourselves either. When we have done our best to know God's will, we should move forward with it as best we can. We should not do so with an attitude. Looking down on those who disagree with us is itself a sign that our motives are not pure. Rather, we should have a peace that is not distracted by opposition.

If those who oppose us are praying for us, we should welcome that. How can prayer ever be a bad thing if we are aligned with God's will?  If opposition is self-serving or ambitious, we should beware and be wise as serpents. We usually cannot make others do what is right.  We can only make sure that our own motives are pure and that we are walking circumspectly.  We may need to seek out allies or counsel.

There was a time when Jesus counselled his disciples to "shake the dust off your feet" and move on (Matt. 10:14). You cannot change someone else's heart.  God usually allows them to resist. It is not about winning but about being faithful. We cannot always get everyone on the same page. There is a time to move forward with those who are with us and a time when enough are against us that we should move on and shake the dust off our feet...

[1] So much so, in fact, that E. P. Sanders questions whether Jesus ever even had direct contact with Pharisees proper outside of Jerusalem.

[2] See Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue.

[3] Although most of his work is highly questionable, J. D. Crossan has looked at some of these social dynamics. ***

Conflict with Leaders 1

Conflict seems an almost inevitable part of human life. Even those who try to please everyone eventually get into conflict when the people they want to please are pulling in different directions. "You can't please all the people all the time." Sometimes no matter what choice you make, you're going to upset someone--even if you make no choice at all.

Jesus got into conflict. Most of the time, Jesus didn't go looking for the conflict. It came to him. In that sense, Jesus is not a model for "in your face" zealotry. Conflict seems inevitable, but the only time Jesus sought out conflict was when he threw over the tables in the temple.

Nevertheless, those who like conflict sometimes think they are simply following Jesus' example. For example, there is the rebel, who uses Jesus as a model for being anti-establishment. Jesus "stuck it to the man." But perhaps they miss that Jesus ate with "the man" for a while until "the man" decided he didn't like Jesus.

Others use Jesus as a model of being against liberalism.  It's hard to know even how to make sense of this one. The Pharisees were far more conservative than Jesus was. And Jesus' objection to religious leaders largely had to do with their neglect of the poor and disempowered--hardly a position we associate with conservatism today.

When John the Baptist was arrested, it was Jesus' time to take over the mission of proclaiming the kingdom of God. Obviously the crowds liked most of what he had to say. But he also came into conflict with others as he furthered the mission. He came into conflict with those who wanted to follow the letter of the law. He came into conflict with the leaders of Israel. He eventually came into conflict with the state. In this chapter I want to look at Jesus as a model for conflict.