Hate what God Hates...Whatever that is

Last week I visited a local church. It’s one that I’ve visited a few times over the past few years. I find meaning in the liturgy there. It’s not like the evangelical free church that I was a part of for many years. This church understands the importance of symbol and celebration in a way that actually embodies, at least how I understand it, the work of God in worship. However, the senior pastor made a statement during a prayer that puzzled me. He prayed that we would love what God loves, and hate what God hates. Now, to most evangelicals, this sounds like a good prayer. It is asking God to show us how and where to direct our affection and our disdain. It seems to be asking for wisdom and discernment. Good things, right? But, there is more to this, I think. First, what does God love and hate? The prayer left this wide open to every speculation and opinion. Although, in his sermon he alluded to some moral concerns, primarily directed to young people, there was no direction for any of us to take in order to discern these things. So, I decided to take a quick trip through the Scripture to see if I could find anything that could help me to love the things God loves, and to hate what God hates.

First, I want to say that this is in no way a comprehensive study. Most Christians would not understand it if it was. This is a quick view that any interested person could do in a short amount of time. It is, in its brevity, accessible to anyone.

In the New Testament I found very few references to God hating anyone or anything. There is a reference to Mal. 1:2 in Romans 9. It reads that God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. In the Romans context, Paul was trying to explain God’s sovereignty in the form of election. God will have mercy on who God chooses. It’s not up to human actions. In the Malachi reference, it appears that God was explaining that through divine choice, God considered Esau as an enemy. Again, no reason other than God’s choice. PLEASE NOTE that this is an example of God’s own divine choice. It is not something that we could ever possibly act out on our own. We cannot hate Esau because we do not have a reason to. God alone gets to make that call. Besides, for the pastor’s prayer above to have any meaning for us today, we would need to know who the heck Esau is. We cannot hate Esau.

In Hebrews 1:9 we find that Jesus apparently hated lawlessness, but loved righteousness. Again, no definitions here. What did the writer mean by lawlessness? Kittel, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, wrote that in this particular instance, lawlessness could be synonymous with sinfulness. So, the writer was basically making the statement that Jesus hated sin. But, the sin, or lawlessness here appears to be that which Jesus hated in his own life! Not in anyone else’s. Because of this, God set him above his companions. Ok, so we can learn to hate sin IN OUR OWN LIVES. This text does not give us privilege to hate it in anyone else’s life.

There is a statement in Revelation that is a tad confusing. Apparently, God hated the deeds of someone referred to as Nicolaitans. No one really knows for sure who these folks were, nor what deeds are being referred to. Can’t hate what we don’t know about.

So far, there isn’t much that I can find that would help us to hate what God hates. Mostly because, it doesn’t appear that God hates too much.

The Hebrew testament has some interesting things to say about what God hates. Without giving specific references, I found that God hates dishonest gain. Hmm… If we were to bring that statement forward a couple thousand years, perhaps God would not be happy with Western economic systems that reward those who get ‘gain’ using any means, including dishonest ones. Of course, when these people or institutions are found out, there is a great public outcry for a day or two. Then, back to business as usual. Maybe we could find an object of hatred there. But, as Jesus told those who brought the adulteress to him, let whoever is without sin toss the first rock.

The Scripture is clear in many places that God hates idolatry…all idolatry. What can we learn from that? Most people would define idol worship as anything that a person places importance on at the exclusion of other things, especially God. That could be money, house, job, spouse/kids, lover, prestige, RV, or cable TV. Here again, though, it is idolatry that we have in our life that is important here. It’s not up to us to point out the idolatry that we may sense in others. We are pretty much incapable of having accurate discernment.

In Proverbs chapter 6 the writer gave a list of things that God hates. Now, with this kind of list, the main point is usually the last item in the list. In this one that item is one who spreads strife among brothers. In fact, all of the items are interpersonal things. Lying, shedding innocent blood, etc. God apparently doesn’t like it when people treat other people badly. Ok, I can understand that. So, how does that play out as we relate to the LGBT community? What’s that look like as we objectify and marginalize women? Immigrants? The poor? Just something to think about.

There are other texts that I could reference, but, I’ll finish with this one. Amos 5:21-24,

21 “I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.

22   “Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them;

And I will not even look at the  peace offerings of your fatlings.

                   23  “Take away from Me the noise of your songs;

I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.

                   24  “But let justice roll down like waters

And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Perhaps, now I’m just speculating here, God isn’t all that happy when people use that authority of the pulpit to speak for God. At least, when making general statements that are loaded with emotion. Maybe our church leaders would do well to make sure that the words that come out of their mouths are accurate and precise. From what I’ve found out, these are the ones who may experience God’s displeasure.

I saw this cartoon over at Dr. John Byron's blog. For me, it sums up the position of biblicists. Folks who come to the scripture with presuppositions that specify how God must act, speak, exist in order to shore up a poorly designed position of biblical inerrancy. More on that to come.

Peter Enns and Adam

There is an interesting thread beginning over at http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/.
Dr. John Byron has blogged about Peter Enns' book, The Evolution of Adam: What theBible Does and Doesn’t say about Human Origins (Brazos Press, 2012).
The book has the potential to free many from the shackles of biblical idolatry, (bibliolatry). So many of us put the scripture in bondage to something that it was never intended to be. It is not a history, although it contains some. It is not intended to be science. Regarding some of the factors that Enns proposes we approach Adam today, Dr. Byron wrote, "(1) literalism is not an option, (2) that the Bible and science speak different languages and ask different questions, (3) that inspiration should embrace God’s use of cultural idioms, and (4) that a rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not just adding evolution to theology."
I am waiting anxiously for Amazon to get my copy of Enns' book into my hands. It sounds like a refreshing take on an old discussion.

The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

The ongoing discussions about biblical inerrancy continues to fascinate me. I've read the Chicago definition. I find it wanting. Mostly, because it tries to define God in an extremely narrow manner. It also, I feel errantly, raises the biblical text to the place of godhood. It is, as they say, bibliolatry. What really got me thinking about this was the nastiness that many display when this question comes up.
While struggling with this, and other issues related to the biblical literalist position, a professor of Old Testament asked an interesting question. While considering both Ruth and Esther as stories that most likely were not accounts of actual events, he asked if it was possible for truth to be expressed in fiction. Hmm....Heck Yeah! I began to think about the story of Scripture as narrative...a love story from Yahweh to creation. The inconsistencies in the text disappeared as did the battle between science and theology. In this world all can live together in the discussion. Inspiration has never been an issue with me. The text is inspired. It is, however, free to express God's love, mercy, compassion, etc. without the hindrance of having to line up with, or do away with observable truth. Yea, God!
Anyway, I bring this up to share a link to another blog where this topic is being chewed on once again.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/03/15/absolute-perfection-oh-my-rjs/
Enjoy!

Lead us not...

Temptation. That word has sent shivers up and down the spines of countless faithful for centuries. The prayer that Jesus taught his disciples in some translations has the line,  "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." peirasmós, translated temptation, (because of the negative sense derived from the context w/evil), also has the idea of test or trial. James wrote that the person who perseveres through trial is blessed. Thomas à Kempis wrote about this in The Imitation of Christ. No one, according to him, is immune to temptations and trials. They are, "troublesome and severe, are often useful to a man, for in them he is humbled, purified, and instructed." In another place, he refers to Paul's statements that temptations are common to humanity. In these God will leave a way to get through them. The task, for à Kempis, is to not run from trials, but to let God help us through them. "Fire tempers iron and temptation steels the just."
This way of thinking seems to run counter to what we in the West would think. We want quick fixes. We don't want to experience any discomfort, especially internally. When temptation comes, it starts in the mind. We are "tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed" (Jas. 1:14). The battle ground is laid within our thoughts and desires. Sin, then is born and matures into death. This is what scares people. What if I fail? Why can't I simply get past these tests? We want to 'pass' them and graduate. There is no graduation in this life. Reliance on God the Holy Spirit is how we persevere. It is the crucible in which our minds are renewed and we are transformed; metamorphosed into the likeness of Christ. Rather than running from these trials, it seems that it is more important to embrace Yahweh and walk through the fire.

Slow Learner

One thing I've noticed over the years is that it can take me awhile to wrap my head around some things. In seminary, especially, this was true. I could read a text or hear a lecture and it may have been days later, after reading and re-reading, ruminating and otherwise pondering that the light would turn on and I would 'get it.' This has been the process for understanding a question that has bothered me about some folks' understanding of the new heaven and new earth mentioned in Scripture.
Let me offer some background. I began following Christ a long time ago. Over the years I have been involved with faith communities that are pretty much fundamentalist in their approach to Scripture. As a result, much of their 'gospelling' has been to state that we should not be concerned about ecology or economics, (unless it's conservative), but, rather we should get people saved so as to populate some disembodied heaven of the future. After all, the physical realm is going to burn up and pass away. Now, I have to say that this never really resonated with me. There seemed to be a disconnect between this mindset and what Jesus actually did and said. But, there was a certain logic to the idea that if this cosmos is going to be, at the very least, replaced, why should we concern ourselves with running out of fossil fuels or holes in the ozone layer.
After reading N. T. Wright's Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church 3 times, (I said I was slow), something clicked. In the book Wright mentioned that people should be involved in bringing justice and wise stewardship to this world, now, in anticipation of that new creation. If humans are to be stewards and co-regents with God in the care and oversight of the new creation, then we should be about that business today, in this world. Not that it's a practice run, but Paul wrote that nothing that is done in this life will be lost on the next in the resurrection. We can, therefore, justify social justice and ecological justice here and now without diminishing the importance of the kerygma of the Gospel.

The Vineyard revisited

I was thinking about this text this A.M. Jesus spoke the parable in the context of being questioned by the religious leaders at the temple. They wanted to know who had given him the authority to speak and teach as he did. We know that Jesus threw the question right back at them by asking about John's baptism. When they would not reply, Jesus proceeded:

Luk 20:9 He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time.
Luk 20:10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
Luk 20:11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed.
Luk 20:12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
Luk 20:13 "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.'
Luk 20:14 "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'
Luk 20:15  So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them?
Luk 20:16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”

We know that Jesus directed this to the leaders. Luke wrote in verse 19, "The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them."

One of the things that modern evangelicals in particular like to do is appropriate scripture and try to apply a literalist interpretation to the world and culture today. In the case of this text, I've heard preachers and teachers state that the tenants can be represented today by those who are outside of the church, as they understand it. This would equate to the government, gays and lesbians, pro-choice advocates, or any other person or organization that they choose to anathematize. But, in the parable Jesus was addressing the religious leaders. Those who had set up their religious sensibilities to exclude anyone who believed, practiced, or tried to understand Torah in any way other than their particular party line. 

I think that a refreshing way to look at this text would be to challenge the so-called religious leaders to see that Jesus was seeking justice and righteousness in them. That the marginalized in our culture are not who he is speaking to. He is speaking to the people who dismiss and disregard the poor, hungry, homeless, gays and lesbians, handicapped, and I could go on listing others. Jesus came a redefined who is accepted...and who should be accepted by God. Who are called to take on Jesus' yoke. Who have no voice of their own.

The Bible...really, The Bible

There are a couple blogs that I follow pretty closely. Some are listed to the right. One of them, Allan Bevere's, had a link to an interesting CNN blog by Steven James. In it he points out that the Bible is really a text that is "Very raw. Very real." I agree with much of what he has to say. The church has tended to make the Scriptures some high and hallowed thing that the average person cannot hope to reach or touch. Many others, like James, have attempted to strip away the religious veneer that obscures this real and living compilation of inspired words.
There is the danger, however, that we push the humanity too far and neglect the calling that these words place on us. We are called to move beyond "partying with Jesus" into a real, living, vibrant relationship with him. Yes, that means to go to the wedding at Cana and party down. It also means to climb the rocky path to Calvary and lay down our lives with him.
James' piece is good and necessary, but it is not the final word.
Here is a link:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/25/my-take-stop-sugarcoating-the-bible/

Abiding

I have recently been working through a small portion of Scripture in the Gospel according to John. Many of the ancient spiritual mystics and contemplatives wrote about union, or communion with God. In these writings one can get the idea that 'abiding' with, or in, Christ is foundational. I read John 15:1-7. In the 2011 NIV the verb, meno, has been rendered, "remain." So, verse 4 reads, "Remain in me, as I also remain in you." According to BDAG there are several ways to understand the language of 'remaining.' One of them is, of course, to remain in a certain place or position. It refers to location. In a sense, it can carry with it the flavor of dwelling or lodging. When I read 'remain,' however, I get the idea that it is something static that is left where it was found. 'Remain in the house' means to be static and stuck in a position or location. The NASB rendered this word "abide." Again, BDAG, confirms this, also. Part of their definition is, "to denote an inward, enduring personal communion." TDNT contains, "By the use of μένειν Jn. seeks to express the immutability and inviolability of the relation of immanence."¹ God abides in the Son, believers abide in Christ, Christ abides in believers, believers abide in God, and God in believers. Kittel goes on to assert that, in this use of the present tense, "the eschatological promise of salvation becomes immediate possession [of believers].²

For me, the use of 'abide' rather than 'remain' is a more accurate understanding. Abide in English carries the color of relationships in active growth. It is a 'green' word. It is not a 'steely gray' word like "remain."

The text in John is deserving of long, quiet meditation to allow the Holy Spirit to "abide" in us.

^1&2Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (4:576). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

The Prince of Egypt

Last night my daughter put in the dvd of the animated "The Prince of Egypt." It's the story of Moses as God used him to liberate Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh. As we began, I had in the back of my mind Cecil B. DeMille's "Exodus" with Charlton Heston. The grandeur of that production with Heston's portrayal of a larger-than-life, and somewhat other-worldly Moses stood out in my mind. However, the animated production took a very different view of Moses and his relationship with just about everyone. His relationship with Pharaoh was especially interesting. While deMille developed the enmity between the two men, the folks at DreamWorks allowed a more human Moses to arise from the story. Yes, he still kills a guy and runs off to the desert. Yes, he met Jethro and Zipporah in Midian. And, of course, he met God at the burning bush.( I was surprised at how closely DreamWorks kept this particular encounter to the actual text.) Anyway, Moses went back to his tent, without the added gray hair that Heston sported, and had to convince his wife that he needed to go back to Egypt. For anyone who is married, this was an accurate portrayal.
Moses returned and was welcomed by Pharaoh at first. Then began the signs of God's judgement on Egypt and its gods. I could see the Pharaoh being changed. At first somewhat surprised and incredulous with Moses, he became more and more hardened and angry. Even before the last plague, though, he still tried to woo Moses back into Egypt's good graces. In the end, however, the angel of God swept through Egypt killing the first born. As Pharaoh's son lay dead, Moses came to Pharaoh and was told that the people were free to go. Rather than say "I told you so," the storytellers showed Moses leaving Pharaoh and breaking down to weep. Wow! Even though God had judged Egypt harshly, there was no joy in the deaths of so many. Even later in the story at the Red Sea, I caught some of the ethos of sadness when the army of Pharaoh was destroyed. Although the Israelites were free, and there was joy for that, the loss of so many sons of Egypt was not something to gloat about. These men had fathers, mothers, children, wives, friends and lovers who were left bereft. The parents of the lost first borns were devastated. I truly believe that God was deeply grieved by what happened. Lives were snuffed out in an instant throughout Egypt. First born; warriors. Beloved children; brothers. Not a time to rejoice, but to reflect on the effect that our own pride, arrogance and stubborness can have on us...and others.

Thoughts on biblicism

Yesterday I touched on an issue that some may be hold near and dear to their heart. I mentioned that I am neither a biblical literalist nor a fundamentalist. In present-day parlance, I am not a biblicist. I understand the biblical canon, as we now have it, to be "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" 2 Tim. 3:16-17. What is important to note is what is not mentioned in this text. Nothing is said about being historically or scientifically accurate. Nothing can be drawn from this to indicate that any anthropological applications, i.e., relationships between women and men, etc. may be imposed on all people, at all times, and in all places. William C. Spohn wrote in, "Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics," about something analogical imagination. Rather than simply stating, "the Bible says it, that settles it," we are encouraged to look at how the text related to its world and then to apply the text to our current world situation. This takes hard work. But, it's important to remember that the biblical text was written by humans about their own human experiences. It was transmitted by humans to other humans. Most importantly, it is always interpreted and applied by humans. This is not to say that the divine is not involved. I absolutely believe that the inspiration to write the text was God's alone through the Holy Spirit. And, I believe that the Holy Spirit has superintended the text, including the inspiration of those who arranged the canon. But, by putting all of the emphasis on the divine part of the text, and making it some Barthian Word of God, we lose the humanity of the documents. The human-ness, with all of  the foibles and triumphs of humanity, are lost to some magical mystery tourbook mentality. Yes, the Bible is inspired by God. No doubt. But, we probably should leave it room to do what Paul wrote to Timothy about. Not to try and shoe-horn it into some container that was not meant to contain it.

John Piper and Masculinity

If anyone knows me, or reads the stuff I write, it will not take them long to realize that I am not a fan of John Piper. There are many reasons, but most of all, I am not a biblical literalist or fundamentalist of any flavor. Linked to this post is a blog post by Ben Witherington III. I have great respect for Dr. Ben as a New Testament scholar and brother in Christ. In this post he, too, takes exception to something that Piper stated at a conference. Within Witherington's post is a link to that address by Piper. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Ben. And, I would even take his position further. Maybe more on that at a later time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/02/12/john-piper-on-men-in-ministry-and-the-masculinity-of-christianity/

George Macdonald and a new kid on the block

It's saturday morning. This week, as I've written in my journal, has been full of stuff that has made my brain hurt. So many thoughts and musings have been doing the macarana inside my head. It's been exhilarating and a bit frustrating at the same time.
One of the exhilarating moments came as I read a small piece by 19th century Scottish author and minister George Macdonald. He is one who C. S. Lewis stated had a great influence on his own conversion and literary direction. In the piece Macdonald commented on Mark 8;1-21. The encounter described was after Jesus had fed 4,000 and had a run-in with some Pharisees. On a boat ride, Jesus made a comment about the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod. The disciples, ever on top of things, assumed that Jesus was upset because they had not brought bread on the trip. Jesus responded with a rather heated reminder of the feeding of the multitudes, not once, but twice. He finished with, "Do you still not understand?"
While many folks look at this and think that Jesus was upset because they didn't realize that if he could multiply food for thousands, he was capable of taking care of the needs of 13 people. But, Macdonald took a slightly different angle on this. He wrote that the miracles of the feeding revealed God's own compassion. The stories were not to reveal Jesus' power, nor to confirm his role as a great prophet. It wasn't even to confirm Jesus as the Son of God. It was to show that "God cared for His children, and could, did, and would provide for their necessities." The miracles were an experiential lesson that the disciples needed to study and learn from.
One thing that I noted was that, if Macdonald's take is viable, and I think it is, then what should the response of Christ's followers be today? If Jesus chose to feed people to reveal God's care and provision that is driven by God's own character and compassion, should we not, in God's name, do likewise? Feed the poor and hungry; clothe the naked; support the widows and orphans; comfort the sick and down & out...yeah, I think so.
--------------------------------------
Also, today I'd like to encourage anyone who may stop by here to check out a new blog at http://morvensblog.wordpress.com/
Morven Baker is a counselor in Ashland, Oh. She is also married to one of my professors from ATS. I checked it out, and she is not blogging because she is the wife of an Old Testament scholar. She is doing this to help give voice to, well, let's hear her words:
"I am a counselor who works with women.  For a long while now I have wanted to have a safe place to post well researched articles or educational links, as well as my own personal thoughts, that I felt might be helpful for my clients, the brave women who have survived abuse as children and/or adults, the real heroines of the stories.   Perhaps this place might be helpful for my friends, family and colleagues who really care about what I do and are my constant cheerleaders.  I also wanted a  place where readers, if there ever are any, can share their responses and know that their thoughts and feelings are respected and valued."
 Welcome, Morven!

It sounds good on paper, but....

I have been following Brian McLaren's blog for quite some time. I first got turned on to him in a class at seminary. One of the professors wanted to show us some of the emergent church's views, so he picked McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. His intent was to give us an idea of the near heresies that were out in the community that we would need to prepare ourselves to ward off. Little did he know that McLaren resonated with me. I've got to be clear. I do not agree with everything that McLaren writes. However, there is a lot of refreshment in them thar pages. There is also quite a bit of food for thought.
Today McLaren had a link to a post by George W. Sarris titled, Jacob I Loved - Esau I Hated. It is an interesting look at election in the Bible. Sarris posits that those whom scripture states are created for wrath, or are for 'common' rather than 'noble' use, (Rom. 9:21), are not being dismissed to eternal torture, but are not chosen for God's purposes at that time. He wrote, "Paul is not referring to election to salvation.  Rather, he is referring to God’s election to service of those He has chosen to be His instruments." Now, I like this idea. I'm not one of those who is looking forward to any soul being lost for eternity. The God I read about doesn't fit that description. But, there is a lot of history behind the traditional view of this, and similar, texts.
I am going to take quite a bit of time to reflect on this. Because, if this can be shown to be a viable understanding of these texts, it will change the way many people view the Reign of God on this planet.
Read Sarris' post and let me know what you think.

Our desires and appetites the devil's playground, not idle hands

As I've reflected on some of my experiences in the deserts and wastelands of life, I've noticed something that, at once is both disconcerting and a relief. That thing is that I am mostly responsible for that condition. In a passage that deals with perseverance during trials, James wrote, "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don't be deceived, my dear brothers" (Jas. 1:13-16). Note that it's not the devil who entices. It is our own "evil desire."
You may say, 'Well, duh!' It does seem rather obvious. But, what's not so obvious is the part our enemy may play in the process. Let's take a look the story of someone else. In Genesis 3 the account of the so-called "Fall" is recorded. I'm not going to deal with the doctrine of original sin at this time. Maybe another day. What I do want to point out is the hint of a process that we may find ourselves in. Verse 6 reads, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." Note that the woman saw that the "tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye." How she figured it was good for food, I don't know. For anyone who has picked a pleasing mushroom, eaten it, and ended up in the hospital this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Anyway, she also saw that it was desirable for gaining wisdom. Desirable. The serpent, who was "more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made," had focused on the desire of our ancient ancestors. He did not create the desire, but pointed out the pleasing features of the fruit. For anyone who says that this was the first time that the humans had thoughts about this tree, I say, probably not. They were, after all, flesh. Paul had a lot to say about this 'meat tent' we wear. However, as this post goes, I want to look at 1 Cor. 15. In that chapter Paul wrote about the resurrection and the inability of the flesh to be a part of that. Verse 47 has special significance for this discussion. Paul wrote, "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." Adam and Eve were of the earth, earthly, flesh and blood...dust. They had the same propensity to feed the appetites and desires of the flesh as you and me. And, feed it they did.
What I see in this whole episode was: 1. A desire in the humans. 2. A temptation that was directly attributed to the existing desire. 3. And, this is most important...the humans owned the temptation as theirs. The serpent did not force anything. But, I've found that the devil's most insidious tactic is to make humans think that feeding the appetites and desires...sinning...is their own idea! And, that the action will be beneficial. How great the craftiness of the enemy of our souls! We do not 'hear' a prompt from an outside source. Something that we would be able to dismiss. The prompting comes from within ourselves so that we are completely deceived.
I'm going to stop here so that these things can be reflected on. I know it sounds confusing, so much double-talk. But, there is freedom here. Freedom to own up to our responsibility for sin. This, in turn, affords us the opportunity to come before Yahweh in sorrow. It allows us to change directions and to be restored. It also provides us with an insight into how temptation and the devil interact. This knowledge may allow us to be better prepared and give us a defensive weapon to use against him.

The Devil made me do it

When I was kid Flip Wilson had a character named Geraldine. Her famous line when anything went awry was, "The devil made me do it!"
Of course, those who are theologically inclined know that the devil can't 'make' us do anything. But, this, some say fallen angel, is capable of causing a lot of damage. The New Testament offers several warnings about this. Paul wrote about how the devil masquerades as an angel of light in order to deceive people. The apostle also mentioned that he was not unaware of the methods that the devil used. Peter wrote that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking to devour folks.
Popular culture from the early church to current media paint this character in many colorful and fanciful ways. But, what can we discern about the reality of how this anti-creation being operates? I am thinking about looking at this over the next little while. Mostly, so I can get my thoughts in order about it. I find that as I write and reflect I see things a tad clearer So, for those few of you who actually read this, please bear with me as I muse.
Please, if any have input, I welcome diverse opinions.

Receiving...or being Received

This morning as I was spending time with God, I read this in Thomas à Kempis' The Imitation of Christ, "I desire, Lord, to give myself to You as a voluntary offering and to be Yours eternally. With a sincere heart I give myself to You this day, as Your servant forever, wishing to serve You in obedience and as a sacrifice of endless praise. Receive me..."

Receive me. These words jumped off of the page at me. The text from à Kempis was in the context of the Eucharist. So, I can see how 'receiving' is related to sharing the Body and Blood. Receiving the elements in a manner that brings a reality to Christ's offering himself on our behalf. But, something else also caught my brain. In many religious circles people are taught that they must 'receive Christ.' Receive him as Lord and/or Saviour. This concept is taken directly from the Gospel according to John 1:12, "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (2011 NIV). This is one verse. One verse that has been used to define an entire generation, or more, of church-goers. But, does it accurately reflect who we are to become in Christ? Reception of something infers the conferring of ownership and control. When I receive a gift, it becomes mine. I own it. I can control it. Now, I am confident that when pressed no one would acknowledge that this is their motivation. I'm sure that they would say that the idea is more about sharing in the life and mission of Jesus in a personal way. But, I've heard way too many speak of Jesus in manner that indicates otherwise. There is a sense that I am in control of my faith and destiny rather than fellow-workers with the Holy Spirit.

I see, rather, a sense in the Scripture that we have been, and are being, received by Christ. The Gospels are full of stories about Jesus searching, seeking, turning things upside down to find a lost coin, leaving the herd in search of the one. This so he could receive us brothers, sisters and mothers. John continued by stating that no one could snatch those that belonged to him, (re. those he had received), from his hand. It appears that Jesus is the One who desires to be in control. By 'receiving' all things, he is claiming His rightful place as κύριος, Lord, over all. Paul got it. Throughout his epistles he wrote of Jesus being Lord over all things. In 1 Cor. 15: 25 he wrote that all things would be subjected to Christ, who would be himself subjected to God. Then all things would be "all in all." I don't get the sense that God is taking anything other than dominion over enemies. All other things seem to have been received. I know this is a stretch, but I want to make the point that it is we who are received by God through Christ. We who are subjects of the Divine reign. We who have been found and secured by Jesus. We, who together with the rest of creation, are held in God's hand, protected, nourished, loved on, cared for because we are God's. Not because God is ours. As I reflected on this, I was compelled to join with the Apostle Paul and exclaim, "For from him and through him are all things. To him be the glory forever? Amen" (Rom. 11:36).

As the Story goes.......

I have long contended that the Bible is essentially a love story from Yahweh to the cosmos. From Genesis to Revelation there are all of the elements of a good story that conveys and interprets meaning. Derek Flood looked at this idea and came up with some lessons we would all benefit from.
http://www.therebelgod.com/2011/07/god-at-movies-why-faith-is-about-story.html
I think that this is a topic that we may continue to look at from time to time.

The Virgin birth...fact? Does it really matter?

There has been quite a reaction to an article written by Albert Mohler. This article was in response to another by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Mohler's argument that one must accept the virgin birth of Jesus as fact or risk one's position as a Christ follower. He wrote, "This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth."
While I personally do believe in the birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, Mohler's inflamed rhetoric does little to convince anyone who is not a Christ follower of the truth of Christ's life and mission to reconcile the Cosmos to Yahweh. It does, however, point to the narrow focus of some. Having read some other articles by Mohler, I think that this recent one reveals more about Mohler's view on biblical inerrancy than to anyone's faithfulness to Christ.