Archive for the 'scripture' Category

Rebel With a Cause

Published
by
Mike
on October 11, 2008
in politics, scripture and sports
. 11 Comments

Tomorrow I’m preaching on the sabbath stories in Mark 2:23 - 3:6. I’m still amazed at the radical implications of how Jesus behaved and what he taught in these conflict stories. He was a rebel then; he’s a rebel still. He rebels against lives that are reduced to fastidiously keeping laws. You certainly wouldn’t call him antinomian (see Matthew 5:17-20), but he understands that people weren’t made for sabbath-keeping.

- - - -

I had breakfast with Shaun Casey yesterday. Shaun is the coordinator for evangelical outreach for the Obama campaign. He was speaking to some students at ACU, his alma mater, following a similar appearance at Harding. That’s a man with some interesting stories! Shaun is a professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Seminary and a member of the Fairfax Church of Christ.

I asked how he could accept those invitations from groups at Harding and ACU this late in the campaign, since Texas and Arkansas don’t appear to be states that are up for grabs. Turns out he was doing it on his “time off”!

- - - -

I’m not even going to peek at my financial statements.

- - - -

Taking a brief break from the UT/OU game following a kick-off return by Shipley for Texas. Growing up, this was our family’s version of a religious holiday (since we weren’t allowed to celebrate Easter). The two big games each year (since my parents were both University of Texas grads) were the Oklahoma/Texas and Arkansas/Texas rivalries.

This is what I wrote almost three years ago:

I was a campus baby while my parents attended the University of Texas. Whoever didn’t have a class was my babysitter. And apparently one of my first phrases to speak was HOOK EM HORNS.

I was introduced to the biblical concept of “alien and stranger” by being a UT fan while growing up just an hour from the University of Arkansas campus. Every fourth year when the UT/UA game was played in Fayetteville (the Arkansas home games alternated between Fayetteville and Little Rock), our family dressed up in orange and attended, finding our place in the sea of red. We were there for the game of the century in 1969–despite the fact that President Nixon took our tickets.

(The full story is that when the President decided to attend, they had to take some tickets from around the stadium for security and ours were chosen. Hmmmm. Did they know we’d be wearing orange? But my dad snagged some last-minute tickets from another source.)

So . . . this was a big night. The first national title for the Longhorns since 1970. And does anyone doubt what I’ve been writing about Vince Young? He was 30-for-40 in passing for over 250 yards. That’s a good night for a QB. But what sets him apart is that he rushed for 200 yards. That was the difference.

Hook em horns!!

- - - -

By the way, my congrats to whatever UT alumnus convinced the good people at OU that Dallas (where the game is played each year at the Cotton Bowl) is a neutral site.

From Bethsaida to Hierapoplis

Published
by
Mike
on June 12, 2008
in faith, friends, scripture and travel
. 11 Comments

Yesterday we visited Hierapolis and Laodicea in the Lycus Valley of Turkey. There are amazing Greek and Roman ruins in Hierapolis. But a 10 minute hike up a hillside takes you to the remains of a 6th century church building that tradition says was built on the site where the apostle Philip’s body was buried after being crucified. This seems to be a fairly strong tradition (his death in Hierapolis, that is). We walked through remembering what Philip told his brother after meeting Jesus: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”. I wondered if he remembered those early words as he was put to death here

I’ll try to send one or two more short notes. I’m pecking out on my Blackberry, so they will be short!

Can Christians Support (This) War?

Published
by
Mike
on November 15, 2007
in scripture
. 246 Comments

I wish it were easier for churches to have a discussion about war. But it’s one of the most difficult issues to talk about.

For one thing, for many families this isn’t just a hypothetical discussion. They have sons and daughters who are in the military — some of whom are deployed overseas. And others are veterans who are proud of their military service.

There are two historic positions that are represented in almost all our churches.

A third “position” I won’t consider. It’s the one that seems dominant in places — the “I’m-proud-to-be-an-American-and-let’s-kick-some-Islamic-butt” position. It isn’t Christian, so I won’t discuss it.

One view is that Christians must never participate in or support war. This position has, among other arguments, these convictions:

(1) The teaching of Jesus encourages us, in light of the inbreaking shalom of God, to refrain from anything except love for our enemies. He insists that we not pay back “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” — the law of retaliation (Matthew 5:38-42). And he says: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:43-48).

(2) The death of Jesus points us to a way of nonviolence. He broke the cycle of violence through life-giving sacrifice.

(3) The Old Testament points to a time when swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (e.g., Isaiah 2:4). I remember when Hugo McCord came to our church in Missouri for a gospel meeting and taught the pacifist position. This was his text.

Pacifism has historically been an emphasis in leaders of the Restoration Movement — leaders who were convinced that others trust in horses and chariots but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. You’d perhaps be surprised to know that many of the influential Christian leaders whose books you read or sermons you’ve listened to are pacifists.

The other position is the just war position. This conviction is that in this fallen world, evil must be contained. With reluctance and with tears, we must hold back those who seek to oppress, even if force is involved — all the while longing for the peace-filled kingdom to come in its fullness.

What’s my position? That’s not significant here. (Perhaps I’ll drop a note if a discussion develops. You might be surprised.) What IS significant is that churches are going to have to have this discussion. We’re going to need to listen to each other without condemning. We’re going to have to study afresh and agree to disagree, since study alone (contrary to what I thought growing up) won’t solve this!

Obadiah

Published
by
Mike
on November 8, 2007
in scripture
. 28 Comments

The story of Obadiah begins in Genesis 25 with the birth of the twins: hairy (Esau) and heel-grabber (Jacob). Rebekah was told that two nations were in her womb — more, I think, than most women are wanting to hear. The older would serve the younger.

Fast forward to Deuteronomy (2:1-8; 23:7) and you learn that this relationship still mattered centuries later when the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land after the exodus. The Edomites (descendents of Esau) were to be treated respectfully, because they were relatives.

This area of Edom was just south of the Dead Sea — about 70 miles north-to-south and just 15 or 20 miles east-to-west. It’s a hilly area that felt to the residents like secure protection.

One famous Edomite in the New Testament was (apparently) Herod the Great. His father, Antipater, was an Idumean, or an Edomite. Herod married into the Jewish royal family and kept the Jewish law. Ok, some of the Jewish law. He had minor lapses like the propensity for killing off family members.

Despite the warnings to treat the kinsmen Edomites well, when you move ahead many centuries later, the Edomites are roundly condemned. Check out Psalm 137, Lamentations 4, Ezekiel 25 and 35, and Jeremiah 49.

There’s something vile the Edomites did when Neduchadnezzar and the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. But what was that?

It’s in Obadiah that we find out.

For the most part, their sins were not sins of commission but of omission. While Jerusalem was attacked, they kept their distance from the south, up in their mountainous crags, and cheered on the defeat of Judah. They are the nanner-nanner-nanner people of the Bible.

Their central offense appears to be that they stood by when they should have stood with their relatives being attacked.

If that’s true, then could this, the shortest book in the Old Testament, be a piece of prophetic literature that has a fresh word for the church today?

It invites us to ask how we are standing by rather than standing with. Wasn’t that what offended so many religious types about Jesus? He kept stepping into the messes of the world. He refused to stand at a distance condemning.

The conflict at his home town synagogue (Luke 4:16ff) was over his examples of how God wants his people to move beyond their own safe, gated communities. His story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) highlights the evil of standing by while another is in need. (Note that there’s no evidence the rich man was actively doing harm. He just stood by.) When he talked of judgment (Matthew 25), the key questions weren’t about obtuse questions of doctrine but about standing by or standing with. When you see him naked, thirsty, hungry, and in prison, what is your response?

Obadiah says that the moutains of Seir would not protect the Edomites: “‘Though you soar like the eagle and make your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down,’ declares the Lord.”

Apparently God takes this seriously. His final evaluation isn’t based on the edict: “Do no harm.” It goes beyond that: when we see Lazarus . . . when we see the person beaten along the road to Jericho . . . when we see someone hungry, hurting, or lost — what is our response?

Do we stand by? or stand with?

Abraham and Isaac

Published
by
Mike
on November 3, 2007
in scripture
. 72 Comments

Tomorrow I’m preaching on the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. I’m still, after all these years, baffled by it. God tested Abraham by asking for a child sacrifice.

Here are the insightful questions of Eugene Peterson:

There is so much here that we cannot comprehend, so much that violates our pious sensibilities, so much that refuses to conform to our expectations. How can God command a murder? And not just murder in general but the murder of a beloved son? How can God go back on the miracle-promise fulfilled in the birth of Isaac? How can God, who our parents and pastors have taught us loves us from eternity, command this cold-blooded cruelty? How can God, who Jesus tells us has such a tender heart that he is moved even by the death of sparrows, command a father to kill his son, without so much as a hint of explanation? We Can’t handle this.

W TX Football . . . and Matthew’s Gospel

Published
by
Mike
on October 27, 2007
in scripture and sports
. 13 Comments

We joined 15,000 of our closest friends last night to watch two undefeated teams, Odessa Permian (as in “Friday Night Lights”) and Abilene High, play at Shotwell Stadium. The game had been promoted in this week’s Sports Illustrated. It’s hard to describe what that experience is like. We came up on the short end of a 28-21 game, however, breaking AHS’s eight-year dominance over Mojo.

- - - -

Have you ever noticed how Matthew’s gospel blocks together the words of Jesus? If you’re reading Mark with a red-letter Bible, it’s constantly red-black-red-black-red-black. But in Matthew there are large chunks of the red. Scholars have noted that it probably isn’t accidental that there are five of those teaching sections (chapters 5-7, 10, 13, 18, and 23-25) — likely corresponding to the five books of the Law.

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is the fulfiller of and authoritative interpreter of the Law. All things point to him, as you can tell immediately from the genealogy and from the many statements that say “and so was fulfilled.” Often, these “fulfillments” are surprising — until you understand how Matthew understands the Old Testament and Jesus.

E.g., Isaiah 7 had said that a young woman (a Hebrew word that doesn’t necessarily mean a virgin) would conceive and give birth to a son. It was a sign that applied to the people in the looming days of the 8th century. But now, Matthew says, those words find their deepest sense in the one who was born of a virgin. (He uses a Greek word that specifies that THIS young woman is a virgin.)

Similarly, when Joseph and Mary take their newborn to Egypt because of the madman Herod the Great and then return after Herod’s death, this fulfilled the words of Hosea 11:1: “out of Egypt I called my son.” But when you’re reading Hosea, it’s clear that’s a reference initially to the exodus. However, now in a deeper sense they point to Jesus, the one who fulfills all those dreams.

He came as the faithful Israelite. He was the new Moses. (Maybe it’s not an accident that Matthew moves from Egypt to water to desert to teaching — the same as you find in the story of Moses.)

Here now is the one who speaks authoritatively. Here is the one who fulfills God’s dreams for Israel. All of scripture points to him.

Youth Ministers and Gospeled Change

Published
by
Mike
on October 11, 2007
in Church, Church of Christ, justice and scripture
. 67 Comments

A couple recent pictures of Reese Kathryn Cope:

null

null

- - - -

I’ve written before about my appreciation for youth ministers. That appreciation continues to grow as I hear stories of youth leaders who are instilling a deep sense of justice and compassion in their teens. Someday we may look back and realize that there was a dramatic shift in our churches — a shift that focuses more on God’s work to restore the world (in all ways). And we may realize how much of that took place from the teaching and modeling of youth workers.

- - - -

Insightful words about the gospels from N. T. Wright:

“No historian, no reporter, nobody ever tells things ‘just like they happened.’ All stories about all events involve the story-teller in selection, collection, arrangement and hence ‘interpretation.’ That doesn’t mean the whole thing is a pack of lies. It just means there is no such thing as a point of view which is nobody’s point of view. Nobody is ever a fly on the wall. All storytelling is story-telling with a purpose. The Gospels are no exception. To read the Gospels, then, we must continually be alert both for the question ‘what is this telling us about Jesus?’ and for the question ‘what is the evangelist trying to say, through this tory about Jesus, to his own contemporaries?’”

- - - -

My name has finally been removed from the www.foracappella.org site. It took quite a while for someone to figure out that I didn’t endorse the statement there. Hmmmm. Hadn’t read my blog, I guess. Keep hoping they’ll take down the scandalous articles that indicate instrumental music is a matter of salvation and fellowship. I’ve read some comments indicating that no one should bother to say anything about it. But those comments are wrong. That teaching is heretical. It reduces the gospel and throws up barriers that shouldn’t exist. Neither singing a cappella nor with instruments is heretical. Teaching that one or the other is necessary for salvation and fellowship is heretical.

- - - -

I’m expecting a short World Series, aren’t you? It’s hard to imagine either the Rockies or the D’backs matching up well with the Indians or Red Sox.

- - - -

I’ve been concerned about the need for the recruiters of Christian colleges to give the same perspective to potential students that the leaders on campus are providing once the students get there.

E.g., if a Christian college has banned people from speaking on its campus, that’s fine. The administration certainly has a right to do that. But wouldn’t it be ironic if the admissions people wound up recruiting from the congregations where those ministers work? Are they making it clear that they would like the students to attend even though the ministers they’ve grown up with are aren’t welcome?

Or let’s suppose that the administration generally believes that something like instrumental music will condemn you. Wouldn’t it be dishonest if the recruiters went to students from instrumental churches and encouraged them to attend, leaving the impression with the students and their parents that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are in full fellowship?

The point is that there needs to be a consistent message between the policy and practices of the administration and the impressions given by the admissions counselors.

The Law of Christ

Published
by
Mike
on September 27, 2007
in scripture
. 87 Comments

Despite Paul’s insistence in Galatians that we are not set right with God or spiritually formed by the law, he makes these statements:

“The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

A couple helpful insights: the first from Ben Witherington and the second from N. T. Wright.

“The phrase ‘the law of Christ’ first and foremost refers to the cruciform and resurrection pattern of the life of Jesus, which is to be replicated in the lives of Christ’s followers by the work of the Spirit and by imitation.”

“It is not a bare faith, simply giving credence to a set of beliefs. It is a faith that works — but not with ‘the works of the law’. . . . It is faith that works through love. Love is open to all, no matter of what ethnic origin; but, even more, love is precisely the motivating force through which God himself welcomes all believers into his family. That same motivating force is what ought to make all family members welcome one another as well.”

- - - -

Want to know what people under 30 think about Christianity? Check this update from Barna.

- - - -

Still time to join us for the “Overflow” Zoe Conference next week.

A Community Called Atonement

Published
by
Mike
on September 11, 2007
in scripture
. 12 Comments

This morning I took a long walk in the cold mist. I love it. Could have been Vermont! (Minus the trees and mountains.) More hot days will come, but there is again the promise of autumn.

- - - -

I haven’t been able to catch my breath to do much blogging. This weekend I read Scot McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement (Living Theology).

What a good, thoughtful read. McKnight has a way of bringing the best in New Testament studies to a deep concern for the church and its mission. He places atonement in the larger biblical framework: “Atonement finally concerns union with God and, simultaneously, communion with one another as its mirror among God’s created beings.”

Perhaps the greatest strength is the way he anchors the understanding of atonement in — shocking!! — Jesus himself and the announcement of God’s kingdom.

“You might be surprised to find the number of books on atonement that simply do no interact with (or even mention) Jesus’ vision of the kingdom. . . . Why? Because atonement theories have been shaped by the history of atonement theories, and that history has been dominated by Paul’s letter to the Romans so one-sidedly that opening the door to the kingdom upsets the entire conversation. . . .

“The kingdom of God, in short compass, is the society in which the will of God is established to transform all of life. The kingdom of God is more than what God is doing ‘within you’ and more than God’s personal ‘dynamic presence’; it is what God is doing in this world through the community of faith for the redemptive plans of God — including what God is doing in you and me. It transforms relationship with God, with self, with others, and with the world.”

In light of criticism of the notion of penal substitution, McKnight has some helpful insights. While admitting the pitfalls of many attempts to explain it, he provides a way forward. As he says, “I believe the hue and cry by emerging Christians about penal substitution is a gut-level reaction to caricatures of the doctrine. I don’t know how to read elements of (especially) Paul without explaining his soteriology as penal . . . .”

Perhaps more later. This is a worthwhile read!

The Scandal of Galatians

Published
by
Mike
on August 28, 2007
in scripture
. 69 Comments

I remember one year when the Pepperdine lectureship was on Galatians. It was one of the many excellent programs that Jerry Rushford has put together.

On the last day of lectureship (Friday), one of Pepperdine’s prominent professors — who’s no longer there — launched out in an impassioned attack on his university and the lectureship because of the things being said.

What that told us was this: people had gotten the message of Galatians right. For if you really understand what Paul’s saying, it will be scandalous. It was then; it is now. If no one is complaining, you may not have explained it properly!

Just remembering that story as I continue preaching through the book!

“Know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. So we, too, have put our trust in Christ Jesus that we may be justified on the basis of the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by observing the law . . . .” (2:16)

“So in Jesus the Messiah you are all children of God through trust, for all of you who were baptized into the Messiah have been clothed with the Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus the Messiah.” (3:26-28)

“For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (5:14)

“May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” (6:14-15)