a merry schismatic christmas (part 6)- slightly re-worked

to anyone who may have read this earlier: i've tried to re-work some of this because i know i didn't communicate my thoughts very well. sometimes this stuff is hard to blog about without being lengthy, so i'm sorry if any of it is confusing.

this past new years, we hung out with some old friends. at one point i was talking to one of them about how i would be interested in adopting some day. he looked at me and told me flat out that i didn't want to do that. he said that he knew people who adopted, and that it was a big risk. i was kind of taken a back. he went on to say that when you adopt you bring all of that child's problems into your home, and that child can infect your family. now, to be fair, he has had experience knowing people who take in troubled children, and he didn't realize i was talking about adopting an infant, not an abused child. but this still struck me. "infect." as if a child is a virus or bacteria.

jesus came to call israel to repentance, and begin a community who is the true, renewed israel ushering in God's kingdom. jesus came to establish God's kingdom here and we are to continue his work. the christianity most american evangelicals follow doesn't teach this. as i've already pointed out in previous posts, it teaches that the church is about gathering people onto a big cosmic life raft before God destroys the ship (earth) or sends people to hell.

the idea of acquiring a get-out-of-hell free pass, and just living one's own life fit's american culture nicely. think about it, what does the stereotypical american evangelical family look like? usually they look just like a stereotypical american family, only they go to church, don't swear, shop at family christian stores and might be involved in a ministry. to many christians, after they've gotten their free pass, it becomes all about an image, and i would argue that it's more about caesar's image than Christ's. christianity and america have become emeshed. this emeshedness is obvious when we see images of the flag and the cross paired together, but christian theology has been influenced by america in profound ways as well. the focus is getting out of hell rather than ridding the world of hell. and this is why my friends, who are the poster family for american evangelical christianity, can compare the least of these to a bacteria or virus. because getting involved with the messy parts of the world, the parts jesus and the apostles got involved with, isn't part of living the nice, shiny, suburban life (christian) americans strive to live. it's just not part of the image.

what did i say to this friend, whom i love dearly, but who represents a completely different understanding of what it means to be a christian? well, there wasn't much i could say because what he thinks christ came to do is so radically different than from what i think, it's a herculean task to carry on that discussion. and this is what always happens: nothing; just a change in the subject. the theological differences have created walls that i'm still trying to learn how to tear down. there are enormous pre-suppositions that have to be tackled first, but i do think there's hope.

rethinking forgiveness and repentance

not too long ago i wrote that i do not believe the bible teaches a transactional relationship between forgiveness and repentance. instead, the bible teaches that forgiveness should be freely given and repentance is an act of forsaking a previous way of living for a new one. they are two different issues. thus, God doesn't forgive only if one repents, as if we have to buy God's forgiveness with our repentance; God just forgives. i backed this up by referring to places where the bible teaches us to simply forgive, as well as, jesus' words on the cross, "father, forgive them for they know not what they do." after all, how can there be repentance if someone knows not what he or she does?

joe and i have- at a leisurely pace- been going through the book of acts together. weeks ago we went through chapter three. in verse 19 it says: repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out... "crap!" i thought. this seemed to throw a wrench in what i had been thinking. so i went on biblegateway did a search on "forgive." once again, i found a whole slew of verses that seemed to say there are conditions to forgiveness.

this is frustrating and confusing for me, because while i tell people the bible isn't so cut and dry, and black and white there are times where i fall into that same way of thinking. in the story of the prodigal son, for example, isn't the God character's ( the father) posture toward the prodigal son a posture of unconditional forgiveness? i know that the son represents israel in the story, but can't we also place ourselves in the story? and therefore, isn't God's forgiveness given with condition of repentance? maybe not. i don't know. maybe it's not an either/or issue of transaction versus no transaction, but something else. turning from sin means living in right relationship with God, others and creation. it means giving up our own and this world's agenda, and taking up God's. josephus tells the story of how he and some romans came upon some jewish revolutionaries. josephus, working for rome, tells the revolutionaries to "repent and believe." by repent and believe josephus didn't mean for the revolutionaries to drop to their knees and beg for forgiveness, but to give up their agenda of revolt and join rome. in doing so, rome would accept them, and let them live.

i believe that this story from josephus which i've read from n.t. wright is a much better picture of forgiveness and repentance than a transaction. the idea is that God is waiting for us to join his kingdom which is currently being established. all we have to do is give up our agenda. it's not so much of a transaction, but a change of allegiance from the losing side to the winning side. the two do have a relationship; they are not separate issues.

maybe i'm just getting all worked up over metaphors and semantics, but i thought i would just clear that up.

interpretting the creation story

this is good, good, good, stuff. john ortberg spoke at our church this past sunday. if you're someone who has trouble understanding how one can believe in evolution and also believe the creation story is true, then you need to go here and watch.

my encounter with a professional critic

this past friday i had the honor of being in my brother in law's wedding. he used to lived in california and wisconsin where he was part of a pretty militant group of pro-life demonstrators/street preachers. some of these guys were in his wedding. this made me a bit tense. i'm really not a big fan of getting into heated discussions about religion and politics with complete strangers, but i knew that if i even made small talk with any of them, that was bound to happen. i was right.

i was standing there when the person, who is pretty much their leader, approached me and started asking me basic getting-to-know-you questions. where ya from? watcha do? are you a christian? when did you become one? where ya go to church?.....
...
...
uh... mars hill....
oh...... rob bell huh?......
yup...

so that was how it started. then he told me he saw a video with rob called bullhorn. for those who don't know, bullhorn is a video where rob kind of portrays ultra-extreme street preachers in a less than positive way. this conversation ended up getting into the value of street preaching and how rob is wrong in saying that God love's and accepts everyone. well, his problem wasn't so much with the love part as the accept part. to him, saying God accepts everyone just as they are mean's they will not face God's wrath and judgment, which basically means hell.

we went in circles for a while, and i actually agreed with almost everything he said. it just came down to our understanding of acceptance and the nature of forgiveness and repentance.

to him, God's forgiveness is available to everyone IF they repent (which basically means apologize). so when someone repents then they are accepted. but this just isn't biblical. jesus forgives the people who put him on the cross even though they know not what they do. God tells us that we must forgive everyone. he doesn't say they need to apologize first.

so to him, forgiveness and repentance is a transaction, while i see them as two separate things. repentance means to turn. it means to start living a new life. it means to be reborn. sure there is lamenting the things you have done in the past. birth is painful, and so is rebirth. but the idea isn't to attain God's forgiveness, but realize that one is already forgiven, and he or she can live a new life in a restored relationship with God, and begin having restored relationships with others. it's realizing that you are already accepted.

we discussed other related topics as well. for instance, the gospel is offensive, so that means we have to confront people with their sin so they'll repent of it. i mentioned that most people probably know they're pretty screwed up, and someone telling another how bad one is, isn't offensive because one thinks it's not true. it's offensive because a perfect stranger judging you is...well... offensive.

and really that is what bullhorn is all about. most people know their F'ed up, and someone shouting at them about it just isn't good news. but hearing how much their loved in spite of their faults and imperfections is.

on being a skeptical believer : complexity

reality is complex. there are different levels, and layers to everything. for example, there is the layer of reality that i can experience with my five senses, and there are multiple other layers that i can't e.g. the micro level. right now, there are sounds all around me from all over the world being carried by radio waves, that i can only experience with a radio. and like the fact that there is only so much i can experience, measure and test with my five senses, science is, ultimately, limited. so there are levels of reality that science is not ever able to test.

thinking about this has brought me to conclude that maybe the guy in the legion story was schizophrenic, and being controlled by a demon. recently, a guest teacher at my church mentioned that research has been done in the psycho-social field concerning the psychological damage caused by oppressive regimes. this adds another layer to this example. a person could be affected psychologically by sociological factors. all this to say that i think beings who operate on scientifically unmeasurable levels use natural phenomena to interact with this level of reality.

the ancients, with their apocalyptic worldview, simply cut to the chase.

wotm? wtf??

i'm not a fan, by any means, of way of the master. for the uninitiated, wotm is a "ministry" that kirk cameron is a part of that takes to the street trying to convince people to become christians. not too long ago, they made asses of themselves debating an atheist group, who also made asses of themselves, on network television. i first heard of them through anne, because her brother used to be into them. recently, i was thinking about their methods.

they start by asking random people on the street, "do you think you're a good person"? most people say, "yes" so they then ask if the person has ever broken one of the ten commandments. of course, everyone says, "yes" so the follow-up question is, "then are you really a good person"? i'm probably leaving something out, but that's the gist of it. the idea is to convict the person, and make their conscience get to them. now, this can work all well and good if, in fact, the person believes in the bible. but if he or she doesn't, then it's pretty much an exercise in futility. i have enormous problems with their method, and them as a ministry, for a plethora of reasons which is a whole other series in and of itself. but, at the same time, i think they could have something with this. the problem, however, is with the ten commandments. my question is: if jesus is the fulfillment of the law, then wouldn't living like him be a much more powerful tool of conviction? after all, the entire law is summed up in just two commands, and the sermon on the mount is maybe the most radical way to live ever. so why try and bring conviction with the ten commandments?

now, i'm not about to say that i'm this person who acts like jesus all the time, convicting others, and causing them to want to follow jesus with me. i'm not. recently i got a low score for professionalism at work because this past year there has sucked, and sometimes i have a hard time keeping my cool. but not too long ago i was talking with a coworker. all this guy ever does is complain and run others down. so he was doing this, as we were talking, and i was acting as visibly disinterested as i possibly could. after he got done with his shpeel, he could tell i didn't want to hear it, and said, "i'm sorry but this place just needs to change... well... or maybe i'm the one who needs to change."

of course, he didn't drop to he knees and start confessing his sins or anything like that, but i like to hope that, in that moment, my actions brought some conviction and in my own way, i got to be jesus. and all without asking him if he's a good person.

alone?

jumping off my last post about having an ever-present awareness of the divine, i just got done watching the movie into the wild.

quick movie review:
go watch it. it's amazing.
review over.

so i'm watching the beginning, and there's this scene where the lead character is out in the middle of the alaskan wilderness and he shouts at the top of his lungs, "is there anybody there?" he then answers himself, "guess not!" this got me thinking: but we really aren't alone, right? there is always someone there. that's what it's all about. what does a spirituality look like where we never feel alone?

then something occured to me: the Lord God said, "it is not good for the man to be alone. i will make a helper suitable for him."