nonviolence, part 2
Jesus points to another way. Something beyond retaliation, fighting, or violence. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that was nonviolent. We see it in his teaching, throughout his entire life, and, above all, the way he faced his death. He saw nonviolence as connected to the nature of God and the new reality emerging into the world from God.
The perfect display of this was when Jesus was going to his death. One of his disciples cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest with a sword. Jesus tells him to put the sword away. Jesus puts down the sword and picks up the cross.
It is interesting to note is that Jesus demands the same thing of those who follow him when he calls his disciples to take up their cross. His call is about living a life of sacrifice. His call is about putting down the sword, giving up entitlement, and having the same attitude of Christ Jesus.
This idea was embraced by the early Christians who refused to pick up the sword. Those who were a part of the early Church refused to fight under the Banner of any nation. They recognized that the banner of Jesus was the banner of peace, love, and nonviolence.
Throughout history there are many examples of men and women who have resisted evil, in all forms, in nonviolent fashion. Today, we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. He led a movement that was rooted in nonviolence, and he led a movement that changed the course of a nation.
More recently the Velvet Revolution overcame oppression and a communist regime in Czechoslovakia. The movement was started by students who staged a peaceful demonstration. Through diplomacy they led a movement that caused the collapse of a rigme. Ghandi faced down the British Empire without a shot being fired. Sister Milar Rocco faced down Philippine soldiers with sandwiches, kindness, and conversation.
The question of nonviolence asks, “What is the preferred outcome in conflict?” Our knee jerk response is often to want to win. If we are honest, our desire is not just to win, but to vanquish our opponent and send them into oblivion. This is the voice of violence that is within us. But Jesus calls us to another way.
The preferred outcome of nonviolence is the peace, redemption, and wholeness of everyone involved. It is not the easy way – in fact it is the way of greater strength. It is easy, even normal, for a person to retaliate when another acts against them with violence. It takes great strength to turn the other cheek. It takes great strength to put down the sword and pick up the cross.
Years ago in Auburn New York, white supremacists organized a Neo-Nazi rally. As one would expect there was vitriolic rhetoric, hateful slogans on banners, racism everywhere, and hundreds of men and women bent on violence. One would think that the situation could not have gotten any uglier, until a crowd of about 2,000 began a protest of the Neo-Nazi rally.
The protest and the protest of the protest quickly turned violent. The crowds began to chase down the white supremacists who were fleeing the scene. Stones, bricks, bottles, and other objects were thrown at them as they sped away in their cars. One woman who was a skinhead was struck in the face by one of these objects, and the crowd closed in on her and began to kick, stomp and beat her.
There is this skinhead. A woman who believes that Whites are the supreme race. A woman whose life is defined by violence. There she lay bloodied and beaten. In the midst of the melee an elderly Jewish man fought his way through the crowd to get to her. When he finally got to her, he did not act violently. Rather he threw himself on top of her, and took the kicks for her.
Jesus taught that God loves everyone, even those who make themselves God's enemies. Jesus even says that we are to bless our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Paul says if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him; if he is thirsty, we should give him something to drink.
The Kingdom of Heaven is a realm in which violence, so common to our world, is superseded. The Kingdom calls its citizens to put down the sword and pick up the cross. Nonviolence is a quality of the Kingdom.
For more on nonviolence I suggest the following articles/books:
Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way
The Myth of Redemptive Violence
The Power of Nonviolence
Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea
The perfect display of this was when Jesus was going to his death. One of his disciples cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest with a sword. Jesus tells him to put the sword away. Jesus puts down the sword and picks up the cross.
It is interesting to note is that Jesus demands the same thing of those who follow him when he calls his disciples to take up their cross. His call is about living a life of sacrifice. His call is about putting down the sword, giving up entitlement, and having the same attitude of Christ Jesus.
This idea was embraced by the early Christians who refused to pick up the sword. Those who were a part of the early Church refused to fight under the Banner of any nation. They recognized that the banner of Jesus was the banner of peace, love, and nonviolence.
Throughout history there are many examples of men and women who have resisted evil, in all forms, in nonviolent fashion. Today, we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. He led a movement that was rooted in nonviolence, and he led a movement that changed the course of a nation.
More recently the Velvet Revolution overcame oppression and a communist regime in Czechoslovakia. The movement was started by students who staged a peaceful demonstration. Through diplomacy they led a movement that caused the collapse of a rigme. Ghandi faced down the British Empire without a shot being fired. Sister Milar Rocco faced down Philippine soldiers with sandwiches, kindness, and conversation.
The question of nonviolence asks, “What is the preferred outcome in conflict?” Our knee jerk response is often to want to win. If we are honest, our desire is not just to win, but to vanquish our opponent and send them into oblivion. This is the voice of violence that is within us. But Jesus calls us to another way.
The preferred outcome of nonviolence is the peace, redemption, and wholeness of everyone involved. It is not the easy way – in fact it is the way of greater strength. It is easy, even normal, for a person to retaliate when another acts against them with violence. It takes great strength to turn the other cheek. It takes great strength to put down the sword and pick up the cross.
Years ago in Auburn New York, white supremacists organized a Neo-Nazi rally. As one would expect there was vitriolic rhetoric, hateful slogans on banners, racism everywhere, and hundreds of men and women bent on violence. One would think that the situation could not have gotten any uglier, until a crowd of about 2,000 began a protest of the Neo-Nazi rally.
The protest and the protest of the protest quickly turned violent. The crowds began to chase down the white supremacists who were fleeing the scene. Stones, bricks, bottles, and other objects were thrown at them as they sped away in their cars. One woman who was a skinhead was struck in the face by one of these objects, and the crowd closed in on her and began to kick, stomp and beat her.
There is this skinhead. A woman who believes that Whites are the supreme race. A woman whose life is defined by violence. There she lay bloodied and beaten. In the midst of the melee an elderly Jewish man fought his way through the crowd to get to her. When he finally got to her, he did not act violently. Rather he threw himself on top of her, and took the kicks for her.
Jesus taught that God loves everyone, even those who make themselves God's enemies. Jesus even says that we are to bless our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Paul says if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him; if he is thirsty, we should give him something to drink.
The Kingdom of Heaven is a realm in which violence, so common to our world, is superseded. The Kingdom calls its citizens to put down the sword and pick up the cross. Nonviolence is a quality of the Kingdom.
For more on nonviolence I suggest the following articles/books:
Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way
The Myth of Redemptive Violence
The Power of Nonviolence
Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea
nonviolence, part 1
On Friday night my wife and I saw the movie Gran Turino. The movie deals, in part, with the subject of nonviolence. This can often be a controversial subject, and, interestingly enough, often engenders a violent response from its critics. The idea of violence is such a part of our culture that we have been seduced into only thinking in terms of violence.
From the earliest age we are taught that if there is a bully on the playground that hits us, we should hit him back. This idea is everywhere. Many feel that to do nothing in the face of violence is to only invite abuse from those who are violent. To defeat violence we must return violence.
The problem is that the violence returned will keep going unless one side exerts greater force. The spiral of violence will continue upward until one side commits an act that ends the fight. This can get ugly quite quickly.
What is interesting is that when one side is declared a victor there is no change in the side that has been defeated. I have never seen a fight in which a bloodied, defeated person (or people) walk away recognizing that they were wrong, or walk away feeling the fight is over. More often the defeated only walk away to plan their revenge on the victor. Typically their revenge is more and greater violence.
Violence can never bring peace. The idea that it can is a myth that has been told and retold for centuries. Walter Wink speaks of this false idea in an article titled, The Myth of Redemptive Violence. In a humorous paragraph he describes a famous cartoon that he says describes the myth of redemptive violence:
“In a typical segment, Bluto abducts a screaming and kicking Olive Oyl, Popeye’s girlfriend. When Popeye attempts to rescue her, the massive Bluto beats his diminutive opponent to a pulp, while Olive Oyl helplessly wrings her hands. At the last moment, as our hero oozes to the floor, and Bluto is trying, in effect, to rape Olive Oyl, a can of spinach pops from Popeye’s pocket and spills into his mouth. Transformed by this gracious infusion of power, he easily demolishes the villain and rescues his beloved. The format never varies. Neither party ever gains any insight or learns from these encounters. They never sit down and discuss their differences. Repeated defeats do not teach Bluto to honor Olive Oyl’s humanity, and repeated pummellings do not teach Popeye to swallow his spinach before the fight.”
Violence only breeds more violence. We can live with the attitude of, “You punch me and I will punch you back.” Then what? If the person you are punching back is living by the same rules then you are bound to get punched a second time. Then, you will punch back … and so it goes.
It seems that there is only one way to stop the cycle of senseless violence in which we are entrenched, that being nonviolence. This attitude says, “You punch me and I will turn the other cheek.” It does not pursue vengeance, it pursues peace. It pursues the wholeness of one’s enemies. It seeks the best for all involved.
This way of living seems impossible in our world. Many critics of nonviolence ask questions of how one should deal with violent regimes, or how one should respond if loved ones are threatened with violence. One friend even commented, “If we live a nonviolent life then we would just get killed.”
All of this is true. But where has violence gotten us? Maybe there is a better way.
From the earliest age we are taught that if there is a bully on the playground that hits us, we should hit him back. This idea is everywhere. Many feel that to do nothing in the face of violence is to only invite abuse from those who are violent. To defeat violence we must return violence.
The problem is that the violence returned will keep going unless one side exerts greater force. The spiral of violence will continue upward until one side commits an act that ends the fight. This can get ugly quite quickly.
What is interesting is that when one side is declared a victor there is no change in the side that has been defeated. I have never seen a fight in which a bloodied, defeated person (or people) walk away recognizing that they were wrong, or walk away feeling the fight is over. More often the defeated only walk away to plan their revenge on the victor. Typically their revenge is more and greater violence.
Violence can never bring peace. The idea that it can is a myth that has been told and retold for centuries. Walter Wink speaks of this false idea in an article titled, The Myth of Redemptive Violence. In a humorous paragraph he describes a famous cartoon that he says describes the myth of redemptive violence:
“In a typical segment, Bluto abducts a screaming and kicking Olive Oyl, Popeye’s girlfriend. When Popeye attempts to rescue her, the massive Bluto beats his diminutive opponent to a pulp, while Olive Oyl helplessly wrings her hands. At the last moment, as our hero oozes to the floor, and Bluto is trying, in effect, to rape Olive Oyl, a can of spinach pops from Popeye’s pocket and spills into his mouth. Transformed by this gracious infusion of power, he easily demolishes the villain and rescues his beloved. The format never varies. Neither party ever gains any insight or learns from these encounters. They never sit down and discuss their differences. Repeated defeats do not teach Bluto to honor Olive Oyl’s humanity, and repeated pummellings do not teach Popeye to swallow his spinach before the fight.”
Violence only breeds more violence. We can live with the attitude of, “You punch me and I will punch you back.” Then what? If the person you are punching back is living by the same rules then you are bound to get punched a second time. Then, you will punch back … and so it goes.
It seems that there is only one way to stop the cycle of senseless violence in which we are entrenched, that being nonviolence. This attitude says, “You punch me and I will turn the other cheek.” It does not pursue vengeance, it pursues peace. It pursues the wholeness of one’s enemies. It seeks the best for all involved.
This way of living seems impossible in our world. Many critics of nonviolence ask questions of how one should deal with violent regimes, or how one should respond if loved ones are threatened with violence. One friend even commented, “If we live a nonviolent life then we would just get killed.”
All of this is true. But where has violence gotten us? Maybe there is a better way.
salvation for living
When I was in college, I would go through phases where I was genuinely trying to be a good person. I would be in a rhythm of reading my Bible almost everyday. I would pray frequently, and invoke God’s name in many conversations so that others would have the benefit of knowing that I was “spiritual.”
I would not swear when I stubbed my toe, my lips would be devoid of profane talk, and I would not smoke cigarettes. I would not drink any kind of beer, and I would dress appropriately. I would go along like this for a few days or weeks, and really believe that I was doing great spiritually.
Then something in my head would click. I can’t explain it. For what seemed a dark moment, I would go to the store to buy a bottle of Dr. Pepper and something inside me would want a cigarette. So I would buy a pack, and smoke one.
I would then in disgust take the other 19 in the pack and throw them out the window of my car, and lament over my sinfulness. That night I would lie in bed, and wonder to myself if the tapping of the branches on my window was really the four horsemen trying to break into my room to take my sinful body from this world. I would go through this awful doubt about who I really was, and where I would go if I died that night.
A few days later, after the charcoal blessings were off my breath, I would regain composure, and try to be a godly person again. Then came another store and another bottle of Dr. Pepper …
I remember speaking to people over and over about this fear of not getting in the door of heaven some day. I even had a hard time laughing at jokes about “So-and-So died and went to the gate of heaven.” I would think worriedly, “I hope this guy makes the cut.”
During this time I was blessed to have a mentor in my life, and I recall a conversation with him about my miserable rhythm, which led to my insecurity regarding my getting to heaven. He looked at me and said, “What makes you think that being ‘saved’ is only about you getting into heaven?” I shifted uneasily in my seat, looked out the window, and said with a nervous laugh, “I … well then where am I going? I mean … are you … ?” My words trailed off, and at that point I was sure that I was going straight to hell.
He handed me a book, and simply said, “Read this.” I read for what seemed an eternity. I then came across one sentence that began my journey of understanding of how I think about salvation. The writer said, “How is it possible that one can rely on Christ for the next life without doing so for this one.”
It was at that point that I realized that as much as I wanted Jesus and all that he had to offer I had saddled myself with the burden of ensuring that I would get to experience all that he had to offer. I was the one who was going to live the kind of life that would ensure a ticket to the streets of gold.
The more I thought about it the more depressed I was. I had not really been living. While Bible reading and praying are not bad, when they are done for the sake of insurance they are not exactly life changing.
Salvation is about much more than just not going to hell. Salvation is about living life the full. We often use the word “saved” as a synonym for Christian. In some circles “saved” is defined as: Not having to go to hell when I die, but now I am going to heaven.
If this is all salvation was about, then why did Jesus tell His disciples as he went up to heaven, “Go everywhere and tell everyone to obey what I have taught you.” The plan of Jesus is so much more. Jesus was interested in all people not being separated from Him in the life to come, but he was also interested in people following Him in the here and now.
Being saved is being freed. Jesus has come and freed us to live in His ways. When Jesus told His disciples to go and make more disciples, part of me thinks they smiled at each other with anticipation of what they were going to do (after getting over the shock of seeing their Rabbi ascend up into heaven). The Holy Spirit would be with them shortly, and they had begun to grasp that all they had witnessed was what they needed to live like Jesus.
The salvation offered through Jesus is empowerment through the Holy Spirit to live like him now, to be like him now, to be the kind of man or woman that actually reminds people of Jesus now, to bring his justice, peace, love and hope to our world now. This is a powerful thought. When I tell someone that I am “saved” I am telling them, I have been given the grace to live like Jesus, and that I am acting on that. There is tremendous hope in that statement.
No more wondering if I am going to get there someday. Rather a humble confidence in our God knowing that we are living life more fully. Through salvation, we experience Jesus’ reason for coming. Nervousness about getting to heaven fades, and peacefulness about bringing heaven here through the life of the community of God begins to grow.
I would not swear when I stubbed my toe, my lips would be devoid of profane talk, and I would not smoke cigarettes. I would not drink any kind of beer, and I would dress appropriately. I would go along like this for a few days or weeks, and really believe that I was doing great spiritually.
Then something in my head would click. I can’t explain it. For what seemed a dark moment, I would go to the store to buy a bottle of Dr. Pepper and something inside me would want a cigarette. So I would buy a pack, and smoke one.
I would then in disgust take the other 19 in the pack and throw them out the window of my car, and lament over my sinfulness. That night I would lie in bed, and wonder to myself if the tapping of the branches on my window was really the four horsemen trying to break into my room to take my sinful body from this world. I would go through this awful doubt about who I really was, and where I would go if I died that night.
A few days later, after the charcoal blessings were off my breath, I would regain composure, and try to be a godly person again. Then came another store and another bottle of Dr. Pepper …
I remember speaking to people over and over about this fear of not getting in the door of heaven some day. I even had a hard time laughing at jokes about “So-and-So died and went to the gate of heaven.” I would think worriedly, “I hope this guy makes the cut.”
During this time I was blessed to have a mentor in my life, and I recall a conversation with him about my miserable rhythm, which led to my insecurity regarding my getting to heaven. He looked at me and said, “What makes you think that being ‘saved’ is only about you getting into heaven?” I shifted uneasily in my seat, looked out the window, and said with a nervous laugh, “I … well then where am I going? I mean … are you … ?” My words trailed off, and at that point I was sure that I was going straight to hell.
He handed me a book, and simply said, “Read this.” I read for what seemed an eternity. I then came across one sentence that began my journey of understanding of how I think about salvation. The writer said, “How is it possible that one can rely on Christ for the next life without doing so for this one.”
It was at that point that I realized that as much as I wanted Jesus and all that he had to offer I had saddled myself with the burden of ensuring that I would get to experience all that he had to offer. I was the one who was going to live the kind of life that would ensure a ticket to the streets of gold.
The more I thought about it the more depressed I was. I had not really been living. While Bible reading and praying are not bad, when they are done for the sake of insurance they are not exactly life changing.
Salvation is about much more than just not going to hell. Salvation is about living life the full. We often use the word “saved” as a synonym for Christian. In some circles “saved” is defined as: Not having to go to hell when I die, but now I am going to heaven.
If this is all salvation was about, then why did Jesus tell His disciples as he went up to heaven, “Go everywhere and tell everyone to obey what I have taught you.” The plan of Jesus is so much more. Jesus was interested in all people not being separated from Him in the life to come, but he was also interested in people following Him in the here and now.
Being saved is being freed. Jesus has come and freed us to live in His ways. When Jesus told His disciples to go and make more disciples, part of me thinks they smiled at each other with anticipation of what they were going to do (after getting over the shock of seeing their Rabbi ascend up into heaven). The Holy Spirit would be with them shortly, and they had begun to grasp that all they had witnessed was what they needed to live like Jesus.
The salvation offered through Jesus is empowerment through the Holy Spirit to live like him now, to be like him now, to be the kind of man or woman that actually reminds people of Jesus now, to bring his justice, peace, love and hope to our world now. This is a powerful thought. When I tell someone that I am “saved” I am telling them, I have been given the grace to live like Jesus, and that I am acting on that. There is tremendous hope in that statement.
No more wondering if I am going to get there someday. Rather a humble confidence in our God knowing that we are living life more fully. Through salvation, we experience Jesus’ reason for coming. Nervousness about getting to heaven fades, and peacefulness about bringing heaven here through the life of the community of God begins to grow.
the scandal of blessing
A couple of weeks ago I was reading a book that someone gave to me. In it, the author wrote,
“Just as paganism is the great plague of India, Africa, and many other parts of the world, Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence on political, social, and economic philosophy and policy."
I honestly was quite put out by this author’s viewpoint on God’s choice of blessing. In the larger context he contended that God blesses people, nations, and economies that trust in him. Therefore, places like India and Africa are suffering because those nations, apparently, do not trust in him.
Is it possible that God has blessed people in spite of the way their country operates? If we are to say, “Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence …” what then do we do with the history of civilization?
The Roman Empire, is one of the largest, most powerful, and wealthiest Empires of all times. Yet, they were in no way Christian. The Golden Age of Rome was during the reign of Augustus. Augustus was the one who called himself, a Son of God. He believed that he was divine. The Romans were well known for worshipping pagan gods such as Cybele, Jupiter, and Dionysus. The worship of these gods required horrible initiation rites and orgiastic rituals. The Roman people also worshipped the Emperor (or Caesar), saying things like, “Caesar is Lord!” They worshipped Caesar, the “King of Kings” as he referred to himself.
Beyond that the Romans oppressed, murdered, and stole from countless people and countries to build their Empire. They even oppressed God’s chosen people – Israel – and all the while their wealth and power increased. This does not sound like a place that has been “blessed because of the Christian influence …” What about the Egyptian Empire? What about Babylon and Assyria? All powerful empires that were not in any sense followers of God.
Moreover, he points to places like India and Africa as struggling because of paganism being their “plague.” Has he forgotten so quickly that Western Empires oppressed the people in these places in the last two centuries? The British Empire, which claimed their king led by the “grace of God,” began by trading with India. Eventually, the people of India were overtaken by force and were exploited by the British (For more on this see The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain Nicholas B. Dirks). This is what led Ghandi to resist the British.
The plight of many people living in Africa is due, in part, to the oppression of the Portuguese, the French, the Americans, the Dutch (remember Apartheid?) and the British. Millions were kidnapped and forced into slavery, civilizations were toppled, people were murdered and abused, and resources were sucked dry.
People in these oppressed places were trodden upon, and left out to dry by the “West, Europe, and the United States …” - the countries that this author considered blessed because of their Christian commitment. Could it be that the wealth of some countries has more to do with doing whatever it takes to attain wealth, and less to do with having a “ … Christian influence?” Could it be that God simply allows for the “sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous?” (Jesus' words from Matthew 5.45).
Rain was what the ancient people needed for survival. If one had rain, crops would grow and there was food. If there was rain grass would grow and livestock could eat. If there was rain there was water to drink. If God sent rain, he was blessing everyone on whom it fell.
Maybe the blessing of God on individuals, churches, and even nations happens because He is a God of justice and righteousness. Maybe He blesses humanity in spite of who we are and the evil that we do. Maybe his blessing has little to do with how good any of us really are and how benevolent He is. Maybe the real scandal is not of the evil of Empires, but of the goodness of God's blessing on the evil and the good, and on the righteous and unrighteous.
“Just as paganism is the great plague of India, Africa, and many other parts of the world, Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence on political, social, and economic philosophy and policy."
I honestly was quite put out by this author’s viewpoint on God’s choice of blessing. In the larger context he contended that God blesses people, nations, and economies that trust in him. Therefore, places like India and Africa are suffering because those nations, apparently, do not trust in him.
Is it possible that God has blessed people in spite of the way their country operates? If we are to say, “Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence …” what then do we do with the history of civilization?
The Roman Empire, is one of the largest, most powerful, and wealthiest Empires of all times. Yet, they were in no way Christian. The Golden Age of Rome was during the reign of Augustus. Augustus was the one who called himself, a Son of God. He believed that he was divine. The Romans were well known for worshipping pagan gods such as Cybele, Jupiter, and Dionysus. The worship of these gods required horrible initiation rites and orgiastic rituals. The Roman people also worshipped the Emperor (or Caesar), saying things like, “Caesar is Lord!” They worshipped Caesar, the “King of Kings” as he referred to himself.
Beyond that the Romans oppressed, murdered, and stole from countless people and countries to build their Empire. They even oppressed God’s chosen people – Israel – and all the while their wealth and power increased. This does not sound like a place that has been “blessed because of the Christian influence …” What about the Egyptian Empire? What about Babylon and Assyria? All powerful empires that were not in any sense followers of God.
Moreover, he points to places like India and Africa as struggling because of paganism being their “plague.” Has he forgotten so quickly that Western Empires oppressed the people in these places in the last two centuries? The British Empire, which claimed their king led by the “grace of God,” began by trading with India. Eventually, the people of India were overtaken by force and were exploited by the British (For more on this see The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain Nicholas B. Dirks). This is what led Ghandi to resist the British.
The plight of many people living in Africa is due, in part, to the oppression of the Portuguese, the French, the Americans, the Dutch (remember Apartheid?) and the British. Millions were kidnapped and forced into slavery, civilizations were toppled, people were murdered and abused, and resources were sucked dry.
People in these oppressed places were trodden upon, and left out to dry by the “West, Europe, and the United States …” - the countries that this author considered blessed because of their Christian commitment. Could it be that the wealth of some countries has more to do with doing whatever it takes to attain wealth, and less to do with having a “ … Christian influence?” Could it be that God simply allows for the “sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous?” (Jesus' words from Matthew 5.45).
Rain was what the ancient people needed for survival. If one had rain, crops would grow and there was food. If there was rain grass would grow and livestock could eat. If there was rain there was water to drink. If God sent rain, he was blessing everyone on whom it fell.
Maybe the blessing of God on individuals, churches, and even nations happens because He is a God of justice and righteousness. Maybe He blesses humanity in spite of who we are and the evil that we do. Maybe his blessing has little to do with how good any of us really are and how benevolent He is. Maybe the real scandal is not of the evil of Empires, but of the goodness of God's blessing on the evil and the good, and on the righteous and unrighteous.
the symbol of weakness, power, and love
Recently, the cross has really become a focus for me in my spiritual journey. In some ways it has become such a common symbol in Christendom that we can learn to ignore it. For some it is as common as George Washington on the one-dollar bill. We are so used to seeing him that no longer look at him – we do not think of the cherry tree story, we do not think of his leading the revolution (or rebellion for our British friends) – he is simply a grim face on paper currency.
Admittedly, the cross in some ways had become this for me. It was a symbol that, as a pastor, I would see often, and it became just that a symbol. It stopped causing me to think about what it meant. Over the last couple of years in I have realized that this may be true for more people that just me.
This first struck me when I was asked by a woman who grew up in the Catholic Tradition, “Why do churches take crosses off their buildings and out of their auditoriums?” I had to tell her that for some churches they believe the cross is an offensive symbol for those who are not a part of a Christian faith community. As I was saying this, I heard my words, “the cross … offensive.”
What was I saying? How had the church allowed the symbol that represents the centrality of our faith to be chased out of our sacred spaces? If the cross had become offensive could it be that it was because of the way we used it (or should I say abused it?) and not because of what it actually is? If the cross was offensive surely it was because we turned the story upside down. Maybe we should bring the cross back to the center and retell the story. As we do we should begin with an apology for the way it has been used.
The cross has been used as a symbol emblazoned on shields, swords, and military outfits for those carrying our campaigns against people. Can we get any more upside down than this? Now some say this is ancient history. This is true. However, today some still try to assert power in unfair ways under the banner of the cross (this is a whole other blog for another day). It is this power over that is offensive, and is the opposite of the cross.
The cross was the primary instrument of the Roman Empire for the maintaining of peace. It was originally used as a symbol of power over. It was a symbol of enforcing the law of Rome. It was punishment, torture, humiliation, and death. For the mighty Romans, the cross was a symbol of ultimate power. It was used to scare the citizens of the Empire into behaving properly and it was used to murder those considered seditious. The cross was a symbol of power.
It was this symbol of power that Jesus went to in a perfect demonstration of weakness to bring peace to the world. In being crucified, Jesus said to the powers “Do your worst.” He used the symbol of power to display weakness. Jesus did not paint a cross on a shield, or on his armor, or on his sword. He put all that down and picked up a cross. When we try to use the cross as a symbol of power we look more like Rome than Jesus.
The cross of Jesus is a paradox. He was nailed to the Roman symbol of power, making it a symbol of weakness, and through this he showed the greatest strength. Maybe it is because what led Jesus to the cross was love. And love is more powerful than anything else. John tells is that “God is love.” This is the essence of God. Could anything else have led Jesus there?
Often, today there are voices around the cross that want to bring in the guilt. People will say, “Jesus had to go to the cross because we had sinned, and he needed to be the sacrifice for humanity to assuage the wrath of God the Father.” I have heard others say, ”Your sin put Jesus there!” I have seen the exercises in which people write their sin on a 3x5 card and nail it to a large cross in the room (by the way, who can fit all their crap on a 3x5 card – my sin would be a novel).
This language brings the guilt. There is some truth to these statements. However, it almost insinuates that humanity put God in a bad spot. We sinned, and he had no other option but to die in our place. God really could have done anything he wanted with humanity. He chose love.
The cross is about God. It is not about us. The cross is about love. It is not about guilt. The cross is a paradox. In that paradox there is hope, peace, and love.
What if the voice around the cross was the voice of God saying, “My love compelled me to come to you.” What if we heard, “In my love I said, ‘I will not let humanity live like this!’” What if we heard God saying, “The cross is my symbol of my love for humanity.”
This understanding is bringing me a new understanding of the Bible. When we read the words of Paul “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We are liberated from guilt, and we find ourselves in the midst of a love story. “… while we were still sinners, God loved us.”
Admittedly, the cross in some ways had become this for me. It was a symbol that, as a pastor, I would see often, and it became just that a symbol. It stopped causing me to think about what it meant. Over the last couple of years in I have realized that this may be true for more people that just me.
This first struck me when I was asked by a woman who grew up in the Catholic Tradition, “Why do churches take crosses off their buildings and out of their auditoriums?” I had to tell her that for some churches they believe the cross is an offensive symbol for those who are not a part of a Christian faith community. As I was saying this, I heard my words, “the cross … offensive.”
What was I saying? How had the church allowed the symbol that represents the centrality of our faith to be chased out of our sacred spaces? If the cross had become offensive could it be that it was because of the way we used it (or should I say abused it?) and not because of what it actually is? If the cross was offensive surely it was because we turned the story upside down. Maybe we should bring the cross back to the center and retell the story. As we do we should begin with an apology for the way it has been used.
The cross has been used as a symbol emblazoned on shields, swords, and military outfits for those carrying our campaigns against people. Can we get any more upside down than this? Now some say this is ancient history. This is true. However, today some still try to assert power in unfair ways under the banner of the cross (this is a whole other blog for another day). It is this power over that is offensive, and is the opposite of the cross.
The cross was the primary instrument of the Roman Empire for the maintaining of peace. It was originally used as a symbol of power over. It was a symbol of enforcing the law of Rome. It was punishment, torture, humiliation, and death. For the mighty Romans, the cross was a symbol of ultimate power. It was used to scare the citizens of the Empire into behaving properly and it was used to murder those considered seditious. The cross was a symbol of power.
It was this symbol of power that Jesus went to in a perfect demonstration of weakness to bring peace to the world. In being crucified, Jesus said to the powers “Do your worst.” He used the symbol of power to display weakness. Jesus did not paint a cross on a shield, or on his armor, or on his sword. He put all that down and picked up a cross. When we try to use the cross as a symbol of power we look more like Rome than Jesus.
The cross of Jesus is a paradox. He was nailed to the Roman symbol of power, making it a symbol of weakness, and through this he showed the greatest strength. Maybe it is because what led Jesus to the cross was love. And love is more powerful than anything else. John tells is that “God is love.” This is the essence of God. Could anything else have led Jesus there?
Often, today there are voices around the cross that want to bring in the guilt. People will say, “Jesus had to go to the cross because we had sinned, and he needed to be the sacrifice for humanity to assuage the wrath of God the Father.” I have heard others say, ”Your sin put Jesus there!” I have seen the exercises in which people write their sin on a 3x5 card and nail it to a large cross in the room (by the way, who can fit all their crap on a 3x5 card – my sin would be a novel).
This language brings the guilt. There is some truth to these statements. However, it almost insinuates that humanity put God in a bad spot. We sinned, and he had no other option but to die in our place. God really could have done anything he wanted with humanity. He chose love.
The cross is about God. It is not about us. The cross is about love. It is not about guilt. The cross is a paradox. In that paradox there is hope, peace, and love.
What if the voice around the cross was the voice of God saying, “My love compelled me to come to you.” What if we heard, “In my love I said, ‘I will not let humanity live like this!’” What if we heard God saying, “The cross is my symbol of my love for humanity.”
This understanding is bringing me a new understanding of the Bible. When we read the words of Paul “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We are liberated from guilt, and we find ourselves in the midst of a love story. “… while we were still sinners, God loved us.”
not a hallmark christmas, part 2
So God showed up in a manger. The larger question was why? Why were his kids longing for salvation so desperately? Walk down any city street in America and you do not typically meet someone who is living in a posture of longing for salvation. Most are on their cell phone to fill the space between appointments, plugged into their iPod so they can stay away from their own thoughts, or chatting it up with a friend. Longing for salvation – not like the three people whose prayers shape the beginning of Luke’s narrative.
These people were desperate for something, anything to save them. They needed rescue from oppression. If you were to walk down their streets you would have seen it – everywhere. There were Roman Soldiers stationed in Judea, armed head to toe with weapons of warfare to keep the “peace.” There were hungry people, the one who were promised by God the land that He swore on an oath to their father Abraham. They had lost their land.
There was enslavement. They were captives in their land. Brutal aggression toward anyone deemed to be against Rome. The rich were getting richer through their own greed at the expense of the poor. People longed for salvation.
They cried out to God.
This was not the first time this had happened. God’s people were born out of slavery. The writer of Exodus tells us that the Kings of Egypt enslaved the people of God. They worked them ruthlessly to build their Empire. In this, the people of God cried out. They cried and God heard them. God always hears the cry, and when he hears it he always acts.
So he did. He delivered his people, Israel, from the hand of their oppressor. He brought them out of Egypt on the wings of eagles. He tells them as a people to remember this over and over again throughout Torah (the first five books of the Bible). He says, “Remember the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” This constant reminder told the people, “Remember what kind of God I am. I hear the cried of the oppressed.”
Israel goes from being slaves to being a nation. They eventually go to the land that God had promised to their ancestors. It is a good land. It is fruitful and abundant. It is a land that produces wealth. This land however, belongs to God. It is his, and he is allowing Israel to use it to honor him. He tells them that they should never forget when they are wealthy, that he has given them the ability to produce the wealth.
But they did. Years later a king named Solomon became the wealthiest man in the world. Part of his empire was forcing people into slavery to build Imperial Buildings and Religious Temples. The people who were slaves cried out. God heard them and rescued them. They became a nation and were given a land. Over time this nation who possessed a land that was not theirs became an empire oppressing people - who cried out because the formerly oppressed had now become an oppressor.
God acts decisively. He responds to the cry of the oppressed and allows his own people, the new oppressors, to be conquered. They are exiled and become slaves again. It is one large circular story. From slaves to slaves in a few hundred years. This is the way the Hebrew Scriptures end. God’s people are once again oppressed.
And what do oppressed people do? They cry out. Who hears the cry of the oppressed? God always does and he always acts. For over four hundred years God’s people Israel were crying out. They were longing for salvation. They were waiting for God to show up. Some historians even say that in the time around Jesus’ birth this longing for deliverance and salvation had reached an all time high. The people had a new oppressor – Rome. The wealthiest, mightiest, and most brutal of all empires. The people of God cried out. They needed God to show up.
In this time a little baby was born. When babies are born they cry. From the moment Jesus came into this world he identified with the very people he came to rescue. He cried. His cry was an echo of the cry of God’s people who were oppressed. Yet in his cry there was hope. In his cry there was peace for all people. For on that day a savior had been born.
In that cry there was a pronouncement from the angels that things were going to change. Magi from the East showed up and asked about a new King. The government was truly “upon his shoulders” from the moment he first drew a breath and cried. God heard the cry of his people, because he always does, and he showed up to rescue them again, because he always has.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast.
These people were desperate for something, anything to save them. They needed rescue from oppression. If you were to walk down their streets you would have seen it – everywhere. There were Roman Soldiers stationed in Judea, armed head to toe with weapons of warfare to keep the “peace.” There were hungry people, the one who were promised by God the land that He swore on an oath to their father Abraham. They had lost their land.
There was enslavement. They were captives in their land. Brutal aggression toward anyone deemed to be against Rome. The rich were getting richer through their own greed at the expense of the poor. People longed for salvation.
They cried out to God.
This was not the first time this had happened. God’s people were born out of slavery. The writer of Exodus tells us that the Kings of Egypt enslaved the people of God. They worked them ruthlessly to build their Empire. In this, the people of God cried out. They cried and God heard them. God always hears the cry, and when he hears it he always acts.
So he did. He delivered his people, Israel, from the hand of their oppressor. He brought them out of Egypt on the wings of eagles. He tells them as a people to remember this over and over again throughout Torah (the first five books of the Bible). He says, “Remember the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” This constant reminder told the people, “Remember what kind of God I am. I hear the cried of the oppressed.”
Israel goes from being slaves to being a nation. They eventually go to the land that God had promised to their ancestors. It is a good land. It is fruitful and abundant. It is a land that produces wealth. This land however, belongs to God. It is his, and he is allowing Israel to use it to honor him. He tells them that they should never forget when they are wealthy, that he has given them the ability to produce the wealth.
But they did. Years later a king named Solomon became the wealthiest man in the world. Part of his empire was forcing people into slavery to build Imperial Buildings and Religious Temples. The people who were slaves cried out. God heard them and rescued them. They became a nation and were given a land. Over time this nation who possessed a land that was not theirs became an empire oppressing people - who cried out because the formerly oppressed had now become an oppressor.
God acts decisively. He responds to the cry of the oppressed and allows his own people, the new oppressors, to be conquered. They are exiled and become slaves again. It is one large circular story. From slaves to slaves in a few hundred years. This is the way the Hebrew Scriptures end. God’s people are once again oppressed.
And what do oppressed people do? They cry out. Who hears the cry of the oppressed? God always does and he always acts. For over four hundred years God’s people Israel were crying out. They were longing for salvation. They were waiting for God to show up. Some historians even say that in the time around Jesus’ birth this longing for deliverance and salvation had reached an all time high. The people had a new oppressor – Rome. The wealthiest, mightiest, and most brutal of all empires. The people of God cried out. They needed God to show up.
In this time a little baby was born. When babies are born they cry. From the moment Jesus came into this world he identified with the very people he came to rescue. He cried. His cry was an echo of the cry of God’s people who were oppressed. Yet in his cry there was hope. In his cry there was peace for all people. For on that day a savior had been born.
In that cry there was a pronouncement from the angels that things were going to change. Magi from the East showed up and asked about a new King. The government was truly “upon his shoulders” from the moment he first drew a breath and cried. God heard the cry of his people, because he always does, and he showed up to rescue them again, because he always has.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast.
not a hallmark christmas, part 1
During this Advent season, I have spent a lot of time reading the Traditional Prayers of Christmas from the Gospel of Luke – these are the Song of the Virgin Mary (The Magnificat), the Song of Zechariah (The Benedictus), and the Song of Simeon (The Nunc Dimittis).These prayers are a response to what God is up to in the world. Mary sings in response to the news of her pregnancy. Zechariah sings in response to the birth of his son, who became known as John the Baptist. Simeon sings in response to seeing Joseph and Mary bring a 40 day old Jesus to the Temple.
These songs are in response to pregnancy and birth. These are about infants, the most innocent form of humanity. In light of this, what began to hit me was what was sung in these prayers. The prayers are prophetic and speak of subversive movements that changed the course of history.
In the Magnificat, Mary says of God, “… God has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”
In the Benedictus, Zechariah sings in response to the birth of his son, “…He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David as he said through his holy prophets of long ago, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.”
In the Nunc Dimttis Simeon says, “…my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel." He then turns to Jesus’ mother and says, “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel.”
This is interesting language. I began to think that we may have sanitized the Christmas Story way too much. Think about the nativity scene that you might have in your house. Mary, a young Middle Eastern woman, has just given birth to a child in a barn. Yet our nativity sets show a white (almost pink) Mary in a blue silken bath robe sitting up with a large smile on her face at a sparkling clean baby Jesus. Where is the blood, the agony of labor pain, and how did Jesus get so clean and why is he so calm?
These might sound like gross questions, but let’s be honest if we want a perfect scene regarding the birth, is it possible we may also want a perfect scene when it comes to the world into which Jesus was born? According to Matthew his birth caused a King to slaughter all kids under the age of two in Bethlehem and its surrounding towns. This is typically not a part of the story, for some reason we want a star, a cute baby, and a compliant white skinned Mary.
However, from the “manger scene”, to the slaughter of children, to the political prayers prayed by the characters involved in the story the first Christmas was anything but a perfect, prime-time, made-for-television movie. Jesus was born into a violent world. He came to a group of people who lived under the oppression of the Roman Empire. He was born into a world in which God’s people were desperate for justice and liberation.
There in that manger, where Jesus was “asleep on the hay” the hopes of generations was realized. There in that barn, God had once again heard the cry of his people amidst the brutal oppression of an evil empire. In that moment a child was born – bringing hope to the oppressed. This event caused a young virgin to praise God, an old priest to see God’s salvation, and a devout man in the Temple to prophesy about him as the fulfillment of God’s program.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast
These songs are in response to pregnancy and birth. These are about infants, the most innocent form of humanity. In light of this, what began to hit me was what was sung in these prayers. The prayers are prophetic and speak of subversive movements that changed the course of history.
In the Magnificat, Mary says of God, “… God has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”
In the Benedictus, Zechariah sings in response to the birth of his son, “…He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David as he said through his holy prophets of long ago, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.”
In the Nunc Dimttis Simeon says, “…my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel." He then turns to Jesus’ mother and says, “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel.”
This is interesting language. I began to think that we may have sanitized the Christmas Story way too much. Think about the nativity scene that you might have in your house. Mary, a young Middle Eastern woman, has just given birth to a child in a barn. Yet our nativity sets show a white (almost pink) Mary in a blue silken bath robe sitting up with a large smile on her face at a sparkling clean baby Jesus. Where is the blood, the agony of labor pain, and how did Jesus get so clean and why is he so calm?
These might sound like gross questions, but let’s be honest if we want a perfect scene regarding the birth, is it possible we may also want a perfect scene when it comes to the world into which Jesus was born? According to Matthew his birth caused a King to slaughter all kids under the age of two in Bethlehem and its surrounding towns. This is typically not a part of the story, for some reason we want a star, a cute baby, and a compliant white skinned Mary.
However, from the “manger scene”, to the slaughter of children, to the political prayers prayed by the characters involved in the story the first Christmas was anything but a perfect, prime-time, made-for-television movie. Jesus was born into a violent world. He came to a group of people who lived under the oppression of the Roman Empire. He was born into a world in which God’s people were desperate for justice and liberation.
There in that manger, where Jesus was “asleep on the hay” the hopes of generations was realized. There in that barn, God had once again heard the cry of his people amidst the brutal oppression of an evil empire. In that moment a child was born – bringing hope to the oppressed. This event caused a young virgin to praise God, an old priest to see God’s salvation, and a devout man in the Temple to prophesy about him as the fulfillment of God’s program.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast
all the right answers
Today I spent some time drinking a beer with a friend of mine who at one point in our conversation called himself an Agnostic Theist. I found this to be an interesting term. He explained that he is at a point in his spiritual journey where he is searching for certainty at some level – even though he knows that there is very little in life that is certain.
I began to hear in his tone, and see on his face his feeling of disappointment in himself for being at a place where he is “questioning his faith” – this is what some call doubt. For many, doubt is not good. It represents a lack of faith. However, I do not believe this is the case. Indifference may be the opposite of faith. I think that faith and doubt are closely connected. As Frederick Buechner said, “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith. It keeps it alive and moving.”
At one point in an expression of his doubt he said, “I don’t know what to think of the Bible. Every time I ask someone all they want to talk about is Special Revelation, Inspiration, how it was put together. I think it may all be crap. Maybe it was just writings from a bunch of people.”
We spent a good part of our time talking about the Bible. In the course of conversation 2 Timothy 3.16 came up. Paul says to Timothy in this verse, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” Many quote this verse in an effort to quell any conversation that raises questions about Scripture. This is done with the best of intentions, but we have to remember that this verse ends with a comma not a period.
Paul continues in verse 17 by saying, “so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul’s larger point is that the Bible is suitable for empowering God’s people to live in the ways of Jesus. So I asked my friend, “Do you think that we should ask the question, ‘Is the Bible valid from the standpoint that it is a book worth reading and following?’”
I asked this because so often we want to simply prove that the Bible came from God. We want to show that the Bible is direct or special revelation. Inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative are all adjectives that we use about the Bible – which the Bible never uses or communicates about itself – in an attempt to trust in the Bible.
However, maybe we should consider more than simply propositional statements about the Bible, and ask “What would a person look like who lived out the Bible?” This would be a tall order. Maybe we should ask, “What would a person look like who lived out Matthew 5-7?” What would our world be like if we obeyed these chapters?
People would be concerned about justice, hunger, poverty, the poor, the oppressed, and would be known for pursing peace. Anger would not be allowed to fester, but would be dealt with in short order. We would truly love our enemies – and we would not just say it. We would turn the other cheek to them, walk the extra mile, and give them everything if they needed it. We would not divorce or commit adultery or murder or call names. We would be generous. We would fast and pray in the most sincere ways. We would not be caught up in anxiety, nor would we be judgmental of others. And this is just three chapters.
These do not speak toward healthy familial relationships, welcoming the immigrant, living as a community, or living with an ethic of equality or liberation. When we begin to ask questions about what a life that embodied the truth that we say is in the Bible would look like it seems we arrive at a beautiful place.
It is no longer slick arguments. It is not large words that seem to all begin with the letter “i” that describe the Bible. It is not one simple verse about the Bible that is in the Bible that tells us how to view the Bible. It is not a catechism or confession. It is not one right answer or one correct interpretation. The words of the Bible, through the empowerment of God, once again become living and breathing as God’s people live them out.
As we finished our beer I told my friend that the Bible is about a God who is always going to where his people are. That maybe he should reframe where he is in life by seeing himself as one who follows Jesus, and at this point in his journey simply has a lot of questions. Maybe he like Thomas will be invited to touch the wounds of Jesus. It was almost as if Jesus invited Thomas to encounter his suffering – to continue the journey with him. Maybe this is his invitation to all of us – skeptic, agnostic, theist – to touch his wounds and journey with him.
I began to hear in his tone, and see on his face his feeling of disappointment in himself for being at a place where he is “questioning his faith” – this is what some call doubt. For many, doubt is not good. It represents a lack of faith. However, I do not believe this is the case. Indifference may be the opposite of faith. I think that faith and doubt are closely connected. As Frederick Buechner said, “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith. It keeps it alive and moving.”
At one point in an expression of his doubt he said, “I don’t know what to think of the Bible. Every time I ask someone all they want to talk about is Special Revelation, Inspiration, how it was put together. I think it may all be crap. Maybe it was just writings from a bunch of people.”
We spent a good part of our time talking about the Bible. In the course of conversation 2 Timothy 3.16 came up. Paul says to Timothy in this verse, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” Many quote this verse in an effort to quell any conversation that raises questions about Scripture. This is done with the best of intentions, but we have to remember that this verse ends with a comma not a period.
Paul continues in verse 17 by saying, “so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul’s larger point is that the Bible is suitable for empowering God’s people to live in the ways of Jesus. So I asked my friend, “Do you think that we should ask the question, ‘Is the Bible valid from the standpoint that it is a book worth reading and following?’”
I asked this because so often we want to simply prove that the Bible came from God. We want to show that the Bible is direct or special revelation. Inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative are all adjectives that we use about the Bible – which the Bible never uses or communicates about itself – in an attempt to trust in the Bible.
However, maybe we should consider more than simply propositional statements about the Bible, and ask “What would a person look like who lived out the Bible?” This would be a tall order. Maybe we should ask, “What would a person look like who lived out Matthew 5-7?” What would our world be like if we obeyed these chapters?
People would be concerned about justice, hunger, poverty, the poor, the oppressed, and would be known for pursing peace. Anger would not be allowed to fester, but would be dealt with in short order. We would truly love our enemies – and we would not just say it. We would turn the other cheek to them, walk the extra mile, and give them everything if they needed it. We would not divorce or commit adultery or murder or call names. We would be generous. We would fast and pray in the most sincere ways. We would not be caught up in anxiety, nor would we be judgmental of others. And this is just three chapters.
These do not speak toward healthy familial relationships, welcoming the immigrant, living as a community, or living with an ethic of equality or liberation. When we begin to ask questions about what a life that embodied the truth that we say is in the Bible would look like it seems we arrive at a beautiful place.
It is no longer slick arguments. It is not large words that seem to all begin with the letter “i” that describe the Bible. It is not one simple verse about the Bible that is in the Bible that tells us how to view the Bible. It is not a catechism or confession. It is not one right answer or one correct interpretation. The words of the Bible, through the empowerment of God, once again become living and breathing as God’s people live them out.
As we finished our beer I told my friend that the Bible is about a God who is always going to where his people are. That maybe he should reframe where he is in life by seeing himself as one who follows Jesus, and at this point in his journey simply has a lot of questions. Maybe he like Thomas will be invited to touch the wounds of Jesus. It was almost as if Jesus invited Thomas to encounter his suffering – to continue the journey with him. Maybe this is his invitation to all of us – skeptic, agnostic, theist – to touch his wounds and journey with him.