a beautiful day (with a few glitches)

Today is an absolutely beautiful day outside, and I feel free and excited about "the day the Lord has made." Having just returned from a short run–dressed in shorts and a tee shirt–and listening to some tunes (Three Dog Night, The Beatles, Hootie and the Blowfish, among others), I feel the wonder of creation. Indeed, I sense that the music I listen to on my Ipod is but a mere echo of the music the Master Creator is playing today and each day.

How marvelous the eternal state must be, how incredible and mind-boggling an uninterrupted future of bliss! What will it be like to experience what John can only describes as “it has not appeared as yet what we will be”? How will it feel when we are "like Him, because we will see Him just as He is” (1 John 3;2)? Thank God for the samples of this future of never-ending delight! Thank God we can “dip into” a little bit of this even now!

As an additional thought–and as God’s providence would have it–my older son just came home with a poor grade, which is highly unlike him. Then, a few minutes later, we discovered that my younger son did not make little league. He is young, but I am telling you–bias as I may be–he was easily one of the top few most talented kids at the tryout. Amazing, how strange things can happen even on a beautiful day. Oh well, the sun (and the Son) is (and my sons are) still shining! :-)

why i am NOT God

In a previous post, I “thought out loud” about what I would do if I were to take on the role of deity. Here, I simply expand on my thoughts, explaining in part why I am (obviously) not God.

✓ I’m not God because, uhh, I’m not God. That is, despite the views of certain relativists, extreme deconstructionists, and others, we can know enough about reality to state emphatically and with complete confidence that I am not God.

✓ I’m not God because I lack the power necessary to be God. I cannot create, sustain, or do much of anything else. Whatever influence I have (or pretend to have) and however much I’d like to control things, this is a job best left to the only One qualified.

✓ I’m not God because I lack the purity, the cleanness, the perfections, the holiness to be God. Though we should all shoot for holiness, the fact remains that we fall far short.

✓ I’m not God because I do not have the knowledge need to be God. I don’t have access to all of the information necessary for running the universe, nor do I possess the ability to pull that information together and utilize it. God knows everything–what was, what is, what will be, what might have been had certain things been changed, what would be if other things were altered. Everything is, well, it’s a little out of my comfort zone.

✓ I’m not God because I lack the perspective of deity. We see in part, a very small part. He not only knows the facts about people, circumstances, things, etc., but he knows how the parts fit together. How many times have I assumed certain things about individuals or made judgments about them only to find out that I was way off the mark? Not only am I unable to capture the “big picture,” I often don’t even know where the picture is!

✓ I’m not God because I do not exude that type of love. God, we are told, is love. In fact he demonstrated this supremely in sending his Son to rescue us. We are to follow this pattern, of course. It is ours to love him like he loved us. That said, I have to be honest in saying that I barely comprehend what this love looks like. The best I can do is marvel at divine love, aiming to share in a little bit of it.

✓ I’m not God because I don’t have the necessary wisdom for being God. What kind of discernment and wisdom does it take to rule the world? To orchestrate an infinite number of circumstances? To somehow rule without also negating or minimizing the choices of human beings? Again, I am ignorant when it comes to such things.

✓ I’m not God because I have a beginning. In Jesus, there is a life, real life, that never ends. But this eternality is something that is derived from the Eternal One; it’s not something that I intrinsically possess. Similarly, I had a beginning. There was a time (a lot of time!) when I was not around. The same cannot be said for deity. The true God was always around. From everlasting to everlasting, he is God. Sorry, I can’t compete with that.

✓ I’m not God because I am not the first-class (unlimited) creator. I can make a few things, I suppose, but they are small and rather unimpressive things. Indeed, even the good I might create is a gift from the master creator. God is the Maker of everything, and I am not. Therefore, I cannot be God.

The bottom line here is that I lack the qualifications for being God. Despite my own tendency to make-believe, I am simply unable to measure up to these (and other) standards. Therefore–in case you didn’t already know it–I am not God.

The good thing, though, is that God does want me/us to partake of at least some of these traits. When it comes to the communicable attributes of deity, we can share in a measure of these good things. In a limited but still significant sense, God wants me (us) to partake of his wisdom and love and knowledge and holiness and . . . you get the point. At the end of the day, however, he gets the credit, and we do not. Clearly, I am NOT God, which is a good thing for me and everyone! Thankfully, he is God, which is a good thing for all of us, as well.

if I were God . . .

If I were God . . .


○ I’d cure world hunger.

○ I’d wipe out disease.

○ I’d eliminate natural catastrophes.

○ I’d make the world an always exciting, always fulfilling, always joyful place.

○ I’d inject a never-ending amount of love into everyone’s hearts and lives.

○ I’d destroy death.

○ I’d make cemeteries into playgrounds.

○ I’d restore all people to their physical prime . . . and then some.

○ I’d enable all people to be themselves and to feel good about it.

○ I’d make my presence much more obvious to everyone.

○ I’d . . .

Okay, first of all, I am only trying to be provocative and to stimulate some thought. I, of course, am not God. Indeed, to attempt to be God would be blasphemy . . . which is something I’d like to avoid. The point of these statements, really, is to consider that, while we might not state it, we often imply that we’d like to take on the role of deity.

When things don’t go the way we’d hoped, when some terrible crime takes place, when darkness seems a more powerful force than light–we wonder why things have to be this way, and we imagine . . . what it would be like if WE were in charge.

But, we must return to our senses, and we must be very, very clear. We lack the power, the wisdom, the knowledge, the care, the EVERYTHING to play God! It is completely absurd to even want to take on such an incomprehensible role. Our frustrations must not be allowed to so take hold of us that they degenerate into insanity!

Let us then be humble and leave the work of deity with the only One fit to carry out such a monumental task and the only One worthy to receive praise for the same. And let us also remember that–when we are thinking clearly, at least–God apparently wants some of the same things we do. After all, if you look at the list above, I think you’ll find that these things are very much in keeping with what God will one day do in this world and for his children. One day, we are told, hunger, disease, catastrophes, and even death will be gone. One day, love and joy will permeate our very existence. One day, the beatific vision will flood our souls and motivate our wills.

Of course that day has not yet arrived. And that’s the point, isn’t it? We have to walk by faith now, taking in the previews of what is yet to come, appreciating what we have, praying and working for more, and believing that God can even now do things that are way beyond all that we ask or think. What’s more we can still hope for the fullness of these things to come, for completeness to show up, for perfection to arrive.

There’s no good reason to want to be God. The thought is crazy! I believe a better approach would be to simply trust him, recognizing that he really does know what he’s up to . . . even when we are clueless. Let God be God. Yeah, I like the sound of that . . . and I think he does too. :-)

A (Sort of) Different Approach to Postmodernism

For what it's worth, here is an appendix from my first book, Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith. In this section I briefly grapple with the various ways Christians have approached postmodernism.

A Fifth Way?

A (Sort of) Different Approach to Postmodernism


As history takes a postmodern turn, it is not completely clear how best to respond to today’s cataclysmic cultural shifts. Evangelicals are far from united in the ways they tackle these changes, with various authors proposing different approaches to postmodern trends.

Of course categorizing the various evangelical views is no simple task, for rarely do any two writers completely agree. What I propose here, therefore, is a very generalized perspective on the responses of evangelicals to postmodernism. Clearly, there is overlap in the categories (and among the various adherents), and I claim no special insight into the hearts of those who seek to engage culture.

With these limitations clearly in place, what follows is a basic grouping of evangelical stances to the changes that are taking place in today’s world. Though this analysis is somewhat simplistic, I have detected the following reactions to postmodernism.

1. “Defend and Attack”

Some evangelicals are clearly defenders of the status quo. For whatever legitimate or illegitimate reasons, they are critical of anything that might disturb ministry as they envision it. As such, these Christians are vigilant in their efforts to shield the church from the errors of postmodern thought.

One example of this type of response is found in the writings of David Wells, who sees in postmodernism a threat to the faith. According to Wells, those who get tangled in the web of postmodern philosophy are opening themselves to compromise, or worse apostasy.
While not all evangelicals fit within this rubric, it is a fairly common response among traditional believers. Many Christians see themselves as protectors of the faith and, thus, feel the need to reject anything that, in their opinion, sounds too postmodern.

Benefits: Avoids certain dangers found in culture. Stays away from worldliness as traditionally defined.

Disadvantages: Tends to be overly critical (“Throwing out the baby with the bath water”). Can lead to pride (“We have the answers, and you don’t.”). Misses potential evangelistic opportunities.

2. “When in Rome”

Another branch of Christendom, however, is not so critical of what it taking place in our society. These individuals feel a strong calling to reach non-Christians with the gospel. As a result, they are prone to see postmodernism as little more than a matter of form. If music styles change, then we must adapt to these changes for the sake of those who don’t yet know Jesus. If young people begin to speak a different language, we should learn to speak that language too.

One apparent example of this is found in the so-called seeker sensitive movement. These evangelicals (e.g., Rick Warren?) do what they can to promote an atmosphere that is comfortable for outsiders. Thus, the gospel is presented in a way that is easily accessible to our contemporaries.

This response to postmodernism best fits the “When in Rome” model, for it recognizes that cultural change requires that Christians make appropriate adaptations. When in Rome, or in a postmodern world, you need to do whatever fosters better communication.

Benefits: Makes connection with postmoderns. Picks up on certain positive postmodern tendencies.

Disadvantages: Sometimes underestimates the degree of change (whether good or bad) taking place in society and the implications for theology and life.

3. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back”

The third response in some ways resembles the previous model (# 2). The difference is that this type of reply to postmodernism tends to be a bit more critical of (even cynical toward) the negative postmodern tendencies.

D. A. Carson and Millard Erikson seem to fit this mold. On the one hand, they are concerned–like the “When in Rome Approach” advocates–to reach today’s generation with the good news. If we can benefit from postmodern themes and from a proper critique of modernism’s bad points, we ought to do so. On the other hand, there is also a proneness among these evangelicals to be wary of anything that might lead us astray. Thus, in this writer’s opinion at least, there is this tendency to acknowledge some of the potential benefits of postmodernity (“Two Steps Forward”) but to do so with great caution and in such a way that the dangers of postmodernity get more ink than the positive features (“Three Step Back”).

Benefits: Notices at least some of the changes that need to me made in order to reach postmoderns. Quick to point out and caution the church about the dangers of postmodernity.

Disadvantages: Promotes an “us-them” mentality within evangelicalism (“We traditionalists are the experts, and you non-traditionalists could learn something from us.”). Confuses “university driven” postmodernism (e.g., Jacques Derrida) with “street level” versions of the same (e.g., your neighbor). Sounds arrogant to many (both within and outside of the church). Though admitting postmodern benefits, tends to neglect any prolonged discussion of these benefits.

4. “No Looking Back”

Another response to postmodernism takes a different path. Those who follow the “No Looking Back” motto are simply excited about what God is doing in our culture today. Many within the emerging church fit broadly into this category. Of course for some, postmodernism is simply the next “cool” thing to do. For others, however, it has been the impetus for great change and the motivation for a renewed faith commitment.
Leonard Sweet might be one of the more popular representatives of this group, though others are more radical in their approach than he. The idea is that if God is “out there” in our postmodern world, and if he is challenging our beliefs and practices, so be it. Let’s take the postmodern plunge!

Benefits: Cutting edge. Conducive approach for reaching postmoderns with the gospel. Open to what God is doing in society today. Aware of evangelicalism’s “captivity” to modern ideals. Conversant with relevant postmodern themes.

Disadvantages: Too quickly dismisses the past (e.g., modernism), failing to see that God has left his mark in previous eras. Theologically and exegetically shallow at times. Sometimes comes across as “politically correct” and condescending (“Oh, those poor traditional evangelicals just don’t get it.”).

It is quite likely that the previous depictions are less than precise, and it may even be that I have misrepresented an evangelical or two. For this, I apologize. My intent, simply, is to point out some of the ways in which evangelicals have approached postmodernity.

Having said this, I have to admit that I don’t quite fit any of the paradigms listed above. While aspects of each of these proposals resonate with me, I’m still searching for another way, a fifth way.

5. A Fifth Way: “The Best of All Worlds”

The fifth way that I am proposing in not so much a settled view as it is on-going (which I realize is a very postmodern idea). In saying this, I accept, in varying degrees, at least some of what is proposed by each of the above views. “Defend and attack” has its place, though not as much a place, in my opinion, as some people tend to think; it also preserves a theological outlook often lacking in other views. “When in Rome” represents an essential aspect of Christian mission, which must always be concerned with reaching others with the gospel. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back” reminds me of the tension that attends all efforts to be faithful in a fallen world; though this view is too limiting for my liking, it does serve to demonstrate that our journey through this world is a dangerous one. Finally, the “No Looking Back” model, though sometimes naive, is a necessary incentive for anyone desiring, as I do, to connect with what God is doing in our midst.

Of all of these views, I suppose the last two (3 and 4) best fit my current way of thinking. In saying this, though, I am still very much frustrated with the tendency, at least as I perceive it, to miss part of the big picture. Thus, for instance, when I read postmodern types, I often detect an ignorance of theology and exegesis, a proneness to choose the worst examples of modern evangelicalism (often, I suspect, because these individuals were “victims” of such faulty ministries), an amazing naivete when it comes to the greater flow of redemptive history (i.e., one day, we might be considered the “traditionalists,” and surely we are not living in some sort of golden age), a simplistic use of postmodern themes (How many times do I have to read about the demise of the printed word? If you’re writing about it, it hasn’t gone away just yet!), a tendency to give mere lip service to the achievements of previous generations (It is one thing to say that we are not rejecting modernism outright but simply building on it. It is quite another thing to actually make use of, say, reason and logic, “modern” traits that still serve us well in a postmodern world), and an apparent lack of awareness of its own form of pride.

Then again, when I read the better informed traditionalists, I am just as frustrated (if not more so) with their smug attitudes and subtle (or not so subtle) superiority complex. Somehow, traditional evangelicals believe that it’s up to them to keep the faithful on track. Likewise, I see a tendency to model (and so incite) anxiety among evangelicals, who are so afraid of neglecting to cross a theological “T” that they fail to open their eyes to what is taking place all around them. If God is, in some manner, at work via the emergent movement, how “Pharisaic” it is for traditional evangelicals to think that they are the guardians of the faith and protectors of the truth. In my opinion, much of evangelicalism is “out of touch,” corny, silly-looking, defensive, overly theoretical (at the expense of experience), too individualistic, and just plain arrogant. If this is even partially true, why cannot traditional evangelicals humble themselves enough to admit the possibility that postmodernism (in its best forms) may be at least one way among others of achieving greater faithfulness and more balance?

What I see, therefore, is a tendency to go in one direction or the other, and this, as I’ve said, is disconcerting. Can we not at least try to locate a better way? Without appearing arrogant (which I may already be), I’m looking for something different, and I long to find fellow companions who feel the same way. I am tired of the traditional response to postmodernism, and I’m not interested in a half-hearted, fearful approach to today’s trends. I want to wholeheartedly embrace and embody the best kind of postmodern ministry. At the same time, I am not interested in a postmodernism ministry that is intellectually lazy, nor one that comes across as trendy, condescending (toward moderns), acts like it has already arrived at the eschaton, and doesn’t even bother to attract modern types in a more postmodern direction. God save us from postmodern hubris (ironic, isn’t it?)!

Can’t we, in good postmodern fashion, truly seek to embrace the best of all worlds? Is it not possible to hear the concerns of a D. A. Carson, follow the inclinations of a Brian McLaren, and dare set sail with a Len Sweet? To be honest, I don’t know where I am in all this. But I do know that God is governing our lives, including the direction of this and every culture. Therefore, it is clear to me that we need his wisdom if we are going to navigate this strange and wonderful, dangerous and blessed world. As we seek to do ministry in a postmodern context, perhaps the Lord will answer our prayers by enabling us to envision the possibilities of “A Fifth Way.”

Wipf & Stock Publishers
Eugene, Oregon

Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith
Copyright © 2005 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.

the bible and our views

You know the truth. To the best of your ability, you have researched and come to some conclusion about this matter or that. You believe that _____________. Okay, sounds good.

But what is the purpose of this truth discovered? Well, it seems clear from Scripture that we are to bathe in the truth, allowing it to shape our thoughts and lives. Likewise, we are to always remember that any truth we come up with, anything actually revealed by God in Scripture, is intended to connect us with our Maker; thus, truths should intersect with the One who is the Truth.

That being said, we are also to share the truth. To the degree that it is appropriate and fitting, we should convey the truth to others. But how? This is where traditional evangelicals are predictable, for many of their views are encapsulated in propositional statements, doctrinal formulas, announcements of what they stand for.

The reason I’m saying this is because I recently stumbled across a few web sites that do everything in their power to state up-front that they believe the Bible is the inspired Word or God. It almost appears, though I could be wrong, that they do this to pacify the evangelical guardians of the faith, wherever they are. This comes across like there must be someone, somewhere who checks up on these things to make sure that “we, the first church of _______ are remaining faithful.” “We’ve crossed our T’s and dotted our i’s; we’ve stood boldly and uncompromisingly for the faith. Amen!” :-)

Now, I am not at all arguing that it’s wrong to state what we believe about the Bible. Indeed, I maintain that the bible is the inspired Word of our Creator, the special inscripturated revelation of God. That said, how does the Bible itself approach these matters? Does Jesus initiate every conversation with “I believe the Old Testament is the word of God”? When he meets new people, does he always set these matters straight first? Well, there is no doubt that Jesus does indeed verbalize his belief in the veracity and relevance of Scripture. But, is this the primary way he introduces his ministry? No, it’s not. Though Jesus did confront the religious establishment with the true intent of Scripture (those who already theoretically believed in the Bible), though he was clear in unfolding the meaning of God’s Word, and while he believed that he was actually the fulfillment of the Scriptures, he was not compelled to provide some elaborate view of Scripture before addressing his various audiences. He believed in the Bible but did not feel obliged to explain how it should be packaged. (It’s not that formulating a stance on such things would have been wrong, of course, but that he didn’t deem it necessary.) Instead, he thought it more important to unfold, embody, and complete/fulfill Scripture in his own life.

Then, there is Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. When he speaks to the pagans of his day (e.g., Athens), he doesn’t preface his remarks with some philosophical defense of the Bible. He simply assumes (but does not state) certain things about Scripture, meets people where they are, and leads them gradually to Jesus. Simple enough.

Please understand, I am not arguing that it is improper to defend the Scriptures or to elaborate on them in a philosophical manner. I am also not promoting a weak and anti-intellectual view of Scripture, and I am not at all advocating that we refrain from the articulation of a position in our statements of faith. All of these things are good in their place. However, when we feel that we are required (by others, our official church stance, or by logic) to throw a bibliological hypothesis at people, when we treat our verbal affirmations as if they are of first importance, we can hinder people from investigating the very truth we are defending. Yes, we should believe the Bible is God’s special grouping of documents. Yes, it is special revelation from God. Yes, it points to Jesus. Yes, we can and should–humbly yet confidently–live out and share its contents. But, do we really need to make our belief in the infallible, inerrant, verbal, plenary, inspired . . . etc., etc. Word of God the first thing others hear? Must this be the highest priority and the first thing our of our mouths? Should belief in the Bible be put forward as the first principle and primary pathway to the gospel? Cannot we, at least sometimes, simply believe these things are true and then attempt to live them out in much more unforced ways? Cannot we be confident enough in the Scriptures that we don’t have to frantically run around waving flags (our flags!) as if our statements about the Word of God (accurate as they may be) are equivalent to the Word itself unleashed in our lives?

I’m not saying it’s quite this obvious, but I sometimes wonder if we “cage” the word, or at least block people’s access to it, when we make our bibliology the doorway into the truth, the pathway to conversion. Sometimes (not always), I think it is enough that we accept Scripture ourselves and believe in its power without making known our views within the first 5 minutes of our conversations. Sometimes, I wonder if it might be better to share the truth in subtler ways. Sometimes, it may be best to live among those in error (or those who simply lack access to certain facts) without having to incessantly remind them of it. Sometime, it makes more sense to embrace people and share our lives with them than to provide an outline of what they should/must believe. Sometimes, it is healthier to engage others with Spirit-energized concern than to provide an outline of what they must first believe. Then again, that’s just me. :-)

Note: The manuscript pictured above is of what might be the earliest New Testament fragment. It contains John 18:31-33 and 37 and is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52). Dating from about 125-130 A.D., this papyrus, which was discovered in Egypt, forced scholars to place the date of the fourth gospel back to the first century.

reacting . . . but so much more (modern, postmodern, and beyond)

We are living on the boarder between what once was (modernism) and what is yet to come. Many have described this as postmodernism. As with many things, postmodernism is at least in part a reaction against the perceived abuses of modernity. Though some of the claims are exaggerated, it is indeed true that a number of wrong ideas and practices were prevalent during this era. To react can be a good and healthy thing, even a God-initiated thing. But, and this is important, at some point we need to make sure that our reaction doesn’t turn us into one-sided reactionaries, people whose impulses lack wisdom. Likewise, we must be aware of the possibility that our criticism of, say, the hubris and self-assured cockiness of modernity doesn't degenerate into a new version of the same. When I hear such confident criticism of modernity without a concomitant effort to not only critique the past but forge a better way into the future, I sometimes cringe. Part of this is due, of course, to the experiences many of us have had in modern churches. Those who fled from those ministries (often after spiritual abuse) are not apt to put their hurts behind them. Believe me, I understand this completely! Still–and I am NOT putting myself up as a standard on this–I also think that the initial reactionary spirit (which, in God's grace, can be a wonderful thing) must eventually back off a little and take on a more balanced or seasoned perspective.

To illustrate, if my 9 year old throws something at my 13 year old, the impulse of my 13 year old will be to react quickly and forcefully. When this occurs, I understand my 13 year old’s predicament, and I correct my 9 year old for what he has done. But I also try to make sure that I discourage my 13 year old from over-reacting to the situation. When he overstates the case–thinking, for example, that he should take a poke at his little brother–I take that as a sign of immaturity. My point in saying these things is that in the process of reacting against bad stuff (and there is and will always be a lot to oppose), at some point we must learn to temper our reactions a bit. Please understand that I am not opposing reactions against that which is inappropriate and unspiritual. Sometimes, in fact, these reactions ought to be fast and furious! When it comes to modernity, we should be against those aspects that were and are harmful. But, along the way, we must be careful that we don’t become enamored with our reactionary spirit or even proud of it. While we must always be able to identify errors, more time needs to be spent on applying truths. Though arrogance must be stood against, this will ring hollow if we don’t also live our lives humbly (and not merely talk about the hubris of others). As we think about the modernity we left (are leaving), we will need to react against certain abuses. But we will also need to work through our personal issues, and we simply must avoid being trapped in the past, charting new ways into the yet-to-come postmodern and beyond world. I am only beginning to move in this direction. Lord willing, we can travel (and mature) together as we navigate our way ahead.

homosexuality and the way we (ought to/ought not to) judge

My friend John Smulo has posted something on the subject of Playing Judge. He asks a few questions that I attempted to answer there, and so I thought I would repost a version of my remarks here.

1. Do you believe some sins will be judged worse than others? Why or why not?

I think that certain sinning may be worse than others. That is, the practices and intentions of an individual sinner play a role here. Also, I’m not entirely convinced that all sins are equal. At the very least, we must admit different degrees of judgment, which tells us something about the practices of those who commit sin. I don't think that “stealing” a paper clip is the same as planning a bank robbery or breaking into an elderly woman’s apartment or raping someone or . . . you get the point. Then again, it’s probably not the sin alone that is at issue but also the accompanying circumstances (motives, degree of selfishness, etc.). I do think it is possible–based on Paul’s language when discussing homosexuality, for instance–that certain sins could be “worse” or out-of-alignment with God’s ideal. On the other hand, maybe we’re confusing apples and oranges. Maybe some things fit into what we might call an unnatural category, things like pedophilia and incest and the activities of Auschwitz. But, at the end of the day, all sin is an affront to a holy God and is probably uglier and far more heinous than any of us imagine. If I think my greed is okay but my neighbor’s adultery is not, I’m kidding myself; who cares which is worse, for they are both wrong in God’s sight! Indeed, it is probably healthy for me to view almost all of my sins as worse than almost any of yours. I wonder how often our greed or lust or pride or whatever (you know, those “acceptable” sins) blind us to the reality that all sinners require mercy and kindness and grace. Bottom line? We all struggle with lots of things and need the love of God to envelop us.

Many evangelicals have been critical of homosexuals to the point of meanness, imbalance, and just plain stupidity; this is arrogant and unfortunate and has driven many away; this clearly runs contrary to the attitude of Jesus, who was a friend of sinners (that includes you and me). At the same time, the media and popular culture portray homosexuality as an almost “darling” lifestyle, the one thing you cannot talk about or be critical of.

Both the judgmental attitudes and practices of the church and the politically correct attitudes of contemporary society frustrate me. If we treat as acceptable the idea that homosexual practice is okay, we are, I think, minimizing aspects of Scripture. In my opinion, this would be akin to treating casual sex, adultery, and the like as okay (as popular culture has already done). Indeed, it is already something of a joke to even consider abstinence as an option in many circles. Movies poke fun at it (e.g., The 40 Year Old Virgin–which is funny, by the way), and nearly everyone treats virginity as abnormal. My, how quickly we have changed! Not long ago, the “abnormal” or unacceptable thing was to sleep around. Now, among some people at least, it is considered strange to not sleep around.

On the other hand, many evangelicals are obsessed with pointing the finger at homosexuals and decrying their behavior. Part of this is due to a hyper separatistic mentality, for many Christians simply spend no quality time with the people of their culture. Perhaps, this is something of an overstatement, but I do believe that a good number of believers either form completely separate communities or they (in the name of supposed faithfulness) merely dabble in relationships with the people of the world. When you take such a stance, you aren’t really a homophobe but rather a “worldaphobe” or a “culturalaphobe.” You are afraid of any relationship that might challenge your faith, pop your bubble, or make you feel uncomfortable. (This doesn’t mean that your evaluation of what you observe in culture is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that you will likely lack the empathy and compassion that occurs when you truly get to know people.) A lot if this amounts to phariseeism.

[I should point out here that I teach health–including sex education–at a local high school. Thus, we discuss matters that have a bearing on this issue. For instance we talk briefly about the act of fertilization and the possibilities. These include those rare cases, sometimes termed hermaphrodites, were a child is born with male and female sex organs. This presents quite a difficulty for those who like to believe that almost everything is easy to decipher and categorize. There are some cases, frankly, when–to put it bluntly–I’m not sure if such a person would be considered more male or female. Talk about confusing! Therefore, there may be complicating matters that make our evaluation less than certain. That said, I do think we must view these matters as the exception, not the rule. Does that make any sense?]

2. Do you believe that there are sins that can nullify a persons salvation, even if they have professed faith in Jesus Christ?

Nothing can separate us from the love of God, and we are certainly not saved by works. There is one very strange and difficult-to-decipher sin, called the “unforgivable sin,” which is much debated, but that’s another discussion. The issue here is not whether a truly saved person can lose his/her salvation. Rather, it is how a person can know if he/she is truly saved (have assurance) if he/she is living in ways contrary to the gospel. Granted, this is notorious difficult and slippery subject (some people drive themselves crazy wondering if they are “in,” while others simply live anyway that they want). Still, I think this we have to come to grips with these things: (1) Grace means just that–grace! We are freely accepted because of Jesus, period. (2) Those who claim to follow Jesus are expected/assumed to follow him, and this is not to be taken lightly. Those who receive Jesus as Savior will attempt to follow him as Lord. While I do not pretend to know what this looks like, I can’t deny that it is a part of the NT data that we must grapple with. (3) What happens when our sin or consciences get the best of us? What strategy should we employ? I’d say we should take our sin seriously, but our serious thoughts should take place within the environment of grace. Again, we mess up all the time, and we may have serious questions about our status before God. But, our uncertainty and doubt, whether warranted or not, should be considered from within the presence and sphere of God’s unconditional love. I would even argue that an awareness that “He loves me anyway” is actually a better strategy for changing us than a “Woe is me” approach, though, again, they both have their place.

3. Why do you think some are quick to use verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to point out homosexuality, while ignoring, say, greed?

Because we all want to minimize our own culpability. If we can spend a lot of time blaming others, lowering their place in the world, making them out to be less than we are, we naturally feel better about ourselves. I don’t think we can sit idly by and never point out the wrongs of society, etc. That in itself would be a sin. But we must somehow (together and by his grace) try to keep in mind who and what we are. Paul in Galatians had a great strategy. He talked about pointing out the wrongs of others but in such a way that you “look to yourself first lest you too be tempted.”

to judge or not to judge

Judging–it is in one sense a popular theme in our society. On the one hand, all kinds of judging takes place, a lot of it unfairly. On the other hand, there is an impulse in many to decry any such notion. “Who are you to judge me?” is a common complaint.

Of course it makes sense that believers would oppose judging, for Scripture clearly tells us to avoid an arrogant and critical spirit. Then again, some who have little genuine interest in spiritual things, conveniently utilize the “don’t judge” mantra in order, I think, to avoid personal responsibility. Thus, if you try to point out the mistakes of some people, they automatically hide behind this supposedly “godly” principle.

Back to the subject, it is simply a fact of life that we have to make some sort of judgments. After all, we cannot even oppose those we deem judgmental without making a judgment about other people and their behavior.

The problem, perhaps, is not so much with the idea of judging, which cannot be avoided entirely, but with us. Once again, we are too goofy to handle our responsibilities with dignity and wisdom. So, we are all prone to misuse either side of the issue. Either, we lazily and/or fearfully avoid responsibility by pretending that “it’s not our job or some such thing. Or, in the name of “standing for the truth,” we become judgmental jerks with little care or compassion.

What’s the way ahead? Well, first, I think we need to lean on God (and ask his forgiveness), for we perpetually prone to miss the mark one way or the other. Then, I think we need to be balanced in the way we approach judging. By balance, I do not mean that we take some middle-of-the-road arbitrary stance as to how many times we allow ourselves to make judgments. No, by balance I mean that we have to hold these ideas (and many others, too) in tension. Thus, it is always true that we will have to make judgments (about what we will do or not do, which kids we’ll allow our children to hang out with, etc.), and it will also always be true that as Christians we must refrain from making final judgments (which are God’s alone), heart judgments (which, again, only God can make), and arrogant judgments (which contradict the call of Jesus to love our neighbors . . . and even our enemies). The way ahead, difficult and frustrating as it may be at times, is to follow Jesus, who said “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

if jesus walked our streets

For a number of years, it’s been common to ask, “What would Jesus do?” Actually, it is an important question and one we would all do well to consider. Of course it is proper to think through these matters, for he is the one we are supposed to be following. But, if he were here in the flesh, where would we be following him?

All this is good and fine, but I’m not entirely sure that some evangelicals would be happy with the answer.

If Jesus were walking our streets . . .

He would be more critical of those who are theologically on target than those who are not.

He would attend celebrations and drinking parties.

He would possibly provide the beer.

He would drink with the rest of us.

He would spent a good chunk of time with those whom the religiously “pure” had no time for.

He would interrupt some of our religious services by making unplanned announcements and controversial statements.

He would tell stories that were relevant and attractive but not always immediately clear.

He would spend a lot more time encouraging others to follow him than he would simply providing religious facts about himself.

He would live courageously yet humbling.

He would serve those who crossed his path.

He would rub shoulders with the outcasts of society.

He would demonstrate that theology is intended to be done in public and on the streets.

He would go places deemed objectionable by the moral standard-bearers of society.

He would make people feel both comfortable and uneasy.

He would violate some of the rules of the religious establishment.

He would desire to heal and not to hurt.

He would be compassionate every day.

He would be challenged (and in some cases hated) by the experts of our day.

He would probably cause a lot of us to wonder if he is truly the one he claimed to be.

He would keep his promises.

He would most likely be criticized by a good percentage of the media.

He would . . .

Pi

I almost forgot. It's National Pi day!
3.
14159265358979323846264338327
95028841971693993751058209749
44592307816406286208998628034
82534211706798214808651328230
6647 . . .

change and the journey

Just today, I was contemplating the changes I have gone through in many areas. When I was very young, I think I was a free-spirited modern type thinker. I attempted to be logical and to come up with coherent thought. As I was converted, this carried over, especially in the early stages of my spiritual walk. I studied things like prophecy, probability, and the similarity and difference between various religious expressions. Then, when I got hooked up with a church, I learned and studied and thought through the many great doctrines of the faith and became familiar with the inner coherence of various theological systems. At the same time, I gradually moved in what might be considered a postmodern direction as I began to see that there is no end to arguments, no universally accepted apologetic, and no need to specialize in separating from everyone who is even slightly different than you. My thinking had evolved from a defense “in house,” pretty much confident and satisfied mode to a more positive, “outside the box,” real-world oriented, and often dissatisfied mode. Indeed, this dissatisfaction was (and is) something with which I grew accustomed and even comfortable. I became postmodern-like long before I had any real comprehension of what the term meant, and this influenced many things in my life, including my overall attitude and even the way I thought through issues of philosophy and theology. Though I couldn’t pinpoint this time period with precision, I suppose a lot of these changes began to take root in the early 1990's and then became more noticeable by the end of the 90's. During this phrase, I never rejected my previous learning, at least not the big stuff, but I did become far more open to change and to tweaking current beliefs. To put it in spiritual language, I truly think God was working in my life as I lived in the world and interacted with many people (some Christian, most not). This affected many things about me. At the same time, I was aware, pretty early on, that not everything that was postmodern smelled like a rose. Certain trends bothered me. For instance, some people were real quick to criticize and to define modern Christianity in narrow ways, too quickly minimizing many years of Christian reflection on various issues. Some postmoderns seemed like they were looking to criticize and for someone to blame for whatever bothered them. Of course there was (and is) a lot of blame to go around, and the modern church is guilty (in my opinion) of damaging the cause of Jesus in our society. Still, this was sometimes taken too far. Other things bothered me too (and I speak generally based on my experience), including a lack of respect for the biblical text, a tendency to minimize the past, a tendency to speak humbly and act arrogantly, and an attitude that treated postmodernism as an almost golden age (which ironically sounds like some moderns I know). Thus, while I reveled in postmodern themes and greatly appreciated the writings and attitudes of some of the better postmodern pilgrims, I was not as enamored by the postmodern thing as I had been. Indeed, I started to see a blending of many things, a combination of things past and present, along with a greater sense of wonder about what God might still do in my life. I suppose at this juncture I would be considered by some a postmodern type (which I would gladly accept), but I’m not quite what I once was, and I'm sure that some postmoderns wouldn't be satisfied with me. :-) Indeed, though I am quite conscious of my place in the flow of history, I am more prone to take what I’ve experienced and learned and to flow into a post-postmodern, post-post postmodern and beyond direction. I’m not really looking for some label, though, and I’m not trying to outrun what God is doing in my/our midst. It’s just that I feel more relaxed now about being able to embrace the truth and to follow the Spirit wherever that/he leads. What’s my point? Who knows! I’m just rambling, I suppose. :-) But I also wanted to acknowledge my awareness, at least on occasion, of the journeying aspect of my personal faith. So long as the Lord goes with me/us, any age is a time and place for growth and blessing. “Heaven and earth will pass away–as will every era–but My Word will not pass away.” “Behold,” Jesus said, “I am with you always, even to the end of the (postmodern) age.” :-)

i wish . . .

● I wish certain Christians would exude a greater openness to the possibility that they may actually be wrong about some things.

● I wish other Christians would stop being wimps when it comes to anything related to truth.

● I wish certain modern types would display more humility by emphasizing not only what they do know but what they don’t.

● I wish certain postmodern types would stop confusing humility with relativism.

● I wish those who think they know it all would pause to truly consider where they derive their conclusions from.

● I wish those who constantly brag about what they don’t know would realize that it is still quite possible to be arrogant in the process.

● I wish that certain segments of the church would stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the people whom Jesus loves.

● I wish other segments of the church would stop acting like being missional simply means repackaging old ways of doing things.

● I wish we would learn to avoid the “stuck I the mud,” “have already arrived” attitude.

● I also wish we would avoid the reactionary, “throw out the baby with the bath water” mentality.

● I wish certain traditionalists would come to see that some traditions are harmful (or at least outdated).

● I wish certain “cutting edge” individuals would pause before jettisoning everything that comes to us via the modern era.

● I wish certain Christians would recognize that none of their “heros of the faith” were perfect.

● I wish other Christians would recognize that we do have something to learn from our heros of the faith.

● I wish we would all somehow learn to appreciate and make proper use of the past, live with vigor and wisdom in the present, and look with hope to the future.

● I wish I wouldn't be such a hypocrite when writing such things.

● I wish I didn't have to wish.

● I wish . . .

What if . . .

There are lots of things that I'd like to change, both in my own life and in the life of the church in general. Among them are the following:

✓ What if being a Christian meant just being you?

✓ What if evangelism was more about exuding hope than spreading propaganda?

✓ What if we felt comfortable enough with the truth to simply live it?

✓ What if what truly matters was consistently out in the open and shared with others?

✓ What if we spend much more timing plumbing the depths of the things that are essential than we did debating over the things that are less than essential?

✓ What if our pursuit of truth was unhampered by the pressure to be politically correct or fittting in with any particular group?

✓ What if authenticity governed our lives more than maintaining our self image?

✓ What if we lived in society instead of trying to escape it?

✓ What if we cared more about people’s relationships with God than their affiliation with our favorite groups?

✓ What if we were mature enough to recognize error without always feeling it’s our duty to point it out?

✓ What if church was a comfortable place to be but also a challenging place?

✓ What if we actually believed it’s good to be joyful?

✓ What if we allowed ourselves to grow instead of to stagnate?

✓ What if the rules for the community were based on being real even if that sometimes made us feel exposed?

✓ What if love truly governed our hearts and lives?

✓ What if we actually lived in genuine unfaked ways?

✓ What if the bible were treated more as a place where history, our lives, and God intersect instead of like a battleground for disagreement?

✓ What if we were simultaneously governed by convictions and openness?

✓ What if we learned lessons more quickly than we normally do?

✓ What if we were so determined to be right before God that we were something other than defensive?

✓ What if we truly felt the pull of eternity in our lives each day?

✓ What if . . . ?

positive (+) or negative (-)?

In a recent blog, John Smulo raised the issue of being positive or negative in our focus as believers. In response, I added these words:

I think there may be a number of thing to consider when it comes to this subject.

First, the primary motivation and driving influence in our lives is unquestionably to be a positive one. It's all about grace, free gifts, God's mercy, the good news. This means, at least in my opinion, that despite the bad things we do, the stupid things we say, etc., the positive features of God's work on our behalf should remain central in our thinking. I think it was McCheyne who said one look at self and a thousand looks at Christ . . . or something to that effect.

Second, in response to the wrongs that we inevitably do, that is, the negative things we get involved in, I still think the best "treatment" for our problems is a healthy dose of God's grace. Thus, when we screw up at whatever, it is imperative that we remind ourselves that God loves us anyway. This, I would argue, is a more effective way of producing repentance and change than sitting around and focusing on our inept behaviors. It is the goodness of God that leads to repentance.

That all said, I do think we also need to balance the moral issues of the Christian life. While many, many things are subjective when it comes to holiness, at least some things are a bit more objective. It is here that we need to balance the negatives and positives. Thus, as Paul says, stop lying but tell the truth, stop stealing but give to others, etc. It's not enough to simply stop doing wrong, we must also practice doing what is right. Likewise, we must not simply talk about the right things we intend to do, we must face up to the wrongs we must avoid. Balance.

Just a few thoughts.

doubt and faith (when uncertainty challenges and engenders faith)

Just yesterday, I was thinking about the role of doubt in my life. Many times thoughts of uncertainty have flashed across my mind, and I have on numerous occasions wondered if my views of faith are wrong.

I say this not because of strong evidence that runs contrary to faith. Indeed, I have for years thought through, taught, and written about matters that give support to faith. This has resulted in an evolution in my way of thinking about certain issues pertaining to spiritual matters and the like, but it has never led to a destruction of these. In other words, the contemplation of life, current affairs, and whatever else crosses our paths can actually cause faith to grow, to mature.

Thus, for me at least, faith has been both constant and progressive, but–and this is the point–it has been stirred by thinking through things about which I am not absolutely certain. When I was younger, I wanted to cross every “T” and dot every “I.” Now, though I still want to be thorough, I recognize that only God possess that sort of knowledge. As I have “postmodernized” my faith, my attitude has changed. And a part of this process is, shall I say, guided by questions of uncertainty, puzzlement, doubt, motivated by thoughts of “What if I am wrong?”

This led me to wonder about the role of doubt in the life of any person, but especially in the life of a believer. to that end, I think doubt can do a number of things, some harmful and others helpful. On the negative side, doubt can sometimes lead to despair. If you are of the opinion that Christianity must be neatly tied up in a clean-looking passage, if you believe that all truth claims are easy and universally undeniable, if you tend to shy away from the reality of hard questions, if you insist on repressing doubt, doubt can eventually sneak up and bite you.

The recent “Jesus tomb” claims have brought these ideas to the surface for me. If the claims of these film makers are shown to be invalid and filled with holes, that will be revealed. But even if this is the case, that is not the same as having absolute 100% confirmation that Jesus did indeed conquer the grave. It seems to me that we cannot have that kind of evidence. We have a lot of solid history, and a ton of evidence that suggests that something amazing happened during the days following Jesus’ death. The tomb was empty, cowardly individuals were transformed, and many reliable individuals claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. This is good stuff, but we do not possess a film of Jesus conquering death. There are no Polaroids of Jesus’ meeting with Thomas and the others. There is no snap shot of Jesus hovering into heaven. Indeed, even if we did have such additional pieces of evidence, even if God appeared once a year to announce that Jesus is his death-conquering Son, would we still find it within ourselves to doubt? Would we wonder, perhaps, if the evidence is tainted or incomplete or something else? I think we'd find a way to doubt. Therefore, if complete intellectual certainty is your thing, you will either separate yourself from reality and from real arguments and real challenges, or you will drive yourself crazy (thus causing other people to separate from you!).

But there is another kind of doubt, a doubt as curiosity, a doubt of wanting to know, a doubt of honesty, a–dare I say it?–a doubt of faith. As I was thinking last night, I recognized that my inability to know about Jesus’ resurrection with certainty, my lack of ability to grasp all of the facts, was forcing me to acknowledge that I needed God even to believe. Now, when I say this, please don’t think that I am condoning some mindless, forget the facts, make-believe kind of faith. Truth claims are often claims that can be tested at some level, and clearly we are to be responsible in our handling of whatever we encounter. Concerning the “Jesus tomb” this means that we must be humble and open and teachable. But, at the end of the day, we cannot of ourselves arrive at a place where we have the same knowledge as God does. We have evidence that makes the truth coherent and believable. We have enough to recognize that indeed a strong case can be made for faith in Jesus and his resurrection. But we are never in a place where we can believe–how shall I say it?–independently of the one in whom we place our faith. I don’t think God has designed us in a way that enables us to get along just fine . . . even (though we would not say it) without his help. Rather, I see a world in which we can locate truth, identify error, and show forth a truly attractive and sensible faith. But faith is never in ourselves or our arguments. Rather, it is in him.

When we allow for this sort of perspective, when we give doubt permission to surface in our lives, when we freely admit to God himself that we sometimes wonder about it all, then–I think–we are precisely where he wants us to be. Doubt, then, can be a component of and an avenue to faith. Doubt, can force us outside of our own resources and capacities. Doubt can compel us to say, “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.”

At some point, we must learn to look beyond (or through) an “about” God faith (what I know about the faith) to an “in” God faith (what I do with my doubts and where I go for help). We must not treat issues of faith merely as things to be settled in terms of logic, rationality, coherence, and having the best apologetic argument–essential as these can be–but as opportunities to turn to God with sincerity and frankness, discovering (by grace) what it means to trust in, look to, and cast ourselves upon him. That passage from Paul about Jesus is beginning to make sense: “He is the author and finisher of our faith.” “Increase my faith, Lord.”

brief reflections on the "jesus tomb" documentary

A number of things come to mind in response to the documentary on the Discovery Channel. These include the following:

(1) There is a clear anti-supernatural bias among those who put together this film. It exists just beneath the surface and peeks out here and there. Naturalism is the presuppositional basis of the claims, and only God knows the motives of these people.

(2) After the show, one of the theologians (whose overall perspective I appreciated) made the observation that we should all be allowed “into the tent” when such discoveries are made. While I understand this at one level, another part of me bristles. Why do I have to work under the auspices of, or within the framework of, those who are anti-Christian in their focus? I absolutely think I must work among all kinds of people; no problem there. But to assume that the naturalistic individuals “own” the tent is part of the problem in the first place. Okay, enough of that.

(3) On a related note, why is it that no apparently strong historically-grounded believer is found among those who are doing this research? If Jesus bones are in that tomb, billions would be traumatized. Yet, few of the people in the show even seemed to flinch at the proposition. Indeed, they appear to relish the thought of locating the tomb of Jesus.

(4) It is sheer ignorance and/or arrogance to act like the discovery of Jesus bones would be no big deal. Either the makers of this film are complete biblical ignoramuses (which might be partly true), or they are very much aware of the fact that this is a potentially earth-shattering find. Yet, they pretend to be going about their work in unbiased fashion. BS!

(5) Art is a wonderful tool, as is story telling. But it is supposed to be a vehicle of the truth, an illustrator of reality, not a means of blurring it. The movie makes questionable or even erroneous statements appear valid by portraying them as they do.

(6) PC very often dominates in our world. We want a story, especially one that involves deception and conspiracy. We love to be entertained by a tale of mystery, an Indiana Jones type adventure.

(7) In all of these interviews and statements, little or nothing is said about the scads of evidence that actually support and give credence to the Christian story and the resurrection. You can’t take one piece of rather uncertain history (ossuaries with uncertain occupants) and then sprinkle in some second to fourth century tales and in the process come up with something that can truly be called valid. What about the early disciples? What about their claims? What about Jesus’ own claims? You can’t just imagine that Mary Magdalene is running around evangelizing the ancient world without consideration of the fact that her message would have absolutely no power if her supposed husband hadn’t actually conquered the grave. The makers of this film act like Jesus’ followers did their business and preached some nebulous message, but how can this be if the one on whom they pinned their hopes was proven a failure? Indeed, if we are going to be fair and historical about it all, are we to imagine that the earliest followers of Jesus were suddenly emboldened to preach a message in hostile territory, a message that Jesus was in fact alive, while they already knew that his bones were being stored in someone’s basement? There are numerous early witnesses to the fact of an empty tomb, a transformed community, and claims that many had seen and touched their once dead Master. You cannot build a vigorous, historically believable theory if it ignores the many, many pieces of evidence that point in an entirely different direction than the one advocated by these film makers.

(8) One of the obvious indicators of arrogance among these film makers is located in their willingness to borrow whatever is convenient to their story. They don’t mind plucking certain passages out of the canonical Scriptures while simultaneously ignoring many others. This is one-sided arrogance run wild. Indeed, even if the tomb were actually that of Jesus, the fact remains that the motives of these individuals are highly questionable. Ted Koppel did a pretty good as highlighting this fact.

(8) At one point, the question is posed about the bad track record of the church. Christians have indeed been guilty of numerous foolish choices regarding science and the like. It is at this juncture that we must be humble and careful. At the same time, though, I couldn’t help but notice the irony and the role-reversal of sorts that had taken place. Here the Scientific high priests were dismissing the religious establishment so far as the proper interpretation of these findings.

Well, enough said for now. I just wanted to take some of my initial thoughts and get them down on “paper.”The truth will prevail without bypassing the facts. It is ours to live with honesty, humility, and integrity, trusting him to accomplish whatever he’s up to.

Jesus . . . what really matters?

In watching the Jesus Tomb segment, I have tried to think through the issues related to Jesus and Christianity. Though these are only tentative remarks, they represent some “out loud thinking” about these subjects. What is the essence of Christian faith? What must we accept about Jesus to retain true, historic belief? What apparent non-negotiable truths should believers hold onto in their quest to understand any of the challenges that come their way? In light of this recent claim that Jesus’ tomb have been found, what lens should we look through as we seek to decipher various claims? Here are some basic faith-commitments:

(1) Jesus claimed to be and was proclaimed by his followers as the Messiah, the unique individual who would rescue humanity. As such, he performed marvelous supernatural wonders and spoke amazing words, which eventually led his followers to believe he was God’s Son. In Christian theology, he is termed theanthropos (i.e., the God-man). Somehow, in the person of Jesus, God has truly become one of us. He wasn’t just a godly man or a spirit-filled individual. No, he was also the Lord become a human being. I don’t know exactly how such a thing took place, but it is the essence of the incarnation. Apart from this, we have something less than Christianity and Someone less than a hope-producing redeemer.

(2) Next, Jesus lived an exemplary life, indeed an absolutely complete and unblemished one before God and man. That is, he lived among us in a way that no other had before or has since. Though he was human in every sense of the term, he never committed the wrongs that humans are known for. Instead, he lived as we should, as God designed us to live. Even his enemies couldn’t find a fault with him, except to reject his claims and spurn his utter commitment to love others.

(3) Third, Jesus somehow died in our place. His death was not merely that of a martyr. Nor was it simply as an example. Beyond all that, he treated his own death in terms of sacrifice or atonement. Again, I’m not entirely sure what was taking place behind the scenes when Jesus died. What seems clear enough, though, is that his death was on behalf of others. In some strange and mysterious way, Jesus’ death is our passage way to life.

(4) Jesus death was not an end to him, for he was reported alive by his followers. Those who cowered in fear in response to his ignominious death were suddenly emboldened by what took place on “the third day.” While a complete understanding of the meaning of a resurrection is far beyond any of us, it is important to say that something visible, tangible, and observable took place as Jesus overcame the grave. It was not merely some ethereal vision that others experienced, for he ate fish with them. Nor was he a ghost, for he invited the touch of Thomas and even exclaimed, “Touch and see that it is I and not a spirit.” In other words, whatever happened to Jesus was something that resulted in his being seen alive. This was no apparition. This was not the influence of Jesus living on. Rather, it involved the conquest of death and thereby the declaration of his identity and the stamp of approval on his rescuing activity.

Of course other things might be added to this list, but I think this represents at least a minimal amount of the necessary stuff when it comes to matters of faith in Jesus. Now, given the claims of the people who put together the so called documentary, I’m not sure all that we should do in response. Perhaps there would be some clever way to maintain faith even if this is Jesus’ ossuary. Maybe the historic faith could survive the uncovering of the body of its (supposedly bodily resurrected) founder. But, to be honest, I am skeptical of such an effort. Indeed, I am even more suspicious about the motives of those who put on such shows.

more thoughts on the "jesus tomb"

A little while ago, I had a discussion with my brother about the importance of the Jesus tomb theory. As a result, a number of thoughts come to mind:

(1) If Jesus was not raised, historic Christianity will crumble. Though some creative ideas might be proposed, the immediate impact would have to be a radical restructuring (or abandoning) of the faith.

(2) This reminds us of the fact that even in a postmodern world, evidence matters. Though we may not be enamored by a “Josh McDowell” approach, we still care about what actually happened to Jesus.

(3) Clearly, much bias is being shown by those involved in this project. Being open to the evidence is one thing, acting like the world has been turned upside down and that we should lean in the direction of denying the resurrection is quite another. As my brother said, let’s follow the evidence wherever it leads, but let’s not assume that some recent discovery, which is being promulgated by people who have something to gain (contrast the early disciples!), should be the preferred interpretation.

(4) As for the early disciples, if we truly care bout history and what it is saying, we have to investigate the extremely strong evidence which in fact supports the fact that something incredible happened to those early followers of Jesus. We have ancient documentation by honest God-fearing individuals who made great claims about thing they were not inclined to believe. When Jesus died, the disciples did not rush to his tomb in anticipation of his resurrection. No, their faith was gone.

(5) We all have bias, but one important step is to acknowledge that fact and to do at least what we can to be open. To this end, has James Cameron ever thought about doing a documentary about the wealth of evidence supporting the resurrection? The conversion of Paul? The sudden change of the once-fearful disciples into zealous proclaimers of the resurrection? The strong support for the basic historicity of the New Testament? Do I detect any bias? Is he truly open? Indeed, if skepticism is the common perspective of such individuals, then the truly humble and open response would be an openness to resurrection. How much of that do we observe?

(6) The fact is that this “new” find will be for some an excuse for disbelief. Those already predisposed to unbelief are likely to embrace the Jesus tomb arguments. What this means, in other words, is that the real issue with many is not whether or not the evidence actually supports Cameron’s theory but whether or not such-and-such an individual is actually open to (or even concerned about) the evidence in the first place.

(7) I think it is fascinating (and sometimes frustrating) to consider the power of repetition. If something is stated over and over again, it seems to take on a force of its own. Never mind that it might not be true. If we ceaselessly use the same (even fallacious) arguments, many will buy into them.

(8) While there is much that I love about postmodernism, one thing that I have trouble with is the silly, exaggerated pluralistic assumption that all arguments are equal. In the name of being “fair” to everyone, everyone’s argument is given equal weight (unless, of course, it is not deemed politically correct . . . but that’s a different subject). So, one person gets to say that Jesus was a prophet, while another gets to proclaim he came from another planet. Then, amid a myriad of opinions, Christians say he was and is the Son of God. I am absolutely in favor of allowing people the freedom to believe whatever they want–no problem there. But, to say that we are, of necessity, to treat all opinions as equal is ludicrous. Some people still don’t believe that we landed on the moon; okay, fine . . . but few treat this theory with the same level of respect as they do the claim that Neil Armstrong and others actually landed there. Please understand, I’m not arguing that anyone should simply assume that the resurrection of Jesus took place. All I’m saying is that we should not approach history, or anything else for that matter, under the delusion that no opinions are better than others.

(9) If Jesus truly conquered death, then he is alive. In that case we should have some measure of faith that he is indeed God’s unique Son. Thus, to frantically run around, acting like we need to quickly answer every objection, treating Jesus like an impotent Savior who requires our protection, is to live by fear instead of faith. Yes, there is a place for defending the faith. But, let’s not get so crazy that we fail to realize that the living Jesus, if indeed he is alive, cannot be defeated by arguments of people living almost 200 years after the fact. Think about it–if Jesus could defeat the grave, he surely can defeat arguments leveled against him by those who, in some cases, are not even open to his influence in their lives. Just a thought.

(10) While the resurrection of Jesus is integral to the faith, it is not entirely clear what is required to, how shall we put it, initiate a relationship with him. Again, I am not at all trying to water down the orthodox belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and I do believe that without it we are–at least at one level–left with no faith at all. Still, in a practical sense, I would not deny that people can access the living God through his Son without being convinced (or, perhaps, without having even given much thought to the fact) that his body came out of that ancient tomb. I say this only to allow us all a little space for saying, “Lord, help us to figure this out.” As James put it: “The effective prayer of a right thinking person accomplishes a lot.” Or, as Jesus himself proclaimed: “Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.” In our own lives and in our efforts to share the gospel with others, the Lord is gracious to all who are willing to look to him in faith and then follow him wherever he leads.

(11) As someone recently wrote (Darrel Bock?), it is high time for followers of Jesus to get out there and do some quality work of their own. If the resurrection is based on solid historical realities, we should share these with others. One word of caution, though. Along the way, we will fail if we come across as reactionary, fearful, anti-intellectual, and close-minded to the truth. I guess what I’m saying is that we need to possess and exude an intelligent faith, remaining open to what the true God, the God who raised his Son from the grave, is doing in our day.

(12) All of these discussions also cause me to inquire into the very nature of faith itself. What is faith? What should we believe? What does it mean to be a genuine follower of Jesus? I am not at all opposed to whatever avenues of help are available for accessing the living Jesus. If we are made in God’s image, it is certainly possible, indeed likely, that he will equip us to discover more and more about him. Still, at the end of the day, we are to place our trust not merely in ideas or nicely organized apologetic arguments but in Jesus himself. Again, our ideas are necessarily and our arguments can indeed by pathways to the Savior. All I’m saying is that I wonder what God is “up to” in all of these things. Could it be that he’s calling us back to a simple faith in him, trusting, truly trusting, that his Son is really alive and our lives our secure in him. “Look to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth” is one way that he put it. Are we, am I, looking? “God, grant us faith . . . and joy in believing.”