Red Letter Living

I am back from my seven week hiatus and with some fresh insights. During this time I have stopped thinking about theology. It just became too troublesome for me to continue the way I was going.  But, I have now come to some foundational conclusions.

1. I was just getting too drained worrying about all the different views of Christ that exist in the world today and which one, if any, is actually true.
2. It is not up to me to “save” the rest of the world. Everyone must discover the true Christ on their own terms. I believe that I have finally come to an understanding of God that satisfies my soul. Part of this understanding  I believe came from personal revelations from the Holy Spirit. Part of it was just common sense that I previously refused to accept.
3. I can only be accountable for myself and my actions. If others choose a different path than me they, or possibly I, will have to live with the consequences both in this life and in the possible next one.
4. I can finally say without reservations that I believe that the Bible was written by men for men. It is man’s meager attempt to describe the nature of God. Some of the Bible is indeed inspired by God but it was not dropped from heaven. It is a work of man not God. Some of it good; some of it not so good and some of ways it is presently interpreted is quite troubling.
5. I believe that the words in the Bible that are attributed to Jesus must take front and center above absolutely any other words in that book. Christ is God incarnate; his words are what really matters.  Everything else  in the Bible is very secondary at best and some is really not currently relevant for us at all. Some of those words attributed to Jesus may not actually have come from Jesus’ lips but that does not tarnish the dominant overall message.
6. I believe that faith without the follow-up actions is worthless.  We must not only say the words but must also live by them. Anything else is just blowing in the wind and worthless.

So with these insights in hand I will now continue with putting my thoughts down in this blog. If anyone sees any value to my words that is wonderful but I put them down here mainly for my own benefit. I will no longer attempt to adhere to a regular schedule for this blog. I will post when the Spirit moves me. Those posts may be several times a week or several weeks apart.

I will starting now generally restrict my posts discussing things that I believe, book reviews, and memorable quotes of others. I will no longer be posting about Christian denominations, politics, theology and like minded topics.  I will first, foremost, and always strive to live my life centered on the words of Jesus alone.

I have come to the point where I need some time away from theology things. So I will stop blogging on RLL starting today. How long my hiatus will be I don’t know right now. Thanks to all of you who read me on occasions. I am humbled that you think my words are worth your time. I pray that all of you continue to keep our Lord and Savior front and center in your lives….

Is there anything wrong with having a church be the social center for members’ families as well as a place to worship God? Many churches believe this configuration is totally wrong but in reality most, if not all, churches are to one degree or another clubhouses as well as churches.  Some believe the church/clubhouse is the core of the 21st century religious establishment. Should having fun be unrelated to doing church or to what extent should they be related? That is the basic question to be answered and it seems to have many different answers.

I don’t see anything wrong with being happy and having fun while praising God. But I’m sure many of you more stodgy Protestants think otherwise. To you praising God is a very serious thing and should not be a joy for us but a very serious event. This was also pretty much the case with Catholics up until the 2nd Vatican council that finally at least put the mass in native languages and then that was followed by the dreaded guitar masses . I don’t think anyone can deny that most mega churches make praising God a happy and family centered event. Some have coffee bars and some even have McDonalds restaurants to enjoy between events. Is this wrong? I am beginning to think not!

In studying the words of Jesus it is obvious that he had a sense of humor and was not opposed to having fun. After all the very first miracle he preformed was to make wine for a marriage celebration! So, it is obvious that he was not against taking drink in moderation or dancing or other such things that go on at wedding celebrations. Yes we should take praising God seriously but that does not exclude having fun doing it. To me celebrating my salvation through Christ is a joyous thing! As long as the church and its events are Christ centered and not people centered they will accomplish their task and allow the Christian family to have an enjoyable time doing it.

I will let the last post represent those parallel verses that are very similar to each other. In my studies those were somewhat typical of the conflicts of words. I know there are many places in the Old Testament that people report conflicting verses. I did not attempt to cover any of these but instead concentrated on Gospel accounts.  What I found were all somewhat like the previous posts.  The overall message was consistent but the words varied.

One final area of parallel verses that give me some reasons for concern is the last supper. Let’s look at those parallel verses. They appear in all four Gospel text:

Matt 26:26-29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.“

Mark 14:22-26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke 22:17-23

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

John 13:1-8

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

The Eucharist, as it later came to be called, became one of the basic foundations of the Christian church. Unless this event was reported in a text that was not eventually included in the canon (I think the Gospel of Thomas may have a report of the Last Supper) these are the only words we have of institution of this sacrament.

• Matthew includes the reason for the blood covenant is for the forgiveness of our sins. The other three writers do not mention this as a reason.
  
• Luke reverses the event to do the cup first and then the bread. Luke is also the only writer that mentions that we are to do this in remembrance of Jesus. I find it strange that something that eventually became so foundational was only mentioned by one of the four witnesses and then only for the bread?
• The apostle John as shown in the last text does not even mention anything about the sharing of the bread or wine. Did he think it was not of significant importance? Did he just decide not to mention it because is was already covered by the others? I just don’t know. But I do take notice that he instead replaced it with a call to service. Jesus came to serve and so should we.

When Martin Luther started the massive Protestant Reformation, or you could say revolt from the Catholic church, he adamantly spoke against five of the then seven sacraments that were being practiced. The only two he left standing was the Communion and Baptism. Should the bread/wine event have also been on his drop list or was it just too embedded by that time?

Quakers read the above words to mean that every time we partake of a meal we are to remember what Jesus did for us. They do not believe that Jesus intended to make this event some ceremonial thing as was typical of Jewish traditions at the time. While most Quakers don’t condemn the practice per say they say it is not dictated by God. They also take the words that John used to record this event are of equal importance, or maybe even more important, than the ceremonial sharing of bread and wine. I tend to believe that the Quakers again pretty much have it right. But having said that I do appreciate taking of the Eucharist as a time of special remembrance. But then again Jesus’ sacrifices should be in my daily thoughts and not just those times I am at the altar. I must alwasys remember that Jesus is constantly with me; not just those time where I share the ceremonial bread and wine with my fellow congregants.

Before we look at a few of the parallel verses in the Gospel accounts let’s see where there are no parallel accounts. John Chapters 1 through 4 have many of Jesus’ words that are not reported anywhere else. I don’t know if part of that is because John’s Gospel was written several years after the others so John could read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before he wrote his. Of course the theologians over the years have noted that difference and have not included John as a synoptic gospel.

Enough of that; let’s look at some typical parallel verses.

Matthew 8:1-4

When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.2 And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” 

Mark 1:40-45

And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.43 And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once,44 and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.“45

Luke 5:12-16

While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him.14 And he charged him to tell no one, but “go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”15 But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities.16 But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.

It seems pretty obvious that like many of the other parallel verses these reported the same incident. The words are pretty close to each other both in letters and intent but they are not exact. So, which words if any of them did Jesus actually speak? If the Bible is totally inerrant in all it’s words then the only explanation would be that he said the same thing three times; slightly different for each of the three witnesses. Since this seems pretty far fetched I am more inclined to believe that the writers simply wrote the words they best remembered. This seems to be the case for many similar instances of parallel verses. Let’s move on to the next one.

Matt 9:1-2

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

Mark 2:3-5

4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Luke 5:19-20

19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”  

I suppose it is possible that these three verses were from different times but I don’t think that is the case. Except for the beginning phrase and the surrounding text they are the same.

From my study of parallel verses it seems to me that the vast majority the variations are simply as the example above indicates a lack of being able to remember the exact words between the years they were said and then written down. Many antagonists of Scripture like to point out all the inconsistencies in the Bible. After studying this topic I, for the most part, simply did not find the difference to be that significant. Since I take the Bible to be inspired text written by men for men these minor inconsistencies just don’t bother me that much. Yes, there are some parallel texts that seem to say different things if that is what you are looking for. But for the most part the underlying messageremain the same.

Due to having frequent discussions with my “inerrant and literal” bible friend lately the Gospel messages have been on my mind. I know there are several places in the bible that supposedly report on the same event. If, as my friend, believes, every word in the bible is literally true and directly from God’s mouth (through the totally obedient hands of men’s pens) then why do the places that supposedly report the same thing use different words and sometimes seem to convey quite different meanings? I, personally take this to enforce my belief that the words are from men who either didn’t understand what Jesus was really saying or just forgot the exact words he used. The Gospels were generally written at least twenty years after the events reported so I can see where the events lost some clarity over the years. I know that is generally the case for me when I look back twenty years in my life. I can’t remember the exact words but do remember “some” of the events that I think played a significant part in my life. 

I think most Christians believe that Jesus is the absolute center of the Bible and the Gospels are about the only place where his direct words are recorded. So to me they take front and center in my study of what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I certainly don’t as my friend seems to say often believe that the Gospel writers were lying because they didn’t use the same words. They, like many of us today, were just at different stages of their understanding of what Jesus being Lord was all about. Even though they were inspired by God to write what the did doesn’t mean that their understanding of the events were from an identical mindset. The diversity of the reporting I believe adds to our understanding of the words of Jesus instead of taking away from it. We learn that different men saw things from different perspectives. I haven’t done much study the other writings of the times that were not included in the Bible but it certainly would have been interesting to hear a woman’s perspective of the Gospel accounts. It’s is a shame that Mary (Jesus’ mother) or Mary Magdalene did not get a spot in the New Testament list. They were both very involved in Jesus’ ministries and would have been faithful reporters.

Ok, so starting with the next post I will be spending some time looking at the parallel reports of the same events in the Gospels to see what I can glean from them. I will try to learn the different messages that the Gospel writer took from Jesus’ words. I will be using the NIV Bible for this study. I pray the Holy Spirit will guide me through this study to learn the messages that Christ intends. All glory and honor be to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Ok, I have probably spent too much time lately looking at the differences between us Christians and not enough time with personal revelation around the red letters. To ameliorate this condition I will try to spend more time reflecting on particular words of Jesus and what they mean to me. Of course along the way I will also have many questions. Some, given my current relation ship with Christ, I will be able to answer but many I will probably have to leave as a question. Let’s get at it.

Let’s start with Jesus talking about dying for our sins.

Matt 26:26-29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.“ 

Of course the last supper is the most obvious place where Jesus says he will pour out his blood for the forgiveness of sins. He mentioned dying for our sins shortly after Easter.

Luke24:45-47

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scripture and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”  

I think it was up to the early theologians to put down reasons why Jesus had to die. But Jesus did make it clear, at least in these verses, that one of the reasons he came was to die for our sins. But we must also remember how Jesus opened his three year ministry with the following words.

Luke 4:16-21

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoner and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 

He came to die for our sins but he also came to show us how to live.

In doing this study on the Holy Spirit I am not convinced that I really know how to envision him even now. To me it sounds like he dwells in each of us and always has but came into the theological forefront after Jesus bodily left us to go back to the Father. There are numerous instances of the “Spirit of God” talking to even the Old Testament writers. It is hard to think of the Holy Spirit as a being instead of just a spirit. I still imagine him as that little angel in movies that sometimes appears on peoples shoulders as they need to make a decision about something.

The idea of the Holy Spirit being equal with the Father and Son (i.e. the Trinity) was developed fairly late in Christian history. Given how little historical writings about the Holy Spirit there seems to be I can certainly understand this. One thing I did learn from this series of posts is that baptism is not as defined as I thought it was. It was made very clear to me from this study that water baptism is not what Jesus was talking about; he was clearly talking about radical life changes due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism may symbolically cleanse us of our original sin but the baptism by the Holy Spirit is where it really matters. Some think they are one and the same, I just have doubts about that.

So, at least to me I cling to the words of Jesus where he told us he was sending a Holy Counselor. That is someone who will take his place in encouraging us to do good; rebuking us when we fail to do so; telling us things when we are ready to hear them; and keeping us constantly aware that while on the earth we are to follow Jesus in both what he said and did. That is, Jesus is to be our Lord as well as our Savior. The Holy Spirit is about those messages we receive from Jesus and the Father as we go about our daily living. The original apostles seemed to get almost daily messages from the Holy Spirit to guide them in the early church. I think that most of us modern day Christians have pretty much crowded him out of our thoughts and that seems to be a dreadful mistake. We must all learn again listen to what he is saying. In order to do that we must “Be Still and Know that He is God”. I have been studying a book by a Quaker minister on just how to quietly listen for God’s messages. I will likely be posting a review soon. In the mean time be still and listen for the messages. Don’t let the urgencies of today’s world crowd them out. They are there; it is just a matter of allowing them to get through to our overstressed minds and hearts.

But maybe in the end I have to align again with Quaker beliefs. The Trinity is pretty much a theology issue and is not really of that much importance. So, maybe I really shouldn’t be too concerned about it. God is God no matter what form he chooses to reveal himself to me. It is up to me to listen to what he says both in the Bible and through his personal messages.

Lets continue with our study of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and baptism.

Acts 11:15-17

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

Here is another one:

Acts 19:1-5

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Ok, lets look at these two sets of verses about the Holy Spirit and baptism. Is Acts 19 talking about two forms of baptism here, John’s baptism of water and another in the name of the Holy Spirit/ Jesus? I can only make sense of this if that is so. It seems clear that baptism by water is of less significance compared to being baptized by the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said go and make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was he talking about water baptism or something else. Quakers believe that the baptism by the Holy Spirit comes to each of us in it’s own time and has little to do with the water part that John The Baptist instituted. John’s baptism was for repentance and the Holy Spirit’s baptism was to bring God into our hearts. Or I could say to release God from our hearts, where He has always been, and into our conscience so that we can live as the wants us to live.

Some say there are two types of Christians. Carnal Christians and Spiritual Christians. Carnal Christians are Christians in name only. They have been baptised but only with water. Spiritual Christians are those that have turned their body over to Jesus to do as he says. These are the Christians who have received the Holy Spirit. I don’t think I really agree with this premise but the concept behind it does have some validity.

My wife and I watched a DVR copy of the recent TV movie entitled “Amish Grace” last night. This is the movie about the man who shot ten girls in an Amish school house a few years back and then took his own life. Six of the girls died. The main theme of the movie was about forgiveness and not letting hate overpower you. The Amish community in Pennsylvania where it happened quickly forgave the man who committed the act and even helped the family of the murderer cope with the tragedy. As I have mentioned in the past the commitment to God that the Amish have totally impresses me. Fortunately the movie did not focus on the brutal act itself but instead on the forgiveness. It would have been very easy for most people who experienced this kind of tragedy to be filled with hate for the perpetrator.

This movie got me to thinking about just where hate comes from. Many discount the works of Satan in this world. They say that he is not a real being but instead just a concept. But I do believe that Satan exists and that hate is his primary tool for ensnaring his victims. It seems that there is much hate in the U.S. today so I guess I would say that Satan might be getting a strangle hold on us as a society. Being a U.S. history buff I am well aware that political partisanship has been a constant in one degree or another throughout our history. But I believe that it is morphing into something much more dreadful in very recent years among some of us. This is evidenced by the recent decision of several well respected people in congress who have decided to not run for re-election this year. Most often one of the primary reasons for not running is the tainted atmosphere in Washington today.  

On a recent trip to Kansas I visited the high school that has been turned into a memorial to the Brown vs. the Board of Education lawsuit that started racial integration in the 1960′s. One picture on a wall is of a young girl, probably in the late teens, that is screaming at one of the black kids entering the segregated high school in Little Rock. I had seen this picture several times before but for some reason this time the pure hatred on the face of the girl totally struck me. I included a photo of it at the top of this post and as you can see it was a very scary thing. I often wonder about that young girl and how her life might be today. I have even said prayers for her even though I don’t know her. But that was not the last time I have seen that same look. It was also evident on several faces in the recent Tea Party rally in Washington that was protesting the healthcare reform law that recently passed. Their very antagonistic placards were also evidence of that hatred. Now I am not saying that all people in that rally were hateful but the ones shown in those pictures definitely were filled with hate. It was obvious from their faces and their signs. It was again a scary reminder of Satan’s presence in the world today.  

“Filled with hate” is a very appropriate term. Hate starts out grabbing a small corner of our minds but if we don’t let it go it then, much like an aggressive cancer, it quickly overtakes much of the person’s total being. That is why there are numerous places in the bible where God tells us to fill ourselves with love, even for our enemies. He wants us to never allow hate even start within us. If we allow hate into our minds we are giving Satan a grip into our very souls. I know, given some circumstance such as the Amish incident I started the post out with, it is very difficult to not hate someone or something. But we, especially us Christians, must be very aware of the deadly affects of hate and fight it back when it crops up in our minds. We can disagree with someone but still love them. Hate simply does not have any place in a Christian’s life.

Given the recent blog discussions between myself and a person who takes the literal inerrant view of the Bible I want to spend a few minutes on that subject. There are basically two views on how to interpret Biblical text:

• Literal and Inerrant Approach – People who espouse this view believe that absolutely every word in the Bible is written by God through human authors. Therefore everything in the Bible is absolutely and literally true as God is not capable of anything else. To those people, among other things, the earth is around 5,000 years old and was created in six 24 hour days and Jonah indeed spent three days in the belly of a whale.
  

    

• The Inspired Writings Approach – These people believe that the Bible was written and assembled by human beings and that much of the writing was inspired by God. This group believe that although all of the Bible is useful for teachings it did not come totally from God but instead has a very human aspect. They believe that much of the Bible was gleaned from verbal accounts passed down from one generation to another. They also interpret some of the text to be stories, similar to the parables of Jesus, so they are not necessarily literally true except in the messages they convey.  

The proponents of these two Biblical approaches each treat the Bible as a holy document worthy of constant study throughout their lives. Those who believe in the Inspired Writings Approach seem to have tolerance for those in the other camp. But, in some cases those who believe in the literal and inerrant approach are much more defensive. To that end they think they must therefore attack anyone with a different viewpoint in an attempt to prove them wrong. They say that carbon dating and all the science that shows the world is millions of years old is just God tricking us. They believe that the creation text couldn’t possibly be just a story  used to relay a message; it has to be literal fact to them.

The literalists mostly believe that God quit giving revelations after the last book of the Bible was written. To them there is nothing that can be added or subtracted from the current biblical text. The inspired writing believers for the most part think that God continues to give us messages today that sometimes those messages are in addition to the Bible but they are most often a re-enforcement or personalization of current biblical messages. Some literalists seem to believe that most revelation that people think they get today is really from the devil  or other sources and not God.  The Catholic church, which makes up the majority of Christians, also believe that God gives us revelation through the Pope and church traditions.

It is sad to me to see the warring that goes on between these two groups. There is so much kingdom work to be done we shouldn’t be wasting our energy battling each other! But then this is not the only place were Christians battle each other over our human understanding of God. There are literally thousands of divisions in the Body of Christ over this and similar issues. This greatly saddens me.