Category Archives: A Question for Discussion

Virgin Birth…

Posted on by RJ

Here we are in the Christmas season so the virgin birth will be mentioned many times in the coming weeks in both our Bible readings and our hymns and songs. Let’s take a 21st century look at this phenomenon and also ask some first century questions about it. Let’s start with the first century questions.

There are some things in the bible that require us to look at them with first century eyes. I am currently reading a book about the nativity story and how that looks quite different when you view it with first century eyes. The book is very insightful and reminded me of the difference that twenty-first century views can mean in reading various stories. I will be relating that story soon but only choose to mention it here as an example of different meanings to different people. We will get into more of this in a couple of paragraphs here.

Getting to the point at hand, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke start their documents with a genealogy leading from Abraham to Joseph. Matthew calls Joseph “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ”. Luke gives a different genealogy than Matthew. Scholars differ on which of the two if any is the legal genealogy via Joseph and which the possible physical descent via Mary. This brings up my first century question. If as it is proclaimed that Joseph had absolutely no biological link to Jesus then why would they trace Joseph’s line in order to determine Jesus’ ancestry? Was this train of thought different to the first century Christians? Can someone be linked to someone who has no biological connection? I know DNA wise there is no link between them. I also know from my limited study of those early times that in the Jewish tradition the man was the patriarch and the woman played a very subservient or even non-existent role in public affairs. It is very confusing to me why Joseph’s line was even linked to Jesus?

We are told that Jesus was a virgin conception in Mary (virgin birth to me is really a misnomer). That is as I understand it no human sperm was involved in Jesus becoming human being. The Holy Spirit accomplished that fact by some other means. Now on to the twenty-first century question. Was Mary’s DNA associated with Jesus or was Jesus not biologically linked to her either? To say it another was did God use one of Mary’s eggs in creating Jesus or not? Of course this question would not have come up in the first century as God had not revealed this scientific knowledge to that generation. As with many other scientific laws of nature He chose to wait until we were ready to receive that knowledge before revealing it to us. If anyone cares to try and answer this question I would certainly be interested. Of course without having a sample of Jesus’ DNA this question is not answerable. Wouldn’t it be interesting for us to be able to study Jesus’ DNA. Wow!

In closing I recently read where St. Paul never mentioned that Jesus’ mother was a virgin. If fact some say he, by some of his words, discounted that fact. Christianity is if nothing else full of seemingly unanswered questions. At least when you look at it with twenty-first century eyes.

When you tell someone that they could do a better job of following Christ are you demeaning them?

Posted on by RJ

In a recent exchange of comments with a reader of this blog he made the comment that I was demeaning other Christians when I say we are not doing a very good job of following Christ’s examples and words. By pointing out a supposed weakness in someone’s walk with Christ am I putting them down? Am I demeaning them? I think not. Am I possibly making them feel a little uncomfortable? I certainly hope I am. We should all be somewhat uncomfortable in our walk with Christ. Jesus told us as much several times in the red letters and I do not take those words as demeaning me.

I don’t know about the religious world but for thirty years in the corporate world I had an annual performance review. For the most part my reviews were pretty good but they always cited areas where I could improve. I did not take the authors of those reviews as demeaning me when they told where I could make improvements in my work habits.

I was only very minimally involved in the sports world but it seems that the coaches were constantly “encouraging” me to do better and better. Some of that “encouragement” may have been taken as demeaning but for the most part it was only to make me a better athlete. I think in almost all aspects of life there are those who want us to do better and therefore bring our faults to the surface as areas for possible improvements. I know wives are very good at this when it comes to their husbands :)

So, are we to treat our Christian brothers differently in this regard than they get in the corporate or athletic worlds or in many other aspects of life? Do we demean them by telling them they could do a better job of being followers of Jesus Christ? I think not! But, to those who believe us all to be nothing but poor and worthless sinners maybe bringing up “impossible” suggestions on how to improve is considered demeaning. I feel sorrow for those who would take it as such. They need to understand that God loves them very much and wants them to be better Christians. Those who tell them it is impossible to please God are doing a disservice to Jesus and his church family.

So, get off the couch and be better Christians!! :) :)

Assembly Required….

Posted on by RJ

Since we are into the beginning of the Christmas season the above title came to mind. Although I was not fortunate enough to be a parent I certainly sympathize with those who are when it comes to having to assemble things like bicycles and such for their kids for Christmas. I imagine to many parents the words “No Assembly Required” is a much sought after feature when it comes to Christmas presents.

Ok, so now what does all this have to do with Red Letter Living? In my mind there are two basic types of Christians: 1) the Assembly Required Christian and 2) the No Assembly Required variety. Let’s start with the last type first. The No Assembly Christians are those who believe that due to our totally sinful nature we are incapable of pleasing God with absolutely ANYTHING we might be able to do. Many of these Christians believe that all that is required of them is, depending on their denomination, baptism, an alter call, or a maybe another type of proclamation of faith. God expects nothing else from them as any effort they might expend is totally worthless in God’s eyes. I.E. one-size-fits-all or “No Assembly Required”. Once they make the original leap of faith they only need to sit back and wait for the end.

The other type of Christian is the “Assembly Required” type. They like the first group believe that they need to make a leap of faith but to them that is a starting point not the end point of their Christianity. Strangely in some ways this type of Christian is more of a literalist than the first type. They take Jesus’ words to heart when as he tells us in his Great Commission to obey what he has commanded. They realize that Jesus meant for us to be active in our faith as faith without works is dead and really no faith at all. They truly understand that Jesus loves each and every one of us and is joyful with our acts of kindness to others in his name. To them coming to faith is just a starting point. Yes, Assembly is indeed required throughout our Christian lives.

Which type of Christian are you? Are you a “No Assembly Required” or an “Assembly Required” Christian? As for me I am without any doubt whatsoever an “Assembly Required” one. Yes it does require more work on my part but that is just what it means to be a Christian. In my mind words without actions are totally meaningless.

Were the Apostles Baptized??

Posted on by RJ

Maybe someone can help me out with this question. Were all the Apostles baptized with water? I don’t recall seeing this in the Bible. If water baptism was so important then surely Jesus insisted that all his immediate disciples be baptized. If they were baptized this surely would have been a major event in their lives and someone would have reported it.

If I change the question to remove the word “water then I can absolutely say yes to the question. Their baptism occurred at the Pentecost. The holy spirit coming into our lives is the real baptism for all of us. In my beliefs the other one is mostly symbolic in nature. Some say the two event happen concurrently now but I just don’t know? I know that I was baptized as a baby but I also know that there was a point in my life where I truly felt the Holy Spirit come into my life.

There are different theological view of these two events. I could just pick and choose any one of them I guess. Jesus made it a point to distinguish between water and fire baptism. What did he mean by that explanation?

A Long and Agonizing Death…

Posted on by RJ

A close member of my  extended family died yesterday after a long and agonizing downward spiral.  For the last two years she was no longer of her own mind and became a very spiteful person. It was totally sad to see her in that state for so long.  It is not that she was a superhuman before that but she was not unlike many today in her very self-centered world view. I am relieved that she finally passed and went into our Lord’s arms. She can finally enjoy some peace.

I know I have read several treatises about suffering in the world. I think that is one of the theologian’s favorite topics. But I personally still wonder why the Lord, who has infinite compassion for each one of us, puts some of us through such agony before we die?  I know the bible says otherwise but in my mind it kind of gives credence to the concept of purgatory. If we suffer so much before leaving this life does that give us a little less judgment by our maker?

Even though it was eventually expected and actually hoped for the end of her life still came as somewhat of a shock. I can still feel the shutter when I was told of her demise. I just hope and pray that I don’t have to suffer in the circumstances as she did for such a long period of time. Thank you Lord for finally ending it. I may not understand the reasons behind those years but I can accept that you  allowed it to happen for a reason.

Differing Parallel Verses and Theological Agendas…

Posted on by RJ

How much of an agenda did the original Biblical authors have when they were writing their words? Were the differing parallel verses found in the Gospel text simple misinterpretations or remembrances or were they intentionally different because of the differing views of the authors. How much different did Matthew and Luke view Jesus’ messages.

Looking at the differing parallel verses of the Beatitudes found in Matthew and Luke some theologians feel that a large part of Matthew’s variance from Luke is attributed to Matthew not approving of asceticism as a way into heaven in and of itself. That is Luke believed we should try to live a more Godly life as Jesus instructed and Matthew didn’t.  Hence Matthew changes what Luke has as ordinary physical deprivations into spiritual ones—by changing  poor into poor in spirit, and hungry into hunger . . . after righteousness. These types of arguments tend to re-enforce the feelings of some that even the gospel writers had particular theological stand and agendas that may have actually been different than what others believe Jesus really taught. For those of us who treat the Bible as a historical document written by man trying to understand God’s nature and not one of literal and absolute truth this type of disagreement is not terribly troubling. But for those who treat the bible as if it were dropped from heaven this type of discussion is mortal indeed.

Obviously given the 35,000 Christian denominations that now exist theological stands and agendas flourish to an ugly extreme today. God seems to be doing nothing to set us straight on which of these views if any truly reflect his messages. Perhaps none of them do. Do we have to wait until the end times to find the true message. Some say just look in the bible for the “true” message. But that is what almost all Christians say they do today. Will these differences keep some of us out of heaven. If universal salvation is true then of course it won’t. But since it is clear, at least to most of us, that we will be judged it most have some kind of consequence.

As for me, I will stick to the action oriented Christ and not depend on words alone to please God.

Go and sin no more…

Posted on by RJ

Let’s look at some more red letters today:

John 8:3-11

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.“

When Jesus said to the woman in the above verses “Go and sin no more” what did he mean? When he said “neither do I condemn you” he was forgiving her past sins. He did that a lot so that was expected. But what about the next phrase? What did he mean? What it just a suggestion to the woman that he knew she couldn’t keep. Was he mocking her? Not unexpectedly I tend to take his words literally. He meant for the woman to quit sinning and therefore lead a moral life (whatever that is).

I know that St. Paul said we are not capable of  ”sinning no more” but I choose to believe that Jesus thought otherwise. If he didn’t then his words above are without meaning.There are many Christians, who like St. Paul, who believe that stopping sinning is literally impossible no matter what Jesus commanded her to do. The ones who say this are constantly harping that we are all utterly miserable sinners and can do nothing but sin no matter who tells us to do otherwise. They think that everything comes from God and he doesn’t expect anything from us except total repentance. Therefore, they say, these words of Jesus were rhetorical at best.

I believe that when the Holy Spirit comes into our hearts we are expected to stop sinning as Jesus told the woman. Does that mean we are sinless from the time the Holy Spirit comes to us? Absolutely not! Yes our selfish nature at its very core is more inclined to sin than not. But with the power of Jesus, via the Holy Spirit, we more easily recognize our sins and make every attempt to lead a more righteous life. That is  even if it is not possible for us to completely stop sinning we should attempt to sin less tomorrow than we did today. We should do what Jesus says!

As a closing note I have always wondered what Jesus wrote in the sand in the above verses? Too bad the apostle John didn’t tell us. :)

10% Tithe??

Posted on by RJ

I know the Old Testament talks about a 10% thithe in several places but is this also applicable to Christians in the New Testament age? Some say yes and some say no.  It always impressed me when I read in the book of acts how Early Christians sold everything they had and gave the money to the Apostles for the community good.  Here are those verses:

Acts 4:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.  There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

It is amazing to me that this happened. It would be totally unfathomable for this to occur in today’s world. The closest we probably came to this was the hippie communes of the 1960 :) . But almost as amazing is the total turn around that occurred just a few verses later. Here is that story:

Acts 5:1-11

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.  With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.  Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.  Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

I guess Ananias and his wife Sapphira missed the orientation meeting that said you have to give everything. Having held some back (we don’t know how much?) they were struck dead!  I can certainly see where great fear struck others in the church!  I suspect it also drove many out.  I really don’t understand this story. Some say it is simply to make people aware that everything you have comes from God.  But that was a harsh lesson for poor Ananias to learn.

Do we need to feel obliged to give 10% of our income to the church?  From the latest data it seems that most Christians give less than 3%.  Where is that thunder bolt that should be striking them dead (ha). Aren’t we lucky that the Apostles are still not around. I’m afraid that the church population would be approaching zero if this event were repeated many times. Is this story a reporting of an historical event or is it just a parable/myth to teach us an object lesson?  I just don’t know but killing people because the didn’t give everything is a little troubling.

Pentecost on my mind…

Posted on by RJ

Pentecost2

Yesterday being Pentecost, and the fact that I just finished posting a series on the Holy Spirit, it is on my mind. After again reading the dramatic account of the Holy Spirit coming to the apostles and others in that closed and hidden room I had a serious question suddenly pop into my mind.  Are we ignoring our small messages from the Holy Spirit and therefore also keeping the big ones from occurring in our lives? 

I don’t expect that the Holy Spirit uses the flaming heads much anymore but I do believe that he come to each of us in varying degrees throughout our lives.  Like most things we need to take baby steps before we can leap. Holy Spirit baby steps are those times in our lives when the Holy Spirit nudges us in one direction or another.  After recognizing enough baby steps I think we graduate on to more significant messages.

If we are ignoring those baby nudges are we preventing the Holy Spirit from leading us into the knowledge that we were not yet ready to hear before that time?  I think for many that might be the case. Some say that when we are baptized as children the Holy Spirit comes into our lives.  That might be true but I am certain that is not the only time he is with us.  By failing to recognize the fact of his continual presence maybe our baptism rituals are actually getting in the way of our growth as disciples of Christ??

Some say the “real” baptisms of the Holy Spirit come throughout our time on earth. By seemingly putting all the power on the first one we might actually be preventing recognizing and acting on  the others.  Just some thoughts that suddenly occurred to me today.

Come Holy Spirit, come……

The Holy Spirit – Part 2 Jesus’ words

Posted on by RJ

The 16th Chapter of the John comes to mind most frequently when we think of Jesus giving us the Holy Spirit. Here it is:

John 16:12-15 NIV

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Jesus spoke these words just before he was turned over for crucifixion. This was probably the last time he had alone with the original eleven apostles. He clearly says that the apostles could not understand many of the things Jesus wants to tell them. The way these words are framed it appears that the “Spirit of truth” is very subservient to Jesus and not an equal member of the Trinity as commonly shown today. It sounds like the Holy Spirit is just a mouthpiece for Jesus. Putting that aside we come to another aspect of the Holy Spirit that needs to be addressed. Most think that the Holy Spirit is just that, a spirit and not a being. Of course being portrayed as a dove just re-enforces that idea. But Jesus, and the apostles in the book of Acts, clearly refers to the Holy Spirit as “him”. This would seem to indicate that he is a being.

To raise another basic question was the mission of the Holy Spirit only to come to the Apostles or is he meant to be our counselor as well? That is, is the Holy Spirit around today to guide us through our lives with the lessons that Jesus said we were not yet ready for? Could we still be learning things that we were not yet ready to learn even in the future?  Of course, we will investigate this much more in the coming posts when we study what the book of Acts says about him.

Let’s look at a couple of other places in the Gospel text that talk about the Holy Spirit.

Luke 12:8-12

“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Matt 12:30-32

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 

It looks like these two sets of verses probably reported the same incident but with some different words and possible meanings. Of course Matthew was there to hear these words from Jesus. Luke’s version was probably relayed to him via a third source so maybe that may be the cause of the variation. I can only guess whether Luke’s source was an eyewitness. But I am getting off track here. This reference to the Holy Spirit is much different than the first one I cited. Is Jesus talking about two different entities? I just don’t know. The only way I can reconcile these stories is to take where Jesus calls the spirit “the Spirit of Truth” and say he is talking about “truth” here then maybe this makes sense. But then “truth” is not a person as Jesus clearly stated in the first verse?  Taking that aside, he might be saying that if you deny the truth you are denying the Holy Spirit. One of the study Bibles I use refer to this as someone who would attribute to Satan the miracles done by Christ. In many of today’s Christian denominations we espouse that no matter what your sin is Jesus forgives you. These verses seem to say that at least for this sin you are not forgiven.

If you just read it in the original language…..

Posted on by RJ

 
 
 I don’t know how many times I have heard the words in the title of this post when it comes to the Bible. The pastor of my church even says them rather frequently. It also seems to be a major theme of some of the blogs I occasionally frequent. They seem to say that if you just read the original text it will be obvious that all the current English translations of the Bible have got it totally wrong! They typically take one word and say it does not mean xxxx but instead means something completely different.

I must admit that at this point in my life I don’t have much of a desire to take on the Aramaic or Greek languages. In my very limited knowledge in this area the best logical conclusion to these types arguments seem to be that there is a vast conspiracy among  biblical scholars throughout time to twist Jesus’ words into something that they do not say. It is hard to explain “these obvious differences” without a conspiracy theory. But, another explanation might be that the person using these blog title words has a need to show that he is somehow superior to others and especially all the myriad of scholars that have come before him. A final reasoning might be that the person just does not have the depth of knowledge in this area that those past biblical scholars had. That is something like a teenager believeing that he is much smarter than his parents.  I know I am at times guilty of going off half cocked but not in the language area; I claim total ignorance of that! I’m sure some of the many things I question I just haven’t studied enough. That is why I try to pose my concerns as questions and not answers.

Those of you to regularly read my blog know that I am definitely not a person who implicitly trusts others to tell me what the Bible says. I question many things others just take for granted. But, I just can’t buy into this logic that the Bible translators got it all wrong. There have been probably thousands of Biblical scholars in the last century who spent much of their lives pouring over the contents of the Bible. I do admit that many probably probably had a particular agenda going into their study but why hasn’t someone “fixed” all those errors and come out with a “real” Bible?

As you probably know I cling to the red letters in the Bible. No, I don’t believe that 100% of those words actually came out of Jesus’ mouth. I’m sure some of them the writers just got it wrong or maybe even added their own words, but hopefully that was a rare occurance.  I do trust that most of those red letters were accurately transcribed and were accurately translated from their original language into English for me. We don’t have any of the original texts of the Gospels so again I have to trust that the copies they used to make the present copies we have were, for the most part, faithfully done. To believe otherwise would result in havoc! Even worse than the slippery slope I mentioned a few posts ago :)

Plan “B”?

Posted on by RJ

This is going to be one of those difficult and probably controversial posts. Is Jesus Plan “B” whereas Adam was Plan “A” that failed? In other words did God really plan on Adam being the benevolent seed of mankind and when that didn’t happen he changed gears and  came Himself (via Jesus) to do the job of fixing things?

This concept has some pretty serious contentions among some Christians today. Some believe that nothing can happen that God did not previously ordain in that he had absolutely everything decided from creation to the end times  even before he started his work. If that is the premise then the above is utter nonsense to them! They believe that God, for whatever reason, planned for Adam to disobey and therefore set the path for Jesus to come a few thousands years later.  Some believe that God puts things in play and then steps back to let man’s free will have a go at it. This view is more in line with this supposition.

I am more aligned to the later I guess.  Part of what convinced me was the book by Greg Boyd entitled God of the Possible. Before you close your mind entirely about this topic I would hope you would look at the arguments in his book. They are very scripturally based and at least convincing to me.  There are several places in the Bible where God obviously changed his mind. If you are one of those who believe in literal and total inerrancy in the Bible please  think twice before you discount this possibility?

As a side note, I will be doing some extensive posts on this topic early in the new year. I just wanted to bring up the topic now to get you (and me) thinking more about it.  There are a lot of bible verses that support this view that God leaves some things open to possibilities while maybe closing some others.

Finding our niche…..

Posted on by RJ

We seem to constantly fragment ourselves in order to make us unique. We are not satisfied with just being one of many in a common boiling pot. We have to think of ourselves as someone like no one else.  My father’s generation was not like we are. Many, if not most of them, took pride in the fact that America was a fabulous “melting pot” where Italians, Irish, Spanish, etc people came to the United States and became “American” (no dashes were included for them). Now we have to add several dashes due to our ancestry. We can’t just be an American. We have to be a African-Native-Mexican American or whatever the case may be. In my case I am a British-Scottish-Native- American. Several other dashes should probably be included as I’m pretty sure I am a mutt as these things go :) .  I don’t know if that this is a good or not. It is nice to celebrate the different heritages and cultures of our ancestors. But when that keeps us from recognizing our common bonds it can be terribly detrimental. I think part of the fracturing we seen to be facing as nation today is a result of this need to be unique or at least see others, many of who we perceive as enemies, as different from us. The most damaging thing is the hate and disdain for others that some in these groups seem to have.

 I also think this is one of the reasons we have over 35,000 different versions of Christianity in the world today. We have to make our religious journey as personalized as possible. I know I fall into this feeling oftentimes myself. I want to believe that my version of Christ is the “true” one and everyone else just has it wrong to one degree or another. I just can’t seem to fall into lock steps with any of the existing versions.

I don’t know if there is anything we can do to change this trend or even if it would be beneficial to change it. But it just seems wrong to me that we have fractured ourselves to such a degree. We seem to almost be at a personal level of an “us vs. them” mentality in that it is now probably a “me vs. them”. In the U.S. that things always seem to swing from one extreme to another. One of the miraculous things is that we have, at least in the past, the uncanny ability to swing back toward the center rather than go over the edge. Lord help that be the case with this also. Maybe one day Christian groups will start integrating with each other instead of splitting.  But I imagine this is wishful thinking on my part.

Why So Many Versions of Christianity?

Posted on by RJ

This post is more or less a follow up of the previous post discussing the differences between Christian sects. I have been thinking lately about why there are so many versions of God and in particular Jesus’ Church. The more I study theology the more versions of Jesus I seem to come across. There are more than 35,000 different Christian sects out there now and each one thinks their version of Jesus is the “real” one and all the others have it to varying degrees wrong. I think that almost everyone wants a version of Jesus that they feel the most comfortable with. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, Jesus did not come to the earth to make us comfortable. He said as much when he told us that we must all bear our crosses. I don’t know how to discern who the real Jesus is? Everyone says their Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible but they can’t all be right. How can we tell if our version of God is the real one? -We really can’t for sure. Some say “study the Bible” but that is what they all say they do? I believe almost all versions of God are man made and it has become too difficult for the average person to discern which one is real. I am currently perplexed by this issue.  

Here are some tabbed thoughts on how I think we might pick our personal version of God:

  • We migrate to the version of God that we need to validate our individual worldview.
    • If we are humble we migrate to a god that appreciates humility.
    • If we are prone to arrogance we migrate to a all powerful god who chooses us over many others.
    • If we feel guilty about how we live our lives we migrate to a god who will forgive us no matter what we have done.
    • If we are poor we migrate to a god who will make us rich in the next life.
    • If we have deep compassion for others we migrate to a god who tells us to serve others.
    • If we are greedy we latch onto a god who minimizes giving to others and maximizes individual accountability.
    • If we change our worldview due to personal experiences we look for another version of god to validate our new worldview. 
    •  
  • We migrate to a version of God who we need to mentor us in this life. Some say they need no mentors; some need very strong mentors.
  • We migrate to a version of God given to us by our ancestry. We don’t often change our version of God except when our current worldview is seriously disrupted. 
  • There are some people who need to have a close friendship with their God and there are others who want a God that is less details and more of a high level God. 
  • We seem to constantly re-invent our God to fit our changing worldview. 
     

This problem of different versions of God exploded exponentially after Luther and the Reformation. But maybe I have also fallen into this trap with my belief that we should all seek to know God on a personal level. Maybe I am inventing a God to fit my own worldview? Sometimes I think we should just go back to the original version and forget the rest. They had disagreements in the early church, for instance the Corinth church, but they worked them out instead of splitting. But then again, who is the original version of the church?

Doing church vs. Doing Discipleship

Posted on by RJ

This is a continuation of my personal reflections on the world and where I might fit into it.

 Is doing “church” separate from doing discipleship? Let’s investigate that question. I have always assumed that the two were actually the same but recently I have come across a couple of definitions of church that seem to separate the two practices.

Here is a definition of “church” from Greg Ogden in his book Discipleship Essentials: A Guide to Building Your Life in Christ: ” The church is a caring community, a serving, studying, praying, healing community. But what is the fundamental purpose of the church? If it is true that “the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, then fundamentally the church is a worshiping community”.

Is it possible that doing church and doing discipleship are indeed be two different things? Do we have one group of Christians who form our worshipping community and another, for those of us who are so inclined, to reach beyond our door out into the world. My church is certainly strong in worshipping God and they do it very well!

I don’t know if that is common to most Christians or not. I may certainly perceive this wrong and I hope this doesn’t come off as judging, but it seems that my church mainly wants to do the usual things: worship service, Bible studies, church dinners and of course a full menu of committee meetings. But many members just don’t seem to have as strong an interest in the poor and down trodden that I do.

Don’t get me wrong, we do have outreach but never enough for my satisfaction. This year we have done or will do several projects in our community. We are perhaps more engaged than many churches in our area but never enough for me . It is usually only a small core of members actually participate in these activities and they are almost always one-time events, not an on-going thing that requires day-to-day commitments.

My discipleship work takes me around the community and, at least monetarily, around the world. I give my time and financial support to a local homeless shelter, a regional food bank, the Salvation army and a couple of international “feed the poor” organizations and even a Christian organization focused primarily on political issues. In the past it has bothered me that my “church” members don’t seem to share the same commitment in the things that I have passions for.

 I used to get upset about this but I am now learning to chill out somewhat now. That is just the way it is I guess. My pastor keeps telling me that I may not be aware of what others are doing and spending their time on. Maybe they are committed to a day-to-day discipleship activity but I am not aware of it? I know that I am a retired old white guy who now has the time to spend on discipleship things. Maybe, actually probably, I am being too harsh on others who do not share my enthusiasm for such things. I also have more time to read the Bible and as a result I hear Jesus “screaming” that loving your neighbor is where he wants us to be. No one, including me, ever seems to be able to do enough! At least the need never seems to be even remotely quenched.

 In summary, is doing church and doing discipleship the same thing. In a perfect world they would be but given the reality of our times they are not the same today. Christians today are just not that homogeneous anymore (if they ever were). We seem to concentrate on only our personal limited versions of both these topics.

When we Christians shun our responsibilities….

Posted on by RJ

Jesus clearly told us to be our brother’s keeper but somewhere along the way we Christians unapologetically shunned that responsibility. During the first three centuries Christians were very much their brother’s keeper. They often pooled their resources so that those most needy were taken care of. They not only cared for their own there is even documented evidence showing that they took care of those not even Christians.  But, of course, this is what Jesus did so they were just following his lead.

The vast majority of Christian congregations today spend about 95% of what they gather on themselves or their organization’s hierarchy leaving little for kingdom of God work particularly in the brother’s keeper area.  When that happened the moral goodness, which I believe to be also a gift from God to all humanity, dictated that the kingdoms of the world take over that task. Some do a much better job of it than others. The government of Sudan seems to totally reject the “brother’s keeper” mentality.  Many thousands die daily of starvation and political genocide. Whereas, thank the Lord, the government of the United States has generally taken up this task in our absence, at least to a partial degree. Or at least one of our political parties carries that mantle. 

Now I’m not saying that Christians do nothing in this area. Indeed some of the best humanitarian agencies in this area are Christian based. But, their total contributions is almost miniscule compared to the need. Having religious institutions take over all the care for the poor is probably now beyond the realm of possibilities so I guess we must depend on our governments to do that for us. They are instituted by God so I suppose you could say it is now their duty. To even suggest as some do that since we Christians won’t do it our governments should stay out of it also is a total affront to the teachings of Jesus. It is indeed a sad day that many Evangelical Christians seem to be saying that very thing today. Shame on us for shunning this compassionate responsibility!

Sanctity of Life??

Posted on by RJ

I am going to take on a hard one here. The big “A”.  I have been in a conversation with some Christian friends of mine about the current healthcare reform now being debated in congress and around the country.  Some of my friends said the following: “I can’t support this reform as it might allow some to have abortions funded”!  I, certainly am also against abortion. It is killing an innocent life and definitely against Jesus’ teachings.

But how do Christian who make abortion a litmus test for everything else answer these typical questions by some:

 You Christians only believe in the sanctity of life in the nine months before birth, not in the eighty years or more after birth. You are a bunch of hypocrites!

To support their statement they give the following examples:

  • You support killing people who commit certain types of sins (murder, rape, etc). You say Jesus came to die for all of us. That we are all loved by him. Does that include just some sinners and not others? And didn’t God say “Vengeance is mine” not yours?
  • You will  eliminate the possibility of saving thousands of lives who otherwise be  lost to health issues in order to “maybe” save some fetuses.  What about all those people who die daily due to not being able to afford healthcare? Are they somehow less important to your god than those yet to be born?
  • You condone and often enthusiastically support killing your neighbor in a war simply because your government tells you to kill. It doesn’t matter that they are your “enemy” simply because they were born in a different country than you and are also following what their politicians say!
  • Where do you get off classifying which lives are sanctified and which aren’t? You are a bunch of hypocrites!

 I don’t know of any pat answers for the above examples.  Jesus clearly said that revenge is no longer justified and an eye-for-an-eye is no longer acceptable in the new covenant he brought to us. He told us unequivocally to love our enemies, and turn the other cheek. Again and again in the Bible Jesus tells us to follow his example . To my knowledge Jesus never passed judgment, except for the religious establishment of course, on anyone let alone killing anyone.  God said “Do not kill”. My bible doesn’t add “except for time of war or really bad guys”. I definitely think the Amish, Mennonites, and other like minded sects have it right in this regard. About the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree for not having fruit out of season? I don’t understand that one but will let it slid as it is not important to my following Christ.

 Are we Christians being hypocrites when we want to enforce only our limited definition of “Sanctity of Life”? I am tending to think so but I will respect your right to think otherwise. This is a very difficult issue between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world.

Being a political “Social Conservative” and a Christian??

Posted on by RJ

I am going to keep this post very short but I would like to hear anyone’s views on whether being a Christian and a social conservative are compatible. I am only talking about social conservatives not fiscal or conservatism in general. If Jesus were here today would He be labeled a social conservative? I personally can’t begin to imagine that but would like to hear from anyone who thinks it is a possibility.