What God Has Prepared
By, Charles W. Christian
We are never to be, in the words of the old saying, “so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good.” In other words, we should recognize that while we are here we have a purpose, and that purpose is not simply to mark time (or kill time) until Jesus returns. Half-jokingly, I tell parishioners whom I am about to baptize that I will not hold them under until they drown! First of all, because that would be murder. Secondly, and seriously, it is because they are called to rise up from the waters of baptism, ready to go into the world and proclaim the world changing message of the love of Jesus Christ. We are in fact to embody the love and grace of Jesus here and now, in anticipation of what will someday be eternal rest, eternal justice, eternal peace, and a manifestation of love in ways never before imagined. That will be wonderful, and the hymn writers had the right idea when they wrote such lines as “What a time we will have over there!” Or, as in the words of the more contemporary song, "I can only imagine."
While we are here, we become the “sneak preview” of what is to come: a sort of God-empowered “coming attractions” promotion. That happens when we allow an authentic relationship with God to become translated into everyday living. As Richard Foster once reminded us in his now classic work on the Christian disciplines, we do not use our hectic world as an excuse or reason not to serve and be devoted to God. In fact, this hectic world provides the ideal place for the revolutionary testimony of Christian love to make the most impact.
In fact, neglecting our immediate mission to spread the love and grace of Christ in the midst of the current injustices of our world can actually negate the awesome transcendent message of heaven and eternal reward. It can cause Christians to see the Good News of Jesus as simply “fire insurance”, saving them from wrath or destruction. And it can lead non-believers to think of Christianity as mere escapism that has no lasting or meaningful impact upon today’s issues.
What we sometimes forget is that for Jesus, “eternal life” is not something that begins at death or in the afterlife or even at the time of judgment. For Jesus, eternal life is something that begins the moment we trust and follow him (See John 3:16 and John 10:10, for instance). This means that this new kind of life that Jesus gives is meant to be shared now, and not just hidden away until some time in the future. In fact, it is the witness of this new life – this new way of living – that invites others to participate in this Kingdom that will never end. We are called to be faithful day by day, little by little, until the time of ultimate consummation, when this Jesus who has been present with us the whole time finally appears to all face to face. Indeed, that will be a wonderful and refreshing time for all creation! However, the foreshadowing of that moment happens right now, in the everyday lives of people who have encountered the Living God through Jesus Christ and are seeking to share His love through whatever opportunities may arise.
The Bible teaches that “eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has the mind conceived of the things that God has prepared for those who love Him” (I Corinthians 2:9). This is a promise for the future, to be sure. But it is also a promise that begins right now! A life that experiences God’s love and faithfulness right now is part of the long term promise. It is the kind of living that shares the promises of God and helps draw people to His new Kingdom. It is the kind of living that makes the eternal rewards better, because it will fill eternity with sweet stories of God’s faithfulness and love.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Warning: I Read Stuff!
Warning: I Read Stuff
by, Charles W. Christian
For fourteen years or so, I have told students that the most dangerous thing you can learn is how to read. By this I do not mean the ability to just sound out words or even to read in public. I mean to really read: to read in such a way that you (in the words of one philosopher) “enter into the writer’s world.” It is a way of reading analytically, bringing your own perspective but being honest about engaging the writer’s own perspective. This is a dangerous and life-changing endeavor. By reading this way, even those with whom we disagree are granted permission to at least try and change our way of thinking. In regard to the Bible, we may be forced to encounter God in such a way that challenges our preconceived ideas. It is alright, even normal, if this happens frequently. After all, Christians serve Jesus, who was fond of saying (as in the Sermon on the Mount): “You have heard it said______, BUT I tell you ____.” In other words: You read this one way, but I offer you a deeper reading, a reading that challenges what you think you know! Or maybe: If you had really read this, you would have caught this part of the message.
As a pastor, I often get “warnings” from various organizations about some sort of coming doom or some law that is going to forever change the face of civilization. Sometimes their fears are valid. Most often, these warning letters are overblown, playing upon the fears of potential donors to their organization. How does one determine the difference between the two?
The answer is the kind of reading I have just described above. When usually well-meaning people pass along such information to me, it is usually accompanied by assurances that the organization’s lawyers or leading theologians have read and endorsed the message. However, when I ask if they have read the law in question or the opinion, I usually get the same answer: “Well, the lawyers and theologians associated with the organization have read it thoroughly.” This is where my warning to them comes: I will not share this information until I read it, if I agree with the conclusion of the organization, after I interact with others whom I trust about these same conclusions. That’s the dangerous part of actually reading. Because more often than not the so called “experts” have an agenda that does not fully represent the facts. So, the fear based warnings are counteracted by a closer reading, or by actually just reading.
My first theology professor in seminary, Dr. James Leo Garrett, is who I credit for teaching me to really read. Of course, I was technically reading from the time I was a small child. However, Dr. Garrett challenged us to read comparatively and to read often. He challenged us to connect and compare what we read. He even challenged us to read the footnotes, to see where the author gets his or her information. He was not opposed to testing or quizzing us on these footnotes, too, by the way. I have tried to pass this tradition on to students and to parishioners as best I can in the last two decades. It makes reading more than simply a functional and practical exercise. It instead allows reading to be a life-changing experience that provides us the gift of community outside of our normal circles of interaction. During this election year as a vast array of politicians and political pundits approach us with their interpretation of information, we can boldly say to them, “Warning: I actually read stuff!”
by, Charles W. Christian
For fourteen years or so, I have told students that the most dangerous thing you can learn is how to read. By this I do not mean the ability to just sound out words or even to read in public. I mean to really read: to read in such a way that you (in the words of one philosopher) “enter into the writer’s world.” It is a way of reading analytically, bringing your own perspective but being honest about engaging the writer’s own perspective. This is a dangerous and life-changing endeavor. By reading this way, even those with whom we disagree are granted permission to at least try and change our way of thinking. In regard to the Bible, we may be forced to encounter God in such a way that challenges our preconceived ideas. It is alright, even normal, if this happens frequently. After all, Christians serve Jesus, who was fond of saying (as in the Sermon on the Mount): “You have heard it said______, BUT I tell you ____.” In other words: You read this one way, but I offer you a deeper reading, a reading that challenges what you think you know! Or maybe: If you had really read this, you would have caught this part of the message.
As a pastor, I often get “warnings” from various organizations about some sort of coming doom or some law that is going to forever change the face of civilization. Sometimes their fears are valid. Most often, these warning letters are overblown, playing upon the fears of potential donors to their organization. How does one determine the difference between the two?
The answer is the kind of reading I have just described above. When usually well-meaning people pass along such information to me, it is usually accompanied by assurances that the organization’s lawyers or leading theologians have read and endorsed the message. However, when I ask if they have read the law in question or the opinion, I usually get the same answer: “Well, the lawyers and theologians associated with the organization have read it thoroughly.” This is where my warning to them comes: I will not share this information until I read it, if I agree with the conclusion of the organization, after I interact with others whom I trust about these same conclusions. That’s the dangerous part of actually reading. Because more often than not the so called “experts” have an agenda that does not fully represent the facts. So, the fear based warnings are counteracted by a closer reading, or by actually just reading.
My first theology professor in seminary, Dr. James Leo Garrett, is who I credit for teaching me to really read. Of course, I was technically reading from the time I was a small child. However, Dr. Garrett challenged us to read comparatively and to read often. He challenged us to connect and compare what we read. He even challenged us to read the footnotes, to see where the author gets his or her information. He was not opposed to testing or quizzing us on these footnotes, too, by the way. I have tried to pass this tradition on to students and to parishioners as best I can in the last two decades. It makes reading more than simply a functional and practical exercise. It instead allows reading to be a life-changing experience that provides us the gift of community outside of our normal circles of interaction. During this election year as a vast array of politicians and political pundits approach us with their interpretation of information, we can boldly say to them, “Warning: I actually read stuff!”
Friday, March 9, 2012
My Own Pro-Life Creed
My Own “Pro-Life” Creed
by, Charles W. Christian
Beyond Election Talk
With so much talk in this election year – and every election year – about being “pro life”, I thought I would at least share my journey on this topic as one who has pastored for twenty years and who has been teaching ethics to students for about 14 years. Because of the political attention paid to this term, as you can imagine, it is a popular topic for papers and discussions in Social Ethics courses. It is also a hot topic in the media and in church life.
It is mostly because of real life discussions I have had with people in church life that I have wrestled with the broader implications of what it means to be “pro life.” Christians wrestle with life-related questions because we seek to serve the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who consistently identifies Himself with “life” in Scripture (See, Genesis 1-3; John 10 and 11; etc.). Life is presented as a gift given, sustained, and even enhanced by God through the Holy Spirit and through growing connection with the Community of God (i.e., the Church). In Scripture, there is no real reference to a “right” to life, as some have argued. Rather, life is seen as a gift: a gift God gives for the purpose of fellowship with God and others in order to (in the language of the New Testament, especially) proclaim the Good News of God’s love and redemption through Christ.
So, being “pro life” for the Christian obviously goes beyond, but still includes, what happens at conception and birth. It is about the use of the God-centered, community-centered gift of life extended to us by God. With that in mind, I have often felt that certain “pro life” emphases in the American Christian community, though important, fall short of the bigger picture of God’s grander design for what “life” means.
Therefore, for what it is worth, I have listed my own understanding of what it means to be “pro life.” I hope my view is continuing to develop, but here is where it is right now. My purpose for sharing these is that we will no longer allow politicians to flash this phrase every few years during election season, rally people to vote for them, and then tuck it aside without addressing the key issues. Furthermore, I hope that we can use a broader definition of “pro life” to recognize that neither political party has consistently shown what many in Christianity would consider to be a consistent “pro life” ethic. Therefore, we must fairly and consistently offer critiques across party lines as Christians who are concerned about the use or abuse of the gift of life that God has extended to us by His grace.
A Pro Life Declaration:
I believe abortion is wrong, but just having a baby isn’t the whole answer. I think abortion not only takes away human life, but it cripples the community now and in the future. This means that if I believe that women who are pregnant should in most cases carry their child to full birth, I must be willing to support programs in the church and in the community that offer help and hope to women who find themselves in a situation of an “unwanted pregnancy.” It also means that I should support laws that call into account men who abandon women with such pregnancies. Furthermore, it means that if I value the life of BOTH the mother and the baby, I should do my best to help create a situation where the pregnancy is not a “punishment” for the mother and/or the infant, but rather a chance at something redemptive. Matters involving rape and incest should be considered in light of the mother (and the father, where applicable) and their community of faith: will the birth of this child be redemptive or not?
I believe a moral issue like the death penalty can be right in principle and wrong in application/practice. Therefore, I believe that when a seemingly biblical principle like the death penalty, for instance, is applied in unjust ways, it is wrong and is not pro life. The death penalty in Christianity has always been a matter of debate, since its earliest applications in Christian contexts have been extremely negative. Jesus Christ Himself was an unjustly accused and convicted victim of the death penalty, as were many early (and present) Christian martyrs. Therefore, even the most “pro-death penalty” person of faith should at least look more closely into the application of this tool of the State. In the U.S., the number of poor and minority people on death row is many times greater than the representative proportion of the population. It is also many times greater than their white counterparts who commit similar crimes. This is simply disproportionate, and therefore in my mind, causes me to say that even if I were "for" the death penalty in principle, I could not (and do not) support the way it is carried out in the U.S. and in many other countries. As people called to “do justice and love mercy,” according to Scripture, applying this so called “tool of justice” unjustly (and often unmercifully) violates a key tenet of what I understand to be “pro life.”
I believe that many instances of endorsing and carrying out war can (and often does) elevate one's nation to a place that is reserved for God alone, and is therefore immoral. Early Christians were pacifists largely because they were the “enemy” of the government military (Rome). After the Roman emperor Constantine (fourth century) publicly endorsed Christianity, it became more acceptable for Christians to join the ranks of the Roman legions. Needless to say, the debate about the role of Christians is regard to war continues to this day, and there are very well thought out arguments on all sides of this issue. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of pacifism, though, there are indeed biblical “red flags” regarding the role of Christian support regarding war. Even Christians who are not technically pacifists recognize that there are certain boundary lines Christians should not cross, including the elevation of the defense of any nation above the role of God and the ways of God in one’s actions. As every nation, including our own, has learned, military might does not always make a nation “right” in particular actions it carries out in wartime. Therefore, a consistently pro life ethic for Christians includes the possibility of critiquing and even refusing participation in certain acts that cross the line in regard to valuing the gift of life God has given, even in times of war.
Conclusion: Trying to Be Consistent
If I determine that an unborn baby's life cannot be aborted, but I negelect his/her well being after he/she is born by scoffing at programs that try to assist his/her parents, then I don't think that is consistently pro-life. If I am more likely to put a person with dark skin on death row and give a light skinned person who committed the same or similar crime life without parole (as is true, based upon the U.S.'s own statistics!), then I am not being consistently pro-life. If I blow up portions of countries through warfare in a way that results in the deaths of thousands of children who were NOT aborted, or if I demean even enemies through vicious acts of torture, then I don't think that is consistently pro-life. If I put myself in the place of God in regard to who should die and who should not, whether they be pre-born, children, or adults who have sinned, then I risk becoming an idolater who cannot being consistently pro-life because I am attempting to elevate myself to the place of God who is the Source and Author of life.
In other words, I think we need a broader definition.
by, Charles W. Christian
Beyond Election Talk
With so much talk in this election year – and every election year – about being “pro life”, I thought I would at least share my journey on this topic as one who has pastored for twenty years and who has been teaching ethics to students for about 14 years. Because of the political attention paid to this term, as you can imagine, it is a popular topic for papers and discussions in Social Ethics courses. It is also a hot topic in the media and in church life.
It is mostly because of real life discussions I have had with people in church life that I have wrestled with the broader implications of what it means to be “pro life.” Christians wrestle with life-related questions because we seek to serve the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who consistently identifies Himself with “life” in Scripture (See, Genesis 1-3; John 10 and 11; etc.). Life is presented as a gift given, sustained, and even enhanced by God through the Holy Spirit and through growing connection with the Community of God (i.e., the Church). In Scripture, there is no real reference to a “right” to life, as some have argued. Rather, life is seen as a gift: a gift God gives for the purpose of fellowship with God and others in order to (in the language of the New Testament, especially) proclaim the Good News of God’s love and redemption through Christ.
So, being “pro life” for the Christian obviously goes beyond, but still includes, what happens at conception and birth. It is about the use of the God-centered, community-centered gift of life extended to us by God. With that in mind, I have often felt that certain “pro life” emphases in the American Christian community, though important, fall short of the bigger picture of God’s grander design for what “life” means.
Therefore, for what it is worth, I have listed my own understanding of what it means to be “pro life.” I hope my view is continuing to develop, but here is where it is right now. My purpose for sharing these is that we will no longer allow politicians to flash this phrase every few years during election season, rally people to vote for them, and then tuck it aside without addressing the key issues. Furthermore, I hope that we can use a broader definition of “pro life” to recognize that neither political party has consistently shown what many in Christianity would consider to be a consistent “pro life” ethic. Therefore, we must fairly and consistently offer critiques across party lines as Christians who are concerned about the use or abuse of the gift of life that God has extended to us by His grace.
A Pro Life Declaration:
I believe abortion is wrong, but just having a baby isn’t the whole answer. I think abortion not only takes away human life, but it cripples the community now and in the future. This means that if I believe that women who are pregnant should in most cases carry their child to full birth, I must be willing to support programs in the church and in the community that offer help and hope to women who find themselves in a situation of an “unwanted pregnancy.” It also means that I should support laws that call into account men who abandon women with such pregnancies. Furthermore, it means that if I value the life of BOTH the mother and the baby, I should do my best to help create a situation where the pregnancy is not a “punishment” for the mother and/or the infant, but rather a chance at something redemptive. Matters involving rape and incest should be considered in light of the mother (and the father, where applicable) and their community of faith: will the birth of this child be redemptive or not?
I believe a moral issue like the death penalty can be right in principle and wrong in application/practice. Therefore, I believe that when a seemingly biblical principle like the death penalty, for instance, is applied in unjust ways, it is wrong and is not pro life. The death penalty in Christianity has always been a matter of debate, since its earliest applications in Christian contexts have been extremely negative. Jesus Christ Himself was an unjustly accused and convicted victim of the death penalty, as were many early (and present) Christian martyrs. Therefore, even the most “pro-death penalty” person of faith should at least look more closely into the application of this tool of the State. In the U.S., the number of poor and minority people on death row is many times greater than the representative proportion of the population. It is also many times greater than their white counterparts who commit similar crimes. This is simply disproportionate, and therefore in my mind, causes me to say that even if I were "for" the death penalty in principle, I could not (and do not) support the way it is carried out in the U.S. and in many other countries. As people called to “do justice and love mercy,” according to Scripture, applying this so called “tool of justice” unjustly (and often unmercifully) violates a key tenet of what I understand to be “pro life.”
I believe that many instances of endorsing and carrying out war can (and often does) elevate one's nation to a place that is reserved for God alone, and is therefore immoral. Early Christians were pacifists largely because they were the “enemy” of the government military (Rome). After the Roman emperor Constantine (fourth century) publicly endorsed Christianity, it became more acceptable for Christians to join the ranks of the Roman legions. Needless to say, the debate about the role of Christians is regard to war continues to this day, and there are very well thought out arguments on all sides of this issue. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of pacifism, though, there are indeed biblical “red flags” regarding the role of Christian support regarding war. Even Christians who are not technically pacifists recognize that there are certain boundary lines Christians should not cross, including the elevation of the defense of any nation above the role of God and the ways of God in one’s actions. As every nation, including our own, has learned, military might does not always make a nation “right” in particular actions it carries out in wartime. Therefore, a consistently pro life ethic for Christians includes the possibility of critiquing and even refusing participation in certain acts that cross the line in regard to valuing the gift of life God has given, even in times of war.
Conclusion: Trying to Be Consistent
If I determine that an unborn baby's life cannot be aborted, but I negelect his/her well being after he/she is born by scoffing at programs that try to assist his/her parents, then I don't think that is consistently pro-life. If I am more likely to put a person with dark skin on death row and give a light skinned person who committed the same or similar crime life without parole (as is true, based upon the U.S.'s own statistics!), then I am not being consistently pro-life. If I blow up portions of countries through warfare in a way that results in the deaths of thousands of children who were NOT aborted, or if I demean even enemies through vicious acts of torture, then I don't think that is consistently pro-life. If I put myself in the place of God in regard to who should die and who should not, whether they be pre-born, children, or adults who have sinned, then I risk becoming an idolater who cannot being consistently pro-life because I am attempting to elevate myself to the place of God who is the Source and Author of life.
In other words, I think we need a broader definition.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
A Message for the Left and the Right from an Amateur Observer
A Message to the Left and the Right from an Amateur Observer
by, Charles W. Christian
I do not like the word “politics,” although like many Americans, I fancy myself to be an amateur political scientist (heavy emphasis upon “amateur”). As a pastor and a teacher of theology and ethics, I tend to shy away from publicly proclaiming my own political leanings. I have learned that my exact leanings are difficult to peg as far as being staunchly a part of either major party. This has caused dismay to some. That’s OK, though. As far as I can tell, Jesus found areas of disagreement with all the major parties of his day, too. In fact, as one writer noted, Jesus was killed by those on the left and the right of political spectrum. So, I like to half-jokingly say that when it comes to politics, I believe in being an equal opportunity offender!
But seriously, as I observe the political races in this important election year from a state that is considered a “hot bed” of the race (Ohio), I have three friendly words of advice or critique that can be taken or left by those involved in the process, either as candidates or as participants in other ways. Here they are.
1) Just beating the “other team” is not going to be enough.Over and over in local, state, and national races, the theme that keeps emerging from the left and the right is: The bottom line is that we need to beat ______(insert name of opposing candidate or incumbent). If this were a baseball game, that may be a good strategy. However, political offices are far more complicated than that. Just winning is not enough when it comes to governing in a healthy fashion. There must be a vision attached to the victory. Otherwise, we all lose.
2) Some things are hard to take back.
As noted in the latest Rush Limbaugh debacle, as well as slips of the tongue from candidates and incumbents alike, words have meaning and they have staying power. In this age of constant news and sound bites, words linger. And human nature tells us that negative words or unfortunate word choices tend to linger much longer than positive ones. In the heat of the moment, we have all said things we do not mean, and we have all said things in a way that we wish we could have said differently. A children’s song I learned in the first church I ever attended says it best: “Be careful, little mouth, what you say!”
3) No political leader is going to be the Ultimate Answer
There’s an old saying: “Until Jesus Christ is on the ballot, we are always voting for the lesser of two evils.” That means that no one candidate is going to be the perfect answer to the problems of the nation or the world, regardless of political or religious affiliation. Our young nation has proven that over and over again. Even in times when one party has control of the White House and the Congress, regardless of which party, tragedies occur and there are instances of injustice and even illegality! Of course, this does not mean that we as Christians should give up on the process altogether. But we should probably recognize that our role is to continue doing what we do without seeing the election of any person or party as our opportunity to cease from being diligent in our service to God and others. Also, as Georgetown scholar and social commentator Dr. Michael Eric Dyson reminds, "No matter who is Pharaoh, Moses still has a job!” In other words, the people of God should never act as if an elected official or party absolves of us our prophetic and redemptive role in society.
Praying for God’s Vision
Obviously, I am not running for any office nor do I plan to. And, despite the fact that I have never been afraid to criticize policies on both the left and the right when I feel that they are doing a disservice to people, I pray for the men and women who take the time to run for office in service of the nation. I pray that they recognize their need for help. I pray that they do not let power corrupt them but rather handle it responsibly and justly. And most of all, I pray that they recognize that one day ALL the kingdoms of this world will, in the words of Scripture, become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. This final reminder, I hope, will bring a sense of humility and even cordiality that is desperately needed in our current process. Personally, my favorite political moment is yet to come, and it will take Jesus Himself to bring this one about. It is described in Isaiah 2:4: “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many peoples; And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
by, Charles W. Christian
I do not like the word “politics,” although like many Americans, I fancy myself to be an amateur political scientist (heavy emphasis upon “amateur”). As a pastor and a teacher of theology and ethics, I tend to shy away from publicly proclaiming my own political leanings. I have learned that my exact leanings are difficult to peg as far as being staunchly a part of either major party. This has caused dismay to some. That’s OK, though. As far as I can tell, Jesus found areas of disagreement with all the major parties of his day, too. In fact, as one writer noted, Jesus was killed by those on the left and the right of political spectrum. So, I like to half-jokingly say that when it comes to politics, I believe in being an equal opportunity offender!
But seriously, as I observe the political races in this important election year from a state that is considered a “hot bed” of the race (Ohio), I have three friendly words of advice or critique that can be taken or left by those involved in the process, either as candidates or as participants in other ways. Here they are.
1) Just beating the “other team” is not going to be enough.Over and over in local, state, and national races, the theme that keeps emerging from the left and the right is: The bottom line is that we need to beat ______(insert name of opposing candidate or incumbent). If this were a baseball game, that may be a good strategy. However, political offices are far more complicated than that. Just winning is not enough when it comes to governing in a healthy fashion. There must be a vision attached to the victory. Otherwise, we all lose.
2) Some things are hard to take back.
As noted in the latest Rush Limbaugh debacle, as well as slips of the tongue from candidates and incumbents alike, words have meaning and they have staying power. In this age of constant news and sound bites, words linger. And human nature tells us that negative words or unfortunate word choices tend to linger much longer than positive ones. In the heat of the moment, we have all said things we do not mean, and we have all said things in a way that we wish we could have said differently. A children’s song I learned in the first church I ever attended says it best: “Be careful, little mouth, what you say!”
3) No political leader is going to be the Ultimate Answer
There’s an old saying: “Until Jesus Christ is on the ballot, we are always voting for the lesser of two evils.” That means that no one candidate is going to be the perfect answer to the problems of the nation or the world, regardless of political or religious affiliation. Our young nation has proven that over and over again. Even in times when one party has control of the White House and the Congress, regardless of which party, tragedies occur and there are instances of injustice and even illegality! Of course, this does not mean that we as Christians should give up on the process altogether. But we should probably recognize that our role is to continue doing what we do without seeing the election of any person or party as our opportunity to cease from being diligent in our service to God and others. Also, as Georgetown scholar and social commentator Dr. Michael Eric Dyson reminds, "No matter who is Pharaoh, Moses still has a job!” In other words, the people of God should never act as if an elected official or party absolves of us our prophetic and redemptive role in society.
Praying for God’s Vision
Obviously, I am not running for any office nor do I plan to. And, despite the fact that I have never been afraid to criticize policies on both the left and the right when I feel that they are doing a disservice to people, I pray for the men and women who take the time to run for office in service of the nation. I pray that they recognize their need for help. I pray that they do not let power corrupt them but rather handle it responsibly and justly. And most of all, I pray that they recognize that one day ALL the kingdoms of this world will, in the words of Scripture, become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. This final reminder, I hope, will bring a sense of humility and even cordiality that is desperately needed in our current process. Personally, my favorite political moment is yet to come, and it will take Jesus Himself to bring this one about. It is described in Isaiah 2:4: “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many peoples; And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
Friday, March 2, 2012
A New Kind of Success: A Lenten Reflection
A New Kind of Success: A Lenten Reflection
by, Charles W. Christian
The Season of Lent is meant to invoke images of Jesus’ wilderness temptation. The Gospels record that after Jesus’ baptism, in which the voice of God publicly recognized Jesus’ role as “Son of God” and Messiah thus inaugurating his public ministry, the Holy Spirit immediately leads Jesus into the wilderness. Here he is tempted for forty days by the devil. The Gospel of Mark uses vivid language here in the Greek. One can translated the passage in Mark 1 as Jesus being immediately “cast into the wilderness” by the Spirit of God upon coming out of the water. The imagery is of this One (Jesus) who has just become famous and even “successful” in the world’s eyes. Then, without standing around to answer questions, get publicity photos taken, or even announce a world tour or book signing, he drops out of sight for forty days!
For Phillip Yancey, in his book The Jesus I Never Knew, this scene paints a clear picture of what kind of Messiah Jesus chooses to be. The wilderness temptations themselves (recorded in Matthew and Luke) drive the point home that the use of worldly power or influence is not part of this Messiah’s agenda. The temptations in the wilderness are about self-reliance (“turn these stones to bread”), flashy displays of power (“jump off this high place and let God rescue you”), and compromising principles to achieve worldly power and influence (“bow down and worship me and receive these kingdoms”).
Jesus summarily rejects all of these approaches to Messiahship in the wilderness. But he actually rejects these even before he gets to the wilderness. He does so by allowing the Spirit to move him away from the awestruck crowd and the public endorsement of the then popular John the Baptist. I often tell students and church members that this is the first century equivalent of a singer getting a number one hit on the Billboard charts and then, instead of immediately going on tour and marketing T-shirts and other memorabilia, going into seclusion. Jesus’ approach is one that would give modern day publishes an ulcer! Yet in this unconventional move, Jesus reasserts what kind of Messiah he will be, how he and the Father measure success, and most importantly, what kind of followers best demonstrate the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Success is indeed measured differently in this Other Kingdom.
by, Charles W. Christian
The Season of Lent is meant to invoke images of Jesus’ wilderness temptation. The Gospels record that after Jesus’ baptism, in which the voice of God publicly recognized Jesus’ role as “Son of God” and Messiah thus inaugurating his public ministry, the Holy Spirit immediately leads Jesus into the wilderness. Here he is tempted for forty days by the devil. The Gospel of Mark uses vivid language here in the Greek. One can translated the passage in Mark 1 as Jesus being immediately “cast into the wilderness” by the Spirit of God upon coming out of the water. The imagery is of this One (Jesus) who has just become famous and even “successful” in the world’s eyes. Then, without standing around to answer questions, get publicity photos taken, or even announce a world tour or book signing, he drops out of sight for forty days!
For Phillip Yancey, in his book The Jesus I Never Knew, this scene paints a clear picture of what kind of Messiah Jesus chooses to be. The wilderness temptations themselves (recorded in Matthew and Luke) drive the point home that the use of worldly power or influence is not part of this Messiah’s agenda. The temptations in the wilderness are about self-reliance (“turn these stones to bread”), flashy displays of power (“jump off this high place and let God rescue you”), and compromising principles to achieve worldly power and influence (“bow down and worship me and receive these kingdoms”).
Jesus summarily rejects all of these approaches to Messiahship in the wilderness. But he actually rejects these even before he gets to the wilderness. He does so by allowing the Spirit to move him away from the awestruck crowd and the public endorsement of the then popular John the Baptist. I often tell students and church members that this is the first century equivalent of a singer getting a number one hit on the Billboard charts and then, instead of immediately going on tour and marketing T-shirts and other memorabilia, going into seclusion. Jesus’ approach is one that would give modern day publishes an ulcer! Yet in this unconventional move, Jesus reasserts what kind of Messiah he will be, how he and the Father measure success, and most importantly, what kind of followers best demonstrate the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Success is indeed measured differently in this Other Kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)