New Blog

For the 4 people that may on occasion read this blog (which save for a huge spurt of inspiration on my part may not live much longer), please check out the blog the preaching faculty here at OCC have put together.

The Kerusso Blog

Hopefully it will updated more often than this blog has been.

Waiting. . .

I love Jerry Seinfeld's joke about waiting rooms at doctors' offices -- "You're going to wait. There's no chance of you not waiting. That's why they call it a waiting room!" (he tells it a lot funnier).

Today I'm waiting on our government (or, more specifically, the contractor working for our gov't) for my passport. I'm suppose to be traveling to Barbados on Saturday morning, and though I've put in the paperwork months in advance, here I am waiting (recently I've seen some news items that tell me I'm not alone).

What adds to my frustration is that the folks I talk to don't really seem to care too much about my time line -- they're going to try the best they can; no guarantees. Every time I speak with a friendly customer representative (for the most part, they have been -- if I can get them on the phone), I've had to remind them about my time line.

So this week I've been reflecting on waiting for something you know is coming, just not when -- and certainly not according to your time line. Jesus spoke about this a few times -- the parable of the 10 maidens comes to mind immediately.

If I were to summarize what I think the Bible says about waiting, it would be this: be expectant, but not anxious.

Here's how I'm living right this moment: I'm acting as though I'm leaving on Saturday. Everything I need has been purchased, and I'll be packing tomorrow morning ready to go. What I'm not doing is pacing around the living room, calling the passport office every hour and putting my life on hold, consumed by the arrival of a little piece of paper.

I guess where I'm going with this analogy is that some get so riled up about the "end times" that it consumes them. They read all of the prophecy books, and have end-times charts memorized. They were the ones watching webcam feeds live from the Mt. of Olives on Dec 31, 1999. They would say that they're expectant -- but I would say it looks more like anxious.

The way Christ told His followers to be ready in Matthew 25 looks nothing like the ones watching for news bulletins about the births of red heifers in Israel. The 2nd parable in that chapter tells us that to be ready is to be working -- putting the blessings ("talents") of our gracious Master into use until His return. And the 3rd story (the separation of sheep and goats) reminds us that the work of the Master for those waiting for His return is caring for the poor, the hopeless, and the prisoner -- namely, to continue the work of Christ. That's the essential difference between expectant and anxious: is the waiting making you more engaged with God's work/will, or more detached?

The book of Revelation uses the term "overcome" and "overcomer" quite a lot. It is the term for those who enjoy God's triumphant, eternal victory over His enemies and all those who work contrary to His will. But it is not used for those who have everything "figured out." It's used for those who are faithful to Him until His coming.

I'm working on a chapter on what it means to "overcome" according to the book of Revelation for a work that my friend Thom Stark is putting together. I'll be posting those thoughts on this site throughout the month -- perhaps from Barbados, perhaps not. I'll just have to wait and see.

Why leading a small church is more difficult than a large one

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/05/good_things_com.html#more

I am encouraged by this type of thinking, because I am concerning about our student's expectations about the type of ministry they will engage in when they leave school. The "organic, authentic church" movement that leaves the CEO model of church leadership behind is a step in the right direction, I think.

How to Live in Babylon

The NT writers (namely Peter and John) used the image of “Babylon” when speaking of the struggle of living for Christ in the midst of the Roman Empire (1 Pet 5:13; Rev 17-18). I take that to mean that they saw their struggle to not be too dissimilar to the Jews’ experience in exile. This connection is further strengthened when we look at the images of Daniel 2 & 7, which link Babylon and Rome on a continuum of nations opposed to the work of God (that John not only takes up the “Babylon” but also uses the image of beast is also significant)

If we as Christians in America can find significance and application in the relationship of the 1st Century Christians to Rome, and the 1st Century Christians found significance and application in the relationship of the exiled Jews to Babylon, then we can use the experience of the Jews in exile in Babylon as a framework for how to interact with the nation in which we are in “exile” (albeit a very difference kind of exile). Let’s make this simpler: Babylon = Rome = America (as far as application goes, not fulfillment – I’m NOT saying that America fulfills any sort of prophetic oracle, I’m only saying that we can find application in these 1st Century texts for us today).

So. . . all of that to ask this: what was the relationship of Jews to the Babylonian regime? And, what is the significance of that to the question posed by my last post (and subsequent replies from very able students)?

First, it was not one of complete separation from the political arena. Daniel was employed by the king, as was Nehemiah. Esther indeed married the king. If we look back further into OT history, we find Jacob’s son Joseph as 2nd in command of all Egypt. With this in mind, it seems strange to suppose that God desires the people of His Kingdom to be utterly and completely isolated from the worldly political sphere.

Second, it was a relationship that sought the “prosperity and peace” of the kingdom they lived in. Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles is helpful here:

“This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: ‘Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.’” (29:4-7)

God’s first command to humanity, to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, serve and subdue the earth (in short: bring Eden to the whole world) is still in effect. How do we seek the prosperity and peace of America? Does that include voting for measures that stop people from creating life simply to then destroy it? Does that include voting and even working for people who want to serve the people by building better schools and roads and who work for peace around the world? I think it does.

But here’s the other side: what is precluded in the relationship of God’s people and the state is the worship of the state. S, M, and A refused to bow down to the idol. Daniel would not give up his prayer life after it was made illegal. John had to endure exile and the death of 11 Apostles (including his brother) because they taught that Jesus was kurios and “Son of God,” not Caesar. God’s 1st commandment applies just as much as His 1st command. We shall not have “other gods” (like the “will of the people”). We shall not worship the nation.

This then leads to a difficult point of application: what constitutes the “worship” of the state? Does a “God and Country” worship service on the 4th of July weekend cross the line? Should we expel all U.S. flags from places of worship (and especially stop pledging allegiance to that flag in our VBS’s)? To me, there is a major difference between a simple act of public involvement, like voting or serving on a jury, and the examples above, which to me do cross the line (or at least blur it beyond all recognition).

I shouldn’t be surprised at the reaction of students to this blurred line between God and State that they’ve experienced in conservative churches (though it isn’t any better in mainline churches – just different issues). In many ways, I appreciate their prophetic call to stop burning incense in Caesar’s temple. But, if I may be a tad Hegelian here, is there a synthesis to be found between the 2 extremes, one that acknowledges a God-given responsibility to His created order (which includes the fallen political sphere) but refuses to give full and complete “allegiance” to anything but Yahweh? I hope there is. I’m striving (and struggling) to live that way.

Why I Vote, I Guess

I’m too cynical to believe that my vote actually matters. I realize that my .0001% of the state-wide vote isn’t going to swing the election one way or the other (even if I lived in Florida). Plus, it’s exceedingly hard to pick a candidate these days. The “lesser of two evils” option doesn’t really motivate me anymore. Either I pick the candidate of abortion-on-demand and higher taxes. . . or I pick the candidate of the right to buy assault rifles and who took millions in campaign contributions from CEO’s who got $100 million golden parachutes while defaulting on his employees’ pension plans.

And on top of that, I keep reading books and articles about how evangelical Christians shouldn’t be in lockstep with the GOP (and how mainline churches shouldn’t be with the Dems). And I agree. Jesus didn’t come to earth and inaugurate the Kingdom of God so that conservatives could have a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court or to save us from socialized medicine. So, who would Jesus vote for? Or, would Jesus vote at all? Maybe the most important question is: what in the world is the church doing here anyway?

Paul tells us to respect the government and pay our taxes. Peter tells us to honor the king. I guess, at the very least, that means that wherever the Church is – the Church actually has to be there, doing all the things one does when he/she is in one place, including paying taxes, serving on juries, and voting. If Peter and Paul called the Church to be good residents in a tyrannical empire, do you think they would ask less of those who live in a representative democracy? So, while the Church should do more about the evil of abortion than go to the polls and vote (like actually care for teenage mothers-to-be), it shouldn’t do less than go to the polls and vote. Even if it’s difficult to choose who/what to vote for.

So I’ll be going to my polling place tomorrow. I’ll probably leave some votes blank because I don’t know the issue/candidates well enough, and may even cast a third-party “protest vote” or two. But I’ll go, because Christ compels His Church to make His Voice heard any way we can – even a mark on a slip of paper.

But God help us if that’s all we do.

Why Joel Osteen Ticks Me Off

Here it is in a nutshell: Because my best life will never be now!

Ultimately, it's Osteen's eschatology (or, more precisely, his lack of one) that disturbs me so much. The Christian's "hope" is in perfect relationship with the Triune God for all eternity once Christ returns to earth for His Bride. That "hope" is imaged today not in 2-story homes or job promotions, but in the selfless love that I have for others in the Christian community and the love that my God-family has for me.

It's no wonder that Osteen's pseudo-eschatology naturally leads to pseudo-ecclesiology. If the role of the faith community is merely in encouraging me to "live up" to my potential, I should just join the Kiwanis Club. They don't demand nearly as much.

I became attuned to this last Saturday night (don't worry, I'm not an Adventist or a Jew) when Randy preached about taking hard stances with the people we love, even to the point of taking steps of discipline. We cannot be laizze-faire with sin. Osteen's message and his pseudo-ecclesiology just maintains the Evangelical tendency for us to merely be "nice" to us other, when love demands much more.

Jeff Walling, in his NACC sermon, says that being people of grace means that we have to stop just being nice to each other, we have to act like family, and that's messy. Osteen's message is a message of nice, desiring nothing more than to rid all the messiness out of life.

Well, Joel, the mess will remain until God deals with it. Until then, we have to deal with it (and not cover it up with 401K's or SUV's). And the only way to do that is through the love of God and the family He's adopted me into.

But, on the other hand, he does have great hair. So he has that going for him, which is nice.

All Things to All People

"Anonymous" writes:
As I (an anonymous friend of Doug) have recently become good friends with a practicing Muslim I have been thinking about ways to foster Christian-Muslim relations. Specifically, I have been wrestling with how Christians ought to handle the religious rules that Muslims feel called by God to obey. This wrestling inspired the following…
“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
Fellowship among Jewish and Gentile believers in the early church was often strained due to the purity codes of Jewish law. In addressing this issue church leaders (in Acts 15) declared that although circumcision was not necessary for conversion it was recommended that Gentiles abstain from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, meat from strangled animals, and from blood. These rules were seen as pre-Mosaic (and thus applicable to non-Jews) and as particularly important to harmonious table-fellowship within the church. In Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 Paul goes further to state that eating food sacrificed to idols was not unclean in itself. Rather, certain believer’s consciences were “weak” and did not allow them to partake in it. These are the “weak” believers to whom Paul refers in the passage above.
The examples by which Paul illustrates his claim to be “all things to all people” are limited in scope. They all involve the relationship between the follower of Christ and the Mosaic Law. On one hand there were i) Jews fully under the law as well as ii) immature Christian-Jews who were still partially under the law due to their “weak” consciences. On the other, there were iii) Gentiles who were not under the law at all.
The difficulty in interpreting this passage lies in how one understands Paul’s claim to be both “like one under the law” and be “like one not having the law.” This stems from the fact that in first-century Judaism one either kept law or one did not. There was no real middle ground. The only way for Paul to claim he was “like one who observed the Sabbath consistantly” was to observe the Sabbath consistently. Observing the Sabbath only when around other Jews was not sufficient to count as being “like one who was under the Law.” So how then could Paul rightly claim to be “like one not under the law” if he consistently kept the law? Presumably it came from his attitude towards the significance of the Law. Paul viewed the Mosaic Law as non-salvic. For this reason he did not require Gentile believers to observe it. For Paul, the Law was no more important than a set of clothes that he had donned to better evangelize the Jews. Even though he continued to wear these clothes around Gentiles he made their lack of significance clear to Jew and Gentile alike. Although he observed the law he was not bound by it. It is here that I wish to offer up an unoriginal hypothesis. Perhaps Christians who are evangelizing Muslims ought to observe Islamic Shari’ah codes so that “by all means possible they might save some.” For example, one might fast during Ramadan, say “peace and blessing be upon him” after speaking of any prophet (including Jesus), wear exceptionally modest clothing, refrain from eating pork and drinking alcohol, etc. Of course the goal is not to pointlessly mimic Islam, but to engage in whatever behaviors are contextually appropriate to foster relationships. Likewise, this could not be a slavish obedience—for example, injunctions against proselytizing must be ignored (ala Acts 4:18-20). But for all that it seems to have a plausible Biblical precedent.